Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | File No.: EB-04-TP-161       |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Entravision Holdings, LLC        | ) | NAL/Acct. No.: 200532700004  |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Licensee of Station WVEA-LP      | * | FRN: 0001529627              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Tampa, Florida                   | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Facility ID \# 3602              | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

## MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

**Adopted:** December 19, 2007 **Released:** December 21, 2007

By the Associate Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1\. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order"), we grant in part and
deny in part the petition for reconsideration filed by Entravision
Holdings, LLC ("Entravision"), licensee of station WVEA-LP, 662-668 MHz,
in Tampa, Florida of the *Forfeiture Order* issued February 6, 2007.[^1]
In the *Forfeiture Order*, the South Central Region ("Region") of the
Enforcement Bureau imposed a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
\$25,000 on Entravision for the willful and repeated violation of
Section 1.1310 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules").[^2] The noted
violation involved Entravision's failure to comply with radio frequency
radiation ("RFR") maximum permissible exposure ("MPE") limits applicable
to facilities, operations, or transmitters.

### 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.[^3] 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.[^4] 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.[^5] 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.[^6] Licensees can demonstrate
    compliance by restricting public access to areas where RFR exceeds
    the public MPE limits.[^7]

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").[^8] 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.[^9]

4.  On May 25, 2004, agents from the Commission's Tampa Office of the
    Enforcement Bureau ("Tampa Office"), 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.[^10] 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]

11. 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. Number range CHAPTEROn 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,[^12]
    requesting that the forfeiture be cancelled or reduced. On February
    6, 2007, the Region released a *Forfeiture Order* assessing a
    monetary forfeiture of \$25,000 against Entravision 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 general
    population MPE limit applied to the penthouse rooftop because
    Entravision failed to ensure that workers and employees with access
    to the penthouse roof where the RFR MPE was exceeded were fully
    aware of their potential for exposure or allowed to exercise control
    over that exposure. Notwithstanding Entravision's assurance to the
    Commission in a 2004 filing that the site would be properly marked
    with warning signs and appropriate measures would exist to assure
    worker safety, 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.[^13] The Region also rejected Entravision's assertion that
    its remedial actions to correct the violation after the field
    agent's inspection warranted a reduction in the proposed forfeiture,
    finding instead, Entravision's lack of prior effort to ensure worker
    safety particularly egregious.[^14] The Region received
    Entravision's petition for reconsideration on March 8, 2007,
    requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture.

**III. DISCUSSION**

13. Reconsideration is appropriate where the petitioner either
    demonstrates a material error or omission in the underlying order or
    raises additional facts or changed circumstances not known or not
    existing until after the petitioner's last opportunity to present
    such matters.[^15] A petition for reconsideration that reiterates
    arguments that were previously considered and rejected will be
    denied.[^16]

14. In its petition for reconsideration, Entravision takes issue with
    the Region's characterization of its actions. Entravision asserts
    that it cooperated fully with the agents from the Tampa Office and
    that it complied with all requests in a timely manner. Contrary to
    the agent's notes of the inspections, Entravision states that on
    July 1, 2004, the agent only asked Entravision to place a warning
    sign in the stairwell to the penthouse rooftop, which it did on
    July 1. Entravision claims that it followed-up an email with a
    picture of the framed caution sign with a telephone call to the
    agent who purportedly indicated that the sign was fine.[^17]
    Entravision also states that, on its own initiative, it marked off
    with yellow paint the area exceeding the occupational/controlled
    limit on the penthouse rooftop by July 2, 2004. Entravision recalls
    discussing the placement of a warning sign on the penthouse rooftop
    on July 16, 2004, but that the agent stated this was not an urgent
    matter. Entravision also denies that the agent informed it on July
    16 that the framed caution sign in the penthouse rooftop stairwell
    was inadequate. In addition, Entravision states that it informed the
    Park Tower landlord about the RFR on the penthouse rooftop via email
    on July 2, 2004. Accordingly, Entravision requests that the
    forfeiture be cancelled or at least reduced to the base forfeiture
    amount.

