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                  )
                                 )
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



                MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted:  January 12, 2005              Released:    January 
14, 2005

By  the Chief,  Spectrum  Enforcement Division,  Enforcement 
Bureau: 

     1.   In this Memorandum Opinion and Order (``Order''), 
we deny the petition for reconsideration of the Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')1 filed by New 
Inspiration Broadcasting Company (``NIBC''), licensee of 
Station KRLA(AM), Glendale, California.2  The NAL proposed a 
forfeiture in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars 
($25,000) against Uniradio Corp. (``Uniradio'') for its 
apparent willful and repeated violation of the terms and 
conditions of its authorization under Section 325(c) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'').3  The 
NAL also dismissed as moot NIBC's petition to revoke 
Uniradio's Section 325(c) permit.

     2.   Uniradio's Section 325(c) permit authorizes it to 
transmit, from a facility in the United States, broadcast 
programming, which will be received in the United States.4  
Specifically, Uniradio's Section 325(c) permit authorizes it 
to deliver Spanish language sports programming (San Padres 
baseball games and related pre-game programming) to Station 
XEMO, Tijuana, Mexico, and is expressly conditioned upon 
Station XEMO's ``operation in full compliance with 
applicable treaties and related provisions concerning 
electrical interference to U.S. broadcast stations.''   The 
NAL determined that Uniradio's transmittal of cross-border 
programming apparently violated the express conditions of 
its Section 325(c) permit because Station XEMO modified its 
operations5 and those modifications were not coordinated 
with and approved by the Commission's International Bureau 
(``IB'') as required by the applicable 1986 U.S.-Mexico 
treaty6 and were causing harmful interference to Station 
KRLA(AM).   The NAL further noted the recent completion of 
the requisite coordination and approval process,7  and thus 
dismissed NIBC's then-pending petition to revoke Uniradio's 
Section 325(c) permit as moot.8  

     3.   In its Petition, NIBC contends that the NAL 
erroneously dismissed its initial petition to revoke 
Uniradio's Section 325(c) permit.  NIBC acknowledges that 
Station XEMO has reduced its power levels to 5 kW and that 
the process under the U.S.-Mexico treaty has been completed.  
However, NIBC contends, and provides documentation to show, 
that Station XEMO has yet to construct and thus operate a 
technically coordinated and approved two-tower directional 
antenna system.9  Because Station XEMO currently is 
``operating with a different facility which has not been 
notified to and accepted by the United States,'' NIBC 
contends that Uniradio's Section 325(c) permit should be 
revoked.10

     4.   In response,11 Uniradio characterizes NIBC's 
contentions as speculative, which presupposes that that 
since Station XEMO is not operating in compliance with the 
coordinated technical parameters ``today,'' it will not do 
so ``in the future.''12  According to Uniradio, Station XEMO 
is ``ordering new broadcast equipment and arranging for the 
construction of not one but two antennas'' and will bring 
its facilities into full compliance by spring of 2005, the 
commencement of baseball season, when Uniradio resumes its 
transmittal of the San Padres games and related 
programming.13    

     5.   Reconsideration of a final action is appropriate 
where a petitioner either raises additional facts not 
previously presented to the Commission and such facts had 
not been known or had not existed, or demonstrates that the 
Commission's consideration of the then known or existing 
facts contained a material error or omission and the public 
interest will be served by reconsideration.14  
Reconsideration does not lie to re-address previously 
considered facts and/or arguments.15  

     6.   We find that NIBC's Petition neither raises new or 
otherwise unknown facts nor demonstrates material error or 
omission, which would warrant reconsideration.  The NAL 
noted and recognized the recent completion of the 
coordination and approval process under the U.S. Mexico 
treaty, which requires Station XEMO to construct a two-tower 
directional antenna system at power levels of 10 kW 
(daytime) and 7.5 kW (nighttime).  Thus, implicit in the 
NAL's recognition was the fact that Station XEMO would need 
time to construct its new system and bring its operations 
into compliance, and in the interim, would continue to 
operate at the grandfathered, non-objectionable interference 
power levels of 5 kW.  

