> **DA 08-2467** *In Reply Refer to:*

1800B3-MJW

Released: November 7, 2008

R&R Radio Corp.

c/o Richard A. Helmick, Esq.

Cohn and Marks, LLP

1920 N Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036

SBR Broadcasting Corp.

c/o Lewis Paper, Esq.

Dickstein Shapiro, LLP

1825 Eye Street NW

Washington, DC 20006

Gold Coast Broadcasting, LLC

c/o David Oxenford, Esq.

Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP

1919 Pennsylvania Ave.

Washington, DC 20006

In re: **R&R Radio Corp.** KDES-FM, Palm Springs, California

Facility ID No. 67354

File No. BPH-20071128ACX

**Application for Construction Permit**

> **for Minor Change**
>
> **Informal Objections**
>
> **Motion to Dismiss or Designate for Hearing**

Dear Counsel:

We have before us, the application ("Application") of R&R Radio Corp.
("R&R") for a minor change to Station KDES-FM, Palm Springs, California
("Palm Springs") to change transmitter site and change its community of
license to Redlands, California ("Redlands"). We also have before us an
Informal Objection filed by SBR Broadcasting Corp. ("SBR"), licensee of
KCAL-FM, Redlands, (the "SBR Objection"), an Opposition to KDES-FM
Community of License Change filed by Gold Coast Broadcasting, LLC,
("Gold Coast"), licensee of KCAQ(FM), Oxnard, California (the "Gold
Coast Opposition"), and a Motion to Dismiss or Designate for Hearing
filed by Gold Coast (the "Motion to Dismiss").[^1] For the reasons set
out below, we deny the SBR Objection, the Gold Coast Opposition and the
Gold Coast Motion to Dismiss, and grant the Application.

**Background.** R&R's Application seeks to relocate the transmitter site
of KDES-FM and change its community of license from Palm Springs to
Redlands.[^2] Currently, KDES-FM is licensed as a Class B station in
Palm Springs; R&R proposes to operate KDES-FM as a Class A station in
Redlands.

Gold Coast submits that the reallocation of KDES-FM to Redlands does not
meet the Commission's standards for a "preferential arrangement of
allotments."[^3] It claims that granting the Application would "take
away long-standing service from a small regional market to move the
station into a larger urban market that is already well-served."[^4]
Gold Coast disputes R&R's claim that, with grant of the Application, 31%
of the population within KDES-FM's service contour would continue to
have service. It submits that, under an alternative "Longley-Rice"
contour prediction methodology,[^5] the relocation of KDES-FM would
"terminate service to nearly 90% of its current listeners."[^6]

Gold Coast also contends that, if the Application is granted, 346
persons, currently within KDES-FM's service area, would then have
"access to only four other full-time aural services."[^7] Gold Coast
also provides copies of letters filed with the Commission in which
certain residents of the Palm Springs area oppose loss of service from
KDES-FM.[^8]

Although Gold Coast acknowledges that KDES-FM, when relocated, meets the
co-channel spacing requirements in Section 73.207 of the Rules, it
claims that, nonetheless, there will be "massive harmful interference"
to reception of Gold Coast's station KCAQ(FM), Oxnard, California.[^9]
It bases its conclusion on two claims: (1) the service and interference
contours of KDES-FM and KCAQ(FM) will overlap; and (2) a Longley-Rice
analysis shows that interference will occur. Both claims rest on an
asserted "anomaly in the Commission's Rules" concerning calculation of
stations' height above average terrain,[^10] which anomaly, Gold Coast
claims, would result in KDES-FM causing greater interference than would
be encountered "in an area with more normal terrain."[^11]

Gold Coast also submits that KDES-FM should remain in Palm Springs
because the city's population is projected to grow at a faster rate than
Redlands'. It cites U.S. Census data indicating that Palm Springs has
grown by 19% in the last twenty years, whereas Redlands has grown by
only 16.5% during the same period.[^12]