15. Assuming *arguendo* that Entravision's recollection of its
    discussions with the agent from the Tampa Office and its
    descriptions of its actions are correct, we find no grounds upon
    which to cancel the forfeiture. All of Entravision's actions with
    respect to the excessive RFR on the penthouse rooftop occurred after
    being informed of the RFR violation by the agent from the Tampa
    Office. As the Region stated in the *Forfeiture Order*, licensees
    are expected to take corrective action upon being advised of a
    violation, and such efforts do not warrant reduction or cancellation
    of the forfeiture.[^18] Moreover, Entravision does not deny
    that: (1) it certified in the WVEA-LP 2004 Modification Application
    that access to the transmitting site would be restricted and
    properly marked with warning signs and that measures to assure
    worker safety would be in effect in the event that workers or
    authorized personnel enter the restricted area; (2) its transmitter
    was primarily responsible for RFR on the penthouse rooftop which
    exceeded both the general public/uncontrolled RFR MPE limit and the
    occupational/controlled RFR MPE limit; (3) agents from the Tampa
    Office measured RFR levels on the penthouse rooftop in excess of the
    general public/uncontrolled and occupational/controlled RFR MPE
    limits on May 25, June 18, and July 1, 2004; (4) prior to the start
    of the July 1, 2004 inspection, its 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;[^19] and (5) prior to July
    1, 2004, there were no RFR warning signs on or near the penthouse
    rooftop and no yellow markings to inform workers of the specific
    areas in excess of the occupational/controlled limits. Accordingly,
    it is undisputed that prior to July 1, 2004, workers, who entered
    the penthouse rooftop area and were not informed of the areas
    exceeding the general and occupational limits, were not fully aware
    of the potential for exposure and could not exercise control over
    their exposure. It is also undisputed that Entravision did not speak
    directly to any workers regarding the RFR levels on the penthouse
    rooftop.[^20] Therefore, the general public/uncontrolled limits
    applied to the penthouse rooftop. Accordingly, Entravision willfully
    and repeatedly violated Section 1.1310 of the Rules by creating RFR
    fields in excess of the general public MPE limits and failing to
    adequately warn workers of the danger.

16. Entravision also asserts that the requirements contained in Section
    1.1310 of the Rules are not yet universally understood, due to a
    pending rulemaking, and cannot be construed as imposing training
    requirements upon licensees as an official enforceable RFR
    obligation. Entravision argues that because the pending 2003
    rulemaking proposes 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,
    the Commission cannot impose a civil liability on a licensee based
    on that uncertain standard.[^21] We disagree that the Region held
    Entravision to an uncertain or unenforceable standard or that the
    Region based its determination of liability on a proposed standard.

17. The 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.[^22] These important
    public safety and environmental rules have very specific maximum
    permissible exposure limits for two specifically defined
    populations.[^23] 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.[^24] 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.[^25]

18. That the Commission proposed to explain that "fully aware" for a
    worker means receipt of verbal and written information and also
    training on mitigating and controlling exposure, does not alter the
    basic requirement that has existed in the rules since 1996, and for
    which compliance guidance was provided by the Commission in 1997. In
    *OET Bulletin 65*, the OET published guidance for Commission
    licensees concerning controlling exposure to RF fields. When dealing
    with compliance with the Commission's public MPE limit, the OET
    stated that:

    Restricting access is usually the simplest means of controlling
    exposure to areas where high RF levels may be present. Methods of
    doing this include fencing and posting such areas or locking out
    unauthorized persons in areas, such as rooftop locations, where this
    is practical. There may be situations where RF levels may exceed the
    MPE limits for the general public in remote areas, such as mountain
    tops, that could conceivably be accessible but are not likely to be
    visited by the public. In such cases, common sense should dictate
    how compliance is to be achieved. If the area of concern is properly
    marked by appropriate warning signs, fencing or the erection of
    other permanent barriers may not be necessary.[^26]

