10442 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Margaret Sieffert, Environmental 

Engineer, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard (AT–18J), Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 353–1151, 

sieffert.margaret@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Rules section of this Federal Register, 

EPA is approving the State Plan as a 

direct final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. Please note 

that if EPA receives adverse comment 

on an amendment, paragraph, or section 

of this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. For additional 

information, see the direct final rule 

which is located in the Rules section of 

this Federal Register. 

Dated: February 12, 2015. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03790 Filed 2–25–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 07–294, MD Docket. No. 

10–234; FCC 15–19] 

Promoting Diversification of 

Ownership in the Broadcasting 

Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) proposes improvements 

to the collection of data reported on FCC 

Form 323, Ownership Report for 

Commercial Broadcast Stations, and 

also to FCC Form 323–E, Ownership 

Report for Non Commercial Broadcast 

Stations, through the development of a 

new functionality in the Commission’s 

Registration System (CORES) for issuing 

FCC Registration Numbers (FRNs). 

Specifically the Commission seeks 

comment on a proposal to create a new 

mechanism for an individual to obtain 

an FRN that is usable only for broadcast 

ownership reporting purposes through 

CORES. 

DATES: The Commission must receive 

written comments on or before March 

30, 2015 and reply comments on or 

before April 13, 2015. Written 

comments on the Paperwork Reduction 

Act proposed information collection 

requirements must be submitted by the 

public, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), and other interested 

parties on or before April 27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket No 07–294 

and/or MD Docket No 10–234, by any of 

the following methods: 

D Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

D People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake 

Riehm, Industry Analysis Division, 

Media Bureau, FCC, (202) 418–2330. For 

additional information concerning the 

PRA proposed information collection 

requirements contained in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, contact Cathy 

Williams at (202) 418–2918, or via the 

Internet at PRA@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

and Seventh Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (Second FNPRM and 

Seventh FNPRM) in MB Docket Nos. 07– 

294 and 10–234; FCC 15–19, adopted 

February 11, 2015, and released 

February 12, 2015. The complete text of 

this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

Summary 

I. Introduction 

1. The Commission has a longstanding goal of promoting ownership 

diversity in 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. A necessary foundation for 

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 study and 

analyze ownership trends effectively, to 

assess the impact of Commission rules, 

and to determine whether rule changes 

would be in the public interest. To be 

useful for these purposes, to the greatest 

extent possible the data must be capable 

of being read, verified, searched, 

aggregated, and cross-referenced 

electronically. 

2. As a part of these efforts, the 

Commission herein proposes 

improvements to the collection of data 

reported on FCC Form 323, Ownership 

Report for Commercial Broadcast 

Stations, and also to FCC Form 323–E, 

Ownership Report for Noncommercial 

Broadcast Stations, through the 

development of a new functionality in 

the Commission’s Registration System 

(CORES) for issuing FCC Registration 

Numbers (FRNs). Specifically, we seek 

comment on a proposal to create a new 

mechanism for obtaining an FRN 

through CORES. Use of this FRN would 

be restricted to the reporting of 

individual attributable interest holders 

in commercial and noncommercial 

broadcast stations on ownership reports. 

This ‘‘Restricted Use’’ FRN (RUFRN) 

would be supported by identifying 

information for attributable individuals 

that does not include full Social 

Security Numbers (SSNs) and that 

would be housed securely on the 

Commission’s servers and not made 

available to the public. This proposal is 

intended to address some of the privacy 

and data security concerns that 

commenters raised with respect to prior 

proposals while still enabling the 

Commission to uniquely identify 

reported individuals, obtain data 

reflecting a more useful, accurate, and 

thorough assessment of minority and 

female broadcast station ownership in 

the United States and reduce certain 

filing burdens. Ultimately, such changes 

to the Commission’s system could assist 

future initiatives promoting diverse 

ownership. 

II. Background 

3. The Commission is engaged in 

ongoing efforts to improve the quality, 

utility, and reliability of its broadcast 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10443 

1See generally 323 Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 5903 

para. 12. See Promoting Diversification of 

Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, 74 FR 

56135, Oct. 30, 2009; Promoting Diversification of 

Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, 74 FR 

56136, Oct. 30, 2009 (Federal Register notices 

announcing OMB approval and effective date of 

revised Form 323). On October 16, 2009, the 

Commission sent a subsequent letter to OMB 

acknowledging the Commission’s action in the 323 

Order to eliminate the reporting of certain 

nonattributable interest holders. Letter from Walter 

Boswell, Acting Assoc. Managing Director, PERM, 

OMD, FCC, to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB (Oct. 16, 

2009). 

2Public Information Collection Requirement 

Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval, 

Comments Requested, MB Docket No. 07–294, 74 

FR 40188, Aug. 11, 2009. 

3 Id. at 7–8. The Commission issued a System of 

Records Notice to cover the data contained in 

responses to Form 323 that became effective on 

December 21, 2009. Privacy Act System of Records, 

74 FR 59978, Nov. 19, 2009 (system of records FCC/ 

MB–1). 

4See Promoting Diversification of Ownership in 

the Broadcasting Services, 74 FR 56135, Oct. 30, 

2009; Promoting Diversification of Ownership in 

the Broadcasting Services, 74 FR 56136, Oct. 30, 

2009 (Federal Register notices announcing OMB 

approval and effective date of revised Form 323). 

On October 16, 2009, the Commission sent a 

subsequent letter to OMB acknowledging the 

Commission’s action in the 323 MO&O to eliminate 

the reporting of certain nonattributable interest 

holders. Letter from Walter Boswell, Acting Assoc. 

Managing Director, PERM, OMD, FCC, to Nicholas 

A. Fraser, OMB (Oct. 16, 2009). 

ownership data. As part of this 

endeavor, in 2009 the Commission 

substantially revised Form 323. The 

changes to the filing requirements and 

the modifications to the form were 

intended to facilitate long-term 

comparative studies of broadcast station 

ownership and to address flaws in the 

data collection process identified by the 

United States Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) and by 

researchers. ‘‘To further improve the 

ability of researchers and other users of 

the data to cross-reference information 

and construct ownership structures,’’ 

filers were required to provide a CORES 

FRN for all reported interest holders.1

To obtain a CORES FRN, with some 

limited exceptions, a party must submit 

a Tax Identification Number (TIN) to the 

Commission via CORES. In the case of 

an individual, a TIN is his or her SSN. 

Because a CORES FRN is backed by a 

TIN/SSN, it can serve as a unique 

identifier in most instances, which is 

crucial to the quality and utility of the 

Commission’s broadcast ownership data 

and the ability of the Commission and 

outside parties to search, aggregate, and 

cross-reference that data electronically. 

4. OMB Review and Approval of 2009 

Form 323. On August 11, 2009, the 

Commission submitted the revised Form 

323, which included the CORES FRN 

requirement, 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.2

Many of the comments to OMB objected 

to having to report CORES FRNs for 

individuals holding attributable 

interests, arguing that in order to obtain 

a CORES FRN for these individuals, 

they would need to provide SSNs to the 

Commission, a requirement that they 

claimed triggers privacy, data security, 

and identity theft concerns. 

Commenters also suggested that 

obtaining and reporting CORES FRNs 

for these individuals would be onerous 

for filers, and that in some cases, filers 

might be unable to obtain a CORES FRN 

for all individual attributable interest 

holders because the individuals are 

unwilling either to obtain the FRN 

themselves or provide their SSN to the 

filer for the purpose of obtaining an 

FRN. Additionally, commenters 

criticized the Commission for failing to 

seek comment on requiring these 

individuals to obtain CORES FRNs prior 

to including this requirement on the 

revised form submitted for OMB 

approval. 

5. 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.’’ Noting that the CORES 

FRN is a key tool for ensuring that 

ownership data is matched to specific 

owners, OMD explained that, without 

the CORES FRNs, it would be unable to 

accurately determine an interest 

holder’s identity when variations of a 

single name or other spelling 

irregularities appear from form to form. 

The Reply Letter also responded to 

comments that the Commission erred in 

concluding that the revised Form 323 

did not implicate the Privacy Act. OMD 

stated that because sole proprietors, 

officers, and directors are acting in an 

entrepreneurial role with respect to 

broadcast stations, these persons are not 

individuals for purposes of the Privacy 

Act. OMD added that, to the extent that 

the revisions raise any privacy concerns, 

the Commission created a Privacy Act 

System of Records (SORN) for Form 323 

that would address them.3 The Reply 

Letter also rejected allegations that the 

Commission failed to comply with the 

notice requirements of the PRA. OMD 

also disputed commenters’ objections 

that the CORES FRN requirement raised 

security and identity theft concerns. 

OMD noted that ‘‘none of the 

commenters identify a single instance of 

a security breach’’ of the CORES system. 

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. OMD stated that 

its servers are securely located, that its 

databases are behind several firewalls, 

and that all servers and communications 

are monitored. The Reply Letter also 

notes that administrative access to the 

CORES application is limited and that 

all transmission of non-public data is 

encrypted. 

6. On October 19, 2009, OMB 

approved the revised Form 323, 

including the requirement that filers 

provide a CORES FRN for all 

individuals and entities holding an 

attributable interest in the licensee.4

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 for 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 

a ‘‘Special Use’’ FRN (SUFRN) for one 

or more reported individuals in lieu of 

obtaining a CORES FRN. When clicking 

a button on the electronic version of 

Form 323 to generate a 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 a 

social security number 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 a 

SUFRN for that individual. The 

respondents were also informed that 

those who use a SUFRN on Form 323 

would be deemed to be fully compliant 

with the filing obligations and the lack 

of a CORES FRN would not subject a 

filer to enforcement action. An 

individual does not submit an SSN, or 

any other identifying information, to the 

Commission when he or she generates a 

SUFRN, and SUFRNs are not stored 

within CORES. Each individual must 

obtain only one SUFRN and must use it 

consistently on all broadcast ownership 

reports. Filers submitted reports on the 

revised version of Form 323 during the 

2009, 2011, and 2013 biennial filing 

periods, and SUFRNs were available to 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10444 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

filers during all three biennial filing 

rounds. 

7. Quality of Data in Form 323 

Biennial Reports. 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; an Order in which the 

Commission adopted measures intended 

to promote minority and female 

ownership of broadcast stations. 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 

determining eligibility for particular 

programs and preferences based on 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 upon 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 remand.’’ 

8. 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). On June 27, 2014, the 

Bureau released a similar, second report 

for 2013 ownership data (2014 323 

Report). The data contained in these 

reports are ‘‘snapshots’’ of the status of 

minority and female ownership of 

commercial television, radio, Class A 

television, and LPTV stations and 

represent the first three of a planned 

series of biennial ‘‘snapshots’’ that can 

be used for trend analysis. Preparation 

of the reports revealed continued 

difficulties with, and errors within, the 

Commission’s broadcast ownership 

data. Many commercial broadcast 

stations submitted reports with 

apparently inaccurate or insufficient 

data to permit electronic calculation of 

voting interests. Commission staff 

required numerous broadcasters to 

correct errors contained in their biennial 

Form 323 filings via amendments, 

which allowed stations covered by those 

reports to be properly categorized for 

the report. In addition, Commission staff 

manually analyzed a large number of 

ownership reports, together with other 

available information, in order to assign 

certain stations to the appropriate 

categories manually for purposes of the 

report. As the 2012 323 Report stated, 

many data problems stemmed, in part, 

from the ‘‘complexity of the information 

required to accurately file’’ Form 323. 

9. The Media Bureau’s Consolidated 

Database System (CDBS) reflects that for 

each filing round, more than one quarter 

of the unique FRNs provided for 

individuals were SUFRN. Further, a 

combined analysis of the 2009, 2011, 

and 2013 filing rounds shows that more 

than 30 percent of the total unique FRNs 

reported were SUFRNs and the rate at 

which filers obtained and reported new 

SUFRNs for individuals was higher than 

the rate at which they obtained and 

reported new CORES FRNS. In addition, 

it appears that single SUFRNs have been 

used for multiple individuals and that 

single individuals have used multiple 

SUFRNs despite Bureau guidance to the 

contrary. Because it is possible for filers 

to improperly report SUFRNs for 

individuals—either by reporting 

multiple SUFRNs for a single individual 

on multiple reports or using the same 

SUFRN for multiple individuals on 

multiple reports—the number of unique 

SUFRNs reported during a given filing 

period cannot be relied on to determine 

accurately the number of individuals 

using a Special Use FRN. The Media 

Bureau therefore cannot confidently 

determine the number of individuals 

reporting a SUFRN. 

10. 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 

notice 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 expressed 

concern that the Commission’s 

incomplete and inaccurate ownership 

data render it difficult to track broadcast 

ownership trends from 2009 and 2011 

accurately. 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. 

11. On June 27, 2014, the Commission 

solicited comment concerning the 2014 

323 Report as part of its 2014 

Quadrennial Review Proceeding. In 

response, commenters acknowledged 

that the Commission has taken steps to 

improve the quality of its broadcast 

ownership data. Nonetheless, some 

parties suggested 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. Some commenters 

supported elimination of the use of 

SUFRNs to ensure accuracy, reliability, 

and usefulness of the data. 

12. Proposals Related to 

Noncommercial Broadcast Stations. The 

Commission has put forth several 

proposals that remain pending to 

improve the broadcast ownership 

reports focused on making the data 

more comprehensive, reliable, and less 

burdensome to collect. For instance, the 

Fourth Diversity Further Notice, which 

accompanied the 323 Order, generally 

sought comment on whether to adopt 

the same or similar modifications for 

Form 323–E for noncommercial stations 

(NCEs) as the 323 Order imposed for 

commercial stations. The Notice 

specifically 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 licensees 

they serve and often are involved in 

station operations and hiring decisions, 

have final authority over NCE licensees, 

and are responsible to the local 

communities they serve. This approach 

is consistent with the Commission’s 

attribution standards, which attribute 

ownership interests to officers and 

directors of NCE stations. Other 

commenters argue that dissimilarities 

between the governance of commercial 

and NCE stations preclude any 

definition of ‘‘ownership’’ in the NCE 

context. These parties note that board 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10445 

5Sixth Diversity Further Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 

472, para. 18. The Commission also noted that it 

has already adopted a Privacy Act System of 

Records 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. Id.; see also Reply Letter at 7– 

8; Privacy Act System of Records, 74 FR 59978, 

Nov. 19, 2009 (system of records FCC/MB–1 for 

Form 323); Privacy Act System of Records, 71 FR 

17234, Apr. 5, 2006 (system of records FCC/OMD– 

9 for CORES). These System of Records Notices 

(‘‘SORNS’’) can be viewed at http://www.fcc.gov/

encyclopedia/privacy-act-information#systems 

(visited Dec. 15, 2014). 

6See generally CORES Notice, 25 FCC Rcd at 

17401, para. 1. The CORES Notice was published 

in the Federal Register on February 11, 2011. See 

Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission’s Rules, 

Concerning Practice and Procedure, Amendment of 

CORES Registration System; Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, MD Docket No. 10–234, FCC 10–192, 

76 FR 5652, February 1, 2011. Comments and Reply 

Comments were due on March 3, 2011 and March 

18, 2011, respectively. See id. 

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. 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. Other commenters 

argue that the collection of such 

information is minimally burdensome 

and agree that such information is 

necessary to construct a complete 

picture of minority and female 

participation in broadcasting. 

13. On January 3, 2013, the 

Commission released its Sixth Diversity 

Further Notice. It specifically proposed 

extending the CORES FRN requirement 

to all listed interest holders on Form 

323–E if the filing modifications 

proposed in the Fourth Diversity Further 

Notice are implemented. The Sixth 

Diversity Further Notice tentatively 

concluded that obtaining and reporting 

a CORES FRN for individuals identified 

on Form 323–E is not burdensome and 

sought comment. Some commenters 

believe that the public interest benefits 

associated with compiling 

comprehensive data on this segment of 

the broadcast industry outweigh any 

burdens associated with such a plan. 

Several commenters argue that the 

requirement would be unduly 

burdensome for NCEs and that it would 

discourage people from serving on the 

boards of NCE stations. Parties also state 

that licensees may have difficulty 

obtaining SSNs from board members, 

some of whom are appointed 

governmental officials. In addition, 

certain commenters suggest that a 

CORES FRN is insufficient as a unique 

identifier because, for example, (1) 

multiple FRNs can be obtained for a 

single TIN/SSN, (2) an individual can in 

certain circumstances obtain a CORES 

FRN without providing an SSN, (3) an 

individual may provide an incorrect 

SSN, either intentionally or 

inadvertently, and (4) researchers 

outside the Commission do not have 

access to the TIN information in CORES 

to permit them to use it as an 

underlying unique identifier. Citing the 

Privacy Act, multiple commenters 

object to a requirement that 

noncommercial attributable interest 

holders obtain a CORES FRN for Form 

323–E filings because it requires 

submission of an SSN. 

14. Use of CORES FRNs Versus Use of 

SUFRNs. The Sixth Diversity Further 

Notice also sought comment on the 

Commission’s requirement that 

commercial entities filing Form 323 

provide a CORES FRN for attributable 

interest holders. The Commission 

tentatively affirmed its prior 

determination that the use of CORES 

FRNs was crucial to unique 

identification on Form 323 and that 

such unique identification is essential to 

providing the kind of searchable and 

manipulable database needed to support 

accurate and reliable studies of 

ownership trends. It tentatively 

concluded that the reporting of CORES 

FRNs on Form 323 was superior to the 

reporting of SUFRNs and proposed 

eliminating the availability of SUFRNs. 

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.’’ Acknowledging 

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 

quality, cross-referencing, and 

searchability purposes. 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 

encouraged commenters to offer 

alternative proposals to the SUFRN. The 

Commission also 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.5

15. In response to the Sixth Diversity 

Further Notice, some commenters 

support the Commission’s proposal to 

eliminate the SUFRN, arguing that 

requiring CORES FRNs ‘‘is a necessary 

step’’ to compiling complete and 

searchable data. These commenters also 

suggest that the availability of the 

SUFRN contributed to the instances of 

incomplete data that prevented the 

Media Bureau from identifying 

ownership interests in some stations 

that submitted biennial ownership 

reports during the 2009 and 2011 

reporting periods. No commenters 

offered any alternative to the CORES 

FRN other than the SUFRN, and no 

commenters seriously contend that the 

SUFRN provides similar data quality as 

CORES FRNs. Instead, some 

commenters argue that even a CORES 

FRN cannot serve as a unique identifier 

because, for instance, the CORES system 

allows filers to obtain multiple FRNs 

and because outside researchers do not 

have access to the underlying TIN as a 

unique identifier. Also, while some 

commenters support the Commission’s 

conclusion that a unique identifier is 

essential to allow analysis of the data, 

other commenters dispute that position. 

16. The Sixth Diversity Further Notice 

also sought input concerning proposed 

modifications to Form 323 designed to 

reduce filing burdens in the 

Commission’s Review of Media Bureau 

Data Practices proceeding. For instance, 

the Commission sought comment on an 

NAB suggestion to eliminate a 

requirement that a filer disclose the 

other attributable newspaper and 

broadcast interests of attributable parties 

listed in the filing, arguing that portion 

of the submission is particularly 

burdensome. In comments, NAB 

reiterates its support and no 

commenters oppose it. 

