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                                                     
                                             )                               
                                                                             
                                             )                               


                                ORDER ON REVIEW

   Adopted: April 7, 2009 Released: April 7, 2009

   By the Commission:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Order on Review ("Order"), we deny the application for review
       filed by CBS Radio Inc. of Tampa, formerly Infinity Broadcasting
       Corporation of Florida ("Infinity"), licensee of station WQYK-FM, 99.5
       MHz, serving St. Petersburg, Florida, pursuant to Section 1.115 of the
       Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Infinity seeks review of the Forfeiture
       Order issued February 6, 2007, by the Enforcement Bureau South Central
       Region ("Region") imposing a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
       $10,000 on Infinity for the willful and repeated violation of Section
       1.1310 of the Rules. The noted violation involved Infinity's failure
       to comply with radio frequency radiation ("RFR") maximum permissible
       exposure ("MPE") limits applicable to facilities, operations, or
       transmitters. In this Order, we consider the various arguments raised
       by Infinity and for the reasons set forth below, we deny the
       application for review and affirm the Region's finding of liability
       and the forfeiture amount assessed in the Forfeiture Order.

   II. BACKGROUND

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

    3. The MPE limits specified in Table 1 of Section 1.1310 are used to
       evaluate the environmental impact of human exposure to RFR and apply
       to "...all facilities, operations and transmitters regulated by the
       Commission." Further, the FCC's rules require that if the MPE limits
       are exceeded in an accessible area due to the emissions of multiple
       transmitters, actions necessary to bring the area into compliance "are
       the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce,
       at the area in question, power density levels that exceed 5% of the
       power density exposure limit applicable to their particular
       transmitter." The 5% threshold applies to the power density limit or
       to the square of the electric or magnetic field strength limit. If the
       MPE limits are exceeded at an accessible area, all stations that
       produce a power density level exceeding 5% of the power density
       exposure limit applicable to its particular transmitter at that
       accessible area share responsibility to correct the problem. While we
       have urged owners of transmitter sites to allow applicants and
       licensees to take reasonable steps to comply with the Commission's RF
       Rules, the Commission has determined that responsibilities pertaining
       to RF electromagnetic fields belong with licensees and applicants,
       rather than with site owners.

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

    5. The Park Tower rooftop inspection. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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
       engineers were 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.

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

   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 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 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 by failing to comply with RFR MPE limits
       on the penthouse rooftop of Park Tower. Infinity filed a response to
       the NAL on March 16, 2005, requesting that the forfeiture be
       rescinded. While not disputing the RFR measurements, Infinity argued
       that the occupational/controlled RFR MPE limit should have been
       applied to the penthouse roof rather than the public/uncontrolled RFR
       MPE limits; 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.

   14. On February 6, 2007, the Region released a Forfeiture Order assessing
       a monetary forfeiture of $10,000 against Infinity for willful and
       repeated violation of Section 1.1310 of the Commission's Rules by
       failing to comply with RFR MPE limits applicable to facilities,
       operations or transmitters. The Region determined that the public MPE
       limits applied because workers and employees accessing the penthouse
       rooftop were wholly unaware of the potential for high RFR on the
       penthouse rooftop because there were no RFR warning signs on the
       penthouse rooftop and no markings or delineations of the area of high
       RFR, and the one and only RFR sign leading to the penthouse rooftop
       was routinely hidden from view of those accessing the penthouse roof
       Accordingly, with no knowledge of the existence of RFR on the
       penthouse rooftop and the potential for exposure and no means of
       controlling exposure to the RFR on the rooftop that exceeded the MPE
       limits, the public MPE limits apply to workers and employees accessing
       the rooftop and exposed to the RFR as a consequence of their
       employment. The Region also determined that Infinity, as a licensee
       contributing more than 5% of its transmitter's RFR MPE limit, was
       obligated under the Commission's Rules to ensure RFR awareness and
       control for the affected workers and employees, not the Park Tower
       building management. The Region also rejected Infinity's argument that
       the violation was not willful, finding 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, the Region found that
       Infinity was aware of its responsibilities pursuant to the
       Commission's RFR Rules, and failed to comply with them. The Region
       did, however, eliminate the upward adjustment of the proposed
       forfeiture and assessed the base forfeiture amount of $10,000.

   III. DISCUSSION

   15. In this Order we deny Infinity's Application for Review,  and affirm
       the Region's finding of liability and the forfeiture amount assessed
       in the Forfeiture Order. We find that through the RFR rules, the
       various orders on reconsideration of the rules, OET Bulletin 65 and
       the subsequent enforcement orders that the Commission has issued and
       published since 1996, a regulated party acting in good faith would be
       able to identify, with ascertainable certainty, the standards with
       which the Commission expects parties to conform in order to comply
       with the RFR rules. We further find that licensees and applicants must
       comply with the MPE limits for RFR found in Section 1.1310 of the
       rules; and that Section 1.1307(b)(3) of the rules places an
       affirmative duty on 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, to
       ensure compliance with the Section 1.1310 limits at the relevant
       sites.

   16. Infinity raises three primary arguments in its Application for Review.
       First, Infinity argues that it and other similarly situated licensees
       lacked notice of the RFR standards applicable to rooftop antenna sites
       and that the Commission's RFR compliance standards to ensure workers
       are fully aware of their potential for RFR exposure fails the
       requirement that licensees should be able to identify, with
       ascertainable certainty, the standards for complying with the rules. 
       In support, Infinity cites to a pending rulemaking aimed at clarifying
       the definitions of the terms "fully aware" and "exercise control"
       contained in Section 1.1310 of the rules. Second, Infinity argues that
       Section 1.1310 contains no substantive prohibitions and imposes
       requirements on the Commission, not on licensees. Third, Infinity
       asserts that strict liability for licensees contributing 5% to an RFR
       field in excess of the MPE is unreasonable when a licensee is unaware
       a violation exists. Infinity also disputes some of the facts detailed
       above.

   17. Infinity first argues that it cannot be held liable for a forfeiture
       for violating the RFR MPE limits because it was unable to identify
       with ascertainable certainty the standards to which the Commission,
       through its field agents, expected it to comply on a restricted access
       rooftop antenna farm. We disagree. The ascertainable certainty
       standard that Infinity cites to stands for the proposition that an
       agency must provide fair notice of the obligation being imposed on a
       regulatee, i.e., that "by reviewing the regulations and other public
       statements issued by the agency a regulated party acting in good faith
       would be able to identify, with ascertainable certainty, the standards
       with which the agency expects parties to conform before imposing civil
       liability."

   18. Infinity was found by the Region to have violated Section 1.1310 of
       the Commission's rules. Note 2 to Table 1 of Section 1.1310 states
       that the "general population/uncontrolled exposures apply in
       situations in which the general public may be exposed, or in which
       persons exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be fully
       aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over
       their exposure." Infinity bases its argument of lack of ascertainable
       certainty of the RFR requirements on the existence of an open
       rulemaking commenced by the Commission in 2003 that proposed, among
       other things, to clarify the terms "fully aware" and "exercise
       control" from Note 2 to Table 1 of Section 1.1310, and on the alleged
       lack of a standard for compliance with these requirements. We first
       disagree that the existence of the open rulemaking cited by  Infinity
       casts doubt on the basic and clearly articulated requirements of FCC
       licensees to comply with the important public safety RFR MPE limits
       applicable to facilities, operations and transmitters.  As noted,
       agency regulations, orders, rulemakings, and guidance documents have
       provided notice of the Commission's  expectations related to
       compliance with the RFR rules, and in particular to restricting access
       to, marking and signing areas with high RFR exposure. In the 1996
       Report and Order adopting the RFR rules, the Commission stated that
       "warning signs and labels can also be used to establish such awareness
       as long as they provide information, in a prominent manner, on risk of
       potential exposure and instructions on methods to minimize such
       exposure risk." In OET Bulletin 65, the Commission provided explicit
       guidance on compliance expectations, stating:

   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.

   . . . .

   Exposure to RF fields in the workplace or in other controlled environments
   usually presents different problems than does exposure of the general
   public. For example, with respect to a given RF transmitting facility, a
   worker at that facility would be more likely to be close to the radiating
   source than would a person who happens to live nearby. Although
   restricting access to high RF field areas is also a way to control
   exposures in such situations, this may not always be possible. . . .

   In general, a locked rooftop or other appropriately restricted area that
   is only accessible to workers who are "aware of" and "exercise control
   over" their exposure would meet the criteria for occupational/controlled
   exposure, and protection would be required at the applicable
   occupational/controlled MPE limits for those individuals who have access
   to the rooftop. Persons who are only "transit" visitors to the rooftop,
   such as air conditioning technicians, etc., could also be considered to
   fall within the occupational/controlled criteria as long as they also are
   "made aware" of their exposure and exercise control over their exposure.

