Opinion ID: 402058
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: allegations of de facto reallocation of ksrf's license

Text: 69 As an alternative ground for reversal, appellant has claimed that if KSRF is allowed to move its transmitter site out of downtown Santa Monica and into the hills overlooking Los Angeles, KSRF will be decreasing its signal in Santa Monica and placing a 1 mV/m contour over almost all of Los Angeles for the first time. Appellant's brief at 13-14. KOCM contends that, as a result of this move, KSRF would be tempted to reduce its broadcast activities to Santa Monica and focus its activities on the more lucrative Los Angeles market. Thus, KOCM questions KSRF's true intent in moving its transmitter site. 70 Appellee correctly notes that appellant's argument was hinted at in the course of a brief paragraph in a cover sheet attached to Western's petition to deny, never to be addressed again either in the body of the petition to deny or in any other pleading subsequently filed by Western. And although the Commission took note in its initial order that 'KOCM does not claim a de facto reallocation' ( (79 F.C.C.2d at 951) J.A. 113), KOCM did not address that finding in its petition for reconsideration. Appellee's brief at 19-20. 71 Because we find that appellant has never properly raised a claim of de facto reallocation before the Commission, and because we can discern no other legitimate claim in appellant's alternative ground for reversal, we affirm the decision of the Commission on this point.