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 )

   )

   Radio One Licenses, LLC ) File No. EB-02-DV-439

   Licensee of FM Radio Station KKBT ) NAL/Acct. No. 200432100002

   Los Angeles, California ) FRN 0006541486

   Facility ID # 70038 )

   )

   Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200432100003

   Licensee of FM Radio Station KRTH-FM ) FRN 0003476074

   Los Angeles, California )

   Facility ID # 28631 )

   )

   Telemundo of Los Angeles License Corporation ) NAL/Acct. No. 200432100004

   Licensee of TV Station KWHY-TV ) FRN 0004294179

   Los Angeles, California )

   Facility ID # 26231 )

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted:  November 28, 2006 Released:  December 1, 2006

   By the Commission:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order"), we deny petitions for
       reconsideration filed by Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc.
       ("Infinity"), licensee of FM radio station KRTH-FM, Telemundo of Los
       Angeles License Corporation ("Telemundo"), licensee of TV station
       KWHY-TV, and Radio One Licenses, LLC ("Radio One"), licensee of FM
       radio station KKBT, all serving Los Angeles, California, (collectively
       "Mt. Wilson Licensees") of a Forfeiture Order issued in this
       proceeding on December 10, 2004. The Forfeiture Order assessed
       monetary forfeitures of $10,000 against each of the Mt. Wilson
       Licensees for willful and repeated violations of Section 1.1310 of the
       Commission's Rules ("Rules") by failing to comply with radio frequency
       radiation ("RFR") maximum permissible exposure ("MPE") limits
       applicable to facilities, operations, or transmitters. In this Order,
       we consider the various issues raised in the Infinity, Telemundo and
       Radio One petitions, and for the reasons we set forth below we deny
       the petitions and affirm the Commission's findings of liability, and
       the forfeiture amounts assessed, in the Forfeiture Order.

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. The RFR Rules. In 1996, the Commission amended its rules to adopt new
       guidelines and procedures for evaluating the environmental effects of
       RFR from FCC regulated transmitters. The Commission adopted maximum
       permissible exposure ("MPE") limits for electric and magnetic field
       strength and power density for transmitters operating at frequencies
       from 300 kHz to 100 GHz. These MPE limits, which are set forth in
       Section 1.1310 of the Rules, include limits for
       "occupational/controlled" exposure and limits for "general
       population/uncontrolled" exposure. The 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. The more stringent general population or public exposure
       limits apply in situations in which the general public may be exposed,
       or in which persons exposed as a consequence of their employment may
       not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise
       control over their exposure. Licensees can demonstrate compliance by
       restricting public access to areas where RFR exceeds the public MPE
       limits.

    3. 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." Further, the FCC'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." The 5% threshold applies to the power density limit or
       to the square of electric or magnetic field strength limit. If the MPE
       limits are exceeded at an accessible area, all stations that produce a
       power density level exceeding 5% of the power density exposure limit
       applicable to its particular transmitter at that accessible area share
       responsibility to correct the problem. While we have urged owners of
       transmitter sites to allow applicants and licensees to take reasonable
       steps to comply with the Commission's RF Rules, the Commission has
       determined that responsibilities pertaining to RF electromagnetic
       fields belong with licensees and applicants, rather than with site
       owners.

    4. Broadcast stations that filed applications after October 15, 1997, for
       an initial construction permit, license, renewal or modification of an
       existing license were required to demonstrate compliance with the new
       RFR MPE limits, or to file an Environmental Assessment and undergo
       environmental review by Commission staff. In addition, all existing
       licensees, including all licensees at multiple transmitter sites, were
       required to come into compliance with the new RFR MPE limits by
       September 1, 2000, or to file an Environmental Assessment.

    5. The Mount Wilson Inspection. On July 11 and 12, 2002, agents from the
       FCC's Enforcement Bureau field offices conducted an inspection of the
       Mt. Wilson telecommunications and antenna farm site located northeast
       of downtown Los Angeles, California, off Highway 2, on Mt. Wilson
       (5710 ft.) in the San Gabriel Mountains. The main antenna farm,
       encircled by Video Road, was not fully fenced or gated. Agents were
       able to access the site without encountering protective fencing or
       warning signs on July 11, 2002, on three sides of the area and on two
       sides of the area on July 12, 2002. Nestled within the broadcast
       towers on Video Road is the Mt. Wilson United States Post Office
       (91023), which serves the Mt. Wilson area. Approximately 330 yards
       southeast from the United States Post Office is the entrance to the
       Mt. Wilson Observatory and Park, which receives thousands of visitors
       a year. Given the accessibility of the site by the general public,
       along with the dearth of warning signs, the RFR MPE limits for
       "General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure" applied to any readings
       taken at the accessible areas.

    6. The agents identified a 10 ft. by 100 ft. area on a driveway into the
       main antenna farm located off Video Road on July 11, 2002, that
       exceeded the FCC's public MPE limits at ground level. The identified
       area on the driveway was only approximately 100 feet from the United
       States Post Office, accessible to the general public and not marked
       with any RFR warning signs. On July 11, 2002, agents made power
       density measurements throughout the identified area on the driveway
       that ranged from 152.5% to 197.5% of the public RFR MPE limit. Thus,
       conservatively, the RFR fields exceeded the MPE limits for the general
       population by over 50%.