   19. The Region found, in the Forfeiture Order, that the public MPE limits
       applied because Park Tower workers and employees accessing the
       penthouse rooftop were unaware of the potential for high RFR on the
       penthouse rooftop because there were no indications on the penthouse
       rooftop that the MPE limits exceeded applicable standards such as
       through the use of RFR warning signs on the rooftop or markings or
       delineations of the area on the rooftop of high RFR. Moreover, the
       Region found that, although there was one sign posted on a door
       leading to the rooftop that indicated that the MPE limits exceeded
       applicable standards, that one and only RFR sign was routinely hidden
       from view of those accessing the penthouse roof because the door was
       routinely open. Indeed, on each of six occasions that the Tampa agents
       inspected the site the door was propped open, and the agents did not
       see the sign.  Consequently, while access to the area of concern was
       restricted, no visible signage or markings existed to make workers and
       employees entering the area of concern even aware of their exposure,
       let alone enable such workers or employees to exercise control over
       their exposure to high RFR fields in the area of concern. Infinity
       failed to sign and mark the area of concern on the penthouse rooftop,
       a minimal requirement necessary to ensure worker awareness of even the
       existence of high RFR fields and a standard articulated by the
       Commission when it adopted the RFR rules and in the guidance issued by
       the Commission in OET Bulletin 65. Contrary to Infinity's assertion,
       the Region did not hold Infinity to a "fully aware" standard that
       required training, as proposed by the open rulemaking.

   20. We also note that Infinity submitted an RFR exhibit related to the
       Park Tower site in the renewal application for Station WQYK in which
       Infinity 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.
       Infinity also stated in the exhibit that a plan is in effect and
       understood by all licensees at the antenna site to protect workers
       accessing the penthouse roof. Finally, Infinity stated in the exhibit
       that access to the transmitting site is restricted and properly marked
       with warning signs and thereby classified as a controlled environment.
       We find that by Infinity's own submissions, it understood with
       ascertainable certainty what was required by the Commission, yet
       failed to comply with the standards it certified were in place to
       ensure RFR compliance at the Park Tower penthouse rooftop antenna
       site.

   21. We find that through the RFR rules, the various orders on
       reconsideration of the rules, OET Bulletin 65 and the subsequent
       enforcement orders that the Commission has issued and published since
       1996 and under the facts presented here, WQYK-FM would have been  able
       to identify, with ascertainable certainty, the standards with which we
       expect parties to conform in order to comply with our RFR rules. We
       cannot accept Infinity's assertion that the mere existence of the open
       pending rulemaking from 2003 hamstrings our ability to enforce these
       important public safety rules.

   22. Infinity disputes that the Park Tower's chief engineer and his
       personnel access the penthouse roof on a regular basis. Infinity
       asserts that there is no building-maintained equipment on the
       penthouse rooftop and suggests the building engineer was confusing the
       main rooftop, which does contained building-maintained equipment, with
       the penthouse rooftop which contains only television, radio and
       microwave equipment. We have reviewed the record of the statement made
       by the Park Tower chief engineer and we conclude that the engineer
       indicated to the Tampa agent that he and his personnel routinely
       access both the roof and the penthouse roof. While there may not be
       any building-maintained equipment on the penthouse roof, as Infinity
       asserts, it is indisputable that the engineer and his personnel are
       responsible for the maintenance of the penthouse roof itself.
       Therefore, we find no merit to Infinity's argument that the Park Tower
       Chief engineer and his personnel do not access the penthouse roof.

   23. Infinity also disputes that on July 15, 2004, when a Tampa 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. Infinity argues that the engineer had no
       knowledge of "the overage" until July 20, 2004, at the earliest. The
       Tampa agent's notes indicate otherwise. However, if we accept
       Infinity's assertion from its response to the NAL, that the WQYK-FM
       engineer was actually talking about an RFR issue that occurred on the
       roof in 2003, we find that it further supports the Region's
       determination that Infinity was aware of the requirements concerning
       compliance with the RFR rules. Consequently, we find no merit in this
       argument.

   24. Infinity also argues that Section 1.1310 of the rules contains "no
       substantive prohibitions at all" and simply identifies criteria which
       "applicants and the Commission are required to take into consideration
       in evaluating whether Commission actions are deemed to have a
       significant effect on the quality the environment [sic] for purposes
       of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969." While Infinity is
       correct that Section 1.1310 delineates the appropriate standard for
       that evaluation, Infinity ignores numerous Commission documents and
       decisions that clearly require licensees and applicants to comply with
       the MPE limits for RFR set forth in Section 1.1310 of the Rules.
       Specifically, the instructions for FCC Form 303-S, the renewal
       application form signed and submitted by Infinity in its 2004 WQYK-FM
       Renewal Application, remind applicants that "[i]n 1996, the Commission
       adopted guidelines and procedures for evaluating environmental effects
       of RF emissions. All applications subject to environmental processing
       . . . must demonstrate compliance with these requirements." Those
       instructions detail the two tiers of exposure limits (general
       population/uncontrolled and occupational/controlled) contained in
       Section 1.1310 and repeatedly direct applicants to OET Bulletin 65,
       which repeatedly cites to Section 1.1310 and gives guidance to
       licensees and applicants on compliance with the guidelines contained
       in Section 1.1310. In addition, as reiterated by the Region in both
       the NAL and Forfeiture Order, the Commission has held repeatedly that
       Section 1.1310 of the Rules requires licensees to comply with RFR
       exposure limits. Consequently, we find that the Commission gave
       Infinity, and all similarly situated licensees, fair notice of the
       requirements and its interpretation of Section 1.1310 of the rules.