17. In December 2010, the 

Commission initiated a rulemaking 

proceeding in which it proposed to 

update CORES in an effort to enhance 

the Commission’s data collection efforts 

and to improve customer interface with 

CORES.6 The Commission noted that, 

‘‘[s]ince the creation of CORES, entities 

have been able to obtain multiple FRNs 

in order to permit different members of 

their corporate family to obtain their 

own individual FRNs, regardless of 

whether those entities have different 

taxpayer identification numbers. . . .’’ 

The CORES Notice also stated that the 

Commission has had difficulty using 

CORES to identify all FRNs held by the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10446 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

same entity when entities have provided 

inconsistent TINs. To address these 

issues, the CORES Notice sought 

comment on two proposals for requiring 

entities and individuals to rely 

primarily upon a single CORES FRN. 

Under Option 1, an entity would be 

required to use a single ten-digit FRN 

for all of its dealings with the FCC, but 

would have the ability to create an 

unlimited number of sub-accounts that 

could be assigned to organizational 

units, such as a geographic district 

served by the entity or a distinct line of 

business conducted by the entity, or 

even to particular employees. Option 2 

would enable entities that currently 

hold multiple FRNs to retain all of their 

various FRNs, which would be 

electronically linked to each other 

within the Commission’s database 

through the assignment of an identical 

prefix that would precede each of the 

entity’s ten-digit FRNs. Commenters 

generally support Option 2 as a 

mechanism for limiting parties’ use of 

multiple CORES FRNs. 

III. Discussion 

18. We propose implementing an 

RUFRN for use on Form 323 filings. We 

tentatively conclude that this proposal 

will provide reasonable assurance of 

unique identification of individuals 

within our broadcast ownership report 

database, which is critical to the 

improvement of the Commission’s data 

gathering practices. We also tentatively 

conclude that RUFRNs provide superior 

data quality to SUFRNs and could 

enable the Commission to implement a 

burden-reducing form modification. We 

next consider ways in which the 

RUFRN proposal is consistent with 

other Commission data gathering and 

policy initiatives. Thereafter we propose 

to apply RUFRNs to NCE filings if 

additional Commission action is 

undertaken with respect to broadcast 

ownership reporting in the NCE 

industry segment. We believe that the 

quality of the Commission’s security 

systems and the Privacy Act are not a 

barrier to the system proposed. In 

addition, we tentatively conclude that 

the RUFRN proposal is not burdensome. 

We ask for comment on whether 

SUFRNs should remain available in the 

case of recalcitrant individuals. We seek 

comment on the costs and benefits of all 

the proposals contained herein and any 

alternatives commenters propose. 

19. RUFRNs Support the 

Commission’s Data Gathering and 

Policy Making Initiatives. We continue 

to believe, as described below, that the 

Commission must be able to identify 

parties reported on broadcast ownership 

reports uniquely for purposes of 

creating reliable and usable data in 

support of policy initiatives promoting 

diverse ownership. Our RUFRN 

proposal is important to the 

Commission’s ongoing mission to 

improve, streamline, and modernize the 

way it collects and uses data. We wish, 

however, to balance these Commission 

objectives against the privacy, data 

security, and identity theft concerns of 

individuals with attributable interests in 

broadcast stations. The Commission is 

particularly sensitive to concerns that 

have been expressed in the existing 

record in the Diversity proceeding 

concerning the proposal that individual 

attributable interest holders of broadcast 

stations provide an SSN to the 

Commission for purposes of broadcast 

ownership reporting. 

20. Accordingly, we propose to 

establish an alternative mechanism 

within CORES to identify individuals 

uniquely that does not require 

submission of a full SSN to the 

Commission. This method would allow 

an individual to obtain an RUFRN from 

CORES by submitting an alternate set of 

identifying information—including full 

name, residential address, date of birth, 

and last four digits of the individual’s 

SSN. The CORES system will be 

programmed to verify that the submitted 

information is complete and does not 

duplicate any information that is 

already associated with an RUFRN in 

CORES. We also propose that when an 

applicant obtains an RUFRN the 

individual will be asked to list all 

CORES FRNs registered to the 

individual and all SUFRNs that 

individual previously used in any 

broadcast ownership report filings since 

the 2009 biennial reporting cycle. We 

tentatively conclude that such 

disclosures will allow the Commission 

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. Once an RUFRN is 

issued, we propose that any ownership 

report filing that lists that specific 

individual would be required to include 

that RUFRN. We propose that 

attributable interest holders would not 

be required to obtain or use an RUFRN 

for Form 323 (or Form 323–E if the 

filing obligations proposed in the Fourth 

Diversity Further Notice are extended to 

NCEs) and could instead opt to use a 

CORES FRN. Like SUFRNs, we propose 

that RUFRNs would be usable only on 

broadcast ownership reporting forms 

and only for individuals (not entities) 

reported as attributable interest holders. 

We seek comment on these proposals 

and tentative conclusions and on the 

costs and benefits of using an RUFRN as 

described herein for broadcast 

ownership reporting purposes. 

21. The Commission has previously 

recognized that Sections 257 of the 1996 

Act and 309(j) of the Act support its 

efforts to gather the ownership data 

contained in Form 323. In the 1998 

Biennial Review Order, 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. 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 minorityowned 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. The 

Commission has recognized that CORES 

FRNs offer a unique identifier and 

therefore play an important role in 

promoting the integrity of the data 

collected. 

22. We tentatively find that flaws in 

the current practices related to the 

reporting of SUFRNs for individuals 

listed on Form 323 compromise the 

integrity of the data and thereby 

frustrate the Commission’s attempts to 

fulfill its statutory mandates under 

section 257 and section 309(j). Because 

our policy initiatives are dependent on 

the quality of the data collected, we 

tentatively conclude that requiring an 

FRN generated by CORES, either 

through existing mechanisms or via the 

proposed method to obtain an RUFRN, 

for all reportable interest holders on 

Forms 323 (and 323–E if proposals in 

the Fourth Diversity Further Notice are 

adopted) is essential to improve the 

quality and usability of the data 

collected. We seek comment on these 

tentative conclusions. 

23. We tentatively conclude that 

having reasonable assurance that 

attributable interest holders are 

uniquely identified on ownership 

reports in a manner that ensures the 

data can be meaningfully searched, 

aggregated, and cross-referenced 

electronically is crucial to data quality 

and usability. In the Sixth Diversity 

Further Notice we tentatively concluded 

that TINs/SSNs within CORES were 

necessary as underlying unique 

identifiers of individuals. Would the 

RUFRN system described provide 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10447 

sufficient assurances that individuals 

are uniquely identified? For instance, 

are the specific pieces of identifying 

information described in our proposal 

(full name, residential address, date of 

birth, and last four digits of the 

individual’s SSN) sufficient to provide a 

reasonable basis for determining that an 

individual identified is unique within 

the CORES system? Are there a 

sufficient number of criteria included in 

the proposal or are there additional 

pieces of information that would 

improve the reliability of the data? Are 

there additional or different pieces of 

information that better enable the 

Commission to ensure that individuals 

are uniquely identified? If so, what 

additional or different pieces of 

information should the Commission 

require? What risk would remain that 

the system could not uniquely identify 

individuals using these pieces of 

information? 