    7. After identifying and marking the area on the driveway exceeding the
       RFR MPE public limits, the agents observed a broken chain on the
       ground to one side of the entrance to the driveway, on top of a
       weathered and damaged "No Trespassing" sign. The agents noted that
       they, and the general public, were able to access the area without
       encountering protective fencing or warning signs on three sides of the
       area that exceeded the public RFR MPE limit. Just prior to the time
       the agents departed that area of the Mt. Wilson antenna farm on July
       11, an engineer from one of the stations at the site repaired the
       chain, strung it across the driveway, and placed a RFR warning sign on
       the chain. Several broadcast station engineers familiar with the site
       admitted to FCC agents that the chain had not been attached for
       several days prior to the inspection on July 11 and most likely had
       been taken down by contractors working for licensees at the site.

    8. On July 12, 2002, FCC agents, with the cooperation of all the
       broadcasters at the Mt. Wilson antenna farm, conducted additional
       measurements at the area marked and identified as exceeding the public
       RFR MPE limits. Although an engineer from one of the stations at the
       site repaired the chain with the RFR warning sign and strung it across
       the driveway, Commission agents, and the general public, including any
       members of the public exiting from the Post Office, were still able to
       access the area that exceeded the public RFR MPE from two sides
       without encountering protective fencing or warning signs. The agents
       marked a single spot in the middle of the approximately 10 feet by 100
       feet area identified on July 11 as exceeding the MPE public limits and
       made RFR measurements with all stations transmitting to establish the
       overall power density level. The overall RFR power density measurement
       on the driveway was 160.5% of the MPE public limit with all stations
       in operation. Field agents then requested each licensee in the
       vicinity of the identified area to temporarily and sequentially power
       down its transmitter. Field agents made two spatially averaged RFR
       power density measurements while each broadcast station's transmitter
       was powered off to determine the power density level produced by each
       transmitter and to determine which transmitters were producing power
       density levels that exceeded 5% or more of its individual MPE limit at
       the identified area.

    9. The on-air and off-air measurements indicated that four of the 21
       stations within the vicinity were producing power density levels at
       significantly more than 5% of the public MPE limits applicable to
       their transmitter. When KBIG-FM went off the air, the RF level
       decreased from 160.5% to 78.75% of the MPE public limit indicating
       that KBIG-FM was producing a power density level that was 81.75 % of
       the MPE limit for its particular transmitter. Based on these
       measurements and further calculations, the power density level
       produced by station KBIG-FM was 0.1635 mW/cm^2. Based upon similar
       procedures, FM station KKBT was producing a power density level that
       was 11% of the MPE limit for its particular transmitter (a power
       density of 0.022 mW/cm^2), FM station KRTH-FM was producing a power
       density level that was 11.75% of the MPE limit for its particular
       transmitter (a power density of 0.0235 mW/cm^2), and TV station
       KWHY-TV was producing a power density level that was 10.5% of the MPE
       limit for its particular transmitter (a power density of 0.036
       mW/cm^2) to the total RFR in the area identified as exceeding the
       public RFR MPE limits.

   10. On September 3, 2003, a field agent conducted an inspection of the Mt.
       Wilson site and found that the Mt. Wilson Licensees had subsequently
       installed additional fencing and warning signs. However, the field
       agent discovered that a gate leading to one of the entrances to the
       site was standing open. It appeared that although the Mt. Wilson
       Licensees had installed additional fencing and warning signs, they
       failed to exercise due diligence in restricting access to all areas
       that exceeded the public MPE limits.

   11. On October 22, 2003, the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent
       Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") to AMFM, Infinity, Telemundo, and
       Radio One for forfeitures in the amount of ten thousand dollars
       ($10,000) each. Also, given the September 3, 2003 inspection, the
       Commission directed each of the Mt. Wilson Licensees to file sworn
       statements describing its plans to ensure that the fences surrounding
       the area are shut and that the gates are locked. Each of the parties
       filed a response to the NAL on December 12, 2003. AMFM did not dispute
       the NAL  and paid the forfeiture, while Infinity, Telemundo, and Radio
       One all argued the proposed forfeitures should be reduced, dismissed
       or rescinded.

   12. On December 10, 2004, the Commission released a Forfeiture Order
       assessing monetary forfeitures of $10,000 against Infinity, Telemundo,
       and Radio One for willful and repeated violations of Section 1.1310 of
       the Rules by failing to comply with the Commission's RFR MPE limits
       applicable to facilities, operations, or transmitters. The Commission
       also determined that the sworn statements submitted by Infinity,
       Telemundo and Radio One all indicated that the three licensees
       continued to misinterpret their responsibilities under the
       Commission's RFR Rules. The Commission cautioned that each of the four
       Mt. Wilson Licensees exceeded the five percent limit, and each must
       therefore share in the responsibility to bring the area into
       compliance and make the non-compliant area inaccessible to the public.

   13. Infinity. Infinity seeks reconsideration arguing that the federal
       government owns the land on which the Mt. Wilson site sits and, as
       such, should have engaged in a collaborative effort with the licensees
       at the multi-user site to reduce the RFR emissions; and that the
       $10,000 forfeiture amount should be apportioned among the violators
       according to each station's percentage contribution to the overall
       violation of the power density limits at the problematic location.

   14. Telemundo. Telemundo seeks reconsideration arguing that no reliable
       evidence justifies sanctions against KWHY-TV; that the Commission
       disregarded the application of uncertainty factors in the
       measurements; that the Commission failed to adopt the uniform use of a
       reliable methodology for enforcing the RFR Rules; that the Commission
       incorrectly rejects Telemundo's own measurements; and that the
       Commission did not explain its preference for measurements over
       predictive calculations.

   15. Radio One. Radio One seeks reconsideration arguing that the Commission
       did not explain why KKBT(FM) could be held liable while not revealing
       or explaining the measurement or liability of KHHT(FM), another Mt.
       Wilson station, which broadcasts from the same tower as KKBT(FM).

   III.  DISCUSSION

   A. Background

   16. Reconsideration is appropriate where the petitioner either
       demonstrates a material error or omission in the underlying order or
       raises additional facts or changed circumstances not known or not
       existing until after the petitioner's last opportunity to present such
       matters. A petition for reconsideration that reiterates arguments that
       were previously considered and rejected will be denied.

   B. Infinity Petition

   17. In its petition, Infinity states that it "affirms, but does not
       reiterate" arguments that were considered and rejected in the
       Forfeiture Order, specifically, that the federal government is the
       site owner of the Mt. Wilson site, and should be amenable to an
       inclusive, collaborative enforcement approach. Infinity also argues
       that the $10,000 forfeiture amount should be apportioned among the
       violators according to each station's percentage contribution to the
       overall violation of power density limits at the problematic location.
       All of these issues were raised and rejected in the Forfeiture Order,
       and, therefore, we will not consider them anew here. We will, however,
       take this opportunity to reiterate our prior determination that
       "responsibilities pertaining to RF electromagnetic fields properly
       belong[] with our licensees and applicants, rather than with site
       owners."  We also reiterate that it is the responsibility of the
       licensees on the site to engage in a collaborative approach to ensure
       that the public is not able to access areas which could exceed the
       public MPE limits. The Commission has encouraged licensees to engage
       in such collaborations and to "notify the appropriate Commission
       licensing bureau if the operator of a co-located transmitter will not
       cooperate in addressing a non-compliance problem." The Commission has
       also directed the staff to work with industry to address such
       questions as may arise. But our policy encouraging collaboration does
       not insulate licensees from enforcement action for violations.

   18. Infinity raises for the first time two new reasons why it believes the
       forfeiture amount should be reduced. First, Infinity argues that the
       area of "excess RFR was temporary in nature." We disagree. We note
       that in the Forfeiture Order, the Commission determined that the
       violation was not only willful, but was repeated, because it occurred
       on two days, July 11, 2002 and July 12, 2002. Infinity does not argue
       that the violation was not repeated nor does it explain why it
       believes that a public safety violation, such as producing RFR in
       excess of the public MPE limits for more than one day, requires a
       reduction in the forfeiture amount.

   19. Infinity also argues that the forfeiture amount should be reduced
       because RFR measurements are inherently imprecise. Infinity further
       asserts that the Commission's MPE limits are extremely conservative,
       with the public limit being five times more stringent than the
       occupational limit, and the excessive RFR levels at Mt. Wilson did not
       "come close" to the occupational limits. The Commission determined in
       1996 when it adopted the RFR Rules that different limits apply to
       public and occupational RFR MPE. The occupational MPE limits apply
       where persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment, have
       been made fully aware of the potential for exposure, and can exercise
       control over their exposure. The more stringent public MPE limits, on
       the other hand, apply where the general public may be exposed or where
       persons who 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. We note that the Commission has assessed
       a minimum forfeiture of $10,000 against every licensee that it has
       found has willfully and/or repeatedly violated the public RFR MPE
       limits. Infinity offers no persuasive evidence or arguments why the
       Commission should now begin to devalue the public safety by
       discounting RFR violations that do not go on for a long period of time
       or do not include a violation of the occupational MPE limits.
       Moreover, this is not an appropriate forum to challenge the 1996 RF
       First Report and Order. Therefore, we reject these arguments.

   C. Telemundo Petition

   20. Telemundo argues that no reliable evidence justifies sanctions against
       KWHY, that the Commission disregarded the application of uncertainty
       factors in the measurements, and that the Commission failed to adopt
       the uniform use of a reliable methodology for enforcing the RFR Rules.
       We disagree. The methodology concerning the measurement procedure used
       by the agents is detailed above, as it has been in both the NAL and
       the Forfeiture Order. Also, as noted in the NAL, the agents utilized
       FCC-owned, calibrated RF meters with calibrated probes and, as noted
       in the Forfeiture Order, for the particular meters and probes used,
       the manufacturer-specified deviations, i.e., uncertainty factors, were
       applied to the measurements. While we acknowledge that deviation in
       equipment and measurements creates uncertainties, there are techniques
       and methods that can reduce the uncertainty, particularly when
       measuring high fields, including, for example, spatial averaging,
       multiple measurements and multiple devices, all of which the
       Commission staff employed during the Mt. Wilson investigation. Such
       procedures provide a reasonable basis for the assignment of liability
       under our RFR Rules.

   21. Telemundo specifically questions the methodology used by the
       Commission staff to determine which of the licensees at the Mt. Wilson
       site exceeded the 5% contribution threshold. We will review the
       staff's actions in detail. On July 11, 2002, the Commission inspected
       the Mt. Wilson site and proceeded to make several measurements using
       two different models of RFR meters and probes, in the 10 ft. by 100
       ft. area described above. The staff made multiple four quadrant
       spatially averaged measurements throughout the area, to ensure that
       they obtained consistent, repeatable readings. All of the measurements
       throughout the identified area ranged from 152.5% to 197.5% of the
       public MPE. Given the number of measurements made, the staff
       reasonably concluded that the RFR levels in the identified area
       exceeded the public MPE limits.

