Attachment RF_Study

This document pretains to SES-LIC-20120124-00088 for License on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESLIC2012012400088_935308

                               Engineering Statement
                     RADIOFREQUENCY EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS
                                                prepared for
                               Ohio/Oklahoma Hearst Television Inc.

        Ohio/Oklahoma Hearst Television Inc. (“WLWT”) is the applicant for a new transportable “Ku
Band” satellite uplink vehicle. The following study was conducted to evaluate the proposed facility with
respect to the potential for human exposure to radiofrequency (“RF”) electromagnetic field. Specifically,
the study determined whether exposure to RF electromagnetic field would exceed FCC maximum
permissible exposure limits to the general public and to occupational workers at locations in the vicinity
of the uplink antenna based on data provided by the applicant and representatives of the equipment
manufacturers.



Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field
        The WLWT proposed operation was evaluated using the procedures outlined in FCC OET Bulletin
No. 65 (“OET 65"). OET 65 describes a means of determining whether a proposed facility exceeds the
RF exposure guidelines specified in §1.1310 of the Rules. Under present Commission policy, a facility
may be presumed to comply with the limits in §1.1310 if it satisfies the exposure criteria set forth in
OET 65. Based upon that methodology, and as demonstrated in the following, the transmitting system
under study will comply with the cited adopted guidelines at publicly accessible locations when
procedures described herein are followed.



Public Exposure
        The mechanical design of the mounting equipment is optimized to orient the antenna toward
satellites that are located well above the horizon.      Prevention of public exposure to predicted RF
electromagnetic field in excess of the general population/uncontrolled limit1 depends on adherence to the
following operational guidelines by the WLWT technicians.


        As shown below, RF attributable to the WLWT uplink antenna at locations outside of the “main
beam” and 1.35 meters or more from the center of the main beam will not exceed the FCC general
population and uncontrolled RF exposure limits. According to representatives of WLWT, at its lowest
elevation, the center of the uplink antenna is 3.9 meters above the ground and thus more than 1.35 meters
above head level on level terrain.



1
  The general population/uncontrolled maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limit of 1 mW/cm² for 14,250 MHz
is specified in §1.1310 of the Rules.


                                     Cavell, Mertz & Associates, Inc.


                                        Engineering Statement
                                                (page 2 of 4)

        To assure that no publicly accessible area is within the “main beam” of the uplink antenna, sites
and satellites will be selected such that the elevation angle of the antenna will always exceed five degrees
and 1.35 meters above the horizon, nearby buildings, and places accessible by the public. In unusual
cases where this isolation cannot be achieved, WLWT will utilize crowd control stanchions, cones, and RF
exposure warning signs to control access to areas that are known to exceed the FCC’s general population
uncontrolled MPE limit. These areas will be defined either by measurements made by qualified, on-site,
personnel or by the calculations described herein.


        Based on data provided by the applicant, the following parameters were used in the study:


            Antenna Manufacturer                          General Dynamics
            Antenna Model                                 C135M
            Center Transmit Frequency                     14.250 MHz
            Wavelength at Center Frequency                0.021 meters
            Max Average Antenna Input Power               60.97 Watts
            Antenna Diameter                              1.35 meters
            Antenna Gain                                  44.0 dBi
            Antenna Gain Ratio                            25,118.9
            Antenna Aperture Efficiency                   0.6181


        The area in the immediate vicinity of the antenna is known as the “near field region.”         In this
region (21.7 meters in the case at hand), the antenna directional characteristics of have not fully formed.
Therefore, antenna manufacturer “off-axis” discrimination specifications cannot be utilized for the
purpose of determining potential RF exposure. OET 65 provides a methodology (Equation 13) for
calculating an absolute “worst case” exposure figure within this region. Additionally, OET 65 specifies
that the “worst case” power density would be reduced by 20 dB at locations at least one antenna diameter
(1.35 meters) off-axis from the “main beam” of the antenna. In this instance, the predicted off-axis, near
field is 0.105 mW/cm², or 10.5 percent of the general population/uncontrolled limit. Off-axis predicted
fields reduce commensurately at greater distances from the antenna in the antenna transition region.


        In the “far field” region of the antenna (in this case, starting at a distance of 52.0 meters from the
antenna), the antenna directional characteristics have formed and the off-axis power density can be
readily calculated using “off-axis” antenna discrimination specifications. At locations greater than five
degrees off-axis from the “main beam,” the manufacturer of the proposed antenna specifies a minimum

                                      Cavell, Mertz & Associates, Inc.


                                             Engineering Statement
                                                     (page 3 of 4)

side-lobe attenuation of 34.7 dB.2 Again using the methodology detailed in OET65, this “off-axis”
attenuation is predicted to result in a power density of 0.002 mW/cm², or 0.2 percent of the general
population/uncontrolled limit.


Controlled Access Area Exposure

           Access to the vicinity of the antenna will be limited and restricted to authorized, trained
personnel. Using data provided by the applicant, the potential for RF exposure to occupational workers
was evaluated. As described previously, the maximum predicted off-axis, “near field” power density is
0.105 mW/cm², which is 2.1 percent of the controlled limit. As the operator will generally be posted at
locations at ground level or within the truck itself, it is anticipated that actual exposure will be
substantially less than the above “worst case” prediction.



           With respect to worker safety, it is believed that based on the preceding analysis, excessive
exposure would not occur provided that adequate physical separation is established. As mentioned
previously, detailed operator policy will be employed protecting workers from excessive exposure when
work must be performed where high RF levels may be present. Such protective measures may include,
but will not be limited to, restriction of access to areas where levels in excess of the guidelines may be
expected, or the complete shutdown of facilities when work or inspections must be performed in areas
where the exposure guidelines would otherwise be exceeded. On-site RF exposure measurements may
also be undertaken to establish the bounds of safe working areas. The applicant will coordinate exposure
procedures with all pertinent facilities.



Conclusion

           As demonstrated herein, excessive levels of RF energy will not be caused at publicly accessible
areas by strictly following the policy detailed herein. Consequently, neither members of the general
public nor occupational staff will be exposed to RF levels in excess of the Commission’s guidelines.
Access to the vicinity of the uplink antenna will be restricted and controlled through the use of crowd
control stanchions, cones, and conspicuous RFR warning signs as part of an overall RF safety program.
The above study presumes that the subject antenna is the sole source of RF energy at the uplink site. In
the case of multiple emitters, further analysis or measurement is necessary to assure compliance.




2
    The antenna’s off-axis specification is based on FCC §25.209 or 29-25 Log(θ) dBi.


                                           Cavell, Mertz & Associates, Inc.


                                        Engineering Statement
                                               (page 4 of 4)

Certification

        The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing statement was prepared by him or under his
direction, and that it is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. Mr. Ryson is a senior
engineer in the firm of Cavell, Mertz & Associates, Inc.




                                                               Daniel G. Ryson
                                                               January 12, 2012

Cavell, Mertz & Associates, Inc.
7732 Donegan Dr.
Manassas, VA 20109-2686
(703) 392-9090




                                     Cavell, Mertz & Associates, Inc.



Document Created: 2012-01-13 12:27:49
Document Modified: 2012-01-13 12:27:49

© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC