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


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                  )
Uniradio Corp.,                   )   File No. EB-04-SE-016
Holder of  Permit to Transmit or  )   NAL/Acct. No. 200532100003
Deliver                           )   FRN: 008982407
Programming    to    a   Foreign 
Broadcast Station


Adopted:  October 15, 2004              Released:    October 
20, 2004

By  the Chief,  Spectrum  Enforcement Division,  Enforcement 


      1.       In this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
 Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find Uniradio Corp. 
 (``Uniradio'') apparently liable for a forfeiture in the 
 amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) for 
 providing program material from a studio located in the 
 United States to a Mexican AM Station in willful and 
 repeated violation of the terms and conditions of its 
 authorization granted pursuant to Section 325(c) of the 
 Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'').1  


      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, for the purpose of such programming being 
 received in the United States, requires an application to 
 and permit granted by the Commission.  On May 27, 2003, 
 Uniradio filed with the Commission an application for 
 authority to supply Spanish language sports programming, 
 namely, San Diego Padres baseball games, to Station XEMO.  
 Uniradio represented that Station XEMO was located in 
 Tijuana, Mexico and was authorized to operate on frequency 
 860 kHz with 5 kW power (daytime and nighttime) with a 
 non-directional antenna.  On July 16, 2003, the 
 Commission's International Bureau granted Uniradio's 
 application and issued it the Section 325(c) permit.2  
 Specifically, the Section 325(c) permit authorized 
 Uniradio to ``locate, use or maintain a studio in the 
 United States'' for the purpose of transmitting or 
 delivering ``San Diego Padres baseball games, including a 
 15 minute pre-game show, in Spanish'' to Mexican Station 
 XEMO.  The Section 325(c) permit expressly states that it 
 is based on Uniradio's ``representation that the 
 statements contained in the application[s] are true and 
 that the undertakings described will be carried out in 
 good faith,'' and that it is conditioned upon the Mexican 
 station's ``operation in full compliance with applicable 
 treaties and related provisions concerning electrical 
 interference to U.S. Broadcast stations.''3  

      3.       On December 9, 2003, New Inspiration 
 Broadcasting Company, Inc. (``NIBC''), licensee of Station 
 KRLA(AM), Glendale, California, filed a petition to revoke 
 Uniradio's Section 325(c) permit.4 NIBC maintained, and 
 provided supporting engineering and technical 
 documentation to demonstrate,  that Station XEMO was 
 operating at increased power levels from a new site, and 
 that such operations was causing substantial harmful 
 interference to Station KRLA(AM).5  According to NIBC, 
 Station XEMO was not operating with 5 kW power (daytime 
 and nighttime) from geographic coordinates 32? 30? 48? 
 North Latitude and 117? 01? 08? West Longitude, as 
 authorized by the Mexican government.6  Rather, NIBC 
 maintained that Station XEMO was operating at power levels 
 of 20 kW (daytime) and 10 kW (nighttime) from geographic 
 coordinates 32? 25? 21? North Latitude and 117? 04? 32? 
 West Longitude, and that such operations had not been 
 coordinated with the Commission's International Bureau in 
 accordance with the 1986 U.S.-Mexico treaty7 that governs 
 the coordination of medium frequency AM band stations.8  