    Moreover, the Commission stated in 1997 that "responsibilities
    pertaining to RF electromagnetic fields properly belong\[\] with our
    licensees and applicants, rather than with site owners."[^27]
    Consequently, we cannot accept Entravision's attempt to obfuscate
    its responsibilities by suggesting that the Region held it liable
    for a civil forfeiture for failing to provide written and verbal
    information and training to all workers potentially exposed to RF on
    the penthouse rooftop. The critical facts are not in dispute. Prior
    to the inspection, Entravision placed a warning sign at the entrance
    to the main rooftop and had a conversation with the Park Tower
    building management about the "RFR on the roof." The warning sign
    was not near the separate entrance to the penthouse rooftop and did
    not specify which areas on the main rooftop or penthouse rooftop
    exceeded the general limits. Thus, this written sign could not
    provide basic awareness of the nature of the RFR levels on the
    *penthouse* rooftop. Other than the existence of the sign leading to
    the main rooftop, and conversations with the Park Tower building
    management, Entravision 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" of their potential
    exposure. Therefore, the fact that the Commission has proposed to
    explicitly define "fully aware" in a rulemaking is irrelevant to the
    Region's finding that Entravision violated Section 1.1310 of the
    Rules. Entravision violated the rules because it failed to provide
    workers *any* awareness of the RFR on the penthouse rooftop, not
    because it failed to provide RFR training to workers.

19. Entravision also argues that civil liability is not appropriate
    where the standards in question are too uncertain to be properly
    enforceable,[^28] and cites to *Rollins Environmental Services,
    Inc., v. Environmental Protection Agency*[^29]*(*"*Rollins*") and
    *Diamond Roofing Company v. Occupational Safety and Health Review
    Commission*[^30] ("*Diamond*"). Both cases, however are
    distinguishable from the instant case. In *Rollins*, the United
    States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found
    that a \$25,000 penalty imposed upon Rollins Environmental Services
    by the EPA was not justified because it penalized Rollins for
    violating a rule without first providing adequate notice of the
    substance of the rule.[^31] In *Diamond*, the United States Court of
    Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that a citation issued
    against Diamond Roofing Company by the Secretary of Labor must be
    vacated because the Secretary failed to state with ascertainable
    certainty what was meant by the regulations at issue.[^32]
    Specifically, Diamond was cited for failing to install a guardrail
    on an "open-sided roof" when the phrase "open-sided roof" was not
    contained in the regulation which required the installation of the
    guardrail. In the present case, as detailed above, the Commission
    has made it clear with ascertainable certainty, in both Section
    1.1310 of the Rules, and in its published guidance, that workers
    must be made fully aware of the potential for exposure and must be
    able to exercise control over their exposure. The Commission has
    published guidance that this can be achieved by appropriate signage
    at an area or by restricting access to that area, or both. Because
    Entravision had notice of these requirements, and failed to
    successfully do either, we find that neither *Rollins* nor *Diamond*
    compels us to reduce or cancel the forfeiture assessed by the
    Region.

20. Finally, Entravision asserts that its forfeiture should be reduced,
    because its case is similar to Infinity Broadcasting, a licensee,
    which maintains a transmitter on the penthouse rooftop and which
    received a \$10,000 forfeiture for violating Section 1.1310 of the
    Rules.[^33] Entravision also argues that the Region failed to take
    into consideration its good faith efforts to comply with the
    Commission's Rules. We disagree that that Region failed to take
    Entravision's efforts into consideration. In the *Forfeiture Order,*
    the Region specifically stated that it declined to reduce the
    forfeiture amount based on Entavision's good faith efforts because
    all of Entravision's good faith "efforts took place after, and
    because of, inspections by the Tampa agents."[^34] However, we agree
    with Entravision that the appropriate forfeiture amount here is
    \$10,000. This is consistent with the Commission's determination in
    other RFR enforcement actions.[^35] Consequently, we reduce the
    forfeiture amount to \$10,000.

21. We have considered the arguments raised by the Entravision in its
    petition for reconsideration. We grant that petition to the extent
    indicated herein and deny it all other respects.

**V. ORDERING CLAUSES**

22. Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED** that, pursuant to Section 405 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended,[^36] and Section 1.106 of
    the Commission's Rules,[^37] Entravision Holdings, LLC's petition
    for reconsideration of the February 6, 2007 *Forfeiture Order*
    **IS** hereby **GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART**.

23. **IT IS ALSO ORDERED** that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,
    and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,[^38]
    Entravision Holdings, LLC, **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.

