*Pages 1--8 from  Microsoft Word - 55310.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  06-  473 
 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: 
 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  In  this  Order,  we  grant  Broadcast  Company  of  the  Americas,  LLCs  (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. 

 II.  BACKGROUND 
 A.  BCAs  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 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  06-  473 
 2 
 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 

 B.  Quetzals  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-  FMs  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  Quetzals  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 

 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,  Counsels  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. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  06-  473 
 3 
 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-  FMs  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  Quetzals  request  to  extend  this  STA  and  the  objections  to  these  applications  and  requests  moot  with  respect  to  this  proceeding. 

 C.  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  Bonillas  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 

 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  Quetzals  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. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  06-  473 
 4 
 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 

 D.  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  BCAs  underlying  application  for  a  325(  c)  permit  to  deliver  programming  to  XHBCEs  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  BCAs  application  for  a  permit  to 
 deliver  programming  to  the  Class  B  facility  and  the  objections  to  this  particular  application  also  moot. 
 III.  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.  BCAs  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 

 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  Commissions  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  FCCs  handling  of  foreign  programming  applications  under  Section 
 325. 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  06-  473 
 5 
 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-  FMs  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  Quetzals  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  BCAs 
 knowledge  of  Quetzals  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-  FMs  Class  C1  facility  cannot  produce  the  required  directional  antenna  pattern  and  cannot  protect  KXRS-  FM,  located  in 
 Hemet,  California.  Specifically,  Petitioners  claim  that  XHBCE-  FMs  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-  FMs  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-  FMs  antenna  is  so  broad  that  the  difference  in  antenna  orientation  makes  little  difference.  33 
 12.  Based  on  our  review  of  XHBCE-  FMs  Class  C1  operating  parameters,  including  the  directional  antenna  pattern,  supplied  to  us  by  Mexicos  Secretaria  de  Comunicaciones  y  Transportes 

 (SCT),  we  find  that  XHBCE-  FMs  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 

 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  OBrien,  Chief,  Strategic  Analysis  and  Negotiations  Division,  International  Bureau,  Federal  Communications  Commission  (dated  May  8,  2005). 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  06-  473 
 6 
 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-  FMs  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-  FMs  Class  C1  antenna  is  too  large.  Specifically,  petitioners  claim  that  XHBCE-  FMs  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  SCTs  May  8,  2005  letter,  BCA  will  have  to  immediately  cease  program 
 operations.  In  addition,  if  is  determined  that  XHBCE-  FMs  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  KXRSs  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 

 35  Letter  from  Jorge  Rodriguez  Castaneda,  Director  General,  State  Office  of  Radio  and  Television  Systems, 
 Secretaria  de  Comunicaciones  y  Transportes  to  Kathryn  OBrien,  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 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  06-  473 
 7 
 16.  According  to  BCA,  the  Petitioners  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. 
 IV.  CONCLUSION 
 19.  Based  on  the  reasons  discussed  above,  we  find  that  it  is  in  the  public  interest  to  grant  BCAs  request  for  authority  under  Section  325(  c)  of  the  Communications  Act.  BCA  is  granted  a  permit 

 to  deliver  programs  to  Station  XHBCE-  FMs  C1  facilities  located  in  Tecate,  B.  C.,  Mexico  for  re-broadcast  into  the  United  States. 

 V.  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,  LLCs,  request  for  authority  under  Section 

 325(  c)  to  deliver  programming  to  XHBCEs  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,  LLCs  request  for  authority  under  Section  325(  c)  to  deliver  programming  to  XHBCEs  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,  LLCs  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  XHBCEs  Class  B 

 facilities,  File  No.  325  NEW-  20050406-  00008  is  GRANTED. 

 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. 
7