      4.       On February 20, 2004, the Enforcement 
 Bureau's Spectrum Enforcement Division (``Division'') sent 
 Uniradio a letter of inquiry (``LOI'').9  In its response 
 to the LOI,10 Uniradio stated that it learned, after it 
 applied for and was granted the Section 325(c) permit, 
 that Station XEMO had increased power from a new site. 
 Specifically, Uniradio stated that its General Manager, 
 Ricardo Astiazaran, became aware ``at some point prior to 
 September 2003'' that the Mexican government had modified 
 Station XEMO's authorization to allow transmission at 
 increased power levels from a new antenna site,11 and 
 further, that Uniradio became aware on or about September 
 15, 2003, that Station XEMO, in fact, was operating at the 
 increased power levels from the new antenna site.12  
 Uniradio admitted that, it delivered sports programming to 
 Station XEMO from mid-September to early October 2003, and 
 that it resumed delivering such programming on March 5, 
 2004, after being notified on or about November 18, 2003, 
 by Station KRLA(AM) of the alleged interference problem.13 
 Uniradio further admitted that the modifications to 
 Station XEMO may have increased harmful interference to 
 Station KRLA(AM).14  However, Uniradio claimed that any 
 increase in interference was de minimis,15 and that the 
 interference issue was being addressed through inter-
 governmental discussions (i.e., between the Secretaria de 
 Comunicaciones y Transportes (``SCT'') and the U.S. 
 Department of State, with technical assistance from the 
 Commission).  In addition, Uniradio argued that Station 
 XEMO was cooperating in an effort to resolve the issue and 
 had agreed to conduct interference testing and operate at 
 a reduced power level of 5 kW at a reduced bandwidth until 
 the conclusion of testing and inter-governmental 
 coordination.16 Uniradio asserted that, under the 
 circumstances, any enforcement action by the Commission, 
 including revocation of its Section 325(c) permit, is not 

      5.       On March 26, 2004, NIBC filed a reply to 
 Uniradio's response.18  NIBC maintained, and provided 
 evidence, that Station XEMO's operations at its current 
 antenna site has created further overlap of its contour to 
 Station KLRA(AM)'s protected 0.5 mV/m contour.19  NIBC 
 further maintained that, due to the increased overlap, 
 Station XEMO's utilization of a narrow bandwidth and 
 reduction to a power level of 5 kW have not proven 
 effective in redressing the continuing substantial 
 interference to Station KRLA(AM).20  Finally, NIBC 
 maintained that Uniradio knew or should have known that 
 Station XEMO's operations at its current site had not been 
 coordinated and authorized consistent with the U.S.- 
 Mexico treaty, given that Uniradio and Station XEMO not 
 only share common shareholders, but are both controlled by 
 Gustavo Enrique Astiazaran.21  


      6.       Section 325(c) of the Act, as previously 
 noted, prohibits the transmission or delivery of 
 programming from a broadcast studio, place or other 
 apparatus within the United States 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 
 therefor.''22  Section 325(c) serves to prevent 
 interference to broadcast stations' signals, as well as 
 the introduction of broadcast material deemed inimical to 
 the public interest, within the United States.23  

      7.       In the instant case, Uniradio admitted that, 
 at the time it commenced delivery of the San Diego Padres 
 games and related programming to Station XEMO, it knew the 
 station's facilities had been modified.  However, given 
 Uniradio's apparent control of and relationship to Station 
 XEMO,24 it would appear that, at the time it applied for 
 the Section 325(c) permit, it knew or had reason to know 
 that the station's facilities recently had been modified 
 by the Mexican government and that such modifications were 
 not coordinated with and approved by the Commission's 
 International Bureau and thus were not in compliance with 
 the applicable U.S.-Mexico treaty25 -- notwithstanding the 
 fact that Uniradio's Section 325(c) permit is explicitly 
 conditioned upon such compliance with the treaty ``and 
 related provisions concerning harmful interference to U.S. 
 Broadcast stations.''  Moreover, in apparent defiance of, 
 or disregard for, such explicit conditions, Uniradio 
 further admitted that it continued to deliver programming 
 after it was on notice, in November of 2003, that, as 
 modified, Station XEMO's operations were causing 
 substantial -- not de minimis -- harmful interference to a 
 licensed U.S. broadcast station.   Based on the record 
 before us, we thus find that, by delivering cross-border 
 programming to Station XEMO, Uniradio undermined one of 
 the primary objectives of Section 325 of the Act and 
 apparently willfully and repeatedly violated the express 
 terms and conditions of its Section 325(c) permit.  