   22. On July 12, 2002, the staff returned to the same identified area and,
       after making enough measurements to ensure that they obtained
       consistent, repeatable readings, the staff made two spatially averaged
       measurements over one spot within the identified area which resulted
       in an average measurement of 160.5%. One by one, each of the licensees
       was asked to go off the air so that two spatially averaged
       measurements could be made at the spot. The licensees were informed
       that this was the method to be used, in order to conduct the tests in
       such a manner that would cause the least amount of economic harm to
       the stations. None objected, because taking individual measurements
       for each station would have required all of the stations to go off the
       air simultaneously. Then the staff would have had each station power
       on, alone, have measurements taken, and then power off. This procedure
       would have been repeated for each of the 21 stations involved and
       would have required, for the majority of the testing day, that all of
       the stations remain off the air. Instead, the staff ensured that each
       station remained off the air only for a small period of time, so that
       the two spatially averaged measurements could be made without that
       station transmitting. The difference between the baseline reading of
       160.5% and the reading with each station off the air was then
       calculated. RFR measurements may vary from one moment to the next,
       which is why the staff makes multiple spatially averaged measurements
       and then averages those measurements. RFR meters and probes have
       uncertainty factors, which is why the staff applies an uncertainty
       factor to the difference between the baseline measurement and each
       station's off-the-air measurement to determine the range of each
       station's percentage contribution.

   23. Telemundo argues that measurements can vary from five to ten percent
       at the same location under the same conditions, and, therefore, there
       is no reliable basis on which to claim KWHY exceeded the 5%
       contribution threshold. We find that the staff took that fact into
       consideration, along with the appropriate uncertainty factors for the
       equipment used. Accepting Telemundo's formula would negate any
       potential liability for any but the largest contributors and run afoul
       of the requirement that RFR compliance is 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. We also find that
       the techniques used, and calculations made, by the staff were
       reasonable and gave adequate consideration to measurement uncertainty
       while balancing public safety and the economic interests of the
       stations at the Mt. Wilson broadcast site.

   24. Telemundo also argues that KWHY-TV should not be sanctioned because
       the Commission did not specify how it exercised its discretion in not
       pursuing claims against stations that did not significantly exceed the
       5% threshold. Again, we disagree. As illustrated by the table below,
       all of the stations on Mt. Wilson whose measurements exceeded the 5%
       contribution level, when taking into account the relevant uncertainty
       factors for the equipment used, were held liable by the Commission in
       the Forfeiture Order:


     Station    Power     Percentage              -3 dB         +3 dB        
                Density   Contribution            Uncertainty   Uncertainty  

     KBIG-FM    0.1635    81.75%                  40.88%        163.50%      
                mW/cm^2                                                      

     KRTH-FM    0.0235    11.75%                  5.88%         23.50%       
                mW/cm^2                                                      

     KKBT(FM)   0.0220    11.00%                  5.50%         22.00%       
                mW/cm^2                                                      

     KWHY-TV    0.0360    10.50%                  5.25%         21.00%       
                mW/cm^2                                                      


   When deciding which of the broadcast licensees on Mt. Wilson should be
   held liable for violating the public RFR MPE limits, the Commission
   determined that only those licensees whose individual contributions always
   exceeded 5%, when the manufacturer-specified deviations and uncertainty
   factors were applied, would be held liable. Even when factoring in the
   largest relevant uncertainty factors, KWHY-TV continued to be a greater
   than 5% contributor to the public RFR MPE limit violations.

   25. Telemundo also argues that the Commission incorrectly rejected
       Telemundo's December 1, 2003, narrowband measurements. Telemundo
       claims that these measurements are more accurate than the measurements
       made by the field agents and that these measurements show KWHY's
       contribution to have been approximately 2.3% of the public limit and
       that it is immaterial that the Telemundo measurements were made 17
       months subsequent to the Commission agents' measurement.  Telemundo
       states that their narrowband measurements measure only a single RF
       emitter, and that the presence or absence of other RF emitters, should
       not affect narrowband results. Telemundo does not indicate what
       uncertainty factor, if any, it applied to its narrowband measurements.

   26. As the Commission stated in the Forfeiture Order, we do not dispute
       the accuracy of Telemundo's narrowband measurements as they relate to
       KWHY-TV's RFR emissions on December 1, 2003, but we cannot accept them
       as proof that the field agents' July 2002 measurements were made in
       error. The Mt. Wilson site is home to hundreds of licensees and the
       area is constantly changing, not merely by the presence of different
       antennas and transmitters but even by the different constructions of
       towers or other reflective material which could impact a measurement.
       Although, Telemundo states that it "had not changed operating
       parameters between July 2002 and December 1, 2003," the date its
       narrowband measurements were made, and we have no reason to dispute
       that the operating parameters for KWHY-TV did not change between July
       2002 and December 2003, Telemundo does not and cannot assert that the
       operational parameters of all of the RF emitters and reflectors and
       re-radiators at the Mount Wilson site were the same on December 1,
       2003, and July 11 and 12, 2002. We note that even from day to day,
       signal levels can be affected by a variety of factors, from the
       initial electrical power supplied to the transmitter, to the aging of
       the electronics within a transmitter, to the internal environmental
       effects on an antenna. Thus, while Telemundo's narrowband measurements
       may be accurate for December 1, 2003, they do not establish that the
       Commission's measurements on July 11 and 12, 2002 were not accurate.
       For these reasons, we cannot accept Telemundo's narrowband
       measurements as a refutation of the agents' July 2002 measurements.

   27. Telemundo further argues that the Commission did not explain its
       preference for measurements over predictive calculations. Telemundo
       alleges that the data underlying the Forfeiture Order "has been far
       from perfect" and that to accept that data "despite the clear conflict
       with the Commission's own predictive methodology . . . is
       unjustifiable." We have discussed in detail above the reasonableness
       of our measurement procedures. We also note that calculations and
       modeling do not take into account reflection and re-radiation.

   28. Telemundo acknowledges that the Commission stated in the Forfeiture
       Order, that at a multi-user site, such as an antenna farm, actual
       measurements of the RF field may be necessary to determine whether
       there is a potential for human exposure in excess of the MPE limits
       specified by the FCC. An antenna farm site such as Mt. Wilson is
       inevitably filled with metal towers, buildings and fences that
       calculations or modeling cannot accurately take into account. We
       therefore reject Telemundo's argument and affirm our finding in the
       Forfeiture Order, that when taking enforcement action, in the case of
       multi-emitter sites, actual measurements will be preferred over
       calculations and modeling.

   29. Finally, Telemundo states that neither KWHY-TV "nor Telemundo should
       be subject to any obligation to monitor RF radiation compliance by
       other users of Mount Wilson, and that the [KWHY-TV's] previously
       submitted statement that it will do so should be made nonbinding and
       dismissed." We again caution the Mt. Wilson Licensees that each has
       been found to have exceeded the five percent limit, and that each
       shares in the responsibility to bring the area into compliance and to
       make the non-compliant area inaccessible to the public.

   D. Radio One Petition

   30. Radio One argues that the Commission appears to have confused
       KKBT(FM)'s measurements with those of KHHT(FM).  Radio One states that
       KHHT(FM) broadcasts at an effective radiated power ("ERP") of 42 kW,
       approximately eight times as great as KKBT(FM)'s ERP of 5.4 kW; that
       KHHT(FM)'s antenna is located on the same tower as KKBT(FM)'s, but is
       29 meters closer to the ground than KKBT(FM)'s antenna; and that the
       theoretical estimated power density level of KHHT(FM) is 20 times
       greater than the level for KKBT(FM). Therefore, Radio One argues that
       without providing the comparative RFR results for KHHT(FM), the
       Commission "fails to explain the improbable result of the field
       tests."

   31. On July 12, 2002, KHHT(FM) was measured to have a power density of
       0.0110 mW/cm^2. In terms of contribution level, KHHT(FM) was found to
       have contributed 5.5%. Applying the manufacturer-specified uncertainty
       factors discussed above, KHHT(FM) was found to have contributed
       between 2.75% and 11.00%. Because KHHT(FM), unlike KKBT(FM), and the
       other stations operated by the Mt. Wilson Licensees, was not
       contributing more than 5% after the uncertainty factor was attributed,
       the Commission decided not to propose liability for KHHT(FM). As the
       Commission explained in the Forfeiture Order, the agents did not
       confuse the KHHT(FM) and KKBT(FM) transmitters. The agents
       systematically contacted the licensees for the transmitters and then
       requested each licensee in the vicinity of the identified area to
       temporarily and sequentially power down its transmitter. An agent
       accompanied each engineer as he or she "powered down" the appropriate
       transmitter to ensure that no errors were made concerning which
       transmitter was being measured. Separate measurements were made for
       KKBT(FM) and KHHT(FM) regardless of the fact the two stations
       broadcast from the same tower.

   32. Further, a station's ERP and antenna height are not the sole factors
       that influence the RFR emitted from a station, particularly when
       measured at ground level. Other factors include antenna design, beam
       tilt, polarization, directionality, number of bays, spacing of bays
       and phasing. As we have also previously noted, objects in the area of
       the antenna, such as other towers and fences, can also affect the
       measured RFR at ground level. Indeed, another station operating at a
       greater power and a lower height than KKBT(FM) also had lower RFR
       contributions that KKBT(FM). As previously noted, theoretical analysis
       at a communications site with multiple transmitters and towers cannot
       account for or predict all of the unique factors that affect the
       signals and resultant power density that occurs at the site.
       Consequently, we reject Radio One's arguments.

   E. Conclusion

   33. We have considered the arguments raised by the Mt. Wilson Licensees in
       each of the petitions and find that none of them persuade us to reduce
       or cancel any of the forfeitures assessed against Infinity, Telemundo
       and Radio One. We, therefore, deny the petitions.

   IV.   ORDERING CLAUSES

   34. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and Section 1.106 of
       the Commission's Rules, Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc.'s
       petition for reconsideration, Telemundo of Los Angeles License
       Corporation' petition for reconsideration, and Radio One Licenses,
       LLC's petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order ARE DENIED
       and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED.

   35. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
       Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
       If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case
       may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant
       to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made
       by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
       Communications Commission.\001 The payment must include the NAL/Acct.
       No. and FRN No. referenced above.\001 Payment by\001check or money
       order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O.
       Box\001358340,\001Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340.\001 Payment by overnight
       mail may be sent to\001Mellon Bank\001/LB\001358340,\001500 Ross
       Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA 15251.\001\001Payment by wire
       transfer may be made to ABA Number\001043000261, receiving
       bank\001Mellon Bank, and account number\001911- 6106. Requests for
       full payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Associate
       Managing Director - Financial Operations, Room 1A625, 445 12th Street,
       S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

   36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this ORDER shall be sent by First
       Class and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Radio One
       Licenses, LLC, 5900 Princess Garden Parkway, 7th Floor, Lanham, MD
       20706; Dennis P. Corbett, Esquire, Counsel to Infinity Broadcasting
       Operations, Inc., Leventhal, Senter & Lerman, PLLC, 2000 K Street, NW,
       Suite 600, Washington, DC 20006; and Telemundo of Los Angeles License
       Corporation - NBC Telemundo License Co., 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
       11th Floor, Washington, DC 20004.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

   Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc., Petition for Reconsideration,
   dated January 10, 2005 ("Infinity Petition").

   Telemundo of Los Angeles License Corporation, LLC Petition for
   Reconsideration, dated January 10, 2005 ("Telemundo Petition").

   Radio One Licenses, LLC, Petition for Reconsideration, dated January 10,
   2005 ("Radio One Petition").

   Although AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC, licensee of KBIG-FM, which was a
   subject of the original Notice of Apparent Liability, paid its forfeiture,
   and filed no petition for reconsideration, it will also be included in the
   collective term "Mt. Wilson Licensees."

   Radio One Licenses, LLC, 19 FCC Rcd 23922 (2004) ("Forfeiture Order").

   47 C.F.R. S 1.1310.

   Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency
   Radiation, Report and Order, ET Docket No. 93-62, 11 FCC Rcd 15123 (1996)
   ("RF First Report and Order"), 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) ("RF Second Memorandum Opinion and Order").

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1310, Table 1. The MPE limits are generally based on
   recommended exposure guidelines published by the National Council on
   Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP") in "Biological Effects and
   Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," NCRP Report
   No. 86, Sections 17.4.1, 17.4.1.1., 17.4.2, and 17.4.3 (1986). In the
   frequency range from 100 MHz to 1500 MHz, the MPE limits are also
   generally based on guidelines contained in the RF safety standard
   developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
   ("IEEE") and adopted by the American National Standards Institute ("ANSI")
   in Section 4.1 of "IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human
   Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz,"
   ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 (1992).

   Table 1 in Section 1.1310 of the Rules provides that the general
   population RFR maximum permissible exposure limit for a station operating
   in the frequency range of 30 MHz to 300 MHz is 0.200 mW/cm^2 and the
   general population RFR maximum permissible exposure limit for a station
   operating in the frequency range of 300 MHz to 1500 MHz is f/1500 mW/cm^2
   which for station KWHY-TV operating on 512 - 518 MHz is 0.345 mW/cm^2.

   47 C.F.R. S 1.1310, Note 1 to Table 1.

   47 C.F.R. S 1.1310, Note 2 to Table 1.

   See, for example, OET Bulletin 65: "Evaluating Compliance with FCC
   Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields"
   (August 1997).

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

   RF Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 13520-21; 47 C.F.R.
   S 1.1307(b)(3).

   RF Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 13524; 47 C.F.R. S
   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. RF Second
   Memorandum Opinion and Order,12 FCC Rcd at n.74.

   Id. at 13520-21; 47 C.F.R. S 1.1307(b)(3).

   RF Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 13522 - 13523; 47
   C.F.R. S 1.1307(b)(3).

   RF Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 13538; 47 C.F.R. S
   1.1307(b).

   RF Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 13540; 47 C.F.R. S
   1.1307(b)(5). See also, Public Notice, Year 2000 Deadline for Compliance
   with Commission's Regulations Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency
   Emissions (released Feb. 25, 2000); Public Notice, Erratum to February 25,
   2000 Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 13600 (released April 27, 2000); Public
   Notice, Reminder of September 1, 2000, Deadline for Compliance with
   Regulations for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Emissions, 15 FCC Rcd
   18900 (released Aug. 24, 2000).

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1310, Table 1 (General population/uncontrolled limits
   apply in situations in which the general public may be exposed). "Members
   of the general public always fall under this category when exposure is not
   employment-related . . . ." RF First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15123,
   15139 (1996).

   Agents contacted broadcast stations after the RFR measurements to arrange
   for On-Off testing on July 12, 2002.

   Table 1 of Section 1.1310 specifies the applicable MPE limits in terms of
   power density (mW/cm^2) for FM and television broadcast station
   transmitters. The maximum power density levels permitted are frequency
   dependent. During the Mt. Wilson inspection, the FCC agents utilized a FCC
   owned, calibrated RF meter with a calibrated probe that measures the
   electric field from RF signals in the band 300 kHz to 40 GHz. The probe is
   a sensor designed to simultaneously measure the RF emissions of multiple
   transmitters on widely separated frequencies such as would occur at an
   antenna farm containing both FM broadcast stations and television stations
   and can be used to determine the total RF power level at a particular
   location. The probe's frequency response curve is "shaped" to mimic the
   FCC MPE limits. The energy of the signals the probe detects are converted
   to a power density, then calculated as a percentage of the MPE limit for
   the appropriate frequency and added together. The results are displayed on
   the meter as a percentage of the MPE limit. See, generally, OET Bulletin
   65 at Section 3, "Measuring RF Fields."

   Section 1.1307(b)(3) of the Rules states: "In general, when the guidelines
   specified in S 1.1310 are exceeded in an accessible area due to the
   emissions from multiple fixed 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. . . . " 47 C.F.R. S 1.1307(b)(3).

   Measurements were taken for each transmitter operating at the site,
   including auxiliary, analog and digital transmitters.

   The combined power density levels produced by the four stations listed in
   this NAL add up to 115% of the Commission's MPE limits. The difference
   between the 115% produced by the four stations and the power density level
   measurements with all stations operational, 160.5%, is accounted for by
   the fact that there were 17 other stations that were not producing power
   density levels at significantly more than 5% of the public MPE limits, but
   did add to the overall power density level.

   AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC, 18 FCC Rcd 22769 (2003).

   AMFM raised no issues in its response but noted that the field agent
   testing occurred while KBIG-FM was operating from its auxiliary facility.
   AMFM states that "[w]hen KBIG-FM operates from its main antenna the total
   RFR level on the area is reduced such that it remains within public MPE
   limits." AMFM Response at 1.

   Radio One Licenses, LLC, 19 FCC Rcd 23922 (2004). AMFM Radio Licenses,
   LLC, licensee of KBIG-FM, had paid its forfeiture of $10,000 after the
   issuance of the NAL and was, therefore, not named in the Forfeiture Order.

