[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19432-19461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04838]



[[Page 19431]]

Vol. 81

Monday,

No. 64

April 4, 2016

Part V





Federal Communications Commission





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





47 CFR Parts 73 and 74





Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services; 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2016 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 19432]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

[MB Docket Nos. 07-294, 10-103, MD Docket No. 10-234; FCC 16-1]


Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting 
Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission refines the collection of 
data reported on FCC Form 323, Ownership Report for Commercial 
Broadcast Stations, and FCC Form 323-E, Ownership Report for 
Noncommercial Broadcast Stations. Specifically, the Commission 
implements a Restricted Use FRN (RUFRN) within the Commission's 
Registration System (CORES) that individuals may use solely for the 
purpose of broadcast ownership report filings; eliminates the 
availability of the Special Use FRN (SUFRN) for broadcast station 
ownership reports, except in very limited circumstances; prescribes 
revisions to Form 323-E that conform reporting for noncommercial 
educational (NCE) broadcast stations more closely to those for 
commercial stations; and makes a number of significant changes to its 
reporting requirements that reduce the filing burdens on broadcasters, 
streamline the process, and improve data quality. These enhancements 
will enable the Commission to obtain data reflecting a more useful, 
accurate, and thorough assessment of minority and female broadcast 
station ownership in the United States while reducing certain filing 
burdens.

DATES: Effective May 4, 2016 The amendments to Sec. Sec.  73.3615 and 
74.797 contain new or revised information collection requirements that 
are not effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register 
announcing the effective date of these changes. A separate notice will 
be published in the Federal Register soliciting public and agency 
comments on the information collections and establishing a deadline for 
accepting such comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Riehm, Industry Analysis 
Division, Media Bureau, FCC, (202) 418-2330. For additional information 
concerning the information collection requirements contained in the 
Report and Order, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918, or via the 
Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, Second Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration 
(Second Report and Order) in MB Docket Nos. 07-294, 10-103, and MD 
Docket Nos. 10-234; FCC 16-1, adopted January 8, 2016, and released 
January 20, 2016. The complete text of this document is available 
electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and PDF formats via the search 
function on the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) Web 
page at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. The document is also 
available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System 
(ECFS) Web page at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. In addition, the complete 
document is available for inspection and copying during regular 
business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street 
SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. 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 FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-
0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document contains information collection requirements subject 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The 
requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general 
public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. The 
Commission will publish a separate document in the Federal Register at 
a later date seeking these comments. In addition, the Commission notes 
that 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 
specific comment on how it might ``further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.''

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. The Commission has a long-standing goal of promoting diversity 
in ownership of broadcast stations to ensure that diverse viewpoints 
and perspectives are available to the American people in the content 
they receive over the broadcast airwaves. In pursuit of this goal, the 
Commission has a long history of promulgating rules and regulations 
designed to foster diversity in terms of minority and female ownership 
in particular. In this Report and Order, Second Report and Order, and 
Order on Reconsideration (Report and Order), the Commission acts to 
improve the data available to analyze issues relevant to ownership and 
viewpoint diversity by refining the collection of data reported on FCC 
Form 323, Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations, and FCC 
Form 323-E, Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations.
    2. A necessary precursor to the Commission's policy-making efforts 
in this area is the collection of comprehensive, reliable data 
reflecting the race, gender, and ethnicity of the owners and other 
interest holders in broadcast stations. Such data are essential to 
effectively study and analyze ownership trends, to assess the impact of 
Commission rules, and to provide a foundation for the adoption of new 
rules, among other things. To be useful for this purpose, to the 
greatest extent possible the data must be capable of being read, 
verified, searched, aggregated, and cross-referenced electronically. 
Moreover, for the Commission's broadcast ownership data to be complete, 
reliable, and usable for study and analysis, individuals reported on 
Forms 323 and 323-E must be uniquely identified. The enhancements 
described herein enable the Commission to obtain data reflecting a more 
useful, accurate, and thorough assessment of minority and female 
broadcast station ownership in the United States while reducing certain 
filing burdens. These improvements also address the directive from the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that the Commission obtain 
more and better data concerning broadcast ownership to support its 
rulemaking decisions.\1\ Ultimately, the Commission believes that these 
actions will assist its future initiatives to promote diverse 
ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 652 F.3d 431, 469, 471-
72 (3d. Cir. 2011) (Prometheus II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Accordingly, pursuant to the Commission's statutory mandate 
contained in section 257 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 
1996 Act) and section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934 (the 
Act) to promote opportunities for small businesses and women and 
minorities in the broadcasting industry, the Commission implements a 
Restricted

[[Page 19433]]

Use FRN (RUFRN) within the Commission's Registration System (CORES) 
that individuals may use solely for the purpose of broadcast ownership 
report filings. The Commission believes that the RUFRN will allow for 
sufficient unique identification of individuals listed on broadcast 
ownership reports without necessitating the disclosure to the 
Commission of individuals' full Social Security Numbers (SSNs). In 
light of the Commission's adoption of the RUFRN requirement, the 
Commission eliminates the availability of the Special Use FRN (SUFRN) 
for broadcast station ownership reports, except in very limited 
circumstances as further described herein. The Commission also 
prescribes revisions to Form 323-E that conform reporting for 
noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast stations more closely to 
those for commercial stations, including information about race, 
gender, and ethnicity of existing, reportable attributable interest 
holders; the use of a unique identifier; and the biennial filing 
requirement. Finally, the Commission makes a number of significant 
changes to its reporting requirements that reduce the filing burdens on 
broadcasters, streamline the process, and improve data quality. These 
changes include extending the biennial filing deadline, reducing the 
number of filings required, improving the reporting of other broadcast 
and newspaper interests, and other modifications.

II. Background

    4. The Commission has been engaged in a sustained effort to improve 
the quality, utility, and reliability of its broadcast ownership data. 
In 2009, the Commission substantially revised the biennial Form 323 to 
facilitate longitudinal comparative studies of broadcast station 
ownership. The changes also addressed flaws in the data collection 
process identified by the United States Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) and by researchers who had attempted to use the data 
submitted on previous versions of Form 323. 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 storage and retrieval. GAO noted that ``more accurate, 
complete, and reliable [broadcast ownership] data would allow FCC to 
better assess the impact of its rules and regulations and allow the 
Congress to make more informed legislative decisions,'' and it 
``recommend[ed] that FCC take steps to improve the reliability and 
accessibility of its data on the gender, race, and ethnicity of 
broadcast outlet owners.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-08-383, Media 
Ownership: Economic Factors Influence the Number of Media Outlets in 
Local Markets, While Ownership by Minorities and Women Appears 
Limited and is Difficult to Assess, at 5 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. To improve the quality of its broadcast ownership data, the 
Commission adopted several significant changes to Form 323 in the 323 
Order, 74 FR 25163, May 27, 2009, FCC 09-33, rel. May 5, 2009. 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 of November 1, requiring all filers to report their ownership 
interests as they exist on the ``as of'' date of the filing year and to 
submit their reports no later than one month thereafter. These uniform 
dates make it possible to discern statistically valid trends in 
minority and female broadcast ownership over time, which was not 
possible using the previous rolling filing deadlines, and to ensure the 
timely collection of the data. The Commission expanded the requirement 
to file Form 323 biennially to include sole proprietors and 
partnerships of natural persons, as well as low power television (LPTV) 
and Class A licensees.
    6. In the 323 Order, the Commission also concluded that an FRN 
should be reported for each interest holder reported on Form 323 and 
directed staff to revise Form 323 accordingly. The Commission delegated 
authority to staff to revisit the CORES FRN issue if additional changes 
to the form were necessary. In order ``to further improve the ability 
of researchers and other users of the data to cross-reference 
information and construct ownership structures,'' the Media Bureau 
revised Form 323 to require that an FRN be reported for every interest 
holder reported on the form.\3\ The Bureau also revised the 
instructions and questions in Form 323 to (1) clarify the information 
sought in the form; (2) ensure that the data are collected in machine-
readable formats that can be imported into programs used to prepare 
economic and policy studies; and (3) simplify completion of the form by 
giving respondents menu or checkbox options to enter data. The Bureau 
included built-in checks and pre-fill capabilities to assure greater 
accuracy of the data reported and ease of completion of the form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 323 Order, 74 FR at 25165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Accompanying the 323 Order was a Fourth Diversity Further 
Notice, 74 FR 25205, May 27, 2009, FCC 09-33, rel. May 5, 2009, in 
which the Commission sought comments on changes to Form 323-E. The 
Commission sought comment on whether to seek race, gender, and 
ethnicity data from persons reported on Form 323-E in order to obtain 
data that would further the Commission's goal to advance diversity in 
the broadcast industry. Noting that many NCE broadcast station 
licensees are non-profit, non-stock entities or governmental 
organizations that are controlled by governing boards comprising 
members without a financial stake in the broadcast station, the 
Commission sought comment on how to define ownership in the 
noncommercial context. Among other things, the Fourth Diversity Further 
Notice sought comment on whether the Commission should adopt the same 
or similar modifications for Form 323-E as it did for Form 323 in the 
323 Order and whether the data quality measures adopted in the 323 
Order would be appropriate and sufficient to ensure that the data 
collected by Form 323-E are aggregable. The Fourth Diversity Further 
Notice also sought comment on whether to require low power FM (LPFM) 
stations to file a Form 323-E to collect ownership data on the 
licensees or to continue to exempt LPFM licensees from the filing 
requirements. The Commission will address issues in the Fourth 
Diversity Further Notice related to LPFM in a future order. The Fourth 
Diversity Further Notice was published in the Federal Register on May 
27, 2009, with comments due on or before June 26, 2009, and reply 
comments due on or before July 13, 2009.
    8. On August 11, 2009, the Commission submitted a 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.\4\ Among 
the changes submitted was a requirement that each filer provide a CORES 
FRN for each reported attributable interest holder. Form 323 requires 
Respondents to list each of the officers, directors, stockholders, non-
insulated partners, members and other persons or entities with a direct 
attributable interest in the Respondent. Many comments submitted to OMB 
objected to the revision requiring filers to report CORES FRNs for 
individuals holding attributable interests, arguing that it required 
them to provide SSNs to the Commission, which they claimed triggered 
privacy, data security, and identity theft

[[Page 19434]]

concerns. Commenters also suggested that obtaining CORES FRNs for 
reportable individuals would be burdensome, and that in some cases 
filers might not be able to obtain the CORES FRN for all individual 
attributable interest holders because individuals might be unwilling 
either to obtain CORES FRNs for themselves or to provide their SSNs to 
the filer for the purpose of obtaining CORES FRNs on their behalf. Two 
Petitions for Writs of Mandamus were filed with the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the DC Circuit to stay the Commission's implementation of 
the revisions to Form 323. The law firm of Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, 
P.L.C., on behalf of itself and various state broadcaster association 
clients, filed the first Petition on December 23, 2009, Doc. No. 09-
1321, and the second Petition on May 28, 2010, Doc. No. 10-1117. Both 
were denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to OMB 
for Review and Approval, Comments Requested, 74 FR 40,188 (Aug. 11, 
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. On October 6, 2009, the Office of the Managing Director (OMD) at 
the Commission submitted a letter to OMB addressing the comments filed 
in response to the revised Form 323. OMD 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 rejected allegations that the Commission failed to 
comply with the notice requirements of the PRA or ran afoul of the 
Privacy Act. OMD also disputed commenters' objections that the CORES 
FRN requirement raised security and identity theft concerns. The 
Commission utilizes a ``robust security architecture . . . for CORES 
that exceeds Federal guidelines and recommendations'' and has deployed 
operational controls that comply with National Institute of Standards 
and Technology guidance.\5\ OMD stated that the Commission's servers 
are securely located, that its databases are behind several firewalls, 
and that all servers and communications are monitored. The Reply Letter 
also noted that administrative access to the CORES application is 
limited and that all transmission of non-public data is encrypted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Letter from Walter Boswell, Acting Assoc. Managing Director, 
PERM, OMD, FCC, to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, at 9 (Oct. 6, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. The 323 Order also directed staff to modify Form 323 to require 
those interest holders that would be attributable but for the single 
majority shareholder exemption and the exemption for interests held in 
eligible entities pursuant to the higher Equity/Debt Plus (EDP) 
thresholds adopted in the Diversity Order to be reported on the form. 
On October 15, 2009, the Commission addressed a petition for 
reconsideration, in which the National Association of Broadcasters 
(NAB) argued, inter alia, for reconsideration of elements of the 323 
Order regarding the collection of information of certain 
nonattributable interest holders on Form 323. In an opposition to NAB's 
petition for reconsideration, the Office of the United Church of 
Christ, Inc. (UCC), Benton Foundation, Common Cause, Media Alliance, 
and National Organization of Women Foundation (collectively, UCC et 
al.), supported the Commission's decision to collect ownership 
information from certain nonattributable interest holders. NAB 
disagreed on reply. Acknowledging that the Commission had not 
explicitly expressed its intention to require certain nonattributable 
interest holders to file information in its rulemaking notice, the 
Commission deleted the reporting requirements for the nonattributable 
interest holders and adopted the Fifth Diversity Further Notice, 78 FR 
2934, Jan. 15, 2013, FCC 09-92, rel. Oct. 16, 2009. The Fifth Diversity 
Further Notice, released on October 16, 2009, proposed to collect 
ownership information from interest holders in a licensee that would be 
attributable but for the single majority shareholder exemption and 
those that would be attributable but for the higher EDP thresholds 
adopted in the Diversity Order. In the Sixth Diversity Further Notice, 
78 FR 2925, Jan. 15, 2013, FCC 12-166, rel. Jan 3, 2013, the Commission 
sought comment, inter alia, on extending the CORES FRN requirement to 
those nonattributable interests described in the Fifth Diversity 
Further Notice in the event that the Commission requires that these 
interests be reported on Form 323. The Commission will address issues 
raised by and implicating proposals in the Fifth Diversity Further 
Notice in a future order.
    11. On October 19, 2009, OMB approved the revised Form 323, which 
included the requirement that filers provide a CORES FRN for 
individuals holding an attributable interest in the licensee. On 
October 16, 2009, the Commission sent a subsequent letter to OMB 
acknowledging the Commission's action in the 323 MO&O, 74 FR 56131, 
Oct. 30, 2009, FCC 09-92, rel. Oct. 16, 2009, to eliminate the 
reporting of certain nonattributable interest holders. After several 
delayed filing deadlines, the Commission set July 8, 2010 as the first 
biennial filing deadline using the revised Form 323. In response to 
industry concerns about filers' ability to obtain CORES FRNs from all 
individual interest holders due to individuals' concerns about privacy, 
security, and identity theft, the Media Bureau allowed filers, as an 
interim measure, to obtain an SUFRN for individuals (but not entities) 
reported on the form in lieu of obtaining a CORES FRN. When clicking a 
button on the electronic version of Form 323 to generate an SUFRN, 
filers were advised via a pop-up box that ``[i]f, after using diligent 
and good-faith efforts,'' a filer is unable to obtain an SSN from an 
individual that must be reported on Form 323 in order to generate a 
CORES FRN, the filer may elect to automatically generate in the 
electronic Form 323 an SUFRN for that individual. The respondents were 
also informed that those who use an SUFRN on Form 323 would be deemed 
to be fully compliant with the filing obligations and the lack of a 
CORES-based FRN would not subject a filer to enforcement action. SUFRNs 
were available to filers for the 2009, 2011, and 2013 biennial filing 
periods. Filers were directed that SUFRNs, like CORES-based FRNs, must 
be used consistently.
    12. In November 2009, Koerner & Olender, P.C., and Fletcher, Heald 
& Hildreth, P.L.C., filed petitions seeking reconsideration of the 
requirement to obtain CORES FRNs for individuals holding attributable 
interests, arguing that the CORES FRN requirement is overly burdensome 
and raises privacy and data security issues and that the Commission 
provided inadequate notice of the CORES FRN requirement. In the Sixth 
Diversity Further Notice, the Commission addressed petitioners' 
concerns for adequate notice of the CORES FRN requirement for 
individuals and sought comment on Koerner & Olender's request to 
``redefine or reinterpret'' section 1.8002 of the Commission's rules. 
This Report and Order resolves the remaining issues raised in these 
petitions for reconsideration.
    13. In June 2010, the Media Bureau initiated the Review of Media 
Bureau Data Practices proceeding to examine the Bureau's data practices 
to improve the way the Commission collects, uses and disseminates data. 
The Bureau solicited input concerning potential improvements to all of 
its existing data collections, including both the biennial and non-
biennial sections of Forms 323 and 323-E. The Bureau defined ``data 
collection'' in ``the broadest manner possible, to include all 
information collections approved by the Office of Management and Budget 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, including

[[Page 19435]]

data that the Commission formally requires to be submitted and all 
information that must be retained by parties or disclosed to others.'' 
Forms 323 and 323-E were included in the inventory of data collections 
linked in the item. Among other things, the Bureau asked whether its 
various data collections should be continued or eliminated; whether the 
Bureau should collect additional data and for what purpose(s); how the 
Bureau's data collections could be improved; what burdens exist for the 
Commission, industry, and the public; and what potential improvements 
could be made concerning public access to, and Commission dissemination 
of, submitted data. The Commission received numerous comments in this 
proceeding, including two submissions--from NAB and the Minority Media 
and Telecommunications Council (MMTC)--that addressed issues related to 
the Commission's broadcast ownership report forms and data.
    14. In December 2010, the Commission initiated another separate 
rulemaking proceeding in which it proposed to update CORES to enhance 
the Commission's data collection efforts and to improve customer 
interface with CORES. In the CORES NPRM, 76 FR 5652, Feb. 1, 2011, FCC 
10-192, rel. Dec. 7, 2010, the Commission stated 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 had 
different taxpayer identification numbers (`TINs').'' For entities, the 
TIN is generally their employer identification number (EIN), and for 
individuals, the TIN is generally their SSN. The Commission stated that 
it has had difficulty using CORES to identify all the FRNs an entity 
holds when the entity has used inconsistent TINs or did not provide a 
TIN to obtain an FRN through CORES. The Commission also observed that 
some filers erroneously invoked exceptions to the requirement to 
provide a TIN, making those entities or individuals difficult to track. 
The Commission proposed several options to resolve these issues. In 
addition, the Commission asked whether it should expand the 
availability of SUFRNs for purposes other than the filing of Form 323.
    15. In July 2011, the U.S. 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, 73 FR 
28361, May 16, 2008, FCC 07-217, rel. Mar. 5, 2008. The Third Circuit 
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 the action. The court also remanded 
each of the measures adopted in the Diversity Order that relied on the 
eligible entity 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 ownership by women and minorities must 
be based on reliable data. The court stated that, ``[a]t 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 323 Order and Fourth Diversity Further 
Notice to reliably analyze minority and female ownership ``will, 
however, lay necessary groundwork for the Commission's actions on 
remand.''
    16. On November 14, 2012, the Media Bureau released the first 
electronic analysis of commercial broadcast ownership data submitted 
pursuant to the revised biennial reporting requirements for 2009 and 
2011 (2012 323 Report). A subsequent report, released by the Bureau on 
June 27, 2014 (2014 323 Report), contained an analysis of the 
commercial broadcast ownership data submitted during the 2013 filing 
cycle. The data contained in the reports are ``snapshots'' of the 
status of minority and female ownership in the broadcast industry and 
are part of a planned series of biennial ``snapshots'' that can be used 
for trend analysis. The reports contain 100 pages of summary schedules 
and 30 spreadsheets of underlying data reflecting the Media Bureau's 
analysis of the Form 323 data, which can be further studied and 
manipulated by researchers and interested parties. Future, similar 
reports are contemplated reflecting additional biennial reporting 
periods. These reports provide detailed information by race, ethnicity, 
and gender concerning ownership of commercial television, radio, Class 
A television, and LPTV stations. For example, the 2012 323 Report 
analyzed data for 1,348 full-power commercial television stations as of 
October 1, 2011. Members of racial minorities held majority voting 
interests in 30 stations, or 2.2 percent. Female owners held majority 
voting interests in 91 stations, or 6.8 percent. The 2012 323 Report 
also analyzed data for 5,611 commercial FM stations as of October 1, 
2011. Members of racial minorities held majority voting interests in 
196 stations, or 3.5 percent, and female owners held majority voting 
interests in 323 stations, or 5.8 percent. Similarly, the 2012 323 
Report analyzed data for 3,830 commercial AM stations as of October 1, 
2011. Members of racial minorities held majority voting interests in 
237 stations, or 6.2 percent, and female owners held majority voting 
interests in 300 stations, or 7.8 percent. The 2014 323 Report analyzed 
data for 1,386 full-power commercial television stations as of October 
1, 2013. Members of racial minorities held majority voting interests in 
41, or 3.0 percent, of those stations. Female owners held majority 
voting interests in 87 stations, or 6.3 percent. The 2014 323 Report 
also analyzed data for 5,714 commercial FM stations as of October 1, 
2013. Members of racial minorities held majority voting interests in 
169, or 3.0 percent, of these stations, and female owners held majority 
voting interests in 383 stations, or 6.7 percent. The 2014 323 Report 
also analyzed data for 3,737 commercial AM stations as of October 1, 
2013. Members of racial minorities held majority voting interests in 
225, or 6.0 percent, of these stations, and female owners held majority 
voting interests in 310 stations, or 8.3 percent. In preparing these 
reports, Commission staff observed difficulties with, and errors 
within, the broadcast ownership data submitted to the Commission. Upon 
review of the biennial ownership reports, Commission staff discovered 
that many commercial broadcast stations submitted reports with 
apparently inaccurate or insufficient data to permit electronic 
calculation of voting interests. As a result, such biennial ownership 
reports were not included in the Commission's analysis. Commission 
staff worked with numerous broadcasters to correct errors contained in 
their 2011 and 2013 biennial Form 323 filings via amendments, which 
allowed stations covered by those reports to be properly categorized 
for the 2012 and 2014 323 Reports. In addition, Commission staff 
manually analyzed a large number of ownership reports, together with 
other available information, in order to assign certain

