Repacking Reimbursement Forms Seen Complicated, Not Incorporating Broadcaster Feedback
New FCC draft relocation reimbursement forms (CD Sept 29 p14) for expenses incurred by broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors affected by the incentive auction are seen as complicated and not incorporating broadcaster feedback, broadcast attorneys, a broadcast executive and a broadcast engineer told us. The forms (http://bit.ly/1pwKpRS), necessary for broadcasters and MVPDs looking to receive compensation from the $1.75 billion relocation reimbursement fund, require a multistage filing process and ask broadcasters that choose to replace antennas and transmitters rather than modify existing equipment after being assigned a new channel to justify the purchase.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Transmitters and antennas must be made to order for their channels, and modifying them to work on a new channel is likely to be an option only for broadcasters that are moved to channels extremely close to their previous position, said Cohen Dippell President Don Everist. That’s not likely to be the case for most broadcasters, said the engineer. Modifying a transmitter typically involves removing it and shipping it to its manufacturer, an operation that’s likely to increase rather than ameliorate broadcaster expenses, said Pillsbury Winthrop broadcast attorney Scott Flick. Interim facilities are a reimbursable expense, said the incentive auction order.
Modifying existing equipment could be taken further off the table by recent reversals in the transmitter industry, Everist said. If the manufacturer of an existing transmitter has gone out of business, it’s unlikely a broadcaster could have its equipment modified for a new channel anywhere else, Everist said. In comment proceedings and an FCC workshop on the reimbursement fund (CD Oct 1 p4), broadcasters and antenna and transmitter manufacturers were skeptical that modifying existing equipment would be a realistic option for most repacked stations.
The FCC declined to comment on why justification for new antennas and transmitters is required. Its June order on the incentive auction said the reimbursement “process must be fair: it must cover broadcasters’ and MVPDs’ eligible costs reasonably incurred and maximize the funds available for reimbursement by avoiding waste, fraud, and abuse.” The order said the agency reserved the right to require broadcasters “to take reasonable steps to mitigate costs and share resources where possible."
Completing the reimbursement form “will be neither short nor easy,” said Fletcher Heald broadcast attorney Anne Goodwin Crump in a blog post Monday (http://bit.ly/1rFMyjT). “There’s a lot of work involved” in completing the reimbursement form and generating estimates of cost, said Sinclair Senior Vice President Mark Aitken. Broadcasters will have three months to submit the form after learning of their reassignment in an FCC public notice after the incentive auction. The effort of completing the form could eat up staff and resources and adversely affect the repacked broadcasters, Aitken said. “It’s a lot of moving parts to keep track of,” said Flick.
The three months between the reassignment notice and the deadline for filing reimbursement forms could lead to problems if a high volume of challenges to channel reassignment are filed and aren’t resolved before the three-month deadline, said Crump. Stations that appeal their channel reassignment aren’t bound by the three-month deadline, said the incentive auction order. Instead, it said their reimbursement forms would be due after their construction permits are issued.