**Before the**

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

**In the Matter of** )

)

Broadcast Company of the Americas, LLC ) File Nos 325-NEW-20050425-00010

for Section 325(c) of the Act to Permit ) 325-NEW-20050425-00011

Delivery of Programming to Station )

XHBCE-FM, Class C1, Municipio de ) Call Sign: XHBCE-FM

Tecate, B.C. Mexico and Station XHBCE-FM, )

Class B, Matamoros Jaramillo, B.C. Mexico )

)

and ) )

Quetzal Bilingual Communications, Inc. ) 325-NEW-20050406-00008

for Section 325(c) Permit to Deliver )

Programming to Station XHBCE-FM, )

Class C1, Tecate, B.C. Mexico )

**ORDER AND AUTHORIZATION**

Adopted: February 24, 2006 Released: February 24, 2006

By the Chief, Strategic Analysis and Negotiations Division,
International Bureau:

# Introduction

1.  In this Order, we grant Broadcast Company of the Americas, LLC's
    (BCA) request for authority, under Section 325(c) of the
    Communications Act, to deliver programming to Class C1 Station
    XHBCE-FM, Tecate, Baja California, Mexico, for re-broadcast into the
    United States. We find that the operating parameters of XHBCE-FM are
    properly coordinated pursuant to the 1992 USA-Mexico FM Broadcasting
    Agreement and comply with the parameters upon which the United
    States and Mexico agreed. Grant of this request serves the public
    interest by allowing unique programming to residents in the San
    Diego area. In this Order, we also discuss related applications
    filed by Quetzal Bilingual Communications, Inc.

# Background 

## BCA's Applications for 325(c) Authority 

2.  On April 25, 2005, BCA, a U.S. company, filed two applications for
    authority under Section 325(c) of the Communications Act to deliver
    programming from a facility in the United States to the Mexican
    broadcast station, XHBCE-FM, for the purpose of the programming
    being re-broadcast and received in the San Diego area. Specifically,
    BCA seeks authority under Section 325(c) to deliver programming
    to (1) the Class B facilities of Station XHBCE-FM located in
    Matamoros Jaramillo, Baja California[^1] and (2) the Class C1
    facilities of Station XHBCE-FM located in Cerro Bola, Municipio de
    Tecate, Baja California.[^2] At the time of filing, XHBCE was
    operating on the Class B facilities and was authorized to construct
    new Class C1 facilities at a location nearby.[^3] BCA planned to use
    the B facilities in Matamoros Jaramillo until such time as the C1
    facility in Tecate was fully constructed.[^4] BCA also filed an
    application for special temporary authority (STA) to provide a
    single program to the Class C1 facilities while its application
    remained pending.[^5]

## Quetzal's Application for 325(c) Authority and Related Filings

3.  At the time BCA filed its applications, an application from Quetzal
    Bilingual Communications, Inc. (Quetzal), for a 325(c) permit to
    deliver programming to XHBCE-FM's Class B facilities in Matomoros
    Jarmillo, Baja California, Mexico was pending at the Commission.[^6]
    Lazer Broadcasting Corporation, Emmis Communications Corporation,
    and Citicasters Licenses, L.P., U.S. licensed radio station
    operators, filed a Joint Petition to Deny the application.[^7]
    Petitioners assert that several facilities for which Quetzal either
    holds, or held, Section 325 authority were not operating in
    accordance with the terms of their authorizations or the
    coordinations between the United States and Mexican governments.
    Petitioners also allege that Quetzal's owner, Mr. Bonilla, "had a
    record of abuse in terms of using unauthorized Mexican facilities to
    broadcast programming back into the U.S. under Section 325(c)
    permits.[^8] Quetzal withdrew this application in July 2005.[^9]

4.  On April 1, 2005, while the underlying request for authority was
    still pending, the International Bureau granted Quetzal an STA to
    deliver programming to XHBCE-FM's Class B facilities.[^10] Quetzal
    requested an extension of the STA.[^11] Given that there is no
    longer a request for permanent 325(c) authority and that the Mexican
    Administration has ordered XHBCE to cease operating from the Class B
    facility,[^12] we find that Quetzal's request to extend this STA and
    the objections to these applications and requests moot with respect
    to this proceeding.

## Petitions to Deny BCA Applications 

5.  Lazer and Emmis also filed a Petition to Deny both BCA
    applications.[^13] At the time BCA filed its applications, BCA, by
    contractual agreement, was providing programming to Quetzal for
    transmission over XEKTT and the Class B facilities of XHBCE-FM. The
    Petitioners argue that the core concerns related to the BCA
    applications are the same as those presented in their Petition to
    Deny the Quetzal Application, "namely misuse of Section 325(c)
    permits and misrepresentations by FCC licensees who knowingly
    interconnect with internationally uncoordinated and illegally
    operating Mexican radio stations."[^14] Petitioners claim that,
    because of the illegal nature of the operations, XHBCE is causing
    interference to Station KXRS in Hemet California, which operates on
    the same frequency as XHBCE (105.7).[^15] According to the
    Petitioners, "as the programming partner of Bonilla and Bonilla's
    wife, BCA must be charged with the knowledge that XHBCE-FM has never
    operated from its authorized Class B site at Matamoros
    Jaramillo,"[^16] and that the STA issued to Quetzal for this site is
    being used to deliver programs to another unauthorized site (the
    Class C1 facility). In a subsequent filing, the Petitioners expand
    their requested remedy to include canceling all section 325(c)
    permits associated with Stations XESS, XESDD, XEKTT, and XHBCE,
    regardless of the companies named in such permits and taking
    punitive actions against BCA and Quetzal in any future requests for
    license renewal.[^17]

6.  On June 30, 2005 BCA filed an Opposition to the Petition to Deny.
    BCA asserts that the Petitioners allegations are based upon
    speculation.[^18] BCA also claims that the Petitioners arguments
    with respect to the Class B facilities are without merit. BCA
    asserts that it is responsible for providing programming over those
    stations consistent with Mexican and U.S. law. BCA does not,
    however, operate the Mexican stations for which it provides
    programming, rather that is a function of the licensee.[^19] With
    regard to the Class C1 facilities, BCA asserts that it was only
    after the Petitions were filed that XHBCE completed construction and
    operation of the Class C1 facility, and that both the construction
    and operation are consistent with the authorization and the
    parameters of the Mexican coordination with the United States.[^20]
    Finally, BCA argues that the claims regarding interference from the
    Class C1 facilities are unfounded.[^21]

## BCA Application at the Class B site at Matamoros Jaramillo and Request for Special Temporary Authority 

7.  On July 1, 2005, BCA also requested an STA to permit it to provide
    certain programming to the Class C1 facility of XHBCE while its
    application for underlying authority for a 325(c) permit remained
    pending.[^22] Given that in this Order we grant BCA's underlying
    application for a 325(c) permit to deliver programming to XHBCE's
    Class C1 facility, we find this request for special temporary
    authority and related objections moot. In addition, since the
    Mexican Administration has ordered XHBCE to cease operating from the
    Class B facilities, we find that BCA's application for a permit to
    deliver programming to the Class B facility and the objections to
    this particular application also moot.

#  Discussion

8.  To make a determination on the facts of this case, we must examine
    Sections 325 and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, which govern
    the export of domestic programming and the public interest analysis
    applied. Section 325(c) requires applicants to obtain a permit prior
    to transmitting electronically program material from the United
    States to a foreign broadcast station that can be received
    consistently in the United States.[^23] This requirement was
    intended primarily to address two problems: objectionable
    programming and harmful interference by foreign stations.[^24]

9.  BCA's request for a permit under Section 325(c) does not involve any
    allegation of objectionable programming; the Petitioners do,
    however, complain that Mexican Station XHBCE is causing interference
    to a U.S. station. With respect to interference, Congress viewed
    Section 325 as a way to reduce severe electrical interference that
    U.S. stations were receiving from Mexican border stations.[^25]
    Section 325 gave the interfering stations an incentive to resolve
    this problem because they would otherwise be unable to receive the
    benefit of U.S. programming services.[^26] As with domestic
    broadcast applications in determining whether to grant or deny a
    Section 325 permit we must consider the public interest,
    convenience, and necessity, of such a grant as provided in Section
    309 of the Communications Act.[^27] The focus of our discussion is
    whether BCA is legally and technically qualified to hold a
    Commission permit to provide programming to XHBCE-FM's Class C1
    facilities for rebroadcast into the United States. We will address
    each of the issues raised by the petitioners in turn.

10. As an initial matter, the Petitioners assert that BCA should be held
    accountable for alleged wrongdoing by one of its programming
    partners, Quetzal.[^28] The Petitioners assert that Quetzal has a
    history of misusing 325(c) permits and BCA as its programming
    partner should be charged with knowledge of Quetzal's alleged
    conduct.[^29] Petitioners also raise specific allegations that
    XHBCE-FM was not operating the B facility in accordance with the
    terms of its authorization and was not operating at its authorized
    location for the B facility at Matamoros Jaramillo. However, as
    previously discussed, the SCT has instructed the licensee of XHBCE
    FM to terminate operations at the Matamoros Jarmillo location now
    that the site in Tecate, B.C. is constructed. In addition Quetzal
    has also withdrawn its application for a 325(c) permit. For these
    reasons, we do not need to reach the merits regarding the alleged
    violations against Quetzal and therefore do not need to reach a
    decision as to whether BCA should have had knowledge of the alleged
    misrepresentations with respect to this proceeding. In any event,
    the record does not provide sufficient nexus between Quetzal and BCA
    to raise concerns about BCA's knowledge of Quetzal's alleged
    misconduct with respect to this proceeding. Moreover, there is no
    overlap in ownership with Quetzal and Mr. Bonilla. There is nothing
    in the record of the BCA proceeding that allows us to conclude that
    the allegations of misrepresentation on the part of Quetzal are
    grounds for a denial of a permit for BCA.

11. ***Directional Antenna**:* Petitioners also assert that the antenna
    for XHBCE-FM's Class C1 facility cannot produce the required
    directional antenna pattern and cannot protect KXRS-FM, located in
    Hemet, California. Specifically, Petitioners claim that XHBCE-FM's
    Class C1 antenna pattern is an incorrect representation of the
    actual operating facility and that the antenna actually radiates
    with full-power towards KXRS-FM, which in turn results in
    interference to a majority of KXRS-FM's protected 60 dBu service
    area.[^30] Petitioners state that the directional antenna submitted
    to the Commission does not actually have the directional
    characteristics it is claimed to have because the Petitioners could
    not find documentation that demonstrates that the antenna has the
    parts (parasitic elements) added to it to cause it to be
    directional.[^31] In response, BCA filed a measured directional
    antenna pattern and the results of a survey indicating that the
    antenna is pointing at an azimuth of 280˚.[^32] In reply,
    Petitioners state that XHBCE-FM's antenna is so broad that the
    difference in antenna orientation makes little difference.[^33]

12. Based on our review of XHBCE-FM's Class C1 operating parameters,
    including the directional antenna pattern, supplied to us by
    Mexico's Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT), we find
    that XHBCE-FM's facility complies with the limitation to which the
    United States and Mexico agreed.[^34] We also reviewed the operating
    parameters BCA submitted in the Opposition to the Petition to Deny
    and reach the same conclusion -- that is, the operating parameters,
    including the measured directional antenna pattern, comply with the
    limitations mentioned above. In matters such as this, we rely on the
    responses of SCT, since it has the authority to regulate
    XHBCE-FM.[^35] Thus, we lack evidence to find that XHBCE-FM's
    operations are inconsistent with the notified operating parameters
    in accordance with Article 8.3 of the 1992 USA-Mexico FM
    Broadcasting Agreement.[^36]

13. ***Antenna Size***: Petitioners also argue that XHBCE-FM's Class C1
    antenna is too large. Specifically, petitioners claim that
    XHBCE-FM's eight bay antenna is "far larger than would be required
    for the authorized maximum ERP of 8.2 kW."[^37] In response, BCA
    states that the use of an 8-bay antenna is common, that the 8-bay
    antenna was purchased because the station was originally authorized
    to use a higher power, that more bays means less transmitter power
    output, and that the ability of an antenna to operate with more
    power does not mean that it will be operated with more power.[^38]
    In their reply, Petitioners state that they have no confidence that
    XHBCE-FM will operate at 8.2 kW or operate directionally towards
    KXRS-FM.[^39]

14. The fact that XHBCE-FM uses an 8-bay antenna does not raise any
    specific concerns with us. BCA has sufficiently explained why
    XHBCE-FM is using an antenna that is larger than what would normally
    be used.[^40] However, if we were to find that XHBCE-FM is operating
    with facilities different from those listed in the SCT's May 8, 2005
    letter, BCA will have to immediately cease program operations. In
    addition, if is determined that XHBCE-FM's parameters do not comply
    with those of its associated allotment, or its protected contour is
    greater than or extends beyond that of its corresponding allotment
    the SCT must immediately suspend XHBCE-FM operation in accordance
    with Section 8.1.1 of the 1992 USA-Mexico FM Broadcasting Agreement.

15. ***Interference:*** Finally, Petitioners claim that station XHBCE-FM
    is causing interference to station KXRS-FM.[^41] Specifically, a
    KXRS-FM sales representative, Mr. Armando Gutierrez, states that he
    is receiving calls from customers, advertisers and listeners
    claiming that they are receiving interference to the KXRS-FM signal.
    The Petitioners claim that the interference is coming from a station
    in Mexico that operates on the same frequency as KXRS-FM. Mr.
    Gutierrez states that he has investigated the interference and can
    confirm "that KXRS's signal receives interference from the Mexican
    co-channel station."[^42] BCA states that Mr. Gutierrez fails to
    provide the call sign of the offending station, declarations from
    complaining parties, audio tapes of the interference, the source of
    the alleged interference, or the locations of the alleged
    interference.[^43]

16. According to BCA, the Petitioner's claim that the Class C1 facility
    will cause interference to Station KXRS in Hemet is premised
    entirely upon a misperception of the orientation of the antenna and
    the pattern thereof. BCA attached to its pleading a certificate from
    a licensed surveyor to prove that the directional antenna installed
    at the C1 site by XHBCE is installed along the correct azimuth.[^44]
    BCA also provided a copy of a range-testing report prepared by the
    U.S. manufacturer for the XHBCE antenna at the C1 facility.[^45]
    According to that range test, the pattern achieved by the antenna
    provides the requisite protection mandated by the Commission with
    respect to Hemet and Ludlow.[^46] Finally, BCA argued that the
    Petitioners' claim of interference should be disregarded because
    "they are founded upon a declaration not of an engineer but of a
    sales representative who vaguely alludes to complaints of
    interference that he does not even allege stem from operations by
    XHBCE-FM."[^47]

17. The Commission treats allegations of interference to other
    authorized stations as a serious issue. At this time we are unable
    to confirm Petitioners' claims. The record does not support a claim
    of actual interference. Should the Commission find that XHBCE-FM is
    causing any unacceptable interference to any lawfully operating U.S.
    station in the future, BCA will be required to cease operations
    immediately and we reserve the right to revoke this grant.

18. We find that it is also in the public interest to allow BCA to
    transmit programming to XHBCE-FM from the Class C1 facility. This
    will allow consumers in areas of California to view unique
    programming.

# Conclusion

19. Based on the reasons discussed above, we find that it is in the
    public interest to grant BCA's request for authority under Section
    325(c) of the Communications Act. BCA is granted a permit to deliver
    programs to Station XHBCE-FM's C1 facilities located in Tecate,
    B.C., Mexico for re-broadcast into the United States.

# Ordering Clauses

20. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 0.261 of the Commission\'s rules on
    delegated authority, 47 C.F.R. § 0.261, Broadcast Company of the
    Americas, LLC's, request for authority under Section 325(c) to
    deliver programming to XHBCE's Class C1 facilities in Tecate, B.C.,
    Mexico, File No. 325-NEW-20050425-00010, is GRANTED.

21. IT IS ORDERED that Broadcast Company of the Americas, LLC's request
    for authority under Section 325(c) to deliver programming to XHBCE's
    Class B facilities in Matamoros Jarmillo, Mexico, File No.
    325-NEW-20050426-00011, is DISMISSED as moot.

22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Broadcast Company of the Americas, LLC's
    request for Special Temporary Authority, File No.
    325-STA-20050701-00016, to provide the program "El Cucuy Por La
    Manana" from the Class B facilities of XHBCE-FM is DISMISSED.

23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Quetzal Bilingual Communications, Inc,'s
    request to withdraw its application for authority under 325(c) to
    deliver programming to XHBCE's Class B facilities, File No. 325
    NEW-20050406-00008 is GRANTED.

24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Quetzal Bilingual Communications, Inc,'s
    request for extension of its STA to deliver programming to XHBCE's
    Class B facilities, File No. 325-STA-20050401-00003 is DISMISSED.

25. This authorization is predicated on the use of a foreign station
    assignment and must abide by the terms of the 1992 USA-Mexico FM
    Broadcast Agreement. Hence, this program authorization applies only
    to the specific foreign station facilities that are currently on
    file with the Commission as they have been officially coordinated by
    the Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT) in Mexico and
    subsequently approved by the Commission for operation. If the
    transmitter coordinates or technical operating parameters of the
    foreign station are altered subsequent to this authorization or are
    found to be different from those currently on file and approved by
    the Commission, the Broadcast Company of the Americas, LLC will be
    required to cease re-broadcasting its programming immediately.

26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Broadcast Company of the Americas, LLC is
    permitted to deliver programs for broadcast into the United States
    from station XHBCE-FM Tecate, B.C., Mexico with the following
    facilities:

Channel: 289C1\*(L)

City: Tecate, B.C.