SBR concedes that Palm Springs currently has seven aural services (and a
population of 42,807 persons), whereas Redlands currently has only three
local transmission services (and a population of 63,591 persons). It
submits, however, that the relative distribution of allotments in the
two cities "distort\[s\] the realty (sic) of the respective populations
of the Palm Springs and Redlands markets and the radio stations serving
those communities."[^13] The distortion occurs, SBR alleges, because
there are fewer stations (26) "home" to the Palm Springs Arbitron Metro
(Market 137, population 318,000) compared to the larger number of
stations (34) that are "home" to the Riverside-San Bernardino Arbitron
Metro (Market 25, population 1,806,800).[^14] SBR also concedes that, if
the Application is granted, KDES-FM would serve 1,141,140 more persons
in Redlands than in Palm Springs,[^15] and that "the smaller number of
stations assigned to Redlands and the increased population coverage from
the Station's relocation might be sufficient to warrant a grant of the
application."[^16] It argues, however, that the Application should not
be granted because a relocated KDES-FM "would leave 1,095 persons with
access to only four (4) radio services,"[^17] and result in the "the
creation of an area with less than five (5) reception services . . .
compounded by a population loss of 335,737 persons."[^18]

R&R asserts that the net population gain from the relocation of
KDES-FM - 1,141,140 persons - is an independent "strong public interest
factor" supporting its proposal.[^19] It disputes Gold Coast's arguments
about the appropriate distribution of service, pointing out that the
Coachella Valley is "well served" and that, with relocation of KDES-FM,
Palm Springs will retain "six stations of its own, three times the
number historically deemed by the Commission to be appropriate for a
community of its size."[^20] The Longley-Rice alternate signal
propagation methodology, R&R argues, has specifically been rejected by
the Commission for the purpose of determining interference between
broadcast stations.[^21]

In its Motion to Dismiss, Gold Coast claims that R&R would use a
combination of a side-mounted antenna and a "lambda" tower section that
would impermissibly increase the KDES-FM signal in the direction of the
KCAQ(FM) coverage area.[^22] Such an increase in signal strength, Gold
Coast claims, would result in co-channel interference to KCAQ(FM) and
indirectly modify the KCAQ(FM) license, thereby requiring a hearing
under Section 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.[^23] In
support of its claim that the KDES-FM antenna would be "directionalized"
by the lambda tower section, Gold Coast submits a declaration from
Richard Rudman, president of Remote Possibilities Technical Services,
who reports his observations of the signal of station KRQB(FM), the
station on whose tower KDES-FM's antenna will be collocated.[^24] Mr.
Rudman observes that the KRQB(FM) signal is "strong," 84 miles to the
west of its transmitter site, but is "noisy and inconsistent" 16.5 miles
to the south, in its city of license, San Jacinto, California.[^25] He
concludes, therefore, that "the station is operating with all of the
attributes of a highly directional FM antenna system."[^26]

R&R contends that Gold Coast's engineering conclusions are defective.
First, R&R claims that Gold Coast's engineer has assumed, without basis,
that R&R will use a particular model of transmitting antenna. Second,
R&R contends that - contrary to the engineer's assertion that lambda
tower sections "directionalize" the patterns of antennas - the tower
section manufacturer states that such sections are intended to improve
the omnidirectional characteristics of a side-mounted antenna, not to
distort the antenna pattern so that it is directional.[^27] Third, R&R
notes that lambda mounting structures are frequency-specific and the
structure upon which the R&R antenna will be mounted is tuned to
KRBQ(FM)'s operating frequency (91.6 MHz),[^28] which is 8.6 MHz removed
from the KDES-FM operating frequency (104.7 MHz)[^29] Fourth, R&R claims
that Mr. Rudman's observations of the KRQB(FM) signal do not take into
account such factors as terrain, interference, and the orientation of
the antennas on the consumer-grade receivers Mr. Rudman used for his
observations.[^30]

**Discussion.** *Allocation Priorities.* In considering a reallotment
proposal, we compare the existing allotment to the proposed allotment to
determine whether the reallotment will result in a preferential
arrangement of allotments. Our determination is based upon the FM
allotment priorities.[^31] Here, priorities 1-3 do not apply because
grant of the Application would not provide a first or second fulltime
aural service, or a first local service to Redlands. Thus, our decision
is governed by Priority 4, "other public interest matters."

The parties differ on their estimates of the number of persons whose
service would be reduced by KDES-FM's relocation. Gold Coast claims that
grant of the Application would leave 346 persons with only four
full-time aural services.[^32] SBR, citing to the R&R Application,[^33]
states that 1095 persons would receive only four full-time aural
services.[^34] Our own engineering analysis, however, shows that
listeners in KDES-FM's current service area would continue to receive
five or more aural services after KDES-FM is relocated.

