FCC on track for an NCE FM Translator filing window, likely in late 2026
Things you need to know about what is coming up, what this is for and how REC will be handling this.
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The rules for new reserved band FM translators were originally enacted in 2000 and in those 26 years, there has never been a filing window for new FM translators in the reserved band.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.
Nice summary!