Coordinates: 32° 18\' 51\" NL

116° 39\' 54\" WL

\*(L) Restricted to 16kW ERP and 300m HAAT or the equivalent along the
351.03˚ azimuth in the direction of channel 289A in Hemet, CA and
limited to 96kW ERP and 300m HAAT or the equivalent along the 8.88˚
azimuth in the direction of channel 289B in Ludlow, CA.

27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon a finding of unacceptable
    interference by the Federal Communications Commission, Broadcast
    Company of the Americas, LLC must cease operations immediately.

28. Broadcast Company of the Americas, LLC is afforded thirty days to
    decline this authorization as conditioned. Failure to respond within
    this period will constitute formal acceptance of the authorization
    as conditioned.

29. This Order is effective upon release. Petitions for Reconsideration
    under Section 1.106 or applications for review under Section 1.115
    of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R §§ 1.106, 1.115, may be filed
    within thirty days of the date of the release of this Order (see 47
    C.F.R. § 1.4(b)(2)).

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Kathryn O'Brien Chief

Strategic Analysis and Negotiations Division

[^1]: *See* Public Notice, Report No. 325-00099 and File No.
    325-NEW-20050426-00011 (BCA Application for B facilities).

[^2]: *See* Public Notice, Report No. 325-00098 and File No.
    325-NEW-20050425-00010 (BCA Application for C1 facilities).

[^3]: BCA Application at Exhibit III. The 1992 USA-Mexico FM
    Broadcasting Agreement defines the parameters for Class B and Class
    C1 facilities. For example, a Class B facility has a maximum
    effective radiated power (ERP) of 50 kilowatts (kW) with an antenna
    height above average terrain (HAAT) of 150 meters (m), which
    produces a protected contour extending 65 kilometers (km). The
    protected contour of a Class B facility is 0.5 mV/m (54 dBu).
    Conversely, a Class C1 facility has a maximum ERP of 100kW with an
    HAAT of 300m, which produces a protected contour extending 72km. The
    protected contour of a Class C1 facility is 1.0 mV/m (60 dBu).

[^4]: BCA C1 Application at Exhibit III. In a letter dated July 29,
    2005, BCA indicated that the C1 facility was fully constructed and
    operational. Letter from John M. Pelky, Counsel for BCA, to Marlene
    H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Counsel's
    File No. 21554-00100-64**.**

[^5]: Letter from John M. Pelkey, Counsel for BCA, to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (dated July 1, 2005),
    File No. 325-STA-20050701-00016**.** Lazer Broadcasting and Emmis
    Communications filed Petitions to Deny this request. BCA also filed
    an application for authority under 325(c) to provide programming to
    AM station XEKTT. This application remains pending.

[^6]: *See* Public Notice, Report No. 325-00094 and File No.
    325-NEW-20050406-00008.

[^7]: Petition to Deny Quetzal Application for Section 325(c) Permit to
    Deliver Programming to Station XHBCE-FM Class C1, Tecate B.C.
    Mexico, jointly filed by Lazer Broadcasting, Emmis Corporation and
    Citicasters Licensees, filed May 16, 2005. The Commission also
    received requests from Quetzal and the Petitioners for extensions of
    time to file various responses. Quetzal Bilingual Communications
    Inc., Motion for Extension of Time (filed May 24, 2005). This
    request was granted verbally by Linda Armstrong, International
    Bureau, FCC, May 27, 2005. Lazer Broadcasting Corporation and Emmis
    Corporation, Motion for Extension of Time (filed June 27, 2005);
    Broadcast Company of the Americas, LLC, Motion for Leave to File
    (filed June 30, 2005); Lazer Broadcasting Corporation and Emmis
    Communications Corporation, Motion for Extension of Time (filed July
    14, 2005). We accepted and fully considered all of pleadings filed
    in connection with the Quetzal applications and STA requests. In any
    event, all filings related to the Quetzal applications are now moot.

[^8]: Petition to Deny Quetzal Application at 1-2.

[^9]: Letter from Henry A. Solomon, Counsel for Quetzal Bilingual
    Communications, Inc., to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission (dated July 25, 2005). Lazer and Emmis
    assert that despite Quetzal's withdrawal of the application, as an
    FCC licensee, Quetzal should be held accountable for the alleged
    misstatements it has made to date. Reply to BCA Opposition at 1.

[^10]: *See* Public Notice, Report No. 325-00088 and File No.
    325-STA-20050401-00003.

