Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                         Before the
              Federal Communications Commission
                   Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                  )
                              )  )
File No. EB-03-TP-231             )   File No. EB-04-SE-017
Metro  Networks  Communications,  )                              )
Inc.                           )      FRN 0007006884
                              )
NAL/Acct. No. 200332700030
Houston, Texas                 )
FRN 0007006884

                MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted:  February 9, 2005                                 
Released:  February 11, 2005

By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement 
Bureau:

             1.     In this Memorandum Opinion and Order 
        (``Order''), we dismiss as moot a Petition for 
        Partial Revocation filed by New Inspiration 
        Broadcasting Company, Inc. (``NIBC'') of a permit 
        issued to Metro Networks Communications, Inc. 
        (``Metro'') pursuant to Section 325(c) of the 
        Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended.1  
        In addition, we find that Metro's transmittal of 
        information to a Mexican AM broadcast station via 
        textual emails did not come within the scope, and 
        thus did not violate the terms and conditions, of 
        its Section 325(c) permit.  

             2.     Under Section 325(c) of the Act, the 
        transmission or delivery of broadcast programming 
        from a facility in the United States to a foreign 
        broadcast station, which will be received in the 
        United States, requires an application to and 
        permit granted by the Commission. On January 12, 
        2000, Metro filed with the Commission an 
        application for renewal of its Section 325(c) 
        permit to supply programming information to 23 
        broadcast stations located in Mexico, including 
        Station XEMO, 860 MHz, Tijuana, Mexico.  On 
        February 29, 2000, the Commission's International 
        Bureau granted Metro's renewal application.2  The 
        Section 325(c) permit, which authorizes Metro to 
        deliver programming ``consisting of self-contained 
        broadcasts of local, regional and/or national 
        news,'' is expressly conditioned upon the Mexican 
        stations ``operation in full compliance with 
        applicable treaties and related provisions 
        concerning electrical interference to U.S. 
        broadcast stations.''

             3.     On December 11, 2003, NIBC, licensee of 
        Station KLRA (AM) Glendale, California, filed a 
        Petition for Partial  Revocation (``Petition'') of 
        Metro's Section 325(c) permit, to the extent that 
        it authorizes Metro to transmit programming to 
        Station XEMO.  NIBC maintained, and provided 
        engineering and technical supporting documentation 
        to demonstrate, that Station XEMO had been 
        operating at increased power levels from a new 
        site, and that such operations was causing 
        prohibited interference to Station KRLA(AM).  NIBC 
        further maintained that Station XEMO's operations 
        were not coordinated under, and thus did not comply 
        with, the 1986 Agreement between the Government of 
        the United States of America and the Government of 
        the United Mexican States Relating to the AM 
        Broadcasting Service in the Medium Frequency Band 
        (``U.S.-Mexican Agreement''). 3  

             4.     In response to the Petition, the Bureau 
        issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Metro.  In 
        its response to the LOI, Metro stated that it was 
        unable to independently confirm or deny that 
        Station XEMO's operations caused interference and 
        did not comply with the US-Mexican Agreement.  
        Metro further noted that Station XEMO informed 
        Metro that representatives of Station XEMO had been 
        in contact with Station KLRA and that Station XEMO 
        believes that the interference issue has been 
        resolved.  Moreover, Metro claimed that it has 
        transmitted programming consisting of traffic and 
        border information via textual emails to Station 
        XEMO since 1992, and that such transmissions did 
        not fall within the purview of Section 325(c). 

             5.     In reply, NIBC maintained that Station 
        XEMO continued to cause interference to Station 
        KLRA(AM).  NIBC also reiterated its claim that the 
        station's operations violated the US-Mexican 
        Agreement.  On April 8, 2004, Metro supplemented 
        its response and voluntarily withdrew its Section 
        325(c) permit as it relates to Station XEMO.4  

             6.       In light of Metro's decision to 
        voluntarily withdraw its Section 325(c) permit as 
        it relates to Station XEMO, we find that NIBC's 
        petition for partial revocation of Metro's Section 
        325(c) permit is moot and we accordingly dismiss 
        it.