[[Page 19436]]

stations to the appropriate categories manually for purposes of the 
report. The 2012 323 Report stated that the problems with the data 
stemmed, in part, from the ``complexity of the information required to 
accurately file'' the revised version of Form 323.
    17. The Commission also sought public comment on both reports. On 
December 3, 2012, the Commission issued a Public Notice in the 2010 
Quadrennial Regulatory Review proceeding offering parties the 
opportunity to comment on the 2012 323 Report (2012 323 Report PN). The 
2012 323 Report PN broadly sought ``additional comment on data 
contained in [the 2012 323 Report],'' specifically referencing the 
Commission's efforts ``to improve its collection and analysis of 
broadcast ownership information'' and make ``improvements to the 
reliability and utility of the data reported in FCC Form 323.'' Some 
commenters responding to the 2012 323 Report PN expressed concern that 
the incomplete and inaccurate ownership data submitted to the 
Commission render it difficult to accurately track broadcast ownership 
trends from 2009 and 2011. One commenter suggested that the manner in 
which the Commission currently provides broadcast ownership data from 
Form 323 to the public does not meet the objective that such data be 
capable of being electronically searched, aggregated, or cross 
referenced. On June 27, 2014, the Bureau issued an Order as part of the 
2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review proceeding seeking comment on the 
2014 323 Report. Certain commenters responding to the data contained in 
the 2014 323 Report acknowledged that the Commission has taken steps to 
improve the quality of its broadcast ownership data, but asserted that 
the Commission should do more to make its broadcast ownership data 
easier to use, search, aggregate, and cross reference electronically, 
for the benefit of studies and analysis.
    18. On January 3, 2013, the Commission released its Sixth Diversity 
Further Notice, in which it sought comment on the Commission's 
requirement that licensees and other entities filing Form 323 provide a 
CORES FRN--which requires submission of an SSN or TIN to the 
Commission--for attributable individuals. Noting that the CORES FRN 
enables unique identification of individuals, the Commission sought 
comment on its proposal to eliminate the interim SUFRN. The Commission 
reasoned that SUFRNs do not provide a reliable means of linking a 
reported interest holder to a unique individual and the continued use 
of the SUFRN undermines the Commission's efforts to ``accurately 
ascertain the nature and extent of minority and female ownership of 
broadcast properties.'' Pointing out that the Third Circuit in 
Prometheus II highlighted the importance of reliable data to support 
rulemaking initiatives, the Sixth Diversity Further Notice asked for 
comments on the importance of the CORES FRN as a unique identifier for 
increasing the quality, cross-referencing, aggregability, and 
searchability of broadcast station ownership data. In discussing the 
considerations attendant to requiring that attributable interest 
holders submit an SSN to the Commission, the Sixth Diversity Further 
Notice noted that other governmental agencies require SSNs ``to ensure 
program integrity and for statistical and research purposes.'' The 
Commission invited comment on its tentative conclusion that the Privacy 
Act does not prohibit adoption of the CORES FRN proposal and asked 
commenters to discuss the degree of the risk to privacy the proposal 
poses in the event that commenters believe that the requirement 
presents such a risk. The Commission also noted that it has already 
adopted a Privacy Act System of Records Notice (SORN) for CORES and 
with respect to the Form 323 requirement, which applies to any 
personally identifiable information required by Form 323 and CORES in 
connection with the CORES FRN registration process. The Sixth Diversity 
Further Notice also sought comment on whether the Commission should 
amend section 1.8002 of the Commission's rules, which provides that 
persons ``doing business'' with the Commission must obtain a CORES FRN. 
The Commission also asked whether it should continue to permit filers 
to use the SUFRN in the event that reportable individuals are unwilling 
to provide their SSN to a third party or unwilling to obtain and 
provide a CORES FRN. The Commission also proposed to extend the CORES 
FRN requirement to all entities and individuals reported on Form 323-E 
and invited comment on potential costs and benefits associated with 
that requirement. The Sixth Diversity Further Notice proposed to extend 
the filing deadline for broadcast ownership reports to give filers an 
additional 30 days. As noted above, the Sixth Diversity Further Notice 
also sought additional comment on proposals regarding Form 323 
submitted in the Review of Media Bureau Data Practices proceeding. The 
notice specifically sought comment on certain proposals NAB and MMTC 
submitted in that proceeding and sought input on the costs and benefits 
associated with those proposals. The Sixth Diversity Further Notice was 
published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2013. Comments on the 
Sixth Diversity Further Notice were due on or before February 14, 2013 
and reply comments due on or before March 1, 2013.
    19. The Commission received significant opposition in response to 
the Sixth Diversity Further Notice's proposal that all attributable 
interest holders submit an SSN to the Commission in order to receive a 
CORES FRN for use on broadcast ownership reports. As a result, on 
February 12, 2015, the Commission released the Seventh Diversity 
Further Notice, 80 FR 10442, Feb. 26, 2015, FCC 15-19, which proposed 
to implement a new RUFRN--an identifier that would not require the 
submission of an SSN to the Commission--for use on Form 323 and Form 
323-E filings. This proposal reflected the Commission's effort to 
balance its goal of collecting reliable ownership data with the 
privacy, data security, and identity theft concerns of those 
individuals with attributable interests in broadcast stations. As an 
alternative to the CORES FRN, the proposed RUFRN would be generated 
when an individual submits his or her full name, residential address, 
date of birth, and only the last four digits of the individual's SSN.
    20. The Commission reiterated its position that it must be able to 
uniquely identify all parties, including individuals, reported on 
broadcast ownership reports and tentatively concluded that the RUFRN 
``will provide reasonable assurance of unique identification'' of 
attributable individuals and is a superior method of uniquely 
identifying individuals than the existing SUFRN. The Commission sought 
comment on what additional information, if any, the Commission could 
require to ensure that the data collected on the ownership reports will 
be reliable.
    21. The Commission also acknowledged that commenters to the Sixth 
Diversity Further Notice argued that a CORES FRN cannot serve as a 
unique identifier, because multiple FRNs could be associated with a 
single TIN/SSN; an FRN may be associated with no TIN/SSN or an 
incorrect one; or outside groups do not have access to the underlying 
TIN/SSN information. The Seventh Diversity Further Notice stated that, 
to guard against a single individual obtaining multiple RUFRNs, ``the 
CORES system will be programmed to verify that the submitted 
information is complete and does not duplicate any

[[Page 19437]]

information that is already associated with an RUFRN in CORES.'' In the 
Seventh Diversity Further Notice, the Commission acknowledged the 
privacy and security concerns raised in the Sixth Diversity Further 
Notice as it related to the requirement that interest holders submit an 
SSN, and reiterated that its systems, including CORES, have a security 
infrastructure in place that exceeds Federal guidelines. The Commission 
also sought comment on its tentative conclusion that the Privacy Act 
does not bar the adoption of the RUFRN and its implementation on Form 
323 and Form 323-E. Moreover, the Commission noted that it has already 
adopted a Privacy Act SORN for CORES and with respect to the Form 323 
requirement, and, if necessary, the SORN can be modified to address any 
changes required by the implementation of the RUFRN on Form 323 and 
Form 323-E. The Seventh Diversity Further Notice also emphasized that 
the benefits of improved data collection outweigh any de minimis costs 
or burdens associated with obtaining a CORES FRN or RUFRN. The 
Commission explained that an individual that already has a CORES FRN 
may continue to report it on the Form 323 or Form 323-E filings and 
that there is no need to obtain an RUFRN.
    22. The Commission sought comment on these subjects and its 
conclusions that the RUFRN proposal will improve the reliability and 
usability of the broadcast report data. The Seventh Diversity Further 
Notice also sought comment on its conclusion that the RUFRN as a unique 
identifier will permit the Commission to implement burden-reducing 
modifications that could reduce the types of errors identified in the 
2009, 2011, and 2013 filing periods.
    23. The Commission also sought comment on extending the RUFRN to 
Form 323-E in the event that changes proposed in the pending Fourth and 
Sixth Diversity Further Notices are adopted. As discussed above, the 
Fourth Diversity Further Notice proposed to collect race, gender, and 
ethnicity information from attributable individuals reported on Form 
323-E, and the Sixth Diversity Further Notice proposed to extend the 
CORES FRN reporting requirement to noncommercial stations. In the 
Seventh Diversity Further Notice, the Commission proposed that, in the 
event those proposed changes are adopted, individuals reported on Form 
323-E also may be permitted to obtain and provide an RUFRN in lieu of a 
CORES FRN for use on the broadcast ownership report filings. The 
Commission further acknowledged the comments opposing the Sixth 
Diversity Further Notice proposal to extend the CORES FRN requirement 
to NCE stations. There, commenters argued that the CORES FRN 
requirement would be unduly burdensome and would discourage individuals 
from serving on the boards of NCE stations. Moreover, commenters argued 
that NCE station licensees would have difficulty obtaining SSNs from 
board members, which may include government officials. The Seventh 
Diversity Further Notice sought comment on how these concerns would be 
implicated if RUFRNs were available as an alternative to CORES FRNs for 
Form 323-E. The Commission noted that officers and directors of NCE 
stations are already considered to be attributable interest holders in 
NCE stations and are already required to be reported on Form 323-E and 
sought comment on whether NCE stations present unique concerns with 
respect to ownership reporting requirements that should be considered 
by the Commission. The Commission also sought alternatives to the RUFRN 
for the unique identification of individuals in the NCE context.
    24. Finally, the Seventh Diversity Further Notice sought additional 
comment on the elimination of the SUFRN, a proposal also contained in 
the Sixth Diversity Further Notice. The Commission noted that 
commenters previously supported the proposal to retain the availability 
of the SUFRN for the limited purpose of reporting an individual that is 
unwilling to provide his or her SSN to third parties or unwilling to 
obtain and provide a CORES FRN and opposed the Commission's use of its 
enforcement authority against individuals who failed to provide a CORES 
FRN. The Seventh Diversity Further Notice sought comment on whether the 
SUFRN should continue to be available to Form 323 filers (and, in the 
event proposed modifications are adopted, to Form 323-E filers), 
provided that a filer has used reasonable and good-faith efforts to 
obtain a CORES FRN or RUFRN from or on behalf of an individual. The 
Commission also asked whether the availability of the SUFRN would 
protect filers in the case of recalcitrant individuals and whether 
filers should be required to instruct individuals of the obligation to 
obtain and provide a CORES FRN or an RUFRN. The Seventh Diversity 
Further Notice also sought comment on the type of instruction and 
notification of the risk of enforcement action the Commission should 
provide or require if a CORES FRN or RUFRN is not reported for that 
individual. The Seventh Diversity Further Notice was published in the 
Federal Register on February 26, 2015. Comments were due on or before 
March 30, 2015 and reply comments were due on or before April 13, 2015.

III. Discussion

    25. By the actions the Commission here, the Commission advances its 
commitment to improving the comprehensiveness and reliability of the 
ownership data collected on Forms 323 and 323-E to enable more 
effective analysis of ownership trends in support of policy initiatives 
promoting diversity in ownership of broadcast stations. Accordingly, 
the Commission will no longer allow filers to use SUFRNs on biennial 
ownership reports, except in limited cases, and instead will require 
that on such forms filers provide a CORES FRN or RUFRN for any 
reportable individual attributable interest holder. In addition, the 
Commission updates its reporting requirements for NCE stations to more 
closely parallel the requirements for commercial stations. The 
Commission also makes certain changes to its Form 323 and Form 323-E 
aimed at reducing the filing burdens on broadcasters and improving data 
collection. Finally, the Commission declines to adopt certain proposals 
detailed in comments in this proceeding as redundant, unnecessary, 
technically infeasible, or unsupported.

A. RUFRN Requirement

    26. The Commission concludes that the RUFRN is important to the 
Commission's ongoing mission to improve, streamline, and modernize the 
way it collects and uses data. The Commission continues to believe that 
it must be able to uniquely identify parties reported on broadcast 
ownership reports for purposes of creating reliable and usable data in 
support of the Commission's policy initiatives promoting diverse 
ownership. The Commission has recognized that the TIN/SSN backed CORES 
FRNs offer a unique identifier and therefore play an important role in 
promoting the integrity of the data collected on Form 323. The 
Commission, however, is also sensitive to concerns that have been 
expressed regarding a mandate that every individual attributable 
interest holder of a broadcast station submit his or her SSN to the 
Commission for purposes of broadcast ownership reporting. The creation 
of the new RUFRN mechanism within CORES, allowing individuals to obtain 
a unique identification number without submitting a full SSN, properly 
balances

[[Page 19438]]

the concerns of individual attributable interest holders with the 
Commission's mandate to ensure the reliability and utility of its 
broadcast ownership data.
    27. Broadcast Ownership Reporting Using the RUFRN Supports the 
Commission's Data Gathering and Policy Making Initiatives. The 
Commission has previously recognized that sections 257 of the 1996 Act, 
47 U.S.C. 257, and 309(j) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(j), support its 
efforts to gather the ownership data contained in Form 323. Section 257 
directs the Commission to identify and eliminate ``market entry 
barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the provision 
and ownership of telecommunications services and information services, 
or in the provision of parts or services to providers of 
telecommunications services and information services.'' To implement 
this mandate, the Commission is directed to ``promote the policies and 
purposes of [the 1996 Act] favoring diversity of media voices, vigorous 
economic competition, technological advancement, and promotion of the 
public interest, convenience and necessity.'' As the Commission has 
previously recognized, improving the reporting of ownership data 
enables the Commission to carry out this mandate.
    28. Similarly, pursuant to section 309(j), the Commission must 
award licenses in a manner that ``promot[es] economic opportunity and 
competition and ensur[es] that new and innovative technologies are 
readily accessible to the American people by avoiding excessive 
concentration of licenses and by disseminating licenses among a wide 
variety of applicants, including small businesses, rural telephone 
companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and 
women.'' Congress directed the Commission to regulate in a manner that 
ensures that ``small businesses, rural telephone companies, and 
businesses owned by members of minority groups and women'' are 
represented in licensed activities. The statute further requires that 
the Commission ``ensure that small businesses, rural telephone 
companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women 
are given the opportunity to participate in the provision of spectrum-
based services.'' As the Commission has previously determined, section 
309(j) is evidence of a congressional policy in support of the grant of 
broadcast licenses to a wide variety of groups, including minorities 
and women.
    29. In the 1998 Biennial Review Order, 63 FR 70040, Dec. 18, 1998, 
FCC 98-281, rel. Nov. 25, 1998, the Commission concluded that, in order 
to fulfill its statutory mandates, it must collect race, gender, and 
ethnicity information from all interest holders reported on Form 323. 
In the 1998 Biennial Review Order, the Commission stated that it would 
take up at a later date whether to apply these requirements to Form 
323-E, as well. The Commission now finds that these requirements should 
be applied to Form 323-E, and the Commission's discussion on this 
matter can be found below. Collecting these data enables the Commission 
not only to assess the current state of minority and female ownership 
of broadcast stations but also to determine the success of programs 
that are designed to facilitate opportunities for women- and minority-
owned businesses and to promote a diversity of media voices. Just as it 
is essential for the Commission to collect these ownership data to 
fulfill its mandates, it is important that these data be reliable, 
aggregable, and useful for studies and trend analysis by others.
    30. The Commission finds that flaws in the current practices 
related to the reporting of SUFRNs for individuals listed on Form 323 
compromise the integrity of the data collected and thereby frustrate 
the Commission's attempts to fulfill its statutory mandates under 
section 257 and section 309(j). The SUFRN was devised as merely a 
computer-generated number to be created by clicking a button within 
Form 323 itself and not backed by any identifying information. The 
Commission collects no information when the system generates a new 
SUFRN, and there is no database analogous to CORES that contains 
uniquely identifying information associated with SUFRNs. The SUFRN 
therefore offers the Commission no way to cross reference or trace back 
reported information to a single individual. It was intended only as an 
interim measure. Based on the Commission's experience reviewing the 
ownership reports submitted during three separate biennial reporting 
cycles, it is clear that SUFRNs have been used in a manner that is 
inconsistent with the Commission's direction and that undermines the 
integrity of the data. On the one hand some SUFRNs have been used in 
conjunction with multiple individuals, and on the other hand 
individuals have used multiple SUFRNs. Because the Commission currently 
cannot determine whether two SUFRNs identify one or more individuals, 
it cannot reliably examine the complete attributable holdings of an 
individual reported with an SUFRN (either at a specific time or over 
time), or search, aggregate, and cross reference the ownership data. 
Any attempt at such analysis would require manual analysis of every 
single entry where an SUFRN appears together with a subjective analysis 
of other textual information contained on the form or available from 
other public sources. The Media Bureau cannot confidently determine the 
number of individuals reporting SUFRNs. In the 2011 biennial ownership 
reports, the Bureau found that 3,326 unique SUFRNs were reported, and, 
because some were reported multiple times, SUFRNs were used in 8,719 
instances. Because it is possible for filers to improperly report 
SUFRNs for individuals--either reporting multiple SUFRNs for a single 
individual on multiple reports or using the same SUFRN for multiple 
individuals on multiple reports--despite instructions to the contrary, 
the Bureau concluded that the number of unique SUFRNs reported during 
the 2011 filing period cannot be relied on to accurately determine the 
number of individuals using SUFRNs. Manual, subjective analysis of 
thousands of Form 323 entries using various sources of information 
compromises data integrity and data utility. Consequently, the 
Commission cannot rely on the SUFRNs reported to provide reliable 
ownership data.
    31. In the Sixth Diversity Further Notice, 78 FR 2925, Jan. 15, 
2013, FCC 12-166, rel. Jan 3, 2013, the Commission tentatively 
concluded that TINs/SSNs within CORES were necessary as underlying 
unique identifiers of individuals. Commenters to the Sixth Diversity 
Further Notice strongly objected to the proposed Commission mandate 
that all individual attributable interest holders submit an SSN to the 
Commission to obtain a traditional CORES FRN.
    32. In contrast, in the Seventh Diversity Further Notice, 80 FR 
10442, Feb. 26, 2015, FCC 15-19, rel. Feb. 12, 2015, the Commission 
tentatively found that a proposed alternative to the traditional CORES 
FRN would provide a reasonable basis for determining that an individual 
is uniquely identified within the CORES system. Specifically, the 
Commission proposed making available a new identifier, the RUFRN. 
Filers wishing to use this identifier would be required to submit an 
individual's full name, residential address, date of birth, and only 
the last four digits of the individual's SSN. In response to the 
Seventh Diversity Further Notice, commercial broadcasters and public 
interest groups support the alternative RUFRN approach. Some

[[Page 19439]]

commenters argue that the use of SUFRNs on Form 323 ``ha[s] introduced 
inaccuracy and uncertainty into media ownership data,'' because SUFRNs 
are not backed by identifying information that can reliably be linked 
to a unique individual. While the CORES FRN system is a superior 
solution, RUFRNs are a sufficient means for identifying individuals and 
allowing longitudinal analysis of media ownership trends, they state. 
No commenters propose additional or different pieces of information 
that would better enable the Commission to ensure that individuals are 
uniquely identified.
    33. Some commenters disagree that the RUFRN proposal is superior to 
the existing SUFRN system. Although these commenters focus primarily on 
issues related to NCE attributable interest holders, which are 
addressed in detail below, some of the arguments suggest that the use 
of RUFRNs will not substantially and meaningfully improve the quality 
of the Commission's broadcast ownership data generally. These 
commenters assert that if SUFRNs are being misused, it is either due to 
mistakes or conscious decisions not to comply with Bureau guidance. 
According to these commenters, either remains possible with the 
proposed RUFRN system. The Alabama Educational Television Commission 
(AETC) et al. argue that users could accidentally enter information 
incorrectly, forget to enter a previously used SUFRN or FRN, or 
intentionally violate the Commission's rules, and that errors could 
also stem from data entry problems on Form 323 itself, such as 
inadvertent or intentional mistyping of RUFRNs, SUFRNs, or FRNs. AETC 
et al. urge the Commission to retain the SUFRN for individual 
attributable interest holders that refuse to obtain a CORES FRN or 
RUFRN, without imposing substantiation requirements, and to 
specifically exclude ``NCE and non-profit licensees'' from the new 
RUFRN requirement. The Commission addresses these two requests below 
and addresses here the more general assertion. In addition, commenters 
state, insofar as the Commission intends to allow use of ownership data 
by third-party researchers, much of the benefit that comes from the use 
of RUFRNs is negated by the Commission's proposal to hold securely and 
confidentially within CORES all identifying information used to obtain 
RUFRNs, except for names and the RUFRNs themselves.
    34. The Commission finds that its policy initiatives are dependent 
on the quality of the data collected. The Commission concludes that 
having reasonable assurance that attributable interest holders are 
uniquely identified on ownership reports in a manner that ensures that 
the data can be meaningfully searched, aggregated, and cross referenced 
electronically is crucial to the quality and usability of the 
Commission's ownership data. The Commission concludes that the SUFRN 
cannot provide unique identification of individual attributable 
interest holders on broadcast ownership reports, and the Commission 
concludes that requiring an FRN generated by CORES, either through 
existing mechanisms or via the RUFRN method, for all attributable 
interest holders on broadcast ownership reports is essential to improve 
the quality and usability of the data collected. The Commission 
therefore adopts the RUFRN as an alternative mechanism within CORES 
that will allow an individual (not entities) to obtain an RUFRN by 
submitting an alternate set of identifying information that does not 
include a full SSN: Full name, residential address, date of birth, and 
the last four digits of the individual's SSN.
    35. The identifying information provided by the individual will be 
stored confidentially within CORES, as other sensitive information is 
stored in CORES to support CORES FRNs issued pursuant to existing 
functionalities. Only the individual's name and RUFRN will be available 
publicly. Both the RUFRN and the associated ownership information will 
be entirely machine readable and will not require manual consideration 
of each biennial ownership form to analyze whether various Form 323 
entries might identify the same individual or different individuals. 
The same is true for the CORES FRN and underlying TIN. The CORES system 
will be programmed to verify that the information submitted by the 
applicant is complete and does not duplicate any information that is 
already associated with an RUFRN in CORES. The Commission concludes 
that, since RUFRNs will be backed by identifying information, and since 
CORES will not issue multiple RUFRNs for the same identifying 
information, RUFRNs can be relied on to identify individuals uniquely. 
When the applicant obtains an RUFRN, the applicant will be asked to 
list all CORES FRNs registered to the individual and all SUFRNs the 
individual previously used in any broadcast ownership report filings 
since the 2009 biennial reporting cycle. The Commission concludes that 
such disclosures will allow it to identify CORES FRNs, RUFRNs, and 
SUFRNs that identify the same individual, promoting the usefulness of 
the broadcast ownership data for purposes of electronic searching, 
aggregating, and cross-referencing and for trend analysis. RUFRNs may 
be used only on broadcast ownership reporting forms and only for 
individuals (not entities) reported as attributable interest holders. 
Once an RUFRN is issued, any ownership report filing that lists the 
individual associated with that RUFRN will be required to include that 
RUFRN. However, an individual may opt to use a traditional CORES FRN 
instead of obtaining and using an RUFRN. In the Sixth Diversity Further 
Notice, the Commission sought comment on the Koerner & Olender Petition 
for Reconsideration, which requested that the Commission either 
reconsider its requirement that individuals holding attributable 
interests obtain a CORES FRN, which in turn would require such 
individuals to provide the Commission with their SSN, or ``redefine or 
reinterpret'' section 1.8002 of the Commission's rules to clarify that 
individuals with reportable interests must obtain a CORES FRN. The 
Commission notes that the petition's concerns about the disclosure of 
individuals' full SSNs are addressed by the RUFRN system the Commission 
is adopting, which will allow individual attributable interest holders 
to obtain an RUFRN without disclosing their full SSNs to the 
Commission. Thus, the Commission grants the petition to the extent 
Koerner & Olender sought reconsideration of the requirement for 
individuals holding attributable interests in licensees to provide 
their SSN to the Commission. Further, since the Commission is not 
requiring such individuals to obtain a CORES FRN, which is the 
identifier addressed by section 1.8002, there is no need to modify 
section 1.8002 in connection with the adoption of the RUFRN 
requirement. The Commission therefore denies the Koerner & Olender 
Petition for Reconsideration to the extent it requests that the 
Commission amend section 1.8002. With this Report and Order, all the 
issues raised in the Fletcher Heald Petition for Reconsideration are 
resolved. The Fletcher Heald Petition for Reconsideration requested 
that the Commission provide additional opportunity for public comment 
on the CORES FRN requirement before requiring the reporting of CORES 
FRNs for individuals reported on Form 323 due to concerns about the 
disclosure of individuals' full SSNs. The Commission has issued two 
further notices of proposed rulemaking to consider these issues. 
Consistent with the discussion in

[[Page 19440]]

this Report and Order, the Commission grants the Fletcher Heald 
Petition for Reconsideration to the extent it seeks reconsideration of 
the requirement that filers provide a traditional CORES FRN, requiring 
the submission of a full SSN/TIN, for every individual attributable 
interest holder reported on Form 323. Filers are permitted to provide 
RUFRNs, requiring submission of an alternate set of identifying 
information that does not include a full SSN, in lieu of CORES FRNs for 
individuals reported on Form 323. In addition, the Commission will 
continue to allow the use of SUFRNs on Form 323 in the limited 
circumstances described below. To the extent that the Fletcher Heald 
Petition for Reconsideration seeks relief inconsistent with the actions 
taken in this Report and Order, the Commission denies the Fletcher 
Heald Petition for Reconsideration.
    36. The Commission does not believe that the existence of possible 
situations or limitations some commenters identified in objecting to 
the RUFRN compel the Commission to abandon its conclusion that RUFRNs 
offer superior data quality to SUFRNs for the purpose of broadcast 
ownership reports. As the Commission stated in the Seventh Diversity 
Further Notice, the Commission expects that individuals and entities 
will comply with the Commission's rules and provide accurate 
information during the CORES registration process to the greatest 
extent possible. Moreover, the Commission finds that the specificity of 
the identifying information required to obtain an RUFRN and the fact 
that a number of pieces of information are required will be sufficient 
to provide the Commission with reasonable certainty that the 
information identifies a unique filer within the CORES system. While 
holding some of this information confidential does limit the ability of 
outside researchers to use it to ensure unique identification, that 
limitation does not decrease the ability of the Commission to do so, 
just as the confidentiality of an SSN underlying a CORES FRN does not. 
Further, the Commission's obligation to hold confidential the 
identifying information underlying the RUFRN will not limit appreciably 
the utility of RUFRNs to outside researchers as a unique identifier, 
because the RUFRN application will include a mechanism to prevent 
issuance of multiple RUFRNs based on the same identifying information 
(i.e., issuance of multiple RUFRNs to the same individual). As 
described above, the raw Form 323 biennial ownership data is available 
to the public, and the Media Bureau has released reports reflecting its 
analysis of ownership data submitted for the 2009, 2011, and 2013 
reporting rounds. Future, similar reports are contemplated reflecting 
additional biennial reporting periods. Based on the Commission's 
experience in the 2009, 2011, and 2013 reporting cycles, the Commission 
concludes that the RUFRN will improve the reliability and usability of 
the broadcast ownership report database, in furtherance of the 
Commission's statutory mandates. As discussed elsewhere in this Report 
and Order, the Commission's examination of ownership reports from 2009, 
2011, and 2013 revealed numerous data reporting errors, and the 
Commission has no reason to believe that all of these errors were the 
result of filers attempting to deliberately mislead the Commission. The 
presence of a unique identifier improves the quality of the 
Commission's ownership data by permitting errors to be identified and 
remedied. For example, the presence of the same individual's RUFRN on 
multiple reports, along with inconsistent gender and/or race 
information, may indicate one or more reporting errors that can then be 
cured. In light of the foregoing, the Commission rejects commenters' 
arguments that the use of RUFRNs to identify individuals is 
inconsequential for the purpose of tracking ownership trends.
    37. RUFRNs Are Not Burdensome, and the Benefits Outweigh the Costs. 
The Commission concludes that its decision to allow individual 
attributable interest holders the option of obtaining and using an 
RUFRN in lieu of a traditional CORES FRN will impose minimal costs and 
burdens, if any, on individuals or filers. As noted above, individuals 
who already have a CORES FRN will be able to continue using their 
existing number without having to register for an RUFRN, and any other 
reportable individual that wishes to obtain a CORES FRN instead of an 
RUFRN will still be able to do so. Like registering for a CORES FRN, 
registering for an RUFRN will be a one-time process that takes a few 
moments to complete. An individual need only fill out a short online 
form requiring just a few pieces of information: A name, address, birth 
date, and the last four digits of the SSN. The applicant also provides 
a password and a personal security question (to help in case the 
applicant later misplaces or forgets his or her password). There are at 
most de minimis costs or burdens associated with obtaining the number. 
An individual does not need to provide personal information to anyone 
other than the Commission to obtain a CORES FRN or RUFRN. That 
information can be provided to the Commission alone, and then the CORES 
FRN or RUFRN can be provided to a licensee for reporting purposes. In 
addition, the RUFRN will serve as a unique identifier that can be cross 
referenced easily, which will enable the Commission to make certain 
modifications to broadcast ownership reporting that will reduce the 
burdens on all filers, as described below, and therefore further 
improve the quality of the ownership data submitted to the Commission. 
The Commission concludes that these benefits outweigh the de minimis 
costs or burdens associated with obtaining an RUFRN. Although some 
commenters argue that implementing the RUFRN would impose specific 
burdens on NCE licensees, as discussed below, no commercial entity 
disputes the Commission's finding that RUFRNs will not be burdensome 
for commercial entities or individuals holding attributable interests 
in them. AETC et al. argue that the RUFRN requirement will be overly 
burdensome, particularly for ``NCE and non-profit licensees.'' Below, 
the Commission addresses burden-related arguments specific to NCE 
stations.
    38. Security of Commission Systems. In the Sixth Diversity Further 
Notice, 78 FR 2925, Jan. 15, 2013, FCC 12-166, rel. Jan 3, 2013, the 
Commission sought comment on any security concerns related to the 
requirement that a TIN/SSN for every attributable interest holder be 
provided to the Commission. The Commission noted that while TIN/SSN 
data is collected during the CORES FRN registration process, TINs/SSNs 
are not disclosed on any Commission application or form, including 
Forms 323 and 323-E. Commenters raised concerns that a CORES FRN 
requirement for individuals will open individuals to threats of 
identity theft. Some commenters pointed to a system breach described in 
a GAO report on information security (Information Security GAO Report), 
GAO-13-155, Jan. 2013, and suggested that the Commission's systems are 
vulnerable to a security breach. In the Seventh Diversity Further 
Notice, 80 FR 10442, Feb. 26, 2015, FCC 15-19, rel. Feb. 12, 2015, the 
Commission described the safeguards in place on the Commission's 
systems and improvements that have been implemented to assure the 
security of the Commission's systems, including that of CORES. The 
Commission reiterated that security continues to be

[[Page 19441]]

one of the Commission's highest priorities, and sought comment on 
whether the elimination of the requirement of individual attributable 
interest holders to submit a full SSN to CORES eliminates the privacy 
and identity theft concerns that have been previously raised. The 
Commission also asked for guidance on how to address any remaining 
concerns that are not alleviated, and whether those concerns outweigh 
the importance of the data collection.
    39. In response, NAB states that RUFRNs, because they create a 
unique identifier without requiring individuals to submit full SSNs to 
the Commission, provide a ``safety valve'' for individuals who might be 
reluctant to obtain a CORES FRN due to data privacy and security 
concerns. NAB claims this is accomplished without compromising the 
quality of the Commission's ownership data. Thus, states NAB, the RUFRN 
proposal for commercial broadcasters reflects a better balancing of 
affected interests than simply eliminating the SUFRN and mandating 
CORES FRNs in all cases.
    40. NCE commenters, on the other hand, continue to express concerns 
about identity theft, even though the RUFRN does not require the 
disclosure of full SSNs. NCE commenters state that the existence of an 
individual's name, address, date of birth, and the last four digits of 
an SSN would permit hackers to predict a full SSN. Some commenters cite 
a study conducted by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University. In that 
study, researchers were able 44 percent of the time to predict the 
first five digits of individual SSNs for persons born after 1989.\6\ In 
addition, some commenters note that higher education institutions have 
recognized the need to protect the confidentiality of individuals' 
birth dates and the last four digits of their SSNs. As an example, 
these commenters cite the California State University System's 
Information Security Data Classification standards, which mandate the 
highest level of information security for an individual's birth date 
combined with the last four digits of the SSN and state that 
unauthorized disclosure of that information could result in ``severe 
damage to CSU, its students, employees or customers.'' Even if an 
individual's full SSN is not reconstructed, assert AETC et al., a 
successful hacker could still gain access to countless private accounts 
held by those interest holders because many financial institutions, 
utility accounts, and other businesses use the last four digits of the 
SSN to restore a lost password or access an account, frequently in 
combination with other information the Commission proposes to require 
for an RUFRN. NCE commenters also raise concerns regarding the 
potential disclosure of individuals' residential addresses, stating 
that NCE board members are often public officials or other prominent 
individuals who wish to keep this information private for the safety of 
themselves and their families. In the Seventh Diversity Further Notice, 
the Commission proposed that, for the RUFRN, the individual's name and 
RUFRN could be available publicly but the remaining identifying 
information would be held securely and confidentially within CORES. As 
stated there, the Commission has taken steps and put in place 
procedures to assure the security of the Commission's systems. 
Moreover, the Commission continues to strengthen the security of its 
systems, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See American Association for the Advancement of Science, 
Social Security Numbers are Easy to Guess, Science News, from the 
journal Science (July 6, 2009), http://news.sciensemag.org/2009/07/social-security-numbers-are-easy-guess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. Even if the Commission's systems have not been breached to 
date, NCE commenters argue, there is no assurance that a successful 
breach will not occur in the future. They again point to the 
Information Security GAO Report and cite to reports of recent breaches 
at the White House and other Federal offices. Some commenters claim 
that the risk of breach would increase if the Commission begins storing 
in CORES information about NCE board members because some are public 
officials or other prominent individuals. Although it is sometimes 
necessary to collect personal information that can be used for identity 
theft, AETC et al. assert, to provide maximum protection, the 
collection of such information must be limited to situations where 
there is no alternative.
    42. As stated in the Seventh Diversity Further Notice, the 
Commission agrees with commenters that privacy and security with 
respect to personally identifiable information are paramount, and the 
Commission remains committed to protecting such interests. The 
Commission notes that its systems currently safely house a significant 
amount of information that is the same, similar, or--in the case of 
full SSNs--even more sensitive than the information underlying the 
RUFRN. Despite commenters' repeated citation to the Information 
Security GAO Report, as the Commission has stated before, the 
Commission is not aware of any breaches to CORES. As the Commission has 
previously stated, the Commission was in the process of implementing 
certain improvements before the completion of the Information Security 
GAO Report, and the Commission continues to strengthen its security 
environment using the recommendations contained in the Report. The 
Information Security GAO Report did not identify any security 
deficiencies in CORES. For the Commission's statement regarding its 
response to the security breach and the deployment of the Enhanced 
Secured Network Project, see pages 26 through 29 of the Information 
Security GAO Report. The enhanced perimeter controls, malware 
protection, and monitoring devices continue to be in place, and the 
workstation operating systems are routinely upgraded with improved 
security. The Commission's systems and security architecture continue 
to contain robust strict operational controls that comply with National 
Institute of Standards and Technology guidance. The Commission's system 
servers remain behind several firewalls, and security controls continue 
to be upgraded to protect CORES data from intrusion by outsiders and 
the general Commission population. Furthermore, the Commission has 
recently moved to a Managed Trusted Internet Protocol Service (MTIPS) 
provider that will move the Commission from being Internet Protocol 
Version 4 to Internet Protocol Version 6 going forward. Again, 
administrative access to CORES remains limited and all servers continue 
to be monitored through the use of automated tools and operational 
procedures. The Commission will continue to make the necessary upgrades 
to ensure the security of CORES and all of its systems, and protecting 
the personally identifiable information contained in its system will 
remain one of the Commission's highest priorities.
    43. No commercial entity has contested the Commission's proposal to 
implement the RUFRN system for individual attributable interest holders 
in commercial broadcast stations, and NCE commenters have offered no 
compelling reason why the Commission must conclude that the system 
security needs or risks of NCE attributable interest holders are 
greater than those of commercial attributable interest holders. Indeed, 
the quality of the information is similar or exactly the same. The 
observation that NCE attributable interest holders may be public 
officials or other prominent individuals is also true in the commercial 
realm. The Commission takes its data security obligations to all 
entities and individuals that have confidential

[[Page 19442]]

information housed within the Commission's systems extremely seriously. 
Commenters also concede that it is sometimes necessary to collect 
personally identifiable information when no alternative method exists. 
Indeed, this is such a situation. As noted above, to fulfill its 
statutory mandate to promote diversity of media voices and avoid 
excessive concentration of licenses by disseminating them to, among 
others, businesses owned by members of minority groups, the Commission 
must have reliable, comprehensive data reflecting the attributable 
interest holders in broadcast stations. The Commission has repeatedly 
requested comment on alternatives that would balance the Commission's 
need to uniquely identify individual attributable interest holders on 
the biennial ownership reports with privacy needs. No commenter in this 
proceeding has offered an alternative to the CORES FRN or RUFRN and the 
Commission has concluded that the SUFRN is not a suitable alternative. 
The Commission believes that that the RUFRN as an alternative to a 
traditional CORES FRN is a reasonable approach that balances the 
Commission's need to uniquely identify reportable individuals with the 
security and privacy concerns raised by the commenters. No commenters 
assert that the Privacy Act would bar the adoption of the RUFRN 
requirement for the reporting of attributable interest holders on 
ownership reports for either commercial stations or NCEs. The 
Commission finds that the RUFRN requirement described herein is 
consistent with the Privacy Act for Form 323 and Form 323-E. The 
Commission directs the Media Bureau to prepare the necessary documents 
to comply with the Privacy Act.

B. Improvements to Data Collection From NCE Stations

    44. To enhance the completeness of the Commission's data 
collection, promote data integrity, and ensure that data are 
electronically readable and aggregable, the Commission revises Form 
323-E for NCE stations to collect race, gender, and ethnicity 
information for attributable interest holders, require that CORES FRNs 
or RUFRNs be used, and conform the biennial filing deadline for NCE 
broadcast ownership reports with the biennial filing deadline for 
commercial station ownership reports. In limited circumstances there 
may be additional parties--other than officers or directors--that hold 
attributable interests in an NCE station. For example, some states 
allow non-profit organizations to issue voting stock or the equivalent 
thereto. Holders of five percent or more of the voting stock of such 
entities are attributable owners pursuant to section 73.3555, Note 
2(a), and must be reported on Form 323-E in the same manner as officers 
and directors (including the provision of a CORES FRN and, in the case 
of individuals, race, gender, and ethnicity information). As noted 
below, the Commission's revisions to Form 323-E and its instructions 
confirm this point. Attached to this Report and Order is a draft of the 
revised version of Form 323-E that will be submitted for OMB approval. 
The draft revised version of Form 323-E that is attached to this Report 
and Order at Appendix E resembles in several ways the draft revised 
version of Form 323 that is attached to this Report and Order at 
Appendix D and, where applicable, includes counterparts to the 
modifications to Form 323 discussed herein. Section and question 
references in this Report and Order refer to the current version of the 
form, which is implemented in the Commission's Consolidated Database 
System (CDBS). Because the revised version of the form will be 
implemented in the Commission's Licensing and Management System (LMS), 
it will be given a new number, and its format, structure, and question 
identification will differ from the CDBS version of the form. When 
discussing issues concerning Form 323-E, some commenters suggested that 
the Commission make changes to forms other than its broadcast ownership 
reports. The Commission declines to do so at this time, as these 
proposals are outside the scope of this proceeding.
    45. Including NCE Stations Improves Data Completeness. As noted 
above, the Commission has previously determined that it has authority 
under section 257 and section 309(j) to collect ownership information 
from commercial broadcast stations. The Commission finds that its 
analysis with regard to the collection of data from commercial stations 
is equally applicable in the NCE context. NCE stations hold Commission 
licenses, as do commercial licensees. Their programming impacts local 
communities. Nothing in the statute distinguishes the noncommercial 
nature of any segment of a service as exempting it from the overall 
statutory mandates. Accordingly, the Commission finds that it has 
authority to collect race, gender, and ethnicity information from 
attributable interest holders in NCE stations, and the Commission 
affirms the conclusion in the Fourth Diversity Further Notice that 
doing so will further the Commission's goal of designing policies to 
advance diversity. Further, the adoption of the CORES FRN requirement 
in the context of Form 323-E is supported by the Commission's statutory 
mandates under section 257 of the 1996 Act and section 309(j) of the 
Act.
    46. The Commission has previously found that, in order to adopt 
policies or regulations to promote minority and female ownership of 
broadcast stations, it is imperative to have information about female 
and minority ownership in broadcasting as a whole--specifically 
including ``the entire universe of NCE stations.'' In light of this, 
commenters who assert that there is no policy justification for the 
Commission to collect ownership data from NCE stations are incorrect. 
Similarly, the Commission disagrees with commenters who suggest that 
collection of ownership data from NCE licensees is unnecessary because, 
pursuant to section 73.3555(f) of the Commission's rules, NCE stations 
are not subject to the Commission's multiple ownership restrictions. 
The GAO and outside researchers have criticized the Commission 
specifically for its failure to collect data concerning ownership of 
NCE stations, and many have described prior data collections as 
incomplete.
    47. The Fourth Diversity Further Notice, 74 FR 25205, May 27, 2009, 
FCC 09-33, rel. May 5, 2009, sought comment on the proper definition of 
``ownership'' in the NCE context, asking whether looking at the 
composition of the board of directors or other governing body of an NCE 
station would be appropriate for determining ``ownership'' for Form 
323-E purposes. Several commenters support this approach, noting, for 
example, that board members have legally cognizable duties to the 
station licensees, often are involved in station operations and hiring 
decisions, have final authority over NCE licensees, and are responsible 
to the local communities they serve. Other commenters argue that 
dissimilarities between the governance of commercial and NCE stations 
precludes any definition of ``ownership'' in the NCE context. These 
parties note that board members do not have equity stakes in the 
stations they serve; are often governmental officials, governmental 
appointees, individuals elected by station members, or volunteers; and 
often are not involved in day-to-day station operations. Commenters 
also made similar arguments as they related to the proposals raised in 
the Sixth and Seventh Diversity Further Notices.

