26-20: REC supports translator caps/eligibility. Recommends more methods to prevent abuse.
REC supports caps and eligibility but is advocating for a safety catch to be put in place to prevent exploitation of the window by "surrogate stations".
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.