Draft Repacking Reimbursement NPRM Language in Flux
The wording of the draft NPRM on reimbursing low-power TV stations, translators and FM stations for expenses caused by the post-incentive auction repacking will be changed to address concerns about repacking expenses and eligibility raised by NAB, T-Mobile and Microsoft, FCC and industry officials told us. The commission has a March deadline to create a reimbursement policy under legislation that granted the funds, the NPRM said. The notice is set for a vote at Thursday's commissioners' meeting.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The item will no longer tentatively conclude the legislation authorizing additional repacking funds for radio, LPTV and translators is limited to the funds appropriated in FY 2018, a conclusion that NAB challenged in a series of recent lobbying meetings. Instead, the item will seek comment on how to interpret the legislation, an official said. NAB has argued that the legislation limits reimbursement payments to FMs to $50 million from the FY 2018 reimbursement funds but imposes no restrictions on reimbursement to FMs from FY 2019 funds (see 1807260020). “The $400 million appropriated in fiscal year 2019 will be available to reimburse eligible full power and Class A stations and MVPDs,” said the original draft. That’s “incorrect” and “unnecessarily restrictive,” NAB said. The FCC didn’t comment.
The NPRM also will seek comment on an FCC plan for graduated reimbursement payments to FMs for auxiliary equipment, industry and agency officials said. NAB argued FCC interpretation of the reimbursement legislation is the only rationale for limiting payments to FM stations. A graduated payment schedule likely would affect whether FM licensees decide to invest in auxiliary transmitters, said Garvey Schubert broadcast attorney Melody Virtue. The reimbursement policy is likely to affect only radio stations that share tower space with repacked TV stations, and some won’t be affected for a year or two, she said. “This could include fewer than 500 full-service stations,” the draft said.
T-Mobile concerns that LPTVs that accept repacking assistance from the carrier won’t be eligible for FCC repacking reimbursement are also recognized in the NPRM, an official said. “We tentatively conclude that stations that receive or have received reimbursement of certain expenses from sources of funding other than the Reimbursement Fund will not receive reimbursement for those expenses from the Reimbursement Fund," the draft said. Though it says stations that were reimbursed less than they would get from the FCC funds can file for the difference, T-Mobile asked that the language be changed to make it clear that the agency's reimbursement process should cover non-duplicative costs. “These stations shouldn’t be penalized because they made an agreement,” said Fletcher Heald broadcast lawyer Davina Sashkin, who has represented LPTV stations and T-Mobile.
Very few such stations will end up being eligible for T-Mobile’s offered funds, so the issue is “de minimis” said LPTV Spectrum Rights Coalition Director Mike Gravino. He’s more concerned the FCC reimbursement process for LPTV is still being hashed out as low-powers are asked to relocate early. Unlike full-power broadcasters, some LPTVs are having to pay for repacking expenses with no certainty of what expenses the FCC will cover or when, he said. Though Gravino believes there will be enough funds to go around, “the smallest guys on the block” are being asked to write checks without knowing how they will be compensated.