The Media Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission released a Public Notice to advise of new timeline dates for the upcoming 2026 NCE Reserved Band FM Translator Filing Window (FX2026).

The new timeline is as follows:

August 3, 2026: Form 2100, Schedule 345, the form for new FM Translator Construction Permits is expected to be active in LMS for application staging. The functionality to submit an application will be disabled until the designated filing window.

October 2, 2026 at 11:59PM EDT: Filing freeze will go into effect for reserved and non-reserved band LPFM, FM translator and FM translator booster minor modification applications. You will still be able to file other applications such as license to cover, silent, STA, assignments, transfers and administrative updates.

November 4, 2026 at 12:01AM EST: FX2026 filing window opens.

November 17, 2026 at 6:00PM EST: FX2026 filing window closes and filing freeze on secondary service minor modifications will be lifted.

As such, the new snapshot date on applications will be November 17, 2026.

Why the window was delayed

This extension was first requested by College Broadcasters, Inc. who stated that the extension was necessary because it is not possible to do effective outreach and for applicants to get approvals during the summer months due to staff availability during vacation periods on the academic calendar. Additional letters of support were received by Tribal advocacies including Native Public Media who stated that a delay would better align with Tribal governmental processes and by the Community Media Access Project (C-MAP) who stated that nonprofit and volunteer organizations may require more time to green light projects through their internal governance. REC also made letters of support to Commission staff on this issue.

REC supports a delay until November. A November window date is consistent with the filing window dates for the past 2021 NCE (Full-service) Reserved Band Filing Window and was the original timeframe for the 2023 LPFM Filing Window before it was delayed until December, 2023. The Bureau noted that they do not anticipate delaying the window any further in the future. REC has already stated on record that we will not support a delay that would put the window in the 2027 calendar year.

This delay will also provide additional time for the agency to make available the Schedule 345 form in LMS, which was originally scheduled to be available for staging applications on July 1 but was delayed due to technical difficulties. It will also allow the agency more time to consider REC’s inquiry in regards to the Diversity of Ownership preference points criteria stated in the previous public notice. On the diversity point issue, the Bureau stated that they “may issue a future Public Notice” to provide additional guidance and clarification, as appropriate.

Risks of delaying the window

Delaying the filing window will further the risk that more new construction permit applications for Low Power TV and TV Translator stations specifying operation on channel 6 (82~88 MHz) could be granted which may make it difficult for those located inside or very close to the 47 dBu F(50, 50) contour of such granted facilities. As of July 7, 2026, new construction permits for secondary TV channel 6 facilities have already been granted in two locations (Boise, ID and Townsend, MT). There are approximately 102 pending applications for new construction permits for secondary channel 6 TV stations.

Delaying the filing window will also provide full-service NCE and commercial stations to make modifications that may foreclose on a translator opportunity. For FM translator proposals on 91.5, 91.7 and 91.9, full-service modifications could have impacts from commercial band applications filed for 92.1, 92.3 and 92.5. Modifications specifying operation on 98.7 to 102.7 may impact the ability for a translator to operate more than 99 watts ERP. There are no filing freezes that will take place for modifications of primary full-service FM facilities.

Impact on REC operations

This delay does not change our service offerings including limits on paid applications filed in the window. This change does give REC more breathing room to conduct studies and reach out to potential applicants who have previously reached out to REC with a show of interest.

REC is still accepting shows of interest by both full-service and LPFM entities. Those requests may be made via email to lpfm@recnet.com. Show of interest requests will not be accepted by phone call nor by Facebook Messenger. In order for a request to be considered and placed in the queue, it must identify one or more sites and include the following information:

• Call sign (or facility ID) of station being rebroadcast by the translator.

• Location of proposed translator site (geographic coordinates, street address or antenna structure registration number).

• Overall height of the tower from ground level (if on a rooftop, also add in the height from the ground to the roof).

• How the tower will be mounted (free standing tower, rooftop, water tank, etc.)

• What heights are available on the tower for the placement of the antenna (if you are using a major tower company such as American Tower, SBA or Crown Castle, contact their agent to determine which “levels” are available on the tower).

• Maximum number of bays you will be able to use (both based on tower limitations and budgets).

• If you are willing to use a directional antenna.

• Which communities are you looking to serve with the translator.

Please note that on the LPFM side, it may take a month or more for a response from us due to the time that it takes to conduct the searches necessary to determine available spectrum. Please be patient as we have received many inquiries.

Full service FM station inquiries will have priority until further notice.

As of June 29, 2026, REC is no longer offering a “docs only” option for applications. For more information on rates, risks and conditions of this offer, please see the REC Rate Card for 2026 NCE FM Translator Filing Window.

If you have any questions in regards to FM translators and the filing window, please email to lpfm@recnet.com. Make sure you include a phone number in case I need to reach you in connection with the question.

REC is only accepting serious requests. We will not be able to accommodate questions such as “are there translator channels available in my area” or “where can I put a translator”.

On Wednesday, June 24, 2026, REC Networks has informed the staff at the Federal Communication’s Media Bureau (Bureau) Audio Division as well as the Acting Chief of the Media Bureau regarding a serious discrepancy in the recent Public Notice under delegated authority, announcing the procedures for the upcoming 2026 NCE Reserved Band FM Translator Filing Window (FX2026) and has asked for immediate clarification and an erratum (correction document) issued to reflect the Commission’s original 2000 intentions in respect to the point system for mutually exclusive (MX) applicants.

FX2026 will use the same point system that is also used for for full-service NCE FM filing windows, such as the 2021 NCE FM Filing Window (NCE2021). The point system can be found in §73.7003(b) of the FCC Rules. A translator rule, §74.1233(e)(3) specifically states that “the FCC will apply the same point system identified for full service reserved band FM stations in §73.7003(b)”.

Understanding the point system

The NCE point system different than the more simplified point system used for LPFM, but it includes the following elements:

• Established local ownership (3 points) for applicants who for the past two years have had either a headquarters or residences of 75% of the board members within 25 miles of the reference coordinates for the community of license (or in the case of translators, the translator site if there are no reference coordinates for the community served, such as in some rural areas, like Riverton, MD).

• Local diversity of ownership (2 points) for applicants that have no other attributable (co-owned and partially co-owned) interests that have a certain field strength contour that overlaps a certain field strength contour for the proposed translator.

• State-wide network (2 points) for large school or university systems who use their station for over the air academic instruction to remote campuses (awarded in lieu of the diversity of ownership points).

• Technical points (1 or 2 points) based on whether the area and land population of the proposed facility exceeds 10 or 25 percent of the area and land population of the next lower ranked proposal by both land area and population.

If an MX applicant is not able to find an engineering solution that will resolve their conflict, the point system is then utilized. The applicant with the most points will be the tentative selectee. If there is still a tie, the tiebreaker protocol described in §74.1233(e)(3)(i),(ii) and (iii) will be used.

REC raised a serious concern regarding the Public Notice language as it relates to the diversity of ownership point criteria.

Diversity of ownership points

The diversity of ownership points are intended to give preference to applicants who propose a facility in an area where they do not have any other broadcast holdings either directly under the same organization or indirectly though a subsidiary or a common board member with a different organization. Diversity is achieved if a specific field strength contour of the proposed facility does not overlap in any way with a specific field contour of the other broadcast holding.

The definition of those field strength contours that were published by the FCC in the public notice is the issue that is currently under contention at this time.

Specifically, on page 7 of the Public Notice, the Media Bureau stated:

To qualify for the two points for “diversity of ownership,” an applicant must certify that the 60 dBu contour of the proposed NCE FM translator station does not overlap with (1) the principal community contour of any full-service or LPFM radio station, or (2) the 60 dBu contour of any non-fill-in FM translator station, in which the applicant, or any party to the application, holds an attributable interest.

In footnote 27 on the same page, the Bureau further states what a “principal community contour” is:

The principal community (city grade) contour is the 3.16 mV/m [(70 dBu)] for full service commercial FM stations calculated in accordance with section 73.313(c) of the rules. See 47 CFR § 73.7003(b)(2). The principal community contour for NCE FM stations is the 1 mV/m (60 dBu) contour, per section 73.515 of the rules.

In footnote 28, the Bureau completely forecloses any opportunity for an LPFM station to ever be able to claim diversity points:

[T]he LPFM-FM translator station cross-ownership requirements of section 73.860(b)(1) will preclude an LPFM licensee applicant from claiming points for diversity of ownership.

The specific rule regarding the diversity points, §73.7003(b)(2) states, in part:

Two points for applicants with no attributable interests, as defined in § 73.7000, in any other broadcast station or authorized construction permit (comparing radio to radio and television to television) whose principal community (city grade) contour overlaps that of the proposed station. The principal community (city grade) contour is the 5 mV/m for AM stations, the 3.16 mV/m for FM stations calculated in accordance with § 73.313(c), and the contour identified in § 73.618(a)-for TV. Radio applicants will count commercial and noncommercial AM, FM, and FM translator stations other than fill-in stations.

In other words, the actual codified rule states that the 3.16 mV/m (70 dBu) contour is used for “FM stations”, it does not distinguish between noncommercial or commercial stations, or for that matter, LPFM and other FM translator stations (the writing of this rule was right around the time when LPFM was originally created and at the time of the writing of the rule, LPFM stations could not cross-own FM translators).

The similar notice for the 2021 NCE (full-service) Filing Window was completely silent on the field strength requirements (see pages 8 and 9). As REC had experience filing in that window and tracking other applications filed, we can attest that the 70 dBu contour was used for all stations for determining the diversity of ownership point claim.

After researching the issue, we came across the original Report and Order from 2000 that established the point system that is still being used to this day (there has never been any changes in the structure of the point system in the 26 years it has been around). In paragraph 36 on page 7402 of that document, the FCC explains in detail why the 70 dBu contours were used instead of the 60 dBu contours.

We specifically note that the principal community contour that we are using for purposes of determining this diversity credit, is smaller than the contours we will use for the purposes of determining whether a radio applicant should prevail based on fair distribution or whether a radio or television applicant shall receive any points for its technical proposal. We have decided for purposes of considering diversity points, not to use the larger contours (such as the 1 mV/m contour for FM radio [..]), which are used for applying other points. Use of the larger contours could preclude existing licensees from receiving diversity points, even if their stations are relatively distant from the proposed new station and thus share few potential listeners. [..] We also note that, for radio, use of the principal community (city grade) contour follows existing policy, in which the commission examines a somewhat smaller area for purposes of applying our commercial radio multiple ownership rules than examining service area for our technical rules and fair distribution.

The difference between the 60 and 70 dBu contours

The 70 dBu contour is also called the “city grade” contour. It is commonly used in commercial radio rules as the area where the station’s community of license must be located and is also used in connection with the commercial broadcast ownership rules. The 70 dBu contour is considerably smaller than the 60 dBu contour. For example for LPFM on “flat earth” (all directions are less than 30 meters height above average terrain), the 60 dBu contour extends to 5.636 km (about 3 1/2 miles) where the 70 dBu contour only extends to 3.152 km (about 2 miles).

In this example below, we show two hypothetical translator proposals for an LPFM station along with the 60 dBu contour (green) and the 70 dBu contour (orange):

In the FCC’s misinterpretation of the diversity point rule, neither translator could claim diversity points because the 60 dBu contours (green) of the translators overlap the 60 dBu contour of the LPFM station (WVWA-LP). For the rule to be followed correctly, we need to look at the orange contours (70 dBu). In the case above, the proposed translator for “Laurel”, while complaint for LPFM under §73.860(b) because of overlapping 60 dBu contours would be able to claim diversity points since the 70 dBu contours do not overlap. The “Galestown” proposal would not be able to claim points at 70 dBu because there is a slight overlap in contours to the south west of the translator.

The FCC Media Bureau needs to fix this issue

This issue was independently discovered by Michael Brown of Brown Broadcast Services and Michelle Bradley, CBT of REC Networks. Michael Brown had reached out to REC regarding this issue and did assist in some of the legal research that was needed in order to build out case.

We are asking that the Media Bureau look into this issue and to issue an erratum or subsequent public notice to clarify the actual codified rule and the FCC’s original intentions and to change their public notice to clarify that the diversity points are based on the 70 dBu contour instead of the 60 dBu and that there is an avenue for which LPFM stations would be able to claim diversity points.

We do note that the clarification that REC is asking for will also positively impact FM translators for full-service NCE licensees as it reduces the area for diversity claims, consistent with the previous NCE filing window.

REC has received acknowledgement of our letter from the Media Bureau on Thursday, June 25 and states that they will look at it in the next week.

REC statement on CBI’s call to delay the filing window

REC has been made aware that College Broadcasters Inc. (CBI) has requested a delay of the start of the filing window until later in the year (such as November) due to the fact that many educational institution broadcast licensees (full service and LPFM) may not have the resources available to participate in the filing window over summer vacation.

REC has also been questioning the timing of this window. In the 2023 LPFM Filing Window, we had a notice announcing the dates in June and the window was going to be held in November (was delayed to December at the request of grassroots advocates). In FX2021, the announcement came out in April for a November window. In this case, we received a June notice for an August window.

While delaying the window will extend the amount of time applicants need to get budget approvals and other “green lights” and it will relieve those who actually file the applications (such as REC), we are also in a race against the clock where it comes to the pendency of low power TV and TV translator construction permits that were filed earlier this year when the FCC Video Division lifted a long standing filing freeze on such applications. Those applications only need to be protected once they have been granted and do not need to be protected while still pending. So far, the Video Division has granted 60 applications, including one on channel 6 (Boise, ID).

REC agrees with CBI that the window should be delayed in order to accommodate schools and the delay will provide application preparers some additional time. It will also give other advocacies more time to inform stations of the filing window opportunity.

REC will agree with a delay of the filing window to October or November, consistent with previous windows. We will NOT agree to a delay of the window into the 2027 calendar year as proposed by some grassroots advocates.

Original letter sent from REC to the FCC Media Bureau

June 24, 2026

Good morning from Riverton.

There are a couple of us (including myself), who independently have concerns in regards to the wording of the public notice (DA 26-601, MB, Jun 17, 2026) where it comes to the point claims for ownership diversity.

On the PN at 7, it states:

To qualify for the two points for “diversity of ownership,” an applicant must certify that the 60 dBu contour of the proposed NCE FM translator station does not overlap with (1) the principal community contour of any full-service or LPFM radio station, or (2) the 60 dBu contour of any non-fill-in FM translator station.

Note 27 states that the principal community contour is 3.16 mV/m for commercial stations, citing §73.7003(b)(2) and 1 mV/m for noncommercial, citing §73.515.

When I review §73.7003(b)(2), the codified rule specifically states, in part “The principal (city-grade) community contour is [..] 3.16 mV/m for FM stations calculated in accordance with §73.313(c)...” (47 CFR §73.7003(b)(2)). The codified rule does not make any distinction between commercial and noncommercial facilities.