[^11]: Letter from John M. Pelkey, Counsel for BCA, to Marlene H.
    Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission dated June 20,
    2005. Quetzal filed a supplement to that request dated June 24,
    2005. In an Informal Objection (dated June 24, 2005), Lazer and
    Emmis opposed the extension.

[^12]: Letter from John M. Pelkey, Counsel for BCA, to Marlene H.
    Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (dated
    September 9, 2005).

[^13]: Petition to Deny BCA Application filed June 15, 2005 (Petition to
    Deny). With the exception of a new engineering report, Petitioners
    provided the same evidence to support their position as in the
    Petition to Deny the Quetzal Application.

[^14]: Petition to Deny BCA Application at 3.

[^15]: Reply to BCA Opposition.

[^16]: Petition to Deny BCA Application at 7.

[^17]: Reply to BCA Opposition at 15.

[^18]: BCA Opposition to Petition to Deny at 1.

[^19]: BCA Opposition to Petition to Deny at 3.

[^20]: BCA Opposition to Petition to Deny at iii.

[^21]: BCA Opposition to Petition to Deny at iv.

[^22]: File No. 325-STA-20050701-00016. On July 11, 2005, Lazer and
    Emmis objected to this request.

[^23]: 47 U.S.C. Section 325(c); *see also* Section 73.3545 of the
    Commission's rules.

[^24]: S. Rep. No. 319, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 1934.

[^25]: Remote Control Border Stations: Hearings on H.R. 7800 Before the
    Committee on Merchant Marine, Radio, and Fisheries, 73d Cong., 2d
    Sess. (1934).

[^26]: The standard for Section 325 applications is delineated in the
    North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA"), North American Free
    Trade Implementation Act, Pub. L. No. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057
    (1993). NAFTA is an international treaty designed to eliminate
    barriers to trade and to promote conditions of fair competition
    between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. North American Free
    Trade Agreement, Dec. 17, 1992, U.S. --Can. --Mex., Chap. 1, Art.
    102, H.R. Treaty Doc. No. 159, 103d Cong., 1^st^ Sess. (1993). There
    is a specific NAFTA provision applicable to the FCC's handling of
    foreign programming applications under Section 325.

[^27]: 47 U.S. Sections 309(a) and 325(d).

[^28]: Petition to Deny BCA application at 7.

[^29]: Petition to Deny BCA Application at 3 and 7.

[^30]: Petition to Deny BCA at 8. Lazer is the licensee of Station
    KXRS-FM, 105.7 MHz, Hemet, California.

[^31]: Reply to BCA Opposition at pp 4-5.

[^32]: BCA Opposition to Petition to Deny at 7 and Attachments 1-13.

[^33]: Reply to BCA Opposition pp at 4-5.

[^34]: Letter from Jorge Rodriguez Castaneda, Director General, State
    Office of Radio and Television Systems, Secretaria de Comunicaciones
    y Transportes, (SCT) to Kathryn O'Brien, Chief, Strategic Analysis
    and Negotiations Division, International Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission (dated May 8, 2005).

[^35]: Letter from Jorge Rodriguez Castaneda, Director General, State
    Office of Radio and Television Systems, Secretaria de Comunicaciones
    y Transportes to Kathryn O'Brien, Chief, Strategic Analysis and
    Negotiations Division, International Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission (dated May 8, 2005).

[^36]: We will, however, periodically monitor transmissions to ensure
    that the transmissions are in accordance with the 1992 USA-Mexico FM
    Broadcasting Agreement.

[^37]: Petition to Deny BCA Application at 7.

[^38]: BCA Opposition to Petition to Deny at 11.

[^39]: Reply to BCA Opposition at 6.

[^40]: The larger the antenna, the higher the initial cost to build the
    facility, however, the operating cost will be lower in the long run.

[^41]: Petition to Deny BCA Application at 2.

[^42]: Both Petitioners' *Petition to Deny* (Exhibit 1).

[^43]: The Federal Communications Commission requests, in part, the
    following information when it receives a complaint of interference:
    a detailed description of the nature of the interference, including
    the duration and frequency of the occurrence of interference; the
    call sign and address of the station believed to be the source of
    the interference; and any documentation supporting the alleged
    existence and cause of the interference.

[^44]: BCA Opposition to Petition to Deny at iii.

[^45]: BCA Opposition to Petition to Deny at iii.

[^46]: BCA Opposition to Petition to Deny at iii.

[^47]: BCA Opposition to Petition to Deny at iv.