      8.            Section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Act,26 and 
 Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Rules,27 provide that any person 
 who willfully or repeatedly fails to substantially comply 
 with the terms and conditions of a Commission issued 
 permit, license or other authorization shall be liable for 
 a forfeiture penalty.   The forfeiture amount for entities 
 other than broadcast licensees or permittees, cable 
 television operators and common carriers may not exceed 
 $11,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing 
 violation, up to a maximum of $87,500 for any single 
 continuing violation.28  In determining the appropriate 
 forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated 
 in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, such as ``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 such 
 other matters as justice may require.''29

      9.            Neither the Forfeiture Policy Statement 
 nor the rules establish a base forfeiture amount for 
 supplying program material to a foreign broadcast station 
 in violation of the terms of an authorization granted 
 pursuant to Section 325(c) of the Act.30   However, we 
 believe a substantial forfeiture is warranted.  
 Considering the facts of this case -- including the fact 
 that Uniradio's violation continued long after it not only 
 knew or had reason to know that Station XEMO's modified 
 operations were not in compliance with the applicable 
 treaty, and further after it was notified that such 
 modified operations was causing substantial harmful 
 interference to a licensed U.S. broadcast station -- we 
 find that it is appropriate to propose a $25,000 
 forfeiture.31   In so proposing the $25,000 forfeiture, we 
 understand that coordination of Station XEMO's operations 
 has recently been completed in compliance with the U.S.- 
 Mexico treaty.  However, consistent with precedent, we do 
 not find that subsequent remedial measures lessen or 
 excuse its past violations of the Act.32  


      10.                Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, 
 pursuant to pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act33 and 
 Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules,34 Uniradio 
 FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars 
 ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating the 
 express terms and conditions of its Section 325(c) permit. 

      11.                IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, 
 pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty days 
 of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability 
 for Forfeiture and Order, Uniradio Corp. SHALL PAY the 
 full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a 
 written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the 
 proposed forfeiture.

      12.                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 
 Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal 
 Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, 
 Illinois 60673-7482.  Payment by overnight mail may be 
 sent to Bank One/LB 73482, 525 West Monroe, 8th Floor 
 Mailroom, Chicago, IL 60661. Payment by wire transfer may 
 be made to ABA Number 071000013, receiving bank Bank One, 
 and account number 1165259.  Requests for full payment 
 under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief, 
 Revenue and Receivables Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., 
 Washington, D.C. 20554.35  

      13.                The response, if any, must be 
 mailed to the Office of the Secretary, Federal 
 Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., 
 Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - 
 Spectrum Enforcement Division, and must include the 
 NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.

      14.                The Commission will not consider 
 reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim 
 of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:  (1) 
 federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; 
 (2) financial statements prepared according to generally 
 accepted accounting; or (3) some other reliable and 
 objective documentation that accurately reflects the 
 petitioner's current financial status.  Any claim of 
 inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for 
 the claim by reference to the financial documentation 

      15.                Requests for payment of the full 
 amount of this NAL under an installment plan should be 
 sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivable Operations Group, 
 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.36

      16.                IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy 
 of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and 
 Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail 
 return receipt requested to Gustavo Enrique Astiazaran, 
 President, Uniradio Corp., 5030 Camino De La Siesta, Suite 
 403, San Diego, California 92108, to counsel for Uniradio 
 Corp., Mark Del Bianco, Esq., 3929 Washington Street, 
 Kensington, Maryland 20895, and to counsel for New 
 Inspiration Broadcasting Company, Inc., Ann Bavender, 
 Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC, 1300 North 17th Street, 
 11th Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3801.    

      17.                IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 
 Petition to Revoke filed by New Inspiration Broadcasting 
 Company, Inc., on December 9, 2003, IS DISMISSED as moot, 
 and that proceeding IS HEREBY TERMINATED.37 


                         Joseph P. Casey
                         Chief,     Spectrum     Enforcement 
                         Enforcement Bureau


147 U.S.C. § 325(c). 

2See  File  No.  325-NEW-20030527-00005 (granted  July  16, 
2003) (``Section 325(c) permit'').  


4See Petition to Revoke (December 9, 2003) (``Petition'')..

5Id. at Exhibits 1-3. 

6Id. at Exhibits 1-3.

7See 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, 1986.   

8Petition at 3 and Exhibits 2-3.  

9See  Letter   from  Joseph   P.  Casey,   Chief,  Spectrum 
Enforcement  Division,   Enforcement  Bureau,   to  Gustavo 
Enrique  Asitiazaran, President,  Uniradio Corp.  (February 
11, 2004).   

10See Letter  from Mark C.  Del Bianco, Esq. to  Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (March 
15, 2004) (``Response'').   

11Id. at 2-3. 

12Id. at 3.

13Id. at 2 and Attachment 1 at ¶ 7.  

14Id. at  2 and Attachment 1  at ¶ 3.  In  this connection, 
Uniradio  noted  that ``Station  KRLA  has  for years  been 
receiving interference from the broadcast signal of Station 
XEMO  because the  stations  have  had overlapping  service 
areas  . .  . throughout  the same  period, Station  KRLA's 
signal created  interference to the Station  XEMO signal.''  
Attachment 1 at ¶ 2.   

15See Response at 2-4.  

16  See Response  at 2  and Attachment  1 at  ¶¶ 11-14  and 
Exhibit 3 at¶¶ 3-12 (Declaration of Luis Carlos Astiazaran, 
director    of   Radiodifusora    XEMO,   S.A.    de   C.V. 
(``Radiodifusora XEMO''), licensee of Station XEMO). 

17See Response at 2.

18See Reply  of New Inspiration Broadcasting  Company, Inc. 
to  Response  to  Enforcement Bureau  Investigation  Letter 
(March 26, 2004) (``Reply'').

19Id. at 2-4.

20Id. at  2-3 and  attached Statement  by Herman  E. Hurst, 
Jr., Carl T. Jones  Corp., ``Statement Regarding Prohibited 
Contour Overlap between Station XEMO, Tijuana, MX and KRLA, 
Glendale, CA'' at 2 (opining  that ``XEMO must reduce power 
to  2.3 kW  during daytime  hours to  maintain its  current 
predicted 0.5 mV/m contour  within the contour predicted to 
exist from the  notified and accepted 5  kW facility.  This 
variance is due to the  increase in saltwater path existing 
between the  respective transmitter  sites of XEMO  and the 
protected service area of KRLA''). 

21Uniradio acknowledged that it has ``common shareholders'' 
with  Station XEMO's  Mexican  licensee, Radiofusora  XEMO.  
See Response at  Attachment 1 at ¶ 8.   However, it appears 
that  Radiofusora  XEMO,  in  fact, may  be  controlled  by 
Uniradio's president Gustavo Enrique Astiazaran.  See Reply 
at 4-5; see also  Marcelo Ballve's, Border radio: Tijuana's 
Uniradio wants  the best of  both worlds --   hometown fans 
plus  San Diego's  Hispanics, Latin  Trade,  December  2002 
(stating  that  Tijuana's  family-owned Uniradio  ``need[s]  
no  passport  to  cross borders''  to  serve  ``the  number 
of Hispanic listeners growing in San Diego with programming 
provided  by its  several Mexican  broadcast stations'');
ion.html  (stating that  Gustavo Astiazaran  Rosas acquired 
Station  ``XEMO/AM 860  ``La  Poderosa'' in  1972, and  has 
since  acquired ``five  radio stations  in Tijuana,  one in 
Mexicali and four  in Sonora'' and that  ``the stations are 
promoted and marketed in San Diego via Uniradio ....'').

22See note 2, supra.

23See American Broadcasting Cos., Inc.,  35 FCC 2d 1, 5-6 ¶ 
9 (1972); see also Fox  Television Stations, Inc., 77 RR 2d 
132,  133,  137-38 ¶¶  5,  30,  33-35 (1994),  vacated  and 
remanded on other grounds, Channel  51 of San Diego v. FCC, 
79 F.3d  1187, 1188-89 (D.C.  Cir. 1996), rev'd  on remand, 
Fox Television  Stations, Inc., 11 FCC  Rcd 14870, 14875-78 
¶¶ 16-25  (1996); aff'd sub  nom, Radio Television  S.A. de 
C.V. et al. v. FCC, 130 F.3d 1078 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

24See note 21 and accompanying text,  supra. 

25Indeed,  we  note  that  the  timing  of  Station  XEMO's 
authorization for modifications and its modified operations 
seems to  coincide with  Uniradio's application  to deliver 
and its delivery of the  San Diego Padres games and related 
programming.   Uniradio  stated  that  on  March  6,  2003, 
Station XEMO's  authorization was  modified by  the Mexican 
government, and our  records reflect that on  May 27, 2003, 
Uniradio   filed  its   Section  325(c)   application.  See 
Response, Attachment 1  at ¶ 3.  Uniradio  also stated that 
on  or  about  September   15,  2003,  Station  XEMO  began 
operating as  modified, and  Uniradio began  delivering the 
cross-border programming. Id. at ¶ 6.  

2647 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A).

2747 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(2).

28See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(3).

2947  U.S.C. §  503(b)(2)(D);  The Commission's  Forfeiture 
Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules 
to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 
17110  (1997),   recon.  denied  15  FCC   Rcd  303  (1999) 
(``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). 

30The  fact that  there is  no established  base forfeiture 
amount  for  this  violation  does  not  indicate  that  no 
forfeiture  should  be   imposed.   The  Forfeiture  Policy 
Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific rule 
violation from  the ... [forfeiture guidelines]  ... should 
not  signal  that  the Commission  considers  any  unlisted 
violation  as  nonexistent  or  unimportant.''   Forfeiture 
Policy  Statement, 12  FCC  Rcd at  17099.  The  Commission 
retains  the  discretion,  moreover,  to  depart  from  the 
Forfeiture  Policy Statement  and  issue  forfeitures on  a 
case?by?case basis, under  its general forfeiture authority 
contained in Section 503 of the Act.  Id.

31See Pacific Spanish Network,  Inc., DA 04-2259 (Enf. Bur. 
released  July 30,  2004)  (``PSN'')  (proposing a  $20,000 
forfeiture  for  supplying  cross-border programming  to  a 
Mexican  station,  which was  not  in  compliance with  the 
applicable treaty and which  caused harmful interference to 
licensed  U.S.  broadcast  stations).  The  Section  325(c) 
permittee   in  PSN   continued  to   deliver  cross-border 
programming after it learned  that the station's operations 
were  not  in compliance  and  were  interfering with  U.S. 
broadcast station's signals, but ultimately ceased delivery 
of such programming and cancelled its permit.  In contrast, 
Uniradio  continued to  deliver programming  throughout the 
San  Diego  Padres'   season.    Under  the  circumstances, 
Uniradio's   continuing   violations   warrant   a   higher 

32See, e.g., AT&T Wireless Services,  Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 7891 
(2002), forfeiture  ordered, 17 FCC Rcd  21866, 21875-76 ¶¶ 
26-28 (2002); Seawest Yacht Brokers, 9 FCC Rcd 6099, 6099 ¶ 
7  (1994); TCI  Cablevision of  Maryland, Inc.,  7 FCC  Rcd 
6013, 6014 ¶ 8 (1992).

3347 U.S.C. § 503(b).

3447 C.F.R. § 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80.

35See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.

36See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.

37For purposes  of the  forfeiture proceeding  initiated by 
this NAL, Uniradio Corp. shall be the only party.