The Commission has stated that a comparison of proposals under Priority
4 may "take into account the number of aural services received in the
proposed service area, the number of local services, the need for or
lack of public radio service and other matters such as the relative size
of the proposed communities and their growth rate."[^35] Applying
Priority 4, we find that the reallotment of KDES-FM from Palm Springs to
Redlands is in the public interest for two reasons. First the net gain
in service achieved by relocating KDES-FM is substantial:[^36] a
relocated KDES-FM would serve 1,141,140 more persons than
currently.[^37] Also, when KDES-FM is relocated, the population within
its present service area will have five or more remaining aural services
available.[^38] Second, under Priority 4, a community receiving a fourth
local transmission service is also a "public interest matter"[^39]
Redlands - a community of 63,591 persons - will receive a fourth local
transmission service,[^40] whereas Palm Springs - a community of only
42,807 persons - will retain six local transmission services, an
abundant number for a community of its size.[^41] Gold Coast's reference
to the different population growth rates of Palm Springs (19%) and
Redlands (16.5%) does not support denial of the Application. The
difference in growth rate is small (2.5%) and not decisionally
significant given that Redlands is approximately 50% larger than Palm
Springs.[^42]

We are unpersuaded by SBR's claim that the benefit of the substantial
increase in population achieved by grant of the Application is somehow
"distorted" because only twenty-six stations are "home" to the Palm
Springs Metro whereas thirty-four stations are "home" to the
Riverside-San Bernardino Metro.[^43] SBR has not quantified the effects
of the alleged "distortion," and, in any event, the Commission does not
look to "Metro coverage" when evaluating the existing *vs.* proposed
populations served by stations proposing a change in community of
license.

We recognize the strong support that KDES-FM enjoys in the Palm Springs
community as evidenced by the several letters Gold Coast solicited
urging the Commission to deny R&R's relocation application.[^44] We
agree with Gold Coast that, in allotment proceedings, we must take into
account that listeners in a community "have an expectation that service
will continue."[^45] Listeners' expectations, however, are not
dispositive; we must weigh listeners' expectations of continued service
in the current community against the benefits to be gained in the new
community.[^46] We have done so here and find that the significantly
greater population that will receive service from KDES-FM, coupled with
the benefit of new local service to Redlands, outweigh the loss of
service resulting from relocation of KDES-FM. In so deciding, we are
mindful that, with the six local transmission services that remain in
Palm Springs listeners in that area will continue to have abundant
programming choices.

*Interference.* We agree with R&R[^47] that, if, as here, an FM
application meets the distance-separation criteria in Section 73.207 of
the Rules,[^48] claims of "actual" or "real world" interference, no
matter how characterized or calculated, are not accepted.[^49] Thus, we
do not credit Gold Coast's allegations of "real world" interference
based on a so-called anomaly in the Rules, contour-overlap showings, and
reliance on Longley-Rice analysis. Neither Longley-Rice nor any other
"supplemental" interference analysis is acceptable in FM allotment
proceedings.[^50] In sum, we find that Gold Coast has not supported its
allegation that KDES-FM would cause "massive interference" to
KCAQ(FM).[^51]

*Unauthorized Directional Antenna.* We agree with R&R that Gold Coast
has not established that the antenna/tower combination proposed by R&R
is an unauthorized directional antenna. The technical showing that Gold
Coast advances in support of its claim is wholly speculative and relies
on unsupported assumptions about the model of antenna KDES-FM will
use[^52] and its radiation pattern when side-mounted on a tower.[^53]
Moreover, Gold Coast's claim that a "lambda" tower section will
"directionalize" the KDES-FM antenna pattern is contradicted by the
antenna manufacturer, ERI, which states that "\[t\]he Lambda Antenna
Structure was developed to overcome the disadvantages of distortion to
the antenna pattern" which occur when antennas are side-mounted on a
tower.[^54] We also agree with R&R that Gold Coast's discourse on the
effects of lambda tower sections is irrelevant because the lambda tower
sections are frequency-selective and the tower section on which the
KDES-FM antenna will be side-mounted was designed to correspond to the
KQRB(FM) frequency, 96.1 MHz, whereas KDES-FM operates at 104.7 MHz.
Finally, we discount the observations that Mr. Rudman made of the
KRQB(FM) signals. First, Gold Coast has not established that KRQB(FM) is
using the same transmitting antenna that KDES-FM will use. Second,
whether or not a "scan button" on a consumer grade receiver will "lock
in" to an FM broadcast station signal is not a reliable indicator of
absolute signal strength. Third, Mr. Rudman's observations do not take
into account such factors as terrain attenuation, reflections,
co-channel or adjacent-channel interference and the directivity of the
antenna on the consumer-grade receiver used by Mr. Rudman.