24. Payment of the \$10,000 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.[^39]
    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.[^40]

25. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that this *Order* shall be sent by regular
    mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Entravision
    Holdings, LLC at its address of record and its counsel, Barry
    Friedman, Thompson Hine LLP, 1920 N Street NW, Suite 800,
    Washington, DC 20036.

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

George R. Dillon

Associate Chief, Enforcement Bureau

[^1]: *Entravision Holdings, LLC*, 22 FCC Rcd 2279 (EB 2007)
    ("*Forfeiture Order*").

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 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) ("*Guidelines*"*).*

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310.

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 1 to Table 1.

[^5]: *Id*.

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2 to Table 1.

[^7]: *See, for example,* Office of Engineering and Technology,
    *Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to
    Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields* (1997) ("*OET Bulletin 65*").

[^8]: File No. BPTTL-2003008ABP, granted January 20, 2004.

[^9]: 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.

[^10]: 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. § 1.1307(b)(3).

[^11]: 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. § 1.1310, Note 1 to
    Table 1. *See also OET Bulletin 65* at 55 -- 59.

[^12]: Entravision requested an extension to submit its response to the
    *NAL*, which was granted by the Region.

[^13]: *Forfeiture Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 2284 -- 2285.

[^14]: *Id.* at 2286.

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

[^16]: *EZ Sacramento, Inc.,* 15 FCC Rcd at 18257, ¶ 2.

[^17]: Petition for Reconsideration at 4.

[^18]: *Forfeiture Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 2285 -- 2286. *See Radio X
    Broadcasting Corporation*, 21 FCC Rcd 12209 (2006); *AT&T Wireless
    Services, Inc*., 17 FCC Rcd 21866 (2002).

[^19]: The *Forfeiture Order* stated that 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.
    However, the background sections of the *Forfeiture Order* and the
    *NAL* state that on July 1, 2004, 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.

[^20]: Entravision asserts it contacted the Park Tower landlord and the
    building's Chief Engineer prior to the July inspections. The
    building's Chief Engineer claims he had no knowledge of the areas on
    the penthouse rooftop exceeding the general and occupational MPE
    limits prior to May 25.

[^21]: Petition for Reconsideration at 8-9; *Proposed Changes in the
    Commission's Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency
    Electromagnetic Fields*, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd
    13187, 13201 (2003).

[^22]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 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.* *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); *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).

[^23]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Table 1. The MPE limits are generally
    based on recommended exposure guidelines published by the National
    Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP") in
    "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency
    Electromagnetic Fields," NCRP Report No. 86, Sections 17.4.1,
    17.4.1.1., 17.4.2, and 17.4.3 (1986). In the frequency range from
    100 MHz to 1500 MHz, the MPE limits are also generally based on
    guidelines contained in the RF safety standard developed by the
    Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. ("IEEE") and
    adopted by the American National Standards Institute ("ANSI") in
    Section 4.1 of "IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to
    Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to
    300 GHz," ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 (1992). Table 1 in Section 1.1310 of
    the Rules provides that the general population RFR maximum
    permissible exposure limit for a station operating in the frequency
    range of 30 MHz to 300 MHz is 0.200 mW/cm^2^ and the general
    population RFR maximum permissible exposure limit for a station
    operating in the frequency range of 300 MHz to 1500 MHz is f/1500
    mW/cm^2^ which for station KWHY-TV operating on 512 - 518 MHz is
    0.345 mW/cm^2^.

[^24]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 1 to Table 1.

[^25]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2 to Table 1.

[^26]: *OET Bulletin 65* at 53 (footnotes omitted).

[^27]: *RF Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 13522
    (1997); *Radio One Licenses, LLC*, 21 FCC Rcd 14271, 14277 (2006).

[^28]: Petition for Reconsideration at 9.

[^29]: 937 F.2d 649 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

[^30]: 528 F.2d 645 (5^th^ Cir. 1976).

[^31]: 937 F.2d at 654.

[^32]: 528 F.2d at 649.

[^33]: *See Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Florida*, 22 FCC Rcd
    2288 (EB 2007).

[^34]: *Forfeiture Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 2286.

[^35]: *Radio One Licenses, LLC*, 21 FCC Rcd 14271, 14278 (2006).

[^36]: 47 U.S.C. § 405.

[^37]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.106.

[^38]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

[^39]: 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).

[^40]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.