   25. Infinity also asserts that the Commission may not hold Infinity liable
       for another licensee's violation, where Infinity had no knowledge of
       the violation. Specifically, Infinity argues that the Region is
       holding it liable for a violation actually committed by Entravision,
       and that Infinity did not willfully violate that RFR rules. We
       disagree. Contrary to Infinity's assertion that the Region's
       interpretation of Section 1.1307(b)(3) imposed a strict liability
       standard on Infinity, we find that Section 1.1307(b)(3), which clearly
       states that compliance with the RFR MPE requirements found in Section
       1.1310 "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," places an affirmative duty on these
       particular licensees to actively ensure compliance with the Section
       1.1310 limits at the relevant sites. There is no dispute that
       Infinity's transmitter produces levels in excess of the 5% power
       density limit applicable to the transmitter at the rooftop site.
       Consequently, it follows that Infinity was obligated, under our Rules,
       to ensure compliance with the RFR rules at the multi-transmitter site
       in question here. Although Infinity argues that it reasonably relied
       upon the grant of an Entravision application in January 2004, in
       assuming that the area was in compliance with the RFR rules, we agree
       with the Region that Infinity's reliance on the Entravision
       application in perpetuity was misplaced. Tampa agents informed
       Infinity through its station engineer in mid-July 2004 that it was a
       5% contributor and that the area was not in compliance with the RFR
       rules. As explained above, non-compliance continued well into
       September 2004, when agents found that Entravision, but not Infinity,
       placed additional signage on its antenna concerning occupational
       limits, but continued to fail to place signage concerning public
       limits. Thus, Infinity  willfully failed to act to ensure compliance
       as a 5% contributor at the rooftop site with the Section 1.1310 RFR
       MPE requirements. Furthermore, we note that the Region not only
       determined that Infinity willfully violated Section 1.1310, it found
       that Infinity also repeatedly violated Section 1.1310, a finding
       Infinity does not dispute. Therefore, a finding of willfulness was not
       essential to imposition of the forfeiture.

   26. Upon review of the Application for Review and the entire record
       herein, we conclude that Infinity has failed to demonstrate that the
       Region erred and we affirm the Forfeiture Order.

   IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

   27. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the
       Commission's Rules, the Application for Review filed by CBS Radio Inc.
       of Tampa, formerly Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Florida, IS
       hereby DENIED.

   28. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and
       Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, CBS Radio Inc. of Tampa, formerly
       Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Florida, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY
       FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for willful
       and repeated violation of Section 1.1310 of the Rules.

   29. 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/Account
       Number and FRN Number referenced above. Payment by check or money
       order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box
       979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by overnight mail may be
       sent to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005
       Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer may be
       made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account
       number 27000001. For payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159
       (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.  When completing the FCC Form
       159, enter the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other
       ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type
       code). Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be
       sent to:  Chief Financial Officer -- Financial Operations, 445 12th
       Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C.  20554.   Please contact
       the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email:
       ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures. 

   30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall be sent by regular mail
       and by certified mail, return receipt requested, to CBS Radio Inc. of
       Tampa, formerly Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Florida, at its
       address of record and its counsel, Steven Lerman, Esquire, Leventhal,
       Senter & Lerman PLLC, 2000 K Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC
       20006.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.115.

   Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Florida, 22 FCC Rcd 2288 (EB 2007)
   ("Forfeiture Order").

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.1310. See also Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental
   Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, Report and Order, ET Docket No.
   93-62, 11 FCC Rcd 15123 (1996) ("Guidelines Report and Order"), recon.
   granted in part, First Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17512
   (1996), recon. granted in part, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and
   Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 13494 (1997) ("Second
   Guidelines").

   The description of the history of the RFR rules here was originally set
   forth in Radio One Licenses, LLC, 21 FCC Rcd 14271 (2006).

   Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency
   Radiation, Report and Order, ET Docket No. 93-62, 11 FCC Rcd 15123 (1996)
   ("RF First Report and Order"), recon. granted in part, First Memorandum
   Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17512 (1996), recon. granted in part, Second
   Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd
   13494 (1997) ("RF Second Memorandum Opinion and Order").

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

   Table 1 in Section 1.1310 of the Rules provides that the general
   population RFR maximum permissible exposure limit for a station operating
   in the frequency range of 30 MHz to 300 MHz is 0.200 mW/cm.2

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

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

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

   RF Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 13524; 47 C.F.R. S:
   1.1307(b)(3).

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

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

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

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

   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.

   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200532700005
   (Enf. Bur., Tampa Office, January 5, 2005) ("NAL").

   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.

   WQYK-FM 2003 Renewal Application, Section III, Question 6. Infinity also
   stated that "a plan is in effect and understood by all of the licensees 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.

   The Bureau received Infinity's Application for Review on March 8, 2006.
   Pursuant to Section 1.115 of the Commission's Rules, parties may file an
   application for review of an order issued under delegated authority
   directly with the Commission without first seeking reconsideration at the
   Bureau level.

   Trinity Broadcasting of Florida, Inc., v. FCC, 211 F 3rd 618, 628 (D.C.
   Cir. 2000).

   Proposed Changes in the Commission's Rules Regarding Human Exposure to
   Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, 18 FCC Rcd 13187 (2003).

   Trinity Broadcasting of Florida, Inc. v. FCC,  211 F 3rd at 628.

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

   As the Bureau recently noted, "[th]e RFR rules were adopted by the
   Commission in 1996, licensee responsibilities were reiterated and
   clarified by the Commission in 1997, compliance guidance was provided by
   the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology ("OET") in 1997,
   public notice of the deadline for all licensees to be in compliance with
   the MPE standards was provided in 2000, and the first civil liability for
   violation of these rules was proposed in 2002." Entravision Holdings, LLC,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order,  DA 07-5051, (Enf. Bur. December 21, 2007)
   at P: 17 n. 22.  See also, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1307, 1.1310; 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); OET Bulletin 65; Public
   Notice, Year 2000 Deadline for Compliance with Commission's Regulations
   Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Emissions (released Feb. 25,
   2000); Public Notice, Erratum to February 25, 2000 Public Notice, 15 FCC
   Rcd 13600 (2000); Public Notice, Reminder of September 1, 2000, Deadline
   for Compliance with Regulations for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency
   Emissions, 15 FCC Rcd 18900 (2000); A-O Broadcasting, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd
   24184 (2002) (subsequent history omitted); Americom Las Vegas Limited
   Partnership, 17 FCC Rcd 23689 (EB 2002) (subsequent history omitted); AMFM
   Radio Licenses, LLC, 18 FCC Rcd 22769 (2003) (subsequent history omitted).

   Guidelines Report and Order, 11 RCC Rcd at 15140 (1996).

   OET Bulletin 65 at 53 (footnotes omitted).

   OET Bulletin 65 at 55 (footnotes omitted).

   Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 2292-2293, para. 18.

   The Region also determined that Infinity inappropriately attempted to
   delegate responsibility for RFR compliance to the Park Tower building
   management. We concur. The Commission has clearly articulated that
   responsibility for RFR compliance lies with licensees and applicants, not
   landlords or site owners. RF Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC
   Rcd at 13522 (1997).

   In the rulemaking, the Commission proposes, among other things, to explain
   in a note to Section 1.1310 of the rules "that `fully aware' means that an
   exposed individual has received written and verbal information concerning
   the potential for RF-exposure and has received training regarding
   appropriate work practices relating to controlling or mitigating his or
   her exposure." Proposed Changes in the Commission's Rules Regarding Human
   Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, 18 FCC Rcd at 13201.

   File No. BRH-20031001AGG ("WQYK-FM 2004 Renewal Application"), Exhibit 13.
   We note that this application was granted January 29, 2004.

   Application for Review at 5.

   FCC Form 303-S Instructions at p. 10.

   FCC Form 303-S Instructions at pp. 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20 and 21.

   See e.g., supra P: 18.

   NAL at P: 12;  Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 2291.

   See e.g., A-O Broadcasting, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 24184 (2002) (subsequent
   history omitted); AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC, 18 FCC Rcd 22769 (2003)
   (subsequent history omitted); Americom Las Vegas Limited Partnership, 17
   FCC Rcd 23689 (EB 2002), forfeiture assessed, 19 FCC Rcd 9643 (EB 2004),
   application for review denied, 21 FCC Rcd 14286 (2006).

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

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.115(g).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4).

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

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued . . . )

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-27

   1

   1

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-27