The full Commission has agreed to stand by a Media Bureau decision to deny the licensee of an FM translator serving the capital city of Nevada to increase its power from 40 watts to 250 watts, denying the licensee’s request for a waiver.
An application for review was filed on December 28, 2022, by Americom which challenged a November 2022 Media Bureau staff decision that declined the company’s waiver request as it pertains to the FM Translator Siting Rule. Concurrently, the Bureau dismissed an application to permit the translator at the heart of request — K245DC at 96.1 MHz in Carson City, Nev. — to increase its power.
The power increase was desired to bring Spanish Adult Hits “Suave” to a bigger portion of the Reno, Nev., market, part of a plan originally filed with the FCC in January 2021 for its consideration.
In the waiver request submitted to the Commission by Americom, the company argued that the proposed translator power and tower location changes would allow it to better serve the Reno market, of which Carson City is included as measured by Nielsen Audio. With “low conductivity and diminished reception” for originating station KBZZ-AM in Carson City, the proposed changes would bring “flexibility” while advancing the public interest.
Media Bureau Chief Holly Saurer disagreed, judging that the Waiver Request had not displayed special circumstances that warranted deviation from the FM Translator Siting Rule. Specifically, the Staff Decision found that neither the irregular size and shape of
the Nielsen Reno Market nor the signal degradation due to terrain obstruction were unusual circumstances sufficient to justify grant of a waiver.
Then came the application for review (AFR), in which Americom contended that the Staff Decision dismissed the Waiver Request “without consideration of essential facts,” and therefore, failed to undertake the “hard look” analysis required by key court case WAIT Radio v. FCC.
Americom further claimed that the Staff Decision is inconsistent with the “plain language, context and spirit” of the AM revitalization efforts set forth by the Commission.
The full Commission didn’t buy those arguments, saying, “We deny the AFR because it fails to show any error in the Bureau’s analysis of Commission precedent or established policy.”