[[Page 19443]]

    48. Officers and directors of NCE stations already are defined as 
attributable interest holders in NCE stations and they already are 
reported on Form 323-E. The Commission finds that the additional 
requirements it imposes here--including requiring race, gender, and 
ethnicity information, and a CORES FRN or RUFRN--do not involve 
crafting or imposing a new legal definition of ``ownership'' with 
respect to NCE stations. For Form 323 and Form 323-E purposes, the 
concept of ownership relies on the attribution standards set forth in 
section 73.3555 of the Commission's rules, which generally do not 
depend on equity interests but instead ``seek to identify those 
interests . . . that confer . . . a degree of influence or control such 
that the holders have a realistic potential to affect the programming 
decisions of licensees or other core operating functions.'' The 
National Federation of Community Broadcasters and the Prometheus Radio 
Project ask what percentage voting interest standard is applicable to 
Form 323-E. Revised Form 323-E relies on the standards set forth in 
section 73.3555. Arguments that the Commission should not impose these 
additional requirements for NCE stations because the individuals have 
no equity ownership therefore are not compelling.
    49. Individuals or entities that hold attributable ownership 
interests in commercial broadcast stations often do not hold equity 
interests in those stations. For example, an officer or director of a 
commercial broadcast licensee is an attributable owner of the 
licensee's station(s), regardless of whether he or she has any equity 
interest in the licensee. As discussed below, an officer or director 
may be granted an exemption from attribution only if his or her duties 
are wholly unrelated to the licensee. Members of partnerships and 
limited liability companies likewise are attributable owners, 
regardless of whether or not they hold an equity stake. Such parties 
may be insulated from attribution, regardless of equity stake, if they 
certify that they will not be materially involved in any way in the 
licensee and the relevant organizational documents provide for such 
insulation. It is not uncommon for limited liability companies or 
partnerships to assign little or no equity to the member(s) or 
partner(s) that hold the voting interest and assign all or most of the 
equity to members or limited partners that have no votes and/or are 
insulated pursuant to the relevant Commission criteria. Voting stock 
interests held in trust are attributable to the parties who can vote 
the stock, which usually include the trustee but may or may not include 
the beneficiary (the party that holds the equity). Non-voting stock 
cannot give rise to an attributable ownership interest, even though it 
has equity value, unless the Commission's EDP Rule is implicated. 
Moreover, while an individual's or entity's equity stake can play a 
role in determining attribution under the EDP Rule, the equity is not 
an issue in and of itself; rather, the rationale is that the 
individual's or entity's combined equity and debt stake, plus 
additional factors specified in the rule, provide the requisite ability 
to influence the licensee. Further, a party that is attributable under 
the EDP Rule may have no equity stake in the licensee whatsoever, but 
instead be attributable based on a significant debt-only interest 
(coupled with the other specified factors). Simply put, the 
Commission's standards for attributable ownership generally do not 
depend on equity positions, and many parties hold attributable 
interests in stations without any equity involvement in those stations. 
These attribution standards apply to both commercial and noncommercial 
stations, and the individuals and entities these standards capture have 
the potential to exert influence over the licensee, regardless of 
whether the station at issue is commercial or noncommercial. While the 
rule provides an example using the attribution standards to evaluate 
mutually exclusive NCE applications under the Commission's point 
system, the Commission has made clear that the section 73.3555 
attribution standards apply whenever attribution issues are relevant 
for NCE purposes. Officers and directors therefore are attributable 
owners of the NCE licensees they serve. In certain limited cases, a 
non-profit entity holds a commercial license. Several such licensees 
indicate that, because they are not commercial entities, much of Form 
323 contains questions that are inapplicable to their structure, and 
these licensees ask to use Form 323-E instead. The Commission will deem 
the filing of Form 323-E, in accordance with the standards set forth 
herein, compliant with the Commission's biennial filing obligation 
where a non-profit entity holds a commercial license.
    50. The observation that NCE board members are often governmental 
officials, governmental appointees, individuals elected by station 
members, or volunteers does not lead the Commission to a different 
conclusion. The Commission's attribution standards depend not on the 
manner in which an individual came to be a member of a station's board 
of directors or other governing body, but rather on the ability to 
influence station programming or operations that his or her membership 
confers. Similarly, because a party can exert influence over a station 
without being involved in the day-to-day operations of that station, 
the Commission's attribution rules do not depend on--or even 
reference--such involvement. Instead, officers and directors are 
attributable owners because holders of such positions have a realistic 
potential to affect station programming or core operations. While the 
extent to which NCE officers or directors are involved in day-to-day 
station operations may vary, this situation is not unique to NCE 
stations and does not provide a basis for different treatment.
    51. The Commission's rules do, however, allow officers and 
directors to be exempted from attribution in limited circumstances. 
Specifically, an officer or director can be exempted from attribution 
in an entity that is involved in businesses other than broadcasting, 
provided that his or her duties are wholly unrelated to the operation 
of the broadcast station(s) at issue. One commenter questions whether 
such exemptions are available in the NCE context. The Commission 
reiterates that its attribution standards, including the standards 
applicable to attribution exemptions for officers and directors, apply 
to both commercial and NCE stations. The Commission's revised Form 323-
E, like its current and revised versions of Form 323, reflects the 
attribution exemption for certain officers and directors. The 
Commission reminds filers, however, that an attribution exemption 
cannot be invoked for an officer or director unless he or she does not, 
and will not, have the ability to influence the broadcast operations of 
the licensee or station(s).
    52. The Fourth Diversity Further Notice also asked for input 
concerning the burden of providing race and gender information on Form 
323-E. Several commenters argue that requiring the collection and 
reporting of such information would be unduly burdensome and might 
discourage board participation. Similarly, several commenters argue 
that requiring filers to report CORES FRNs or RUFRNs for attributable 
interest holders on Form 323-E would be unduly burdensome and would 
discourage individuals from serving on the boards of NCE stations. As 
explained below, the Commission also rejects these arguments. Other 
commenters argue that the collection of

[[Page 19444]]

race and gender information would be minimally burdensome and agree 
with the Commission's tentative conclusion that such information is 
necessary to construct a complete picture of minority and female 
participation in broadcasting. As a result of the Commission's 
commitment to obtaining robust and complete ownership data concerning 
minority and female participation in broadcasting, the Commission 
believes that the collection of this information about the NCE station 
category is necessary. The absence of such information with respect to 
NCE stations restricts the Commission's ability to comprehensively 
consider broadcasting's impact in local markets. The GAO Report 
specifically identified the Commission's failure to collect this race, 
gender, and ethnicity information from NCE stations as a key reason 
that the agency lacks comprehensive data on ownership of broadcast 
outlets by minorities and women. Moreover, the Commission is 
unconvinced that providing this information would be burdensome or 
discourage participation because many NCE stations already provide 
similar information in an annual report to the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting (CPB). Of the approximately 4,500 NCE FM and television 
stations, CPB provides financial support to approximately 1,400 
stations (FM and television). Stations that receive funding must submit 
an annual Station Activity Survey (SAS), which collects, among other 
data, general race/ethnicity information by gender of the stations' 
board members (e.g., two African-American female board members and one 
Hispanic male board member). CPB then issues an annual report that 
provides an overview of diversity in the public media industry, 
including programming and station employment and operation, though the 
report does not necessarily provide a breakdown of the demographic 
information collected with respect to the board members of individual 
stations. The record does not reflect that the CPB reporting is 
burdensome or discourages participation, and the Commission does not 
believe that providing similar information to the Commission would have 
a significantly different impact. Stations that receive CPB support 
already have procedures for the collection and reporting of similar 
demographic information on board members of these station licensees to 
a third party. The Commission notes, however, that for various reasons, 
the CPB data collection cannot be used as a substitute for the data 
collected on Form 323-E. For example, CPB does not collect information 
from all NCE stations; CPB data does not contain the same level of 
detail necessary to provide the snapshot of ownership data to 
effectively study and analyze ownership trends together with Form 323 
data; there is no way to incorporate CPB's data into LMS to create a 
searchable and aggregable database; and there is no public access to 
CPB's underlying data to permit analysis and study. Additionally, the 
other actions adopted herein should reduce the burdens on all filers. 
Therefore, the Commission believes that any additional burdens 
associated with providing race, gender, and ethnicity information are 
outweighed by the benefits of requiring the reporting of such 
information.
    53. RUFRNs are Necessary to Uniquely Identify NCE Attributable 
Interest Holders. The Sixth Diversity Further Notice, 78 FR 2925, Jan. 
15, 2013, FCC 12-166, rel. Jan 3, 2013, tentatively concluded that 
obtaining and reporting a CORES FRN for individuals identified on Form 
323-E is not burdensome and sought comment. Similarly, in the Seventh 
Diversity Further Notice, 80 FR 10442, Feb. 26, 2015, FCC 15-19, rel. 
Feb. 12, 2015, the Commission proposed to permit an individual listed 
on Form 323-E to obtain and provide an RUFRN, in lieu of a CORES FRN, 
for use on broadcast ownership filings if the Commission modifies the 
Form 323-E requirements as described in the Fourth Diversity Further 
Notice, 74 FR 25205, May 27, 2009, FCC 09-33, rel. May 5, 2009. The 
Commission has reviewed the record with respect to these issues and 
concludes that extending the RUFRN requirement to Form 323-E is 
necessary to help ensure the reliability of the broadcast ownership 
data the Commission collects. By this Report and Order, the Commission 
will require attributable entities to obtain and report a CORES FRN on 
Form 323-E, as proposed in the Sixth Diversity Further Notice. While 
this Report and Order discusses the availability of the RUFRN to 
attributable individuals, it does not preclude individuals from 
reporting a CORES FRN or SUFRN provided it is done so in accordance 
with the restrictions outlined herein.
    54. While some commenters support the Commission's conclusion that 
RUFRNs are essential to allow analysis of the data, other commenters 
dispute that position. For instance, AETC et al. claim that the 
Commission has failed to demonstrate why the proposed RUFRN requirement 
is necessary to track broadcast ownership. Similarly, the University of 
Utah and the Utah State Board of Regents et al. argue that the benefits 
derived from the use of RUFRNs on Form 323-E filings ``would be 
marginal, at best.'' The University of Utah and the Utah State Board of 
Regents et al. assert that, in the noncommercial context, the 
Commission has not identified a diversity problem that additional 
reporting requirements would help to solve. Noncommercial stations are 
already required to implement numerous diversity initiatives in order 
to receive funding from CPB, and unlike commercial stations, NCEs are 
also subject to political pressures to promote diversity, state the 
University of Utah and the Utah State Board of Regents et al. Diversity 
is also identified as an explicit goal in the governing documents of 
many NCE broadcast licensees, the commenters assert. Further, the 
University of Utah and the Utah State Board of Regents et al. argue, 
even if the new reporting requirements enable the Commission to 
identify a diversity problem, it is unclear what remedial measures the 
Commission could take in the noncommercial context. Any remedial 
measures would presumably rely on market-based incentives to lower the 
economic or regulatory cost of ownership, which would be irrelevant to 
NCEs given that board membership is not determined by the cost of 
investment in broadcast properties or prospective financial gain from 
broadcast station ownership, state the University of Utah and the Utah 
State Board of Regents et al. According to the Public Broadcast 
Licensees, the ability to cross reference based on a unique identifier 
``has little or no relevance to the NCE industry,'' where the existence 
of multiple broadcast interests is ``quite rare'' in the case of NCE 
board members and directors. Similarly, Public Broadcast Licensees 
assert that the proposal to eliminate a filer's obligation to disclose 
other attributable broadcast interests of attributable parties listed 
in the filing has ``little or no relevance'' to NCE stations, because 
unlike commercial stations, ``where individuals often have multiple 
commercial broadcast interests, the existence of such interests is in 
fact quite rare in the case of NCE board members and officers.''
    55. The Commission disagrees. The Commission believes a unique 
identifier for each individual attributable interest holder is 
necessary to make the NCE data aggregable, machine readable, and 
searchable in the same manner as commercial broadcast station 
information. As the GAO recognized, to

[[Page 19445]]

fully understand and analyze the ownership of broadcast stations, NCE 
stations must be included in the ownership data the Commission 
collects. As described above, the Commission's experience with the 
commercial biennial ownership reports from 2009, 2011, and 2013 
revealed that use of SUFRNs is not workable to create data reliability 
and the record of this proceeding offers no reason to believe that use 
of SUFRNs in broadcast ownership reports for NCE stations would likely 
be any more successful. The presence of the RUFRN on the reports for 
noncommercial stations will allow the tracking of ownership trends over 
time and allow the Commission to determine with certainty the presence 
of multiple broadcast interests.
    56. Obtaining an RUFRN is Not Burdensome in the NCE Context. 
Several commenters argue that the CORES FRN and RUFRN requirements 
would be unduly burdensome and would discourage people from serving on 
the boards of NCE stations. Parties also state that licensees may have 
difficulty obtaining the necessary information from board members, some 
of whom are appointed governmental officials. The Commission finds that 
the process for obtaining a CORES FRN or RUFRN is quite simple and will 
only need to be done once. While the Commission recognizes that the 
first time they file the new Form 323-E, NCE filers may require 
additional time and effort to coordinate with attributable interest 
holders, the Commission finds that the lead time between now and the 
2017 filing window should be sufficient. The Commission is not 
persuaded that the requirement will significantly inhibit individuals 
from serving on the boards of NCEs. The Commission notes that the 
individuals at issue are already attributable interest holders in NCE 
stations and they are already identified as such on Form 323-E. With 
respect to obtaining an FRN, each attributable interest holder has the 
option of obtaining either a CORES FRN, requiring the submission of an 
SSN to the Commission, or an RUFRN, requiring the submission of other 
limited personal information, including only the last four digits of 
the SSN. The attributable individual need not share any of the 
personally identifying information with anyone other than the 
Commission; he or she may obtain the FRN number directly from the 
Commission and provide only the FRN to the licensee and the public. The 
Commission will house the personal information confidentially and 
securely. Under such circumstances the Commission does not believe the 
FRN requirement would serve as a serious disincentive to participation 
in NCE stations. SUFRNs will be available for use on Form 323-E in the 
limited circumstances described below.

C. Limited Availability of SUFRNs

    57. In the Seventh Diversity Further Notice, 80 FR 10442, Feb. 26, 
2015, FCC 15-19, rel. Feb. 12, 2015, the Commission sought comment on 
whether the SUFRN should continue to be available to filers of 
broadcast ownership reports in the event that after a filer has used 
reasonable and good-faith efforts, reportable individuals are unwilling 
to provide their identifying information or unwilling to obtain and 
provide a CORES FRN or RUFRN themselves. The Commission also asked 
whether filers should be required to take specific steps to 
substantiate that they have used reasonable and good-faith efforts, 
including informing reportable interest holders of their obligations 
and the risk of enforcement action if they fail to provide an RUFRN, 
CORES FRN, or identifying information sufficient to permit an RUFRN or 
CORES FRN to be obtained on their behalf. Some commenters urge the 
Commission to discontinue the use of interim SUFRNs entirely and to use 
its enforcement authority against anyone not willing to comply with the 
ownership reporting obligations. According to UCC et al., the 
Commission's use of its enforcement authority should include license 
revocations. In addition, UCC et al. claim that some broadcasters 
``simply do not file Form 323 at all, contrary to Bureau 
instructions,'' and urge the Commission to ``fix this problem.'' Other 
commenters generally support the proposal to retain the SUFRN but argue 
that the Commission should not use its enforcement authority or require 
filers to substantiate their reasonable good-faith efforts to comply 
with the ownership reporting requirements. John Q states that the 
Commission should allow continued use of SUFRNs but limit each person 
to one SUFRN and store all SUFRNs within CORES.
    58. The Commission confirms that SUFRNs will remain available for 
the limited purpose of protecting the position of filers in the case of 
interest holders that refuse to obtain an FRN or provide the licensee 
with the information necessary to generate an FRN for the interest 
holder. The Commission expects that, where an individual interest 
holder does not already have a CORES FRN, filers will acquire an RUFRN 
or CORES FRN for such individuals after obtaining the requisite 
identifying information, or will instruct the individual to obtain his 
or her own RUFRN or CORES FRN and to provide the FRN to the filer for 
reporting on the biennial ownership report form. As previously noted, 
the RUFRN method will avoid the need for individuals to disclose their 
full SSNs to the Commission. In order for the Commission's RUFRN system 
to be effective, the Commission believes it is necessary to ensure that 
filers are using reasonable and good-faith efforts to obtain RUFRNs 
from individuals with reportable interests (or from CORES on behalf of 
such individuals). Therefore, the Commission concludes that filers 
should be required to take specific steps to substantiate that they are 
making such efforts. The Commission finds that instructing an 
individual about his or her obligations and about potential enforcement 
action are specific steps that demonstrate ``reasonable and good-faith 
efforts.'' No commenters proposed alternative steps that would show 
that such efforts are being made. The Commission expects that filers 
will inform reportable individuals of their obligations and the risk of 
enforcement action for failing to provide an RUFRN or CORES FRN or to 
permit an RUFRN or CORES FRN to be obtained on their behalf. An SUFRN 
may be obtained only if an individual still refuses to provide a means 
of reporting a valid RUFRN or CORES FRN after the filer has taken such 
steps. In the event that an SUFRN is used, the Commission may take 
enforcement action against the filer and/or the recalcitrant 
individual. The commenters have offered no evidence in the record that 
the prospect of enforcement action for failing to comply with the RUFRN 
requirements adopted herein will have a chilling effect on 
participation in public broadcasting. Enforcement decisions will be 
made on a case-by-case basis based on the facts and circumstances of 
each unique case before the Commission. However, the filer itself will 
be exempt from enforcement action if the filer substantiates that it 
has used reasonable and good-faith efforts as described herein.
    59. The Commission directs the Media Bureau to include instructions 
for Forms 323 and 323-E and post language on its Form 323 and 323-E Web 
site, informing reportable interest holders of their obligation to 
obtain and provide an RUFRN or CORES FRN, or to permit an RUFRN or 
CORES FRN to be acquired on their behalf, and to alert interest holders 
of the risk of enforcement action for the failure to provide an RUFRN 
or CORES FRN or to permit an RUFRN or CORES FRN to be

[[Page 19446]]

obtained. While the burden to obtain an RUFRN or CORES FRN or to permit 
the filer to acquire an RUFRN or CORES FRN falls to the interest 
holder, the Commission reminds filers of their obligation to review the 
biennial ownership report and affirm that, to the best of the filer's 
``knowledge and belief, all statements in [the ownership report] are 
true, correct, and complete.'' This language is found on the electronic 
version of Forms 323 and 323-E, which are available on CDBS. As stated 
above, the revised versions of these forms will be implemented in LMS. 
This includes verifying that the FRN reported for an individual is 
correct and that no SUFRN has been used in the absence of reasonable 
and good-faith efforts to obtain an RUFRN or CORES FRN, including 
informing a recalcitrant interest holder of the obligation and threat 
of enforcement action. When copying or importing data from a 
previously-submitted ownership report, filers must replace any SUFRNs 
that appeared on the prior report with RUFRNs or CORES FRNs before 
submitting the new report to the Commission, unless the reporting of 
one or more of those SUFRNs remains permissible under the narrow 
standard set forth in this Report and Order. The Commission notes that 
the biennial nature of the filing requirement and the existence of OMB 
procedural requirements prior to full implementation of these rules 
suggest that the 2017 filing period will be the first filing period 
implicated by the requirements described herein. This time frame 
mitigates any potential burden because filers have ample time to ensure 
that they have a current and correct RUFRN or CORES FRN for the 
individuals and entities reported on Forms 323 and 323-E. The 
Commission directs the Media Bureau to revise Forms 323 and 323-E, as 
well as the pop-up boxes within CDBS, to reflect this policy change.