24. A commenter to the Sixth 

Diversity Further Notice asserts that 

unique identification of individuals in 

ownership data is not necessary to study 

broadcast ownership trends over time. 

This argument is not convincing 

because it presumes incorrectly that the 

only utility of the data is to track how 

many stations have minority and/or 

female owners. Other questions relevant 

to evaluating trends in minority and 

female ownership include how many 

individual minority and/or female 

owners exist at a given point and how 

those numbers change over time. The 

Commission cannot count unique 

individual owners without a mechanism 

to identify individuals uniquely. The 

same commenter also states that the fact 

that ownership reports are submitted 

under penalty of perjury is sufficient to 

ensure that parties report race or gender 

information on ownership report filings 

accurately. But, as noted above, 

examination of ownership reports from 

2009, 2011, and 2013 revealed 

numerous data reporting errors due in 

part to the complexity of the 

information required to accurately file 

the form. We have no reason to believe 

that these errors were the result of filers 

attempting to deliberately mislead the 

Commission. We tentatively conclude 

that the presence of a unique identifier 

will improve the quality of our 

ownership data by permitting errors to 

be identified and remedied. For 

example, since an individual’s race 

cannot change over time, the presence 

of the same individual’s FRN on 

multiple reports, along with 

inconsistent race information could 

indicate one or more reporting errors 

that can then be cured. We seek 

comment on these positions. 

25. RUFRNs Provide Superior Data 

Quality to SUFRNs. We tentatively 

conclude that the RUFRN would 

provide superior data quality to the 

SUFRN and we seek comment on that 

tentative conclusion. The SUFRN was 

devised as merely a computer generated 

number 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. 

Because the Commission cannot 

determine whether particular 

individuals hold one or more SUFRNs 

or whether a particular SUFRN is being 

used to identify one or more 

individuals, it cannot reliably examine 

the complete attributable holdings of an 

individual reported with a SUFRN 

(either at a specific time or over time), 

or search, aggregate, and cross-reference 

our ownership data using Commission 

systems. Any attempt at such analysis 

would require manual consideration of 

every single entry where a SUFRN 

appears together with a subjective 

analysis of other textual information 

contained on the form or available from 

other public sources. Manual, subjective 

analysis of thousands of Form 323 

entries using various sources of 

information compromises data integrity 

and data utility. On the other hand, we 

tentatively conclude 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 upon to identify individuals 

uniquely. We seek comment on our 

view that the qualities of the proposed 

RUFRN provide superior data quality to 

the SUFRN. 

26. As noted above, some commenters 

in the Diversity proceeding argued that 

CORES FRNs cannot serve as unique 

identifiers because, for example, 

multiple FRNs can be obtained for a 

single TIN/SSN, an FRN might be 

associated with no TIN or an incorrect 

TIN, and outside researchers do not 

have access to underlying TIN 

information within CORES. We observe 

that the CORES proceeding has 

proposed several options to resolve 

some of these issues. Even as the 

Commission continues to examine those 

issues through its CORES reform 

process, we tentatively conclude, for 

several reasons, that, notwithstanding 

these possibilities, CORES FRNs and 

RUFRNs are still superior to SUFRNs for 

the purpose of broadcast ownership 

reports. To begin with, exceptions 

permitting an individual or entity to 

obtain a CORES FRN without a TIN are 

legitimately available in a limited 

number of cases that would not be 

expected to compromise the overall 

ownership data submitted. And even 

though CORES currently permits an 

individual or entity to obtain multiple 

FRNs with a single TIN, the 

Commission can identify all FRNs that 

relate to a single TIN. Also, we expect 

that individuals and entities will 

comply with our rules and provide 

accurate information during the CORES 

registration process to the greatest 

extent possible. While the Commission’s 

obligation to hold the TIN confidential 

does limit the direct utility of the TIN 

to outside researchers as a unique 

identifier, that limitation does not 

decrease the benefits for data integrity 

and utility to the Commission. With 

respect to the RUFRN proposal, we 

anticipate that the specificity of the 

identifying information required 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. Based on our 

experience in the 2009, 2011, and 2013 

reporting cycles, we tentatively 

conclude that the RUFRN proposal will 

improve the reliability and usability of 

the broadcast ownership report 

database, in furtherance of our statutory 

mandates. We seek comment on these 

conclusions. 

27. RUFRNs May Enable BurdenReducing Form Modification. As noted 

above, the Commission and commenters 

have identified errors in filings 

submitted to the Commission over the 

last three filing periods. We tentatively 

conclude that some such errors could be 

reduced by simplifying the form and 

making it less burdensome to complete 

and submit. Specifically, the record 

reflects proposals that would eliminate 

a filer’s obligation to disclose other 

attributable broadcast interests of 

attributable parties listed in the filing. 

We tentatively conclude that in order to 

implement this burden-reducing form 

modification without compromising the 

scope and content of the information 

collected, the Commission requires a 

unique identifier to allow the filings to 

be electronically searched and crossreferenced within a single filing period 

and over time. We tentatively conclude 

that the existence of unique identifiers 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10448 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

will permit the Commission to make 

this modification while maintaining the 

integrity of its ownership data, thereby 

reducing burdens on filing parties and 

improving the quality of the information 

submitted to the Commission. We seek 

comment on these conclusions. 

28. RUFRN Application in NCE 

Context. We specifically seek additional 

comment concerning the proposal to use 

RUFRNs for Form 323–E if the pending 

proposal in the Fourth Diversity Further 

Notice to modify NCE ownership 

reporting practices to correspond to 

commercial requirements and the 

proposal in the Sixth Diversity Further 

Notice to extend FRN requirements to 

noncommercial stations are adopted. 

We tentatively conclude that if the 

Commission does modify the Form 323– 

E requirements as described in the 

Fourth Diversity Further Notice then a 

CORES-generated FRN, either a 

traditional SSN-based CORES FRN or 

the RUFRN proposed herein, is a 

sufficient and appropriate tool for the 

unique identification of individuals 

with attributable interests in NCEs for 

the same reasons and in the same 

manner as commercial stations. 

Accordingly, we propose 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. We invite comment 

on these tentative conclusions and on 

the foregoing proposal. As described 

above, we note that several commenters 

to the Sixth Diversity Further Notice 

argue that the CORES FRN requirement 

would be unduly burdensome for NCEs 

because an SSN disclosure requirement 

would discourage people from serving 

on the boards of NCE stations and 

licensees would have difficulty 

obtaining SSNs from board members 

who may be government officials. We 

seek comment on how and whether 

these concerns would arise if RUFRNs 

were made available for use in broadcast 

ownership reports. We note that officers 

and directors of NCE stations already 

are reported on Form 323–E and 

questions related to the propriety of 

requiring disclosure of race, gender, and 

ethnicity information on Form 323–E 

are pending pursuant to the Fourth 

Diversity Further Notice. Here we seek 

comment on specifically whether there 

are unique considerations with respect 

to NCE stations that would lead to a 

different conclusion for NCEs than for 

commercial stations with regard to the 

information proposed to be included to 

obtain an RUFRN. If so what are those 

unique considerations? Are there other 

alternatives for unique identification of 

individuals in the NCE context that 

would improve the quality, usability, 

and reliability of our broadcast 

ownership data and/or help ensure that 

our broadcast ownership data can be 

searched, aggregated, and crossreferenced electronically? We invite 

comment on the application of RUFRNs 

to NCEs in the event that the pending 

proposals in the Fourth Diversity 

Further Notice are adopted. 

29. Security of Commission Systems. 

In the Sixth Diversity Further Notice, the 

Commission sought comment on any 

security concerns related to the 

requirement that interest holders submit 

an SSN, noting that only the FRN is 

made public and the SSN is 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 and suggested that 

the Commission’s systems are 

vulnerable to a security breach. 

30. We agree with commenters that 

privacy and security with respect to 

personally identifiable information are 

paramount, and we believe that the 

steps taken and the procedures in place 

assure the security of the Commission’s 

systems. The Commission is not aware 

of any breaches to CORES. In addressing 

similar security concerns from 

commenters, the Commission wrote in 

2009 that the CORES architecture 

exceeds Federal guidelines and that its 

databases are behind several firewalls. 

The Commission also explained that 

administrative access to the CORES 

application is limited and that all 

transmission of non-public data is 

encrypted. Furthermore, the safeguards 

in place in 2009 have been improved. 

Certain improvements were underway 

prior to completion of the Information 

Security GAO Report, and that report 

also provided the Commission with 

additional, valuable recommendations 

for continuing to strengthen our security 

environment. We have implemented 

enhanced perimeter controls, malware 

protection, and monitoring devices and 

upgraded workstations to operating 

systems with improved security. The 

Commission’s security architecture has 

strict operational controls in place that 

comply with National Institute of 

Standards and Technology guidance. As 

the Commission explained to OMB in 

2009, system servers are located behind 

several firewalls and other security 

controls to protect CORES data from 

intrusion by outsiders as well as the 

general Commission population. 

Administrative access to CORES 

remains limited to only certain known 

internal workstations and all servers are 

monitored by automated tools and 

operational procedures. Moreover, the 

Commission made several upgrades to 

all of its systems, including CORES, to 

ensure that its systems remain secure. 

Security will continue to be one of our 

highest priorities. In light of the 

foregoing, we seek comment on whether 

the elimination of the need for 

individual attributable interest holders 

to submit an SSN eliminates the privacy 

and identity theft concerns existing in 

the current record. If not, what privacy 

or identity theft concerns remain and 

how can they be addressed? Are such 

concerns outweighed by the importance 

of the data collection? 

31. Privacy Act. We tentatively 

conclude that the Privacy Act does not 

bar the adoption of the RUFRN 

requirements described herein. The 

Sixth Diversity Further Notice sought 

comments on whether the Privacy Act 

was a barrier to adoption of the CORES 

FRN requirement. No commenters 

asserted that the Privacy Act was a 

barrier to the requirement for 

individuals with attributable interests in 

commercial entities. With respect to 

application of the CORES FRN 

requirement to Form 323–E if the 

proposals in the Fourth Diversity 

Further Notice are adopted, several 

commenters to the Sixth Diversity 

Further Notice argue that the Privacy 

Act bars application of the SSN 

requirement in the NCE context. We 

find that elimination of the SSN 

requirement from the list of identifying 

information that is required in 

conjunction with broadcast ownership 

reporting would further ensure that the 

Privacy Act is not an impediment to the 

proposed RUFRN requirement. Also as 

described above, we tentatively 

conclude that unique identification of 

individuals is essential for ownership 

data quality, utility, and reliability, 

which are critical components of any 

future policy initiatives to promote 

ownership diversity consistent with our 

statutory mandate under the 

Communications Act. Further, the 

Commission has already adopted a 

Privacy Act 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, and to the extent necessary any 

modifications required by the 

implementation of the RUFRN system 

for Form 323 or Form 323–E can be 

addressed with modifications to the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10449 

SORN. We request comment on these 

tentative conclusions. 

32. RUFRNs Are Not Burdensome, 

and the Benefits Outweigh the Costs. We 

continue to believe that obtaining a 

CORES FRN imposes minimal costs and 

burdens, if any, on individuals or filers. 

As noted in the Sixth Diversity Further 

Notice, registering for a CORES FRN is 

a one-time process that takes a few 

moments to complete. An individual 

that already has obtained a CORES FRN 

may continue to use his or her CORES 

FRN for Form 323 filings, and need not 

obtain a RUFRN. Moreover, an 

individual that wishes to obtain a 

RUFRN can easily locate previouslyregistered CORES FRNs through CORES. 

We tentatively conclude that permitting 

individuals holding attributable 

interests in one or more broadcast 

licensees to obtain a RUFRN in lieu of 

obtaining a CORES FRN would impose 

minimal costs or other burdens. We seek 

comment on these tentative conclusions 

and on any potential burdens inherent 

in the RUFRN proposal. We seek input 

on alternatives that might reduce or 

eliminate such burdens as well as the 

costs and benefits of such alternatives. 

To the extent possible, commenters 

should quantify any identified costs and 

benefits. We note that the vast majority 

of individuals reported on Form 323 

have obtained and reported CORES 

FRNs, and we believe it is likely that 

will continue to be the case for future 

broadcast ownership filing obligations. 

Individuals who already have a CORES 

FRN need not obtain an RUFRN and 

may continue to use the existing 

number. Moreover, any individual that 

wishes to obtain a CORES FRN instead 

of an RUFRN will be able to do so. 

Additionally, as explained above, the 

existence of a unique identifier that can 

be cross-referenced may make 

modifications of the reports possible 

that could reduce the burdens on all 

filers and, thereby, further improve the 

quality of the ownership data submitted 

to the Commission. As such, we 

tentatively find that the benefits of 

improved data collection outweigh any 

de minimis costs or burdens associated 

with obtaining an FRN described herein 

and we seek comment on that 

conclusion. To the extent possible, 

commenters should quantify relative 

costs and benefits. 

33. Limited Availability of SUFRNs. 

We seek further comment concerning 

the elimination of the availability of 

SUFRNs for broadcast ownership 

reports. The Sixth Diversity Further 

Notice solicited input on whether to 

retain the SUFRN in the event that 

reportable individuals are unwilling to 

provide their SSNs to third parties or 

unwilling to obtain and provide CORES 

FRNs. In the event that a SUFRN is 

reported for an individual, the Sixth 

Diversity Further Notice explained that 

the Commission could use its 

enforcement authority against 

individuals who failed to obtain a 

CORES FRN. Commenters generally 

support the proposal to retain the 

SUFRN for this limited purpose and 

oppose the Commission’s use of its 

enforcement authority. We seek 

comment on whether the SUFRN should 

continue to be available to Form 323 

filers (and Form 323–E filers if the 

proposals in the Fourth Diversity 

Further Notice are adopted), 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. Would this limited 

availability of SUFRNs appropriately 

protect the position of filers in the case 

of recalcitrant interest holders? Should 

the Commission require filers to take 

specific steps to substantiate that they 

have made a reasonable good faith 

efforts? If so, what steps should be 

required? For instance, should the 

Commission expect that a filer will 

instruct an individual about the 

obligation to supply a filer with a 

CORES FRN or RUFRN or to provide the 

filer with the identifying information 

sufficient to obtain one of these 

numbers on the individual’s behalf? 

Should the filer be expected to instruct 

such an individual about potential 

enforcement action? Should the filer 

itself be exempt from enforcement 

action only if such steps are 

substantiated? Should an instruction be 

included on Form 323 (and Form 323– 

E if the proposals in the Fourth Diversity 

Further Notice are adopted) informing 

reportable interest holders of their 

obligations and alerting them to the risk 

of enforcement action for the failure to 

provide a CORES FRN or RUFRN or to 

permit a CORES FRN or RUFRN to be 

obtained? We seek comment on these 

issues. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

A. Filing Requirements 

34. Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding 

this Notice initiates shall be treated as 

a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 

Persons making ex parte presentations 

must file a copy of any written 

presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

1.1206(b). 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In 

proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f), 47 

CFR 1.49(f), or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

35. Comments and Reply Comments. 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10450 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

36. People With Disabilities: To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov 

or call the Consumer & Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 

202–418–0432 (tty). 

37. Availability of Documents. 

Comments, reply comments, and ex 

parte submissions will be available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY– 

A257, Washington, DC 20554. Persons 

with disabilities who need assistance in 

the FCC Reference Center may contact 

Bill Cline at (202) 418–0267 (voice), 

(202) 418–0432 (TTY), or bill.cline@

fcc.gov. These documents also will be 

available from the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System. 

Documents are available electronically 

in ASCII, Word 97, and Adobe Acrobat. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to fcc504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–1400 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

38. Information. For additional 

information on this proceeding, contact 

Jake Riehm at (202) 418–2166 or Warren 

Firschein at (202) 418–0844. Press 

inquiries should be directed to Janice 

Wise at (202) 418–8165. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 

39. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act 

Analysis. This Second FNPRM and 

Seventh FNPRM seeks comment on 

potential new or revised information 

collection requirements with regard to 

CORES, FCC Form 323, and FCC Form 

323–E. The Commission invites the 

general public, the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) and 

other Federal agencies to comment on 

the information collection requirements. 

This Notice may result in new or 

revised information collection 

requirements. If the Commission adopts 

any new or revised information 

collection requirements, the 

Commission will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register inviting additional 

public comment on the requirements, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

the Commission seeks specific comment 

on how it might ‘‘further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ On October 19, 2009, OMB 

approved the FCC’s proposal to 

implement a CORES FRN requirement 

for all individuals holding attributable 

interests in the licensee reported on 

Form 323. That requirement went into 

effect as of October 30, 2009. 

40. In addition to filing comments 

with the Secretary, a copy of any PRA 

comments on the proposed collection 

requirements contained herein should 

be submitted to the Federal 

Communications Commission via email 

to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. 

Fraser, Office of Management and 

Budget, via email to nfraser@

omb.eop.gov or via fax at 202–395–5167. 

V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

41. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

economic impact on small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in this) 

Second FNPRM and Seventh FNPRM 

(Notice). Written public comments are 

requested on this IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments on the Notice. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the Notice and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

42. Currently, filers of Form 323 

(Ownership Report for Commercial 

Broadcasters) must provide an FCC 

Registration Number (FRN) generated 

via the Commission’s Registration 

System (CORES) for each reported 

attributable party. To obtain a CORES 

FRN, an individual must submit his or 

her social security number (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. However, if a filer uses 

diligent and good-faith efforts to obtain 

an SSN from an individual that must be 

reported on Form 323 in order to 

generate a CORES FRN, but is unable to 

do so, the filer may provide a Special 

Use FRN (SUFRN) for that individual. 

Because the SUFRN generation process 

does not requires submission of an SSN, 

or any other identifying information, 

SUFRNs do not provide a reliable means 

of linking a reported interest holder to 

a unique individual. The existence of 

SUFRNs therefore undermines the 

usefulness and integrity of the 

Commission’s broadcast ownership 

data. 

43. To address this issue, the Notice 

invites comment on a proposal to create 

a new type of FRN within CORES—a 

Restricted Use FRN (‘‘RUFRN’’)—for use 

on Form 323. Under the proposal set 

forth in the Notice, 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. Once obtained, an individual 

would be required to use the RUFRN on 

all current and future Form 323 filings. 

The Notice seeks comment on this 

RUFRN proposal, including input 

concerning the costs, benefits, and 

possible alternative approaches. 

44. The Notice explains that the 

Commission’s Fourth Diversity Further 

Notice requested input on adopting 

modifications to Form 323–E 

(Ownership Report for Noncommercial 

Broadcast Stations) similar to those 

previously adopted for Form 323. The 

Sixth Diversity Further Notice 

specifically proposed requiring Form 

323–E filers to provide a CORES FRN 

for all attributable parties. In light of the 

foregoing, the Notice seeks comment 

concerning the future application of the 

RUFRN proposal to Form 323–E (if 

Form 323–E is modified along the lines 

proposed in the Fourth Diversity Public 

Notice). 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10451 

45. Finally, the Notice indicates that 

the Sixth Diversity Further Notice 

solicited input on whether to retain the 

availability of SUFRNs for ownership 

report filings 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. 

