Attachment RF Exposure Study

This document pretains to SES-MOD-20101014-01296 for Modification on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESMOD2010101401296_844451

                               Engineering Statement
                     RADIOFREQUENCY EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS
                                                 prepared for
                                          Hearst Stations Inc.

        Hearst Stations Inc. (“KCRA-TV”) is the licensee of transportable “Ku Band” Earth station
uplink E865140. The following study was conducted to evaluate the potential for human exposure to
radiofrequency (“RF”) electromagnetic field for this station. 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 KCRA-TV 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 KCRA-TV staff.


        As shown below, RF attributable to the KCRA-TV uplink antenna at locations outside of the
“main beam” and 2.4 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 KCRA-TV, the center of
the uplink antenna is 3.6 meters above the ground.


        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

        1
            The general population/uncontrolled maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limit of 1 mW/cm² for


                                      Cavell, Mertz & Associates, Inc.


                                          Engineering Statement
                                                   (page 2 of 4)

and 2.4 meters above the horizon, nearby buildings, and places accessible by the public. In cases where
this isolation cannot be achieved, KCRA-TV 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                            Andrew

             Antenna Model                                   G/TESA Series

             Center Transmit Frequency                       14,250 MHz

             Wavelength at Center Frequency                  0.02104 meters

             Max Average Antenna Input Power                 350 Watts

             Antenna Diameter                                2.4 meters

             Antenna Gain                                    49.2 dBi

             Antenna Gain Ratio                              83,176

             Antenna Aperture Efficiency                     0.6476


        The area in the immediate vicinity of the antenna is known as the “near field region.”      In this
region (68.4 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
(2.4 meters) off-axis from the “main beam” of the antenna. In this instance, the predicted off-axis, near
field is 0.2 mW/cm², or 20.0 percent of the general population/uncontrolled limit. Off-axis predicted
fields reduce commensurately at greater distances from the antenna in the antenna transition region.




14,250 MHz is specified in §1.1310 of the Rules.

                                        Cavell, Mertz & Associates, Inc.


                                            Engineering Statement
                                                 (page 3 of 4)

        In the “far field” region of the antenna (in this case, starting at a distance of 164.3 meters from
the antenna), the antenna directional characteristics have formed and the off-axis “far field” 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 side-lobe attenuation of 40 dB. Again using the methodology detailed in OET65,
this “off-axis” attenuation is predicted to result in a power density of 0.001 mW/cm², or 0.1 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
0.2 mW/cm², or 4.0% 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.
When necessary (see above), access 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.

                                       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.
                                                               October 7, 2010

Cavell, Mertz & Associates, Inc.
7839 Ashton Avenue
Manassas, VA 20109
(703) 392—9090




                                     Cavell, Mertz & Associates, Inc.



Document Created: 2010-10-07 17:24:02
Document Modified: 2010-10-07 17:24:02

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