[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