Similarly, the Notice asks whether, if 

the RUFRN proposal is adopted, 

SUFRNs should continue to be available 

to Form 323 filers (and Form 323–E 

filers if the proposals in the Fourth 

Diversity Further Notice are adopted), 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. 

B. Legal Basis 

46. This Notice is adopted pursuant to 

sections 1, 2(a), 4(i)–(j), 257, and 303(r), 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i, 

j), 257, 303(r). 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

47. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as 

having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ 

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ 

under Section 3 of the Small Business 

Act. In addition, the term ‘‘small 

business’’ has the same meaning as the 

term ‘‘small business concern’’ under 

the Small Business Act. A small 

business concern is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

48. 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. 

49. Additionally, the Commission has 

estimated the number of licensed 

commercial television stations to be 

1,387. According to Commission staff 

review of the BIA/Kelsey, LLC’s Media 

Access Pro Television Database on 

November 25, 2014, about 1,276 of an 

estimated 1,387 commercial television 

stations (or approximately 92 percent) 

had revenues of $38.5 million or less. 

The Commission has estimated the 

number of licensed noncommercial 

educational television stations to be 

395. 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. 

50. 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 overinclusive 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. 

51. 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. 

52. Further, according to Commission 

staff review of the BIA/Kelsey, LLC’s 

Media Access Pro Television Database 

on November 25, 2014, about 11,337 (or 

about 99.9 percent) of 11,348 

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 4,085. 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. 

53. 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. 

54. 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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10452 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 September 30, 2014, 

there are approximately 430 licensed 

Class A stations and 2,115 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. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

55. There may be changes to reporting 

or recordkeeping requirements if the 

Commission adopts the RUFRN 

proposal for Form 323 and/or Form 

323–E. In the event that the RUFRN 

proposal is adopted for the Form 323 

and/or Form 323–E, filers will have the 

option to obtain and report a unique 

identifier for individual attributable 

interest holders that does not require 

submission of a full SSN to the 

Commission. Adoption of this proposal 

will allow an individual to obtain an 

RUFRN from CORES by submitting an 

alternate set of identifying information. 

Individuals would not be required to 

obtain or report an RUFRN on the Form 

323 and/or Form 323–E—instead, 

individuals could obtain and report a 

CORES FRN. An individual who has 

provided a CORES FRN on one or more 

previous ownership filings may 

continue to use that CORES FRN going 

forward. There also may be changes to 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

if the Commission limits or eliminates 

that availability of SUFRNs for 

broadcast ownership reports. Filers may 

be obligated to instruct individuals 

about their obligation to supply the filer 

with a CORES FRN or RUFRN or to 

provide the filer with the information 

sufficient to obtain one of these 

identifiers on the individual’s behalf. A 

filer may also be required to inform 

individuals about potential enforcement 

action for failure to obtain or report a 

CORES FRN or RUFRN. Moreover, if a 

filer reports an SUFRN for an individual 

interest holder, the filer may be required 

to show that the filer made reasonable 

good faith efforts to obtain a CORES 

FRN or RUFRN, or the information 

necessary to obtain a CORES FRN or 

RUFRN, on the individual’s behalf. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

56. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

might minimize any significant 

economic impact on small entities. Such 

alternatives may include the following 

four alternatives (among others): (1) The 

establishment of differing compliance or 

reporting requirements or timetables 

that take into account the resources 

available to small entities; (2) the 

clarification, consolidation, or 

simplification of compliance and 

reporting requirements under the rule 

for small entities; (3) the use of 

performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

57. As noted, we are directed under 

law to describe any such alternatives we 

consider, including alternatives not 

explicitly listed above. The Notice 

proposes to allow individuals reported 

on Form 323 to obtain and provide an 

RUFRN in lieu of a traditional CORES 

FRN. Similarly, the Notice proposes 

making RUFRNs available to Form 323– 

E filers in the event that Form 323–E is 

modified as proposed in the Fourth 

Diversity Further Notice. The Notice 

also proposes eliminating the 

availability of SUFRNs for Form 323 

and Form 323–E filings. In the 

alternative, the Commission could 

decide not to enact the RUFRN proposal 

contained in the Notice and not to 

modify the availability of SUFRNs. The 

Commission also could defer these 

actions until a later time. Additionally, 

the Commission could decide to treat 

noncommercial broadcasters differently 

from commercial broadcast stations for 

purposes of uniquely identifying and 

tracking individual attributable interest 

holders reported on the 323–E. While 

decisions to adopt the RUFRN proposal 

and eliminate the Special Use FRN 

might result in increased burdens on 

reporting parties, the Notice tentatively 

concludes that any such burdens would 

be minimal and that the benefits of 

having a unique identifier for data 

quality, searchability, cross-referencing 

and aggregation purposes in order to 

further the Commission’s goal of 

advancing diversity of ownership in the 

broadcast industry would outweigh 

those burdens. A unique identifier is 

necessary to improve the quality of the 

data collected on the Form 323. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether the Special Use FRN should be 

available solely in instances where, after 

reasonable and good faith efforts, filers 

are unable to obtain a CORES FRN or 

RUFRN from an individual with 

reportable interests. This alternative 

could reduce the burden for those filers 

who are unable to, after reasonable and 

good faith efforts, to obtain a CORES 

FRN or RUFRN from an individual 

attributable interest holder, while 

ensuring that the filer will be able to 

timely submit the Form 323. This will 

allow the Commission to identify the 

individual with a reportable interest 

that has failed to provide a CORES FRN 

or RUFRN. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

58. None. 

VI. Ordering Clauses 

59. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1, 2(a), 4(i,j), 257, and 303(r) of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i)- 

(j), 257, and 303(r), the Second FNPRM 

and Seventh FNPRM is adopted. 

60. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to the authority contained in sections 1, 

2(a), 4(i, j), 257, and 303(r) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i, 

j), 257, 303(r), notice is hereby given of 

the proposals described in this Second 

FNPRM and Seventh FNPRM. 

61. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

the Second FNPRM and Seventh 

FNPRM, including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03988 Filed 2–25–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 205, 212, 225, and 252 

RIN 0750–AI51 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Acquisition of 

the American Flag (DFARS Case 2015– 

D005) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS