Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
)
In the Matter of )
Entravision Holdings, LLC ) File No.: EB-04-TP-161
Licensee of Station WVEA-LP ) NAL/Acct. No.: 200532700004
Tampa, Florida ) FRN: 0001529627
Facility ID # 3602 )
)
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted: February 2, 2007 Released: February 6, 2007
By the Regional Director, South Central Region, Enforcement Bureau:
I. introduction
1. In this Forfeiture Order ("Order"), we issue a monetary forfeiture in
the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to Entravision
Holdings, LLC ("Entravision"), licensee of station WVEA-LP, 662-668
MHz, in Tampa, Florida, for willful and repeated violation 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. On
January 5, 2005, the Enforcement Bureau's Tampa Office issued a Notice
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to Entravision in the amount of
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for the apparent willful and
repeated violation of Section 1.1310 of the Rules. In this Order, we
consider Entravision's arguments concerning the appropriate MPE limit
that should be applied; that its alleged violation was neither willful
nor repeated; and that it complied with requests made by Tampa Office
agents during and after the inspections conducted by that office.
II. background
2. The RFR 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 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.
Licensees can demonstrate compliance by restricting public access to
areas where RFR exceeds the public MPE limits.
3. Entravision certified WVEA-LP was in compliance with the RFR MPE
limits in its application for a minor change to its licensed facility
at the Park Tower Office Building ("Park Tower") located at 400 North
Tampa Street, Tampa, Florida ("WVEA-LP 2004 Modification
Application"). An exhibit to the application stated that access to the
transmitting site would be restricted and properly marked with warning
signs. In addition, the exhibit stated that an agreement among the
licensees at Park Tower containing appropriate measures to assure
worker safety would be in effect in the event that workers or
authorized personnel enter the restricted area.
4. On May 25, 2004, Tampa Office agents, in response to a complaint,
inspected the Park Tower rooftop. 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. 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, a Tampa agent,
using a calibrated RFR meter, found that approximately 75% of the
penthouse rooftop exceeded the general population/uncontrolled RFR MPE
limit. The agent also found an unmarked and un-posted area within an
8-10 foot radius of a tower containing a UHF TV antenna, later
identified as belonging to station WVEA-LP, exceeding the
occupational/controlled RFR MPE limit and which also greatly exceeded
the general population/uncontrolled RFR MPE limit. Park Tower'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.
5. On June 18, 2004, a Tampa Office agent returned to the penthouse
rooftop of Park Tower, 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.
6. On July 1, 2004, the WVEA-LP station engineer accompanied Tampa agents
on their inspection of the penthouse rooftop. Before conducting any
testing, the station engineer stated he knew that areas near his
antenna exceeded the occupational limits and that the area should have
been posted with warning signs to alert those accessing the roof of
the hazard. The Tampa agents then conducted on-air and off-air
measurements to determine the level of WVEA-LP's contribution. With
WVEA-LP on the air, the un-posted, unmarked area near the WVEA-LP
antenna exceeded the occupational/controlled RFR MPE limit and also
greatly exceeded the general population/uncontrolled RFR MPE limit,
consistent with the agents' May 25, 2004 measurements. When WVEA-LP
was taken off the air, the agents' measurements revealed that WVEA-LP
was responsible for the majority of both the general
public/uncontrolled RFR MPE limit and the occupational/controlled RFR
MPE limit. The agents warned the station engineer of this RFR
violation. The agent informed the WVEA-LP engineer that to comply with
the RFR requirements the station should post warning signs in the
stairwell entrance and the rooftop to identify the areas exceeding the
RFR limits, especially those exceeding the occupational limit. The
agent also suggested that the station work with the building's chief
engineer to restrict access to the specific area exceeding the
occupational limits and only allow those having RFR training to access
the area. Finally, the agent suggested that, in addition to the
required RFR training, the station could offer building workers, who
access the rooftop, individual RFR warning devices.
7. On July 16, 2004, Tampa agents conducted another inspection of the
penthouse rooftop. Entravision placed a small, framed caution sign in
the stairwell to the penthouse roof hatch that listed contact
information for the station engineer. Entravision marked with yellow
paint the penthouse rooftop area exceeding the occupational/controlled
RFR MPE limit, but did not place warning signs on the penthouse
rooftop itself. Agents conducted measurements similar to those
conducted on July 1 with the four licensees located at the site. With
all four stations on the air, the area near the WVEA-LP antenna
exceeded the occupational/controlled RFR MPE limit and also greatly
exceeded the general population/uncontrolled RFR MPE limit, consistent
with the agents' May 25, 2004, and July 1, 2004, measurements. After
station WVEA-LP was taken off the air, the agents determined that
WVEA-LP was responsible for the majority of RFR which exceeded both
the general public/uncontrolled RFR MPE limit and the
occupational/controlled RFR MPE limit. The station engineer for
WVEA-LP was warned by the Tampa agents that the sign posted in the
stairwell was inadequate due to its size and its poor visibility in
the darkened stairwell. The agents again explained to the station
engineer the RFR requirements.
8. On July 20, 2004, a Tampa agent contacted the WVEA-LP station engineer
to discuss the July 16^th inspection. The station engineer stated he
had not yet posted a sign on the rooftop or spoken with the building's
chief engineer. The agent reminded the station engineer of the
station's responsibility to comply with the Commission's RFR
requirements.
9. On August 17, 2004, an agent re-inspected the penthouse rooftop of
Park Tower. There was no sign posted on the penthouse rooftop as
requested on July 1, 16, and 20 or on the tower itself as requested on
July 16, and 20. The building's chief engineer stated the WVEA-LP
engineer spoke to him regarding the yellow lines painted on the roof,
but had not discussed any policy to limit rooftop access only to those
with RFR training.
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. Entravision had placed a sign on its tower that cautioned
workers that the yellow striped area exceeded safe occupational
levels. The sign, however, did not list any station contact
information to enable workers to inquire as to the level of the RFR on
the penthouse rooftop.
11. On October 26, 2004, the building's chief engineer stated that
Entravision had not yet contacted him to restrict access to the
penthouse rooftop to only workers who had received RFR training. On
November 5, 2004, the building's chief engineer contacted the Tampa
office and stated that station WVEA-LP told him that the transmitter
power had been reduced and the penthouse rooftop was now well below
the occupational limits. Agents made measurements the same day and
confirmed there were no areas on the penthouse rooftop that exceeded
the occupational/controlled RFR MPE limit. There were areas, however,
that were still well above the general population/uncontrolled limits.
12. On January 5, 2005, the Tampa Office issued a NAL to Entravision in
the amount of $25,000 for the apparent willful and repeated violation
of Section 1.1310 of the Rules. Entravision filed a response to the
NAL on February 24, 2005, requesting that the forfeiture be cancelled
or reduced. In its response, Entravision does not dispute the RFR
measurements discussed in the NAL, nor does Entravision dispute that
it was responsible for a majority contribution of the RFR MPE limits
on the Park Tower penthouse rooftop. Instead, Entravision argues that
the RFR present on the penthouse roof should be treated under the
occupational/controlled MPE limits for RFR, not the general population
limits. Entravision also argues that the alleged violation was neither
willful nor repeated, and that it made good faith efforts to comply
with the requests made by Tampa Office agents during and after the
inspections conducted by that office.
III. discussion
13. 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, 12 FCC Rcd
17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy
Statement"). In examining Entravision'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.
14. 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. 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." Section
1.1307(b)(3) of the Rules states that "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..." 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.
15. Entravision argues that the penthouse rooftop should be treated under
the occupational/controlled MPE limits, as opposed to the general
population/non-controlled MPE limits, because access to the penthouse
rooftop was controlled and "was in no way accessible to any member of
the general public." Entravision also argues that, as the NAL notes,
there was signage at the entrance to the main rooftop that RF fields
may exceed FCC rules for human exposure. Entravision also asserts that
building management for Park Tower was aware that RFR was present on
the roof as a result of discussions that Entravision had with the
building management during its lease negotiations. According to
Entravision, the combination of this controlled access, along with the
signage at the entrance to the main roof, and its discussion with the
building management concerning "RFR on the rooftop," requires that we
apply only the occupational/controlled MPE RFR limits to the penthouse
roof. We disagree.
16. The appropriate RFR MPE limit to be applied in an area depends on who
is being exposed to the RFR. In situations where 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 occupational/controlled MPE limits apply. In
situations where the general public may be exposed, or where 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, the general population/uncontrolled MPE limits apply.
The penthouse roof may not have been accessible by the general public,
but it was accessible by workers and employees of Park Tower, a fact
that Entravision does not dispute. Because persons who are exposed as
a result of their employment can potentially come under either RFR MPE
limit, we must now determine if the workers and employees with access
to the penthouse roof were fully aware of their potential for exposure
and could exercise control over it.
17. Entravision provides no evidence beyond the existence of RFR warning
signs, placed at the entrance of the main roof and not the penthouse
roof, that there was any signage that warned of the high RFR levels on
the penthouse rooftop. While the signs in question warned that areas
on the roof exceeded the Commission's public RFR levels, they did not
say where those areas were, specifically, it did not say those areas
existed on the distinct and separate penthouse rooftop. The signs also
did not warn of any areas, on either rooftop, which exceeded the
occupational/controlled RFR MPE limits. Consequently, we cannot
conclude that the existence of these signs, on their own, made the
workers and employees accessing the penthouse roof fully aware of
their potential for exposure and allowed them to exercise control over
that exposure.
18. Entravision appears to contend that these workers and employees should
be considered fully aware of their potential for exposure because the
Park Tower building management was aware of "RFR on the rooftop."
Entravision also argues that the RFR Rules do not require it to give
RFR training to individuals who are not their employees, and that
because the definition of the term "fully aware" is the subject of a
current rulemaking, there is no policy it is obligated to follow
concerning educating building employees. Entravision misinterprets its
obligations as a Commission licensee. As indicated above, Section
1.1307(b)(3) of the Rules states that "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..." Entravision operates WVEA-LP's transmitter
on a multi-user site, and is obligated pursuant to Section
1.1307(b)(3) of the Rules to bring the area into compliance with the
Commission's RFR rules. The Commission expects "[o]wners of
transmitter sites . . . to allow applicants and licensees to take
reasonable steps to comply with [these] requirements . . . ." However,
the Commission has concluded that "responsibilities pertaining to RF
electromagnetic fields properly belong[] with our licensees and
applicants, rather than with site owners." In other words,
Entravision, along with one other licensee at the Park Tower site, was
obligated to bring the areas of the rooftops into compliance with the
Commission's Rules. For the occupational/controlled MPE limits to be
considered the applicable MPE limits on the penthouse rooftop,
Entravision must ensure that the workers and employees accessing the
penthouse rooftop were fully aware of their potential for exposure and
allowed them to exercise control over that exposure. Other than the
existence of the signs leading to the main rooftop, and a conversation
with Park tower building management about "RFR on the roof,"
Entravision has failed to produce any evidence that it ensured that
affected workers and employees had awareness of the high RFR fields on
the penthouse rooftop, let alone that the affected workers and
employees were "fully aware" and trained on how to control their
exposure. As a licensee contributing more than 5% of its transmitter's
RFR exposure limit, Entravision, and not the Park Tower building
management, is obligated under the Commission's Rules to ensure such
awareness and control for the affected workers and employees. Because
Entravision failed to do so, the general population/uncontrolled MPE
limits must be applied.
19. Entravision also argues that its violations of Section 1.1310 of the
Rules were neither willful nor repeated. Specifically, Entravision
argues that it did not act consciously, deliberately or repeatedly in
failing to post warning signs or neglecting to restrict accessibility
to the areas which exceeded the RFR MPE limits. We disagree. As part
of its argument concerning the appropriate RFR MPE limit to apply to
the penthouse rooftop, Entravision acknowledges that it discussed "RFR
on the rooftop" with the Park Tower building management and that it
was aware that another licensee gave "specific advice to the building
management concerning RFR issues on the rooftop." Despite this
knowledge, and its obligations to ensure compliance with the RFR rules
at the rooftop sites, as described above, Entravision provides no
evidence, beyond a conversation during its lease negotiations with
Park Tower, that it made any effort to ensure that the areas on the
rooftops were in compliance with Section 1.1310 of the Rules. This
appears to contravene Entravision's assurance to the Commission in the
WVEA-LP 2004 Modification Application that an agreement among the
licensees at Park Tower containing appropriate measures to assure
worker safety would be in effect in the event that workers or
authorized personnel enter the restricted area and that the site would
be properly marked with warning signs. Consequently, we find that
Entravision did willfully violate Section 1.1310. The violation
occurred on more than one day, as evidenced by the undisputed
measurements made on multiple days by the Tampa agents, therefore, we
find that the violation was repeated.
20. Entravision also states that even if we assume that it did fail to
comply with Section 1.1310 of the Rules, there is no basis for an
increase in the base forfeiture of $10,000 given Entravision's good
faith efforts to comply with the Tampa agents' requests once the
violations were brought to Entravision's attention. Specifically,
Entravision asserts that it posted a warning sign in the penthouse
entry stairwell on the same day it was told to do so by an agent, July
1, 2004. Entravision claims to have informed the building's chief
engineer of the RFR occupational violation by July 2, 2004.
Entravision also alleges that its station engineer, on his own
initiative, marked off the area exceeding the occupational limit with
yellow paint. Entravision claims that it believed no other remedial
actions beyond the steps it claimed to have taken on July 1 and 2,
2004, were required until July 16, 2004, when the agent informed the
station engineer that the posted sign was not visible and that an
additional sign should be placed on the tower itself. Entravision
disputes that the posted sign was obscured and states that it did post
an additional sign on its tower as requested. Finally, Entravision
reiterates that it voluntarily reduced its power in October 2004.
Because all of Entravision's efforts took place after, and because of,
inspections by the Tampa agents, we find that Entravision has produced
no evidence to support a good faith reduction in the forfeiture
amount. Moreover, Entravision's remedial actions to correct promptly
violations after they have been identified by an agent are expected
and do not warrant a reduction or cancellation in the forfeiture
amount.
21. We believe the $25,000 forfeiture amount proposed by the Tampa Office
is appropriate. Entravision failed to appropriately erect warning
signs on, and restrict access to, an area on the penthouse rooftop
which exceeded the general population/uncontrolled RFR MPE limit. In
addition, Entravision acknowledges that an area on the Penthouse roof
exceeded the much higher occupational/controlled RFR MPE limits, but
made no efforts to ensure that even workers and employees who had RFR
expertise had enough information, by means of warning signs and
contact information, to exercise control over their exposure. Of
particular concern is the fact that this condition began after the
modifications approved in the WVEA-LP 2004 Modification Application,
which was granted on January 20, 2004, were put into place. Despite
Entravision's assurances to the Commission in that application, that
the transmitting site would be "appropriately marked with warning
signs," and that it would limit workers' exposure to RFR by various
methods, Entravision was apparently not even aware of the RFR issues
on the penthouse rooftop until it was contacted by a Tampa agent to
arrange the July 1, 2004, inspection. We find the combination of these
violations, along with Entravision's studied ignorance of its own
statements and obligations, to be particularly egregious.
22. We have examined Entravision'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 find no basis for
cancellation or reduction of the $25,000 forfeiture proposed for this
violation.
IV. ordering clauses
23. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and
1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC IS
LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand
dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section
1.1310 of the Rules.
24. 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.
25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First
Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Entravision
Holdings, LLC at its record of address and to its counsel, Barry A.
Friedman, Thompson Hine LLP, 1920 N Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Dennis P. Carlton
Regional Director
South Central Region
Enforcement Bureau
47 C.F.R. S 1.1310.
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200532700004
(Enf. Bur., Tampa Office, January 5, 2005) ("NAL"). A Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for violation of the RFR
Rules was issued to Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Florida, licensee
of station WQYK-FM, on January 5, 2005. See Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200532700005 (Enf. Bur., Tampa Office,
January 5, 2005).
47 C.F.R. S 1.1310.
47 C.F.R. S 1.1310, Note 1 to Table 1.
Id.
47 C.F.R. S 1.1310, Note 2 to Table 1.
See, for example, Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating
Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic Fields (1997) ("OET Bulletin 65").
File No. BPTTL-2003008ABP, granted January 20, 2004.
Specifically, the exhibit stated that "[s]uch measures will include
reducing the average exposure by spreading out the work over a longer
period of time, wearing `accepted' RFR protective clothing and/or RFR
exposure monitors or scheduling work when the stations are at reduced
power or shut down." WVEA-LP 2004 Modification Application, RFR Exhibit at
4.
Another station's transmitter was found to produce power density levels
that exceeded 5% of the power density exposure limit applicable to its
particular transmitter. This station is also responsible for ensuring the
penthouse rooftop's compliance with the RFR limits. See 47 C.F.R. S
1.1307(b)(3).
Such information allows workers who are fully aware of the potential for
their exposure to make informed decisions and exercise control over their
exposures. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1310, Note 1 to Table 1. See also OET
Bulletin 65 at 55 - 59.
Entravision requested an extension to submit its response to the NAL,
which was granted by the Bureau.
47 U.S.C. S 503(b).
47 C.F.R. S 1.80.
47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(D).
See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1310, Table 1.
See 47 C.F.R. SS 1.1307(b), 1.1307(b)(1), 1.1310.
47 C.F.R. S 1.1307(b)(3).
47 C.F.R. SS 1.1307(b)(1), 1.1307(b)(5), 1.1310. Additional guidance is
provided OET Bulletin 65.
NAL at para. 3.
See, e.g., OET Bulletin 65 at 1 - 10.
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. 47 C.F.R. S 1.1310, Note 1 to Table 1.
47 C.F.R. S 1.1310, Note 2 to Table 1.
Following release of the NAL, we received information from Infinity that
there is also a warning sign on the door to the penthouse rooftop entry
area. However, according to the building's chief engineer, this door
leading to the penthouse rooftop upon which this sign was posted was
typically propped open. With the door propped open, the warning sign faces
the wall and is not visible. On each of the six occasions the agents
inspected the site, the door was propped open and the agents did not see
any sign. We note that Entravision did not reference any mention of this
sign in their response to the NAL.
See Americom Las Vegas Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
FCC 06-174, 2006 WL 3472472 (rel. December 1, 2006) (Commission found that
the burden is on the licensee to ensure that RFR warning signs are visible
to the affected population).
We note that Entravision's argument that it is not required to provide RFR
information training to building employees appears to indicate that it has
no knowledge as to whether the building employees who access the penthouse
rooftop have the needed information and training to allow them to be fully
aware of their potential for exposure and exercise control over it.
47 C.F.R. S 1.1307(b)(3).
47 C.F.R. S 1.1307(b)(3).
RF Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 13522 (1997).
Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Florida, licensee of WQYK-FM, is the
other licensee at the Park Tower site whose transmitter produced power
density levels that exceeded 5% of the power density exposure limit
applicable to its transmitter. See n. 1, supra.
WVEA-LP 2004 Modification Application, RFR Exhibit at 4.
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 AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 21866 (2002).
See OET Bulletin 65 at 56.
WVEA-LP 2004 Modification Application, RFR Exhibit at 4.
47 U.S.C. S 504(a).
See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.
(Continued from previous page)
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-549
1
7
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-549