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


This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.


                                   Before the

                       Federal Communications Commission

                             Washington, D.C. 20554

     In the Matter of                                                        
     Visionary Related Entertainment,                                        
     L.L.C.                                )         File No.: EB-04-HL-049  
     Licensee of FM Station KAOI-FM        )    NAL/Acct. No.: 200532860001  
     Wailuku, Hawaii                       )                FRN: 0005410295  
     Facility ID #70375                    )                                 

                                FORFEITURE ORDER

   Adopted: February 2, 2007 Released:  February 6, 2007

   By the Regional Director, Western Region, Enforcement Bureau:


    1. In this Forfeiture Order ("Order"), we issue a monetary forfeiture in
       the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to Visionary Related
       Entertainment, L.L.C. ("Visionary"), licensee of FM station KAOI-FM,
       in Wailuku, Hawaii, for willful and repeated violation of Section
       1.1310 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). On February 4, 2005, the
       Enforcement Bureau's Honolulu Resident Agent Office issued a Notice of
       Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to
       Visionary after determining that Visionary had failed to comply with
       the Commission's radio frequency radiation ("RFR") maximum permissible
       exposure ("MPE") limits applicable to facilities, operations, or
       transmitters.   In this Order, we consider Visionary's arguments that
       it did not willfully violate the Commission's RFR rules, and that the
       area that exceeded the RFR MPE limits was not accessible to the


    2. On July 19, 2004, Visionary filed an application to modify KAOI-FM's
       antenna height from the licensed height of 25 meters AGL to 14 meters
       AGL. Visionary also proposed modifying KAOI-FM's licensed effective
       radiated power from 100 kW to 55 kW. As part of the application,
       Visionary indicated that it was unable to certify that "the facility
       will not have a significant environmental impact and complies with the
       maximum permissible radiofrequency electromagnetic exposure limits for
       controlled and uncontrolled environments." Visionary attached a
       "detailed explanation of the RFR situation at the KAOI-FM site" as
       part of the application. In the explanation, Visionary stated that the
       current antenna system, operating at 100 kW, at a height of 14 meters
       above ground, "produces a maximum field intensity of 4614.37
       microwatts per squared [sic] centimeter at a distance of 2.8 meters
       from the base of the tower."

    3. On September 7, 2004, a Honolulu agent spoke to the President of
       Visionary, and requested that KAOI-FM be made available for inspection
       on September 8, 2004. The Honolulu agent was later informed by the
       station engineer that KAOI-FM was running at reduced power due to
       transmitter technical problems. On October 14, 2004, the Honolulu
       Office issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Visionary regarding
       reduced power operations throughout calendar year 2004. Visionary's
       October 26, 2004 response delineated a series of eight separate
       instances between January and October of 2004 when equipment issues
       resulted in reduced power operations. In a supplemental November 2,
       2004 response to the LOI, Visionary stated that the station had been
       operating at full licensed power levels since October 29, 2004, and
       pledged to notify the Honolulu Office of any further problems.

    4. On October 20, 2004, Martha Vockrodt-Moran, along with the D.T.
       Fleming Arboretum, filed a complaint with the Commission's Enforcement
       Bureau requesting that the Bureau "order KAOI-FM to cease transmitting
       because it operations pose a significant threat to health and safety."
       Specifically, the complaint alleged that "for the past fourteen years,
       [Visionary] has operated KAOI in violation of the RF exposure rules"
       and that the property adjacent to the KAOI transmitter site "is
       regularly used by Arboretum workers, residents, children, campers and
       hikers." Visionary filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on December
       14, 2004. Vockrodt-Moran and the Arboretum filed a response to the
       Motion to Dismiss on December 23, 2004.

    5. Honolulu agents inspected the KAOI-FM facility on November 17, 2004,
       accompanied by KAOI-FM station engineers, as well as a broadcast
       consultant. At the time of the inspection, KAOI-FM was authorized to
       operate with 100 kW ERP. The KAOI-FM antenna system is a Jampro
       JHPC-8, eight bay circular "Double V" antenna, mounted with the
       radiation center 14 meters above ground level on a 25 meter wooden
       pole at the edge of a cinder cone overlooking a steep hilltop. A
       roadway passes within 30 feet of the KAOI-FM antenna. The roadway is
       gated on both entrances to the antenna. There is a locked gate on the
       access road north of the transmitter site that bars routine public
       vehicular access to the entire area. A portion of the D.T. Fleming
       Arboretum property, Ulupalakua, Maui, is adjacent to the site. A
       second gate, bordering on Arboretum property and limiting access
       between the transmitter site area and the Arboretum property, is
       approximately 35 to 42 feet south of the antenna. A cell tower with
       multiple antennas is located approximately 100 feet east of the
       KAOI-FM antenna site. Although vehicular access to the antenna site is
       restricted by means of a locked gate, pedestrian access is not
       restricted, and there is a private residence past the locked gate.

    6. The agents observed no physical barrier restricting public access to
       the antenna support pole, and no RFR warning signs posted. The KAOI-FM
       transmitter was running at a power output of 96,732 watts, a
       representative level in view of the mountaintop commercial power
       fluctuations. The agents employed a personal RF monitor to initially
       identify a seventy foot long, twenty foot wide area in front of the
       transmitter building with potential high RFR levels. Measurements were
       conducted at four locations using a calibrated meter. The measurements
       employed a spatial averaging measurement technique, where measurements
       in four quadrants are averaged to give a representative reading for
       each location. The Commission's RFR public MPE limit for a transmitter
       operating in the 30 MHz to 300 MHz range, such as the KAOI-FM
       transmitter, is 0.2 mW/cm^2.  The agents found that the public RFR MPE
       limits were significantly exceeded within 3 feet of the pole, and that
       the public RFR MPE limits continued to be exceeded in a twenty foot by
       ten foot rectangular area in front of the antenna support pole. The
       agents' actual measurements corroborated Visionary's calculated
       assessment that RFR at the site exceeded the public MPE. The agents
       repeated the measurements at the same four designated locations with
       the transmitter running at a reduced output power of 56,350 watts. The
       agents' measurements indicated RFR levels still exceeded the public
       RFR MPE limits in the area of the immediate vicinity of the support
       pole. Again, these measurements corroborated Visionary's calculated
       assessment of RFR above the public MPE limit with KAOI-FM's power
       reduced to 55 kW. At the conclusion of the inspection, the station
       engineers reduced the transmitter power and stated that the station
       would operate at a reduced power level until the RFR issue was
       resolved. The station engineers informed the agents that the station
       intended to install fencing to restrict public access, and also
       intended to submit a request for special temporary authority ("STA")
       to operate at reduced power levels.

    7. On February 4, 2005, the Honolulu Office issued the NAL in the amount
       of $10,000 to Visionary, finding that Visionary had apparently
       willfully and repeatedly failed  to comply with the Commission's RFR
       MPE limits applicable to the KAOI-FM transmitters. The Honolulu Office
       also directed Visionary to file a sworn statement describing: 1) what,
       if any, steps it took between July, 2004, and November, 2004, to
       ensure compliance with the Commission's RFR Rules at the KAOI-FM
       transmitter site; 2) what, if any, steps it has taken since the
       Honolulu agents' inspection in November, 2004, to ensure compliance
       with the Commission's RFR Rules at the site; and 3) its current plan
       to ensure compliance with the Commission's RFR Rules at the site.  In
       the NAL, the Honolulu Office also dismissed the Complaints files by
       Martha Vockrodt-Moran and the Arboretum.  Visionary filed a response
       to the NAL ("Response") on March 1, 2005, along with the required
       sworn statement. In its Response, Visionary does not dispute the
       measurements made by the Honolulu agents. Instead, Visionary argues
       that it did not willfully violate the Commission's RFR rules, and that
       it believed, in good faith, its site was in a remote non-accessible
       area with adequate warning signs.


    8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance
       with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The
       Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80
       of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining
       Visionary's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the
       Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
       gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
       of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and
       other such matters as justice may require.

    9. In 1996, the Commission amended its rules to adopt new guidelines and
       procedures for evaluating the environmental effects of RFR from FCC
       regulated facilities, operations or transmitters. The Commission
       adopted MPE limits for electric and magnetic field strength and power
       density for facilities, operations or transmitters operating at
       frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz. Section 1.1310 of the Rules
       requires licensees to comply with RFR exposure limits.   Table 1 in
       Section 1.1310 of the Rules provides that the general
       population/uncontrolled ("public")  RFR maximum permissible exposure
       limit for a station operating in the frequency range of 30 MHz to 300
       MHz is 0.2 mW/cm^2  and the occupational/controlled RFR maximum
       permissible exposure limit in this frequency range is 1 mW/cm^2.

   10. Visionary's opposition to the NAL is based on two assertions. First,
       Visionary argues that the area where the agents measured RFR in excess
       of the Commission's MPE limits for public exposure was not in fact an
       area accessible to the public, but accessible only to trespassers, and
       had adequate warning signs. Second, Visionary argues that having
       determined that the area was not publicly accessible, Visionary
       proceeded in good faith and did not willfully violate the Commission's
       RFR rules. We will discuss these assertions in turn.

   11. The Honolulu agents determined that the public RFR limits applied to
       the KAOI-FM transmitter site. Visionary asserts in its Response that
       the area where the KAOI-FM site is located is remote and inaccessible
       and that it always treated the site as remote. Visionary does not
       explicitly assert that the occupational RFR limits apply, but that is
       the implication drawn from the arguments in its Response.
       Specifically, Visionary states that the KAOI-FM transmitter has
       operated from the same site and antenna height since the 1970s, that
       the antenna is predicted to create RFR fields at ground level at the
       base of the antenna of 4.614  mW/cm^2, that in the past engineers and
       workers on the site have reduced the operating power to a safe level
       to allow maintenance to be performed, that the transmitter site is on
       a private cattle ranch, and that the public is banned from the ranch.
       Visionary also states in its Response that the work area within the
       adjoining building to the tower contains the requisite sign for
       station workers that the RF level be lowered when performing any work
       in the area, and that a sign outside the transmitter building
       indicates the danger of RF radiation. Visionary also states  that to
       reach the transmitter site, a person would have to trespass and climb

   12. 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 for 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 Commission's RFR
       rules require licensees and permittees to abide by the more stringent
       "general population/uncontrolled" MPE limits, in situations in which
       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.
       When the Commission first promulgated these rules in 1996, it noted
       that "members of the general public always fall under this [general
       population/uncontrolled] category when exposure is not employment
       related, as is the case of residents in an area near a broadcast
       tower." The Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology ("OET")
       recommends that applicants for broadcast stations take into account,
       when determining their compliance with the Commission's RF rules,
       whether "[h]igh RF levels are produced at ground level in an area
       which could reasonably be expected to be used by the public (including

   13. As described above, although the land where the KAOI-FM antenna
       structure was located was private, the Honolulu agents determined that
       trespassers were able to access the site, a fact that Visionary
       acknowledges. While Visionary's description, that the site was located
       in a remote, rural area, on a private ranch behind a locked gate, may
       be accurate, the Honolulu agents investigation of the area showed that
       the locked gate impeded vehicular traffic, not pedestrian traffic.
       Further, Visionary's own description of the property states that a
       fence lies between the ranch property and the Arboretum, and that the
       KAOI-FM transmitter was only 30 feet from this fence. We find that
       while the site was on private property, it was neither so remote nor
       so well controlled as to be inaccessible to the public. Indeed, with
       the Arboretum so close, along with roads through the property, and a
       cell tower also on the property, we find the antenna site was in an
       area accessible to the public, including trespassers. Thus, we
       conclude that the Honolulu agents correctly determined that the public
       RFR MPE limits apply.

   14. Compliance with the public RFR MPE limits can be achieved in different
       ways, depending on the particulars of the site. In OET Bulletin 65,
       the Commission's OET gave guidance to Commission licensees concerning
       controlling exposure to RF fields. When dealing with compliance with
       the Commission's public MPE limit, the OET stated that:

   Restricting access is usually the simplest means of controlling exposure
   to areas where high RF levels may be present. Methods of doing this
   include fencing and posting such areas or locking out unauthorized persons
   in areas, such as rooftop locations, where this is practical. There may be
   situations where RF levels may exceed the MPE limits for the general
   public in remote areas, such as mountain tops, that could conceivably be
   accessible but are not likely to be visited by the public. In such cases,
   common sense should dictate how compliance is to be achieved. If the area
   of concern is properly marked by appropriate warning signs, fencing or the
   erection of other permanent barriers may not be necessary.

   15. Visionary states that a work area within the building adjacent to the
       tower contained a sign for station workers instructing them to lower
       the RF level before performing any work in the area, and that a sign
       posted outside the transmitter building specifically indicated the
       danger of RFR. The Honolulu agents however found no RFR warning signs
       posted near the area of concern which exceeded the public RFR MPE
       limits. As the Commission recently determined, in remote areas where
       physical barriers do not exist, the burden is on the licensee to
       ensure that the area of concern is plainly and clearly marked with RFR
       warning signs so that members of the public do not access areas of RFR
       in excess of the MPE limits.

   16. The Honolulu agents found no RFR warning signs posted that were
       visible in the area of concern where RFR significantly exceeded the
       public MPE limits. Visionary knew high RFR fields existed at ground
       level at the site. By Visionary's own admission, operation of KAOI-FM
       with 100 kW of power on an antenna mounted with the radiation center
       at only 14 meters above ground, produced levels of RFR exposure at
       ground level that greatly exceeded the maximum permissible exposure
       limits for members of the public. And, by Visionary's own admission,
       it operated KAOI-FM with these facilities for many years. We note that
       even if we had accepted Visionary's argument that the occupational
       limits applied to this site, appropriate signage is critical to ensure
       that persons entering the area of high RFR have knowledge and ability
       to control their exposure. Again, no such signage existed in the area
       of concern. Based on the totality of the facts, we find that the
       Honolulu agents appropriately applied the public RFR MPE limit to the
       KAOI-FM site, and that Visionary failed to properly mark the area
       where RFR exceeded the public MPE limits with appropriate warning
       signs until after the FCC's inspection.

   17. We next consider Visionary's contention that it did not willfully
       violate the Commission's rules. As defined in the Act, "[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 or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this
       Act...." The Commission's interpretation of "willful" does not require
       licensee intent to engage in a violation. Visionary does not allege
       that it did not know that the KAOI-FM transmitter was producing RFR in
       excess of 0.2 mW/cm^2. Its own application predicted a maximum field
       intensity of 4.6 mW/cm^2, or 2400% of the general public MPE limit.
       Visionary also does not dispute the measurements made by the Honolulu
       agents during their November 17, 2004 investigation, which showed RFR
       levels greatly exceeding the general public limit within the immediate
       vicinity of the transmitter. Because Visionary was aware of the RFR
       limits, and continued to operate the KAOI-FM transmitter such that the
       RFR produced at ground level continued to exceed the Commission's
       public RFR MPE limits, yet failed to take appropriate steps to control
       exposure to high RF fields in the area around the base of the antenna,
       including failure to display any RFR warning signs in the area of
       concern, we find that Visionary willfully violated Section 1.1310 of
       the Rules.

   18. We have examined Visionary's response to the NAL pursuant to the
       statutory factors above, and in conjunction with the Forfeiture Policy
       Statement. As a result of our review, we conclude that Visionary
       willfully and repeated violated Section 1.1310. Considering the entire
       record and the factors listed above, we find that neither reduction or
       cancellation of the proposed $10,000 forfeiture is warranted


   19.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111,
       0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Visionary Related
       Entertainment, L.L.C. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the
       amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section
       1.1310 of the Rules.

   20. 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.  The payment must include the NAL/Acct. No.
       and FRN No. referenced above.  Payment by check or money order may be
       mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O.
       Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340.  Payment by overnight mail may
       be sent to Mellon Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670,
       Pittsburgh, PA 15251.  Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA
       Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account number 911-
       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.

   21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First
       Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Visionary
       Related Entertainment, L.L.C., P.O. Box 1730, Rohnert Park,
       California, 94927.


   Rebecca L. Dorch

   Regional Director, Western Region

   Enforcement Bureau

   47 C.F.R. S 1.1310.

   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 2005329860001
   (Enf. Bur., Western Region, Honolulu Resident Agent Office, released
   February 4, 2005).

   See File No. BPH-20040716ABZ, accepted July 19, 2004; dismissed November
   18, 2004, DA 04-3647; reconsideration filed December 15, 2004; amended May
   9, 2005; application reinstated February 3, 2006 ("July 2004
   Application"). During an inspection on January 26, 2004, Honolulu agents
   observed that the KAOI-FM's antenna height of radiation center above
   ground level (AGL) was approximately 14 meters, as opposed to the
   authorized 25 meters. Consequently, the Honolulu Resident Agent Office
   issued a Notice of Violation ("NOV") to Visionary on February 26, 2004,
   for modifying the KAOI-FM transmission systems without authorization
   pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S 73.1690(c)(1). Visionary responded to the NOV on
   April 19, 2004, stating that the authorized center of radiation of 25
   meters, as shown on the Commission's data base, was a typo or
   transposition and that it would take action to correct the error.
   Visionary also states, in the July 2004 Application that a 1995 license
   grant to Visionary used parameters underlying an older construction
   permit, and that the license issued by the Commission on October 19, 1995,
   contained the alleged typographical error. July 2004 Application,
   Engineering Statement at p. 1 - 2. Visionary also notes in its March 1,
   2005, response to the NAL ("Response") that KAOI has operated from the
   same site and at the same antenna height since the early 1970s. Response
   at 3. Commission's records reveal, however, that in correspondence dated
   October 18, 1995, John Detz, President, KAOI Radio Group, wrote that "item
   9 d [radiation center above ground] on Form 302-FM, page 4 as corrected
   should read the accurate 25 meters RCAGL." Letter of John Detz to Dan
   Fontaine, Federal Communications Commission, October 18, 1995.

   July 2004 Application, Section III-B.

   July 2004 Application, Item 17.

   July 2004 Application, Engineering Statement at p. 3. 4614.37 microwatts
   per square centimeter is equivalent to 4.614 mW/cm^2.

   Complaint of D.T. Fleming Arboretum and Martha Vockrodt-Moran, filed
   October 20, 2004 ("Complaint").

   Complaint at 5.

   Visionary Related Entertainment LLC Motion to Dismiss Complaint, filed
   December 14, 2004 "(Motion to Dismiss").

   Response of D.T. Fleming Arboretum and Martha Vockrodt-Moran, filed
   December 23, 2004 ("Response").

   The personal RF monitor LED lit continually throughout this area, and the
   unit emitted an audible warning, indicating the RFR in the area likely
   exceeded the public RFR MPE.

   See, Radio One Licensees, LLC,  Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 06-173,
   2006 WL 3472471 (rel. December 1, 2006) at paras. 21 - 24.

   47 C.F.R. S 1.1310.

   None of the area identified by the agents as an area with potentially high
   RF fields crossed onto the adjacent D.T. Fleming Arboretum property.

   July 2004 Application, Engineering Statement at p. 3.

   Visionary Related Entertainment LLC Renewal Application, BRH-20051003CFK,
   Oct. 3, 2005, Exhibit 13. "At 55 kilowatts effective radiated power, this
   antenna will produce a calculated maximum field intensity level of
   2537.9.6 microwatts per centimeter at a distance of 2.8 meters distant
   from the base of the tower. . . ."

   In the Motion to Dismiss, filed December 14, 2004, Visionary notes that
   its engineers met with the Honolulu agents on November 17, 2004, to take
   RFR measurements and that Visionary is "constructing a four foot fence
   extending out from the tower site as an added buffer, which construction
   should be completed shortly."  Motion to Dismiss at 4. On January 17,
   2005, Visionary notified the Commission's Honolulu Office that they had
   "constructed a fence at the base of the tower that complies with the full
   Class C power level at the currently licensed allocation." Letter of
   Visionary Related Entertainment to Federal Communications Commission,
   Honolulu Office, January 17, 2005.

   Visionary did file an STA application, on February 18, 2005, which was
   granted on March 9, 2005. See File No. BSTA-20050218ACN. An extension of
   the STA, filed September 9, 2005, was granted November 14, 2006. See File
   No. BESTA-20050909AEF.

   NAL at P 17.

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

   47 C.F.R. S 1.80.

   12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

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

   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)

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

   47 C.F.R. S 1.1310.

   Visionary also asserts that the instant investigation was instigated by a
   competitor who has "lost every challenge to [Visionary] on the local land
   use and permit arena . . . ." Response at 2. We note that that the
   Honolulu agents investigated the site based on informal complaints by the
   operator of the D.T. Fleming Arboretum, whose stated concern, in various
   communications with Commission staff, was the safety of the users of the

   NAL at 5-6.

   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 also, Guidelines for Evaluating
   the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, Report and Order,
   ET Docket No. 93-62, 11 FCC Rcd 15123, 15139 (1996).

   11 FCC Rcd 15139 - 15140.

   OET Bulletin 65: "Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human
   Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" (1997) ("OET Bulletin
   65") at 83.

   We note that Visionary states that it completed construction of a fence at
   a 20 foot distance from the base of the KAOI-FM tower on or about January
   17, 2005.

   OET Bulletin 65 at 53 (footnotes omitted).

   Response at 4. Visionary does not state when the warning sign was posted.
   See Response at 4 n. 3.

   See Americom Las Vegas Limited Partnership Memorandum Opinion and Order,
   FCC 06-174, 2006 WL 3472472 (rel. December 1, 2006) at para. 12.

   Radio X Broadcasting Corporation Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 06-151,
   2006 WL 2986546 (rel. October 17, 2006) (a forfeiture reduction for good
   faith efforts is not warranted where the subject does not take concrete
   steps to remedy a violation until after a field inspection).

   See Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 312(f)(1), which applies to
   violations for which forfeitures are assessed under Section 503(b) of the
   Act. Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).

   Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 at para. 5 (1991).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b), 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4), 1.1310.

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

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-548



   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-548