Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32221 

085°13′59′′ W; thence to 45°18′45′′ N, 

085°14′33′′ W; and back to the beginning 

point of origin. 

(b) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. through 

10 p.m. on July 23, 2021. The section 

will be enforced during additional times 

while in effect with actual notice asneeded to mitigate risks associated with 

the air show. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23, entry 

into, transiting, or anchoring within 

these safety zones are prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

Sault Sainte. Marie or his on-scene 

representative. 

(2) This safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the Captain of the Port, 

Sault Sainte Marie or his on-scene 

representative. 

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte 

Marie is any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

who has been designated by the Captain 

of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie to act on 

his or her behalf. The on-scene 

representative of the Captain of the Port, 

Sault Sainte Marie will be aboard a 

Coast Guard vessel. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone shall 

contact the Captain of the Port, Sault 

Sainte Marie, or his on-scene 

representative to obtain permission to 

do so. The Captain of the Port, Sault 

Sainte Marie or his on-scene 

representative may be contacted via 

VHF Channel 16 or telephone at 906– 

635–3233. Vessel operators given 

permission to enter or operate in the 

safety zone must comply with all 

directions given to them by the Captain 

of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie or his onscene representative. 

Dated: June 11, 2021. 

A.R. Jones, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Sault Sainte Marie. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12729 Filed 6–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 147 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2020–0595; FRL 10023–18– 

OW] 

RIN 2040–ZA35 

State of Michigan Underground 

Injection Control (UIC) Class II 

Program; Primacy Approval 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Because the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

received adverse comments, the agency 

is withdrawing the direct final rule for 

State of Michigan Underground 

Injection Control (UIC) Class II Program; 

Primacy Approval, published on March 

19, 2021. 

DATES: As of June 17, 2021, EPA 

withdraws the direct final rule 

published at 86 FR 14846, on March 19, 

2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle 

Carey, Drinking Water Protection 

Division, Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water (4606M), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460; telephone number: (202) 564– 

2322; fax number: (202) 564–3754; 

email address: carey.kyle@epa.gov, or 

Anna Miller, UIC Section, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 

60604; telephone number: (312) 886– 

7060; email address: miller.anna@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) received adverse 

comment, the agency is withdrawing the 

direct final rule for State of Michigan 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

Class II Program; Primacy Approval, 

published on March 19, 2021. EPA 

stated in that direct final rule that if the 

agency received adverse comments by 

April 19, 2021, the direct final rule 

would not take effect and we would 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register. EPA subsequently 

received adverse comments on that 

direct final rule. EPA will address those 

comments in any subsequent final 

action, which will be based on the 

parallel proposed rule also published on 

March 19, 2021. As stated in the direct 

final rule and the parallel proposed rule, 

EPA will not institute a second 

comment period on this action. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

PART 147—STATE, TRIBAL, AND EPAADMINISTERED UNDERGROUND 

INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAMS 

■ Accordingly, the rule amending 40 

CFR part 147, which published on 

March 19, 2021 (86 FR 14846), is 

withdrawn as of June 17, 2021. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12918 Filed 6–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 20–299; FCC 21–42; FR ID 

26887] 

Sponsorship Identification 

Requirements for Foreign 

Government-Provided Programming 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) modifies its rules to adopt 

specific disclosure requirements for 

broadcast programming that is 

sponsored, paid for, or provided by a 

foreign government or its representative 

pursuant to leasing agreements. 

DATES: Effective July 19, 2021. 

Compliance with § 73.1212(j) and (k) 

will not be required until the 

Commission publishes a document in 

the Federal Register announcing the 

compliance date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Radhika Karmarkar, Media Bureau, 

Industry Analysis Division, 

Radhika.Karmarkar@fcc.gov, (202) 418– 

1523. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order (Order), FCC 21–42, in MB 

Docket No. 20–299, adopted on April 

22, 2021, and released on April 22, 

2021. The complete text of this 

document is available electronically via 

the search function on the FCC’s 

Electronic Document Management 

System (EDOCS) web page at https://

apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ (https://

apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/). To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov (mail 

to: fcc504@fcc.gov) or call the FCC’s 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32222 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

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

418–0432 (TTY). 

Synopsis 

1. Introduction: For over 60 years, the 

Commission’s sponsorship 

identification rules have required that 

disclosures be made on-air when a 

station has been compensated for 

broadcasting particular material. 

Reports regarding foreign governmental 

entities’ increased use of leasing 

agreements to broadcast programming 

without disclosing the source thereof, 

however, persuade us that more is 

required to ensure transparency on the 

airwaves. By this Order, the 

Commission seeks to address 

circumstances in which a foreign 

governmental entity, pursuant to a lease 

of airtime, is responsible for 

programming, in whole or in part, on a 

U.S. broadcast station. In this Order, the 

use of the term ‘‘foreign governmentprovided programming’’ refers to all 

programming that is provided by an 

entity or individual that falls into one of 

the four categories discussed below. In 

turn, the phrase ‘‘provided by’’ when 

used in relation to ‘‘foreign government 

programming’’ covers both the broadcast 

of programming in exchange for 

consideration and furnishing of any 

‘‘political program or any program 

involving the discussion of a 

controversial issue’’ for free as an 

inducement to broadcast the 

programming. Although under U.S. law 

foreign governments and their 

representatives are restricted from 

holding a broadcast license directly, 

there is no limitation on their ability to 

enter into a contract with the licensee of 

a station to air programming of its 

choosing or to lease the entire capacity 

of a radio or television station. Nor does 

the Commission prohibit such 

arrangements going forward. Rather, in 

such instances, the rules the 

Commission adopts in this document 

will require that the programming aired 

pursuant to such an agreement contain 

a clear, standardized disclosure 

statement indicating to the listener or 

viewer that the material has been 

sponsored, paid for, or furnished by a 

foreign governmental entity and clearly 

indicate the foreign country involved. 

2. The foreign sponsorship 

identification rules the Commission 

adopts in this Order seek to eliminate 

any potential ambiguity to the viewer or 

listener regarding the source of 

programming provided from foreign 

governmental entities. Based upon 

comments received in response to the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 

85 FR 74955, Nov. 24, 2020, and as 

detailed further below, the Commission 

amends § 73.1212 of the Commission’s 

rules to require a specific disclosure at 

the time of broadcast if material aired 

pursuant to the lease of time on the 

station has been sponsored, paid for, or 

furnished by a foreign governmental 

entity that indicates the specific entity 

and country involved. In so doing, the 

Commission will increase transparency 

and ensure that audiences of broadcast 

stations are aware when a foreign 

government, or its representatives, are 

seeking to persuade the American 

public. Through the public filing 

requirements associated with 

disclosures, the Commission will also 

enable interested parties to monitor the 

extent of such efforts to persuade the 

American public. 

3. The new rules seek to address the 

primary means identified in the record 

by which foreign governmental entities 

are accessing U.S. airwaves to persuade 

the American public without adequate 

disclosure of the true sponsor, namely 

the lease of time to air programming on 

a U.S. licensed broadcast station. In 

focusing its disclosure requirement on 

such situations, the Commission seeks 

to address an important issue of public 

concern while going no further than 

necessary, thus balancing 

considerations of the First Amendment 

with the need for consumers to be 

sufficiently informed as to the origin of 

material broadcast on stations licensed 

on their behalf in the public interest. 

Further, the Commission’s approach 

incorporates existing provisions of and 

definitions contained in the Foreign 

Agents Registration Act (FARA) (22 

U.S.C. 611) and the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, so as to 

minimize the burden on broadcasters as 

they determine whether the 

programming is from a foreign 

governmental entity. In addition, the 

Commission discusses the steps that 

broadcasters must take to satisfy the 

statutory ‘‘reasonable diligence’’ 

standard in determining whether a 

foreign governmental entity is the 

source of programming provided over 

their stations. 

4. In this manner, the Commission 

refines its rules to further ensure that 

the public is fully informed on the 

source of programming consumed. The 

Commission finds it is critical that the 

American public be aware when a 

foreign government has sponsored, paid 

for, or, in the case of political programs 

or programs involving the discussion of 

a controversial issue, furnished the 

programming for free as an inducement 

to air the material, particularly given 

what seems to be an increase in the 

dissemination of programming in the 

United States by foreign governments 

and their representatives. 

5. Background: The principle that the 

public has a right to know the identity 

of those that solicit their support is a 

fundamental and long-standing tenet of 

broadcasting. Congress and the 

Commission have sought to ensure that 

the public is informed when airtime has 

been purchased in an effort to persuade 

audiences, finding it essential to ensure 

that audiences can distinguish between 

paid content and material chosen by the 

broadcaster itself. Accordingly, 

beginning with the Radio Act of 1927, 

broadcast stations have been required to 

announce the name of any ‘‘person, 

firm, company, or corporation’’ that has 

paid ‘‘valuable consideration’’ either 

‘‘directly or indirectly’’ to the station at 

the time of broadcasting any 

programming for which such 

consideration has been given. With the 

creation of the Federal Communications 

Commission and the adoption of the 

Communications Act of 1934 (the Act), 

this disclosure requirement was 

incorporated almost verbatim into 

section 317 of the Act. Over the years, 

various amendments to the rules, 

decisions by the Commission, and a 

1960 amendment to section 317 of the 

Act have continued to underscore the 

need for transparency and disclosure to 

the public about the true identity of a 

program’s sponsor. 

6. The Commission last implemented 

a major change to its sponsorship 

identification rules in 1963 when it 

adopted rules implementing Congress’s 

1960 amendments to the Act. The 

NPRM contained a thorough history of 

the background of the Commission’s 

sponsorship identification rules. The 

sponsorship identification rules largely 

tracked the provisions of section 317 of 

the Act and make up the current 

§ 73.1212 of the Commission’s rules. As 

the NPRM noted, however, even with 

these rules in place there appear to be 

instances where foreign governments 

pay for the airing of programming, or 

provide it to broadcast stations free of 

charge, and the programming does not 

contain a clear indication, if any 

indication at all, to the listener or 

viewer that a foreign government has 

paid for or provided the programming’s 

content. Given the passage of nearly 60 

years since the sponsorship 

identification rules were last updated 

and growing concerns about foreign 

government-provided programming, the 

Commission determined last year that 

there was a further need to review the 

sponsorship identification rules to 

ensure that, consistent with its statutory 

mandate, foreign government program 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32223 

sponsorship over the airwaves is 

evident to the American public. 

7. Significantly, the Commission’s 

current sponsorship identification rules 

do not require a station to determine or 

disclose whether the source of its 

programming is in fact a foreign 

government, registered foreign agent, or 

foreign political party (what the 

Commission refers to as a foreign 

governmental entity). As the NPRM 

notes, in many instances a foreign 

government, foreign agent, or foreign 

political party providing programming 

to licensees may not be immediately 

identifiable as such. In other instances, 

the linkage between the foreign 

governmental entity and the entity 

providing the programming may be 

deliberately attenuated in an effort to 

obfuscate the true source of the 

programming. Although current rules 

require the disclosure of the sponsor’s 

name, the relationship of that sponsor to 

a foreign country is not required as part 

of the current disclosure. 

8. Consequently, to ensure that the 

American public can better assess the 

programming that is delivered over the 

airwaves, the Commission found that 

there is a need to identify instances 

where foreign governmental entities are 

involved in the provision of broadcast 

programming. To that end, the NPRM 

proposed to adopt specific disclosure 

requirements for broadcast 

programming to inform the public when 

programming has been paid for, or 

provided by, a foreign governmental 

entity and to identify the country 

involved. Specifically, the NPRM 

proposed that when a foreign 

governmental entity has paid a radio or 

television station, directly or indirectly, 

to air material, or if the programming 

was provided to the station free of 

charge by such an entity as an 

inducement to broadcast the material, 

the station, at the time of the broadcast, 

shall include a specified disclosure 

indicating the name of the foreign 

governmental entity, as well as the 

related country. 

9. In defining ‘‘foreign governmental 

entity,’’ the NPRM relied directly on 

parts of the FARA statute (specifically 

the definitions of a ‘‘government of a 

foreign country,’’ ‘‘foreign political 

party,’’ and ‘‘agents of foreign 

principals’’), which covers entities and 

individuals whose activities the United 

States Department of Justice 

(Department of Justice or DOJ) has 

identified as requiring disclosure 

because their activities are potentially 

intended to influence American public 

opinion, policy, and law. In addition, 

the NPRM proposed to include ‘‘United 

States-based foreign media outlets,’’ as 

defined by the Communications Act. 

Under the proposal, any programming 

provided by a ‘‘foreign governmental 

entity’’ would be considered a ‘‘political 

program’’ under section 317(a)(2) of the 

Act, and thus require identification of 

the sponsor of particular broadcast 

programing, even if the only 

inducement to air the programming was 

the provision of the programming itself. 

The NPRM further explored the 

‘‘reasonable diligence’’ standard that 

broadcasters must employ pursuant to 

their statutory (47 U.S.C. 317 (c)) and 

regulatory (47 CFR 73.1212(b) and (e)) 

requirements to determine whether its 

programming was provided by a foreign 

governmental entity. 

10. The NPRM proposed that the 

disclosure requirements should apply in 

the context of time brokerage 

agreements (TBAs) and local marketing 

agreements (LMAs). Moreover, the 

NPRM proposed to apply the new rules 

to entities authorized pursuant to 

section 325(c) to produce programing in 

the United States and transmit it to a 

non-U.S. licensed station in a foreign 

country for broadcast back into the 

United States. Also, the NPRM proposed 

that the disclosure requirements would 

apply equally to any programming 

transmitted on a radio or television 

stations’ multicast streams. Finally, in 

addition to specifying the characteristics 

of the proposed disclosures on 

television and radio, the NPRM 

proposed that stations place a copy of 

the announcement in their online public 

inspection file (OPIF). 

11. A total of seven commenters filed 

comments and reply comments in 

response to the NPRM. The commenters 

generally support the Commission’s goal 

of identifying foreign sponsorship of 

programming. Commenters assert, 

however, that the Commission must 

address how current regulations are 

inadequate before adopting new rules, 

and several commenters suggest ways to 

narrow the proposed scope of the rules 

to more directly address the 

programming that is of most concern, as 

discussed further below. 

12. Discussion: For the reasons 

discussed below, the Commission 

adopts the rules proposed in the NPRM 

with modifications to address more 

precisely the primary method by which 

foreign governmental entities appear to 

be gaining carriage for their 

programming on U.S.-licensed broadcast 

stations without disclosing the origin of 

such programming, namely through 

leasing agreements with such stations. 

By narrowly focusing its requirements, 

the Commission seeks to minimize the 

burden of compliance on licensees, 

including those public television and 

radio stations that carry programming 

from entities that depend upon tax 

credits, access to international locations, 

and historical or archival footage from 

foreign governmental sources in 

producing their programming. The 

Commission further notes that such 

tailoring is in keeping with the First 

Amendment by focusing its rules 

narrowly on the area of potential harm. 

13. Specifically, as discussed below, 

the new rules require foreign 

sponsorship identification for 

programming content aired on a station 

pursuant to a lease of airtime if the 

direct or indirect provider of the 

programming qualifies as a ‘‘foreign 

governmental entity.’’ In the first section 

below, the Commission analyzes which 

entities or individuals meet that 

definition and find that they include 

governments of foreign countries, 

foreign political parties, certain agents 

of foreign principals, and U.S.-based 

foreign media outlets. Next, the 

Commission discusses the scope of the 

foreign sponsorship identification rules, 

explaining why and how the 

Commission narrows the scope of the 

NPRM’s proposed requirements to focus 

on programming aired on U.S. broadcast 

stations pursuant to an agreement for 

the lease of time. The Commission then 

discusses the scope of the reasonable 

diligence obligation that broadcast 

licensees must satisfy to determine if its 

lessee is a foreign governmental entity 

such that disclosures are necessary. 

Next, the Commission discusses the 

content and frequency requirements for 

the mandated disclosures that will 

ensure the identification of foreign 

government-provided programming is 

conveyed effectively to the public. As 

the Commission makes clear in that 

section, the rules also require quarterly 

filings of copies of the disclosures, as 

well as the name of the program to 

which any disclosures are appended, in 

stations’ OPIF. Then, the Commission 

concludes that its foreign sponsorship 

identification rules apply equally to any 

programming broadcast pursuant to a 

section 325(c) permit. Finally, the 

Commission concludes that its foreign 

sponsorship identification rules satisfy 

the First Amendment and provide a 

cost-benefit analysis of those new rules. 

14. Entities or Individuals Whose 

Involvement in the Provision of 

Programming Triggers a Disclosure. The 

Commission requires that programming 

aired on a station pursuant to a lease of 

airtime have a foreign sponsorship 

identification if the entity who has 

directly or indirectly provided the 

programming qualifies as a foreign 

governmental entity as defined herein. 

Specifically, a ‘‘foreign governmental 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32224 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

entity’’ is defined as an entity included 

in one of the following categories: 

(1) A ‘‘government of a foreign 

country’’ as defined by FARA (22 U.S.C. 

611(e)); 

(2) A ‘‘foreign political party’’ as 

defined by FARA (22 U.S.C. 611(f)); 

(3) An individual or entity registered 

as an ‘‘agent of a foreign principal,’’ 

under section 611(c) of FARA (22 U.S.C. 

611(c)), whose ‘‘foreign principal’’ is a 

‘‘government of a foreign country,’’ a 

‘‘foreign political party,’’ or is directly 

or indirectly operated, supervised, 

directed, owned, controlled, financed, 

or subsidized by a ‘‘government of a 

foreign country’’ or by a ‘‘foreign 

political party’’ as defined by FARA, 

and that is acting in its capacity as an 

agent of such ‘‘foreign principal;’’ 

(4) An entity meeting the definition of 

a ‘‘U.S.-based foreign media outlet’’ 

pursuant to section 722 of the Act that 

has filed a report with the Commission 

(47 U.S.C. 624). 

The adopted definition is largely 

consistent with the definition proposed 

in the NPRM except for the exclusion of 

foreign missions for the reasons 

discussed below. 

15. As discussed in the NPRM, in 

establishing these categories to define 

covered foreign governmental entities 

that will trigger the disclosure 

requirement, the Commission relies on 

existing definitions, statutes, or 

determinations by the U.S. Government 

as to when an entity or individual is a 

foreign government, a foreign political 

party, or acting in the United States as 

an agent on behalf of a foreign 

government or foreign political party. 

Relying on these sources allows us to 

draw on the substantial experience and 

authority in such matters that already 

exists within the Federal Government 

and avoids involving the Commission, 

or the broadcaster, in subjective 

determinations regarding who qualifies 

as a foreign governmental entity. 

16. FARA. In particular, the 

Commission finds that reliance on both 

the definitions contained in FARA and 

the list of agents registered pursuant to 

that act is appropriate. As discussed in 

the NRPM, this long-standing statute 

was designed specifically to identify 

those foreign entities or individuals that 

Congress has determined should be 

known to the U.S. Government and the 

American public when they are seeking 

to influence American public opinion, 

policy, and laws. The Commission notes 

that no commenters object to the its 

proposed use of the definitions set forth 

in FARA or the list of foreign agents 

registered pursuant to that statute as the 

primary basis for its foreign sponsorship 

identification rules. Accordingly, the 

Commission finds that including 

‘‘government of a foreign country’’ and 

‘‘foreign political party,’’ as defined by 

FARA, within the group of entities and 

individuals that trigger its foreign 

sponsorship identification rules is 

appropriate given its primary goal of 

ensuring that foreign governmentprovided programming is properly 

disclosed to the public. Rather than 

seeking to craft its own definitions, the 

Commission finds it more appropriate to 

turn to a definition of ‘‘foreign 

government’’ and ‘‘foreign political 

party’’ contained in a pre-existing 

statute designed to promote 

transparency about foreign 

governmental activity in the United 

States. Similarly, including FARAregistered ‘‘agents of foreign principals’’ 

who are defined by their engagement in 

certain activities in the United States on 

behalf of foreign interests furthers the 

Commission’s goal of increasing 

transparency when such agents may be 

seeking to persuade the audiences of 

broadcast stations. 

17. The Commission notes that FARA 

generally requires an ‘‘agent of foreign 

principal’’ undertaking certain activities 

in the United States (such as, political 

activities or acting in the role of public 

relations counsel, publicity agent, or 

political consultant) on behalf of a 

foreign principal to register with the 

Department of Justice. Section 611(b)(1) 

of FARA states that the term ‘‘foreign 

principal’’ includes the ‘‘government of 

a foreign country’’ and a ‘‘foreign 

political party’’ (22 U.S.C. 611(b)(1)). 

For purposes of its foreign sponsorship 

identification rules, the Commission 

includes FARA agents whose foreign 

principal is either a ‘‘government of a 

foreign country,’’ a ‘‘foreign political 

party,’’ or is directly or indirectly 

operated, supervised, directed, owned, 

controlled, financed, or subsidized by a 

‘‘government of a foreign country’’ or by 

a ‘‘foreign political party’’ as those terms 

are defined in sections 611(e) and (f) of 

FARA respectively (22 U.S.C. 611(e), 

(f)). As stated in the NPRM, to the extent 

that an agent of a foreign principal, 

whose ‘‘foreign principal’’ is either a 

‘‘government of a foreign country’’ or a 

‘‘foreign political party’’ is providing 

programming to U.S. broadcast stations 

in its capacity as an agent to that 

principal, it is reasonable that the public 

should be made aware of that fact. The 

Commission also clarifies, however, that 

the proposed disclosure is required not 

only when programming is provided by 

an ‘‘agent of a foreign principal’’ whose 

foreign principal is a government of a 

foreign country or a foreign political 

party, but also when the foreign 

principal is directly or indirectly 

operated, supervised, directed, owned, 

controlled, financed, or subsidized by a 

government of a foreign country or by a 

foreign political party. This clarification 

to the original proposal will ensure that 

the foreign sponsorship identification 

rules cannot be circumvented by the 

existence or creation of additional 

corporate and/or ownership layers 

between the entity acting as a foreign 

principal and the government of a 

foreign country or foreign political 

party. This information is readily 

ascertainable by those who examine the 

FARA database. 

18. The Commission recognizes that a 

given entity may be registered as an 

agent for multiple ‘‘foreign principals’’ 

or for a ‘‘foreign principal’’ other than 

a ‘‘government of a foreign country’’ or 

a ‘‘foreign political party.’’ The 

Commission emphasizes, however, that 

its foreign sponsorship identification 

rules apply only when the FARA agent 

is acting in its capacity as a registered 

agent of a principal that is a 

‘‘government of a foreign country,’’ a 

‘‘foreign political party,’’ or is directly 

or indirectly operated, supervised, 

directed, owned, controlled, financed, 

or subsidized by a government of a 

foreign country or by a foreign political 

party. 

19. U.S.-Based Foreign Media Outlet. 

In addition to drawing on FARA-based 

definitions and registrations and 

consistent with the NPRM, the 

Commission concludes that its foreign 

governmental entity definition should 

also extend to any entity or individual 

subject to section 722 of the Act that has 

filed a report with the Commission. 

Section 722 extends to any U.S.-based 

foreign media outlet that: (a) Produces 

or distributes video programming that is 

transmitted, or intended for 

transmission, by a multichannel video 

programming distributor (MVPD) to 

consumers in the United States and (b) 

would be an agent of a ‘‘foreign 

principal’’ but for an exemption in 

FARA. The Commission notes that 

Section 722 provides that the term 

‘‘foreign principal’’ has the meaning 

given such term in section 611(b)(1) of 

FARA, which limits the scope of the 

definition of ‘‘foreign principal’’ to ‘‘a 

government of a foreign country’’ and a 

‘‘foreign political party.’’ The 

Commission incorporates this limitation 

from section 722 of the Act into its 

foreign sponsorship identification rules 

to include both a ‘‘government of a 

foreign country’’ and ‘‘foreign political 

party,’’ as those terms are defined by 

FARA, within its definition of ‘‘foreign 

governmental entity.’’ Although the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32225 

Commission could clarify—as the 

Commission has done with respect to 

foreign agents—that the disclosure 

requirement also applies when an 

outlet’s foreign principal is directly or 

indirectly operated, supervised, 

directed, owned, controlled, financed, 

or subsidized by a government of a 

foreign country or by a foreign political 

party, the Commission notes that such 

a clarification would accomplish 

nothing as, pursuant to the National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 

only entities whose foreign principals 

are a government of a foreign country or 

a foreign political party are required to 

report as U.S.-based foreign media 

outlets. 

20. The Commission recognizes that 

the term ‘‘U.S.-based foreign media 

outlet’’ refers to an entity whose 

programming is either transmitted or 

intended for transmission by an MVPD, 

rather than by a broadcaster. But the 

Commission notes that there is no 

prohibition on such video programming 

also being transmitted by a broadcast 

television station, and it seems likely 

that an entity that is providing video 

programming to cable operators or 

direct broadcast satellite television 

providers might also seek to air such 

programming on broadcast stations. 

Hence, the Commission believes it is 

appropriate to include ‘‘U.S.-based 

foreign media outlets’’ within the ambit 

of its proposal when the programming 

provided by such entities is aired by 

broadcast stations. No commenter 

opposed this proposal in response to the 

NPRM. 

21. Foreign Missions. While the 

NPRM proposed to include ‘‘foreign 

missions,’’ as designated pursuant to the 

Foreign Missions Act, within the 

Commission’s definition of foreign 

governmental entities that trigger 

foreign sponsorship identification, 

commenters have persuaded us 

otherwise. In particular, American 

Public Television Stations (APTS) and 

the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) 

(referenced collectively herein as APTS) 

expressed concern with the potential 

difficulty of discerning whether an 

entity is considered a ‘‘foreign mission’’ 

under the Foreign Missions Act. APTS 

noted that there is no single source 

identifying all foreign missions 

analogous to those that exist for FARA 

registrants and U.S.-based foreign media 

outlets. The Commission agrees with 

commenters that the lack of a single 

source identifying all foreign missions 

creates an additional burden for 

licensees, as such entities cannot be as 

readily and consistently identified as 

FARA registrants and U.S.-based foreign 

media outlets. 

22. In addition, the Commission notes 

that, as discussed in the NPRM, most 

‘‘foreign missions’’ are foreign 

embassies and consular offices. The 

primary purpose of the Foreign 

Missions Act is to confer upon such 

missions certain benefits, privileges, 

and immunities, while also requiring 

their observance of corresponding 

obligations in accordance with 

international law and principles of 

reciprocity. Other types of non-entities 

that are substantially owned or 

effectively controlled by a foreign 

government are from time to time 

designated as ‘‘foreign missions’’ at the 

discretion of the Secretary of State. By 

comparison the FARA statute is 

specifically designed to identify those 

entities and individuals whose activities 

should be disclosed because their 

activities are potentially intended to 

influence American public opinion, 

policy, and law. Based on the concerns 

raised by APTS and its own further 

review of the intent behind the statute, 

the Commission finds reliance on the 

Foreign Missions Act to be 

inappropriate and unnecessary for its 

intended purpose. 

23. Other Potential Sources. In 

addition, the Commission declines to 

adopt APTS’s suggestion that the list of 

FARA registrants included in the 

definition of foreign governmental 

entities be filtered through the United 

States Treasury Department’s Office of 

Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) list of 

active U.S. sanctions. APTS asserts that 

its proposal would narrow the list of 

entities who qualify as a ‘‘foreign 

governmental entity’’ by linking this 

definition to a list of carefully predetermined countries whose interests 

are directly at odds with the United 

States. The Commission declines to 

adopt this proposal. First, doing so 

would seem to involve even more work 

for licensees, as it would require them 

to consult the OFAC list in addition to 

the FARA list. Second, and most 

importantly, the Commission finds the 

basis for compiling the OFAC list to be 

inconsistent with its purposes here. The 

Commission’s goal in requiring 

additional disclosure by foreign 

governmental entities is not premised 

on distinctions between countries that 

may or may not be subject to the United 

States sanctions. Rather, the 

Commission seeks to provide the 

American public with greater 

transparency about programming 

provided by any foreign government, 

consistent with the requirements of 

section 317 of the Act. In this regard, the 

Commission finds that FARA, with its 

associated definitions and reporting 

requirements premised on promoting 

transparency with respect to foreign 

influence within the United States, is 

better aligned with the goals of the 

instant proceeding than the OFAC list. 

As the Department of Justice has 

explained when discussing FARA, the 

government’s concern is not the content 

of the speech but providing 

transparency about the true identity of 

the speaker. 

24. Scope of Foreign Programming 

that Requires a Disclosure. While the 

Commission tentatively concluded in 

the NPRM that its proposed foreign 

sponsorship disclosure rules should 

apply in any circumstances in which a 

foreign governmental entity directly or 

indirectly provides material for 

broadcast or furnishes material to a 

station free of charge (or at nominal 

cost) as an inducement to broadcast 

such material, the Commission now 

narrows its focus to address specifically 

those circumstances in which a foreign 

governmental entity is programming a 

U.S. broadcast station pursuant to the 

lease of airtime. That is, for the reasons 

discussed below, the Commission will 

require a specific disclosure at the time 

of broadcast if material aired pursuant 

to the lease of time on the station has 

been sponsored, paid for, or, in the case 

of political program or any program 

involving the discussion of a 

controversial issue, if it has been 

furnished for free as an inducement to 

air by a foreign governmental entity. 

While the Commission focuses in this 

Order on the identification of 

programming sponsored by foreign 

governmental entities aired through a 

lease of time, the Commission reiterates 

that its existing sponsorship 

identification rules, of course, continue 

to apply even outside the specific 

context described herein. As explained 

below, leasing agreements potentially 

subject to the rules include any 

arrangement in which a licensee makes 

a block of broadcast time on its station 

available to another party in return for 

some form of compensation. 

25. Programming Aired Pursuant to a 

Lease of Time. Based on the record 

before us, the Commission agrees with 

National Public Radio and find that 

focusing on the airing of programming 

on U.S. broadcast stations pursuant to 

leasing agreements will address the 

primary present concern with foreign 

governmental actors gaining access to 

American airwaves without disclosing 

the programming’s origin to the public. 

To date, it appears that the reported 

instances of undisclosed foreign 

government programming aired on 

broadcast stations have involved lease 

agreements between a licensee and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32226 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

other entities. The record indicates that 

such contractual arrangements present 

the most prevalent instances of 

undisclosed foreign government 

programming to date. It also appears 

that it is through such arrangements that 

foreign governmental entities have 

commonly aired programming on U.S. 

broadcast stations, whether directly or 

indirectly, without necessarily 

disclosing the origin of the 

programming. Accordingly, the 

Commission believes that the foreign 

governmental source of this 

programming should be disclosed in 

such circumstances. 

26. Moreover, the Commission’s 

action will serve to ensure greater 

transparency to the public, and prevent 

foreign governments and their 

representatives, which are barred from 

owning a U.S. broadcast license, from 

leasing time on a station unbeknownst 

to the public or the Commission. 

Notably, Section 310(a) of the Act 

outright bars ‘‘any foreign government 

or the representative thereof’’ from 

holding a broadcast license. In addition, 

Section 310(b) limits the interest that a 

foreign corporation or individual can 

hold in a U.S. broadcast license, either 

directly or indirectly. While the 

Commission has revised its rules in 

recent years to permit a greater degree 

of ownership in U.S. broadcast stations 

by non-governmental foreign entities or 

individuals, acquisition of such 

interests requires Commission approval 

following proper consideration and 

public review and may also be subject 

to prior review and consideration by the 

relevant executive branch agencies. 

Despite these longstanding restrictions, 

and particularly the complete 

prohibition on a foreign government or 

its representatives’ holding a U.S. 

broadcast license, some foreign 

governmental actors or their agents 

appear nonetheless to be programming 

stations that they otherwise would not 

be able to own, as detailed in the NPRM. 

When they do so, the American public 

and the Commission may not be aware 

that a foreign governmental entity has 

leased the time on the station and is 

programming the station. 

27. As proposed in the NPRM, the 

disclosure requirements the 

Commission adopts in this document 

apply to leasing agreements, regardless 

of what those agreements are called, 

how they are styled, and whether they 

are reduced to writing. The Commission 

recognizes that leasing agreements 

within the broadcast industry may be 

known by different designations. The 

terms time brokerage agreement (TBA) 

and local marketing agreement (LMA) 

are used interchangeably to describe 

contractual arrangements whereby a 

party other than the licensee, i.e., a 

brokering party, programs time on a 

broadcast station, oftentimes also selling 

the advertising during such time and 

retaining the proceeds. Such leasing 

agreements may be for either discrete 

blocks of time (for example, two hours 

every day from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.) or for 

the complete broadcast capacity of the 

station (i.e., 24 hours a day, seven days 

a week). The agreements can be for the 

duration of a single day or for a term of 

years. Regardless of the title, terms, or 

duration of such an agreement, the 

purpose of such a contractual agreement 

is to give one party—the brokering party 

or programmer—the right and obligation 

to program the station licensed to the 

other party—the licensee or broadcaster. 

In this manner, the programmer is able 

to program a radio or television station 

that it does not own or hold the license 

to operate. A ‘‘time brokerage 

agreement,’’ also known as a ‘‘local 

marketing agreement’’ or ‘‘LMA,’’ is the 

sale by a licensee of discrete blocks of 

time to a ‘‘broker’’ that supplies the 

programming to fill that time and sells 

the commercial spot announcements in 

it. 

28. For the purposes of applying the 

foreign sponsorship disclosure 

requirement, a lease constitutes any 

agreement in which a licensee makes a 

discrete block of broadcast time on its 

station available to be programmed by 

another party in return for some form of 

compensation. Thus, a licensee makes 

broadcast time available for purposes of 

the rule any time the licensee permits 

the airing on its station of programming 

either provided, or selected, by the 

programmer in return for some form of 

compensation. In describing a lease of 

time, however, the Commission does 

not mean to suggest that traditional, 

short-form advertising time constitutes a 

lease of airtime for these purposes. The 

Commission notes that such 

advertisements, whether they appear in 

programming aired by the licensee or 

provided by a third-party programmer 

pursuant to a lease, remain subject to 

the Commission’s existing sponsorship 

identification rules under § 73.1212(f) 

and must contain a clear indication of 

the sponsor of the advertisement. The 

Commission’s action in this document 

is focused on agreements by which a 

third party controls and programs a 

discrete block of time on a broadcast 

station. Ultimately, the Commission 

believes that requiring a disclosure to 

inform the audience of the source of the 

programming whenever a foreign 

governmental entity provides 

programming to a station for broadcast 

pursuant to the lease of time is wholly 

consistent with sections 317(a)(1) and 

(2) of the Act. 

29. The Commission finds that its 

focus on situations where there are 

leasing agreements between a station 

and a third party will narrow the 

application of the disclosure rules 

appropriately, and ensure that the new 

disclosure obligations do not extend to 

situations where there is no evidence of 

foreign government sponsored 

programming. For example, the record 

does not demonstrate that 

advertisements; archival, stock, or 

supplemental video footage; or 

preferential access to filming locations 

are a significant source of unidentified 

foreign sponsored programming. In 

addition, given limitations on the ability 

of noncommercial educational (NCE) 

stations to engage in leasing 

arrangements, the Commission expects 

that NCE stations will rarely, if ever, 

face the need to address the foreign 

sponsorship disclosure rules, largely 

assuaging the concerns of NCE 

commenters. Therefore, the Commission 

finds that limiting the application of its 

disclosure requirement to the context of 

leasing agreements obviates a number of 

issues and suggestions put forth by 

commenters concerned that the 

Commission would inadvertently sweep 

in additional programming that does not 

carry the same concerns with foreign 

influence as the unidentified lease of 

programming time. 

30. Programming Aired in Exchange 

for Consideration Under 317(a)(1) of the 

Act. As discussed in the NPRM, section 

317(a)(1) of the Act requires the licensee 

of a broadcast station to disclose at the 

time of broadcast if it has received any 

form of payment or consideration, either 

directly or indirectly in exchange for the 

broadcast of programming. While there 

is no minimum level of ‘‘consideration’’ 

required to trigger the disclosure 

requirement under this section, the 

statute does permit the exclusion of 

services or property furnished without 

charge or at nominal charge in certain 

circumstances. One notable exception to 

the exclusion, however, is the provision 

of certain material furnished free of 

charge or at nominal cost as an 

inducement to air the program and that 

is related to any political program or 

program involving the discussion of any 

controversial issue, as discussed further 

below. Thus, consistent with the statute 

and current sponsorship identification 

rules, the foreign sponsorship 

identification rules the Commission 

adopts in this document will be 

triggered if any money, service, or other 

valuable consideration is directly or 

indirectly paid or promised to, or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32227 

charged or accepted by a broadcast 

station in the context of a lease of 

broadcast time in exchange for the 

airing of material provided by a foreign 

governmental entity. 

31. While the Commission expects 

that such consideration received by the 

station directly will be apparent from 

the terms and exercise of any lease 

agreement, as discussed below, the 

Commission notes that under section 

507 of the Act, parties involved in the 

production, preparation, or supply of a 

program or program material that is 

intended to be aired on a broadcast 

station also have an obligation to 

disclose to their employer or to the 

party for whom the programming is 

being produced or to the station 

licensee, if they have accepted or agreed 

to accept, or paid or agreed to pay, any 

money or valuable consideration for 

inclusion of any program or material. 

Thus, as detailed further below, the 

Commission requires that licensees will 

exercise reasonable diligence to 

ascertain whether consideration has 

been provided in exchange for the lease 

of airtime or in exchange for the airing 

of materials directly or indirectly to the 

station, as well as whether anyone 

involved in the production, preparation, 

or supply of the material has received 

compensation, and that an appropriate 

disclosure will be made about the 

involvement of any foreign 

governmental entity. The Commission 

discusses what this obligation means for 

the licensee and lessee below. 

32. Programming Provided for Free as 

an Inducement to Air Under 317(a)(2). 

In addition to the payment of monetary 

or other valuable consideration, section 

317(a)(2) of the Act establishes that a 

sponsorship disclosure may also be 

required in some circumstances, even if 

the only ‘‘consideration’’ being offered 

to the station in exchange for the airing 

of the material is the programming 

itself. As stated above, the Commission 

believes that, as a practical matter, 

leasing agreements will involve the 

exchange of money or other valuable 

consideration from the programmer to 

the licensee. It is not typical for a station 

to enter into an agreement for the lease 

of airtime in exchange solely for the 

promise of free programming to be aired 

on the station. However, to account for 

such a circumstance, and consistent 

with the discussion in the NPRM, the 

Commission finds it is equally 

important that the foreign sponsorship 

identification rules apply in that 

instance, should such a circumstance 

arise. Section 317(a)(2) provides that a 

disclosure is required at the time of 

broadcast in the case of any ‘‘political 

program or any program involving the 

discussion of a controversial issue’’ if 

the program itself was furnished free of 

charge, or at nominal cost, as an 

inducement for its broadcast. The 

Commission has previously interpreted 

‘‘political program’’ in the context of 

section 317(a)(2) to generally involve 

programming seeking to persuade or 

dissuade the American public on a 

given political candidate or policy issue. 

33. While the NPRM tentatively 

concluded that all programming 

provided by a foreign governmental 

entity should be treated as a ‘‘political 

program’’ pursuant to section 317(a)(2) 

of the Act, and, thus, the provision of 

such programming in and of itself could 

be sufficient to trigger a disclosure, 

based on the record before us and upon 

further consideration, the Commission 

declines to expand the definition of 

political program in this context. Rather, 

consistent with the approach in this 

Order to narrow the scope of the rules 

to target more appropriately the 

reported instances of undisclosed 

foreign governmental programming, the 

Commission believes it is unnecessary 

to expand the interpretation of 

‘‘political program’’ and elect to apply 

the existing interpretation of that term at 

this time. Similarly, for purposes of the 

foreign sponsorship identification rules 

the Commission will continue to 

interpret ‘‘any program involving the 

discussion of any controversial issue’’ 

under section 317(a)(2) in a manner 

consistent with precedent. The 

Commission finds that applying the 

existing definition of ‘‘political 

program’’ consistent with long-standing 

Commission precedent in this area 

addresses many of the concerns raised 

by commenters about various types of 

programming that inadvertently might 

be swept into the ambit the new foreign 

sponsorship identification rules. The 

Commission also clarifies that its new 

rules do not override the guidance 

provided in the Commission’s 1963 

seminal order and accompanying public 

notice about what would be considered 

an ‘‘inducement’’ to broadcast 

programming. 

34. Additionally, similar to the 

analysis above, the Commission finds 

that section 507 of the Act applies in 

this context as well. Specifically, the 

Commission believes it is reasonable to 

consider the provision of any ‘‘political 

program or any program involving the 

discussion of a controversial issue’’ by 

a foreign governmental entity to a party 

in the distribution chain for no cost and 

as an inducement to air that material on 

a broadcast station to be ‘‘service or 

other valuable consideration’’ under the 

terms of section 507. Accordingly, in the 

event that an entity involved in the 

production, preparation, or supply of 

programming that is intended to be 

aired on a station has received any 

‘‘political program or any program 

involving the discussion of a 

controversial issue’’ from a foreign 

governmental entity for free, or at 

nominal charge, as an inducement for 

its broadcast, the Commission finds that 

under section 507 it must disclose that 

fact to its employer, the person for 

whom the program is being produced, 

or the licensee of the station and will 

require an appropriate foreign 

sponsorship identification. The 

Commission discusses what this 

obligation means for the licensee and 

lessee below. 

35. Reasonable Diligence. The 

Commission adopts its tentative 

conclusion from the NPRM that the final 

responsibility for any necessary foreign 

sponsorship identification disclosure 

rests with the licensee in accordance 

with the statutory scheme. Accordingly, 

the Commission finds that a broadcast 

station licensee must exercise 

‘‘reasonable diligence’’ to determine if 

an entity within the scope addressed 

above—i.e. an entity or individual that 

is purchasing airtime on the station or 

providing any ‘‘political program or any 

program involving the discussion of a 

controversial issue’’ free of charge as an 

inducement to broadcast such material 

on the station—is a foreign 

governmental entity, such that a 

disclosure is required under the foreign 

sponsorship identification rules. As 

explained below, the Commission 

concludes that such diligence requires 

that the licensee must, at a minimum: 

(1) Inform the lessee at the time of 

agreement and at renewal of the foreign 

sponsorship disclosure requirement; 

(2) Inquire of the lessee at the time of 

agreement and at renewal whether it 

falls into any of the categories that 

qualify it as a ‘‘foreign governmental 

entity’’; 

(3) Inquire of the lessee at the time of 

agreement and at renewal whether it 

knows if anyone further back in the 

chain of producing/distributing the 

programming that will be aired pursuant 

to the lease agreement, or a sub-lease, 

qualifies as a foreign governmental 

entity and has provided some type of 

inducement to air the programming; 

(4) Independently confirm the lessee’s 

status, at the time of agreement and at 

renewal by consulting the Department 

of Justice’s FARA website and the 

Commission’s semi-annual U.S.-based 

foreign media outlets reports for the 

lessee’s name. This need only be done 

if the lessee has not already disclosed 

that it falls into one of the covered 

categories and that there is no separate 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32228 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

need for a disclosure because no one 

further back in the chain of producing/ 

transmitting the programming falls into 

one of the covered categories and has 

provided some form of service or 

consideration as an inducement to 

broadcast the programming; and 

(5) Memorialize the above-listed 

inquiries and investigations to track 

compliance in the event documentation 

is required to respond to any future 

Commission inquiry on the issue. 

36. Finally, as discussed below, the 

Commission clarifies that the lessee, in 

accordance with sections 507(b) and (c) 

of the Act likewise carries an 

independent responsibility both to 

respond to the licensee’s inquiries and 

inform the licensee if, during the course 

of the lease arrangement, it becomes 

aware of any information that would 

trigger a disclosure pursuant to the new 

foreign sponsorship identification rules. 

37. Licensee’s Responsibilities. 

Pursuant to section 317(c) of the Act, 

the licensee bears the responsibility to 

engage in ‘‘reasonable diligence’’ to 

determine the true source of the 

programming aired on its station. 

Section 317(c) of the Act states that the 

licensee of each radio station shall 

exercise reasonable diligence to obtain 

from its employees, and from other 

persons with whom it deals directly in 

connection with any program or 

program matter for broadcast, 

information to enable such licensee to 

make the announcement required by 

this section. This statutory provision is 

categoric and does not provide any 

exceptions, as it is the licensee who has 

been granted the right to use the public 

airwaves. As discussed in the NPRM, 

the licensee of a broadcast station must 

ultimately remain in control of the 

station and maintain responsibility for 

the material transmitted over its 

airwaves, even when it has entered into 

a leasing agreement. While this 

responsibility adheres in every instance, 

the Commission finds that it is 

particularly important here, where the 

record shows that the audience is 

typically unaware that the lessee/ 

brokering party that is sponsoring, 

paying for, or furnishing the 

programming could either be a foreign 

governmental entity or be passing 

through programming on behalf of such 

an entity. 

38. As a threshold matter, the 

Commission expects the licensee to 

convey clearly to the prospective lessee 

that there is a Commission disclosure 

requirement regarding foreign 

government-provided programming. In 

this regard, the Commission finds that 

‘‘reasonable diligence’’ also includes 

inquiring of the potential lessee whether 

it qualifies under the definition of a 

‘‘foreign governmental entity.’’ Given 

that the licensee is entering into a 

contractual agreement that allows the 

lessee to program airtime or provide 

programming on the station, the 

Commission finds it reasonable to 

expect that the licensee make these 

basic inquiries of the lessee to ascertain 

whether the programming to be aired 

will require a disclosure under the rules 

the Commission adopt herein. The 

Commission notes that broadcasters 

may choose to implement these 

requirements through contractual 

provisions between the licensee and 

lessee though they are not required to 

do so. 

39. The Commission also expects the 

licensee to inquire of the lessee whether 

‘‘in connection with the production or 

preparation of any program or program 

matter’’ that it, or any sub-lessee, 

intends to air it is aware of any money, 

service or other valuable consideration 

from a foreign governmental entity 

provided as an inducement to air a part 

of such program or program matter. 

Such an inquiry is consistent with 

sections 507(b) and (c) of the Act, which 

impose a duty on the lessee to inform 

the licensee to the extent it is aware of 

any payments or other valuable 

consideration, including inducements to 

air for free, associated with the 

programming such as to trigger a 

disclosure. Likewise, section 317(b) of 

the Act imposes an associated 

requirement on the licensee to make any 

disclosures necessitated by learning 

such information pursuant to section 

507 of the Act. The Commission finds 

that this type of inquiry by the licensee 

is particularly important given reports 

about instances where programming 

originating from foreign governmental 

actors is being passed through program 

distributors who lease time on U.S. 

broadcast stations. 

40. If in response to the licensee’s 

initial inquiry, the lessee states that it 

falls within the definition of a ‘‘foreign 

governmental entity,’’ or is otherwise 

aware of the need for a foreign 

sponsorship identification disclosure, 

then the licensee needs to ensure that 

the programming contains the 

appropriate disclosure. As discussed 

above, licensees may become aware of 

the need for a foreign sponsorship 

identification disclosure via the 

reporting obligation contained in 

section 507 of the Act. On the other 

hand, if the lessee’s response is that it 

does not fall within the definition and 

is not separately aware of the need for 

a disclosure, the Commission requires 

the licensee to verify independently that 

the lessee does not qualify as a ‘‘foreign 

governmental entity.’’ To do so, at a 

minimum, the licensee will need to 

conduct certain independent searches. 

Specifically, the licensee should check 

if the lessee appears on the Department 

of Justice’s most recent FARA list as an 

agent that is acting on behalf of a foreign 

principal that is either a ‘‘government of 

a foreign country,’’ as defined by FARA, 

or a ‘‘foreign political party,’’ as defined 

by FARA. The licensee should also 

check if the lessee appears on the FARA 

list as an agent whose principal is either 

directly or indirectly operated, 

supervised, directed, owned, controlled, 

financed, or subsidized, in whole or in 

part, by a ‘‘government of a foreign 

country,’’ as defined by FARA, or a 

‘‘foreign political party’’ as defined by 

FARA. 

41. Put differently, if a lessee named 

‘‘ABC Corp.’’ appears as an agent on the 

FARA list, but ABC Corp.’s principal is 

XYZ Corp., the licensee’s search does 

not stop at this point simply because 

XYZ Corp. is neither a government of a 

foreign country nor a foreign political 

party. Rather the licensee should review 

ABC Corp’s filing to see whether XYZ 

Corp is in fact directly or indirectly 

operated, supervised, directed, owned, 

controlled, financed, or subsidized, in 

whole or in part, by a government of a 

foreign country or a foreign political 

party. Such information will be 

indicated on the filing. If there is such 

direct or indirect operation, supervision, 

direction, ownership, control, financing, 

or subsidization, in whole or in part, 

then the programming aired by ABC 

Corp. will need a foreign sponsorship 

disclosure. 

42. In this regard, the Commission 

notes that the FARA database is simple 

to use and allows for a search by terms. 

Consequently, the Commission 

anticipates that in most cases a licensee 

will need to do no more than merely run 

a search of the lessee’s name on the 

FARA database. If the search does not 

generate any results, the licensee can 

safely assume that the lessee is not a 

FARA agent and no further search is 

needed on the FARA database. If the 

lessee’s name does appear on the FARA 

database, the licensee may need to 

review the materials filed as part of a 

given agent’s registration to ascertain 

whether the lessee qualifies as a 

‘‘foreign governmental entity.’’ The 

licensee should also check if the lessee’s 

name appears in the Commission’s 

semi-annual reports of U.S.-based 

foreign media outlets. If the lessee’s 

name does not appear on either the 

FARA list or in the U.S.-based foreign 

media outlet reports then no further 

checks are needed of these sites. Finally, 

the Commission requires that the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32229 

licensee memorialize its inquiries to 

track compliance and create a record in 

the event of any future Commission 

inquiry. 

43. The Commission requires that a 

licensee investigate the nature of the 

party to whom it is leasing airtime both 

at the time the agreement between the 

parties is executed and at renewal. As 

part of its inquiries, the licensee should 

also inquire whether the lessee is aware 

of anyone further back in the chain of 

producing/transmitting the 

programming who might qualify as a 

foreign governmental entity and has 

provided some form of consideration as 

an inducement to air the programming. 

To the extent that the lessee confirms 

that it still qualifies as a foreign 

governmental entity, no other 

investigation on the part of the licensee 

is necessary beyond ensuring that the 

disclosures specified by the rules 

continue to be made. If the lessee 

indicates that it is no longer a foreign 

governmental entity, then programming 

disclosures are no longer required under 

the rules after the licensee 

independently verifies that this is the 

case. 

44. The Commission requires 

reasonable diligence to be conducted 

not only at the time of the agreement is 

entered into, but also at renewal time. 

The Commission recognizes the lessee’s 

status may change, particularly if the 

duration of the lease agreement is for a 

term of years. That is, over the course 

of the lease, not only might the lessee 

in fact become, due to actions on its 

part, a ‘‘foreign governmental entity,’’ 

for example, by entering into an agency 

relationship pursuant to FARA, but it 

may also be the case that the lessee 

contests the Department of Justice’s 

designation of the lessee as a FARA 

agent such that the lessee’s name only 

appears on the FARA list subsequent to 

the establishment of the lease 

agreement. Moreover, the Commission 

requires the licensee to memorialize the 

results of its diligence in some manner 

for its own records and maintain this 

documentation for the remainder of the 

then-current license term or one year, 

whichever is longer. In this manner, the 

licensee will have the necessary 

documentation should the Commission 

inquire about a particular lease 

agreement or particular programming 

aired on the licensee’s station pursuant 

to the lease of time. 

45. In addition, the Commission 

strongly encourages licensees to include 

a provision in their lease agreements 

requiring the lessee to notify the 

licensee about any change in the lessee’s 

status such as to trigger the foreign 

sponsorship identification rules. The 

Commission expects that inclusion of 

such a provision will impress upon the 

lessee the importance of its rules and 

result in a statement to the licensee if 

there is a change in status. Some 

commenters assert that in lieu of the 

clear objective steps laid out above for 

meeting the statutory ‘‘reasonable 

diligence’’ requirement, the Commission 

should instead require broadcasters to 

engage in ‘‘reasonable diligence’’ only if 

they have reason to believe that their 

lessee is affiliated with a foreign 

governmental entity. The Act does not, 

however, contain a threshold showing 

of ‘‘reason to believe’’ in advance of 

requiring that broadcasters engage in 

‘‘reasonable diligence.’’ Moreover, the 

adoption of such a subjective standard 

would make the rules adopted in the 

instant Order virtually ineffectual and 

unenforceable by leaving it up to the 

broadcasters’ discretion whether to 

check the status of a lessee, rather than 

relying on quick objective searches of 

reliable government databases. Some of 

those that propose this ‘‘reason to 

believe’’ standard assert by way of 

example that there is no reason to 

believe that a church or school group 

with whom a licensee has had an 

extended relationship is likely to be, or 

have any connection with, a foreign 

governmental entity, and, hence there is 

no reason to inquire about such a 

lessee’s status or its programming. The 

practical implication of linking the 

‘‘reasonable diligence’’ steps described 

above to a broadcaster’s belief based on 

its previous long-term relationships 

with given lessees, however, is that only 

new lessees or perhaps those with 

characteristics unknown to the 

broadcaster will be subject to 

‘‘reasonable diligence,’’ an approach 

that would seem to favor existing 

lessees at the expense of new and 

diverse entrants and to jeopardize the 

Commission’s efforts to ensure 

broadcast audiences know who is 

seeking to persuade them. 

46. Some commenters suggest that the 

requirement to check the FARA list is 

unduly burdensome. The Commission 

finds that limiting the application of its 

foreign sponsorship disclosure rules to 

situations involving leasing agreements 

and also narrowing the scope of the 

term ‘‘political program’’ to align with 

prior interpretations, should greatly 

diminish the overall compliance burden 

on licensees by limiting the 

circumstances in which such searches 

will be necessary to those areas that 

raise important issues of public 

concern—as compared to the proposal 

laid out in the NPRM, which applied to 

all programming arrangements and 

required a special disclosure for all 

programming provided by a foreign 

governmental entity—while taking 

necessary steps to ensure broadcasters 

will identify those instances where 

foreign sponsorship identification is 

necessary. In addition, the objective 

tests laid out above should facilitate 

compliance, by specifying what 

licensees have to do to comply with the 

‘‘reasonable diligence’’ requirement in 

terms of straightforward and limited 

search requirements that minimize the 

burden on broadcasters and are 

necessary to ensure that the public is 

adequately informed about the true 

identity of a programmer’s ties to a 

foreign government. Thus, the 

Commission finds that these reasonable 

diligence inquiries do not pose undue 

burden on broadcast licensees and, 

more importantly, will help ensure that 

the licensee is cognizant of whether the 

entity seeking to lease time on its station 

is a foreign governmental entity. 

47. Lessee’s Obligations. As 

previously discussed, pursuant to 

section 507, the lessee also holds an 

independent obligation to communicate 

information to the licensee relevant to 

determining whether a disclosure is 

needed. In this regard, the Commission 

adopts the tentative conclusion 

contained in the NPRM that sections 

507(b) and (c) of the Act impose a duty 

on the broker/lessee to inform the 

licensee to the extent it is aware of any 

payments (or other valuable 

consideration) associated with the 

programming such as to trigger a 

disclosure. No party commented on the 

Commission’s tentative conclusion that 

sections 507(b) and (c) of the Act 

impose a duty on the broker/lessee to 

inform the licensee to the extent it is 

aware of any payments (or other 

valuable consideration) associated with 

the programming. As stated in the 

NPRM, in its 1960 amendments to the 

Act, Congress imposed on non-licensees 

associated with the transmission or 

production of programming a 

requirement to disclose any knowledge 

of consideration paid as an inducement 

to air particular material. Congress 

added this provision in recognition that 

individuals other than the licensee were 

increasingly involved in programming 

decisions. Thus, consistent with the 

statute, the Commission concludes that 

it is incumbent on a lessee to convey to 

the licensee its knowledge of any 

payment or consideration provided by, 

or unpaid programming received as an 

inducement from, an entity or 

individual that triggers the foreign 

sponsorship identification rules laid out 

in this Order. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32230 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

48. The Commission emphasizes here 

that the reach of sections 507(b) and (c) 

of the Act is not limited only to those 

entities or individuals who have entered 

into lease agreements with the licensee. 

Rather, these provisions impose a 

disclosure obligation on any person 

who, in connection with the production 

or preparation of any program or who 

supplies to any other person any 

program to convey any information such 

person may have about the provision of 

any inducement to broadcast the 

program in order to necessitate a 

sponsorship identification disclosure by 

the licensee. Specifically, such nonlicensees must disclose to their 

employer, the person for which such 

program is being produced (e.g., the 

next individual involved in the chain of 

transmitting the programming to the 

licensee), or the licensee itself, their 

knowledge of any payment or ‘‘valuable 

consideration’’ provided or accepted by 

a foreign governmental entity. Section 

507(a) of the Act imposes a similar 

disclosure obligation on the licensee’s 

own employees. Likewise, section 

317(b) of the Act imposes a parallel 

requirement on licensees to make a 

required disclosure to the public at the 

time of broadcast if they learn of the 

need for a disclosure via the mechanism 

laid out in section 507 of the Act. 

49. Reasonable Diligence 

Requirements to Apply on a Prospective 

Basis. Some commenters have asked 

that any new rules only apply on a 

going forward basis. Recognizing that 

some lease agreements may last for 

several years, the Commission declines 

to delay application of its rules to only 

new lease agreements. Rather, the 

Commission believes that the public 

interest is best served if audiences are 

notified of foreign sponsorship as soon 

as reasonably possible. Thus, in 

addition to applying the rules to new 

lease agreements and renewals of 

existing agreements, the Commission 

requires that lease agreements in place 

when the changes to the rules adopted 

herein become effective come into 

compliance with the new requirements, 

including undertaking reasonable 

diligence, within six months. In this 

manner, the transparency the 

Commission seeks to achieve can be 

accomplished in a way that does not 

unduly burden licensees. 

50. Contents and Frequency of 

Required Disclosure of Foreign 

Sponsorship. Consistent with the 

NPRM, the Commission adopts 

standardized language to inform 

audiences at the time of broadcast that 

the program material has been provided 

by a foreign governmental entity. Such 

standardized language will avoid 

confusion and ensure that the 

information is conveyed clearly and 

concisely to the audience. Accordingly, 

as discussed below, the Commissions 

adopts the disclosure language proposed 

in the NPRM with two modifications, 

one to provide greater flexibility in the 

language used and the other to 

harmonize its labeling requirements 

with those imposed pursuant to FARA. 

In addition, the Commission adopts a 

requirement that stations airing 

programming subject to the proposed 

disclosure requirement must place 

copies of the disclosures in their OPIFs, 

in a standalone folder marked as 

‘‘Foreign Government-Provided 

Programming Disclosures’’ so that the 

material is readily identifiable to the 

public pursuant to the timing 

requirements discussed below. 

51. Labeling Requirement. First, as 

requested by NAB, the Commission 

allows licensees the flexibility to use 

any of three terms (sponsored, paid for, 

or furnished) in an on-air foreign 

sponsorship disclosure statement, rather 

than mandate the use of ‘‘paid for, or 

furnished’’ as proposed, in order to 

conform the new requirement more 

closely to existing sponsorship 

identification requirements. The 

Commission notes that the language 

proposed by the National Association of 

Broadcasters (NAB) is consistent with 

existing sponsorship identification 

requirements. To the extent that the 

foreign sponsorship identification rules 

comport with existing rules and with 

how broadcast station personnel are 

accustomed to operating, the 

Commission finds that such allowances 

should facilitate compliance by 

licensees and minimize the burden on 

them. Hence, at the time a station 

broadcasts programming that was 

provided by a foreign governmental 

entity, the Commission requires a 

disclosure identifying that fact and the 

origin of the programming as follows: 

The [following/preceding] programming 

was [sponsored, paid for, or furnished,] 

either in whole or in part, by [name of foreign 

governmental entity] on behalf of [name of 

foreign country]. 

52. In establishing this disclosure 

language, the Commission recognizes 

that FARA also has a labelling 

requirement and clarify that the 

programming need not have two 

separate labels—both the FARA label 

and the Commission’s full disclosure. 

Rather, for those entities that are subject 

to FARA, the Commission accepts for 

compliance purposes the contents of the 

FARA label as long as it is modified to 

include the country associated with the 

foreign governmental entity named in 

the label and comports with the format 

and frequency requirements described 

below. As discussed further below, the 

Commission notes that FARA requires 

only that FARA agents label materials, 

including broadcast programming, with 

a conspicuous statement identifying the 

FARA agent and its principal when 

distributed in the United States; 

therefore, unless the licensee has 

registered under FARA, the licensee 

may not have the required FARA label. 

Thus, for those entities not registered 

under FARA, the Commission requires 

the disclosure language the Commission 

adopts in this document. Moreover, the 

Commission finds that its disclosure 

statement—or, alternatively, the 

passthrough of modified FARA labels— 

provides audiences of broadcast stations 

greater insight about the source of 

foreign government-provided 

programming than may exist with 

existing FARA labeling practices. As 

described above, the language the 

Commission adopts in this document 

requires that the country associated 

with the foreign governmental entity be 

named in the disclosure, which will 

provide additional information when 

that entity is a foreign political party or 

an agent registered under FARA. 

53. In the interest of ensuring 

transparency for the intended viewers 

and listeners of foreign governmentprovided programming, the Commission 

also requires that, if the primary 

language of the programming is other 

than English, the disclosure statement 

should be presented in the primary 

language of the programming. Although 

the NPRM sought comment on this 

issue, no commenters addressed this 

point. For programming that contains a 

‘‘conspicuous statement’’ required by 

FARA, and such a conspicuous 

statement is in a language other than 

English, an additional disclosure in 

English is not needed. 

54. With regard to the format of the 

disclosure, for televised programming, 

the Commission requires the disclosure 

to be in letters equal to or greater than 

four percent of the vertical picture 

height and be visible for not less than 

four seconds to ensure readability. The 

NPRM sought comment on this format, 

but no commenters addressed this 

point. As this format convention 

replicates the existing format rule for a 

televised political advertisement 

concerning a candidate for public office, 

the Commission anticipates minimal 

compliance burden on licensees. For 

radio broadcasts, the Commission 

incorporates into the rules the 

Department of Justice guidance 

provided to FARA registrants that the 

disclosure shall be audible. Once again, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32231 

although the NPRM sought comment on 

this issue, no commenters addressed 

this point. 

55. With regard to the frequency of 

the disclosure, consistent with the 

NPRM and the existing rules for 

political broadcast matter or any 

broadcast matter involving the 

discussion of a controversial issue of 

public importance, the Commission 

requires that the disclosure be made at 

both the beginning and conclusion of 

the broadcast station programming to 

ensure the audience is aware of the 

source of its programming. Also 

consistent with its existing rules for 

political broadcast matter or any 

broadcast matter involving the 

discussion of a controversial issue of 

public importance, the Commission 

requires that for any broadcast of 5 

minutes duration or less, only one such 

announcement must be made at either 

the beginning or conclusion of the 

program. 

56. The Commission deviates from its 

existing sponsorship identification rules 

in one respect. The Commission adopts 

its tentative conclusion from the NPRM 

that for programming of greater than 

sixty minutes in duration, an 

announcement must be made at regular 

intervals during the broadcast, but no 

less frequently than once every 60 

minutes. Sponsorship announcements 

at regular intervals are not explicitly 

required under the current rules. While 

NAB urges the Commission not to 

deviate from the existing timing and 

frequency rules, the Commission 

believes that this one additional 

requirement is necessary given the 

importance of disclosure related to 

foreign government-provided 

programming. While APTS notes that 

NCE stations are prohibited by statute 

from interrupting programming to 

identify funding sources, which could 

override and nullify the proposed 

frequency requirement in the context of 

NCE stations, as stated above, the 

Commission believes that NCE stations 

will rarely, if ever, fall within the ambit 

of the new rules. To the extent an issue 

does arise, the Commission will address 

such situations on a case-by-case basis 

through either its waiver process or the 

means that appear appropriate at that 

time. As discussed in the NPRM, the 

Commission finds that periodic 

announcements are necessary, 

particularly in those instances where a 

foreign governmental entity is 

continually broadcasting programming 

without an identifiable beginning or 

end, such as through a lease of a 100% 

of a station’s airtime. No commenter 

objected to the Commission’s reasoning 

for this finding nor commented on the 

burden of recurring announcements. 

The Commission notes that in the case 

of a political broadcast matter or any 

broadcast matter involving the 

discussion of a controversial issue of 

public importance—which typically 

does not have an obvious sponsor—the 

current rules require a sponsorship 

identification both at the beginning and 

conclusion of any such broadcast of 

greater than 5 minutes. Similarly, here 

the Commission believes that periodic 

announcements (once every 60 minutes) 

are necessary for any foreign 

government-provided programming 

with a duration of greater than one hour 

because of the lack of transparency 

regarding the true sponsor of such 

programming. The Commission notes 

that periodic announcements (i.e., once 

every hour versus at the beginning and 

conclusion of the program) are also 

necessary because of the longer blocks 

of programming time foreign 

governmental entities typically 

purchase in connection with leasing 

arrangements. 

57. Finally, consistent with the 

proposal in the NPRM, the Commission 

finds that its standardized disclosure 

requirements apply equally to any 

programming transmitted on a broadcast 

station’s multicast streams. The 

Commission received no objections to 

this proposal, and consequently finds 

no reason to exclude multicast streams. 

As such, multicast streams are subject to 

all the disclosure requirements 

pertaining to foreign governmentprovided programming that the 

Commission adopts in this document. 

58. Public File. Consistent with the 

NPRM, the Commission adopts a 

requirement that stations airing 

programming subject to the proposed 

disclosure requirement must place 

copies of the disclosures in their OPIFs, 

in a standalone folder marked as 

‘‘Foreign Government-Provided 

Programming Disclosures’’ so that the 

material is readily identifiable to the 

public, as well as a requirement with 

regard to the frequency of placing such 

material in the public file. For broadcast 

stations that do not have obligations to 

maintain OPIFs, the Commission 

recommends such stations retain a 

record of their disclosures in their 

station files consistent with previous 

Commission guidance. The Commission 

does not, however, require licensees to 

submit additional information to their 

OPIFs concerning the list of persons 

operating the foreign governmental 

entity providing programming. 

59. Specifically, the Commission 

finds that licensees must place in their 

OPIFs the actual disclosure and the 

name of the program to which the 

disclosure was appended. In addition, 

the licensee must state the date and time 

the program aired. If there were repeat 

airings of the program, then those 

additional dates and times should also 

be included in the OPIF. With regard to 

the frequency with which licensees 

must update their OPIFs with this 

disclosure information, the Commission 

aligns this requirement with its existing 

requirement to update the TV Issues/ 

Programs Lists on a quarterly basis, as 

this will minimize the need for 

licensees to track different public filing 

requirements. The Commission also 

establishes the same OPIF two-year 

retention period for disclosures related 

to foreign government-provided 

programming as currently exists for the 

retention of lists regarding the 

executives of any entity that sponsored 

programming concerning a political or 

controversial matter. 

60. The Commission does not adopt 

the ‘‘as soon as possible’’ disclosure 

standard contained in § 73.1943 of its 

rules or require posting to occur ‘‘within 

twenty-four hours of the material being 

broadcast’’ as proposed in the NPRM. 

The Commission is persuaded by NAB’s 

comments that the ‘‘as soon as possible’’ 

standard contained in § 73.1943(c) of 

the rules need not apply to disclosures 

associated with foreign governmental 

entities. As NAB notes, the immediacy 

requirement in the political advertising 

context stems from the need to ensure 

that candidates can exercise their 

statutory rights to equal opportunities at 

statutorily mandated rates and the timesensitive need to reach potential voters 

before an election. The Commission 

finds no corresponding need to respond 

within an expedited timeframe in the 

case of foreign government-provided 

programming. 

61. The Commission concludes that, 

to the extent the foreign programming 

consists of a political matter or matter 

involving the discussion of a 

controversial issue of public 

importance, licensees obtain and 

disclose in their OPIFs a list of the 

persons operating the entity providing 

the programming, as currently required. 

The Commission clarifies that licensees 

can satisfy the required OPIF 

disclosures by identifying the officers 

and directors of the lessee in a single 

filing per lessee (rather than separate 

filings concerning each individual 

program sponsored by the same lessee) 

together with other filings required by 

the foreign sponsorship identification 

rules. The Commission is not persuaded 

by NAB’s contention—that, in the case 

of foreign-government-provided 

programming, the on-air and OPIF 

disclosures will provide the necessary 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32232 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

information to the American public 

identifying the foreign governmental 

entity that provided the programming 

and the foreign country with which it is 

affiliated—to grant what effectively 

would be an exemption to existing 

sponsorship identification rules for 

political programming provided by 

foreign governmental entities. However, 

the Commission determines at this time 

that the licensee need not provide any 

additional information in its OPIF, as 

considered in the NPRM, regarding the 

relationship between the foreign 

governmental entity and the foreign 

country that the foreign governmental 

entity represents, having no evidence to 

support the need for such information to 

enhance public disclosure at this time. 

62. Finally, the Commission adopts 

the unopposed tentative conclusion 

contained in the NPRM that licensees 

maintain in their OPIFs the disclosures 

associated with foreign governmentprovided programming rather than 

giving them the option of maintaining 

such information at the network 

headquarters if the programming was 

originated by a network. 

63. Concerns About Overlap with 

Other Statutory or Regulatory 

Requirements. The Commission rejects 

any suggestion that its foreign 

sponsorship identification rules are 

either duplicative of requirements 

imposed under FARA or unnecessary 

given the Commission’s current 

sponsorship identification rules. Rather, 

as discussed above and consistent with 

the admonitions of commenters, the 

Commission adopts disclosure 

requirements that further the its 

statutory mandate to provide 

transparency to audiences of broadcast 

stations regarding the source of 

sponsored programming, while avoiding 

unnecessary duplication with the FARA 

requirements. 

64. As a preliminary matter, the 

Commission emphasizes that although 

the requirements laid out in the NPRM 

and the instant Order look to FARA for 

assistance in determining what qualifies 

as a ‘‘foreign governmental entity,’’ 

section 317 of the Act and FARA each 

cover different types of entities with 

respect to their labeling requirements. 

Section 317 and the Commission’s 

sponsorship identification rules speak 

specifically to the obligations of 

licensees of broadcast stations, imposing 

transparency requirements regarding the 

origin of sponsored content as an 

element of the licensee’s stewardship of 

the public airwaves. In contrast, FARA 

imposes an obligation on agents 

required to register under FARA to label 

materials with a conspicuous statement 

identifying the FARA agent and its 

principal when it is distributing 

relevant materials within the United 

States by any means or media. 

Accordingly, unless the licensee of a 

broadcast station itself is a registered 

agent under FARA, the label required by 

FARA may not appear. Even if such 

labels are being passed through in some 

instances, as discussed above and in the 

NPRM, the reports about incidents of 

undisclosed foreign government 

programming indicate the need for 

greater action to ensure transparency. 

Consistent with the Commission’s own 

statutory mandate, the requirements 

adopted in the instant Order focus 

specifically on broadcast licensees to 

ensure they disclose foreign government 

provided-programming consistent with 

the intent and language of section 317 

of the Act. 

65. Further, as noted above, the rules 

the Commission adopts in this 

document require identification of the 

country associated with the foreign 

governmental entity that provided the 

programming, whereas the FARA 

disclosure statement does not require 

this information. Rather, FARA requires 

identification of only the foreign 

principal, whose name may not identify 

its connection to a foreign country. In 

addition, while FARA requires that 

covered materials that are televised or 

broadcast, or which are caused to be 

televised or broadcast shall be 

introduced by a statement which is 

reasonably adapted to convey to the 

viewers or listeners thereof such 

information as is required under FARA, 

it does not dictate whether such 

information should be repeated during a 

broadcast or at what frequency. In 

contrast, the foreign sponsorship 

identification rules the Commission 

adopts in this document contain 

specific guidance for broadcast licensees 

as to the frequency and content of the 

required label to increase transparency 

and ensure audiences are aware of the 

foreign sources of such programming. 

66. Given the key differences between 

the FARA requirements and those the 

Commission adopts in this document, 

the Commission rejects NPR’s assertion 

that enforcement of § 73.1212(e) of the 

Commission’s rules could achieve the 

Commission’s goals in this proceeding. 

As REC Networks notes, compliance 

with the Commission’s existing 

sponsorship identification rules does 

not currently result in the identification 

of a foreign government as the ultimate 

provider of programming to the extent 

this is the case. 

67. Section 325(c) Permits. The 

Commission adopts the NPRM’s 

tentative conclusion that the proposed 

foreign sponsorship identification rules 

should apply expressly, to the extent 

applicable, to any programming 

broadcast pursuant to a section 325(c) 

permit, in addition to U.S.-licensed 

broadcast stations. A section 325(c) 

permit is required when an entity 

produces programming in the United 

States but, rather than broadcasting the 

programming from a U.S.-licensed 

station, transmits or delivers the 

programming from a U.S. studio to a 

non-U.S. licensed station in a foreign 

country and broadcasts the 

programming from the foreign station 

with a sufficient transmission power or 

from a geographic location that enables 

the material to be received consistently 

in the United States. 

68. The Commission finds that 

applying the same disclosure 

requirements to programming broadcast 

pursuant to a section 325(c) permit 

serves the public interest because, like 

programming from a U.S.-licensed 

station, programming from a section 

325(c) station is received by audiences 

in the United States. In this context, the 

section 325(c) permit holder has full 

control over its programming content 

and whether and how any programming 

provided by foreign governmental 

entities should be incorporated in the 

programming broadcast pursuant to its 

section 325(c) permit and broadcasted 

by the foreign station. Accordingly, any 

programming agreement with a section 

325(c) holder will be subject to the 

foreign sponsorship disclosure if 

material aired on the foreign station has 

been sponsored, paid for, or furnished 

for free as an inducement to air by a 

foreign governmental entity. Under the 

rules the Commission adopts herein, a 

section 325(c) permit holder must 

ensure that the foreign station will 

broadcast the disclosure along with the 

programming provided under its section 

325(c) permit. The Commission finds 

that treating U.S.-licensed broadcast 

station licensees and section 325(c) 

permittees in the same manner with 

respect to foreign government-provided 

programming would serve the public 

interest and could avoid creating a 

potential loophole in the regulatory 

framework with respect to the 

identification of foreign governmentprovided programming. 

69. The Commission received no 

comment on its tentative conclusion 

regarding programming provided 

pursuant to section 325(c) permits, 

including regarding whether any aspect 

of the foreign sponsorship identification 

requirements should be modified for 

section 325(c) permit holders. The 

Commission therefore finds no reason to 

depart from its tentative conclusion in 

this regard and find that the foreign 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32233 

sponsorship identification rules will 

apply to any programming broadcast 

pursuant to a section 325(c) permit. The 

Commission notes, however, that the 

section 325(c) permit holders are not 

required to maintain an online public 

inspection file. Accordingly, a section 

325(c) permit holder shall place copies 

of the disclosures required along with 

the name of the program to which the 

disclosures were appended in the 

International Bureau’s public filing 

System (IBFS) under the relevant IBFS 

section 325(c) permit file. The filing 

must state the date and time the 

program aired. In the case of repeat 

airings of the program, those additional 

dates and times should also be 

included. Where an aural 

announcement was made, its contents 

must be reduced to writing and placed 

in the IBFS in the same manner. 

70. First Amendment Considerations. 

Consistent with the NPRM, the 

Commission finds that the foreign 

sponsorship identification rules the 

Commission adopts in this document 

comport with the strictures of the First 

Amendment to the Constitution, even 

under the highest level of scrutiny. As 

discussed above and at length in the 

NPRM, the Government has a 

compelling interest in ensuring that the 

public is aware of when a party has 

sponsored content on a broadcast 

station. The Commission finds that 

interest is even more important when a 

foreign governmental entity is involved 

in the sponsorship of the programming 

material, and that transparency to 

American audiences as to the 

sponsorship of such programming is a 

compelling interest. Having narrowed 

the rules even further than initially 

proposed, the Commission finds the 

final rules to be ‘‘narrowly tailored’’ to 

fulfill a ‘‘compelling’’ government 

interest using the ‘‘least restrictive 

means’’ to serve that goal. That being 

said, consistent with the NPRM’s further 

tentative conclusion, the Commission 

believes the disclosure requirement the 

Commission adopts in this document 

will be evaluated under a less 

restrictive, intermediate scrutiny 

standard applied to content neutral 

restrictions on broadcasters and thus 

will be upheld if narrowly tailored to 

achieve a substantial government 

interest. Moreover, because the 

disclosure requirement is content 

neutral—that is, it does not ban any type 

of speech but merely requires factual 

disclosure of the source of certain of 

programming—the Commission believes 

that the rules comply with the First 

Amendment as they are narrowly 

tailored to achieve a substantial 

Government interest. Thus, the 

Commission finds that, regardless of the 

level of scrutiny applied, its foreign 

sponsorship identification rules satisfy 

the First Amendment. 

71. In addition, the Commission has 

significantly narrowed the scope of the 

programming covered by this rule and 

minimized both the amount of speech 

potentially affected and the compliance 

burdens placed on broadcast licensees 

to focus on the context in which the 

record shows there are significant 

transparency concerns. As discussed 

above, the disclosure will now be 

required only for programming aired 

pursuant to a lease of airtime if directly 

or indirectly provided by a foreign 

governmental entity. By focusing the 

foreign sponsorship identification rules 

on leased programming, the 

Commission excludes from coverage 

programming that does not raise the 

same level of transparency concerns and 

a significant number of broadcast 

stations that do not engage in such 

leasing agreements and virtually all 

non-commercial, educational 

broadcasters, which rarely lease time to 

third parties in the manner discussed. 

72. Additionally, based on comments 

in the record, the Commission has 

clarified above how broadcast stations 

can comply with the narrowed scope of 

the rules to ensure that they are no more 

burdensome than necessary to serve the 

vital need for transparency about who is 

attempting to influence viewers. For 

example, the Commission has adopted 

the commenters’ suggestion that if the 

programming already contains an 

appropriate disclosure pursuant to 

FARA that conveys the same 

information required by the 

Commission’s rules and that is aired 

with at least the same frequency, then 

the station need not apply an additional 

disclosure. 

73. Ultimately, the rules the 

Commission adopts in this document 

are a minimal extension of the longstanding sponsorship identification 

rules required by § 73.1212 of its rules 

and well within the authority granted 

under section 317 of the Act. Similarly, 

the Commission believes its rules are 

consistent with, and not duplicative of, 

the equally long-standing labeling 

requirement contained in FARA. As 

such, the Commission finds that the 

modification of the sponsorship 

identification rules the Commission 

adopts herein is entirely consistent with 

the existing statutes and precedent in 

this area and complies with the First 

Amendment. 

74. Broadcasters have stated that 

focusing the rules on the type of 

programming subject to FARA 

disclosures and exempting 

inconsequential programming would 

appropriately focus the Commission’s 

rules on foreign propaganda, rather than 

the broad array of broadcast content that 

raised a host of concerns, including 

First Amendment issues, for NAB and 

other commenters. Fox similarly states 

that the rules should apply to longer 

programming provided by a FARA 

registrant and aired pursuant to a lease 

agreement. NAB based its previous 

claim that the rules would not 

withstand either intermediate or strict 

scrutiny on the assertion that they are 

duplicative of FARA obligations and 

thus fail to serve a compelling or 

substantial Government interest. As the 

Commission has discussed above, its 

foreign sponsorship identification rules 

apply to entities and programming not 

necessarily covered by FARA because 

they impose obligations directly on 

broadcasters and their programming 

suppliers. Further, the rules the 

Commission adopts herein promote 

greater transparency by requiring 

identification of the specific foreign 

government attempting to influence 

American viewers rather than referring 

viewers to a Government website to 

review. For these reasons, the 

Commission concludes that its modified 

foreign sponsorship identification rules 

comply with the First Amendment. 

75. Cost-Benefit Analysis. The NPRM 

sought comment on the benefits and 

costs associated with adopting foreign 

sponsorship identification rules. The 

NPRM also requested specific data and 

analysis in support of any claimed costs 

and benefits. No commenter provided 

quantified calculations of the benefits or 

costs of the proposed rules. 

Nevertheless, the Commission finds that 

by limiting the proposed rules to the 

circumstances stated above, the costs 

associated with the rules are reduced 

significantly from the initial proposal. 

Research reviewed by Commission staff 

also suggests that there are measurable 

benefits to sponsorship identification 

disclosures. Moreover, the lack of 

transparency regarding foreign influence 

and foreign government sponsored 

media has become a major public 

concern, including in Congress and for 

the United States Department of State. 

The public filing requirement will 

provide data on the extent of foreign 

government sponsored programming 

airing on broadcast stations. Therefore, 

the Commission finds that the costs 

associated with adopting the foreign 

sponsorship identification rules, as 

modified herein, do not outweigh the 

public benefits the Commission has 

identified regarding transparency of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32234 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

source of programming heard or viewed 

by the American public. 

76. Regulatory Flexibility Act. As 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification was incorporated into the 

NPRM. Pursuant to the RFA, the 

Commission has prepared a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

relating to this Report and Order. 

77. Paperwork Reduction Act. This 

Report and Order contains proposed 

new or revised information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 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 new or 

modified information collection 

requirements contained in this 

proceeding. 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 previously 

sought specific comment on how the 

Commission might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

78. Congressional Review Act. The 

Commission has determined, and 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

concurs, that this rule is ‘‘non-major’’ 

under the Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will 

send a copy of this Report & Order to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). The Commission 

will send a copy of this Report and 

Order to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

79. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the 

NPRM in this proceeding. The Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) sought written public 

comment on the proposals in the NPRM, 

including comment on the IRFA. The 

Commission received no comments on 

the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to 

the RFA. 

80. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules. As stated in the IRFA, 

broadcast programming viewers and 

listeners deserve to know when a 

foreign governmental entity has 

provided programming so that they can 

better evaluate the value and accuracy 

of such programming. Broadcast stations 

are entrusted with using the public 

airwaves to benefit their local 

communities and this obligation 

includes ensuring that any foreign 

government-provided programming is 

clearly identified. The rules the 

Commission adopts in this document 

update its sponsorship identification 

rules to provide specific guidance on 

the language and frequency of the 

necessary disclosures, provide clarity 

about how to identify a foreign 

governmental entity, and specify the 

steps broadcasters should take to ensure 

compliance with the ‘‘reasonable 

diligence’’ standard contained in section 

317(c) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended (Act). 

81. While the NPRM proposed that 

the foreign sponsorship identification 

rules would apply in any circumstance 

in which a foreign governmental entity 

directly or indirectly provided material 

for broadcast or furnished material to a 

station free of charge (or at nominal 

cost) as an inducement to broadcast 

such material, the Report and Order 

(R&O) narrows the rule to address 

specifically those circumstances in 

which a foreign governmental entity is 

programming a U.S. broadcast station 

pursuant to the lease of airtime. The 

rules adopted in the R&O require a 

specific disclosure at the time of 

broadcast if material aired pursuant to 

the lease of time on the station has been 

sponsored, paid for, or, in the case of 

political programming or programming 

involving a controversial issue, 

furnished for free as an inducement to 

air by a foreign governmental entity. 

The focus on leasing agreements 

narrows the application of the 

disclosure rules significantly, thereby 

minimizing the burden on broadcasters 

while ensuring that viewers and 

listeners are sufficiently informed as to 

the origin of material broadcast on 

stations when foreign governmental 

entities are providing programming. For 

example, the Commission anticipates 

that most, and possibly all, NCE station 

programming arrangements will fall 

outside the ambit of the rules given 

limitations on the ability of NCE 

stations to engage in leasing agreements. 

The foreign sponsorship identification 

rules apply to any programming 

broadcast pursuant to a section 325(c) 

permit. A section 325(c) permit is 

required when an entity produces 

programming in the United States but, 

rather than broadcasting the 

programming from a U.S.-licensed 

station, transmits or delivers the 

programming from a U.S. studio to a 

non-U.S. licensed station in a foreign 

country and broadcasts the 

programming from the foreign station 

with a sufficient transmission power or 

from a geographic location that enables 

the material to be received consistently 

in the United States. 

82. The R&O defines foreign 

governmental entities by referring to 

existing statutory definitions included 

in the Foreign Agents Registration Act 

of 1938, as amended (FARA) and the 

Communications Act. The definition 

adopted in the R&O includes: 

(1) A ‘‘government of a foreign 

country’’ as defined by FARA; 

(2) A ‘‘foreign political party’’ as 

defined by FARA; 

(3) An individual or entity registered 

as an ‘‘agent of a foreign principal,’’ 

under section 611(c) of FARA, whose 

‘‘foreign principal’’ is a ‘‘government of 

a foreign country,’’ a ‘‘foreign political 

party,’’ or is directly or indirectly 

operated, supervised, directed, owned, 

controlled, financed, or subsidized by a 

‘‘government of a foreign country’’ or by 

a ‘‘foreign political party’’ as defined by 

FARA, and that is acting in its capacity 

as an agent of such ‘‘foreign principal;’’ 

(4) An entity meeting the definition of 

a ‘‘U.S.-based foreign media outlet’’ 

pursuant to section 722 of the Act that 

has filed a report with the Commission. 

83. Based on broadcaster concerns 

regarding the difficulty of determining 

whether an entity is a ‘‘foreign mission’’ 

as included in the proposed definition 

of ‘‘foreign governmental entity,’’ the 

final definition the Commission adopts 

in this R&O excludes ‘‘foreign 

missions.’’ 

84. The revised required standard 

foreign sponsorship identification 

disclosure must state: 

The [following/preceding] programming 

was [sponsored, paid for, or furnished,] 

either in whole or in part, by [name of foreign 

governmental entity] on behalf of [name of 

foreign country]. 

In establishing this disclosure language, 

the R&O first adjusts the language 

proposed in the NPRM to allow 

including the word ‘‘sponsored’’ as one 

of the options that can be used. 

Broadcasters sought this change because 

it is consistent with existing 

sponsorship identification language. In 

addition, recognizing that FARA 

requires a standard disclosure, the R&O 

simplifies compliance by allowing 

broadcasters, including small 

broadcasters, to pass through any 

required FARA label included with the 

programming, so long as it also adds the 

name of the foreign country involved in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32235 

providing the programming and 

comports with the format and frequency 

requirements described below. The R&O 

concludes that the FARA disclosure 

with the addition of the country name 

satisfies the need to provide viewers 

and listeners greater insight regarding 

the source of foreign governmentprovided programming. 

85. The R&O details what is required 

of broadcasters to meet the ‘‘reasonable 

diligence’’ standard contained in section 

317(c) of the Act so that broadcasters 

can determine if a foreign sponsorship 

identification disclosure is needed. The 

R&O concludes that such diligence at a 

minimum requires the broadcaster to at 

the time of agreement and at renewal: 

(1) Inform the lessee of the foreign 

sponsorship disclosure requirement; 

(2) Inquire of the lessee whether it 

falls into any of the categories that 

qualify it as a ‘‘foreign governmental 

entity’’; 

(3) Inquire of the lessee whether it 

knows if anyone further back in the 

chain of producing/distributing the 

programming that will be aired pursuant 

to the lease agreement, or a sub-lease, 

qualifies as a foreign governmental 

entity and has provided some type of 

inducement to air the programming; 

(4) Independently confirm the lessee’s 

status, by consulting the Department of 

Justice’s FARA website and the 

Commission’s semi-annual U.S.-based 

foreign media outlets reports. This need 

only be done if the lessee states that it 

does not fall into one of the covered 

categories and that there is no separate 

need for a disclosure because no one 

further back in the chain of producing/ 

transmitting the programming falls into 

one of the covered categories and has 

provided some form of service or 

consideration as an inducement to 

broadcast the programming; and 

(5) Memorialize the above-listed 

inquiries and investigations to track 

compliance in the event documentation 

is required to respond to any future 

Commission inquiry on the issue. 

86. The R&O specifies that the 

licensee must memorialize the results of 

its diligence in some manner for its own 

records and maintain this 

documentation for the remainder of the 

then-current license term or one year, 

whichever is longer. In addition, the 

R&O clarifies that, under the revised 

rules, the lessee of airtime, in 

accordance with sections 507(b) and (c) 

of the Act, also holds an independent 

obligation to communicate information 

to the licensee relevant to determining 

whether a disclosure is needed. 

87. In the interest of ensuring 

transparency for viewers and listeners of 

foreign government-provided 

programming, the R&O requires that, if 

the primary language of the 

programming is other than English, the 

disclosure statement should be 

presented in the primary language of the 

programming. The disclosure for 

televised programming should be in 

letters equal to or greater than four 

percent of the vertical picture height 

and be visible for not less than four 

seconds to ensure readability. As this 

requirement tracks existing rules for 

televised political advertisements, 

television licensees are familiar with 

this format. For radio broadcasts, the 

R&O incorporates the existing DOJ 

interpretation for programming 

provided by FARA registrants: That the 

disclosure shall be audible. The R&O 

requires that the disclosure be made at 

both the beginning and end of the 

programming, and, consistent with an 

existing requirement for ‘‘political 

broadcast matter,’’ for any broadcast of 

5 minutes or less, only once. Finally, for 

programming longer than sixty minutes, 

the disclosure must be made at regular 

intervals during the broadcast, but no 

less frequently than once every sixty 

minutes. The R&O finds that periodic 

announcements are necessary, 

particularly in those instances where a 

foreign governmental entity is 

continually broadcasting programming 

without an identifiable beginning or 

end, such as through a lease of a 100% 

of a station’s airtime. Other than this 

final requirement for longer 

programming, the new size, frequency 

and duration requirements of the new 

foreign sponsorship identification rules 

are consistent existing sponsorship 

identification rules and are thus familiar 

to broadcasters. 

88. Consistent with the NPRM, the 

R&O adopts a requirement that stations 

airing foreign government-provided 

programming must place copies of the 

disclosures in their Online Public 

Information Files (OPIFs), in a 

standalone folder marked as ‘‘Foreign 

Government-Provided Programming 

Disclosures’’ so that the material is 

readily identifiable to the public. The 

R&O adopts the proposal discussed in 

the NPRM, that, to the extent the foreign 

programming consists of a political 

matter or matter involving the 

discussion of a controversial issue of 

public importance, licensees obtain and 

disclose in their OPIFs a list of the 

persons operating the foreign 

governmental entity that has provided 

the programming. The R&O rules 

require licensees to place in their OPIFs 

the actual disclosure and the name of 

the program to which the disclosure was 

appended. In addition, the licensee 

must state the date and time the 

program aired. If there are repeat airings 

of the program, then those additional 

dates and times should also be included 

in the OPIF. In response to broadcaster 

concerns about burdens, the R&O does 

not adopt the NPRM’s ‘‘as soon as 

possible’’ standard for updating OPIFs 

contained in § 73.1943 of existing rules, 

nor interpret this phrase to mean 

‘‘within twenty-four hours of the 

material being broadcast.’’ Rather, for 

frequency of updating OPIFs, the R&O 

adopts rules that align with an existing 

requirement to update the TV Issues/ 

Programs Lists on a quarterly basis, as 

this will minimize the need for 

licensees to track different public filing 

requirements. The R&O also adopts the 

same OPIF two-year retention period as 

currently exists for the retention of lists 

of the executives of any entity that 

sponsored programming concerning a 

political or controversial matter. For 

broadcast stations that do not have 

obligations to maintain OPIFs, the 

Commission recommends such stations 

retain a record of their disclosures in 

their station files consistent with 

previous Commission guidance. The 

R&O rules also require section 325(c) 

permit holders must place copies of the 

disclosures required along with the 

name of the program to which the 

disclosures were appended in the 

International Bureau’s public filing 

System (IBFS) under the relevant IBFS 

section 325(c) permit file. The filing 

must state the date and time the 

program aired. In the case of repeat 

airings of the program, those additional 

dates and times should also be 

included. Where an aural 

announcement was made, its contents 

must be reduced to writing and placed 

in the IBFS in the same manner. 