D. Filing Burden Reduction and Improved Data Integrity

    60. To make sound legislative, regulatory, and policy 
determinations, the Commission must have complete and reliable 
broadcast ownership data. Both GAO and the Third Circuit have 
highlighted the importance of comprehensive and reliable data. At the 
same time, the Commission is mindful of the burden ownership reporting 
represents for the industry. The Commission's experience with Form 323 
submissions for 2009, 2011, and 2013 reveals that many filings 
contained errors. Such errors undermine the Commission's ability to 
electronically process ownership data and make it difficult for the 
Commission and outside analysts to evaluate the data. Accordingly, the 
Commission finds that certain improvements to the forms will greatly 
reduce the burden on filers, significantly streamline the filing 
process, and increase the quality and usability of the data submitted 
to the Commission. These changes include extending the biennial filing 
deadline for Forms 323 and 323-E, reducing the number of filings 
required, modifying the reporting of other broadcast and daily 
newspaper interests, and additional improvements described below. The 
Commission believes they will greatly reduce the burden on filers and 
increase the quality and usability of submitted ownership data. Section 
and question references in this Report and Order refer to the current 
version of the form, which is implemented in CDBS. Because the revised 
version of the form will be implemented in LMS, it will be given a new 
number, and its format, structure, and question identification differs 
from the CDBS version of the form. Several commenters suggest that the 
Commission make additional, minor modifications to its ownership report 
forms and their instructions that the Commission does not discuss in 
detail here. The Commission has incorporated certain of these changes 
into the revised ownership report forms to the extent the Commission 
found them appropriate and useful. In addition to changes to the forms 
and instructions, the Commission plans to implement improvements to 
CDBS, such as subform cloning features, auto-fill mechanisms, and data 
saving and validation routines, that will reduce data-entry burdens, 
simplify the form completion process, and prevent filers from 
submitting inconsistent data.
    61. Background. The Commission already has taken multiple steps to 
address the quality of its broadcast ownership data, including setting 
uniform ``as of'' and filing dates for biennial Form 323 filings; 
expanding the biennial Form 323 filing requirement to include sole 
proprietors and partnerships of natural persons, as well as LPTV and 
Class A licensees; revising and clarifying the instructions to Form 
323; modifying Form 323's electronic interface so that ownership data 
incorporated into the database can be electronically read, searched, 
aggregated, and cross referenced; building checks into Form 323 to 
perform verification and review functions and to prevent the filing of 
incomplete or inaccurate data; and simplifying completion of the form 
by providing menu and checkbox options, as well as pre-fill 
capabilities, for data entry. Actions taken in this Report and Order to 
require, except in limited circumstances, individuals with an 
attributable interest in a broadcast station to obtain either a CORES 
FRN or an RUFRN and provide that FRN on Form 323 and Form 323-E filings 
will further improve the quality of the Commission's data. In addition, 
the Commission modified Form 323 in March 2013 to allow for more 
precise reporting of data about the race(s) of attributable 
individuals. The modified version of the form eliminates the ``Two or 
More Races'' category and allows filers to select as many categories as 
apply. Previously, the form provided five specific racial categories, 
plus a sixth category entitled ``Two or More Races,'' and allowed 
filers to choose only one category for each individual. While this 
change was made in response to a directive from OMB, it improves the 
Commission's ownership data by requiring parties to submit more precise 
race information for multi-racial individuals.
    62. Despite these efforts, many ownership reports submitted to the 
Commission contained errors in 2009, 2011, and 2013. As discussed 
above, the Commission's experience reviewing those submissions revealed 
numerous filing mistakes that prevented accurate electronic processing 
of submitted reports. In preparing the 2012 323 Report and the 2014 323 
Report, Commission staff (1) required many parties to submit corrective 
amendments to their biennial Form 323 filings, and (2) after reviewing 
submitted filings and additional information, manually moved additional 
stations with reporting errors to the proper ownership categories. 
Nevertheless, the Commission was unable to account for all filing 
errors. Free Press submitted various ``corrections'' to the 
categorization of stations in the 2012 323 Report. Many of these 
``corrections'' involved updating the information provided with the 
2012 323 Report to account for subsequent events, such as station 
assignments and transfers. The data collection provides a same-date 
snapshot of broadcast ownership every two years and information after 
October 1, 2011, is not intended to be included. Improving the accuracy 
and completeness of the data set remains a Commission priority.
    63. The Commission has solicited a wide variety of input concerning 
potential further modifications to Form 323 and Form 323-E, including 
changes designed to decrease filing burdens and reduce errors in 
ownership filings. For

[[Page 19447]]

example, the Fourth Diversity Further Notice, 74 FR 25205, May 27, 
2009, FCC 09-33, rel. May 5, 2009, asked whether modifications made in 
the 323 Order with respect to Form 323 should also be applied to Form 
323-E and sought input concerning additional measures to improve data 
quality, including improvements to the computer interface, additional 
data-verification measures, and steps to ensure that data can be 
electronically searched, aggregated, and cross referenced. In the 
Review of Media Data Practices proceeding, the Commission solicited 
public input to improve Form 323 and Form 323-E, including specifically 
seeking burden-reducing measures and methods to improve public access 
to ownership data. The Commission also asked for public comment 
concerning the data contained in the 2012 323 Report and potential 
actions to improve the quality of that data. The Sixth Diversity 
Further Notice, 78 FR 2925, Jan. 15, 2013, FCC 12-166, rel. Jan. 3, 
2013, solicited additional comment on specific proposed modifications 
to the Commission's ownership report forms as suggested in comments 
submitted in the Review of Media Data Practices proceeding.
    64. The Commission has received extensive public input as a result 
of these requests. NAB in particular identifies burdens that complicate 
the ownership report filing process for both Form 323 and Form 323-E. 
As the Commission noted in the 2012 323 Report, the complexity of the 
ownership report form was a factor that led parties to submit 
incomplete and/or inaccurate ownership information. The Commission 
therefore agrees that burdens associated with preparing and submitting 
biennial ownership reports have a negative impact on the quality of the 
Commission's ownership data and believes that reducing the amount of 
time and resources required to address the mechanical aspects of the 
ownership report preparation and filing process will allow parties to 
spend more time focused on the accuracy and completeness of the 
ownership information they submit to the Commission. The Commission 
believes that modifying the filing deadline, reducing the number of 
filings required, and modifying the reporting of other broadcast and 
daily newspaper interests will improve data quality while alleviating 
filing burdens. The Commission believes the measures discussed here 
reduce the number of required filings and burdens on filers and 
increase the data quality, integrity, and usability. The Commission 
declines to adopt other suggestions from commenters as follows: (1) 
Overhaul the ownership reporting regime to require each licensee to 
disclose its entire ownership structure, including the race, gender, 
and ethnicity of all attributable interest holders, on a single filing. 
The proposal lacks specificity and would not produce a data set that is 
comparable to data collected in 2009 and 2011. (2) Create cross-
references between reports and allow parties to certify that no changes 
have occurred since the previous biennial filing date or submit 
abbreviated reports addressing only such changes, instead of filing 
complete reports on each biennial deadline. These changes are 
unnecessary, or of limited utility, because CDBS already allows users 
to create new ownership reports that contain the data from prior 
ownership filings quickly and easily. For example, while a filer cannot 
simply certify that there have been no changes since the last biennial 
report, that filer can, with little effort, use the ``Validation and 
Resubmission of a previously filed Biennial Report (certifying no 
change from previous Report)'' option within CDBS to copy and re-file a 
station's previous biennial Form 323. CDBS also permits users to copy 
the prior biennial report and then make edits that reflect changes. (3) 
Permit parties to submit filings on paper or via alternative methods; 
allowing filers to enter ownership information into text boxes instead 
of requiring filers to provide data in a manner that allows it to be 
written into the appropriate database fields in the CDBS ownership data 
tables; and allowing parties to upload exhibits instead of entering 
ownership information directly into the electronic form. These 
suggestions run counter to the Commission's intention to ensure, to the 
maximum extent possible, that ownership data is included in machine-
readable data fields and can be electronically searched, aggregated, 
and cross referenced.
    65. Modification of Filing Dates. Currently, Form 323 must be filed 
by November 1 of odd-numbered years and reflect ownership information 
that is accurate as of October 1 of that filing year. In the Sixth 
Diversity Further Notice, 78 FR 2925, Jan. 15, 2013, FCC 12-166, rel. 
Jan. 3, 2013, the Commission sought comment on its proposal to move the 
due date from November 1 to December 1, with the October 1 ``as of'' 
date to remain unchanged. NAB supports such an extension, and no 
commenters oppose providing filers with additional time for completing 
and submitting ownership reports. The Commission continues to believe 
that providing filers an additional 30 days will lead to more accurate 
reporting of ownership information without any significant delay in the 
collection and analysis of the data. The Commission makes that change.
    66. The Commission declines to adopt proposals for different filing 
deadlines. While some commenters argue that a December 1 deadline is 
inconvenient for filers and Commission staff due to the date's 
proximity to the Thanksgiving holiday and other Commission filing 
deadlines, those commenters fail to suggest an alternative date. 
Further, the Commission finds that the 60-day period between the ``as 
of'' date and the filing date should provide sufficient flexibility for 
filers such that other deadlines or holidays do not complicate 
compliance. Filers can file any time from October 1 through December 1. 
MMTC asks that the Commission impose an annual, rather than biennial, 
ownership reporting obligation. At this time, the Commission believes 
that any marginal benefit of having an annual rather than a biennial 
snapshot of ownership data is outweighed by the additional burden such 
a requirement would place on licensees to undertake the full reporting 
obligation twice as often.
    67. The Fourth Diversity Further Notice, 74 FR 25205, May 27, 2009, 
FCC 09-33, rel. May 5, 2009, asked whether the Commission should adopt 
uniform filing and ``as of'' dates for Form 323-E. The Commission will 
require NCE filers to submit Form 323-E in accordance with the same 
``as of'' date and filing deadline applicable to commercial 
broadcasters (i.e., their filings will be due on December 1 of odd-
numbered years and the ownership information provided should be current 
as of October 1 of the filing year). Currently, NCE stations submit 
biennial Form 323-E in accordance with a set of rolling deadlines. Each 
NCE station's biennial deadline is keyed to the anniversary of the date 
on which its license renewal application is required to be filed. The 
information contained on each report must be current as of no more than 
60 days prior to the filing of that report. At least one commenter 
argues that these current deadlines should remain in place. When 
adopting uniform filing and ``as of'' dates for Form 323, the 
Commission noted that, as a result of the prior, rolling deadlines, 
``new data are continually incorporated into the database as it is 
filed, mixing new data and old data . . . [which] has impeded the 
ability to perform time-related comparisons using our

[[Page 19448]]

database.'' Thus, in order to ``[t]o make the data easier to work with, 
to address the problems created by the staggered ownership report 
filing deadlines currently in effect, and to facilitate studies of 
ownership,'' the Commission required all biennial Form 323 filers to 
submit reports by November 1, with data current as of October 1. The 
same reasoning applies equally to Form 323-E and convinces the 
Commission to require NCE stations to file according to the same 
schedule.
    68. Some commenters suggest that, to reduce the burden on NCE 
broadcasters and their counsel, any uniform filing date for Form 323-E 
should be in the first quarter, to correspond to a date that certain 
NCE stations submit similar data to CPB. This suggestion would not 
allow the Commission to obtain the synchronized data needed to evaluate 
minority and female participation in broadcasting over all the services 
over time. Moreover, since not all NCE stations submit data to CPB, 
efforts by the Commission to coordinate with CPB would not fully 
address the filing deadline issue.
    69. Reduction in the Number of Required Filings. The current 
version of Form 323 allows parent entity filers to list only one 
subsidiary licensee and its associated stations. As a result, parent 
entities with multiple licensee subsidiaries must file separate 
ownership reports for each of those licensees. In most cases, these 
reports are virtually identical to each other except for the details 
concerning the licensee and station(s) involved. The number of separate 
filings that a broadcaster must file under the current version of Form 
323 depends on the characteristics of that licensee's ownership 
structure, including the number of licensees and parent entities and 
the relationships that those entities have to each other. In order to 
reduce the number of filings submitted to the Commission, NAB suggests 
that the Commission modify Form 323 to allow parents with several 
wholly owned licensee subsidiaries to list all of those licensees and 
their associated stations on a single report. In the Sixth Diversity 
Further Notice, 78 FR 2925, Jan. 15, 2013, FCC 12-166, rel. Jan. 3, 
2013, the Commission solicited comment on this proposal and asked 
whether it should be expanded to allow parent entities to file 
consolidated reports for all of their licensee subsidiaries, regardless 
of whether or not those subsidiaries are wholly owned. No commenters 
oppose these proposals, and NAB indicates that it approved of the 
Commission's expanded version.
    70. The Commission believes that modifying Form 323 to allow a 
parent entity with multiple licensee subsidiaries to file one report 
that covers all of those licensees will greatly reduce the burden on 
many filers with no negative impact on the quality of the Commission's 
ownership data. In some cases, an entity is both a licensee and the 
parent of one or more licensees. Such an entity must file two separate 
reports--one as a licensee and one as a parent company. The Commission 
therefore makes the following three changes to Form 323: (1) The 
Commission modifies the form to allow parent filers to list multiple 
subsidiary licensees and the stations associated with those licensees, 
(2) the Commission deletes the portion of section II-A, question 3(a) 
(non-biennial), and section II-B, question 3(a) (biennial), asking 
filers to identify the relationship that each reportable individual or 
entity has to the licensee, and (3) the Commission deletes section II-
B, question 4 (biennial), asking each parent filer to identify the 
entity or entities directly below it in the licensee's ownership chain. 
The revised version of Form 323-E is consistent with these 
modifications as well. The Commission makes the second change to allow 
a parent entity to file a consolidated ownership report even if an 
individual listed in response to question 3(a) on the parent's report 
does not have the same direct interests in all of the parent's licensee 
subsidiaries. For example, an individual might hold officer positions 
in the parent and its radio licensee subsidiaries, but not in the 
parent's television licensee subsidiaries. Because the responses to 
question 3(a) on the report for each licensee include information 
concerning the relationship between each attributable party and that 
licensee, this modification will have no impact on the completeness of 
the Commission's ownership data. The third change will ensure that a 
parent entity can file a consolidated report in situations where it 
holds interests in some of its licensee subsidiaries directly and some 
indirectly and/or it holds its various subsidiary licensees through 
different intermediate entities. The Commission added section II-B, 
question 4 (biennial), to the revised version of Form 323 in an effort 
to improve the ability of researchers and others to cross reference 
ownership report data and construct complete ownership structures. 
Experience has demonstrated, however, that information provided in 
response to section II-A, question 3(a) (non-biennial), and section II-
B, question 3(a) (biennial), is sufficient for these purposes.
    71. Improvements to Reporting of Other Broadcast and Daily 
Newspaper Interests. In the Review of Media Data Practices proceeding, 
NAB requested that the Commission eliminate section II-B, question 
3(c), of Form 323, which requires a filer to disclose the other 
attributable newspaper and broadcast interests of attributable parties 
listed in response to section II-B, question 3(a). The Commission's 
revised Form 323-E, like the current version of the form, requires 
disclosure of other broadcast interests, but does not require 
disclosure of other daily newspaper interests. NAB argues that 
submission of this data is particularly burdensome, requiring 
significant amounts of data entry and file uploading via a series of 
subforms or spreadsheet attachment(s). The Commission sought comment on 
NAB's proposal in the Sixth Diversity Further Notice, 78 FR 2925, Jan. 
15, 2013, FCC 12-166, rel. Jan. 3, 2013. NAB reiterates its support, 
and no commenters oppose the proposal.
    72. As discussed in more detail below, the Commission declines to 
eliminate section II-B, question 3(c), entirely. Nevertheless, the 
Commission believes that modifications to the reporting requirements 
for other attributable broadcast and daily newspaper interests will 
reduce filing burdens and improve both the quality and the usability of 
the Commission's ownership data. Specifically, the Commission takes the 
following actions with respect to the reporting of other broadcast 
interests on Form 323: (1) The Commission deletes the broadcast 
interests portion section II-B, question 3(c); (2) the Commission adds 
simple yes/no buttons to the relevant subforms; and (3) the Commission 
modifies the public search capabilities of its electronic filing system 
to allow users to search ownership report filings by FRN and output the 
results as either a list of reports or a list of stations. Several 
commenters requested that the Commission add search capabilities of 
this type. Taken together, these three changes will simplify reporting 
and allow interested parties to determine the other broadcast interests 
held by reported individuals and entities, if any, in a straightforward 
manner.
    73. Two factors make these changes possible. First, the 
Commission's implementation of the RUFRN requirement will make the FRN 
information in the Commission's ownership database more useful as a 
means to cross reference information across multiple filings. Second,

[[Page 19449]]

information concerning the other attributable broadcast interests of a 
party listed on one biennial ownership report is contained in one or 
more other biennial ownership reports (i.e., report(s) filed in 
connection with that party's other attributable stations). As a result 
of these two factors, parties that use the additional FRN-based search 
capabilities the Commission adds to its electronic filing system, as 
well as parties that download the Commission's ownership data and work 
with it directly, can create lists of broadcast interests associated 
with particular entities and individuals easily and reliably, rendering 
the XML spreadsheets previously required for the broadcast portion of 
question 3(c) unnecessary.
    74. Section II-B, question 3(c), in the biennial section of Form 
323 also requires the respondent to provide information concerning the 
attributable daily newspaper interests held by parties that hold 
attributable interests in the respondent. The Commission will not 
delete this portion of the question. Unlike information about broadcast 
interests, information concerning daily newspaper interests does not 
appear anywhere on Form 323 except in responses to question 3(c). In 
other words, an interest holder's daily newspaper interests cannot be 
ascertained except in direct response to this question. The Commission 
therefore cannot remove the newspaper interests portion of section II-
B, question 3(c), without sacrificing the quality and completeness of 
the Commission's data. The Commission notes that, because reported 
newspaper interests generally are significantly fewer than the 
broadcast interests implicated in the first part of the question, 
eliminating the daily newspaper inquiry would be of limited value in 
reducing filing burdens. Moreover, the Commission believes that a 
slight modification to this question will improve the quality of the 
Commission's Form 323 data collection and enhance the ability of 
parties to search, aggregate, and cross reference the Commission's 
broadcast ownership data. Specifically, the Commission modifies the 
relevant subforms and attachments to require filers to provide an FRN 
for each person and entity listed. Any FRN reported in response to 
question 3(c) is already required in response to question 3(a). 
Accordingly, this modification to question 3(c) does not mandate the 
submission of any additional information or require any person or 
entity to obtain an RUFRN or CORES FRN that is not already required to 
do so.
    75. Finally, the reasoning in support of the modifications to the 
reporting of broadcast interests discussed above applies equally well 
to both the biennial and the non-biennial sections of Form 323, as well 
as to Form 323-E. Accordingly, the Commission applies these changes to 
both sections of Form 323, and includes parallel modifications to both 
sections of the revised version of Form 323-E. Moreover, the Commission 
applies its modifications to the reporting of newspaper interests to 
both the biennial and non-biennial sections of Form 323, because they 
share a common underlying rationale. The Commission believes these 
changes will further reduce filing burdens and improve the quality of 
its ownership data. As part of making these modifications, the 
Commission will eliminate the relevant inconsistencies between the 
forms and the instructions noted by NAB in the Review of Media Bureau 
Data Practices proceeding.
    76. Addition of Tribal Nation/Entity Designation. In the Review of 
Media Bureau Data Practices proceeding, the Bureau asked, among other 
things, whether it should collect additional data and for what 
purpose(s) and how the Bureau's data collections could be improved. In 
addition, the Fourth Diversity Further Notice sought comment concerning 
what data would meaningfully expand the Commission's understanding of 
minority and female ownership, including information to determine if 
NCE stations are serving underserved audiences. In response to the 
Fourth Diversity Further Notice, 74 FR 25205, May 27, 2009, FCC 09-33, 
rel. May 5, 2009, two commenters suggest that the Commission include a 
designation within Form 323-E to allow parties to identify Tribal 
entities. No parties oppose this request.
    77. The Commission agrees that collecting information on a biennial 
basis concerning participation of Tribal Nations and Tribal entities in 
broadcasting will help the Commission evaluate service to underserved 
and minority populations. Moreover, such data will help inform the 
Commission's ongoing efforts to expand broadcast opportunities for 
Tribal Nations and Tribal entities, as developed in the Commission's 
Rural Radio proceeding. The Tribal Priority adopted in the Rural Radio 
proceeding benefits federally recognized American Indian Tribes and 
Alaska Native Villages, or Tribal consortia, and entities majority 
owned or controlled by such Tribes, proposing service to Tribal lands 
(or the equivalent thereto). Because these efforts involve both 
commercial and noncommercial broadcasting, and in light of the 
Commission's ongoing efforts to improve its broadcast ownership data 
collections, the Commission believes that the rationale for adding a 
Tribal Nation/entity designation to Form 323-E applies equally to Form 
323. In addition, collection of this information on a biennial basis 
will be minimally burdensome, and any increased burden is outweighed by 
the significant burden-reducing measures adopted elsewhere in this 
Report and Order. Accordingly, the revised versions of both Form 323 
and Form 323-E allow (but do not require) filers to indicate whether or 
not licensees and/or attributable entities are Tribal Nations or Tribal 
entities. For purposes of the Tribal Priority in the Rural Radio 
proceeding, the Commission defined a Tribe as any Indian or Alaska 
Native Tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village or community which is 
acknowledged by the Federal government to constitute a government-to-
government relationship with the United States and eligible for the 
programs and services established by the United States for Indians. The 
Commission uses the same definition for purposes of implementing the 
Commission's Tribal Nation/entity designation. The criteria used by the 
Commission to award a Tribal Priority in the licensing context rely on 
this definition, but include additional factors as well.
    78. Improved Data Practices. As noted above, the Commission noticed 
its intent to improve the Form 323 and 323-E data collections and 
sought comment on improvements and burden-reducing measures in the 
Review of Media Data Practices proceeding. The Commission also asked 
for public comment concerning the data contained in the 2012 323 Report 
and potential actions to improve the quality of that data. In 
furtherance of these ongoing efforts to improve data quality, reduce 
filing burdens, and improve public access to ownership data, the 
Commission makes minor changes to its ownership report forms. These 
include: (1) Clarifying reporting of 47 CFR 73.3613 documents on Form 
323 and Form 323-E, (2) adding a category to Form 323 for Limited 
Liability Companies, (3) eliminating the capitalization question from 
Form 323, and (4) adding a designation to Form 323 for jointly held 
interests. The Commission also makes modifications to the instructions 
for the form(s) consistent with these changes. The Commission did not 
receive positive or negative comments concerning the changes described 
below, except as indicated.

[[Page 19450]]

    79. First, the Commission reduces burdens and improves both the 
quality and usability of the Commission's ownership data by clarifying 
the manner in which filers should report contracts and other 
instruments that must be filed pursuant to section 73.3613 of the 
Commission's rules. As part of this clarification, the Commission will 
eliminate the relevant inconsistencies between the forms and the 
instructions noted by NAB in the Review of Media Bureau Data Practices 
proceeding. Form 323, section II-A, question 1 (non-biennial), and 
section II-B, question 1 (biennial), requires commercial full-power 
television stations, AM radio stations, and FM radio stations to list 
all 73.3613 documents. The relevant requirement applies to full-power 
television stations, AM radio stations, and FM radio stations. The 
requirement does not apply to Class A television or LPTV stations. 
Accordingly, licensee entities that only hold licenses for Class A 
television and/or LPTV stations should answer ``N/A'' to this question. 
The Commission updates Forms 323 and 323-E and the instructions for 
both forms to make this clear. Form 323-E, section II, question 5, 
imposes the same obligation on NCE filers. The respondent on a given 
report may or may not be a party to these contracts and instruments. 
For example, certain credit agreements may include one or more of the 
licensee's parent entities as parties, but not the licensee. Similarly, 
network affiliations often include some, but not all, of the entities 
in a station's ownership structure as parties. Some filers list all 
relevant documents on the licensee's ownership report, while other 
filers opt to list different documents on different reports (perhaps 
based on whether or not the respondent is a party to the document). The 
latter approach requires filers to include different, often 
overlapping, lists of documents on multiple reports and forces 
researchers and other parties to examine all of a station's ownership 
filings to construct a complete list of that station's required 
contracts and instruments.
    80. To address these issues, the Commission modifies the relevant 
questions on Form 323 and Form 323-E to require all section 73.3613 
documents for a station to be listed on the report for that station's 
licensee. Under the Commission's rules, a full-power television 
station, Class A television station, AM radio station, or FM radio 
station must have an up-to-date list of all section 73.3613 documents, 
or copies of all such documents, in its public file at all times. 
Accordingly, licensee entities are often in the best position to 
produce the information necessary to respond to this question. It is 
therefore sensible to require licensees' filings to include a complete 
document list. This clarification will reduce filing burdens, because 
filers will be able to enter all required information on the licensee 
report and simply check ``N/A'' for all parent filings. Moreover, to 
the extent that filers may have been providing different document lists 
on various reports for the same parent entity, this modification helps 
ensure that parent entities can file consolidated reports for all of 
their subsidiary licensees. This clarification also will improve public 
access to and use of the Commission's ownership data, because parties 
reviewing ownership reports will need to examine only one of a 
station's filings to construct a full list of that station's section 
73.3613 documents. As a result of this clarification, the section 
73.3613 documents question mirrors section II-B, question 5, which 
directs parties to provide an ownership chart (or similar information) 
on the licensee's ownership report and to check ``N/A'' on all parent 
filings. To further improve public review and use of the Commission's 
ownership data, the ownership report search results screen in LMS will 
indicate, for each report listed, whether that report was submitted for 
a licensee/permittee or a parent entity. This will help users quickly 
identify the filings that contain summary contracts and ownership 
structure information.
    81. Second, the Commission improves data quality by adding a 
category to Form 323 for limited liability companies. Section I, 
question 8, of Form 323 requires the filer to identify the nature of 
the respondent, and currently allows the filer to choose between 
categories for sole proprietorships, for-profit corporations, not-for-
profit corporations, general partnerships, and limited partnerships. 
Respondents that do not fit into one of these categories must select 
the ``other'' category and provide an explanatory exhibit. The parallel 
question on the revised version of Form 323-E includes different 
categories. Accordingly, the modification the Commission makes here 
applies only to Form 323. Over the years, limited liability companies 
have become increasingly common in the ownership structures of 
commercial broadcast stations. The Commission believes it is prudent to 
add a separate category allowing parties to identify filing entities 
that are limited liability companies. The ``other'' option will remain 
on the form, along with the ability to upload an exhibit, for 
respondents that do not fit into one of the provided categories. Adding 
this category will reduce burdens on limited liability company filers 
by eliminating the need to type an exhibit. It will also improve the 
Commission's data by placing more ownership information into machine-
readable data fields and, thereby, improving the ability of parties to 
electronically search, aggregate, and cross reference the Commission's 
ownership data.
    82. Third, the Commission reduces burdens by eliminating Form 323, 
section II-A, question 2 (non-biennial), and section II-B, question 2 
(biennial), which requires filers to provide capitalization information 
for any respondent that is a licensee, permittee, or entity that has a 
majority interest in, or otherwise exercises de facto control over the 
licensee. Neither the current nor revised version of Form 323-E 
contains this question. The Commission can eliminate the question 
without meaningfully compromising data quality because section II-A, 
question 3(a) (non-biennial), and section II-B, question 3(a) 
(biennial), better address the Commission's need to ascertain equity 
ownership of, and voting rights in, the respondent than does question 
2. Section II-B, question 3(a) (biennial), requires information 
concerning both voting and equity rights in the respondent, while 
section II-A, question 3(a) (non-biennial), only requires information 
concerning voting rights in the respondent. There are at least two 
reasons that the information provided in response to question 3(a) is 
more useful than the information provided in response to question 2. 
First, because question 2 only applies to entities that issue stock 
(i.e., corporations), many filers (such as partnerships and limited 
liability companies) do not have to provide any information. 
Accordingly, there currently are large gaps in the question 2 data 
collected by the Commission. Question 3(a), on the other hand, applies 
to all filers. Second, question 2 does not solicit information 
concerning share equity values for the various classes of stock or the 
relative voting rights of different classes of voting stock. As a 
result, information provided in response to question 2, unlike 
information from question 3(a), generally is insufficient for 
understanding the voting or equity structures of the respondent. 
Moreover, eliminating the capitalization question will reduce filing 
burdens on corporate filers.
    83. Fourth, in addition to the Commission's general desire to 
improve the quality of its broadcast ownership

[[Page 19451]]

data collections, the Commission's 2012 323 Report PN evidenced a 
desire to implement practical changes to Form 323 that would reduce 
data errors and make the Commission's ownership data more complete and 
usable. In furtherance of these objectives, the Commission adds a yes/
no question to the subforms identifying attributable parties to allow 
parties to identify jointly held voting interests.
    84. In certain circumstances, two or more parties hold a voting 
interest in a licensee or other respondent jointly. Two parties may, 
for example, hold 100 percent of the voting interest in an entity 
together, as joint tenants (as opposed to each individual holding 50 
percent of the voting interests). Similarly, agreements for 
partnerships or limited liability companies may provide that two or 
more individuals exercise voting power together, such that any of the 
relevant parties can fully exercise the voting interest. Because the 
current version of Form 323 provides no mechanism for parties to 
identify situations in which voting interests are jointly held, it is 
likely that filers report such interests in different ways, which leads 
to errors and inconsistencies in the Commission's data. For example, 
faced with a situation in which parties A and B hold a 50 percent 
voting interest jointly, one filer might report both as having a 50 
percent interest while another filer might report A and B as holding 25 
percent of the voting interests each. Neither of these options 
accurately captures the voting rights at issue. When preparing the 2012 
323 Report, the Commission found that its inability to identify and 
interpret jointly held voting interests on ownership reports rendered 
it impossible for Commission staff to electronically or manually 
process those reports. Parties reviewing non-biennial Form 323 filings 
will face similar difficulties. Accordingly, the Commission finds that 
adding a question to both the biennial and non-biennial sections of 
Form 323 to address this issue is a minimally burdensome way to improve 
the quality of the Commission's ownership data. The Commission does not 
believe that there are many jointly held voting interests in the NCE 
context. Accordingly, the Commission does not make a similar 
modification to Form 323-E at this time.
    85. Finally, the subforms for Form 323 section II-A, question 3(a) 
(nonbiennial) and section II-B, question 3(a) (biennial) provide 
categories for filers to identify each attributable party's positional 
interest in the respondent. To increase the usability of the 
Commission's ownership data, and in light of the Commission's recent 
decision concerning attribution of television joint sales agreements 
(JSAs), the Commission will add a new positional interest category that 
will allow filers to identify reported parties that are attributable by 
virtue of a JSA or Local Marketing Agreement. One commenter proposes 
additional reporting requirements for parties that operate a station 
pursuant to a local marketing agreement (LMA). As an initial matter, 
the Commission notes that any party that has an attributable interest 
in a commercial broadcast station by virtue of an attributable LMA or 
JSA is already required to comply with Form 323 filing requirements for 
that station. This existing requirement captures any minority and 
female ownership interests in commercial broadcast stations that result 
from the operation of a station pursuant to an attributable agreement. 
The Commission declines to extend the reporting requirement to 
nonattributable operating agreements because there is no information on 
the current record that reflects that a data collection focused on this 
category of nonattributable interest holders would meaningfully improve 
the data set.

E. Other Proposals

    86. Commenters in this proceeding provide several additional 
suggestions relating to Form 323, Form 323-E, procedures related to 
those forms, and the Commission's Consolidated Database System (CDBS) 
that the Commission declines to implement at this time. The Commission 
discusses those proposals briefly below. As noted above, the Commission 
intends to move Forms 323 and 323-E from CDBS to LMS. Comments and 
arguments presented herein with respect to CDBS are equally applicable 
to the Commission's future LMS implementation of the forms and the 
associated public search capabilities. Additional rejected proposals 
are addressed elsewhere in this Report and Order and that discussion is 
not repeated in this section.
    87. MMTC asks the Commission to create a separate filing category 
for transfers to bankruptcy trustees, debtors-in-possession, or trusts, 
arguing that this would help identify business failures. The Commission 
declines to do so, because the suggestion is outside the scope of this 
proceeding, would be burdensome and costly, and similar information is 
available already. Creating a new filing category would require changes 
to Form 323 and Form 323-E, the associated database elements in CDBS, 
and also changes to the Commission's forms for assignments and 
transfers of broadcast authorizations, the database infrastructure 
associated with those forms, and the Public Access portion of CDBS. The 
record does not demonstrate sufficient utility of the information to 
justify these costly undertakings. In any event, parties can use the 
public access portion of CDBS to obtain information concerning 
individual transactions, including those that involve assignments or 
transfers to bankruptcy trustees, debtors-in-possession, or trusts. The 
Public Access portion of CDBS allows users to search for assignment and 
transfer applications based on multiple criteria, including call sign, 
Facility ID Number, service, station location (city and state), 
application file number, and applications status. This electronic 
system also gives users access to the full content of each assignment 
and transfer application, including the portions that describe the 
parties to the application and the nature of the underlying 
transaction(s), and provides information about legal actions pertaining 
to those applications. The Commission intends to implement these 
functions in LMS as well.
    88. Several commenters ask the Commission to modify its electronic 
filing systems, the Public Access portion of CDBS, or the online 
instructions for CDBS. For example, parties ask the Commission to 
create new filing systems for parties with limited broadband access 
and/or update CDBS accounts to recognize the type of entity, list only 
reports applicable to that entity, indicate previous filings and dates, 
allow users to pre-populate entries in new reports based on prior 
reports (including forms of different types), and provide automated 
filing reminders. Several of these capabilities already exist in CDBS. 
For example, if a party uses the same CDBS account for all of its 
filings, that account already contains the station's prior filings as 
well as information about those filings, including submission dates. 
CDBS in many cases allows users to pre-populate new ownership reports 
by copying or prefilling data from another filing of the same type. 
CDBS pre-populates data in some other situations as well. For example, 
when a party launches a covering license application in CDBS, the 
system often pre-populates some information from the related permit 
application. Similarly, CDBS uses information in the Account 
Maintenance menu to prefill respondent, applicant, and contact 
representative information into applications. The Commission intends to 
implement similar functions in LMS

[[Page 19452]]

as well. To utilize these and other burden-reducing capabilities in 
CDBS, filers sometimes use different CDBS accounts for different types 
of filings and different entities. The Commission does not want filers 
to lose the ability to benefit from that practice. The remaining 
suggestions are either technically infeasible or impose significant 
costs on the Commission that appear to exceed any possible benefits at 
this time. Other commenters suggest various enhancements to search 
capabilities within the Public Access portion of CDBS, including 
searching ownership reports by gender, race, ethnicity, voting 
percentage, and equity percentage; displaying explanatory messages when 
searches produce no results; and alerting searchers about assignment 
and/or transfer applications. Broadband Institute of California also 
requests that the Commission allow users to search ownership reports by 
station call sign. The Public Access portion of CDBS already provides 
the ability to do so. It should be noted, however, that because station 
Facility ID Numbers, unlike station call signs, are permanent, Facility 
ID Number searches provide more reliable results than call sign 
searches. Researchers and other parties currently can download the data 
files from the Commission's Web site at any time and study, search, and 
manipulate the data in a wide variety of ways. This suggests that 
developing an extensive catalog of complex query options within the 
public search functionality of the Commission's electronic filing 
system would impose unnecessary costs on the Commission. UCC et al. 
argue that the form in which the Commission makes its broadcast 
ownership data available to the public renders the data incapable of 
being searched, aggregated, and cross referenced electronically. This 
is incorrect. The Commission has ensured that the data submitted on 
Form 323 are incorporated into a relational database, the most common 
database format, which is standard for large, complicated, interrelated 
datasets. It is available to the public. Complete raw data from the 
Commission's broadcast ownership filings, both current and historical, 
are available for download via a Web page on the Commission's Web site, 
and it is updated on a daily basis to account for new and amended 
filings. Users can access and manipulate the data in almost limitless 
ways. The Commission has also made explanatory documents publicly 
available and easy to find. These steps represent extensive progress 
towards the goal of making ownership data available to the public in a 
form that is capable of being electronically searched, aggregated, and 
cross referenced.
    89. Finally, several commenters ask that the Commission not audit 
ownership data submitted by NCE stations and/or that NCE entities be 
subject to reduced compliance standards and/or forfeitures. The 
Commission believes that in order to maintain and improve the quality 
of both its commercial and noncommercial ownership data, the Commission 
must have the ability to audit broadcast ownership data and hold 
parties responsible for their submissions. Accordingly, the Commission 
declines to make any changes to its approach to ownership report data 
audits and related forfeitures at this time.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    90. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in the Fourth Diversity Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(Fourth Diversity Further Notice), the Sixth Diversity Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (Sixth Diversity Further Notice), and the 
Seventh Diversity Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Seventh 
Diversity Further Notice). No comments were filed addressing the IRFA 
regarding the issues raised in these further notices of proposed 
rulemaking. Because the Commission amended the rules in the Report and 
Order, Second Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration (Report 
and Order), the Commission has included this Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). This present FRFA conforms to the RFA.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
    91. The Report and Order enhances the collection of data reported 
on FCC Form 323, Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations, 
and FCC Form 323-E, Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast 
Stations, to improve the data available to analyze issues relevant to 
ownership and viewpoint diversity. These improvements are designed to 
advance the Commission's long-standing goal of promoting diversity in 
ownership of broadcast stations to ensure that diverse viewpoints and 
perspectives are available to the American people in the content they 
receive over the broadcast airwaves. In pursuit of this goal, the 
Commission has a long history of promulgating rules and regulations 
intended to foster diversity in terms of minority and female ownership. 
A necessary precursor to the Commission's rulemaking efforts is the 
collection of comprehensive, reliable data reflecting the race, gender, 
and ethnicity of the owners and other interest holders in broadcast 
stations. Such data are essential to effectively study and analyze 
ownership trends, to assess the impact of Commission rules, and to 
provide the foundation for the consideration of new rules, among other 
things. To be useful for this purpose, to the greatest extent possible 
the data must be capable of being read, verified, searched, aggregated, 
and cross-referenced electronically.
    92. Accordingly, pursuant to the Commission's statutory mandate 
contained in section 257 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 
1996 Act) and section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934 (the 
Act) to promote opportunities for small businesses and women and 
minorities in the broadcasting industry, the Commission implements a 
Restricted Use FRN (RUFRN) within the Commission's Registration System 
(CORES) that individuals may use solely for the purpose of broadcast 
ownership report filings. The Commission believes that the RUFRN will 
allow for sufficient unique identification of individuals listed on 
broadcast ownership reports without necessitating the disclosure to the 
Commission of individuals' full Social Security Numbers (SSNs). In 
light of the adoption of the RUFRN requirement, the Commission 
eliminates the availability of the Special Use FRN (SUFRN) for 
broadcast station ownership reports, except in very limited 
circumstances as further described herein. The Commission also 
prescribes revisions to Form 323-E that conform reporting for 
noncommercial broadcast stations more closely to those for commercial 
stations, including information about race, gender, and ethnicity of 
existing attributable interest holders; the use of a unique identifier; 
and the biennial filing requirement. Finally, the Commission makes a 
number of significant changes to the reporting requirements that reduce 
the filing burdens on broadcasters, streamline the process, and improve 
data quality. These changes include extending the biennial filing 
deadline, reducing the number of filings required, improving the 
reporting of other

[[Page 19453]]

broadcast and newspaper interests, and other modifications.
2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA
    93. The Commission received no comments in direct response to the 
IRFAs contained in the Fourth Diversity Further Notice, the Sixth 
Diversity Further Notice, and the Seventh Diversity Further Notice in 
this docket. However, as further discussed below, the Commission 
received comments that discuss the additional burdens on broadcast 
licensees, including small entities. For reasons discussed below, some 
commenters oppose the adoption of the RUFRN requirement, the 
elimination of the availability of the SUFRN, and the expansion of the 
race, gender, and ethnicity reporting for Form 323-E.
    94. The actions taken in the Report and Order advance the 
Commission's commitment to improving the comprehensiveness and 
reliability of the ownership data collected on Forms 323 and 323-E to 
enable more effective analysis of ownership trends in support of policy 
initiatives promoting diversity in ownership of broadcast stations. As 
a result, the Commission will no longer allow filers to use SUFRNs on 
biennial ownership reports, except in limited cases, and instead will 
require that on such forms filers provide an RUFRN or CORES FRN for any 
reportable individual attributable interest holder. In addition, the 
Commission updates its reporting requirements for NCE stations to more 
closely parallel the requirements for commercial stations. The Report 
and Order also makes certain changes to the Commission's Form 323 and 
323-E aimed at reducing the filing burdens on broadcasters and 
improving data collections. Finally, the Commission declines to adopt 
certain proposals detailed in comments in this proceeding as redundant, 
unnecessary, technically infeasible, or unsupported.
    95. Availability of the RUFRN. Currently, filers of Form 323 
(Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcasters) must provide an FCC 
Registration Number (FRN) generated via CORES for each reported 
attributable party. To obtain a CORES FRN, an individual must submit 
his or her SSN to the Commission through CORES. CORES FRNs therefore 
can be used to uniquely identify individuals reported on Form 323, 
which is crucial to the quality and utility of the Commission's 
broadcast ownership data. Filers also have the option of reporting an 
SUFRN for individuals, if after good-faith efforts, the filer is unable 
to report a CORES FRN for that individual. As further discussed below, 
the Commission finds that the existence of SUFRNs undermines the 
usefulness and integrity of the Commission's broadcast ownership data, 
because they are not backed by identifying information that allows the 
Commission to uniquely identify an individual reported on the biennial 
ownership reports.
    96. In the Report and Order, the Commission notes that it is 
sensitive to the concerns raised regarding a proposed requirement that 
every individual interest holder of a broadcast station submit his or 
her SSN to the Commission for the purpose of reporting a CORES FRN on 
the broadcast ownership reports. The Commission finds that the RUFRN 
(which does not require the submission of a full SSN but instead 
requires submission of full name, residential address, date of birth, 
and only the last four digits of the individual's SSN) will support the 
Commission's data gathering and policy-making initiatives by providing 
reasonable assurance that individuals reported on the broadcast 
ownership reports are uniquely identified in a manner that ensures that 
the data collected can be meaningfully searched, aggregated, and cross-
referenced electronically. Moreover, the use of SUFRNs on Form 323 has 
compromised the integrity of the data collected and frustrated the 
Commission's attempts to fulfill its statutory mandates under section 
257 and section 309(j). Accordingly, the Report and Order adopts the 
RUFRN for use on Form 323 by attributable individuals. An individual 
requesting an RUFRN would be required to submit his or her name, date 
of birth, and residential address, along with the last four digits of 
his or her SSN, to CORES.
    97. The identifying information provided by the individual in order 
to obtain an RUFRN will be confidentially stored within CORES, and only 
the individual's name and RUFRN will be available publicly. The 
underlying information will be entirely machine readable and will not 
require the manual consideration of each biennial ownership form to 
compare associated name and address information to analyze whether Form 
323 entries might identify the same individual or different 
individuals. When the individual applicant obtains an RUFRN, the 
applicant will be asked to list all CORES FRNs registered to the 
individual and all SUFRNs that the individual previously used in any 
broadcast ownership report filings since the 2009 biennial reporting 
cycle. The Commission concludes that this disclosure will allow the 
Commission to identify all CORES FRNs, RUFRNs, and SUFRNs that identify 
the same individual, which will promote the usefulness of the broadcast 
ownership data for purposes of electronic searching, aggregating and 
cross-referencing, and for trend analysis. Once an RUFRN is issued, an 
ownership report filing that lists the individual associated with that 
RUFRN will be required to include that RUFRN. However, an individual 
may opt to use a traditional CORES FRN instead of obtaining and using 
an RUFRN.
    98. The Commission also concludes that permitting individual 
interest holders the ability to obtain and report an RUFRN in lieu of a 
traditional CORES FRN will impose minimal costs and burdens, if any, on 
individuals or filers. Those that already have a CORES FRN will be able 
to continue to use that existing number without the need to register 
for an RUFRN, and any individuals interested in obtaining a CORES FRN 
will still be able to do so. Registering for an RUFRN is a one-time 
process that takes a few moments to complete, and there are at most de 
minimis costs or burdens associated with obtaining the RUFRN. The use 
of the RUFRN as a unique identifier that can be easily cross-referenced 
will also enable the Commission to make certain modifications to 
broadcast ownership reporting that will reduce burdens on all filers, 
as described below, and will therefore further improve the quality of 
the ownership data submitted to the Commission. Although some 
commenters argue that implementing the RUFRN would impose specific 
burdens on NCE licensees, as discussed below, no commercial station 
disputes the Commission's finding that RUFRNs will not be burdensome 
for commercial entities.
    99. Commenters also raise concerns about the security and integrity 
of CORES and argue that registering for a CORES FRN or an RUFRN may 
leave individuals vulnerable to identity theft. The Commission agreed 
with commenters that privacy and security with respect to personally 
identifiable information are paramount, and the Commission stated that 
it is confident that the steps taken and the procedures in place assure 
the security of the Commission's systems. In fact, the Commission 
stated that it is not aware of any breaches to CORES. In the Seventh 
Diversity Further Notice, the Commission explained that it was in the 
process of implementing certain improvements before the completion of 
the Information Security GAO Report, and the Commission continues today 
to

[[Page 19454]]

strengthen its security environment using the recommendations included 
in the Report. The CORES architecture exceeds Federal guidelines, and 
the Commission's databases are behind several firewalls. Administrative 
access to the CORES application is limited and all transmission of non-
public data is encrypted. Moreover, the Commission has made numerous 
upgrades to its network, including implementing enhanced perimeter 
controls, malware protection, and monitoring devices, and upgrading 
workstations to operating systems with improved security. As a result, 
the Commission's network is stronger, better, and more secure than ever 
before. Security will continue to be one of the Commission's highest 
priorities, and the Commission will continue to make the necessary 
upgrades to ensure the security of CORES and all of its systems. In 
response to the Seventh Diversity Further Notice, the National 
Association of Broadcasters also commented that RUFRNs, because they 
create a unique identifier without requiring individuals to submit full 
SSNs to the Commission, provide a `safety valve' for individuals who 
might be reluctant to obtain a CORES FRN due to data privacy concerns.
    100. Modifications to Form 323-E. To enhance the completeness of 
the Commission's data collection, promote data integrity, and ensure 
that data are electronically readable and aggregable, the Commission 
also revises Form 323-E for NCE stations to collect race, gender, and 
ethnicity information for attributable interest holders, require that 
CORES FRNs or RUFRNs be used, and conform the biennial filing deadline 
of broadcast ownership reports for NCEs with commercial stations. The 
Commission finds that it has authority under section 257 of the 1996 
Act and section 309(j) of the Act to collect race, gender, and 
ethnicity information from attributable interest holders in NCE 
stations, and the Commission affirms the conclusion in the Fourth 
Diversity Further Notice that doing so will further the goal of 
designing policies to advance diversity.
    101. The Fourth Diversity Further Notice sought comment on the 
proper definition of ``ownership'' in the NCE context, asking whether 
looking at the composition of the board of directors or other governing 
body of an NCE station would be appropriate for determining 
``ownership'' for Form 323-E purposes. Several commenters support this 
approach, noting, for example, that board members have legally 
cognizable duties to the station licensees, often are involved in 
station operations and hiring decisions, have final authority over NCE 
licensees, and are responsible to the local communities they serve. 
Other commenters argue that dissimilarities between the governance of 
commercial and NCE stations precludes any definition of ``ownership'' 
in the NCE context. These parties note that board members do not have 
equity stakes in the stations they serve; are often governmental 
officials, governmental appointees, individuals elected by station 
members, or volunteers; and often are not involved in day-to-day 
station operations.
    102. The Commission finds that officers and directors of NCE 
stations already are defined as attributable interest holders in NCE 
stations and that such individuals are already identified on Form 323-
E. The additional requirements imposed in the Report and Order do not 
involve crafting or imposing a new legal definition of `ownership' with 
respect to NCE stations. For purposes of Form 323 and 323-E, the 
concept of ownership relies on the attribution standards set forth in 
section 73.3555 of the Commission's rules. The Report and Order notes 
the instances in which individuals or entities may hold attributable 
ownership interests in commercial broadcast stations without holding 
equity interests in those stations. For example, an officer or director 
of a commercial broadcast licensee is an attributable owner of the 
licensee's station(s), regardless of whether he or she has any equity 
interest in the licensee. The Commission's standards for attributable 
ownership generally do not depend on equity positions, and many parties 
hold attributable interests in stations without any equity involvement 
in those stations. These attribution standards apply to both commercial 
and noncommercial stations, and the individuals and entities these 
standards capture have the potential to exert influence over the 
licensee, regardless of whether the station at issue is commercial or 
noncommercial. The Commission adds that the observation that NCE board 
members are often governmental officials, governmental appointees, 
individuals elected by station members, or volunteers does not alter 
the Commission's view, as the attribution standards rely not on the 
manner in which that individual became a member of the station's 
governing body, but on the ability to influence station programming or 
operations of that station that the membership confers. Accordingly, 
arguments that the Commission should not impose these additional 
requirements for NCE stations because the individuals have no equity 
ownership therefore are not compelling. The Commission notes that its 
rules do allow officers and directors to be exempted from attribution 
in limited circumstances, even in the NCE context.
    103. The Commission is unconvinced that providing the race, gender, 
and ethnicity on Form 323-E is burdensome and would discourage board 
participation. Many NCE stations already provide similar information in 
an annual report to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), and 
the record does not reflect that the CPB reporting is burdensome or 
discourages participation. The Commission does not believe that 
providing similar information to the Commission would have a 
significantly different impact, and other actions adopted herein should 
reduce the burden on all filers. Accordingly, the Commission believes 
that any additional burdens associated with providing race, gender, and 
ethnicity information are outweighed by the benefits of requiring the 
reporting of such information.
    104. The Report and Order also concludes that extending the RUFRN 
mechanism to Form 323-E is necessary to help ensure the reliability of 
the broadcast ownership data it collects. While some commenters support 
the conclusion that RUFRNs are essential to allow analysis of the data, 
others argue that the RUFRNs would offer limited utility on Form 323-E. 
The Commission disagrees. The Commission believes that a unique 
identifier for each individual attributable interest holder is 
necessary to make the NCE data aggregable, machine readable, and 
searchable in the same manner as commercial broadcast station 
information. As the GAO recognized, to fully understand and analyze the 
ownership of broadcast stations, NCE stations must be included. The 
Commission's experience with the commercial biennial ownership reports 
from 2009, 2011, and 2013 revealed that use of SUFRNs is not workable 
to create data reliability and the record in this proceeding offers no 
reason to believe that use of SUFRNs in broadcast ownership reports for 
NCE stations would likely be any more successful. The presence of the 
RUFRN on the reports for noncommercial stations will allow the tracking 
of ownership trends over time and allow us to determine with certainty 
the presence of multiple broadcast interests.
    105. The Commission also disagrees with commenters that argue that 
the CORES FRN and RUFRN requirements are unduly burdensome and would

[[Page 19455]]

discourage people from serving on the boards of NCE stations. The 
process for obtaining a CORES FRN or RUFRN is quite simple and only has 
to be completed once. And while the first time they file the revised 
Form 323-E, NCE filers may require additional time and effort to 
coordinate with attributable interest holders, the Commission finds 
that the sufficient lead time between now and the 2017 filing window 
will sufficiently mitigate any burden. The Commission is not persuaded 
that the requirement will significantly inhibit interest holders from 
serving on the boards of NCE stations as they are already identified as 
such on Form 323-E. Moreover, the attributable interest holder need not 
share any personally identifying information with anyone other than the 
Commission in order to obtain a CORES FRN or an RUFRN. The Commission 
does not believe that the RUFRN would serve as a serious disincentive 
to participation in NCE stations, and reminds filers that SUFRNs will 
be available for use on Form 323-E in the same limited circumstances 
that SUFRNs will be available to Form 323 filers.
    106. Limited Availability of SUFRNs. The Report and Order retains 
the availability of the SUFRN, but only for the limited purpose of 
protecting the position of filers in the case of interest holders that 
refuse to obtain an FRN or provide the licensee with the information 
necessary to generate an FRN for the interest holder. The Commission 
expects that where an individual interest holder does not already have 
a CORES FRN, filers will acquire an RUFRN or CORES FRN for such 
individuals after obtaining the requisite identifying information, or 
will instruct the individual to obtain his or her own RUFRN or CORES 
FRN and to provide the FRN to the filer for reporting on the biennial 
ownership report form. In order for the RUFRN system to be effective, 
the Commission believes that it is necessary to ensure that filers are 
using reasonable and good faith efforts to obtain RUFRNs from 
individuals with reportable interests (or from CORES on behalf of such 
individuals). Filers should take specific steps to substantiate that 
they are making such efforts, and the Commission finds that instructing 
an individual about his or her obligations and about potential 
enforcement action are specific steps that would demonstrate 
``reasonable and good faith efforts.'' An SUFRN may be obtained only if 
an individual still refuses to provide a means of reporting a valid 
RUFRN or CORES FRN after the filer has taken such steps. If an SUFRN is 
used, the Commission may take enforcement action against the filer and/
or the recalcitrant individual. The filer itself will be exempt from 
enforcement action if the filer substantiates that it has used 
reasonable and good faith efforts as described herein.
    107. The Media Bureau is directed to include instructions for Forms 
323 and 323-E and post language on its Form 323 and 323-E Web site, 
informing reportable interest holders of their obligation to obtain and 
provide an RUFRN or CORES FRN, or to permit an RUFRN or CORES FRN to be 
acquired on their behalf, and to alert interest holders of the risk of 
enforcement action for failure to provide an RUFRN or CORES FRN or to 
permit an RUFRN or CORES FRN to be obtained. The Commission anticipates 
that the 2017 filing period will be the first filing period that the 
requirement will be implicated, and the time frame mitigates any 
potential burden because filers will have ample time to ensure that 
they have a current and correct RUFRN or CORES FRN for the individuals 
and entities reported on the Forms 323 and 323-E.
    108. Filing Burden Reductions and Improved Data Integrity. In the 
Report and Order, the Commission also implemented a number of changes 
to Forms 323 and 323-E and moved the filing deadlines in order to 
reduce filing burdens and improve data quality.
    109. To permit filers more time to file Form 323, the Commission 
moved the filing deadline from November 1 to December 1. The Commission 
found that the 60-day period between the October 1 ``as of'' date and 
the filing date should provide sufficient flexibility for filers such 
that other deadlines or holidays do not complicate compliance. The 
Commission also adopted a uniform filing date of December 1 for filing 
the Form 323-E biennial ownership report. In the Fourth Diversity 
Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on whether it should 
adopt uniform filing and ``as of'' dates for Form 323-E. Currently, NCE 
stations submit biennial Form 323-E in accordance with a set of 
staggered deadlines. Some commenters suggested that a uniform filing 
date for Form 323-E should be in the first quarter, to correspond to a 
date that certain NCE stations submit similar data to CPB. The 
Commission found that this suggestion would not allow it to obtain the 
synchronized data, i.e., commercial and noncommercial ownership data 
that is captured on the same date, needed to evaluate minority and 
female participation in broadcasting over all the services over the 
time. Moreover, because not all NCE stations submit data to CPB, 
efforts by the Commission to coordinate with CPB would not fully 
address the filing deadline issue. Accordingly, the Commission will 
require NCE filers to submit Form 323-E in accordance with the same 
``as of'' date and filing deadline applicable to commercial 
broadcasters (i.e., their filings will be due on December 1 of odd-
numbered years and the ownership information provided should be current 
as of October 1 of the filing year). The Commission required NCE 
stations to file Form 323-E on the same schedule as Form 323 in order 
to make the ownership data collected by the ownership reports easier to 
work with and to facilitate ownership studies using data captured on a 
uniform ``as of'' date.
    110. The current version of Form 323 allows parent-entity filers to 
list only one subsidiary licensee and its associated stations. As a 
result, parent entities with multiple licensee subsidiaries must file 
separate ownership reports for each of those licensees. In the Sixth 
Diversity Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on a proposal 
to modify the form to allow parents with several wholly owned licensee 
subsidiaries to list all of those licensees and their associated 
stations on one report and whether the proposal should be expanded to 
allow parent entities to file consolidated reports for all of their 
licensee subsidiaries, regardless of whether or not those subsidiaries 
are wholly owned. The Commission found that modifying Form 323 to allow 
a parent entity with multiple licensee subsidiaries to file one report 
that covers all of those licensees will greatly reduce the burden on 
many filers with no negative impact on the quality of the ownership 
data. Accordingly, the Commission adopted three changes to Form 323: 
(1) It modified section I, question 7, of the form to allow parent 
filers to list multiple subsidiary licensees and the stations 
associated with those licensees; (2) it deleted the portion of section 
II-A, question 3(a) (non-biennial), and section II-B, question 3(a) 
(biennial), asking filers to identify the relation that each reportable 
individual or entity has to the licensee; and (3) it deleted section 
II-B, question 4 (biennial), asking each parent filer to identify the 
entity or entities directly below it in the licensee's ownership chain. 
The revised version of Form 323-E incorporates these modifications as 
well. No commenters opposed these proposals.
    111. In the Review of Media Data Practices proceeding, NAB 
requested that the Commission eliminate section

[[Page 19456]]

II-B, question 3(c), of Form 323, which requires a filer to disclose 
the other attributable newspaper and broadcast interests of 
attributable parties listed in response to section II-B, question 3(a). 
NAB argued that submission of this data is burdensome, requiring 
significant amounts of data entry and file uploading via a series of 
subforms and spreadsheet attachment(s). The Commission sought comment 
on this proposal in the Sixth Diversity Further Notice and no 
commenters opposed the proposal. The Commission declined to eliminate 
the question in its entirety, but believes that modifications to the 
reporting requirements for other attributable broadcast and daily 
newspaper interests will reduce filing burdens and improve the quality 
of the Commission's data. Because information concerning the other 
attributable broadcast interests of a party listed on one ownership 
report is contained on one or more other ownership reports, the 
Commission believes it can greatly simplify the reporting of other 
broadcast interests of attributable parties on the biennial Form 323 
without sacrificing the completeness or usability of the Commission's 
data. In other words, the public can ascertain a reported interest 
holder's other broadcast interests by performing a search of other 
filed ownership reports. Accordingly, the Commission (1) deletes the 
broadcast interest portion section II-B, question 3(c); (2) adds simple 
yes/no buttons to relevant subforms; (3) modifies the public search 
capabilities of the electronic filing system to allow users to search 
ownership report filings by FRN and output the results as either a list 
of reports or a list of stations.
    112. Information concerning daily newspaper interests does not 
appear anywhere on Form 323 except in response to question 3(c). In 
other words, an interest holder's daily newspaper interests cannot be 
ascertained except in direct response to this question. The Commission 
determined that it therefore cannot remove the newspaper interests 
portion of section II-B, question 3(c), without sacrificing the quality 
and completeness of the data. However, to improve the quality of the 
data collected in response to this question and enhance the ability of 
parties to search, aggregate, and cross-reference that data, the 
Commission modified the subforms and the spreadsheet attachments for 
the newspaper interests portion of section II, question 3(c), to 
require filers to provide an FRN (either a CORES FRN or RUFRN, or an 
SUFRN, subject to the limitations addressed above) for each person and 
entity listed. In order to further reduce filing burdens and improve 
the quality of the ownership data, the Commission incorporated these 
changes into biennial and non-biennial versions of Form 323 and Form 
323-E.
    113. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted commenters' 
proposal to allow parties to identify themselves as Tribal entities on 
Form 323-E in order to inform the Commission's ongoing efforts to 
expand broadcast opportunities for Tribal entities. Because these 
efforts involve both commercial and noncommercial broadcasting, and in 
light of the Commission's ongoing efforts to improve its broadcast 
ownership data collections, the Commission found that the rationale for 
adding a Tribal Entity designation to Form 323-E applied equally to 
Form 323. The Commission found that the collection of this information 
on a biennial basis will be minimally burdensome, and any increased 
burden is outweighed by the significant burden-reducing measures 
adopted in the Report and Order. Accordingly, the Commission modified 
section II-B, question 2(a), of Form 323 and the parallel question in 
the revised version of Form 323-E to allow (but not require) filers to 
indicate whether or not licensees and/or reported attributable entities 
are Tribal Nations or Tribal entities.
    114. The Commission also opted to include in section I, question 8, 
of Form 323 the designation for limited liability companies. Currently, 
the question requires a filer to identify the nature of the respondent, 
and currently allows the filer to choose between the designations of 
sole proprietorship, for-profit corporation, not-for-profit 
corporation, general partnership, and limited partnership. Respondents 
that do not fit into one of these categories must select ``other'' and 
provide an explanatory exhibit. The Commission found that adding the 
limited liability company designation to this question will reduce 
burdens on limited liability company filers by eliminating the need to 
provide an exhibit.
    115. The Commission also reduced burdens and improved the quality 
and usability of the ownership data by clarifying the manner in which 
filers should report contracts and other instruments that must be filed 
with the Commission, as described in 47 CFR 73.3613. Currently, Form 
323 and Form 323-E require stations to list all contracts required to 
be filed with the Commission pursuant to Sec.  73.3613. The respondent 
on any given report may or may not be a party to these contracts and 
instruments. Some filers list all relevant documents on the licensee's 
ownership report, while other filers opt to list different documents on 
different reports. The latter approach requires filers to include 
different, often overlapping, lists of documents on multiple reports 
and forces researchers and other parties to examine all of a station's 
ownership filings to construct a complete list of that station's 
required contracts and instruments. To address these issues, the 
Commission modified the relevant questions on Form 323 and Form 323-E 
to require all Sec.  73.3613 documents for a station to be listed on 
the report for that station's licensee. The Commission determined that 
clarification will reduce filing burdens, because filers will be able 
to enter all required information on the licensee report and simply 
check ``N/A'' for all parent filings.
    116. The Commission also reduced burdens by eliminating question 2 
of section II-A and section II-B of Form 323, which requires filers to 
provide capitalization information for any respondent that is a 
licensee, permittee, or entity that has a majority interest in, or 
otherwise exercises de facto control over the licensee. Eliminating 
this question will reduce filing burdens without meaningfully 
compromising data quality because question 3(a) better addresses the 
Commission's need to ascertain equity ownership of, and voting rights 
in, the respondent than does question 2(a).
    117. To improve the quality of the broadcast ownership data 
collections, the Commission added a ``yes/no'' question to each subform 
of Form 323, section II-A, question 3(a) (non-biennial), and section 
II-B, question 3(a) (biennial), to allow parties to identify jointly 
held voting interests. In certain circumstances, two or more parties 
hold a voting interest in a licensee or other respondent jointly. Two 
parties may, for example, hold 100 percent of the voting interest in an 
entity together, as joint tenants (as opposed to each individual 
holding 50 percent of the voting interests). Similarly, agreements for 
partnerships or limited liability companies may provide that two or 
more individuals exercise voting power together, such that any of the 
relevant parties can fully exercise the voting interest. Because the 
current version of Form 323 provides no mechanism for parties to 
identify situations in which voting interests are jointly held, it is 
likely that filers report such interests in different ways, which leads 
to errors and inconsistencies in the Commission's data. In reviewing 
submitted data, the Commission found

[[Page 19457]]

that the inability to identify and interpret jointly held voting 
interests on ownership reports rendered it impossible for Commission 
staff to electronically or manually process those reports. Parties 
reviewing non-biennial Form 323 filings will face similar difficulties. 
Accordingly, the Commission finds that adding a question to Form 323 to 
address this issue is a minimally burdensome way to improve the quality 
of the Commission's ownership data. Because the Commission did not 
believe that there are many jointly held voting interests in the NCE 
context, the Commission did not make a similar modification to Form 
323-E at this time.
    118. The Commission also modifies Form 323 section II-A, question 
3(a) (non-biennial) and section II-B, question 3(a) (biennial) to add a 
new positional interest category that will allow filers to identify 
reported parties that are attributable by virtue of a joint sales 
agreement (JSA) or local marketing agreement (LMA). This change is 
designed to increase the usability of the Commission's ownership data 
and reflects the Commission's recent decision concerning attribution of 
television JSAs.
    119. The Report and Order also addressed some proposals submitted 
by commenters that it has declined to implement at this time. The 
Commission declined to adopt a proposal to extend reporting 
requirements to parties that operate a station pursuant to a 
nonattributable LMA. The Commission declined to extend the reporting 
requirement to nonattributable operating agreements because it was not 
convinced that the current record reflects that a data collection 
focused on this category of nonattributable interest holders would 
meaningfully improve the data set. The Commission also declined to 
adopt a proposal to create a separate filing category for transfers to 
bankruptcy trustees, debtors-in-possession, or trusts, because the 
record did not demonstrate the utility of the information, particularly 
in light of the fact that the Commission's online application database 
and/or Web site already provide information concerning individual 
transactions. The Public Access portion of CDBS allows users to search 
for assignment applications based on multiple criteria, including call 
sign, Facility ID Number, service, station location (city and state), 
application file number, and applications status. This electronic 
system also gives users access to the full content of assignment and 
transfer applications and provides information concerning legal actions 
pertaining to those applications.
    120. Several commenters asked the Commission to modify its 
electronic filing system, the Public Access portion of CDBS, or the 
online instructions for CDBS. For example, parties asked the Commission 
to create new filing systems for parties with limited broadband access 
and/or to update CDBS accounts to recognize the type of entity, list 
only reports applicable to that entity, indicate previous filings and 
dates, allow users to pre-populate entries in new reports based on 
prior reports (including forms of different types), and provide 
automated filing reminders. Several of these capabilities already exist 
in CDBS. For example, if a party uses the same CDBS account for all of 
its filings, that account already contains the station's prior filings 
as well as information about those filings, including submission dates. 
CDBS in many cases allows users to pre-populate new ownership reports 
by copying or prefilling data from another filing of the same type. To 
utilize these and other burden-reducing capabilities in CDBS, filers 
sometimes use different CDBS accounts for different types of filings 
and different entities. The Commission did not want filers to lose the 
ability to benefit from the ability to use the same CDBS account for 
all of its filings. The remaining suggestions were either technically 
infeasible or would impose significant costs on the Commission that 
appear to exceed any possible benefits at this time. Other commenters 
suggested various enhancements to search capabilities within the Public 
Access portion of CDBS, including searching ownership reports by 
gender, race, ethnicity, voting percentage, and equity percentage; 
displaying explanatory messages when searches produce no results; and 
alerting searchers about assignment and/or transfer applications. 
Researchers and other parties currently can download the data files 
from the Commission's Web site at any time and study, search, and 
manipulate the data in a wide variety of ways. This limits the need for 
the Commission to develop an extensive catalog of complex query options 
within the Public Access portion of CDBS. The Commission found that the 
costs of implementing these suggested modifications to CDBS at this 
time exceed the benefits.
    121. Several commenters asked that the Commission not audit 
ownership data submitted by NCE stations and/or that NCE entities be 
subjected to reduced compliance standards and/or forfeitures. The 
Commission found that in order to maintain and improve the quality of 
both the commercial and noncommercial ownership data, the Commission 
must have the ability to audit broadcast ownership data and hold 
parties responsible for their submissions. Accordingly, the Commission 
declined to make any changes to its approach to ownership report data 
audits and related forfeitures.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Would Apply
    122. 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 Small Business Administration 
(SBA). The actions taken herein affect small television and radio 
broadcast stations. A description of these small entities, as well as 
an estimate of the number of such small entities, is provided below.
    123. Television Broadcasting. The SBA defines a television 
broadcasting station that has no more than $38.5 million in annual 
receipts as a small business. The definition of business concerns 
included in this industry states that establishments are primarily 
engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These firms operate 
television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and 
transmission of programs to the public. These firms also produce or 
transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television 
stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a 
predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio, 
from an affiliated network, or from external sources. Census data for 
2007 indicate that 808 such firms were in operation for the duration of 
that entire year. Of these, 709 had annual receipts of less than $25.0 
million per year and 99 had annual receipts of $25.0 million or more 
per year. Based on this data and the associated size standard, the 
Commission concludes that the majority of such firms are small.

[[Page 19458]]

    124. Additionally, the Commission has estimated the number of 
licensed commercial television stations to be 1,391. According to 
Commission staff review of BIA/Kelsey, LLC's Media Access Pro 
Television Database on July 22, 2015, about 1,268 of an estimated 1,391 
commercial television stations (or approximately 91 percent) had 
revenues of $38.5 million or less. The Commission has estimated the 
number of licensed noncommercial educational television stations to be 
394. 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.
    125. 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.
    126. Radio Broadcasting. The SBA defines a radio broadcasting 
entity that has $38.5 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.'' Census data for 2007 indicate that 2,926 such firms were in 
operation for the duration of that entire year. Of these, 2,877 had 
annual receipts of less than $25.0 million per year and 49 had annual 
receipts of $25.0 million or more per year. Based on this data and the 
associated size standard, the Commission concludes that the majority of 
such firms are small.
    127. Further, according to Commission staff review of BIA/Kelsey, 
LLC's Media Access Pro Radio Database on July 22, 2015, about 11,354 
(or about 99.9 percent) of 11,364 commercial radio stations in the 
United States have revenues of $38.5 million or less. The Commission 
has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial radio stations to be 
4,091. 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.
    128. 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 they apply may 
be over-inclusive to this extent.
    129. 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 $38.5 million in annual receipts. As of June 
30, 2015, there are approximately 422 licensed Class A stations and 
1,920 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.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements
    130. The Report and Order requires all individuals reported on Form 
323 and Form 323-E to obtain and provide a CORES FRN or an RUFRN. 
However, the SUFRN remains available in limited circumstances, but 
individuals for whom an SUFRN is reported may be subject to enforcement 
action. Currently, the Commission requires all attributable interest 
holders of commercial broadcast stations to be reported on Form 323. 
The Report and Order also now requires filers of Form 323-E to provide 
the race, gender, and ethnicity of individuals reported on Form 323-E. 
The Report and Order states that both Form 323 and Form 323-E are due 
no later than December 1, 2017, and every two years thereafter. The 
Ownership Reports must reflect information current as of October 1 of 
the filing year.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
    131. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that is has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which 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.
    132. The Report and Order explains that the RUFRN is designed to be 
an alternative to requiring submission of an individual's full SSN to 
CORES in order to generate a CORES FRN for purposes of being reported 
on the biennial ownership reports. The Commission found that an FRN 
generated through CORES is far superior for purposes of

[[Page 19459]]

tracking individual owners and that the decision to allow individual 
attributable interest holders the option of obtaining and using an 
RUFRN in lieu of a TIN/SSN backed CORES FRN will impose minimal costs 
and burdens, if any, on individuals or filers. However, the Commission 
decided to maintain the availability of the SUFRN in limited 
circumstances so that filers, including small entities, may timely 
submit a Form 323 or Form 323-E even if the filer was unable to obtain 
a CORES FRN or RUFRN for a reported individual. The individual for whom 
an SUFRN is reported may be subject to enforcement action for failure 
to obtain and provide a CORES FRN or RUFRN, pursuant to Commission 
policy and its rules.
    133. The Commission has extended the filing deadline for Form 323 
to permit all filers, including small businesses, an additional 30 days 
to file the ownership report. The Commission also set the filing 
deadlines for Form 323-E to coincide with the deadlines for Form 323. 
The Commission considered a proposal to set the uniform filing deadline 
for Form 323-E to the first quarter to coincide with the date that 
certain NCE stations submit similar data to CPB. The Commission found 
that this suggestion would not allow it to obtain the synchronized data 
needed to evaluate minority and female participation in broadcasting 
over all the services over time. Moreover, because not all NCE stations 
submit data to CPB, efforts by the Commission to coordinate with CPB 
would not fully address the filing deadline issue.
    134. The Report and Order adopted changes to Forms 323 and 323-E to 
reduce the filing burden on all filers, including small entities. The 
Commission alleviated the filing burden by modifying Form 323 to allow 
a parent entity with multiple licensee subsidiaries to file one report 
that covers all of those licensees. This modification will also be 
reflected on the revised Form 323-E. The Commission also deleted the 
broadcast interests portion of section II-B, question 3(c), and instead 
will add simple yes/no radio buttons to the subforms of that question 
that require filers to indicate whether each reported entity or 
individual has other attributable broadcast interests. In order to 
further reduce filing burdens and improve the quality of its ownership 
data, the Commission incorporated this change into biennial and non-
biennial versions of Form 323 and Form 323-E. The Commission also 
modified the relevant questions on Form 323 and Form 323-E to require 
all section 73.3613 documents for a station to be listed on the report 
for that station's licensee. This clarification will reduce filing 
burdens, because filers will be able to enter all required information 
on the licensee report and simply check ``N/A'' for all parent filings. 
The Commission also reduced burdens by eliminating on Form 323, 
question 2 of section II-A and section II-B, which requires filers to 
provide capitalization information for any respondent that is a 
licensee, permittee or entity that has a majority interest in, or 
otherwise exercises de facto control over the licensee. Form 323 will 
now include a limited liability company designation in section 1, 
question 8, which will reduce the filing burden on limited liability 
company filers by eliminating the need to provide an explanatory 
exhibit.
6. Report to Congress
    135. Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including 
this FRFA, in a report to Congress and the Government Accountability 
Office, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the 
Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this 
FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration. A copy of this Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

B. Congressional Review Act

    136. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a 
report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

V. Ordering Clauses

    137. Accordingly it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 257, 303(r), 307, 309, and 310 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 
154(i), 257, 303(r), 307, 309, and 310, this Report and Order is 
adopted.
    138. It is further ordered that the Koerner & Olender Petition for 
Reconsideration and the Fletcher Heald Petition for Reconsideration are 
granted to the extent the relief requested is consistent with this 
Report and Order and are otherwise denied.
    139. It is further ordered that the rule amendments attached hereto 
as Appendix B and the revised filing procedures and changes to FCC Form 
323 and FCC Form 323-E adopted in this Report and Order will become 
effective upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register 
announcing approval by the Office of Management and Budget.
    140. It is further ordered that the Media Bureau is hereby 
delegated authority to make all necessary changes to Form 323, Form 
323-E, and the Commission's electronic database system to implement the 
changes adopted in this Report and Order.
    141. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.
    142. It is further ordered that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of 
this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcast services.

47 CFR Part 74

    Experimental radio, Auxiliary, Special broadcast and other program 
distributional services.

Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 73 and 74 as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339.


0
2. Section 73.3615 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (f) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  73.3615  Ownership reports.

    (a) The Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations (FCC 
Form 2100, Schedule 323) must be filed electronically every two years 
by each licensee of a commercial AM, FM, or TV broadcast station and 
any entity that holds an interest in the licensee that is attributable 
pursuant to Sec.  73.3555 (each a ``Respondent''). The ownership report 
shall be filed by December 1 in all odd-numbered years. Each ownership 
report shall provide all information required by, and comply with all 
requirements set forth in, the version of FCC Form

[[Page 19460]]

2100, Schedule 323 (including all instructions for the form and 
schedule) that is current on October 1 of the year in which the 
ownership report is filed. The information provided on each ownership 
report shall be current as of October 1 of the year in which the 
ownership report is filed. A Respondent with a current and unamended 
biennial ownership report (i.e., an ownership report that was filed 
pursuant to this subsection) on file with the Commission that is still 
accurate and which was filed using the version of FCC Form 2100, 
Schedule 323 that is current on October 1 of the year in which its 
biennial ownership report is due may electronically validate and 
resubmit its previously filed biennial ownership report.
    (b)(1) Each permittee of a commercial AM, FM or TV broadcast 
station and any entity that holds an interest in the permittee that is 
attributable pursuant to Sec.  73.3555 (each a ``Respondent'') shall 
file an ownership report on FCC Form 2100, Schedule 323 within 30 days 
of the date of grant by the FCC of an application by the permittee for 
original construction permit. Each ownership report shall provide all 
information required by, and comply with all requirements set forth in, 
the version of FCC Form 2100, Schedule 323 (including all instructions 
for the form and schedule) that is current on the date on which the 
ownership report is filed.
    (2) Except as specifically noted below, each permittee of a 
commercial AM, FM or TV broadcast station and any entity that holds an 
interest in the permittee that is attributable pursuant to Sec.  
73.3555 (each a ``Respondent'') shall file an ownership report on FCC 
Form 2100, Schedule 323 on the date that the permittee applies for a 
station license. Each ownership report shall provide all information 
required by, and comply with all requirements set forth in, the version 
of FCC Form 2100, Schedule 323 (including all instructions for the form 
and schedule) that is current on the date on which the ownership report 
is filed. If a Respondent has a current and unamended ownership report 
on file with the Commission that was filed pursuant to paragraphs 
(b)(1) or (c) of this section, was submitted using the version of FCC 
Form 2100, Schedule 323 that is current on the date on which the 
ownership report due pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) is filed, and is 
still accurate, the Respondent may certify that it has reviewed such 
ownership report and that it is accurate, in lieu of filing a new 
ownership report.
    (c) Each permittee or licensee of a commercial AM, FM or TV 
broadcast station and any entity that holds an interest in the 
permittee or licensee that is attributable pursuant to Sec.  73.3555 
(each a ``Respondent''), shall file an ownership report on FCC Form 
2100, Schedule 323 within 30 days of consummating authorized 
assignments or transfers of permits and licenses. Each ownership report 
shall provide all information required by, and comply with all 
requirements set forth in, the version of FCC Form 2100, Schedule 323 
(including all instructions for the form and schedule) that is current 
on the date on which the ownership report is filed.
    (d) The Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations (FCC 
Form 2100, Schedule 323-E) must be filed electronically every two years 
by each licensee of a noncommercial educational AM, FM or TV broadcast 
station and any entity that holds an interest in the licensee that is 
attributable pursuant to Sec.  73.3555 (each a ``Respondent''). The 
ownership report shall be filed by December 1 in all odd-numbered 
years. Each ownership report shall provide all information required by, 
and comply with all requirements set forth in, the version of FCC Form 
2100, Schedule 323-E (including all instructions for the form and 
schedule) that is current on October 1 of the year in which the 
ownership report is filed. The information provided on each ownership 
report shall be current as of October 1 of the year in which the 
ownership report is filed. A Respondent with a current and unamended 
biennial ownership report (i.e., an ownership report that was filed 
pursuant to this subsection) on file with the Commission that is still 
accurate and which was filed using the version of FCC Form 2100, 
Schedule 323-E that is current on October 1 of the year in which its 
biennial ownership report is due may electronically validate and 
resubmit its previously filed biennial ownership report.
    (e)(1) Each permittee of a noncommercial educational AM, FM or TV 
broadcast station and any entity that holds an interest in the 
permittee that is attributable pursuant to Sec.  73.3555 (each a 
``Respondent'') shall file an ownership report on FCC Form 2100, 
Schedule 323-E within 30 days of the date of grant by the FCC of an 
application by the permittee for original construction permit. Each 
ownership report shall provide all information required by, and comply 
with all requirements set forth in, the version of FCC Form 2100, 
Schedule 323-E (including all instructions for the form and schedule) 
that is current on the date on which the ownership report is filed.
    (2) Except as specifically noted below, each permittee of a 
noncommercial educational AM, FM or TV broadcast station and any entity 
that holds an interest in the permittee that is attributable pursuant 
to Sec.  73.3555 (each a ``Respondent'') shall file an ownership report 
on FCC Form 2100, Schedule 323-E on the date that the permittee applies 
for a station license. Each ownership report shall provide all 
information required by, and comply with all requirements set forth in, 
the version of FCC Form 2100, Schedule 323-E (including all 
instructions for the form and schedule) that is current on the date on 
which the ownership report is filed. If a Respondent has a current and 
unamended ownership report on file with the Commission that was filed 
pursuant to paragraphs (e)(1) or (f) of this section, was submitted 
using the version of FCC Form 2100, Schedule 323-E that is current on 
the date on which the ownership report due pursuant to this subsection 
is filed, and is still accurate, the Respondent may certify that it has 
reviewed such ownership report and that it is accurate, in lieu of 
filing a new ownership report.
    (f) Each permittee or licensee of a noncommercial educational AM, 
FM or TV broadcast station, and any entity that holds an interest in 
the permittee or licensee that is attributable pursuant to Sec.  
73.3555 (each a ``Respondent''), shall file an ownership report on FCC 
Form 2100, Schedule 323-E within 30 days of consummating authorized 
assignments or transfers of permits and licenses. Each ownership report 
shall provide all information required by, and comply with all 
requirements set forth in, the version of FCC Form 2100, Schedule 323-E 
(including all instructions for the form and schedule) that is current 
on the date on which the ownership report is filed.
* * * * *

PART 74--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER 
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES

0
3. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 336 and 554.


0
4. Section 74.797 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  74.797  Biennial Ownership Reports.

    The Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations (FCC Form 
2100, Schedule 323) must be electronically filed by December 1 in all 
odd-numbered years by each licensee of

[[Page 19461]]

a low power television station or other Respondent (as defined in Sec.  
73.3615(a) of this chapter). A licensee or other Respondent with a 
current and unamended biennial ownership report (i.e., a report that 
was filed pursuant to this subsection) on file with the Commission that 
is still accurate and which was filed using the version of FCC Form 
2100, Schedule 323 that is current on October 1 of the year in which 
its biennial ownership report is due may electronically validate and 
resubmit its previously filed biennial ownership report. The 
information provided on each ownership report shall be current as of 
October 1 of the year in which the ownership report is filed. For 
information on filing requirements, filers should refer to Sec.  
73.3615(a) of this chapter.

[FR Doc. 2016-04838 Filed 4-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P