*Designation for Hearing*. Gold Coast's argument that it is entitled to
a hearing because its license would indirectly be modified by
interference from KDES-FM fails on two counts. First, as shown *supra*,
Gold Coast has failed to show that such interference would, in fact,
occur. Second, Gold Coast's reliance on *Western* is misplaced because
that decision relied on a provision of Section 316 that was deleted when
Section 316 was amended the year after *Western* was decided.[^55]

**Decision/Action.** Neither SBR nor Gold Coast have established that
grant of the Application is inconsistent with the Commission's allotment
priorities or otherwise is not in the public interest. Accordingly, IT
IS ORDERED that the Informal Objection filed by SBR Broadcasting Corp.,
IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Opposition to KDES-FM
Community of License Change filed by Gold Coast Broadcasting, LLC, IS
DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time
filed by R&R Radio Corp., IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that the Motion to Dismiss or Designate for Hearing filed by Gold Coast
Broadcasting, LLC, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for
Expedited Action filed by R&R Radio Corp., IS DISMISSED

AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Application, File No.
BPH-20071128ACX, filed by R&R Radio Corp., IS GRANTED.

Sincerely,

Peter H. Doyle

Chief, Audio Division

Media Bureau

[^1]: R&R filed an Opposition to Informal Objection (the "R&R
    Opposition") and a Response to Opposition to KDES-FM Community of
    License Change (the "R&R Response"). Gold Coast filed a Reply to
    Response to KDES-FM Community of License Change (the "Gold Coast
    Reply"). R&R filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss or Designate
    for Hearing (the "Opposition to Motion to Dismiss") and,
    subsequently, a Request for Expedited Action. Given our disposition
    of this matter, the Request for Expedited Action will be dismissed
    as moot. R&R filed a contingent Motion for Extension of Time. R&R
    sought the extension if the Gold Coast Opposition was deemed a
    formal opposition governed by the filing deadlines in 47 C.F.R. §
    1.45. The Motion for Extension of Time will be dismissed as moot.
    Gold Coast filed its Opposition "pursuant to Section 73.3587 of the
    Commission's Rules" (the "Rules") governing informal objections. The
    47 C.F.R. § 1.45 filing deadlines do not apply to informal
    objections.

[^2]: The Application was filed pursuant to Section 73.3573(g) of the
    Rules which permits the modification of a station's authorization to
    specify a new community of license without affording other
    interested parties the opportunity to file competing expressions of
    interest. Any such allotment proposal must result in a preferential
    arrangement of allotments. *See* *Modification of FM and TV
    Authorizations to Specify a New Community of License*, Report and
    Order, 4 FCC Rcd 4870, 4874 (1989) ("*New Community of License"*),
    *recon. granted in part,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd
    7094 (1990).

[^3]: Gold Coast Opposition at 6-9.

[^4]: *Id.* at 7.

[^5]: *See* Rice, P.L., Longley, A.G., Norton, K.A., Barsis, A.P.,
    "Transmission Loss Predictions for Tropospheric Communications
    Circuits," NBS Technical Note 101 (Revised), Volumes I and II, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, 1967.

[^6]: Gold Coast Opposition at 11.

[^7]: *Id.* at 13.

[^8]: *See* *id.* at 15-16 and Exhibit 6.

[^9]: *See* *Id.* at 16-19.

[^10]: *Id.* at 18. The claimed "anomaly" is in 47 C.F.R. § 73.310(a)
    which requires that the radiation center of a station antenna's
    overall height above average terrain (the "HAAT") must be calculated
    based on the average of the HAAT along eight equally spaced radials
    extending from 3 to 16 km from the antenna. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    73.313(d)(4)(i).

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: *Id.* at 14 and n.29. (Gold Coast also states that other
    communities in the Coachella Valley, where KDES-FM currently is
    located, have grown 90% in the past twenty years. *Id.*)

[^13]: SBR Objection at 2.

[^14]: *Id.* Gold Coast, however, states that the Palm Springs Arbitron
    Metro is Market 133 with a population of approximately 372,000
    persons and that the Riverside-San Bernardino Arbitron Metro is
    Market 26 with a population of approximately 2,145,400 persons. Gold
    Coast Opposition at 4-5. Gold Coast and SBR obtained their
    information from different reference sources. The differences in
    market rank and population are not significant to our analysis
    herein.