             7.     Nevertheless, given that we have 
        previously found that a Section 325(c) permittee 
        violated the terms and conditions of its Section 
        325(c) permit by providing programming to a foreign 
        station that was not in compliance with applicable 
        treaties concerning interference to U.S. broadcast 
        stations, notwithstanding that the permittee had 
        subsequently tendered its Section 325(c) permit for 
        cancellation,5 we turn to the issue of whether 
        Metro violated the terms and conditions of its 
        Section 325(c) permit.   Section 325(c) provides:         

     No person shall be permitted to locate, use, or 
     maintain a radio broadcast studio or other place 
     or apparatus from which or whereby sound waves are 
     converted into electrical energy, or mechanical or 
     physical reproduction of sound waves produced, and 
     caused to be transmitted or delivered to a radio 
     station in a foreign country for the purpose of 
     being broadcast from any radio station there 
     having a power output of sufficient intensity 
     and/or being so located geographically that its 
     emissions may be received consistently in the 
     United States, without first obtaining a permit 
     from the Commission upon proper application 
     therefore.

             8.     In interpreting statutory language, the 
        Supreme Court has directed that when the words of a 
        statute are unambiguous, judicial inquiry is 
        complete.6   The plain language of the Section 
        325(c) is unambiguous.  Section 325(c) only 
        requires a permit for the transmissions of cross-
        border programming if such transmissions involve 
        the conversion of sound waves into electrical 
        energy or the mechanical or physical reproduction 
        of sound waves.  Metro's transmission of 
        information by textual emails clearly did not 
        involve the conversion of sound waves into 
        electrical energy or the mechanical or physical 
        reproduction of sound waves.7   

             9.     Based on our plain meaning application 
        of the unambiguous statutory language, we find that 
        Metro's transmission of programming information via 
        textual emails to Station XEMO did not come within 
        the scope of Section 325(c), and thus did not 
        violate the terms and conditions of its Section 
        325(c) authorization.8  

             10.    Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, 
        pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 325(d) of the Act, 
        the investigation of Metro Networks Communications, 
        Inc. IS TERMINATED.  

             11.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition 
        for Partial Revocation filed by New Inspiration 
        Broadcasting Company, Inc., on December 11, 2003, 
        IS DISMISSED as moot.

             12.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of 
        this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by 
        first class mail and certified mail return receipt 
        requested to counsel for New Inspiration 
        Broadcasting Company, Inc., Ann Bavender, Esq., 
        Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC, 1300 North 17th 
        Street, 11th Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3801, 
        and to counsel for Metro Networks Communications, 
        Inc., John D. Poutasse, Esq. Leventhal Senter & 
        Lerman PLLC, 2000 K St. NW, Suite 600, Washington, 
        DC 20006-1809.



                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 
                              COMMISSION


                              Joseph P. Casey 
                              Chief, Spectrum Enforcement 
                         Division 
                              Enforcement Bureau

               
_________________________

147 U.S.C.  325(c)

2See File  No. 325-NEW-20000112-0001 (granted  February 29, 
2000) (``Section 325(c) permit'').

3It should be noted  that the Spectrum Enforcement Division 
of  the  Enforcement  Bureau  found in  another  case  that 
Station   XEMO's  operations   violated  the   U.S.-Mexican 
Agreement,  and  caused  harmful  interference  to  Station 
KRLA(AM).  See Uniradio Corp., 19 FCC Rcd 19933 (Enf. Bur., 
Spectrum Enf.  Div., 2004) (proposing a  $25,000 forfeiture 
against   a   Section   325(c)  permittee   for   providing 
programming to  Station XEMO  in apparent violation  of the 
terms and conditions of its permit).  

4Metro reserved the right to reapply for authority under 
Section 325(c) to provide programming to Station XEMO, when 
that station's technical operations are brought to 
compliance with the U.S.-Mexican Agreement.  We note that 
coordination of Station XEMO's operations has been completed 
in compliance with the U.S.-Mexican Agreement.

5 Pacific  Spanish Network,  Inc., 19  FCC Rcd  14427 (Enf. 
Bur.  2004),  forfeiture  ordered,  DA  05-23  (Enf.  Bur., 
Spectrum Enf. Div., 2005).

6See U.S.  v. Ron  Pair Enterprises,  489 U.S.  235 (1989); 
Rubin v United States, 449 U.S. 424, 430 (1981).

7


8