[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 15, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2925-2934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00578]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[MB Docket No. 07-294; FCC 12-166]
Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting
Services
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks further comment on its
requirement that licensees and other entities filing the FCC Form 323,
Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Station, provide an FCC
Registration Number (FRN) generated by the Commission's Registration
System (CORES) (CORES FRN) for attributable individuals reported on the
Form 323. The Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Sixth FNPRM)
also seeks comment on the Commission's proposal to eliminate the
``Special Use'' FRN for individuals reported on the Form 323 and on a
proposal to amend the Form 323-E, Ownership Report for Noncommercial
Educational Broadcast Station to require filers to report the CORES FRN
for individuals with attributable interests in licensees reported on
the Form 323-E. The Commission also invites comment on whether it
should extend the CORES FRN requirements, as they apply to entities and
individuals, to any non-attributable interest holders that the
Commission might ultimately conclude should be reported on the Form
323, as proposed by the Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Fifth FNPRM). Finally, comment is sought on a proposal to extend the
biennial ownership report filing period and on proposed revisions to
the Form 323 as submitted in comments in the Review of Media Bureau
Data Practices proceeding.
DATES: The Commission must receive written comments on or before
February 14, 2013 and reply comments on or before March 1, 2013.
Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) proposed
information collection requirements must be submitted by the public,
Office of Management (OMB) and other interested parties on or before
March 18, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket. No. 07-
294, by any of the following methods:
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Judith Herman of the Media Bureau, Industry
Analysis Division, at (202) 418-2330. For additional information
concerning the
[[Page 2926]]
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained
in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contact Cathy Williams at (202)
418-2918 or send an email to [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Sixth
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MB Docket No. 07-294, FCC 12-
166, adopted December 21, 2012, and released January 3, 2013. The full
text of this document is available for public inspection and copying
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
These documents will also be available via ECFS (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/) and may be purchased from the Commissions copy
contractor, BCPI, Inc. at their Web site http://www.bcpi.com or call 1-
800 378-3160.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may result in a new or revised
information collection requirement. If the Commission adopts any new or
revised information collection requirements, the Commission will
publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment
on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the commission seeks further comment on how it might
``further reduce the information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
Summary of the Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
I. Introduction
1. In this Sixth FNPRM, we seek further comment on the Commission's
requirement that licensees and other entities filing the FCC Form 323,
Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Station, provide an FCC
Registration Number (FRN) generated by the Commission's Registration
System (CORES) (CORES FRN) for attributable individuals reported on
Form 323. Obtaining a CORES FRN requires users to identify themselves
uniquely. This unique identification is achieved by requiring users to
submit their taxpayer identification number (TIN), which for entities
is generally their employer identification number (EIN) and for
individuals is generally their social security number (SSN). As
discussed below, unique identification of entities and individuals
filing and being reported on Form 323 is crucial to ensuring the
accuracy and reliability of Form 323 data and the usefulness of those
data to the Commission and other researchers.
2. We seek comment herein also on eliminating the interim,
``Special Use'' FRN alternative to obtaining a CORES FRN for
individuals reported on Form 323. The Commission has long required
licensees and other entities filing Form 323 to obtain and provide a
CORES FRN. The revised Form 323, adopted in 2009 pursuant to the 323
Order, 74 FR 25163 (2009), and the 323 MO&O, 74 FR 56131 (2009) in this
proceeding, requires filers to obtain and include a CORES FRN not only
for themselves but also for entities and individuals whose attributable
interests are reported on the form. Two parties sought reconsideration
of the requirement to obtain CORES FRNs for individuals holding
attributable interests, arguing that the CORES FRN requirement for
individuals is overly burdensome and raises privacy and data security
issues and that the Commission provided inadequate notice of this
requirement. To address the concerns of the petitioners and others who
raised this issue in comments, the Media Bureau implemented a ``Special
Use'' FRN as an alternative, temporary measure to obtaining a CORES FRN
for individuals holding attributable interests reported on the form.
The Special Use FRN allows Form 323 filers to obtain an FRN for use
with Form 323 for such individuals without submitting a TIN through
CORES. As a rule, all filers must provide an FRN for all persons and
entities reported on Form 323. If, after using diligent and good-faith
efforts, a filer is unable to obtain or does not have permission to use
an SSN in order to generate an FRN for an individual holding an
attributable interest in the licensee, the filer may use the Special
Use FRN. Filers who use a non-SSN based Special Use FRN will be deemed
fully compliant with the Form 323 filing obligation for purposes of the
323 filing, and the lack of SSN-based FRNs in response to Section II,
Question 3(a) and will not subject Respondents to enforcement action.
We now seek comment on eliminating this temporary measure. We also seek
comment on our proposal to permit filers to use a Special Use FRN
solely in instances where the filer is unable to obtain a CORES FRN
from an individual with reportable interests.
3. In addition, we seek comment on our proposal to amend the Form
323-E, Ownership Report for Noncommercial Educational Broadcast
Station, to require filers to report a CORES FRN for individuals with
attributable interests in licensees reported on this form. Further, we
seek comment on whether we should extend the CORES FRN requirements, as
they apply to entities and individuals, to any non-attributable
interest holders that we might ultimately conclude should be reported
on Form 323, as proposed in the Fifth FNPRM. Finally, we seek comment
on our proposal to extend the biennial ownership report filing period
and on the proposed revisions to Form 323 submitted in comments in the
Review of Media Bureau Data Practices proceeding.
II. Background
4. It has been a longstanding goal of the Commission to promote
diverse ownership of broadcast stations, including ownership by women
and minorities. In order to gather accurate and usable data about these
and other ownership categories, the Commission substantially revised
its biennial ownership reporting form in 2009. As the Commission
previously has stated, the changes to the filing requirements and the
modifications to the form are intended to facilitate long-term
comparative studies of broadcast station ownership. In addition, the
changes address flaws in the data collection process identified by the
United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) and by researchers
who have attempted to use the data submitted on previous versions of
Form 323. In 2008, GAO cited several shortcomings with the Commission's
data collection process: (1) Exemptions from the biennial filing
requirement for certain types of broadcast stations; (2) inadequate
data quality procedures; and (3) problems with data storage and
retrieval. To address GAO's concerns and to improve the quality and
suitability of the data for the Commission's use, the Commission
adopted several significant changes. First, it set a uniform ``as of''
date of October 1 for the ownership data being reported in the biennial
filing and established a uniform filing deadline for the data of
November 1. Thus, all filers must report their ownership interests as
they exist on the ``as of'' date of the filing year and submit their
reports no later than one month thereafter. These uniform dates make it
possible to discern statistically valid trends in minority and female
ownership over time, which was not possible using the previous rolling
filing procedures, and ensure timely collection of the data. Second,
the Commission also expanded
[[Page 2927]]
the class of licensees that must file the report biennially to include
sole proprietors and partnerships of natural persons as well as low-
power television and Class A licensees.
5. Third, the Commission delegated to the Media Bureau authority to
(1) Revise Form 323's electronic interface so that the ownership data
incorporated into the database are searchable, and can be aggregated
and cross-referenced; (2) build additional checks into Form 323 to
perform verification and review functions; and (3) conduct audits to
ensure the accuracy of the Form 323 reports. The Commission also stated
that ``to further improve the ability of researchers and other users of
the data to cross-reference information and construct complete
ownership structures, we will require each attributable entity above
the licensee in the ownership chain to list on Form 323, the [CORES]
FRN of the entity in which it holds an attributable interest.'' This
requirement to reference the next layer down in an ownership chain by
using a unique identifier, the FRN, fulfills a need for unmistakable
identity in the face of often complex ownership structures involving
numerous parties and multiple layers or links in the ownership chain, a
need which cannot be fulfilled by identification based entirely on
names and addresses. In other words, the Commission concluded that
without a single, unique identifier, researchers could not confirm the
accuracy of aggregated records. While the Commission believed that
these measures would resolve concerns regarding the usefulness of the
data, it nevertheless delegated authority to the Media Bureau staff to
revisit the CORES FRN issue if it determined that additional changes
were necessary. In response, the Media Bureau revised and improved the
instructions and questions in all sections of the form in order to (1)
Clarify the information sought in the form, (2) ensure that the data
are collected in machine-readable formats that can be incorporated in
database programs used to prepare economic and policy studies, and (3)
simplify completion of the form by giving respondents menu-style or
checkbox-style options to enter data. The Bureau also included built-in
edit checks and pre-fill capabilities to assure greater accuracy and
ease of completion.
6. On August 11, 2009, the Commission submitted the revised Form
323 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requirements and published the
Federal Register notice initiating a 60-day comment period. Among other
things, the revised form required each filer to include a CORES FRN of
entities one step above and one step below it in the ownership chain
and to identify the CORES FRNs of its attributable officers, directors,
and shareholders reported on the form. Many of the commenters in their
comments to OMB objected to having to report CORES FRNs for individuals
holding attributable interests, arguing that in order to obtain a CORES
FRN from these individuals, they would need to provide SSNs to the
Commission, a requirement that they claimed triggers privacy, data
security, and identity theft concerns. Commenters also suggested that
obtaining and reporting CORES FRNs for these individuals would be
onerous and would present a hardship to filers, and that in some cases,
filers might be unable to obtain a CORES FRN for all individual
attributable interest holders because the individuals are unwilling to
either obtain the FRN themselves or provide their SSN to the filer for
the purpose of obtaining an FRN. Additionally, commenters criticized
the Commission for failing to seek comment on requiring these
individuals to obtain CORES FRNs prior to including this requirement on
the revised form submitted for OMB approval. They also claimed that the
decision was inconsistent with the CORES FRN requirement applicable to
wireless licensees, who, they alleged, are not required to provide
CORES FRNs or other similar information for officers, directors, and
board members. Two Petitions for Writs of Mandamus were filed with the
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to stay the FCC from implementing
revisions to the form. Both were denied.
7. On October 6, 2009, the Commission submitted a letter to OMB in
response to the comments. The FCC's response explained that requiring
CORES FRNs on Form 323 is an integral part of the Commission's effort
to ``improve the quality, reliability, and usability of the collected
data by eliminating inconsistencies and inadequacies in the data
submitted.'' The Reply Letter identified the CORES FRN as a key tool
for ensuring that the ownership data is matched with specific owners.
Also, without the CORES FRNs, the Commission explained that it would be
unable to accurately determine the identity of a person when variations
of a single name or other spelling irregularities appear from form to
form. The Reply Letter also noted that the FRN has been used as a
unique identifier for reports that collect data on individuals and
entities that hold attributable interests in wireless services and
concluded that requiring filers to provide a CORES FRN for individual
attributable interest holders on the Form 323 ``will allow the
Commission to harmonize its processes between different licensing
divisions and directly improve the quality and usefulness of the
collected data * * *.'' The Reply Letter rejected allegations that the
Commission failed to comply with the notice requirements of the PRA.
After the Commission submitted the revised form to OMB, the Commission
issued a further order, the 323 MO&O, and explained that each filer was
required to identify the CORES FRNs of its attributable officers,
directors, and shareholders, explaining ``[i]n the process of modifying
Form 323 on delegated authority, the Bureau determined that it was
necessary to expand the class of [CORES] FRNs to be included to ensure
the usefulness of the data.''
8. On October 19, 2009, OMB approved the revised Form 323,
including the requirement that filers identify the CORES FRN for
individuals holding an attributable interest in the licensee. After
several delayed filing deadlines, the Commission set July 8, 2010, as
the first biennial filing deadline using the revised form. Generally,
the Bureau's experience during the filing process was that most filers
complied with the CORES FRN requirement. Nevertheless, in response to
industry concerns about filers' ability to obtain FRNs from all
individuals holding attributable interests due to individuals' concerns
about privacy, security, and identify theft, the Bureau allowed filers,
as an interim measure, to obtain a Special Use FRN for individuals
reported on the form in lieu of obtaining a CORES FRN. Individuals do
not need to provide an SSN in order to generate the Special Use FRN.
9. In December 2010, the Commission initiated a rulemaking
proceeding in which it proposes to update CORES in an effort to enhance
the Commission's data collection efforts and to improve customer
interface with CORES. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the
Commission noted that, ``[s]ince the creation of CORES, entities have
been able to obtain multiple FRNs in order to permit different members
of their corporate family to obtain their own individual FRNs,
regardless of whether those entities have different taxpayer
identification numbers * * *'' The Commission stated that it has had
difficulty using CORES to identify all FRNs held by the same entity
when entities have not provided TINs or have provided inconsistent
TINs. It also
[[Page 2928]]
observed that some filers erroneously invoked exceptions to the general
requirement to provide a TIN and that these entities or individuals
also would be difficult to track. The Commission has proposed several
options to resolve these issues. In addition, the Commission has asked
whether it should expand the availability of ``special use'' FRNs for
purposes other than the filing of Form 323.
10. In July 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, as
part of its review of the Commission's media ownership rules, vacated
and remanded certain aspects of the Diversity Order. The court
concluded that the Commission's decision to adopt a revenue-based
eligible entity definition to facilitate ownership diversity was
arbitrary and capricious because the Commission did not show how such a
definition specifically would assist minorities and women, who were
among the intended beneficiaries of this action. The court also
remanded each of the measures adopted in the Diversity Order that
relied on the revenue-based definition. The court found that the
eligible entity definition was not supported by ``data attempting to
show a connection between the definition chosen and the goal of the
measures adopted--increasing ownership of minorities and women,''
stressing that regulations seeking to increase female and minority
ownership must be based upon reliable data. The court stated, ``At a
minimum, in adopting or modifying its rules the FCC must `examine the
relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its
action[,] including a rational connection between the facts found and
the choice made.' '' The court also made plain that ``[i]f the
Commission requires more and better data * * * it must get the data.''
The court stated that the actions taken in the Order and Fourth FNPRM
to reliably analyze minority and female ownership ``will, however, lay
necessary groundwork for the Commission's actions on remand.''
III. Discussion
11. By this FNPRM, we seek to supplement the record regarding the
use of CORES FRNs. First, we tentatively affirm the Commission's prior
determination that the use of CORES FRNs as unique identifiers is
necessary in order to improve the quality of the data collected on Form
323, and we propose to discontinue the Special Use FRN for Form 323. We
propose to require all individual attributable interest holders to
obtain a CORES FRN and to require all Form 323 filers to provide the
CORES FRN for these individuals. Second, we seek comment on whether we
should require the individual and entities holding non-attributable
interests that would be reportable on the Form 323 under the proposal
set forth in the Fifth FNPRM to obtain a CORES FRN and require all Form
323 filers to report these CORES FRNs. Third, we seek comment on
revising Form 323-E to include the same CORES FRN and attributable
interest reporting obligations as those applicable to Form 323.
Finally, we seek comment on proposed revisions to the Form 323
submitted in comments in the Review of Media Bureau Data Practices
proceeding.
12. Elimination of Special Use FRN for Form 323. Special Use FRNs
do not afford the Commission a reliable means of tracing a reported
interest holder to a unique individual and their use therefore
undermines the purpose of our data collection effort, which seeks to
accurately ascertain the nature and extent of minority and female
ownership of broadcast properties. Without the ability to track an FRN
to a unique individual, it may be difficult, if not impossible, to
accurately cross-reference broadcast ownership interests. The Third
Circuit has highlighted the importance of collecting reliable data to
support the Commission's rulemaking initiatives.
We seek comment on the use of the CORES FRN as a means of
associating non-unique information (names, addresses, race, gender, and
ethnicity) with a unique identifier for data quality, searchability,
cross-referencing, and aggregation purposes solely for use with FCC
Form 323 as a means of identifying attributable interests. How
effective, relatively speaking, is the CORES FRN as a unique identifier
for the Commission's purposes? If no unique numeric or other identifier
is associated with an ownership record, how can researchers and other
members of the public adequately verify and/or make use of the
collected data? How can complete ownership structures be compiled
reliably? What alternatives are there to the use of the CORES FRN as a
unique identifier? We invite comment on other measures the Commission
could use as a unique identifier in lieu of the CORES FRN and its
underlying TIN basis.
13. We tentatively affirm the Commission's prior determination that
the use of CORES FRNs as unique identifiers is necessary in order to
improve the quality of the data collected on Form 323, and we propose
to eliminate the availability of Special Use FRNs and require the
universal use of CORES FRNs for all biennial and non-biennial Form
323s. We tentatively conclude that such unique identification is
essential to providing the kind of searchable and manipulable database
needed to support accurate and reliable studies of ownership trends. We
also tentatively conclude that the reporting of CORES FRNs on Form 323
that are obtained after supplying the Commission with a TIN is superior
to reporting the Special Use FRNs now permitted for individuals. We
seek comment on these tentative conclusions, and particularly encourage
those who may have used the dataset created from the first set of Form
323 biennial filings that were required to include FRNs for
attributable entities and individuals to address these issues.
Furthermore, the use of CORES FRNs is consistent with Commission
precedent in the wireless services context, as applicable to
attributable interest holders. We seek comment on any justifications to
treat broadcasters differently with respect to CORES FRN requirements.
14. We note that other government agencies also use SSNs when
necessary to ensure program integrity and for statistical and research
purposes. For example, the Census Bureau uses SSNs reported on income
tax returns in order to prepare annual population estimates for states
and counties to determine immigration rates between localities. The
Department of Agriculture has statutory authority to collect the SSNs
of both food stamp recipients and officers and owners of retail and
wholesale food concerns that accept and redeem food stamps. The Small
Business Administration (SBA) requires that applicants for SBA-backed
loans provide their past business and personal income tax returns,
which contain their SSNs. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) requires SSNs as a condition of eligibility for
participation in HUD programs involving loans, grants and other
assistance. The Veterans Administration requires individuals to provide
their SSNs to be eligible for compensation or pension benefits
programs. The Treasury collects the SSNs of all savings bond
purchasers. The Department of Labor requires all workers compensation
claimants to provide an SSN. The Department of Homeland Security uses
SSNs in its E-Verify database as the basis for its employment
verification system. Health and Human Services collects SSNs to verify
citizenship status. Agencies also collect and share SSNs for purposes
of collecting debts owed to the government, as well as using employees'
[[Page 2929]]
SSNs for activities such as payroll, wage reporting, and providing
employee benefits. We seek comment on the use of SSNs as unique
identifiers by other governmental agencies as it relates to the
Commission's proposed CORES FRN requirement for individuals.
15. Although we are seeking comment in our separate CORES
proceeding on measures to improve the CORES FRN system and the possible
expansion of special use FRNs, we tentatively conclude that it is not
necessary to await the outcome of that proceeding to improve further
the Form 323 data collection process by discontinuing the Special Use
FRN for Form 323. Unlike many of our filing obligations, the
fundamental objective of the biennial Form 323 filing requirement is to
track trends in media ownership by individuals with particular racial,
ethnic, and gender characteristics. In this context, it is especially
critical to ensure that we can identify uniquely each individual
reported on the form. As noted above, the Commission cannot ensure that
each individual is assigned only one Special Use FRN and that it is
used consistently throughout the Form 323 reporting process because no
unique identifier is available to track the Special Use FRN back to a
single individual. For instance, CDBS does not have any mechanism to
prevent a filer from obtaining multiple Special Use FRNs for the same
individual. In contrast, even though multiple CORES FRNs can be
obtained by the same individual or entity, the SSN or TIN underlying
these FRNs generally permits the Commission to identify the specific
person or entity using any such FRNs in a Commission report or form.
Because CORES FRNs are backed by a TIN whereas Special Use FRNs are not
backed by any unique identifier, the CORES FRN offers a superior means
of sorting and aggregating Form 323 data. We seek comment on these
views.
16. We also seek comment on the costs and benefits of eliminating
the Special Use FRN for Form 323. Commenters objecting to the CORES FRN
requirement for individuals with attributable interests that are
reported on the form argue that the requirement would be burdensome. In
the Reply Letter, the Commission disagreed that the process is as
onerous as commenters describe. Filers must only register one time to
obtain a CORES FRN, which can be used for current and all future Form
323 filings and other Commission filings. The CORES database
registration process takes only a few moments to complete and users
easily can obtain previously-registered CORES FRNs using the search
tool in CORES. Moreover, in addition to not being a burdensome
requirement, the CORES FRN is an essential part of the Commission's
effort to improve the reliability, quality, and usability of the data
collected, as the Commission as noted in identifying the CORES FRN as a
key tool for ensuring that ownership data are matched with specific
owners. Is the requirement to obtain a CORES FRN for individual
attributable interest holders onerous on small businesses? On large
corporations? On individuals? A small number of commercial broadcast
licenses are held by governmental entities, tribal organizations, and
not-for-profit groups. Is compliance with the CORES FRN requirement
more burdensome for these entities? What factors contribute to any
difficulties businesses may have in complying with the CORES FRN
requirement? On balance, we believe the benefits of the proposed
revisions will outweigh any costs. We seek comment on this analysis.
Commenters should describe the benefits and any costs associated with
eliminating the Special Use FRN or with any alternative proposal,
explain any underlying assumptions, submit all relevant data and, if
possible, quantify the potential effects.
17. We also seek comment on whether we should continue to allow
filers to obtain a Special Use FRN solely in instances where, after
reasonable and good faith efforts, they are unable to obtain a CORES
FRN from an individual with reportable interests. We expect that filers
will either obtain a CORES FRN for such individuals after obtaining the
individuals' SSNs in order to do so, or, if the individuals are
reluctant to disclose their SSNs to the filer, to instruct such
individuals how to obtain a CORES FRN on their own. As we have noted
before, this latter approach would avoid the need for individuals to
disclose their SSNs to any party other than the Commission. In the
event that an individual is unwilling to provide the filer with
sufficient information for it to obtain a CORES FRN and is unwilling to
obtain and provide a CORES FRN separately, we wish to ensure that a
filer will still be able to timely file a Form 323 and to report the
recalcitrant attributable interest holder. To permit this and to
identify individuals who have failed to provide the required FRN, we
seek comment on whether we should reserve the use of special use FRNs
solely for those cases in which an individual with a reportable
interest has failed to provide a responsible filer with a valid CORES
FRN or to provide the filer with the means of obtaining one. We note
that in such instances, the Commission can use its enforcement
authority to impose a forfeiture against such individuals. In this
connection, we also seek comment on whether we should require filers to
notify individuals with reportable interests of the Commission's
enforcement authority in such instances.
18. We also invite comment on any privacy concerns the CORES FRN
requirement may raise as it relates to Form 323 and the identification
of attributable interests. CORES FRNs are intended to provide a unique
identification system for entities and individuals that does not
require the disclosure of a TIN or SSN on Commission applications and
forms. TIN data are needed only to obtain a CORES FRN in the first
instance and those data are secured by the Commission and not used
publicly. Does this requirement raise any potential adverse
consequences? We invite comment in particular on the applicability of
the Privacy Act to the CORES FRN requirement. The Commission does not
consider sole proprietors and officers and directors to be persons who
are subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, since they are
acting in an entrepreneurial capacity. In addition, the Commission
already has adopted Privacy Act Systems of Records for the CORES system
and for the Form 323 requirement, which apply to any personally
identifiable information required by the Form 323 and by CORES in
connection with the FRN registration process. We tentatively conclude
that the Privacy Act does not bar our adoption of the CORES FRN
proposals discussed in this Further Notice. To the extent commenters
believe the requirement presents a risk of any adverse consequences
affecting individuals' privacy, what is the degree of risk involved and
is it outweighed by the benefits of obtaining more accurate and
verifiable ownership data?
19. We also invite comment as to whether it is necessary to clarify
that any individual with reportable interests must obtain an FRN.
Currently, our rules do not explicitly require these individuals to
obtain an FRN. Rather, the Form 323 requires licensees and other
respondents to report the FRN of individuals holding attributable
interests. A requirement for individuals with reportable interests to
obtain FRNs would address concerns that filers may be unable to obtain
FRNs from unwilling individual attributable interest holders. In this
regard, we seek comment on Petitioner Koerner &
[[Page 2930]]
Olender's request to ``redefine or reinterpret'' Sec. 1.8002 of our
rules, which establishes the Commission's generic FRN requirement, to
include within the scope of the rule the holders of interests
reportable on Form 323. Section 1.8002 states that persons ``doing
business'' with the Commission must obtain an FRN and lists examples of
the types of activities or interests that trigger the requirement. It
does not state that the listed categories are the only circumstances
under which an entity or individual must obtain an FRN. In the wireless
context, the Commission has determined that individuals holding
attributable interests in wireless licensees are ``doing business
with'' the Commission and that wireless licensees must provide the FRNs
for such individuals on the Form 602, FCC Ownership Disclosure
Information for the Wireless Telecommunications Services. Should we
amend Sec. 1.8002 to explicitly include any interests of individuals
or entities that are reportable on Form 323, either because the holders
of these interests are deemed to be ``doing business'' with the
Commission or because the Commission has, for other reasons, determined
that these interest-holders should obtain an FRN? We seek comment on
these matters, including comments on the costs and benefits of any rule
amendment.
20. Requiring CORES FRNs for additional reportable interests. In
the Fifth FNPRM, we are concurrently seeking comment on whether to
expand the biennial ownership reporting requirement to include
interests, entities and individuals that are not attributable because
of (a) the single majority shareholder exemption and (b) the exemption
for interests held in eligible entities pursuant to the higher EDP
threshold. We propose herein that if the Commission requires these
interest holders to be reported on the biennial ownership form, they
should be required to obtain and provide CORES FRNs. We seek comment on
what impact such a requirement would have on these interest holders and
whether the benefits of unique identification described above are
equally applicable to individuals subject to such a requirement. Would
a CORES FRN requirement for these interest holders present different
burdens for small businesses, other types of firms, or individuals?
Would this requirement present privacy concerns? As requested above,
commenters should address in detail the costs and benefits of expanding
the existing FRN requirements to the additional interests at issue in
the Fifth FNPRM.
21. Reporting FRNs on Form 323-E. We also seek comment on our
proposal to require that CORES FRNs be provided for all entities and
individuals reported on Form 323-E, Ownership Report for Noncommercial
Broadcast Stations. In the 323 Fourth FNPRM, the Commission sought
comment on whether to modify the Form 323-E to include gender, race, or
ethnicity data questions, similar to the revisions adopted in the 323
Order in order to further the Commission's goal of advancing diversity
of ownership in the broadcast industry. NPR objects to extending the
CORES FRN requirement to Form 323-E, contending that it raises ``unique
privacy issues and administrative burdens'' for the noncommercial
sector. In comments submitted in response to the 323 Fourth FNPRM, NPR
states that in many instances the governing board members are elected
officials, or political appointees, who are volunteers that are not
compensated for their services. Therefore, NPR argues that none of
these board members would hold any equity interest in the station and
would not provide meaningful ``ownership'' information to the
Commission. We seek comment on this view. Are there unique attributes
of noncommercial broadcasters, or of the ownership structure of
noncommercial entities, that would make the application of an FRN
requirement for their officers and directors particularly burdensome?
Generally, we seek comment on the benefits, potential costs or other
effects, and possible alternatives to imposing the same CORES FRN
requirements on Form 323-E filers and holders of reportable interests
as those applicable to Form 323 filers and attributable interest
holders. Are there other advantages or drawbacks to applying these
requirements to the Form 323-E? If the Commission elects not to include
a CORES FRN requirement for individuals with attributable interests
reported on Form 323-E, how can it ensure the accuracy of the data
submitted? What alternatives to the CORES FRN, if any, are available
that could provide sufficient data verification? We invite comment on
these issues. Commenters should describe the benefits and costs of
applying the existing FRN requirements to the Form 323-E or any
alternative proposal, explain any underlying assumptions, submit all
relevant data and, if possible, quantify the potential effects.
22. Due date for Biennial Ownership Reports. Currently, 47 CFR
73.3615(a) requires biennial reports to be filed by November 1 of odd-
numbered years and states that each report must be accurate as of
October 1 of the year in which it is filed. In order to provide parties
with additional time to complete and submit their reports, we propose
to move the due date from November 1 to December 1, with the October 1
``as of'' date unchanged. We believe that providing filers with an
additional 30 days to produce the Form 323 report will lead to more
accurate reporting, and will not significantly delay the collection of
data. We seek comment on this proposal.
23. Proposals submitted in the Review of Media Bureau Data
Practices proceeding. We also are seeking comment on proposals
regarding the Form 323 that were submitted in the Review of Media
Bureau Data Practices proceeding, which was initiated ``to improve the
way the Commission collects, uses and disseminates data.'' In that
proceeding, the Bureau encouraged commenters to provide recommendations
regarding: (1) The use and rationale of its existing data collections,
(2) additional data that should be collected, (3) how it can improve
the collection and analysis process for its existing collections, and
(4) how it may improve the dissemination of its reports and analyses.
Based on its experiences completing the revised Form 323, NAB suggests
that the Commission modify the electronic version of Form 323 to allow
for cross-referencing to information on other reports. Second, NAB
suggests that an entity with several wholly-owned licensee subsidiaries
should be able to list all of the licensees (and their respective
stations) in Section I, Item 7. We seek comment on this proposal and
ask whether it should be limited to wholly-owned subsidiary licensees
or whether a parent entity instead should be able to list all the
licensees in which it has an attributable interest (and their
respective stations) in Section I, Item 7. We believe that such a
change will significantly reduce the filing burdens on some entities,
without compromising the data collected. NAB also proposes that the
Bureau consider eliminating Section II-B, Item 3(c) as duplicative. NAB
further suggests that the Commission modify the instructions to Form
323 to eliminate inconsistent information, such as the instructions for
Section II-B, Items 1, 3(a), and 3(c). MMTC recommends simplifying the
public display of Form 323 filings; requiring only one Form 323 filing
per station with all the racial/ethnic/gender ownership of the
attributable interest holders; creating a separate filing
[[Page 2931]]
category for transfers to bankruptcy trustees, debtors-in-possession or
trusts; and changing from a biennial filing to an annual filing
requirement. Accordingly, we seek comment on these proposals regarding
Form 323, including the costs and benefits of these proposals.
IV. Procedural Matters
24. Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding this FNPRM initiates shall be
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
25. Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested
parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates
indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
(1998).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
26. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
27. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (``RFA''), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') of the possible economic impact on
small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Sixth FNPRM.
Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be
identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines
for comments on the FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the
FNRPM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (``SBA''). In addition, the FNPRM and
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
28. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. The FNPRM
invites comment on the Commission's prior determination that the use of
CORES FRNs as unique identifiers is necessary in order to improve the
quality of the data collected on the Form 323 and on the proposal to
eliminate the ``Special Use'' FRN feature for the Form 323. The FNPRM
also seeks comment on the burdens of eliminating the Special Use FRN,
of requiring all individual holders of interests reportable on the Form
323 to obtain an FRN through the Commission's Registration System
(CORES), and of requiring all filers of Form 323 to report the FRNs for
these individuals. The FNPRM invites comment on the use of social
security numbers as unique identifiers by other governmental agencies
as it relates to the Commission's proposed CORES FRN requirement for
individuals.
29. The objective of the information collection undertaken to
establish a CORES FRN is to obtain a special, unique identifier that
will allow the Commission and researchers to cross-reference
information and create complete ownership structures in order to
promote its long standing goal to promote diverse ownership of
broadcast stations, including by women and minorities.
30. The FNPRM also notes that the Commission, in the Fifth FNPRM,
is concurrently seeking comment on whether to expand the biennial
ownership reporting requirement to include interests, entities and
individuals that are not attributable because of (a) the single
majority shareholder exemption and (b) the exemption for interests held
in eligible entities pursuant to the higher EDP threshold. If the
Commission requires these interest holders to be reported on the
biennial ownership form, the Commission proposes, in this FNPRM, that
these interest holders should be required to obtain and provide CORES
FRNs. The FNPRM invites comment on the impact of this requirement on
these interest holders and whether the benefits of unique
identification described in the FNPRM are equally applicable to
individuals subject to such a requirement. As described at paragraph 13
of the FNPRM, a unique identifier is essential to providing the
searchable database necessary to support accurate and reliable studies
of ownership trends.
31. The FNPRM also seeks comment on the Commission's proposal to
require
[[Page 2932]]
that CORES FRNs be provided for all entities and individuals reported
on Form 323-E, Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations.
Based on potential unique attributes of noncommercial entities, the
Commission seeks comment on whether the proposed data collection
imposes a significant burden for such entities, which may be smaller
entities by nature. The Commission also seeks comment on the
usefulness, potential effects, and possible alternatives to imposing
the same CORES FRN requirements on Form 323-E filers and holders of
reportable interests as those applicable to Form 323 filers and
attributable interest holders.
32. The FNPRM also seeks comment on a proposal to amend the
Commission's rules to clarify that an individual with reportable
interests must obtain a CORES FRN. The Commission also invites comment
on whether the Commission should reserve the use of Special Use FRNs
solely for cases in which an individual with a reportable interest has
failed to provide the filer with sufficient information for it to
obtain a CORES FRN and is unwilling to obtain and provide a CORES FRN
separately. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should
require filers to notify individuals with reportable interests of the
Commission's enforcement authority to impose a forfeiture against such
individuals.
33. The Commission invites comment on its proposal to extend the
filing period for the Biennial Ownership Reports by moving the due date
from November 1, to December 1, with the October 1 ``as of'' date
unchanged. The FNPRM also invites comment on the proposed revisions to
Form 323 that were submitted in the Review of Media Bureau Data
Practices proceeding. The Commission also seeks comment on NAB's
proposal in that proceeding that an entity with several wholly-owned
licensee subsidiaries should be able to list all of the licensees and
respective stations in Section I, Item 7 of the Form 323 and asks
whether the proposal should be limited to wholly-owned subsidiary
licensees or whether a parent entity instead should be able to list all
the licensees in which it has an attributable interest in Section I,
Item 7.
34. Legal Basis. This FNPRM is adopted pursuant to sections 1,
2(a), 4(i)-(j), 257, and 303(r), of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i, j), 257, 303(r).
35. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if
adopted. The RFA defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and
``small governmental jurisdiction'' under Section 3 of the Small
Business Act. In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
36. Television Broadcasting. In this context, the application of
the statutory definition to television stations is of concern. The
Small Business Administration defines a television broadcasting station
that has no more than $14 million in annual receipts as a small
business. Business concerns included in this industry are those
``primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.'' The
Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television
stations to be 1,387. According to Commission staff review of the BIA
Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database as of May 2, 2012,
1070 (77 percent) of the 1,399 commercial television stations in the
United States have revenues of $14 million or less. The Commission has
estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational television
stations to be 396. We do not have revenue data or revenue estimates
for noncommercial stations. These stations rely primarily on grants and
contributions for their operations, so we will assume that all of these
entities qualify as small businesses. We note that in assessing whether
a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition,
business control affiliations must be included. Our estimate,
therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be
affected by any changes to the filing requirements for FCC Form 323 or
Form 323-E, because the revenue figures on which this estimate is based
do not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.
37. An element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the
entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is
unable at this time and in this context to define or quantify the
criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is
dominant in its market of operation. Accordingly, the foregoing
estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not
exclude any television stations from the definition of a small business
on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. An
additional element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the
entity must be independently owned and operated. It is difficult at
times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and
our estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-
inclusive to this extent.
38. Radio Broadcasting. The Small Business Administration defines a
radio broadcasting entity that has $7 million or less in annual
receipts as a small business. Business concerns included in this
industry are those ``primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs
by radio to the public.'' According to Commission staff review of the
BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Radio Analyzer Database as of May 2, 2012,
about 10,750, (97 percent) of 11,093 commercial radio stations in the
United States have revenues of $7 million or less. The Commission has
estimated the number of licensed noncommercial radio stations to be
3,712. We do not have revenue data or revenue estimates for these
stations. These stations rely primarily on grants and contributions for
their operations, so we will assume that all of these entities qualify
as small businesses. We note that in assessing whether a business
entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control
affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by any
changes to filing requirements for FCC Form 323 or Form 323-E, because
the revenue figures on which this estimate is based do not include or
aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.
39. In this context, the application of the statutory definition to
radio stations is of concern. An element of the definition of ``small
business'' is that the entity not be dominant in its field of
operation. We are unable at this time and in this context to define or
quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio
station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the
foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply
does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small
business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent.
An additional element of the definition of ``small business'' is that
the entity must be independently owned and operated. We note that it is
difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media
entities, and our estimates of small businesses to which
[[Page 2933]]
they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
40. Class A TV and LPTV Stations. The rules and policies adopted
herein apply to licensees of low power television (``LPTV'') stations,
including Class A TV stations and, as well as to potential licensees in
these television services. The same SBA definition that applies to
television broadcast licensees would apply to these stations. The SBA
defines a television broadcast station as a small business if such
station has no more than $14 million in annual receipts. As of March
31, 2012, there are approximately 479 licensed Class A stations and
2,001 licensed LPTV stations. Given the nature of these services, we
will presume that all of these licensees qualify as small entities
under the SBA definition. We note, however, that under the SBA's
definition, revenue of affiliates that are not LPTV stations should be
aggregated with the LPTV station revenues in determining whether a
concern is small. Our estimate may thus overstate the number of small
entities since the revenue figure on which it is based does not include
or aggregate revenues from non-LPTV affiliated companies.
41. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements. There may be changes to reporting or
recordkeeping requirements if the Commission eliminates the ``Special
Use'' FRN requirement. We do not anticipate any other changes in
recording or recordkeeping requirements for commercial broadcast
entities, as we are proposing to maintain the existing requirement. In
addition, there may be a change in reporting or recordkeeping
compliance for noncommercial entities if a CORES FRN requirement is
adopted for the Form 323-E. See, paragraph 21.
42. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that might minimize any
significant economic impact on small entities. Such alternatives may
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for small
entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards;
and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.
43. As noted, we are directed under law to describe any such
alternatives we consider, including alternatives not explicitly listed
above. The Notice proposes to continue to require individuals reported
on a Form 323 to obtain a CORES-registered FRN and to eliminate the
``Special Use'' FRN. In the alternative, the Commission could decide
not to eliminate the Special Use FRN for the Form 323, or it could
defer these actions until a later time. While the option to retain the
CORES FRN requirement and to eliminate the Special Use FRN might result
in an increased burden on those required to obtain and provide a CORES
FRN, the benefits of having a unique identifier for data quality,
searchability, cross-referencing and aggregation purposes in order to
further the Commission's goal of advancing diversity of ownership in
the broadcast industry outweigh the burdens. The CORES FRN as a unique
identifier is necessary to improve the quality of the data collected on
the Form 323. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Special
Use FRN should be available solely in instances where, after reasonable
and good faith efforts, filers are unable to obtain a CORES FRN from an
individual with reportable interests. This alternative could reduce the
burden for those filers who are unable to, after reasonable and good
faith efforts, to obtain a CORES FRN from an individual attributable
interest holder, while ensuring that the filer will be able to timely
submit the Form 323 and allowing the Commission to identify the
individual with a reportable interest that has failed to provide a
CORES FRN.
44. In the FNPRM, the Commission proposes that CORES FRNs be
reported for the two classes of non-attributable interests that would
be reportable if the Commission adopts the pending proposal in the
Fifth FNPRM to make these interests reportable. In the alternative, the
Commission could decide not to extend the CORES FRN requirement to
these interests if they are deemed reportable, or the Commission could
defer these actions until a later time. While the option to extend the
CORES FRN to these classes of non-attributable interests might impose
an increased burden on those required to obtain and provide a CORES
FRN, the benefits of having a unique identifier for data quality,
searchability, cross-referencing and aggregation purposes in order to
further the Commission's goal of advancing diversity of ownership in
the broadcast industry outweigh the burden of obtaining a CORES FRN.
45. In the FNPRM, the Commission proposes to impose a CORES FRN
requirement for all entities and individuals reported on the Form 323-
E, Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations in order to
further the Commission's goal of advancing diversity of ownership in
the broadcast industry. In the alternative, the Commission could decide
not to expand the CORES FRN requirement to the holders of attributable
interests in non-profit licensees that file Form 323-E, or the
Commission could defer this action until a later date. While the option
to extend the CORES FRN requirement to entities and individuals
reported on the 323-E could impose an increased burden on those
required to obtain and provide a CORES FRNs the benefits of having a
unique identifier for aggregating data related to non-commercial
licensees outweighs the burdens associated with obtaining a CORES FRN.
46. The FNPRM proposes to amend the Commission's rules to clarify
that an individual with reportable interests must obtain a CORES FRN.
The Commission seeks comment on how to reduce or eliminate the costs
imposed by this proposal to amend the Commission's rules on small
businesses. The Commission invites comment on its proposal to extend
the filing deadline for the Biennial Ownership Reports. By providing
filers with additional time to file the Biennial Ownership Report, this
proposal will reduce the burden on filers. The Commission also seeks
comment on the recommendations regarding the Form 323 from NAB and
other commenters in the Media Bureau Data Practices proceeding and the
costs and benefits associated with these proposals for small
businesses.
47. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules. None.
V. Ordering Clauses
48. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 2(a), 4(i)-(j), 257, and 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i)-
(j), 257, and 303(r), this Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
is adopted.
49. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained
in sections 1, 2(a), 4(i,j), 257, and 303(r) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i,j), 257, 303(r),
notice is hereby given of the proposals described in this Sixth Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
50. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
[[Page 2934]]
Information Center, shall send a copy of the Sixth Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
51. It is further ordered, that the Emergency Petition for
Immediate Revision of Instructional/Informational Materials Relative to
Form 323, filed on September 14, 2011 by Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth,
P.L.C., is dismissed.
Federal Communications Commission.
Cecilia Sigmund,
Acting Associate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00578 Filed 1-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P