In the 2001 Memorandum Opinion and Order in the proceeding that established the point system (MM Docket No. 95-31), it states that the 3.16 mV/m contour will be the principal community contour. (See Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants, MO&O, 16 FCC Rcd. 5074, 5094 (2001) at n. 35).

The decision for the Commission to specifically use the 3.16 mV/m (70 dBu) contour instead of the 1 mV/m (60 dBu) contour, even for reserved band FM facilities is explained in detail in the original Report and Order. (See 15 FCC Rcd. 7386, 7402 (2000) at para. 36, “We specifically note that the principal community contour that we are using for purposes of determining this diversity credit, is smaller than the contours we will use for the purposes of determining whether a radio applicant should prevail based on fair distribution or whether a radio or television applicant shall receive any points for its technical proposal. We have decided for purposes of considering diversity points, not to use the larger contours (such as the 1 mV/m contour for FM radio [..]), which are used for applying other points. Use of the larger contours could preclude existing licensees from receiving diversity points, even if their stations are relatively distant from the proposed new station and thus share few potential listeners. [..] We also note that, for radio, use of the principal community (city grade) contour follows existing policy, in which the commission examines a somewhat smaller area for purposes of applying our commercial radio multiple ownership rules than examining service area for our technical rules and fair distribution.”)

I am not aware of any proceeding or past precedence that has modified the Commission’s original intentions. (see also LPFM Admin Order, 34 FCC Rcd. 12519 (2020), et. seq. and Advancement of the Low Power Television, TV Translator and Class A Television Service, Order, 40 FCC Rcd. 10396 (2025), et seq., the only two orders that had made amendments to §73.7003 since the 2001 MO&O).

I further note that the similar Public Notice for the 2021 NCE Filing Window was completely silent on the size (field strength) of the contour to be considered when claiming diversity points (see 36 FCC Rcd. 11458, 11465-11466 (2021) at p. 8).

As such, it is my position here that the Bureau (under delegated authority) erred in the NCE Reserved Band FM Translator Window Public Notice by incorrectly stating that the 60 dBu contour is to be used for determining diversity of ownership (PN at 7) and thus, due to the limitations for LPFM stations in §73.860(b)(1), that LPFM stations would never be eligible for diversity points (PN at n. 28).

From my reading of the past proceedings, I interpret the Commission’s intentions in the proceedings to establish the point system was to use the 70 dBu (3.16 mV/m) contours for all FM facilities (full-service commercial, full-service NCE, LPFM and non fill-in translator) for the sole purpose of determining eligibility for the points for local ownership diversity, pursuant to 47 CFR §73.7003(b)(2) as opposed to using the 60 dBu contour for noncommercial facilities, including LPFM.

In other words, if the 70 dBu contour of the proposed translator has no overlap with the 70 dBu contour of an LPFM facility (3.152 km in flat earth conditions), then an LPFM station can claim the diversity points. Likewise with the 70 dBu contour of the proposed translator not overlapping the 70 dBu contour of a commonly-owned NCE (reserved band) station.

Based on the information stated, I do feel that there may be grounds for an erratum be adopted in this proceeding that clarifies the criteria for claiming of the diversity of ownership points in the upcoming NCE Reserved Band FM Translator Filing Window in order to be consistent with the Commission’s intentions in the creation of this point system 26 years ago, which for FM facilities, regardless of facility type, is 3.16 mV/m, pursuant to 47 CFR §73.7003(b)(2).

If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please let me know.

Today at the June Open Meeting with a 3-0 vote, the Federal Communications Commission had adopted Report and Order in PS Dockets 25-224 and 22-239 and a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in PS Dockets 25-224, 15-94 and 15-91 which relate to the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and cybersecurity threats. REC Networks was deeply involved in some of these proceedings.

We note that at the time of this publication, the FCC has not released the final Report and Order/NPRM. To see what may eventually be in that final document, please review the circulation draft.

The proceedings related to cybersecurity were amplified by multiple instances of where a broadcast station’s EAS or internet-based studio to transmitter link (STL) (such as Barix boxes) were compromised to allow for content being broadcast that was not authorized by the broadcaster. These hacks over the years included EAS alerts warning about “zombies rising from the dead” and the broadcast of obscene material.

Originally, the Commission had suggested that all broadcasters be required to develop and maintain what REC described as “an extensive and elaborate cybersecurity plan” requirement similar to those that may be required of extremely large telecom providers and other government agencies use. REC would push back on this stating that broadcasters are different that those types of entities and such a requirement would be a huge burden on small commercial and noncommercial broadcast stations which comprise REC’s constituency. While agreeing that security of EAS equipment is of “paramount importance”, we further stated that small broadcasters should implement a plan of good network operating practices which involve network configuration, password management and periodic password changes, along with other “common sense” methods to assure that EAS equipment is not compromised.

In 2022, REC published Advisory Letter #17: Practice of Good Network Security for EAS and other station assets. Some of these practices include:

• Not placing equipment on a static IP address. During the proceeding, REC had demonstrated that using a third party website, it was able to identify hundreds of DASDEC EAS encoder/decoders that had their login pages directly accessible using ports 80 and 443, the common ports used for accessing websites.

• Not using port forwarding to an EAS decoder. Likewise, determined hackers can use software known as “port sniffers” in order to identify specific port numbers that point to EAS or broadcast STL equipment which can be compromised.

• Limiting who has access to the password(s) for the EAS encoder/decoder.

• Having air talent use third party sources for newsgathering on major events that triggered previous alerts instead of accessing the EAS encoder/decoder by password.

• On DASDECs, disable the front panel demo alerting button.

• Avoid using default passwords, periodically changing passwords and keeping passwords secure. Use two factor authentication where available.

• Immediately change default passwords on newly acquired equipment.

• Use your EAS encoder/decoder email capability to send alerts and logs to an email address.

• Place the EAS encoder/decoder at the studio instead of the transmitter site.

• Practice good common sense network security at the station:

  • Assure that station assets are only used for station business and that computers are only equipped with the applications necessary to run the station.

  • Develop policies that make clear that staff or volunteers should not used to access their own emails and download attachments.

  • Use due diligence when receiving an email with an attached file from an unknown external source.

The rule changes adopted

In the Report and Order, the FCC amends §11.35 of the FCC Rules to add a new paragraph (d) that requires that broadcasters implement security controls with respect to EAS equipment, STL and any remotely managed equipment that routes, processes, or inserts content into the broadcaster’s programming. This includes:

• Prior to any use to broadcast to the public, broadcasters shall change any default password, use strong passwords and change any password if the broadcaster has reason to believe that the password has been compromised.

  • A strong password has a minimum of 15 characters and does not use any dictionary words.

  • Instead of using a strong password, broadcasters may use alternative authentication methods such as look-up secrets, out-of-band devices, single or multi-factor one time password.

  • Single or multi-factor cryptographic authentication.

• Passwords should not be reused for the broadcaster’s other accounts, equipment, applications or services.

• Install security patches and security-related software and firmware updates provided by equipment manufacturers promptly after those patches or upgrades become unavailable. Security patches and security-related software and firmware updates issued by equipment manufacturers may be tested before they are installed, providing that the testing begins promptly and is completed in a timeframe that is consistent with industry best practices.

• Use a network firewall or comparable network segmentation practice that limits remote management access to authorized devices and authorized users.

The Report and Order sets a compliance deadline of 60 days after the rule’s publication in the Federal Register.

REC recommends that broadcasters check with their equipment manufacturers through their websites and other communication methods for any updates on software or firmware updates related to the compliance of these new rules.

REC has no information at this time on whether manufacturers (such as Digital Alert Systems or Sage) will be charging for these specific software or firmware updates.

What this means for small stations

The recommendations around these requirements are very simple.

• Make sure that you are using a router with network access translation (NAT) set and putting your equipment behind that. Do not use port forwarding to get to your equipment whenever possible.

• Do not hook up any broadcast equipment directly to a static IP (this would more likely happen in industrial and academic environments).

• Make sure passwords are strong and secure using two factor authentication where available.

• Limit access to the EAS and other broadcast equipment. Don’t write the password on a label and put it on the equipment or on the wall next to the equipment.

• Physically place the EAS in the studio/office instead of the transmitter site. This also makes things easier in the event of an FCC inspection where the inspector wishes to view the station’s EAS logs.

• Do not ignore any manufacturer notifications about software or firmware patches and when you receive them, install them as soon as possible.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

The NPRM proposes to improve the integrity of EAS through the authentication of all alerts made by alerting authorities (public safety agencies) before they are transmitted, improve geographic accuracy through expandi

ng geotargeting options for EAS (such as partial county alerting), improving the ability of earthquake alerts to grab the public’s attention and for TV stations, requiring the use of symbols that match the type of emergency.

The NPRM will also look extensively at the ability to use software solutions for EAS as opposed to hardware. Of interest to REC is a proposed provision that will allow for the ability to make a waiver request for EAS encoders, decoders and software which are constructed for use by a broadcaster but are not offered for sale on an individual case basis. This provision has a remote chance of allowing for the use of some “open source” solutions and the construction of the supporting equipment by the broadcaster themselves. The software and assembled hardware solutions cannot be sold.

The NPRM also proposes changes to Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), which are outside the scope of concern to broadcasters.

Comments on the NPRM portion will be due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register with reply comments due 30 days after that.

Reprinted from REC Networks Facebook post on June 22, 2026 at 5:00PM EDT.

For this filing window, REC is limiting the number of original construction permit applications to 40 FM translator facilities. REC will provide priority handling to requests made by full-service FM requests received by a date designated by REC (the priority request date) (which will be announced on the REC Networks Facebook Page). After that date, we will review requests from LPFM applicants received before the priority request date. From that point, we will review requests in the order received but may still provide priority to full-service requests.

The decision to provide priority to full-service is based mainly on the fact that full-service is not subject to the §73.860(b) limitations that apply to LPFM licensees thus giving them much more flexibility for the placement of translators and based on the nature of the LPFM requests already received, are more likely to be successful in the window because of resources available for the placement of translators. (It is important to realize that all full-service requests received by REC have been from small full-service stations that are within the purview of the advocacy and not from the major names. So far, there should be room to handle some LPFM requests.)

Once we have received payment on 40 requests, then we will cut off all intake. Unless subsequently announced by REC Networks through Facebook post, we will not accept any additional requests after July 31, 2026.

Through this Facebook post, REC Networks is announcing that the “priority request date” as mentioned in this policy will be Monday, June 29, 2026. We ask that any full-service broadcast licensees that fall in the purview of small community based licensees to:

(1) go to recnet.com/translators and download the “Information Packet”; and

(2) send an email to lpfm@recnet.com providing the information that was requested in the information packet.

LPFM licensees can also submit requests during this period following this same 2-step procedure.

Just a reminder, we are NOT accepting requests:

(1) through Facebook Messenger (either REC Networks or Michelle Bradley’s personal page)

(2) through phone calls

(3) through simple “are there translators available in <city name>” requests, regardless of how they come in

Requests that do not have the information packet information included will be sent a copy of the information packet in order to identify locations and site parameters.

FM Translators are much more complex than LPFM to do availability searches and those searches do take time.

LPFMs, please make sure you are using the §73.860(b) compliance check tool (link at recnet.com/translators) before sending requests to assure that there is even a remote chance that the site can be used for an LPFM translator.

Today, the Media Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission has released a Public Notice to announce the dates of the upcoming filing window for new FM Translator stations operating in the reserved band (Channels 201~220, 88.1~91.9 MHz).

The dates for the filing window will be between August 11, 2026 and August 25, 2026.

There will also be a filing freeze affecting most secondary services (LPFM, FM Translator and FM Booster) starting on July 10, 2026 and running through the close of the filing window (August 25, 2026).

As previously discussed, this filing window is limited to the licensees or grantees of full-service noncommercial educational (NCE) FM/AM and Low Power FM (LPFM) broadcast stations. No third parties (including those seeking to acquire an existing station) may participate in this filing window.

There will be a cap of up to 10 applications per licensee (not per station) for full-service broadcast station licensees and up to 2 for most LPFM stations. LPFM permittees and licensees that meet the qualifications of being a Tribal entity may apply for up to 4 applications. Any subsequent applications that exceed these caps will be dismissed (in other words, only the first 10/2/4 applications will be allowed, everything else will be dismissed).

As previously discussed, there will be a holding period on granted translator applications. If the translator application is granted, the translator licensee must use it to broadcast the primary station (which must be authorized to the same organization) for a period of 4 years in licensed operation. Silent periods and time before the license to cover was granted does not apply to the four years. In addition, the translator cannot be assigned to a different organization during that holding period. The only exception is if the primary station and the translator are both being assigned at the same time to the same organization.

FM Translator protections are very different than LPFM and in some ways different than full-service NCE. Instead of distance separation, contours are used. Unlike full-service, contour protection is only one way. Applicants need to only demonstrate that the interfering contours of the proposed FM translator do not overlap the protected service contours of other FM stations (primary or secondary). LPFM stations that are authorized and not constructed are treated as their maximum facilities.

Unlike LPFM, FM translators do have remediation rules where if another broadcast station complains about potential or actual interference, they can submit a structured interference package to protest the translator. Remember, broadcast contours can be deceiving.

Protecting TV Channel 6

TV Channel 6 operates on 82~88 MHz, adjacent to the reserved FM broadcast band. As such, the FCC determined back in 1985 that FM stations in the reserved band must protect Channel 6 TV stations. Since FM translators are a secondary service, FM translator applications must protect not just the 9 full-service TV stations on Channel 6 but also all secondary stations including digital Low Power TV (LPTV) and TV Translator stations.

Any application located within the distance shown in §74.1205(a) of the rules to a Channel 6 station must include a Channel 6 study. The minimum distance varies by channel. In these cases, to demonstrate protection to Channel 6, the applicant must do one of the following:

• Submit a contour study that shows that the 47 dBu F[50, 50] analog service contour of the digital Channel 6 station does not overlap the interfering contour shown (varies by FM channel) in §74.1205(c). (not considered a waiver)

• Specify a transmitter location within 0.4 km (0.25 miles) of the Channel 6 station and include a certification that the applicant has coordinated its antenna with the affected TV station. (not considered a waiver)

• Include a letter from an officer representing the Channel 6 licensee not objecting to the FM translator station. (not considered a waiver)

• Request a waiver of §74.1205 with a technical study showing that there will be “no overlap with the TV6 station, lack of population, unique terrain or other factors specific to that particular location or station”. This can be interpreted to state that a downward radiation study, loosely based on what is currently done for second and third-adjacent waivers can be done. Just understand, because the undesired to desired (U/D) ratios needed on channels 201~218 (88.1~91.5) are less than what we use for second/third adjacent channel waivers, it may be more difficult to use a downward study to show a lack of interference.

• REC is awaiting an answer from FCC staff as to whether a §73.525 study can be used to support a waiver request. §73.525 is the full-service FM Channel 6 protection rule and does have some flexibility.

In any case where you request a waiver, you must serve a copy of the waiver request on the licensee of the affected Channel 6 station(s).

It is not acceptable to request a waiver stating that because television is now digital instead of analog, the §74.1205 technical criteria is now obsolete and does not need to be followed. Trust me, this has been tried. The FCC even brought this up in the public notice as not being an acceptable justification for a waiver request.

LPFM specific requirements

LPFM licensees and permittees applying for FM translators should be aware of additional restrictions on the placement of the FM translator station:

• The translator cannot be placed more than 10 miles (16.1 km) from the LPFM station if the LPFM is in a Nielsen Audio Top-50 metro market. No more than 20 miles (32.1 km) in all other places.

• There must be an overlap of the 60 dBu contour of the proposed translator and the 60 dBu contour of the authorized LPFM station.

• You must be able to receive the signal of the LPFM station at the translator site and that received signal is what must go over the air on the translator. You cannot use the internet, microwave, private IP network, etc. to deliver program content from the LPFM station to the translator.

• LPFM stations equipped with HD Radio are not allowed to use the analog carrier on a FM translator to rebroadcast the HD2, HD3 or HD4 audio streams. Only the primary analog (HD1) may be rebroadcast.

Mutual Exclusive (MX) applications

Applications for FM translators that conflict with other FM translators due to contour overlap will be considered mutually exclusive (MX). It is important to remember that unlike LPFM, MX can take place not just on co- and first-adjacent channels but also on second- and third-adjacent channels. This can lead to more applications getting sucked into a larger MX group. In the event of MX, there will be opportunities to propose an engineering solution or reach a settlement agreement to reduce the size of the MX Group. Applications that have no conflicts will be considered “singleton” and would otherwise be grantable (as long as all other things are good).

It is important to realize that FM translators proposing “fill in” service will have priority over all other applications in the MX Group. The 60 dBu contour of fill in translators must be entirely inside the service contour of the primary station for FM and within the longer of the 2 mV/m daytime groundwave contour or 25 miles of an AM station. While fill in stations were originally intended to fill in gaps of coverage inside the service contour, the primary use of fill-in stations these days is to rebroadcast an AM station or the HD2/HD3/HD4 audio stream of an FM station.

If there are no fill-in applications, then we go to a point system. This point system is somewhat similar to the one used for full-service NCE FM applications (threshold fair distribution is not used for FM translators).

Established local applicant

3 points will be awarded if the applicant makes a showing that the headquarters of the organization or the residences of at least 75% of board members must be within 25 miles of the reference coordinates of the proposed community of license. You can find these reference coordinates by using the community search in FCCdata.org. If your community of license is not listed in the Census, you must state so and then base the 25 mile radius on the translator antenna location (this is something REC asked for).

You must provide documentation that demonstrates the headquarters such as official documents from the state Secretary of State office, lists of names and addresses of board members or other governance documents demonstrating eligibility.

Diversity of Ownership

2 points if a showing can be made that the 60 dBu service contour of the proposed translator does not overlap the 60 dBu service contours of any co-owned FM stations or non fill-in translators. This means that LPFM applicants cannot claim the diversity points.

Statewide Network

2 points for certain statewide networks providing programming to accredited schools. We have not seen this criteria activated in many years. Unless you are a large school system, you cannot claim these points.

Technical Points

This is similar to full service NCE. On any application for a new FM translator where technical points are being claimed, you must include the number of square km of your proposed 60 dBu contour and the 2020 population within that service contour. When computing square km, you must exclude significant areas of water.

If the best proposal based on both area and population is at least 10% better (on both criteria), then the application will receive one technical point. If both are 25% better, you will get 2 points.

Tie Breakers

If there is a tie in the point system, the first tie breaker will be the number of existing FM broadcast station and non fill-in station authorizations. The one with the fewest authorizations will be the tentative selectee.

If there is still a tie, which is the number of pending radio station authorizations the applicant has. This includes the actual application being filed as well as any others filed in this window. The one with the fewest applications will be the tentative selectee.

If there is still a tie, we will go to “first come first served”. The first application received during the filing window will be considered the tentative selectee.

Online Resources from REC

All of REC’s online resources related to this translator filing window can be found at
https://recnet.com/translators

Professional Services from REC

REC will be providing filing for LPFM and full-service FM licensees for translators in this window. For this filing window, our fee will be split. For the construction permit filing, REC’s fee is $700, which is a flat rate that includes the various “add ons” as needed. Once constructed, REC fees to file a license to cover application is $400. Unlike the past LPFM window, the license to cover application filing is not a part of the initial fee.

Those who wish to obtain services from REC can download our Information Packet, identify one or more potential sites and send an email with the information requested to lpfm@recnet.com

Unlike LPFM, we cannot easily check for availability over the phone, nor can we entertain questions like “are translators available in [city name]??”. We will need specific sites where you know where you can build. To save some trouble, LPFM stations should pre-screen their applications through LPFM Translator Prequalification Tool (for LPFM applicants) and the Translator Prequalification Tool (for all applicants).

REC Networks can be reached at 202 621-2355 or by email at lpfm@recnet.com. REC can handle FM translators for any radio broadcast service (FM, AM, LPFM).

Good morning from Riverton. As we have mentioned in the past, the FCC recently lifted the filing freeze on new low power television (LPTV) and TV translator construction permits. This has resulted in some new applications going to Channel 6. Facilities on Channel 6, including low power, are normally protected by secondary LPFM and FM translator stations using a combination of distance separation and contours. LPFM stations can also utilize a more complex method that full service FM stations use to protect primary channel 6 stations.

This onslaught of new Channel 6 applications has brought some concern in respect to the upcoming NCE FM translator filing window. However, I am not aware of any of those Channel 6 applications being granted (LMS has confirmed this). Those that are mutually exclusive would have to go to a future auction.

Today, I have received confirmation from staff that any PENDING application for a new or modified Channel 6 facility does NOT have to be protected by LPFM or reserved band FM translator applications.

I do not know yet the timing of when the Video Division will start granting the singleton applications. There are currently 96 pending applications for new LPTV/TV translator CPs on Channel 6 nationwide. I do not know how many are singleton (but I am suspecting most of them are since the Video Division is using “first come first served” for the applications).

Likewise, I do not yet know yet the timing of the upcoming NCE Translator window. If the FCC is consistent with the past two NCE related filing windows (NCE2021 & LPFM2023), we may see a window in November.1

There is currently a faction of grassroots community radio advocates who sent a letter to the FCC requesting that the window be delayed to 2027 among other changes in application handling. Their reasoning for the delay was because of the bureaucratic red tape that universities and schools need to go through to get something approved. While I signed on to that letter, I explicitly dissented from the endorsement of delaying the filing window to 2027 and another demand that the length of the filing window be extended from the normal one week period to a one month period.

My interpretation of §74.1205 (the translator Channel 6 protection rule) was that ungranted facilities did not need to be protected (which was just confirmed by staff). The delay would further increase the risk that these 96+ applications will be granted prior to the opening of the NCE translator filing window thus destroying many more opportunities for new FM translator applications by all applicants, LPFM and full service.

With the exception of Channel 201 (88.1), I remain opposed to the §§ 73.525, 73.825 and 74.1205 requirements that reserved band FM facilities must protect Channel 6 facilities. This is due to the fact that television has transitioned to digital and the original protection rules were written in 1985 in order to address interference to viewers using TV sets manufactured in the 1960s and 1970s that utilized mechanical tuners before the age of electronic tuning on TVs that started to be a thing in the late ‘70s.

REC continues to oppose the grassroots’ call for a delay in the filing window and that opposition is now further validated by staff’s confirmation of my interpretation of §74.1205. The fewer authorized Channel 6 facilities there are, the better the chances are for new opportunities for community radio in extended areas.

A few years ago, in MB Docket 03-185, we were very close to having this obsolete protection rule eliminated and even appeared in a circulation draft. Last minute lobbying by the Walt Disney Corporation, licensees of WPVI, Philadelphia, the only full-service commercial network affiliate using RF Channel 6 kept the restrictions in place. Think about that when your Disney+ subscription comes up for renewal or you are thinking of going to a theme park this year.

REC continues to advocate for an elimination of these obsolete rules (§§ 73.525, 73.825 and 74.1205) in the “In re: Delete, Delete, Delete” proceeding.

Today, the Federal Communications Commission’s Media Bureau has released a Public Notice adopting the application caps and restrictions for the upcoming filing window for new reserved band (88~92 MHz) noncommercial (NCE) FM translator construction permits, which is expected to take place later this year.

Application cap upheld

The FCC had upheld their original proposal that there will be a cap of 10 applications per license entity (not 10 per station) for full-service applicants. For LPFM, most organizations may file up to 2 applications, pursuant to the FCC’s ownership caps on commonly-owned FM translators. For Tribal LPFM stations, the limit is 4 applications.

Primary station restriction upheld

The FCC also upheld their original proposal that the primary station specified on the construction permit application must be a station that is commonly owned by the applying license entity. The primary station is the broadcast station that the FM translator will be rebroadcasting. FM translators must rebroadcast another station and cannot originate their own programming.

New “holding period” restriction adopted

At the request of REC Networks, based on nearly three decades of history following and tracking gamesmanship in the FCC licensing process; had requested that the Commission add a new “holding period” which was not a part of the original proposal. Under the REC proposed holding period concept, within a period of four years from when the translator facility has achieved four years of licensed operation, the permittee/licensee of the translator:

• Must maintain, and cannot change, the primary station to be rebroadcast by the FM translator; and

• Cannot assign or transfer the FM translator authorization to a different entity unless it is in conjunction with the assignment or transfer of the primary station to that same entity.

In support of this provision, REC recommended the four-year holding period as the appropriate length of time needed to dissuade gamesmanship and speculative filings. The four-year period is consistent with periods used for other broadcast situations where the originally applicant’s request for the translator was bona fide and intended for its original purpose.

Others had replied suggesting a shorter, one year period and some opposed the holding period proposal.

The Media Bureau agreed with REC that the primary station eligibility restriction would be ineffective without a holding period. They also stated that the four-year holding period, proposed by REC, “strikes the correct balance and is sufficient to deter speculators”. They further noted that, similar four-year holding periods have been effective in preventing gamesmanship in the NCE FM full service context and in prior FM translator filing windows, such as the Auctions 99 and 100 filing windows which were used for AM Revitalization.

As such, the Media Bureau adopted the REC proposed additional restrictions as outlined in the bullet points above.

Other “out of scope” issues rejected

The FCC rejected calls for other provisions, many of which accounted to rule changes. These changes included:

• Modification to the selection process to reconsider the priority for fill-in FM translators given their significantly changed role in the industry;

• Changes to the LPFM translator siting restrictions;

• Changes to the LPFM requirement that translators must “hear” their primary station over the air;

• Waiving of the requirement that the service contours of the LPFM and its proposed translator must overlap; and

• Exclusion from the window for applicants with more than 3 full service stations or annual gross incomes exceeding $5 million.

The FCC considered these requests “out of scope”, but had recommended that proponents raise these issues in the docket for REC’s “Translator Reform” Petition for Rulemaking, RM-11952.

Filing window timeline

Today’s public notice was silent on when the dates for the upcoming filing window will be as well as any filing freezes that will be required before hand. While it is generally understood that the filing window will be later in 2026, there is a faction that is supporting a delay of the NCE FM translator filing window until early 2027 due to alleged issues related to getting approvals to file applications and associated budgets within educational environments. REC has gone on record specifically opposing a long delay in the window for that reason. REC only supports a delay if the delay is to consider the changes proposed in RM-11952.

The agency will release a public notice in the future that will announce the window dates and will hopefully address some clarifications requested by REC regarding distance measurements used in conjunction with the diversity of ownership comparative point.

In several releases today, the Federal Communications Commission is planning on holding Auction 114 for FM broadcast allotments in February, 2027. This auction will involve 132 vacant allotments in 35 states and the US Virgin Islands, including 33 allotments that were originally won in the previous Auction 109 (held in 2021) but were never constructed.

This auction will also include a handful of vacant allotments that were once reserved for noncommercial educational facilities. On February 9, 2022, those allotments were de-reserved following the 2021 NCE Filing Window. Most of those allotments were originally necessary due to the need for NCE stations operating in the 88~92 MHz reserved band to protect full-service channel 6 stations. As the number of full-service channel 6 stations was substantially reduced as a result of the conversion to digital television, the need to use non-reserved band (92~108 MHz) channels was no longer necessary, especially given the outcome of the 2021 NCE Filing Window.

A list of the 132 vacant allotments, including channel, station class and opening bids can be found here. This list can change based on ongoing rulemaking proceedings.

Requests to amend the FM Table of Allotments is done through the rulemaking process accompanied by a filing in LMS. Today, the FCC has announced a filing freeze on any rulemaking requests that propose to modify any of the allotments designated for Auction 114 as well as petitions and counterproposals to change channel, class or reference coordinates for those allotments. Minor modifications filed by FM stations must protect those allotments.

The Media Bureau has also released a public notice that outlines the auction process and to accept comments on the proposed bidding procedures. This is common for any spectrum auction. Comments in AU Docket 26-105 are due on June 9, 2026 with reply comments due on June 24, 2026.

How the auction process works

The FCC will eventually release auction procedures, this will happen after the comment period has passed and the Bureau has had a chance to review the comments on the procedures.

Normally, there will be a filing window to file Form 175. This is also referred to as the “short form”. In this process, an applicant can file to provide information about themselves and to state which of the 132 vacant allotments they intend to bid on in the auction. Filers can specify as many as they want.

The applicant will then be required to make an up front payment equivalent to the minimum opening bid for each allotment as shown in the list linked above. Up front payments will be refunded if the applicant is not successful in the auction.

The auction will normally be conducted in “rounds” with multiple rounds during the day.

Once the auction is over, the winner must submit a down payment of 20% of the winning bid, minus bidding credits* and minus the up front payment within 10 days of auction closing. The remainder is due 10 days after that.

* - Bidding credits will be available for those with 3 or fewer existing broadcast holdings.

Within 30 days of winning the auction, a Form 2100 Schedule 301-FM must be filed. This is known as the long form. This will be the actual physical facility that the winner wishes to operate. The proposed facility must meet either the distance separation requirements in §73.207 or the distance and contour protection requirements of §73.215 of the FCC Rules. The proposed facility may not propose to change the community of license and it must place a 70 dBu (city grade) contour over the entire community of license.

There will eventually be a filing freeze for all full-service FM minor change applications. Secondary services, such as LPFM and FM translator stations are not normally subject to this freeze.

What services will REC be able to provide?

Assuming there are no changes to the process for Auction 114, we expect services to be similar to what REC offered for Auction 109. This includes the filing of Form 175 (short form) and the eventual filing of Schedule 301-FM (long form) and eventual filing of Schedule 302 (license to cover) following completion of construction. Please note that the REC fees shown in the Auction 109 document may be different for Auction 114 and we may need to limit the number of clients we can handle for this auction or not have an offering based on the timing of the Form 175 and the upcoming NCE translator windows. REC will provide more information on our services at a later time. Please stay tuned to REC on Facebook, our website and on Substack for more details as they come in.

Frequently asked questions

Q. Can I use this opportunity to request a new station in any location?

A. No. This opportunity is limited to the 132 vacant allotments indicated in the public notice. If you wish to request an allotment “dropped in” and as long as it meets all of the requirements for a new allotment (and there are quite a few), you can still file a Rulemaking at this time. That Rulemaking cannot conflict with an Auction 114 allotment nor can it request a change in an Auction 114 allotment accommodate the request, even if it would otherwise be a preferential change in allotments.

Q. Can I use this opportunity to get a new LPFM station or FM translator station?

A. No.

Q. Will this auction result in interference or displacement of existing LPFM stations?

A. This will depend on when the allotment was added to the Table of Allotments. LPFM stations are required by §73.807 to protect vacant allotments at the distance specified for the vacant allotment’s service class. In those situations, the LPFM station is already the proper distance to the allotment, however, following the auction, it may be possible that the auction winner may move their allotment to a different community, upgrade the station class or change the transmitter location and remain in the community of license. This could create situations where the full-service station may cause interference.

If the allotment was amended to the table subsequent to the authorization of the LPFM facility, this further increases the risk that the resulting station, once built could result in increased interference or potential displacement.

Q. If an allotment or a modification after the auction results in a new or increased §73.807 short-spacing, does this mean the LPFM station has to go off the air?

A. Not merely for a new short spacing. Like with any FM application activity, subsequent activity that results in a new or increased short spacing will mean that the LPFM station may remain on the air (with increased interference) but will not be able to move the station closer to the short-spaced station.

However, if the full-service activity places a new FM facility fairly close to an LPFM station, the full-service station has the option to invoke §73.809 of the rules in order to displace the LPFM. In order to invoke §73.809, the full-service station must make a contour study that shows that the appropriate interfering contour of the LPFM station overlaps the 70 dBu city grade contour or the community of license of the complaining full-service FM station. If this happens, the LPFM station can either file to move to a different channel (which meets all §73.807 requirements) or otherwise demonstrate that the LPFM station is not the cause of the interference.

Q. Can a noncommercial entity file to use an allotment and bypass the entire auction process?

A. A noncommercial educational (NCE) entity (including LPFM licensees) can file a Form 175 short form during the short form filing window without any filing fee. They must specify that they are a NCE entity and specify the allotment(s) that they are interested in. We do note however, that if a Form 175 is filed by an entity who designates themselves as commercial (subject to fees and auctions) files for the same allotment that a designated NCE entity files for, the NCE’s Form 175(s) will be automatically dismissed right off the top. An entity that original files as noncommercial on Form 175 will not be allowed to change it to commercial.

An NCE entity can participate in the auction just like a commercial station and will be treated like a commercial station and if they win the auction, they must pay the auction proceeds. Once the auction is won and the proceeds have been paid, the NCE entity can file their long form without filing fees.

On the long form, LPFM entities will be required to disclose their LPFM holding and provide a commitment to divest their LPFM station upon program testing. Full-service NCE entities that were subject to the point system and still in their first four years of operation will need to adhere to the diversity policy as outlined in the conditions on the construction permit or station license authorization.

Q. What are the REC and FCC fees for participating in the auction?

A. As previously mentioned, REC will announce our service offering including fees at a later date.

For the FCC, the current fees are $4,545 (combined short and long form fees) for the construction permit, $190 for the call sign request and $275 for the post-construction license to cover. If a directional antenna is involved, there is an extra fee of $705. These fees are subject to change by the time the filing opportunity takes place.

Q. Is REC accepting shows of interest at this time?

A. Not yet. We will announce a show of interest period at a later date. Please stay tuned to REC on Facebook, our website or Substack for further details. Please subscribe to the Substack. It is free and you will receive email notification when we write an article here.

Q. How little power can I operate if I win the auction or are otherwise granted as an NCE if my short form application was the only one that requested that allotment?

A. The minimum power is based on the class of service. You must run a power level & height above average terrain (HAAT) combination that exceeds the next lower service class based on service contour size.

In the areas considered Zones I and I-A, the classes of service available are in the order of: A, B1 and B. In all other areas (Zone II), the classes of service are in the order of: A, C3, C2, C1, C0 and C.

For example, for a facility in Zone II that was awarded as a Class C3 allotment, the minimum service contour is at least 29 kilometers, which is the equivalent of about 6.2 kW at 100 meters HAAT. Following the auction, you may be able to request a downgrade in service class.

A Class A FM station must operate a minimum service contour of 6 kilometers, which is the equivalent of 100 watts at 30 meters HAAT. Stations may operate less than 100 watts if their HAAT exceeds 30 meters and the distance to the service contour is 6 km or greater.

Q. If granted, can I propose a directional antenna?

A. Directional antennas are only permitted in full-service in cases where it is needed to provide protection under the §73.215 method or is needed in order to protect foreign allotments. Directional antenna design requirements are much more stricter in full-service FM than they are in LPFM or FM translators as the patterns are limited to a maximum difference in radiation every 10 degrees and a minimum amount of power in all directions. In addition, any directional antenna used in full-service FM must include a proof of performance at the time of construction.

Again.. Please stay tuned to the REC channels (Facebook, website and Substack) for more details about this upcoming auction.

REC IS NOT ACCEPTING PHONE CALLS AT THIS TIME REGARDING THE AUCTION AT THIS TIME. PLEASE SEND ANY QUESTIONS VIA EMAIL TO lpfm@recnet.com AND ALLOW A FEW DAYS FOR A RESPONSE.

However, based on some of the requests for FM translators from LPFM stations, we do need to reiterate the actual rules and the mindset of the FCC back in 2013 when they created these rules. We have seen cases where LPFM stations are wishing to place a station about 10 to 15 miles away, especially in more rural areas where communities are further spaced from each other or they are expecting a nice fat signal that will cover a lot of additional communities. Some may see where “fill-in” FM translators are covering and think that they could get similar results.

When the ability for LPFM stations to own translators were being discussed in the proceeding that resulted in the Sixth Report and Order in 2013, you had two sides of this issue. NAB and NPR opposed cross-ownership because of the potential impact to the “local character” of the LPFM service.1 REC countered stating that cross-ownership would enable LPFM stations to better reach their local communities; National Lawyer’s Guild and Media Alliance stated that translators could help overcome some terrain issues and several stated that FM translators could allow stations to serve their entire intended service area, such as a single county.2

To understand this concern about local character, we need to go back to the original 2000 Report and Order where the intention of LPFM was to provide service to “very localized communities and underrepresented groups within communities”.3 Over the past 26 years, the objectives of the LPFM service have not changed. It is to provide a “hyperlocal” service, which Merriam-Webster defines as “limited to a small geographic area.” The original concept of LPFM was to put small stations mainly in urban neighborhoods of larger cities to serve populations that were not being represented by full-service radio. Unfortunately, several events including the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000 and the Auction 83 “Great Translator Invasion” filing window of 2003 prevented new LPFM stations in many urban areas and as such, LPFM would be used in a manner that was not consistent with the original intentions but that was simply because these were the only places where spectrum was available.

One of REC’s main arguments in the various LP-250 proceedings over the past decade expressed a need to redefine what is considered “hyperlocal”, especially in more rural areas where “a country mile seems longer than a city mile”.

The bottom line is that the FCC wanted to keep LPFM service areas small and that was reflected with the rules put in place to allow for the cross-ownership of FM translators. Specifically, the rules require:

• An application for an LPFM commonly-owned FM translator must propose a 60 dBu service contour that overlaps the 60 dBu service contour of the LLPFM station being rebroadcast. This is to assure that LPFM stations keep their local character by providing an contiguous extension of the existing LPFM service area instead of being able to “leap-frog” (the FCC’s own words) into other communities.

• An application for an LPFM commonly-owned FM translator may not be placed more than 10 miles from the LPFM station in the top-50 markets or more than 20 miles in all other areas. These are distances consistent with Commission’s past definitions of what is considered “local” in an LPFM context. With the other restrictions in place, it may not be possible to place a translator more than 10 miles from the LPFM but there are some certain terrain situations, especially on the part of the LPFM where this could be possible.

• An LPFM commonly-owned translator must rebroadcast the main analog (HD-1) programming of the LPFM station and must receive the signal over the air. This is to prevent LPFM translators from being used as second programming services, such as an analog rebroadcast of an HD2 stream. The requirement for over the air reception is consistent with the rules for many non fill-in FM translators not eligible for the “satellator rule”.

Yes, these rules are restrictive, but they are consistent with the original objectives of the LPFM service which keeps stations focused on a particular “hyperlocal” area. There are some of us who would like to see changes to these rules. In 2022, REC filed a Petition for Rulemaking in what we called Translator Reform. One part of Translator Reform proposed to eliminate the 60 dBu contour overlap requirement and to extend the maximum distance for a translator while maintaining the over the air reception requirement. We had hoped that the FCC would have considered some rule changes to FM translators before jumping the gun with this filing window.

In a past comment period for the ground rules for the upcoming translator window, concerns were expressed by REC, LPFM-AG, Common Frequency and Prometheus regarding the current limitations on LPFM. If the FCC was to consider these issues, it may result in a delay of the filing window. We are not sure who is giving pressure to the Bureau to get this window going (though we do have our suspicions), but there should have been a rulemaking proceeding to reexamine the existing FM translator rules including some rules that have not been examined for over 25 years and to modernize the rules to reflect current market trends.

With that, REC is still accepting shows of interest for new FM translator stations from LPFM and full-service noncommercial broadcast stations. LPFM stations considering translators should keep in mind of these policies and understand if I state that the location where they want a translator is just simply too far away.

If your station wishes to show interest, please email lpfm@recnet.com. Please be prepared with sites identified. We will respond with an information package including the information that we need in order to check for FM translator availability. Please, no phone calls. We need this in writing.

Starting today, March 19, 2026, the FCC has lifted a filing freeze [dates subsequently changed] that has been in effect since 2010 that allows for the filing for new Low Power TV (LPTV) stations as well as major modifications to existing stations. This is not being handled like a filing window. Instead, it is being handled first come-first served. Any applications filed on the same day that conflict each other will be declared mutually exclusive and any applications filed the next day must protect those filed on the previous days (as well as any other filing activity).

The lifting of the filing freeze will be of concern to Low Power FM (LPFM) broadcast stations operating in the reserved band (88.1~91.9) as well as existing FM translators in the reserved band and subsequent translators that will be added as a result of the filing window that will take place later this year. This does not impact full-service NCE FM stations in the reserved band.

If the LPFM or FM translator station is operating in the non-reserved band (92.1~107.9 MHz), then there is no impact unless a future LPFM modification is made to move to the reserved band.

Specifically, the impact will take place if the LPTV application is filed to specify operation on RF Channel 6 (82~88 MHz). LPFM stations are required to protect Channel 6 TV stations pursuant to §73.825 of the FCC Rules and FM translators in the reserved band must protect Channel 6 TV stations pursuant to §74.1205 of the FCC Rules. We have not received any specific guidance from the Audio Division, but it is very likely that any existing LPFM station wishing to move closer to the LPTV Channel 6 station or any FM translator expanding their contour will need to demonstrate protection to the LPTV facility. LPFM stations can either apply the §74.1205 method, which simply protects LPTV stations to their 47 dBu F(50,50) service contour and then a specific interfering contour for the LPFM station based on channel is used; or they can apply the more complex §73.525 protection method that is used by full-service NCE FM stations.

Existing LPFM and FM translator operations will not be displaced as a result a new LPTV station (or for that matter, a full service station) on Channel 6 being added or modified. Interference from the new Channel 6 station to the existing LPFM or FM translator is extremely unlikely. LPTV stations are not required to provide any protection to FM facilities in the reserved band.1

As of 3:40PM EDT on March 19, 2026, there have been 27 applications for new Channel 6 LPTV stations. We have not checked these applications for mutual exclusivity.

We will do our best to make this a fluid list and to update new Channel 6 applications as they come in, so please check this list frequently.

These applications are for the following areas:

Arkansas: Little Rock
California: Concord, Hemet, Salinas, San Clemente
Connecticut: Hartford (2)
Florida: Hobe Sound
Iowa: Statler (2)
Indiana: Indianapolis
Idaho: Boise
Kentucky: Louisville, Richmond
Louisiana: Brownfields, Kenner, New Orleans
Maryland: Baltimore
Michigan: Alma
Minneapolis: Alma, Faribault, Minneapolis
New York: Amsterdam
North Carolina: Lumberton
Ohio: Cleveland, Dayton
Pennsylvania: Lopez
South Carolina: Georgetown
Tennessee: Knoxville, LaVergne
Texas: Beaumont, Moody
Virginia: Richmond
Washington: Olympia, Spokane

LPFM and FM translator licensees with facilities in the reserved band should monitor the daily “Applications” public notice that is available through the “Daily Business” link on FCC.today, at the FCC EDOCS website or in the Daily Digest. Look for any facilities that specify Channel 6. Since these are new applications and REC’s eLMS system does not support real time updating on TV engineering applications, we are unable to display (using the green background) any new applications regarding Channel 6. Note: fcc.today does have a feature where an application for an existing facility operating on Channel 6 has a new action, the information will show with a green background. Here’s an example of a page from the Applications public notice and where to find the channel number involved:

Please note that these new facilities may not yet be reflected on the REC FM Translator Window Prequalification Tool until we run a program to bring them in. These will have to be manually performed so it may take a week or few before they reflect in the translator prequalification tool.

REC Networks does not provide any filing services at this time for television facilities.

In Monday, REC had filed comments in MB Docket 26-20 regarding the ground rules for the upcoming Reserved Band FM Translator Filing Window expected later this year.

In their comments, REC supported the proposed cap of 10 applications per licensee and the limitation that applications are limited to only the licensees or permittees that the proposed translator is intended to serve. In addition, REC supported the ability for LPFM stations to file up to 2 applications (4 for Tribal), pursuant to §73.860 of the rules.

REC notes that the 10 cap being proposed was even more restrictive than the one it proposed in the Translator Reform petition for rulemaking.

In comments, REC did bring up two very important matters that pertain to application caps and window eligibility.

REC reminds the Commission that LPFM stations are subject to an ownership cap on commonly-owned FM translators and FM boosters, which when commonly considered, LPFM stations are limited to two facilities (4 for Tribal) where such an ownership cap does not apply to full-service broadcasters. REC has asked the Commission to permit an LPFM applicant that already has one or two translator or booster holdings to be able to participate in this window under a condition that upon program test of the new translator(s), the LPFM station will divest themselves of the FM translator(s) and/or FM booster(s) they wish to remove in order to remain within their §73.860 limit.

REC has also identified a potential for gamesmanship in this filing window. REC sees opportunities where a bad actor licensee/permittee may, under some form of agreement (either “under the table” or above board), will use their spare allocations in the 10 cap to actually apply for FM translators, which in turn after grant, will be redirected to another noncommercial broadcaster for which may have entered into such an “arrangement”. The potential risk for this is higher than normal due to the increased portability of FM translators vs. full-service stations as well as the ability for full-service broadcasters to be able to place a translator anywhere in the country under the so-called “satellator rule”.

In order to prevent what REC calls “surrogate stations”, REC is asking for a holding period on all grants of original construction permits granted in this filing window. Specifically, the condition would restrict, within the first four years of licensed operations:

• Any change in primary station, except in cases where the new primary station is commonly owned by the original applicant for the translator.

• Any assignment or transfer of the FM translator permit or license to a different entity, except in cases where the primary station that is being rebroadcast is also being assigned to the proposed assignee/transferee of the FM translator facility.

The restrictions that REC are proposing are somewhat similar to those restrictions that were put in place for the 2016 AM Revitalization opportunity where existing translators could be moved up to 250 miles in order to provide translator service for an AM broadcast station.

Comments in MB Docket 26-20 are due on March 13, 2026. Reply comments are due on March 23, 2026.

The FCC has released a circulation draft of a Report and Order in MB Docket 24-626 which proposes to remove or change certain rules that would codify certain Media Bureau practices, remove references to outdated language and best reflect current application processing requirements. REC Networks was deeply involved in this proceeding. [Comments|Reply Comments] Please note, that this is a circulation draft of a Report and Order. This item will be voted on at the FCC Open Meeting on March 26, 2026. If the item is adopted, then the rule changes will normally take place 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

Simultaneously filed LPFM minor modification applications

In the wording of the current rules for LPFM, it states that if two conflicting minor modification applications are filed on the same day, the FCC will accept the applications in the order tendered. However, in all other broadcast services, the rule is that if two conflicting applications are filed the same day, then both applications will be considered simultaneously filed and therefore mutually exclusive meaning that the applicants would need to develop an engineering solution.

This rule was put to the test a few years ago in the case of Electron Benders, KOKT-LP where KOKT-LP filed an application for a non-adjacent channel change in the early morning and then later in the day, there was another LPFM station that filed a conflicting application for the same channel. In response to an Informal Objection that was assisted by REC, KOKT-LP had put this rule to the test stating that because KOKT-LP’s application was filed first. The Media Bureau determined at the time that they would apply the rules that applied to other broadcast stations and treated the applications as mutually exclusive. This resulted in both applications remaining pending for over a year.

In 24-626, the Commission proposed that the rules for LPFM be officially changed to match that of the other broadcast services. REC opposed this change citing the fact that unlike paper filing and the previous CDBS filing system, minor modifications filed in LMS are instantly viewable and the current environment can foster a behavior of one entity being able to “torpedo” a previously filed application on the same day. REC had proposed that instead of making LPFM move to the “same day simultaneously filed” rule, that the Commission should move all broadcast services to a “first come first served, even if on the same day” rule to reflect the technological changes that came with the evolution of the LMS filing system.

The Commission has recognized that REC did make some persuasive arguments in favor of using “first in time” for determining the order of applications received as opposed to using an obsolete method that goes back to the paper filing days. For now, the Media Bureau has been instructed to handle conflicting LPFM modifications under the “same day simultaneously filed” rules, but the Commission does want to explore the “first in time” method proposed by REC to apply to all of the broadcast services in a future proceeding as such a change would reflect the changes in technology.

Protection of prior-filed applications in respect to LPFM filing windows

§73.807 of the Rules current states that LPFM stations must protect, in part, “applications for new and existing FM stations filed prior to the release of the public notice announcing an LPFM window period”.

In the events leading up to the 2023 LPFM Filing Window, REC took the Media Bureau to task on this phrase based on how the 2023 window was handled. Specifically, on June 22, 2023, the Media Bureau released a Public Notice announcing the dates of the 2023 LPFM Filing Window and then issue a subsequent Public Notice on July 31, 2023, which detailed the procedures for the filing window. This method was inconsistent with the single Public Notice that was released prior to the previous 2013 LPFM Filing Window. REC argued that LPFM stations filing in the 2023 Filing Window should only be required to protect other (secondary) facilities applied for prior to June 22, 2023 when the dates were announced as opposed to the July 31, 2023 date which was honored.

To address this issue, the FCC will amend §73.807 of the Rules to clearly state that this protection starts at the “release of the public notice announcing the filing procedures for the LPFM window period”.

The FCC also removed a reference to “cut-off” applications which reflected a process for application handling that was used prior to the year 2000.

Changes to the “signature rule”

For original construction permit applications (or for that matter, all applications), the FCC Rules require that for corporations, that the applications must be electronically signed by an officer of the corporation. If an application is not properly signed at the start, the application is fatal and would be dismissed for a violation of the signature rule.

During both the 2021 NCE and 2023 LPFM Filing Windows, there were a significant number of original construction permit applications that were filed by persons other than the parties to the application (i.e. not a board member, director or officer). Some of these applications were signed by volunteers, station managers and some by persons involved in the business of preparing applications. Some of these “mis-signed” applications were confronted with Informal Objections, resulting in dismissals because of a “beginner’s mistake”.

The FCC proposed to expand the signature rule to include “duly authorized employees” of an organization. This term drew concerns by other community radio advocates who state that because of the nature of some nonprofit organizations, these volunteers are not necessarily “employees” (i.e. being on the payroll). REC raised concerns that expanding the signature rule could lead to gamesmanship in the window process, especially when an application is signed by a third-party consultant involved in application preparation.

The FCC will expand the signature rule to include “duly authorized employees” but at the same time clarifies, that such an “employee” does not have to be of the traditional sense, meaning that a volunteer representing the organization would be able to sign. In addition, in addressing one of REC’s concerns, the Commission has clarified that third-party persons who are involved in the preparation of applications (who are not a part of the organization) are not considered duly authorized employees.

The FCC has declined the requests by REC and other community radio advocates to permit applications that were dismissed for the signature rule to be given a single opportunity (nunc pro tunc) to update the signatory. With the expansion of the eligibility to sign being extended to duly authorized employees inside of the organization, the chances of an application being dismissed for the signature rule (other than by a third party consultant) are greatly reduced.

“Accepted for filing” indicator in LMS

In the discussion about non-controversial changes related to the documents that can trigger an application being accepted for filing (thus opening a period of Petitions to Deny and Informal Objections, see below), REC raised the issue that with the conversion of electronic filing from CDBS to LMS, the industry lost a systematic method of determining when an application was truly accepted for filing and that the methods needed to determine if an application is properly accepted for filing are overly burdensome.

As a workaround, REC developed a program in our Enhanced License Management System (eLMS) that would attempt to “read” the Applications public notice and re-status those applications within eLMS as “Accepted for Filing”. As an “Accepted for Filing” status can take place in other documents other than the Applications public notice, eLMS cannot fully track these applications.

To address REC’s concerns, the FCC has ordered the Media Bureau to modify the LMS database to include an “accepted for filing” date in the application data. As long as that data is properly provided in the daily raw data dump that LMS provides to the general public, we would be able to read that information and thus discontinue the need for the “outboard” program that we currently use to determine application acceptance.

Changes to how Informal Objections are filed

In light of the many Informal Objections filed during the 2021 and 2023 filing windows, the FCC proposed some major changes to Informal Objections. Specifically, the FCC proposed to:

1. Require that Informal Objections and responsive pleadings be served upon the relevant applicant or objector;

2. Limit the type of responsive pleadings that may be filed; and

3. Impose filing deadlines for responsive pleadings that aligned with the limitation set for responsive pleadings (oppositions and replies) to Petitions to Deny.

In opposition, REC argued:

1. Informal Objections are a critical tool to combat gamesmanship;

2. LPFM and NCE community “watchdogs” (including REC) use these objections in order to maintain application and service integrity; and

3. Informal Objections allow members of the general public who may not normally participate in proceedings (such as the average radio listener or TV viewer) to participate without an attorney.

REC states that such requirements would create a barrier to a station’s obligation to allow for participation from local listeners and that applicants could explote procedural requirements to get Informal Objections dismissed. REC suggested that it would not be in the public interest to prevent members of the public, especially those who are not well-versed on Commission policies from participating in the public comment process.

In response, the FCC was persuaded by REC’s arguments on this topic and as a result, will not make any changes to this rule stating that the current rule “strikes an appropriate balance to promote critical participation from members of the public in our filing and licensing proceeding”.

Non-controversial items

The Report and Order has also made several changes which REC determined were not controversial or otherwise do not apply to the FM broadcast services:

• Update references in the rules to the former CDBS filing system to reflect the current LMS electronic filing system.

• Update references in the rules that refer to old form numbers used in the paper filing and CDBS days to reflect the schedule numbers used in LMS.

• Rewording some rules that referred to the Table of FM Allotments and the Table of TV Allotments that referred to those tables by different names.

• Removing the reference to the 10-application limit for new NCE FM full-service stations that was put in place for the 2021 filing window. This language is now obsolete. This change is consistent with a past deletion the FCC did after the conclusion of the 2007 NCE FM full-service filing window.

• Codified the long-standing interpretation of an “authorized station” in §73.807 of the Rules to include both licensed stations and/or granted construction permits for FM, LPFM and FM Translator stations.

• Amend the rules to clarify that an application will be accepted for filing, not just when it shows on the daily Applications public notice as being accepted for filing, but also in other documents, such as the determination of tentative selectees in the point system, threshold fair distribution or through any other order.

• Eliminate the restriction that Special Temporary Authority applications due to technical or equipment problems are only granted for 90 days. Instead, they will be granted for 180 days, consistent with other STA applications.

• Amend rules to eliminate the term “tendered for filing”, which is a term that goes back to the paper filing days and replace it with simply, “filed”.

• Combine two Petition to Deny rules, one related to renewals and one related to other applications into a single rule.

• For AM broadcast stations, removing a requirement that AM stations requesting a power increase must propose at least a 20% increase in nominal power and to update references to Class B, C and D AM stations to confirm to the parameters in §73.21 of the rules and international agreements.

• Remove post-Incentive Auction view and MVPD (multichannel video programming distributor) notification requirements and to remove references in the rules regarding TV operations above Channel 37.

Final reminder

This Report and Order is just a circulation draft at this time. It will be voted on at the March 26, 2026 FCC Open Meeting and if adopted, the rule changes will normally go in effect at least 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Any adopted items that may involve changes in information collection (such as form changes) may take longer to implement due to Office of Management and Budget/Paperwork Reduction Act processes that must be completed first.

Overall, REC is very satisfied with the outcome of this proceeding. While we did not get everything we wanted, the Commission has left open some new opportunities for longer term improvements that were suggested by us. Overall, we consider this proceeding a “win”.

At today’s FCC Open Meeting, the Federal Communications Commission has has adopted a Public Notice (MB Docket 26-20, text of adopted notice not available at the time of this writing) to establish a comment period for the “ground rules” for the upcoming filing window for new noncommercial educational (NCE) FM translators operating in the reserved band (88.1~91.9), which is expected in “late 2026”.

Based on the presentation at the Open Meeting, the Media Bureau proposed that there will be limitations on the number of applications filed and the scope of applicants that can participate in this window. Specifically:

• Full-service licensee/permittee entities (as determined by attributable interest) will be limited to 10 applications nationwide.

• LPFM licensee/permittee entities will be limited to two applications, except for Tribal entities that will be limited to four applications. The limitations that apply to LPFM stations are further restricted by the limitations in §73.860(b) and (c) of the FCC Rules.

• Applicants must be the licensee/permittee of the station that the proposed translator will rebroadcast.

According to staff, these proposed limitations are being put in place in order to prevent speculation (such as what happened in 2003 during the “Great Translator Invasion” Auction 83 filing window) and to assure for efficient application handling. REC further notes that these application limits were also proposed by staff in order for this filing window to remain in the spirit of Section 5 of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010, which states that LPFM, FM translator and FM booster licenses will be distributed based on community need. The limit of 10 applications for full-service applicants is consistent with the limits put in place for past full-service NCE FM filing windows in 2007 and 2021.

This is the first ever reserved band filing window since the rules for a translator filing window were first adopted in 2000 following the Bechtel vs. FCC case in the early 1990s that argued that the old “comparative review” process was arbitrary and capricious and was not consistent with the first amendment as it was charged that the FCC could “pick and choose” who can be a broadcast licensee when competing applications are filed. Following Bechtel, noncommercial applications were first handled through “cut-off lists” before these rules were adopted. Commercial applications were settled through auctions.

Like with all adopted items, a comment and reply comment period will be established once the item is published in the Federal Register.

REC launches prequalification tool to assist potential translator applicants

REC Networks has announced today that a new “toybox” tool has been released to assist with identifying potential channels that may be available for the upcoming filing window.

The NCE FM Reserved Band Translator Prequalification Tool will allow the user to enter a target location and the Tool will search for all nearby facilities and determine which of these facilities put service contours over the target site and then will “eliminate” those channels from consideration or in cases where available, keep the channels but warn of the need for a waiver of §74.1204(a) of the rules (second- and third-adjacent channels). The Tool will also check channels for intermediate frequency short spacing, which would restrict a channel to no more than 99 watts (contingent on the protection of other facilities) and will indicate whether a location may be within the 47 dBu service contour of a Channel 6 TV facility, which further restricts availability.

REC points out that the Tool is not a “channel search” similar to those that the Network had released in the past to support filing windows. Instead, the Tool is a “first step” in the quest to find a suitable channel.

The Tool will show details for all 20 reserved band channels and provide either an explanation on why a channel cannot be used or whether it needs to be examined by a consulting or engineering professional to determine if the channel can be used and what the power and coverage limitations will be. Any positive results received from the Tool must be further researched in order to determine the distance from the target location to the proposed translator’s interfering contour in order to assure compliance with §74.1204(a) of the Rules.

REC recommends that users of the Tool first visit the link below in order to learn the basics of FM translator protection rules, how the Tool works and the Tool’s limitations:

https://recnet.com/nce-translator-check

Once you read the documentation, there will be a link to take you to the Tool.

REC has not yet released details of a limited service offering for potential translator filing window applicants but is accepting shows of interest at their email (lpfm at recnet dot com). REC will eventually establish the amount of workload it will take, the priority on how potential applicants will be selected and proposed rates. These details will be released on a subsequent notice.

On January 27, 2026, the FCC released a Public Notice from the Wireline Competition Bureau (the part of the FCC that handles telephones and related services) regarding potential forfeitures (fines) for failure to provide correct information in the Robocall Mitigation Database (RMD) and for failure to update contact information in the Commission Registration System (CORES). For the latter, the notice threatened a forfeiture of $1,000 per day.

The content of this notice prompted a couple of attorneys who work on broadcast issues to interpret the notice to suggest that the FCC was going to fine anyone who does not have their information current in CORES to be subjected to the forfeitures, regardless of which service(s) the FCC Registration Number (FRN) is associated with. As a result, several State Broadcasters Associations (SBAs) sent alerts to their member stations about the potential of forfeitures if CORES is not updated for each FRN. Some of the warnings that were circulated even suggested that this can also impact the FRNs that are used on ownership reports. REC received one media inquiry about these concerns. We have also viewed the alerts provided by several SBAs.

On Friday, February 6, 2026, the FCC released a subsequent Public Notice which clarifies that the original Report and Order for the RMD “did not address or change any forfeiture amounts that may be associated with failures to update the CORES information by non-RMD filers.”

In other words, the FCC is not going to start an arbitrary “witch hunt” to look for any user from any service that has not updated their CORES information. The information recently communicated by the FCC in the January public notice related only to the Robocall Mitigation Database and related CORES FRN data from telecom providers and not the general FCC community.

Regardless of that, broadcast stations (all classes) are required to keep their contact information up to date. Section 1.80(b)(11) of the FCC Rules allows the Commission to impose a forfeiture of up to $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications and up to $1,000 for “failure to maintain required records”. The FCC may attempt to reach a broadcaster through e-mail or by postal mail. Normally, if the agency sends a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) to a station which requires a response within a certain time period, they will normally send it both via email and postal mail, usually by certified mail so they can get a return receipt. As a broadcaster, you are required to timely answer any LOI and respond to each question truthfully and to the best of your knowledge, pursuant also to any additional instructions in the LOI. Normally, the Commission will permit the responses via email following the instructions in the LOI.

Broadcasters of all services are reminded that they must keep their information current in all relevant FCC databases and must make the update within 10 days of the change.

LMS Administrative Updates

The Media Bureau normally uses the information in LMS in order to contact a station. This information includes the mailing address, telephone number and email address of the licensee, their legal representative (which is normally a person in leadership or other administrative contact for stations that do not have retained counsel) and a technical representative. An Administrative Update needs to be filed in LMS if any of this information changes. Administrative Updates are notifications and they do not have to wait to be granted.

For stations that have paid REC in the past, regardless of minimum spend, we will file Administrative Updates at no charge. For all others, our fee is $50. You can also file this yourself. It is one of the easiest LMS applications to file.

FRN updates in CORES

While the Media Bureau normally does not depend on CORES for contact information, it is also a good idea to make sure that the information for the organization’s FRN is also correct in that system.

For full-service stations that file Ownership Reports, the FRNs that are used for each individual are likely “psuedo-FRNs” that were assigned by LMS during preparation of the Ownership Report form. These psuedo-FRNs cannot be maintained in CORES and there’s no way to correct them.

For those who have FRNs for other non-broadcast services, such as the Amateur Radio Service, GMRS, commercial radio licenses, etc.; you should assure that your FRN information in CORES is updated, in addition to other relevant databases.

Administrative update in ULS

For broadcast licensees that also have studio to transmitter links (STL), remote pickup units (RPU), licensed wireless microphones that are authorized under Part 74 of the FCC Rules, as well as for services licensed in other parts (including individual licenses for Amateur Radio, GMRS, etc.), you should also issue an administrative update in the FCC’s Universal License System (ULS) to assure that your most current contact information is up to date.

Reminder about changes in board members

For LPFM stations, any change in board members that triggers more than a 50% change in board members (each member counts equally) since the last time the board members have been reported to the FCC (either through the original construction permit application, an assignment of license application or previously-filed transfer of control application), the FCC requires the filing of a non-pro forma Transfer of Control application. This was formerly known as Form 316. This form must be filed within 10 days of making the change.

For full-service FM stations, this is a little different. The non-pro forma process is not used. Contact REC or your attorney for assistance.

If the license is being “transferred” to a different organization or the same organization where the state of incorporation has changed, then an Assignment of License application is required. The assignment application must be granted before the transfer/assignment can be consummated. For more assistance, please contact REC or your attorney.

Transferring control without an appropriate transfer of control application (for LPFM if more than 50% of the board as detailed above) or a granted assignment application can be considered an “unauthorized transfer of control”, which can lead to forfeitures.

Updating the state government

In addition to updating the FCC, you need to assure that other information is kept up to date by making appropriate filings with your state’s Secretary of State, Corporation Commission or equivalent agency. What exactly needs to be updated and when will depend on the laws of the state your organization is incorporated in. REC does not provide state filing services.

Board member changes

Your state may require you to file an amendment to your articles of incorporation or similar instrument when there is any changes to your board membership (regardless of the 50% threshold for the FCC transfer of control process). If there is a mismatch between the state records and what the FCC has on file, it could lead to a forfeiture, based on the circumstances.

Annual Report filings

Many states require corporations (for-profit and non-profit) to make annual filings with the Secretary of State (or equivalent). Failure to make these reports will place your corporation into a suspended, involuntary dissolution or inactive status. Technically, under such state laws, your organization technically cannot conduct business as long as the corporation status is lapsed. Many states will retroactively reinstate lapsed corporations due to a previous failure to file an annual report as long as the required report(s) is/are filed and any fees are paid. Please check with your state of incorporation for details. REC does not have this information.

Since 2026 may be a filing window year for new NCE reserved band FM translator construction permits, it is very important to assure that your organization’s corporation status is current and in good standing at the time when an application is filed in the window. If the corporation is not active at the time of filing the translator application in the window, the application may be dismissed. Correcting the issue with the state after the fact will not result in reinstatement. So, if your organization plans to file in this window, make sure the corporation status is in good standing. Again, for more information, please check with your state of incorporation for details. REC does not have this information. State incorporation documents may be required for any NCE FM translator applicants claiming the Established Local Applicant points in the event of mutual exclusivity.

Use “evergreen” contact information that always stays the same even if people change

A good idea is to establish specific email addresses and telephone numbers for broadcast stations that are general to the station and will not change when the person who answers those emails or phone calls change. This will make it easier in the event the agency needs to reach your station and there has been personnel changes. Adding additional Gmail email addresses are easy to do. Many VOIP providers (such as voip.ms, which REC uses) can provide you with a “Direct Inward Dial” phone number that can forward to any other telephone number at a very reasonable monthly rate (in the case of voip.ms, you pay less than $1 per month for the phone number but you pay a low per minute rate for incoming calls).

Bottom line

As a broadcaster, you have a responsibility not only to your listeners and your community, but you also have a responsibility to assure that your information with the FCC and the state remains current. You are also responsible to assuring that your corporation remains active with the state as this is normally required to be a FCC noncommercial educational licensee.

Congress has passed legislation to reopen the federal government. The Federal Communications Commission was not directly impacted by the shutdown and operations remained normal during the shutdown period.

As Congress did not agree on funding for some federal agencies by the Friday at 11:59PM deadline, the Government is technically shut down as of this morning.

However, when agencies still have remaining funding from past appropriations, the agencies can continue to operate until funding is exhausted.

This is the case with the Federal Communications Commission.

Last night, the FCC announced that despite the partial lapse in federal government funding, the Commission will continue normal operations until further notice.

Filing systems and databases will remain available and normal filing deadlines will remain until further notice.

If the Commission has to cease normal operations, they will issue a subsequent Public Notice.

All REC systems will remain operational until further notice.

For more information on government shutdowns and how they could impact operations at the FCC and at REC Networks, please see the REC Networks Government Shutdown page:

https://recnet.com/shutdown

On January 28, 2026, the FCC has released a circulation draft regarding ground rules for an upcoming filing window for new FM translators in the reserved band for non-commercial educational use for consideration for vote by the full Commission at their February 16, 2026 Open Meeting. The circulation draft is for a Public Notice that will collect ground rules regarding an upcoming filing window for new FM translator stations operating in the “reserved band” (the 20 channels between 88.1~91.9 MHz) for use exclusively by noncommercial educational broadcast stations, including both full-service and LPFM stations.

The rules for new reserved band FM translators were originally enacted in 2000 and in those 26 years, there has never been a filing window for new FM translators in the reserved band.

FM translators are solely for the rebroadcast of an existing FM or AM noncommercial educational broadcast station (including LPFM) and cannot be used to originate its own programming.

FM translators come in two flavors:

• A fill-in translator was originally intended to allow stations, especially in rural areas to fill in a gap in coverage within their service contour that is otherwise impeded by terrain. Modern day applications of fill-in translators also include the use of these stations to rebroadcast the HD Radio stream (such as an HD2) of the primary station being rebroadcast as well as to rebroadcast the signal of an AM broadcast station. The 60 dBu service contour of a fill-in translator must be completely inside of the service contour of the FM station (or for AM, within either the 2 mV/m daytime contour or 25 miles from the AM station, whichever is farther in each direction). There are no restrictions on height and a 250 watt power limit as long as the contour of the translator remains inside the contour of the primary station and as long as other stations are protected.

• A non fill-in translator can be used by noncommercial broadcasters (including LPFM stations). These translators can be used to extend a station’s service area into a different community. There are restrictions on power based on a “maximum height above average terrain” formula. There are different height/power limitations for proposals east or west of the Mississippi River and for California south of 40 degrees latitude. Most non-fill in translators (including all translators for LPFM stations) must be able to receive the primary station it is rebroadcasting from over the air (you can’t use the internet). Non fill-in translators licensed to full-service noncommercial stations that have primary stations in the reserved band can use any method to deliver programming (LPFM stations can’t do this).

There are also additional restrictions on the placement of FM translators that are licensed to LPFM stations as well as ownership limits.

FM translators use one-way contour protection (translator interfering into the other station’s service contour) and can utilize directional antennas to achieve protection. FM translators are vulnerable to interference complaints using a procedure outlined in both §74.1203 and §74.1204(f) of the rules. FM translators in the reserved band are required to protect all TV Channel 6 facilities, including full-service, Class A TV, Low Power TV and TV translator stations. Waivers can be provided by the licensee(s) of the affected Channel 6 station(s). FM translators exceeding 99 watts must also protect the facilities on intermediate frequencies (+ 10.6 and 10.8 MHz/+53 or 54 channels). There are also additional protections & restrictions for proposals near Canada and Mexico.

Ground rules being considered

In the Circulation Draft, the Commission is considering adding specific ground rules for the following translator window to accommodate this window. These proposed ground rules are intended to prevent the speculation that took place following the 2003 “Great Translator Invasion” (Auction 83) filing window. Specifically, the FCC is proposing:

• For full-service FM NCE stations, the proposed limit is 10 applications based on attributable interests. This is exactly like the same limit that was put in place for the 2021 full-service NCE FM filing window. (In most cases, this means up to 10 applications per licensee and not 10 applications per station. It gets tricky if an organization has a board member that serves on the boards of more than one organization applying in the filing window.)

• For LPFM stations, the proposed limit is 2 applications for most stations and 4 for stations that serve Tribal lands. This is consistent with §73.860 of the rules. LPFM stations that already have one translator licensed to them can only obtain one translator as to not exceed their limit.

• For all station types (NCE FM, noncommercial AM and LPFM), the translator may only be applied for by the licensee of the station for which the FM translator is intended to rebroadcast. Unlike the AM Revitalization windows (Auctions 99 & 100) in 2017 & 2018, the translator will not be permanently “married” to the primary station and therefore can be changed in the future to a different station that would otherwise meet the requirements.

REC LCRA evaluation

Section 5 of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 (LCRA) states that the FCC must make licenses available to both LPFM and FM translator stations based on community need. It is important to remember that the LCRA did not just address the needs of future community LPFM broadcasters but it was also intended to address the abuses that took place in the 2003 Auction 83 translator filing window.

When the FCC held the AM Revitalization translator filing windows (Auctions 99 and 100) in 2017 and 2018, REC had supported the Commission’s ground rules because the window was restricted to one translator per AM station, the AM station licensee was required to apply for the translator (not a third party) and that the FM translator must be permanently “married” to that AM station. The primary station the translator is broadcasting could not be changed. We saw the need to add FM service to struggling AM stations, especially in rural areas to be a community need from an LCRA perspective.

For this window, we note the two major points here. First, the window is proposing an overall cap of 10 applications per licensee/attributable interest for full-service stations. This is a cap that is even smaller than what REC had proposed in our Translator Reform petition for rulemaking. This means that even the big NCE broadcasters, like K-LOVE and Calvary Chapel of Twin Falls can only apply for 10 translators nationwide (no different than 2021). The proposed restriction that requires the applicant to be the licensee of the station being rebroadcast will prevent third-party actors who are not the licensees of the stations being rebroadcast from applying. This was a huge problem in the 2003 Auction 83 window.

From an LCRA perspective, while we do not feel that Section 5 is not being followed exactly the way we would like it to, these controls are strict enough to address most of our LCRA related concerns regarding community need. REC will not oppose these ground rules as originally proposed.

However, we do feel that the FCC is jumping the gun on this window

Despite our “tolerant” LCRA finding, we do feel that the FCC is prematurely launching this filing window. Due to changes in our industry since the rules were originally enacted in 2000, we do feel that there needs to be some rule changes, mainly in respect to the comparative selection process for mutually exclusive (MX) applications. When applications are MX, this means that two or more applications have conflicts in their engineering where the two or more applications can’t all be granted (such as two applicants applying for the same or adjacent channels in the same area). In the translator world, “adjacent” means co-, first-, second- and third-adjacent channels.

The current will allow for remediation, including channel changes and certain minor engineering changes to cure MX situations. However, if there is still an MX situation, the following rules will apply:

Applicants proposing fill-in translators will have priority over applicants proposing non fill-in translators. Therefore, if there are non-fill in translators competing with fill-in translators at the time the comparison is done, the non-fill in translators will not even be considered, even if a non-fill in translator is “orphaned” (they could otherwise be grantable after the fill-in translator is granted in an otherwise “daisy chained” MX Group).

If a single winner cannot be determined after removing the non fill-in applications, or there are no fill-in applications in the MX Group, the point system that is used for full-service NCE applications will be used:

• Established local applicant. 3 points for local applicants. An established local applicant is considered as an organization that, for no fewer than 24 months, has their headquarters, campus or 75% of their board members (each board member with equal weight) within 25 miles of the reference coordinates of the community that will be served by the translator.

• Local diversity of ownership. 2 points for an applicant with no attributable interests in any other radio broadcast station, authorized radio construction permit who’s principal community contour (70 dBu for FM, 5 mV/m for AM) does not overlap the 60 dBu contour of the proposed FM translator station.

• Statewide network. 2 points if they are a public or private school system with at least 50 accredited elementary or secondary full-time schools within a single state, an accredited public or private institution of higher learning with at least 5 full-time campuses in a single state, or an organization without direct authority over schools that will regularly provide programming. In all cases, the organization has to provide programming to the schools in furtherance of their curriculum. An application claiming statewide network cannot also claim the diversity points. (In 2021, there were no applicants that met the criteria of statewide network and we do not anticipate any in this window. This goes back to the days when educational stations provided programming that were intended to be listened to or watched in classrooms, a relic of the early days of educational radio and television.)

• Technical points. 1 point to the applicant covering the largest geographic area and population where the land area (square km) and population is at least 10% more than the next lower application. 2 points if the area and population exceeds 25% over the next lower application.

If there is still a tie after the points are applied, then there are three tie breakers:

• Existing authorizations. The station with the lowest number of existing radio authorizations, including FM, AM and non-fill in translators. If the tie is between fill-in applications, then the applicant with the lowest number of fill-in applications will be considered.

• Existing applications. If there is still a tie, then the station with the least number of existing pending AM, FM and non fill-in FM translators (including those filed in this window). If the tie is between fill-in applications, then the applicant with the least number of fill-in applications will be considered.

• First come-first served. If there is still a tie, the applications will be processed on a first come-first served basis. (Presumably, in the LMS environment, we can assume this will mean the applicant with the lower file number.) There is no such thing as time sharing for FM translators.

With that said, REC does have a serious problem with this system due to significant changes in the industry. When these rules were originally written, they were written at a time when fill-in translators were used only to help fill in gaps in coverage of the main analog station. The concept of using fill-in translators for HD2/3/4 rebroadcast or for the rebroadcast of AM stations was not even thought of at the time (remember this was the late 90s when this was being debated). Because of the major change in the nature of how fill-in translators are used, they are no longer being used solely to fill in gaps in rural areas, but will be used to expand the coverage of large broadcast stations in very well-served areas. In Translator Reform, REC proposed that applicants claiming the fill-in priority must be in situations for which fill-in translators were originally intended for and proposed a requirement that in no part of the 60 dBu contour of the proposed fill-in translator that there are more than two educational services (based 60 dBu contour), including the applicant’s primary station serving any area. Thus meaning that only underserved areas of the country would be able to claim the priority. In order to change this, it would require a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to change the definition of fill-in, solely for MX comparison purposes. REC is inclined to demand that the Commission waive §74.1233(e)(1) of the rules and apply no special considerations at all for proposed fill-in stations as well as not enforcing the carve-outs for fill-in stations in the tie breakers.

REC also wants clarification on the Established Local Applicant definition, specific to NCE FM translators, where it comes to the reference coordinates of the community being served. Unlike full-service radio, FM translators do not have a specific (§307(b)) community of license or community coverage requirement. FM translator applicants can use any community name, including those that would not meet the §307(b) requirements as a community for allotment purposes. For FM translators, it is REC’s position that the 25 mile radius should be based on the transmitter site for the translator (like with LPFM) and not reference coordinates for a community, especially communities that are not Census Designated Places where no reference coordinates exist.

REC really wanted the FCC to first consider our Translator Reform petition before opening any kind of FM translator filing window (commercial or noncommercial).

Finding potential channels

REC will be working on a technology solution to find potential channels. Because FM translators can use directional antennas, having a channel search tool like what we have done in the past with LPFM will not be possible.

The easiest way to first see if there is any potential is to look at all 20 channels (88.1 through 91.9). If the channel has another facility (full-service, FM translator or LPFM station) on the same or first-adjacent channel that places a 60 dBu contour over the proposed location, that will disqualify that channel. If there is another facility on a second- or third-adjacent channel that places a 60 dBu contour over that location, then there, and those are the only facilities that do, there may be a possibility with a waiver demonstrating no interference to nearby occupied structures. For “adjacent” facilities in the “commercial band” (e.g. 92.1, 92.3 or 92.5) you must use the 54 dBu contour for Class B and the 57 dBu contour for Class B1. (In the 88.1~91.9 reserved band, Class B and B1 stations are only protected to the 60 dBu contours). Even if you find a channel using this quick method, a full engineering study needs to be done to determine interference protection to other facilities and in the long run, the channel may still not be available.

REC full services for this filing window

This information is subject to change.

Due to personal and family health issues and other limitations, our bandwidth for personally handling applications for this window will be extremely limited and thus, the number of “slots” will be substantially limited.

We will not use an intake tool like we did with the 2021 and 2023 windows. Instead, we will consider only serious requests from full-service and LPFM licensees with priority given to those who have had a long-standing business relationship with REC in the past.

We also plan to provide “wholesale” services to other consultants, advocates and certain “DIY” filers who need technical preparation of exhibits as these take less time for us.

Those with serious interests in filing in this window who meet the criteria above can contact REC Networks to express a show of interest. We reserve the right to select which potential applicants we will work with due to these bandwidth restrictions this year.

It is very likely that we will be providing status through our Filing Window Application Tracking System.

What happens next?

At this time, we are getting ready for a comment phase. Once the item is adopted by the Commission and it is published in the Federal Register, there will be a 15-day comment period and reply comments will be due 10 days after that.

As a matter of history, for the 2021 full-service NCE FM filing window, it took approximately six months from the time when the Public Notice was adopted by the Commission (which will happen in mid-February) to the day when the application caps were announced and the filing window dates were set. The filing window was then about 2 months later.

If this proceeding follows that same timeline, it is likely that this filing window will take place around October, 2026, but it can happen any time before or after that depending on how long the processing of the comments and the subsequent issuing of Public Notices take place.

Please stay tuned to REC on Facebook for updates. We will eventually publish FAQ questions and answers to address questions that we have already received as well as questions we anticipate receiving.

For more information on new NCE FM Translators, please see this page at REC Networks.

A Petition for Rulemaking has been filed by Press Communications, LLC, licensee of WHTG(AM), Eatontown, NJ and co-signed by several other broadcasters to propose that the FCC open another opportunity for the licensees of AM stations to be able to acquire existing FM translators and allow them to be moved up to 500 miles for the purpose of allowing the translator to be used as fill-in service for an AM station. This is similar to the 2016 “250-mile move” opportunity that was provided in former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s “AM Revitalization” initiative, MB Docket 13-249 (paras. 12~17).

Unlike the previous 250-mile move window of 2016, Press, et. al. is requesting that the maximum move distance be 500 miles instead of 250. They cite that the additional distance is needed because stations on both coasts, the Gulf of Mexico and in the border areas were at a disadvantage because they did not have a full 250-mile circumference in all directions to translators from. They also want the move opportunity to make this 250/500-mile move opportunity permanent. They also want to impose a limitation of a maximum of “3 translators per AM station license”. The latter is so no AM station is forced out of the market by additional FM translators by either a huge entity acquiring dozens or a greater number of translators for a particular station or a greater number of FM translators for a particular AM station or a competing station upsurping all available FM translator spectrum in a market. In the previous 250-mile move window, AM stations were limited to only moving one FM translator. They also want to give Class C and D AM stations a head start, which is consistent with the 2016 opportunity.

Today, FM translators can only be moved a distance where the 60 dBu contour of the current facility overlaps in part with the 60 dBu contour of the proposed facility. A separate process, called a Mattoon Waiver can be used to move an FM translator a farther distance if the translator is to be used for AM fill-in service, does not impact future LPFM availability in “spectrum limited” markets, there is mutual exclusivity in either direction between the current and proposed translator facility, and the applicant does not have a history of multiple filings in order to slowly move a translator to the desired location through a series of minor modifications.

In the past, other LPFM advocates had opposed the 250-mile move opportunity because it would not pass the statutory muster of Section 5 of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010. At that time, REC did not take this position because Section 5 of the LCRA applies only to new FM translator, LPFM and FM booster stations and not to the move of existing stations. The LCRA would only come into play if new (drop-in) translators were being proposed, similar to the Auctions 99 and 100 filing windows in 2017 and 2018. At that time, REC’s position was that because AM stations were limited to one FM translator and each translator obtained through the Auction window would be permanently “married” to the AM station with no opportunity to change the translator’s primary station, the addition of the translators would fall under “community need” as required in §5(2) of the LCRA. We note that the Press petition does not propose the opening of a new auction filing window for new FM translator stations, only the modification of existing FM translator stations.

Because REC’s constituency is more than just LPFM stations (which we are commonly stereotyped as), but also includes smaller commercial and noncommercial AM and FM broadcasters, especially those in rural areas, we must look it in a way that protects the interests of LPFM stations as well as those of smaller AM broadcast stations.

Over the years, REC has either witnessed or received complaints regarding FM translators proposing strangely designed composite directional antennas that are engineered as a way to completely surround an LPFM station, such as the recently filed modification by W276DV and its impacts to WUGR-LP near Hollywood, FL, which has resulted in an Informal Objection (incorrectly presented as a Petition to Deny) opposing the modification of the translator.

REC has always been concerned about these types of arrangements, especially where such antennas would be very costly and where some translators authorized in this manner would eventually build with a different antenna which may cause actual interference. While LPFM stations do have recourse under §§ 74.1203 and 74.1204(f) of the rules, those rules are based on the contour and not on actual operations. LPFM stations may not have recourse to address an improper antenna because it would require FCC field enforcement to inspect the translator antenna and as many of us know, broadcasting is well on the bottom of the FCC’s field enforcement triage as it does not involve high value commercial services nor safety of life communications.

While it may be necessary for REC to first conduct a constituent survey before going on the record with the FCC on this proposal (which we may do if this petition receives an “RM” number and it opens for comments), we will make our initial positions on this issue in a manner that would be a compromise across our entire constituency. These positions are subject to change based on the outcome of a constituent survey.

250 vs. 500 mile move: If the Commission was to entertain a 500 mile move distance, REC would insist that a move between 251 and 500 miles would only be allowed for AM stations in the continental United States and Alaska that are physically located less than 250 miles from one or more of the following: Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of America (as recognized under Executive Order 14172, also recognized as some as Gulf of Mexico)1, the common border with Canada and the common border of Mexico.

Three station maximum: We do not agree with the three station maximum. Instead, we would call for that the number of stations be limited to two and whether the Commission was to go with two or three stations, any translators that were granted (even if not built) in the original 250-mile move or obtained new in Auctions 99 or 100 would count towards those two stations. This means that many AM stations would be able to move one translator and those who did not participate in 2016~2018 would be able to move two.

Licensee of moved station: REC would insist that the licensee of the translator be the same as the licensee of the AM station which will be designated as the primary station. If the current licensee of the FM translator is different, then an application to request consent to assign the FM translator authorization must be filed simultaneously. In cases where an assignment application is filed, program testing and/or licensing would not be authorized until the assignment is both granted and consummated. This prevents speculation. Once moved in this manner, the translator cannot be assigned again for the lifetime of the translator and must be simultaneously assigned or cancelled if the AM ownership changes.

Primary station designation: The primary station of the FM translator must remain the AM station and cannot be changed in the future at any time. In the 2016 opportunity, the FM translator only needed to operate with that AM station as the primary for four years of licensed operation. This would be a permanent marriage similar to those translators authorized in Auctions 99 and 100. This will prevent a translator being moved to a more prominent metro area and then after four years, being sold off to be used for a different station. REC could consider situations where the primary station is redesignated to a different AM station that is commonly owned by the licensee in the same area.

Translators within close proximity to an LPFM station: Any translator that proposes to operate within 67 km of one or more LPFM stations on co-channel and/or within 35 km of one or more LPFM stations on first-adjacent channels and with a directional antenna must be subject to §74.1235(i) which requires that a directional antenna must have a proof of performance (including computer modeling for antenna models that were previously physically proofed) with the exception of “off the shelf” directional antennas used in a single antenna (non-composite) configuration and in all cases (including “off the shelf”), must certify that the antenna is mounted per the manufacturer’s instructions and to certify that the antenna is mounted in the proper orientation and location. The latter would have to be conducted by a licensed surveyor (this is a rule that we would like to see with all future FM translator modifications and construction permits, regardless of primary station).

New FM translator stations: Even though this proposal does not call for the creation of new FM translator stations (only the moves of existing ones), we absolutely oppose a second set of auction windows for new “FM into AM” translator station construction permits. Actually, we oppose any new translator filing window (either in the non-reserved or reserved band) until the FCC puts the safeguards in place as proposed by REC in RM-11952 in order to comply with the LCRA and to address the changed role of fill-in FM translators.

We see these counter-proposed compromises to be a happy medium that does address the issues being faced by current smaller AM broadcast stations and to protect the current base of the 2,000+ LPFM stations currently operating or otherwise authorized.

Again, these are not our final positions, just our starting points. We do welcome feedback on these positions and any compelling arguments that could sway our position knowing that any such arguments must be consistent with both the interests of LPFM stations and those of AM broadcasters seeking FM translators.

Edited to correct the RM number of REC’s Translator Reform petition for rulemaking.

Edited to change text and add footnote 1 regarding the gulf coast of the southeastern United States.

Whenever the Commission considers an action that will be on the agenda, they will release a “circulation draft”. This is normally released three weeks prior to the open meeting date. This was a process started by former Chairman Ajit Pai. Because of these documents, it gives industry stakeholders a two-week opportunity to make ex parte presentations or send ex parte letters to decisionmakers in the appropriate bureau or office. In the past, REC has been able to successfully use this process to modify the bureau’s/office’s/Commission’s decision on a matter. One case was during the online public notice policy change to §73.3580. In the past, it has also been used against us, such as in MB Docket 03-185, when the Commission was ready to reach a Report and Order eliminating all NCE protections to TV Channel 6 (§§73.525, 73.825, 74.1205) but then it was stopped because of ex parte presentation by Disney (owners of WPVI, Channel 6 in Philadelphia, the only network affiliate remaining on RF Channel 6). FCC regulations and the Sunshine Act prohibit ex parte presentations be made upon the release of the “sunshine notice” which normally is released on the Thursday before the meeting (one week prior).

For the circulation draft for the Direct Final Rule from the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), REC had submitted an ex parte letter directed to OET and the offices of all three Commissioners. In that letter, REC expressed concern regarding the complete deletion of §15.233, which addresses the use of cordless telephones operating in various bands between 43.71 and 50.00 MHz. Our letter stated that it would not be appropriate to delete frequency privileges of consumer equipment that may be still in circulation, especially in rural and collector settings. We noted that without the rule in place, which allows a field strength of 100 times greater than that for normal Part 15 devices in this spectrum, it could render each phone to be illegal, in violation of §301 of the Communications Act. REC had stated that we do not oppose deleting portions of §15.233 that relate specifically to the certification and sale of new cordless phones in this spectrum, but we do feel that these phones need to remain legal for the few who may continue to use them.

Like with what the Media Bureau did to address our concerns about online public notices, we do note that OET did very quietly address the cordless phone issue. Even though the entire rule is still ordered to be deleted, we note that the adopted version of the Direct Final Rule does include the following new language in footnote 5 in respect to §15.233:

This language did not exist in the circulation draft. While we do feel that keeping some language in the CFR to recognize the 10,000 mV/m at 3 meters emission limitation for these phones would fully protect these units, we do have language that continues to protect these units. The bottom line is that because of REC’s actions in this matter, these phones will remain legal to continue using. New phones of these types cannot be manufactured (and they have not been manufactured for decades, which is likely why they wanted to delete the rule).

REC recommends that collectors and others who continue to use cordless phones that exclusively operate in the 43~50 MHz band (including the “46/49” type phones) to print a copy of the Direct Final Rule and keep it with their records permanently so it can be referred to in the unlikely event of future enforcement action.

FCC removes 800 MHz blocking requirement on scanners

In the same Direct Final Rule order, the FCC has also deleted and reserved §§ 2.1033(b)(13) and 15.121, which addresses the need for scanners to block out specific portions of spectrum in the 800 MHz range where cellular telephones operate. These rules were put in place originally following the enactment of the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Reduction Act (106 Stat. 4195), an amendment to §302a(d) of the Communications Act. This was also at a time when cell phone communications were still analog in some cases and could be easily heard using an unblocked scanner or communications receiver. Analog cellular communications in the 800 MHz band using Advanced Mobile Phone System (AMPS) would be completely phased out by 2008. Because of the conversion of this spectrum from AMPS to digital technologies, such as CDMA and GSM, a conventional scanner or communications receiver would no longer be able to pick up telephone communications in the 800 MHz band.

The way that we read this rule deletion is that scanners are no longer required to block those portions of the 800 MHz band that were previously used for AMPS cellular service and thus may be used for other public mobile/broadband purposes. We do note that §302a(d) is still on the books and thus it is still a violation of federal law for any scanning receiver that is capable of-

1. Receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated to the domestic cellular radio telecommunications serivce.

2. readily being altered by the user to receive transmissions in such frequencies; or

3. being equipped with decoders that convert digital cellular transmissions to analog voice audio.

Since all cellular communications have converted to encrypted digital formats, it can be interpreted that the deletion of §§2.1033(b)(13) & 15.121 would remain in compliance with §302a(d). Federal law still prohibits any devices that can convert digital cellular communications to analog audio.

Whether this means that Uniden and other scanner manufacturers will be rushing to change their models to remove this blocking is yet to be seen, however, it would likely be fruitless due to the lack of analog and unencrypted digital communications (e.g. P25) that may exist in the blocked spectrum.

Use this information about the 800 MHz band at your own risk!!

(Bonnet on.) With the new stations coming on the air and observations of things I have been seeing other LPFM and small full-service NCE stations doing, I think it’s time to re-raise the uncomfortable subject of underwriting acknowledgement compliance.

Times have been tough for NCE/LPFMs, I get it!

Non-commercial Educational (NCE) broadcast stations, this means BOTH full-service and Low Power FM stations, are currently going through some very rough times over these past few years. Many stations (but not all) were able to make it through the “2020 crud”, despite the fact that many public facing businesses either had gone out of business or otherwise experienced substantially reduced revenues due to the loss of foot traffic. Today, we are continuing to experience reduced public involvement in the funding of NCE stations due to competing technologies, such as streaming and social media advertising, which have very few restrictions on advertising content compared to the “identify but not promote” model of NCE underwriting acknowledgements.

The history of this educational radio service intended for school districts

I again remind everyone the type of service that they applied for when they obtained their NCE (full service or LPFM) station. This service was originally designed for schools such as colleges, universities and high schools, originally as a method for schools to transmit academic lectures to other school campuses and to provide programming to the public outside of school hours. It would eventually evolve into a training ground for future broadcasters as part of a curriculum. When the original Communications Act of 1934 was passed, there were statutory provisions put in place for the new FCC to set aside reserved spectrum for educational purposes:

“The Commission shall study the proposal that Congress by statute allocate fixed percentages of radio broadcasting facilities to particular types or kinds of non-profit radio programs or to persons with particular types of or kinds of non-profit activities, and shall report to Congress, not later than February 1, 1935, it’s recommendations together with the reasons for the same.” [47 USC §307(c) (1934)]

The first hearing for these new types of radio stations and reserved spectrum took place on October 1, 1934.1 The Commission would eventually set aside spectrum for the new “high frequency” radio service (which we know today as FM). Even when FM spectrum was in the 41~50 MHz range in those early days, there was still spectrum set aside for educational broadcasting. In the TV Table of Allotments, specific channels are set aside for educational use. This is still done to today. Since AM radio was already widespread by 1934, it was not really possible to practically reserve spectrum in the band. AM has never used a “table of allotments” like FM and TV does.

How Christian broadcasting opened the door for non-academic secular organizations, including Pacifica

In the early days, educational broadcasting was limited to not only schools but school systems. This is consistent with the original intention of educational broadcasting to be able to deliver lectures to remote campuses.2 It took action in the early days by the Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, which operated a single campus (not a school system) to argue that religious schools can provide an educational program and that their “students” also included the general public. The Commission’s decision in Moody would open the door for other educational institutions, including those in the private sector and eventually to organizations that are not in an academic setting, such as Pacifica Foundation to be the licensees of NCE stations. The organizations still had to be educational in nature and if they were not an academic facility, they had to make a showing that the radio/TV station would be used to advance an educational program. This is why today, NCE and LPFM applicants for new stations and assignment applications must include an educational statement with their application in order to justify their eligibility to use NCE broadcast facilities.

NCE/LPFM stations are currently under threat

We are now in a time when NCE stations are now under the microscope more than ever. Due to politics, stations are afraid of losing their licenses or otherwise being sanctioned just for existing. It has come to the point where some on one side of the aisle are now claiming that because the Corporation For Public Broadcasting has been defunded, that NPR affiliate stations should lose their licenses because they can’t provide programming that is “in the public interest”. This argument does not hold much water since not all NPR affiliate stations have applied for and thus have never received CPB funding. One example is right here on Delmarva in the case of WHCP, an NPR station in Cambridge, MD that graduated from LPFM in the 2021 NCE window. A graduation that was supported by REC.

While there are LPFM stations that are Pacifica Network affiliates, there are very few, if any LPFM stations that are associated with NPR though they may take programming from other public radio providers. Most secular LPFM stations today are operating with music formats. While some are true local stations with local talent and taking on local issues, a considerable number are merely jukeboxes running music formats that could have viability on commercial radio and sometimes operate in a manner where a commercial radio way of thinking is held. This kind of attitude is dangerous territory for the promotion of LPFM and small full-service NCE stations.

The reality of LPFM’s lack of an underlying funding source

Likewise, most of these stations do not have what the larger stations have, original underlying funding from school districts, university systems or well-funded nonprofit organizations. These small stations, were funded through good ol’ grassroots fundraising in the community or out of pocket expenses by the founder(s) and many are operating on shoestring budgets. Because of this, these stations are always strapped for cash and may come up with that they think are “creative” ways to fund raise. Unfortunately, there are many out there, especially in the LPFM side who either are not aware of the FCC’s Policy on the Nature of Noncommercial Broadcasting or they do know, but they ignore it or just don’t understand it because they never reached out to experts, such as REC or the peer Facebook groups in order to ask. Unfortunately, reaching out to peer groups may only expose them to more bad advice that other stations are doing that may not align with the FCC’s Nature policy.

Violations of the underwriting rules are real, and so are the fines

Violations of the FCC’s Nature policies could lead to forfeitures (fines), which in some egregious cases, could lead to the six figures. One of those egregious cases involved the Cesar Chavez Foundation (CCF), which operated a number of NCE full-service stations in California and Arizona under the brand La Campesina. The underlying foundation works to promote immigrant farmworkers. In 2018, CCF settled with the FCC by Consent Decree where CCF admitted that they “broadcast announcements that violated the Commission’s underwriting laws by broadcasting announcements that promoted the products, services or businesses of its financial contributors.”

In the introduction of that Consent Decree, the FCC, through the Media Bureau, clearly drew a line in the sand where it comes to what advantages NCE broadcasters have in exchange for providing a commercial-free service:

While LPFM stations do not have reserved spectrum (but they can use the reserved NCE spectrum if a channel is available there), they are subject to the other privileges, such as no regulatory fees and fewer requirements.

The Consent Decree also very well explains the nature of what can be included in an underwriting acknowledgement and the latitude of good judgment it gives licensees:

In the case of CCF, which involved commercials on two full-service NCE stations, the licensee and the FCC settled with a civil penalty of $115,000.

100-watt LPFMs are not immune from FCC fines

Don’t think that LPFMs will get away with only a hand-slap because of their size. In 2023, the FCC upheld a $15,000 forfeiture against Plymouth Gathering, licensee of KELS-LP, Greeley, CO. In this case, the FCC determined that the station carried over 1,600 announcements they considered commercials. In the original Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Plymouth, they give examples of announcements that were considered troublesome. In the case of Payson Center for the Musical Arts, Inc., licensee of KRIM-LP, Payson, AZ, the Commission agreed to a civil penalty of $20,000, which would increase to a total of $61,500 if the licensee either fails to make the $20K payment or receives another Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture.

The bottom line here is simple. Identify, but DO NOT PROMOTE. You are allowed to acknowledge a business name (which matches what is on their state corporation documents, not just a brand name), their address (without any promotional precursors such as “conveniently located at…”), their telephone number (without a call to action such as “call..”), their website URL (as long as the website URL is the business name and does not contain anything promotional in it and a brief non-value added description of one or two of their product lines (i.e. “they sell toilets from Toto and Kohler”). Slogans, while a allowed are a very very slippery slope unless you absolutely know what you are doing. Just because there is promotional language in their slogan, it does not mean that you can use it. The slogan and logogram language is more to benefit television than it is for radio. I would avoid it all costs. Also, another common misbelief is that it is OK to give some kind of promotional information as long as it is factual (i.e. “voted New Times Best of Phoenix in 2025.”) This is also NOT TRUE.

While this may have expanded since FCC Chairman Brendan Carr had recently inquired several NPR affiliates regarding the content of their underwriting messages, it has been traditional that the FCC acts on these based on complaints from commercial stations. Statistically, LPFM stations that are the most vulnerable to complaints are those that are in smaller markets where there is one prominent local or regional owner and the LPFM station is operating a format that is commercially viable (such as album rock, oldies, retro, country of all eras, etc.) or that the LPFM station engages in predatory fundraising that tries to “steal” revenues from commercial stations (predatory fundraising could be simply making claims that the LPFM station is an alternative to commercial radio advertising). We had one case a smaller southern market where the LPFM station undercut the local commercial station that for many years, had carried the local high school football games. It was reported that the LPFM would engage in commercial advertising during the football coverage.

Michi’s 11 Underwriting Commandments

So, what can an LPFM do to prevent pissing off the commercial stations, resulting in an FCC investigation and potentially a forfeiture or civil penalty:

1. Stick with the true community radio model. Do not run a jukebox of a certain music format that commercial stations could normally run, even if no commercial station in the area is running that format right now.

2. Identify and do not promote in underwriting as well as keeping message lengths to a minimum and do so in a way where programming is interrupted for the underwriting messages. Don’t do an acknowledgement in the segue and lead-in to a song. Stop programming, add a second of silence, do the underwriting, do another second of silence and return to the program.

3. Do not attempt to sell underwriting airtime by message length. (e.g. $xx for 12 30-second spots, etc.) or even try to publicize it on a rate card, etc.

4. Never say that on-air underwriting acknowledgements are for promoting a business.

5. Never sell airtime. (i.e. $xx for 30 seconds, $xx for 5 minutes, $xx per hour, etc.). Any kind of consideration received for “messages of public importance” is considered a commercial under the Communications Act, even if the typical underwriting no-nos like “calls to action” are not used.

6. Do not assume that “call to action” is the only restriction on underwriting announcements. Read the REC Compliance Guide. Also, do not assume that any kind of “call to action” is prohibited. You can do “calls to action”, but not in a manner where consideration (reimbursement) is involved. A permitted call to action can be “come to City Park this Saturday for the annual City of Podunk Spring Festival.”.

7. Just because you hear a style of announcement on an NPR affiliate, don’t assume that it is OK because “they are the experts”. Many NPR affiliates cross the line (and this is where I agree with Chairman Carr). The main difference is that NPR affiliates normally do not engage in predatory fundraising nor do they run program formats that are also very viable in commercial radio.

8. Never allow your air talent to do live reads of underwriting announcements. All announcements should be written, vetted for compliance and pre-recorded for playback during pauses in programming.

9. Never name a station element after an underwriter. (e.g. “At the Riverton Honda weather center, it’s clear and 78 degrees. You are listening to WVWA-LP Riverton, coming to you from the Joe’s Crab Shack Studios.”)

10. Never, ever do live remotes from sponsors. I know there are several LPFMs that do these, but they are extremely unbecoming of noncommercial stations and can open stations up to a treasure trove of trouble. If your station decides to go on the road to raise awareness and/or funds, bring the cameras to post social media, but keep the microphones back in the studio.

11. Avoid hiring or bringing in volunteers who’s previous experience is radio commercial advertising sales. They will bring all of their bad habits with them.

Simple.. just don’t be like a commercial station.. be different

Stations need to just provide programming that is so compelling and addresses the local needs of the community so well that local businesses will want to be associated with the station, even if they can’t talk about the mattress sale on the air therefore stations do not feel compelled to violate the Nature policies in order to make a buck to survive.

Remember, your neighbors on the dial are listening.. and perhaps Brendy is listening too. These violations not just hurt the station but they also hurt the service itself. As the one who has traveled to Las Vegas in April to be the punching bag for the service, I would love to come back from NAB some year without too many literal knocks to the noggin.

Also remember, every 8 years when your organization needs to renew their license, they must disclose any enforcement activities related to the station, including where it comes to underwriting. The Commission will then have to determine if the station is acting in the public interest. Depending on who is FCC Chairman when your license comes up for renewal could vary what that “public interest” standard really is. If there’s any time in our history to keep your nose clean where it comes to the FCC’s enforcement docket, now is that time.

Remember, advice from REC is always free (though donations are always appreciated).