**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | File No. EB-04-TP-478        |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Infinity Broadcasting            | ) | NAL/Acct. No. 200532700005   |
| Corporation of Florida           | * |                              |
|                                  | * | FRN: 0004036711              |
| Licensee of Station WQYK-FM      |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Tampa, Florida                   | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
| Facility ID \# 28619             | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**FORFEITURE ORDER**

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

By the Regional Director, South Central Region, Enforcement Bureau:

# 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")[^1] 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.[^2] 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.

#  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.  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.[^8] 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.[^9]

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.[^10]

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. Number range CHAPTEROn 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,[^11] 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.

#  discussion

14. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in
    accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,[^12] Section 1.80 of the
    Rules,[^13] 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.[^14]

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.[^15] 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."[^16] Section 1.1307(b)(3) of the Rules states that
    "when the guidelines specified in § 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..."[^17] 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.[^18]

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.[^19] 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.[^20] 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.[^21] 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.[^22] 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.[^23]

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.[^24] 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 § 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..."[^25] 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 . . . ."[^26]
    However, the Commission has concluded that "responsibilities
    pertaining to RF electromagnetic fields properly belong\[\] with our
    licensees and applicants, rather than with site owners."[^27] In
    other words, Infinity, along with one other licensee at the Park
    Tower site,[^28] 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.[^29] 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 § 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..."[^30] 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..."[^31]
    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.[^32] 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."[^33] 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.[^34] 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.[^35] 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.[^36]
    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.

#  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.[^37] 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.[^38]

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

[^1]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310.

[^2]: *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).

[^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. BRH-20031001AGG, granted January 29, 2004 ("WQYK-FM 2003
    Renewal Application").

[^9]: Infinity disputes that station WQYK-FM's engineer made these
    statements to the Tampa agent.

[^10]: 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 pp. 55 -- 59.

[^11]: *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.

[^12]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^13]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.

[^14]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

[^15]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Table 1.

[^16]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307(b), 1.1307(b)(1), 1.1310.

[^17]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b)(3).

[^18]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307(b)(1), 1.1307(b)(5), 1.1310. Additional
    guidance is provided in *OET Bulletin 65*.

[^19]: *See, e.g., OET Bulletin 65* at 1 -- 10.

[^20]: 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. § 1.1310, Note 1 to Table 1.

[^21]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2 to Table 1.

[^22]: 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.

[^23]: *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).

[^24]: *See* *infra* n. 32.

[^25]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b)(3).

[^26]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b)(3).

[^27]: *RF Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 13522
    (1997).

[^28]: 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.

[^29]: *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.

[^30]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b)(3)(i).

[^31]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b)(3).

[^32]: 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.

[^33]: 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.

[^34]: *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).

[^35]: 47 U.S.C. § 504(c).

[^36]: SBC Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 4043, 4052 -- 53 (2002).

[^37]: 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).

[^38]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.