     7.   Under the circumstances, we believe that 
disposition of Station XEMO's future non-compliance would be 
premature and conjectural.  However, in the event Station 
XEMO fails to bring its facilities into compliance with 
approved technical parameters when Uniradio resumes 
transmittal of programming in spring of 2005, we may revisit 
the matter at that time.  

     8.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to 
Section 405 of the Act16 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,17 
the Petition for Reconsideration filed by New Inspiration 
Broadcasting Company of the October 20, 2004 Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS DENIED. 

     9.  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 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.    



                              FEDERAL         COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION

                              Joseph P. Casey
                              Chief,   Spectrum  Enforcement 
Division 
                              Enforcement Bureau
                              


_________________________

1Uniradio Corp., 19 FCC Rcd 19933 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. 
Div. 2004) (``NAL''). 

2Petition  for Reconsideration  (filed  November 14,  2004) 
(``Petition'').    Prior  to   filing  the  Petition,  NIBC 
informally  requested that  the  NAL be  set aside.     See 
Letter from  James. P.  Riley, Esq.  to Marlene  H. Dortch, 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (filed October 
27, 2004) (``NIBC Letter'').   

347 U.S.C.  325(c). 

4File No. 325-NEW-20030527-00005 (granted July 16, 2003). 

5In this  connection, the NAL  found that Station  XEMO had 
modified its operations by  increasing its power levels and 
relocating  its  transmitter site,  and  that  at the  time 
Uniradio  applied for  and was  granted its  Section 325(c) 
permit, it  knew or  should have  known that  the station's 
operations  had  been  modified given  Uniradio's  apparent 
control of and relationship to  Station XEMO.  See NAL at  
7 and note 21.  

6Agreement 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. 

7NAL  at   9.  The  completion of  the requisite  process, 
however,   did  not   mitigate  Uniradio's   past  apparent 
violations  of  the terms  and  conditions  of its  Section 
325(c) permit.  Id. 

8Id. at  17.  

9See  Petition  at  3;  see  also  NIBC  Letter  (attaching 
statement   of  consulting   engineer  attesting   to,  and 
photographs depicting, Station  XEMO's  continued operation 
of a single tower, non-directional antenna system.  . 

10Petition at  9.   Alternatively,  NIBC requests  that the 
portion of the NAL dismissing  NIBC's petition to revoke be 
set  aside,  that Uniradio  be  notified  that its  Section 
325(c)  permit will  be  revoked if  it resumes  delivering 
programming to  Station XEMO before the  station constructs 
and operates its facility as  ``notified to and accepted by 
the U.S.''  pursuant to the applicable  U.S.-Mexico treaty, 
and  that  Uniradio be  required  to  file monthly  reports 
documenting   Station  XEMO's   progress  toward   approved 
construction and operations.  Id. at 10. 

11See  Response  to  Petition  (filed  December  20,  2004) 
(``Response'');  see also  Response to  NIBC Letter  (filed 
November 10,  2004) (``Response Letter'').   NIBC contended 
that Uniradio's Response should  be ignored as informal and 
untimely,  and ``[a]ccordingly,  [NIBC's] Petition  must be 
deemed  unopposed and  granted.''   See  Reply to  Informal 
Response   for  Reconsideration   of  Notice   of  Apparent 
Liability (filed  December 21,  2004).  We  are considering 
Uniradio's  Response,  which  was  served on  on  NIBC  but 
untimely filed under  47 C.F.R.  1.106(g),  as an informal 
objection to NIBC's petition.   

12Response Letter at 2.  See also Response at 2. 

13See Response at 2.

14See 47 C.F.R.  1.106(c)(1), (2); see also WWIZ, Inc., 37 
FCC 685, 666  2-3  (1964); aff'd sub nom., Lorain Journal 
Company  v.  FCC, 351  F.2d  825  (D.C. Cir.  1965),  cert. 
denied, 383 U.S. 967 (1966), rehearing denied, 384 U.S. 947 
(1966). 

15See WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC at 686  3.

1647 U.S.C.  405.

1747 C.F.R.  1.106.