Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
)
In the Matter of
)
Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of
Florida ) File No. EB-04-TP-478
Licensee of Station WQYK-FM ) NAL/Acct. No. 200532700005
Tampa, Florida ) FRN: 0004036711
Facility ID # 28619 )
)
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 ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to Infinity Broadcasting
Corporation of Florida ("Infinity"), licensee of station WQYK-FM, 99.5
MHz, serving St. Petersburg, 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 Tampa Office
issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to Infinity in
the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for the apparent
willful and repeated violation of Section 1.1310 of the Rules. In this
Order, we consider Infinity's arguments concerning the appropriate RFR
MPE limit to be applied at the site in question; that its violation
was not willful; and that there no basis for an upward adjustment of
the forfeiture amount.
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. Infinity, licensee of station WQYK-FM, certified compliance with the
RFR MPE limits in its renewal application for a licensed facility
granted January 29, 2004. The application contained an RFR exhibit for
their location at the Park Tower Office Building ("Park Tower") at 400
North Tampa Street, Tampa, Florida. The exhibit stated that areas on
the penthouse rooftop where the station is located exceed the
Commission's MPE limits for controlled environments and that the areas
are clearly identified and marked. The exhibit also stated that a plan
is in effect and understood by all licensees at the antenna site to
protect workers accessing the penthouse roof. Finally, the exhibit
stated that access to the transmitting site is restricted and properly
marked with warning signs and thereby classified as a controlled
environment.
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 which also greatly exceeded the
general population/uncontrolled RFR MPE limit. The agent determined
that there was a second UHF-TV and two FM radio stations, one of which
belonged to station WQYK-FM, all on separate towers located on the
penthouse rooftop at the time of inspection. 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, agents again took measurements on the penthouse
rooftop of Park Tower. When all four stations were on the air, the RFR
fields at 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.
7. On July 15, 2004, an agent spoke with the engineer for station WQYK-FM
to set up a meeting to conduct an RFR inspection at the transmitter
site. The station engineer stated he knew of areas on the penthouse
rooftop that exceeded the occupational limits and that station WQYK-FM
was contributing more than 5% to those fields.
8. On July 16, 2004, Tampa agents conducted another inspection of the
penthouse rooftop. Entravision Holdings, LLC ("Entravision"), licensee
of WVEA-LP, had placed a small, framed caution sign in the stairwell
to the penthouse roof hatch that listed contact information for the
WVEA-LP station engineer. Entravision had also marked with yellow
paint the penthouse rooftop area exceeding the occupational/controlled
RFR MPE limit, but had not placed warning signs on the penthouse
rooftop itself. The Tampa 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 contribution of both the
general public/uncontrolled RFR MPE limit and the
occupational/controlled RFR MPE limit. When WQYK-FM was taken off the
air and measurements were made, it was determined that WQYK was
responsible for more than 5% of the both occupational/controlled RFR
MPE limit and the general population/uncontrolled RFR MPE limit.
Before leaving, the agents told the station WQYK-FM engineer of his
station's contribution. Although station WVEA-LP had marked the areas
on the penthouse rooftop that exceeded the occupational limit with
yellow paint and placed a framed warning signed in the stairwell, the
engineer for station WQYK-FM was warned that the area was still not
properly marked. The agents also suggested that the station WQYK-FM
engineer speak with the building's chief engineer to discuss other
steps to give the workers knowledge and control over their exposure.
The agents again explained to the station WQYK-FM engineer the RFR
requirements.
9. On July 20, 2004, an agent contacted the station WQYK-FM engineer to
discuss the July 16^th inspection. The station engineer had not posted
any warning signs on the penthouse rooftop and had not contacted the
building's engineer. The agent reminded the station engineer of
station WQYK's responsibility, as a contributor of more than 5% of the
RFR in excess of the allowable limit, to comply with the Commission's
RFR requirements.
10. 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 16 and 20. The building's chief engineer stated the
station WQYK-FM engineer spoke to him briefly about the high fields on
the penthouse roof, but had not discussed any policy to limit rooftop
access only to those with RFR training.
11. On September 30, 2004, agents re-inspected the penthouse rooftop. The
agents found power density levels in excess of the RFR MPE general
population and occupational limits, similar to those previously
detected. Station WVEA-LP had placed a sign on its tower that
cautioned workers that the yellow striped area exceeds safe
occupational levels. The sign, however, did not list any station
contact information to enable workers to inquire as to the level of
the RFR on the penthouse rooftop.
12. On October 26, 2004, the building's chief engineer stated that
Infinity had not yet contacted him to restrict access to the penthouse
rooftop only to workers who had received RFR training. On November 5,
2004, the building's chief engineer contacted the Tampa Office and
stated that station WVEA-LP told him that the transmitter power had
been reduced and the penthouse rooftop was now well below the
occupational limit. Agents made measurements the same day and
confirmed there were no areas on the penthouse rooftop that exceeded
the occupational/controlled RFR MPE limit. There were areas, however,
that were still well above the general population/uncontrolled limit.
13. On January 5, 2005, the Tampa Office issued a NAL to Infinity in the
amount of $20,000 for the apparent willful and repeated violation of
Section 1.1310 of the Rules. Infinity filed a response to the NAL on
March 16, 2005, requesting that the forfeiture be rescinded. In its
response, Infinity does not dispute the RFR measurements discussed in
the NAL, nor does Infinity dispute that it was responsible for a 5%
contribution to both the occupational/controlled and general
population/uncontrolled RFR MPE limits on the Park Tower penthouse
rooftop. Instead, Infinity argues that the occupational/controlled RFR
MPE limit should be applied to the penthouse roof; that the alleged
violation was not willful, as Infinity had no prior knowledge of the
RFR violations at the Park Tower site; and that the Tampa Office
incorrectly assessed an upward adjustment of the forfeiture amount
against Infinity.
III. discussion
14. 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 Infinity'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.
15. 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.
16. Infinity argues that the Park Tower penthouse rooftop is a
"controlled-access environment" and, therefore, the applicable RFR MPE
limits to be applied are the occupational/controlled MPE limits.
Infinity also states that the Park Tower engineer was aware of the
need to maintain the penthouse rooftop as a controlled environment,
that steps had to be taken to limit access and reduce power if
necessary, and that Infinity had complained to the Park Tower engineer
that modifications on the penthouse roof needed to be better
coordinated. Additionally, Infinity argues that a warning sign was
posted on the door at the top of the staircase which led to the
penthouse rooftop. According to Infinity, the combination of this
controlled access, along with the knowledge of the Park Tower
engineer, and the warning sign at the top of the stairs to the
penthouse rooftop requires that we apply only the
occupational/controlled MPE RFR limits to the penthouse roof. We
disagree.
17. 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. 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.
18. The yellow sign posted on the door at the top of the staircase leading
to the penthouse roof stated "CAUTION - Beyond this point: Radio
frequency fields at this site may exceed FCC rules for human exposure.
For your safety, obey all posted signs and site guidelines for working
in radio frequency environments." However, according to the building's
chief engineer, the 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 Tampa agents inspected the site, the door was
propped open and the agents did not see any sign. Additionally, there
is no evidence that there were any posted signs on the penthouse roof
for any worker or employee to obey, even if they had seen the warning
sign that instructed them to look for such signs. Consequently, we
cannot conclude that the existence of this one sign, which was
routinely hidden from those accessing the penthouse roof, on its 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.
19. Infinity also argues that the Commission does not require warning
signs, and that Infinity had warned the Park Tower building
management, and building engineer, concerning a previous RFR issue on
the rooftop in 2003. Infinity also asserts that an Infinity engineer
met with counsel for Entravision in February 2004 about the WVEA-LP
antenna modification, and the RFR levels that could be created by that
modification. Additionally, Infinity states that the Commission may
not assess a forfeiture against Infinity for failing to train the Park
Tower 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.
Infinity 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..."
Infinity operates WQYK-FM'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, Infinity, 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.
20. For the occupational/controlled MPE limits to be considered the
applicable MPE limits on the penthouse rooftop, Infinity 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 warning sign
posted on the door at the top of the staircase leading to the
penthouse roof, which was hidden from view on the six occasions Tampa
agents visited the site, Infinity has failed to produce any evidence
that it or the other licensee operating on the penthouse rooftop
successfully ensured such awareness and control on the part of the
affected workers and employees. Infinity states that it warned the
Park Tower building management concerning a previous RFR issue on the
rooftop in 2003 and complained that modifications to facilities by
rooftop tenants needed to be better coordinated. Infinity also states
that it attempted to modify its lease to include language concerning
RFR compliance. There is no evidence that after an Infinity engineer
met with counsel for Entravision in February 2004 about the WVEA-LP
antenna modification, and the RFR levels that could be created by that
modification, that Infinity took any action concerning RFR levels on
the penthouse rooftop or to ensure that workers and employees
accessing the penthouse rooftop were fully aware of their potential
for exposure and allowed them to exercise control over that exposure.
While Infinity states in its response that it "proactively monitored
compliance with the RFR rules at the [Park Tower] site," it apparently
made no effort concerning compliance at the site from February 5,
2004, until July 15, 2004, when it was first contacted by a Tampa
agent to arrange the July 16, 2004, inspection. As a licensee
contributing more than 5% of its transmitter's RFR MPE limit,
Infinity, 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. Infinity failed to do so,
therefore, the general population/uncontrolled MPE limits must be
applied.
21. Infinity also argues that it had no knowledge that the
occupational/controlled MPE limits had been exceeded on the penthouse
roof and that it was actually a victim of Entravision's violation.
Additionally, Infinity denies that its engineer had any knowledge of
the levels of RFR being created by the WVEA-LP antenna modification
until the problem had been corrected. Infinity argues that, pursuant
to OET Bulletin 65, Entravision was responsible for ensuring
compliance at the penthouse rooftop, because station WVEA-LP submitted
a modification application and that modification caused areas on the
penthouse rooftop to exceed the occupational limit. Infinity further
argues that it fulfilled its obligations when it contacted station
WVEA-LP's consulting engineer and attorney to confirm WVEA-LP's
certification of compliance. Consequently, Infinity argues, it did not
willfully violate Section 1.1310 of the Rules. We disagree.
22. The passages from OET Bulletin 65 cited by Infinity correspond to the
requirement set forth in Section 1.1307(b)(3)(i) of the Rules, which
states that "[a]pplicants for proposed modifications that would cause
non-compliance with the limits specified in S 1.1310 at an accessible
area previously in compliance must submit an EA [Environmental
Assessment] if emissions from the applicant's transmitter would
result, at the area in question, in a power density that exceeds 5% of
the power density exposure limit applicable to that transmitter or
facility..." This requirement, however, does not shield licensees at
multi-emitter environments, once the modification has been granted.
After that time, when the Section 1.1310 MPE limits "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
power density levels that exceed 5% of the power density exposure
limit applicable to their particular transmitter..." Infinity was
aware of the modification being performed at the WVEA-LP antenna and
met with Entravision to inquire about its compliance. Infinity failed,
however, to ensure that the site on the penthouse roof was in
compliance, as required by Section 1.1307(b)(3) of the Rules. We also
note that in its most recent application for renewal of the WQYK-FM
broadcast license, Infinity certified that WQYK-FM "complies with the
maximum permitted radiofrequency electromagnetic exposure limits for
controlled and uncontrolled environments." Consequently, we find that
Infinity was aware of its responsibilities pursuant to the
Commission's RFR Rules, and failed to comply with them. Therefore, we
find that Infinity willfully violated violate Section 1.1310 of the
Rules.
23. Infinity also states that the Tampa Office incorrectly assessed an
upward adjustment of the base forfeiture of $10,000 because, among
other factors, it relied on the issuance of a forfeiture order which
assessed a $10,000 forfeiture against an Infinity affiliate, licensee
of KRTH-FM, Los Angeles, California, for violation of Section 1.1310
of the Rules. Infinity argues that the use of the recent forfeiture
order violates Section 504(c) of the Act because Infinity has not paid
that forfeiture and the case remains the subject of pending
litigation. We agree. The Commission has found that reliance on the
facts underlying prior unpaid notices of apparent liability under
similar circumstances is permitted under Section 504(c), however,
reliance on the issuance of a notice of apparent liability is
prohibited until the forfeiture has been paid or the person is subject
to a final court order to pay. Consequently, we reduce the forfeiture
amount to the base level of $10,000.
24. We have examined Infinity'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 reduce the forfeiture
proposed for this violation to $10,000.
IV. ordering clauses
25. 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, Infinity Broadcasting
Corporation of Florida IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the
amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for willfully and repeatedly
violating Section 1.1310 of the Rules.
26. 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,
445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.
27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First
Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Infinity
Broadcasting Corporation of Florida at its record of address and to
its counsel, Steven A. Lerman, Leventhal, Senter & Lerman PLLC, 2000 K
Street NW Suite 600, Washington, DC 20006-1809.
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. 200532700005
(Enf. Bur., Tampa Office, January 5, 2005) ("NAL"). A Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $25,000 for violation of the RFR
Rules was issued to Entravision Holdings, LLC, licensee of station
WVEA-LP, on January 5, 2005. See Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200532700004 (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. BRH-20031001AGG, granted January 29, 2004 ("WQYK-FM 2003 Renewal
Application").
Infinity disputes that station WQYK-FM's engineer made these statements to
the Tampa agent.
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 pp. 55 - 59.
See Letter from Meredith S. Senter, Jr., counsel for Infinity, to Federal
Communications Commission (dated March 16, 2005). Infinity 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 in OET Bulletin 65.
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.
Additionally, Infinity has produced no "site guidelines" that give workers
or employees enough information to be aware of their potential for
exposure and allow them to exercise control over it.
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).
See infra n. 32.
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).
Entravision, licensee of WVEA-LP, is the other licensee at the Park Tower
site whose transmitter produces power density levels that exceed 5% of
the power density exposure limit applicable its transmitter. See supra
n.1.
OET Bulletin 65 states that in the case of an application for a proposed
modification to a transmitter that would cause non-compliance at an
accessible area previously in compliance, "it is the responsibility of the
applicant to either ensure compliance or submit an EA..." OET Bulletin 65
at 33.
47 C.F.R. S 1.1307(b)(3)(i).
47 C.F.R. S 1.1307(b)(3).
We note that in a prior incident, in 2003, concerning RFR levels which
exceeded the occupational/controlled MPE limits on the Park Tower
penthouse roof, Infinity worked with ZGS Television of Tampa, Inc.
("ZGS"), licensee of WMRD-LP, to bring the affected area into compliance.
Infinity details the steps it took along with ZGS as part of this
undertaking in its response. This further shows that Infinity is aware
that its shares responsibility with other licensees to bring the penthouse
roof into compliance with the Commission's Rules.
WQYK-FM 2003 Renewal Application, Section III, Question 6. Infinity also
stated that "a plan is in effect and understood by all of the licensee at
the antenna site to protect workers on the penthouse roof." We note that
no copy of that plan has been produced in this proceeding.
Radio One Licenses, LLC, 19 FCC Rcd 23922 (2004) affirmed, Radio One
Licenses, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 06-173, 2006 WL 3472471
(rel. December 1, 2006).
47 U.S.C. S 504(c).
SBC Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 4043, 4052 - 53 (2002).
47 U.S.C. S 504(a).
See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.
(Continued from previous page)
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-550
1
2
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-550