   47 C.F.R. S 1.1310.

   47 C.F.R. S 1.1307(b)(1).

   In each of the sworn statements the relevant licensee indicated that when
   KBIG-FM decides to operate from its auxiliary transmitter, it will confirm
   that the driveway is secured. 19 FCC Rcd at 23936.

   47 C.F.R. S 1.1307(b)(3).

   AMFM Broadcasting Licenses, LLC, is the licensee of KHHT(FM).

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.106(c); EZ Sacramento, Inc.,15 FCC Rcd 18257, P 2 (EB
   2000), citing WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), aff'd sub. nom. Lorain
   Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S.
   967 (1966).

   EZ Sacramento, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd at 18257, P 2.

   Infinity Petition at 2 - 4.

   Infinity Petition at 4 - 5.

   See 19 FCC Rcd at 23928 - 23930.

   19 FCC Rcd at 23929, citing RF Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC
   Rcd at 13522 (1997).

   47 C.F.R. SS 1.1307(b)(3), 1.1310 .

   RF Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 13524.

   RF Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 13521.

   As explained in the Forfeiture Order, "in neither the Rules nor the RF
   Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, does the Commission suggest that
   anything other than the 'traditional enforcement model' be used with
   respect to a licensee that has willfully and repeatedly violated the
   Commission's Rules."  19  FCC Rcd at 23929.

   Infinity Petition at 5.

   The term "repeated" as defined by the Act, means that the violation
   occurred "more than once, or, if such commission or omission is
   continuous, for more than one day." 47 U.S.C. S 312(e)(2).

   We discuss the alleged imprecision in the measurements in PP 20 - 23,
   below.

   Infinity Petition at 5.

   RF First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15123, 15139 (1996).

   11 FCC Rcd at 15139. Regarding the public MPE limits, the Commission noted
   that "members of the general public always fall under this category when
   exposure is not employment related, as is the case of residents in an area
   near a broadcast tower." 11 FCC Rcd 15139 - 15140.

   See, e.g., A-O Broadcasting Corporation, 20 FCC Rcd 756 (2005).

   Telemundo Petition at 6 - 8.

   18 FCC Rcd at 22771 - 22773; 19 FCC Rcd at 23923 - 23926.

   18 FCC Rcd at 22772, n.17. For the July 11, 2002, measurements, agents
   used W&G EMR-300 meters and Type 25 probes ("W&G Meters") and Narda Model
   8718 meters and Model 8722 probes ("Narda Meters"). When conducting the
   on-off tests and individual station measurements on July 12, 2002, the
   agents used the W&G Meters exclusively.

   19 FCC Rcd at 23931, n.63. The manufacturer-specified uncertainty factors
   for the W&G Meters and the Narda Meters extend from +/- 0.5 dB to +/- 3
   dB, depending on various factors, including, for example, the magnitude of
   the measurement, the frequency response, the isotropic deviation and the
   measurement methodology.

   Telemundo also argues that no sanctions can be justified against KWHY
   because if a "measurement yields a 5, plus or minus 2, it is equally valid
   to argue that the `real' measurement is 3 or 4 as it is to argue that the
   result is 5." Telemundo Petition at 6 - 7. If we accept this premise then
   we must add what Telemundo does not, which is that the measurement is just
   as likely to yield a 6 or 7. Uncertainty factors, whether assessed by the
   Commission staff, or Telemundo, also indicate an increase in the magnitude
   of the measurement. Unlike Telemundo, we cannot ignore the upper range
   because the purpose of the RFR Rules is "[t]o protect public health with
   respect to RF radiation from FCC-regulated transmitters . . . ." 11 FCC
   Rcd at 15184.

   For the July 11, 2002, measurements, the staff used W&G EMR-300 meters and
   Type 25 probes and Narda Model 8718 meters and Model 8722 probes. This was
   done to ensure consistency in the readings.

   When conducting the on-off tests and individual station measurements on
   July 12, 2002, the staff used W&G EMR-300 meters and Type 25 probes.

   See P 24, below. According to the manufacturer specifications for the
   meter and probe used on July 12, 2002, the uncertainty factor for the
   range of 300 MHz to 1 GHz (the applicable range of frequencies for KWHY)
   is +/- 1 dB.

   Telemundo Petition at 7 - 8.

   47 C.F.R. S 1.1307(b)(3). We note that when the Commission amended the RFR
   Rules in 1997, it specifically considered the problems of uncertainty and
   accuracy in measurements when it raised the "responsibility threshold
   above which licensees at multiple tranmsitter locations must share
   responsibility for addressing RF exposure non-compliance problems, from 1%
   to 5%." RF Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 13520. The
   Commission also determined that raising the threshold to 10% could "lead
   to the creation of areas of non-compliance" and therefore determined that
   "a 5% threshold represents a reasonable and supportable compromise." Id at
   13520 - 13521.

   Telemundo Petition at 5 - 9.

   The relevant uncertainty factors applied on July 12, 2002, for the on-off
   testing of individual stations, totaled +/- 3 dB. We note that even
   Telemundo acknowledges that a +/- 3 dB uncertainty factor is a "good rule
   of thumb when making measurements in multi-signal environments with this
   type of equipment." Telemundo Petition, Exhibit 1 at 10.

   As stated in the Forfeiture Order, the Commission is a regulatory agency
   with broad prosecutorial discretion in enforcement proceedings. See, In
   re: Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeitures of Emery Telephone, 15
   FCC Rcd 7181, 7186 (1999). The courts have found that, as a general
   matter, the Commission "is best positioned to weigh the benefits of
   pursuing an adjudication against the costs to the agency and the
   likelihood of success." 19 FCC Rcd at 23922, citing New York State Dept.
   of Law v. F.C.C., 984 F.2d 1209, 1213 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

   Telemundo Petition at 9 - 11.

   Telemundo also inexplicably states that the Commission "is not, as a rule,
   troubled by lapses of time with respect to RF radiation measurements: for
   example the agents apparently did not re-measure the hotspot on July 12,
   2002 or upon a return to the site in September 2003." Telemundo Petition
   at 10 - 11.  As stated in the NAL, the Forfeiture Order, and in this Order
   at PP 8 - 9, above, the agents performed measurements at the hotspot on
   July 12, 2002. Also, as stated in the NAL, the Forfeiture Order, and this
   Order at P 10, above, the September 2003 inspection focused on the Mt.
   Wilson Licensees' compliance with restricting access to the site, which,
   as noted above, they had failed to do. Consequently, Telemundo's next
   allegation, that the Commission "cannot have it both ways; it cannot
   reject out-of-hand Telemundo's measurements for being on a subsequent day
   and then accept its own measurements regardless of the day at issue" is
   baffling. Telemundo Petition at 11.

   Telemundo also argues that the Commission failed to acknowledge that
   Telemundo offered measurements as well as calculations. Telemundo Petition
   at 11.  To the extent Telemundo is referring to its narrowband
   measurements,

   (Continued from previous page)

   we note that the Commission considered them, and rejected them as not
   refuting the agents' measurements, in the Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at
   23932.

   Telemundo Petition at 11. We are mindful of the adage "let not the perfect
   be the enemy of the good." Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,
   16 FCC Rcd 11244, 11248 (2001);  see also, FCC v. MCI, 627 F.2d 322,
   341-342 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (admonishing the Commission that "[t]he best must
   not become the enemy of the good, as it does when the FCC delays making
   any determination while pursuing the perfect tariff.")  We refuse to
   refrain from enforcing our RFR Rules because uncertainty exists in the RFR
   measurement data. As detailed above, the appropriate uncertainty factors
   have been taken into account to ensure fair proceedings for all licensees.

   OET Bulletin 65 at 44. This is consistent with Commission's rules and
   precedent preferring measurements to calculations in certain cases. See
   e.g., 47 C.F.R. S 73.153 (in determination of interference, groundwave
   field strength measurements will take precedence over theoretical values);
   In re Applications of Benjamin F. Thomas and Roy A. Grove D.B.A.
   Greencastle Broadcasting Co., 16 FCC 2d 923 (1969) (measurement data
   indicating no prohibited overlap are to be preferred over the calculations
   based on figure M-3 conductivities).

   Telemundo Petition at 3.

   47 C.F.R. S 1.1307(b)(3).

   Radio One also argues that the Commission misinterpreted a 1997 RF
   amendment that was filed for KKBT(FM) (then KIBB) and KHHT(FM) (then KKBT)
   renewals which, as Radio One acknowledges, stated that "[a]ll KKBT and
   KIBB antennas contribute greater than 10 uW/cm^2 or greater than 5% of 0.2
   mW/cm^2 and therefore are considered as contributors to electromagnetic
   fields in non-controlled areas." Radio One argues that a data table in the
   document actually shows that the now KKBT(FM) main antenna's RF level was
   not greater than the 10 mW/cm^2 threshold and therefore not a contributor.
   While we accept Radio One's assertion that the 1997 RF Amendment is
   internally inconsistent and its probative value diminished, we note that
   the Commission cited to the document to (Continued from previous page)

   demonstrate that Radio One, as the licensee of KKBT(FM) had notice that
   the most recent renewal filing for KKBT(FM) (then KIBB), at the time of
   the Mt. Wilson inspection, contained an RF amendment that named KKBT(FM)
   (then KIBB) as a contributor. The 1997 RF Amendment also states that
   measurements showed that a "couple of `hot spots' were found against a
   fence along the access road just east of the KKBT [ ] site and one fifty
   foot long by six feet wide strip was found in the center of the road just
   south of the site in front of the Allcom building." See File No.
   BRH-970730ZC, filed July 30, 1997. The RF Amendment was filed on December
   22, 1997.

   Radio One Petition at 4.

   Radio One states that KKBT(FM) has a 49 meter antenna radiation center
   above ground level in comparison to KKBT(FM)'s 78 meter antenna radiation
   center above ground level. Radio One Petition at 4.

   Radio One states that according to its calculation the theoretical
   estimated power density level for KHHT(FM) is 0.584 mW/cm^2 while the
   level for KKBT is 0.029 mW/cm^2. Radio One Petition at 5.

   Radio One Petition at 5.

   19 FCC Rcd at 23934.

   For example, KIIS-FM, whose transmitter was also located on the same
   tower, was found to have contributed 3.5% of the public MPE for its
   transmitter. According to Commission records, KIIS-FM is licensed to
   operate at 34-o 13' 36'' N latitude and 118-o 03' 57'' W longitude.
   KIIS-FM is licensed to operate an 8 kW ERP directional antenna with a 66
   meter antenna radiation center above ground level.  KHHT-FM is licensed to
   operate at 34-o 13' 36'' N latitude and 118-o 03' 57'' W longitude.
   KKBT(FM) is licensed to operate at 34-o 13' 37'' N latitude and 118-o 03'
   58'' W longitude.

   47 U.S.C. S 405.

   47 C.F.R. S 1.106.

   47 U.S.C. S 504(a).

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.

                                                            (continued. . . )

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-173

   1

   2

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-173