[^15]: *Id.*

[^16]: *Id.*

[^17]: *Id.*

[^18]: *Id.* at 4.

[^19]: R&R Response at 3 (citing *Corona de Tucson, Arizona,* Letter, 22
    FCC Rcd 13933 (MB 2009)). *See also* R&R Opposition at 2,

[^20]: R&R Response at 5.

[^21]: *Id.* at 8 (citing *Joseph E. Chautin,* Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 5364,
    5367 and n.5 (MB 2007)).

[^22]: *See* Motion to Dismiss at 4-8.

[^23]: 47 U.S.C. § 316. ("Section 316"). *See* Motion to Dismiss at 12
    and n.11 (citing *Western Broadcasting Co. v. FCC*, 674 F.2d 44
    (D.C. Cir. 1982) ("*Western*")).

[^24]: Motion to Dismiss, Ex. 3.

[^25]: *Id.*

[^26]: *Id.*

[^27]: *See* Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 9-10 and Attachment 1;
    Engineering Statement at Appendix A ("Comparison of Lambda Mounts
    and Conventional Tower Mounts for FM Antenna Systems," Dowdle, D.,
    Electronics Research, Inc., 2008).

[^28]: Station KRQB(FM).

[^29]: *See* Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 10-11.

[^30]: *Id.* Attachment 1, Engineering Statement at 3. R&R also points
    out that signal strength observations made by Mr. Rudman (a "noisy"
    signal 16.5 miles to the south of the KRQB(FM) transmitter site and
    a "strong" signal 84 miles, to the west) would mean that KRQB(FM)
    radiates an improbable 2.63 megawatts of ERP to the west. *Id.*

[^31]: The four priorities are: (1) First fulltime aural service; (2)
    Second fulltime aural service; (3) First local service; and (4)
    Other public interest matters. Co-equal weight is given to
    Priorities (2) and (3). *Revision of FM Assignment Priorities and
    Procedures,* Second Report and Order, 90 FCC 2d 88 (1988) ("*FM
    Priorities*").

[^32]: Gold Coast Opposition at 13. Gold Coast, in its Reply, states
    that "areas within the KDES-FM Loss Area receive as few as only one
    other fulltime aural service . . ." Gold Coast Reply at 4-5,
    Engineering Statement at 1. Neither the "areas" nor the population,
    if any, therein, are identified.

[^33]: In an amendment to the Application, filed Jan. 17, 2008, R&R
    notes that, although it originally stated that the loss area
    received five or more fulltime reception services, a recalculation
    by its consulting engineer showed that a 38 sq. km. segment of the
    loss area, containing 992 persons would receive only four nighttime
    reception services, It stated, also, that "another area would be
    similarly limited." R&R does not state the extent of the area, but
    believes it to be uninhabited.

[^34]: SBR Objection at 2.

[^35]: *FM Priorities,* 90 FCC 2d at 92 n.8.

[^36]: A net gain in service is a "public interest matter" within the
    meaning of Priority 4. *See* *Corona de Tucson, Sierra Vista, Tanque
    Verde and Vail, Arizona, Animas, Lordsburg, and Virden, New Mexico*,
    Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 13933, 13937 (MB 2007).

[^37]: We do not credit Gold Coast's claim that "barely 10% of KDES'
    current coverage would continue to receive KDES-FM after it is moved
    out of the market." Gold Coast Opposition at 10-11. The claim is
    based on the use of Longley-Rice analysis instead of the F(50,50)
    coverage curves in the Rules. The Commission has never approved use
    of Longley-Rice analysis as a means of predicting coverage or
    interference in the context of FM allotment proceedings. *See infra*
    nn.Error: Reference source not found, Error: Reference source not
    found.

[^38]: The Commission deems five or more reception services "abundant."
    *See Family Broadcasting Group,* Decision, 93 FCC 2d 771 (Rev. Bd.
    1983), *rev. denied* FCC 83-559 (Nov. 29, 1995); *see also*
    *LaGrange and Rollingwood, Texas,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10
    FCC Rcd 3337 (1995); *Louisburg and Hillsborough North Carolina.*,
    Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5062, 5063 (2006) (area "well-served
    with 5 or more full-time reception services").

[^39]: *See*, *e.g.,* *Rhinelander, Wisconsin,* Report and Order, 20 FCC
    Rcd 2202 (MB 2005).

[^40]: Redlands currently has local service from KUOR(FM), KCAL-FM and
    KCAL(AM).

[^41]: Palm Springs currently has local service from KPSI(AM), KNWQ(AM),
    KGAM(AM), KPSC(FM), KPSI-FM, KDES-FM and KPLM(FM).

[^42]: *See* R&R Opposition at 2.

[^43]: SBR Objection at 2.

[^44]: Gold Coast ran newspaper advertisements "informing listeners in
    the Palm Springs area about the prospect that KDES-FM could be
    relocated to Redlands, California." Opposition at 15 n.30. It
    "subsequently collected and submitted to the FCC hundreds of
    comments from concerned citizens . . .." *Id.* Given our decision
    herein, it is unnecessary to address the comments individually,
    notwithstanding that some of them are styled as informal objections
    (but do not reflect service on R&R). Thus, although we acknowledge
    that some residents prefer that KDES-FM not relocate, we find their
    preference outweighed by the other benefits that accrue from the
    relocation.

[^45]: Gold Coast Opposition at 5.

[^46]: *See* *New Community of License,* 5 FCC Rcd at 7097. ("The public
    has a legitimate expectation that existing service will continue,
    and this expectation is a factor we must weigh independently against
    the service benefits that may result from reallotting a channel from
    one community to another, regardless of whether the service removed
    constitutes a transmission service, a reception service, or both.")
    The Commission re-affirmed this policy in *Revision of Procedures
    Governing Amendments to FM Table of Allotments and Changes of
    Community of License in the Radio Broadcast Services*, Report and
    Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14212, 14227-30 (2006).

[^47]: *See* *supra* n.Error: Reference source not found.

[^48]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.207.

[^49]: *See Amendments of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to
    Permit Certain Minor Changes in Broadcast Facilities Without a
    Construction Permit,* Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12371*,* 12396
    (1997) ("*Minor Change in Facilities"*). ("Stations assigned in this
    manner are protected from interference from new or modified
    assignments solely on the basis of these distance separation
    requirements.") *See also* *Florissant Broadcasting Co., Inc*., 63
    FCC 2d 1041, 1043 (1977) ("the nature and extent of interference
    protection accorded commercial FM broadcast stations have been
    determined solely by the mileage separation, power, and antenna
    height limitations set forth in the Commission\'s Rules, without
    regard to the concept of protected and interfering contours.");
    *Fishers, Lawrence, Indianapolis, and Clinton, Indiana*, Report and
    Order, 22 FCC Rcd 11660, 11662 (MB 2007) (citing, 47 C.F.R.
    §§ 73.207, 73.209; *Cordele, Georgia, et al*., Report and Order, 12
    FCC Rcd 9777, 9780 (MMB 1997).

[^50]: *See Minor Changes in Facilities,* 12 FCC Rcd at 12404 ( "\[w\]e
    want to emphasize that supplemental showings have not been accepted,
    nor will be accepted, for the purpose of determining interference or
    prohibited contour overlap between FM broadcast stations. \* \* \*
    To employ supplemental showings for FM stations in this manner would
    represent a fundamental change as to how contour protection
    applications are processed, and would require a separate rulemaking
    proceeding to specify standards, methods and assumptions, and
    possibly revised definitions for protected service areas and
    interference").

[^51]: Gold Coast Reply at 7.

[^52]: *See* R&R Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 7. ("Gold Coast has
    no direct knowledge of the specifics of the antenna to be used by
    KDES or the manner in which it will be installed, and, thus, its
    entire motion is based on conjecture.")

[^53]: For example, Gold Coast's engineer's conclusions rest on an
    antenna pattern he thinks "closely resembles" the antenna pattern
    KDES-FM will use. Motion to Dismiss, Engineering Statement at 5. He
    believes that the width of the lambda section of the tower "appears
    to be approximately 42 inches." *Id.*

[^54]: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, Appendix A.

[^55]: Prior to the amendment, Section 316 provided that a licensee had
    a right "to show cause by public hearing if requested" why its
    license should not be modified." 47 U.S.C. § 316 (1952). *See*
    *Western,* 674 F.2d at 49. The right to a hearing was eliminated in
    the amended statute, which provides that licensees who believe their
    licenses would be modified by grant of another application "shall be
    given reasonable opportunity to protest such order of modification .
    . .." , 47 U.S.C. § 316 (1983), Pub.L. 98-214, § 4(a), 97 Stat.
    1467. *See* *also* Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 13-15.