89. Summary of Significant Issues 

Raised by Public Comments in Response 

to the IRFA. There were no comments 

filed in response to the IRFA. 

90. Response to Comments by the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. Pursuant to 

the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, 

which amended the RFA, the 

Commission is required to respond to a 

comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA), and to provide a 

detailed statement of any change made 

to the proposed rules as a result of those 

comments. The Chief Counsel did not 

file any comments in response to the 

proposed rules in this proceeding. 

91. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rules Apply. The RFA directs agencies 

to provide a description of, and where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32236 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rule revisions, if adopted. 

The RFA generally defines the term 

‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ 

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition, 

the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same 

meaning as the term ‘‘small business 

concern’’ under the Small Business Act 

(SBA). 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. Below, the Commission provides a 

description of such small entities, as 

well as an estimate of the number of 

such small entities, where feasible. 

92. Television Broadcasting. This U.S. 

Economic Census category comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

broadcasting images together with 

sound. These establishments operate 

television broadcast studios and 

facilities for the programming and 

transmission of programs to the public. 

These establishments 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. The SBA has 

created the following small business 

size standard for such businesses: Those 

having $41.5 million or less in annual 

receipts. The 2012 Economic Census 

reports that 751 firms in this category 

operated in that year. Of that number, 

656 had annual receipts of $25 million 

or less, 25 had annual receipts between 

$25 million and $49,999,999 and 70 had 

annual receipts of $50 million or more. 

Based on these data, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of 

commercial television broadcast stations 

are small entities under the applicable 

size standard. 

93. Additionally, the Commission has 

estimated the number of licensed 

commercial television stations to be 

1,374. Of this total, 1,269 stations (or 

92%) had revenues of $41.5 million or 

less in 2020, according to Commission 

staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. 

Media Access Pro Television Database 

(BIA) on April 20, 2021, and therefore 

these stations qualify as small entities 

under the SBA definition. In addition, 

the Commission estimates the number 

of noncommercial educational stations 

to be 384. The Commission does not 

compile and does not have access to 

information on the revenue of NCE 

stations that would permit it to 

determine how many such stations 

would qualify as small entities. There 

are also 386 Class A stations. Given the 

nature of this service, the Commission 

presumes that all of these stations 

qualify as small entities under the 

applicable SBA size standard. 

94. Radio Stations. This U.S. 

Economic Census category comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

broadcasting aural programs by radio to 

the public. Programming may originate 

in the establishment’s own studio, from 

an affiliated network, or from external 

sources. The SBA has created the 

following small business size standard 

for such businesses: Those having $41.5 

million or less in annual receipts. 

Economic Census data for 2012 show 

that 2,849 firms in this category 

operated in that year. Of that number, 

2,806 operated with annual receipts of 

less than $25 million per year, 17 with 

annual receipts between $25 million 

and $49,999,999 million and 26 with 

annual receipts of $50 million or more. 

Based on these data, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of 

commercial radio broadcast stations 

were small under the applicable SBA 

size standard. 

95. The Commission has estimated 

the number of licensed commercial AM 

radio stations to be 4,546 and the 

number of commercial FM radio 

stations to be 6,682 for a total of 11,228 

commercial stations. Of this total, 

11,227 stations (or 99%) had revenues 

of $41.5 million or less in 2020, 

according to Commission staff review of 

the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro 

Television Database (BIA) on April 20, 

2021, and therefore these stations 

qualify as small entities under the SBA 

definition. In addition, there were 4,213 

noncommercial educational FM 

stations. The Commission does not 

compile and does not have access to 

information on the revenue of NCE 

radio stations that would permit it to 

determine how many such stations 

would qualify as small entities. 

96. In assessing whether a business 

concern qualifies as small under the 

above definition, business (control) 

affiliations must be included. The 

Commission’s estimate, therefore, likely 

overstates the number of small entities 

that might be affected by its action 

because the revenue figure on which it 

is based does not include or aggregate 

revenues from affiliated companies. In 

addition, 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 

to define or quantify the criteria that 

would establish whether a specific radio 

or television station is dominant in its 

field of operation. Accordingly, the 

estimate of small businesses to which 

the proposed rules may apply does not 

exclude any radio or television station 

from the definition of small business on 

this basis and is therefore possibly overinclusive. 

97. Description of Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements. The R&O 

adopts rules that require a specific 

disclosure at the time of broadcast if 

material aired pursuant to the lease of 

time on the station has been sponsored, 

paid for, or, in the case of political 

programming or programming involving 

a controversial issue, furnished for free 

as an inducement to air by a ‘‘foreign 

governmental entity.’’ As described 

above, the term ‘‘foreign governmental 

entity’’ is defined by reference to 

existing definitions in the Foreign 

Agents Registration Act of 1938 as 

amended (FARA) and Section 722 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (the Act). The R&O requires 

that stations use the following standard 

disclosure: 

The [following/preceding] programming 

was [sponsored, paid for, or furnished,] 

either in whole or in part, by [name of foreign 

governmental entity] on behalf of [name of 

foreign country]. 

In addition, recognizing that FARA 

requires a standard disclosure, the R&O 

simplifies compliance by allowing 

broadcasters, including small 

broadcasters, to pass through any 

required FARA label included with the 

programming, so long as it also adds the 

name of the foreign country involved in 

providing the programming. The R&O 

concludes that the FARA disclosure 

with the addition of the country name 

satisfies the need to provide viewers 

and listeners greater insight regarding 

the source of foreign governmentprovided programming. To further 

reduce compliance burdens for 

broadcasters, including small 

broadcasters, the size, frequency, and 

duration of the required disclosure 

generally matches size, frequency and 

duration requirements for other types of 

programming requiring sponsorship 

identification. 

98. In response to requests from 

broadcasters, including small 

broadcasters, the R&O details what is 

required of broadcasters to meet the 

‘‘reasonable diligence’’ standard 

contained in section 317(c) of the Act so 

that broadcasters can determine if a 

foreign sponsorship identification 

disclosure is needed. As described 

above, the R&O lists five specific steps 

broadcasters must take to satisfy the 

standard. The R&O states that searches 

of the FARA database may require more 

than simply reviewing the initial 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32237 

screens that appear on the list, but 

rather may also necessitate reviewing 

materials filed as part of an agent’s 

registration and using whatever search 

features are available to investigate the 

list’s contents. Licensees should also 

check if the lessee’s name appears in the 

Commission’s semi-annual reports of 

U.S.-based foreign media outlets. The 

R&O also requires, that, at regular 

intervals, the licensee should 

memorialize the results of its diligence 

in some manner for its own records and 

maintain this documentation for the 

remainder of the then-current license 

term or one year, whichever is longer. 

The R&O clarifies that, under the 

revised rules, the lessee of the airtime, 

in accordance with sections 507(b) and 

(c) of the Act, also holds an independent 

obligation to communicate information 

to the licensee relevant to determining 

whether a disclosure is needed. 

99. In the interest of ensuring 

transparency for viewers and listeners of 

foreign government-provided 

programming, the R&O requires that, if 

the primary language of the 

programming is other than English, the 

disclosure statement should be 

presented in the primary language of the 

programming. The disclosure for 

televised programming should be in 

letters equal to or greater than four 

percent of the vertical picture height 

and be visible for not less than four 

seconds to ensure readability. As this 

requirement tracks existing rules for 

televised political advertisements, 

television licensees are familiar with 

this format, minimizing their 

compliance burdens. For radio 

broadcasts, the R&O incorporates the 

existing DOJ interpretation for 

programming provided by FARA 

registrants: That the disclosure shall be 

audible. The R&O requires that the 

disclosure be made at both the 

beginning and end of the programming, 

and, consistent with an existing 

requirement for ‘‘political broadcast 

matter,’’ for any broadcast of 5 minutes 

or less, only once. Finally, for 

programming longer than sixty minutes, 

the disclosure must be made at regular 

intervals during the broadcast, but no 

less frequently than once every sixty 

minutes. The R&O finds that periodic 

announcements are necessary, 

particularly in those instances where a 

foreign governmental entity is 

continually broadcasting programming 

without an identifiable beginning or 

end, such as through a lease of 100% of 

a station’s airtime. Other than this final 

requirement for longer programming, 

the new rules are consistent with 

existing sponsorship identification rules 

and are thus familiar to broadcasters to 

reduce compliance burdens. 

100. Consistent with the NPRM, the 

R&O adopts a requirement that stations 

airing foreign government-provided 

programming must place copies of the 

disclosures in their Online Public 

Information Files (OPIFs), in a 

standalone folder marked as ‘‘Foreign 

Government-Provided Programming 

Disclosures’’ so that the material is 

readily identifiable to the public. The 

R&O adopts the proposal discussed in 

the NPRM, that, to the extent the foreign 

programming consists of a political 

matter or matter involving the 

discussion of a controversial issue of 

public importance, licensees obtain and 

disclose in their OPIFs a list of the 

persons operating the foreign 

governmental entity providing the 

programming. In response to 

broadcaster concerns about burdens, the 

R&O also does not adopt the NPRM’s 

‘‘as soon as possible’’ standard for 

updating OPIFs contained in § 73.1943 

of existing rules, nor interpret this 

phrase to mean ‘‘within twenty-four 

hours of the material being broadcast.’’ 

Rather, for frequency of updating OPIFs, 

the R&O adopts rules that align with an 

existing requirement to update the TV 

Issues/Programs Lists on a quarterly 

basis, as this will minimize the need for 

licensees to track different public filing 

requirements. The R&O also adopts the 

same OPIF two-year retention period as 

currently exists for the retention of lists 

of the executives of any entity that 

sponsored programming concerning a 

political or controversial matter. 

101. Steps Taken to Minimize 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered. The RFA requires an 

agency to describe any significant 

alternatives that it has considered in 

adopting its rules, 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 or 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. 

102. While the NPRM proposed that 

foreign sponsorship disclosure rules 

should apply in any circumstances in 

which a foreign governmental entity 

directly or indirectly provided material 

for broadcast or furnished material to a 

station free of charge (or at nominal 

cost) as an inducement to broadcast 

such material, the R&O narrows the rule 

to address specifically those 

circumstances in which a foreign 

governmental entity is programming a 

U.S. broadcast station pursuant to the 

lease of airtime. The rules adopted in 

the R&O require a specific disclosure at 

the time of broadcast if material aired 

pursuant to the lease of time on the 

station has been sponsored, paid for, or, 

in the case of political programming or 

programming involving a controversial 

issue, furnished for free as an 

inducement to air by a foreign 

governmental entity. The focus on 

leasing agreements narrows the 

application of the disclosure rules 

significantly, thereby minimizing the 

burden on broadcasters while ensuring 

that viewers and listeners are 

sufficiently informed as to the origin of 

material broadcast on stations when 

foreign governmental entities are 

providing programming. Most, and 

possibly all, noncommercial educational 

NCE programming arrangements will 

fall outside the ambit of the narrowed 

rules given limitations on the ability of 

NCE stations to engage in leasing 

arrangements. Also, while the NPRM 

proposed to include ‘‘foreign missions,’’ 

as designated pursuant to the Foreign 

Missions Act, within the definition of 

foreign governmental entities that 

would trigger foreign sponsorship 

identification, based on broadcaster 

concerns regarding the difficulty and 

compliance burden of including these 

entities, the R&O eliminates then from 

the definition. 

103. Additionally, based on 

comments from broadcasters, including 

small broadcasters, the R&O clarifies 

compliance obligations to ensure that, 

under the narrowed scope of the rules, 

they are no more burdensome than 

necessary to serve the vital need for 

transparency about who is attempting to 

influence viewers and listeners. The 

R&O details what is required of 

broadcasters to meet the ‘‘reasonable 

diligence’’ standard contained in section 

317(c) of the Act so that broadcasters 

can determine if a foreign sponsorship 

identification disclosure is needed. The 

R&O lists specific steps broadcasters 

must take to satisfy the standard. The 

R&O also advises broadcasters to 

include a provision in their lease 

agreements requiring the lessee to notify 

the broadcaster about any change in the 

lessee’s status such as to trigger the 

foreign sponsorship identification rules. 

The R&O also adopts broadcaster 

suggestions to reduce compliance 

burdens by matching, to the extent 

possible, disclosure language, size, 

frequency and duration requirements 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32238 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

contained in existing sponsorship 

identification rules and allowing 

broadcasters to satisfy the new foreign 

sponsorship identification requirements 

by simply passing through existing 

FARA programming labels if they also 

disclose the country involved with 

provision of the programming and 

comport with the size and frequency 

requirements contained in the R&O. 

Similarly, in response to comments 

from broadcasters, including small 

broadcasters, to the extent possible, the 

Commission matches obligations to 

place and update disclosures in station 

OPIFs to other broadcaster OPIF 

obligations. Broadcasters have indicated 

that implementing such changes would 

mean the burden on broadcasters would 

be considerably less and more 

appropriate. 

104. The NPRM sought comment on 

the benefits and costs associated with 

adopting foreign government-provided 

programming sponsorship identification 

rules and requested specific data and 

analysis in support of any claimed costs 

and benefits. No commenters provided 

quantified calculations of the benefits or 

costs of the proposed rules. Thus, the 

R&O finds that by narrowing the scope 

of the programming for which foreign 

governmental entity sponsorship is 

required and minimizing compliance 

burdens as described in the preceding 

paragraphs, the costs for broadcasters, 

including small broadcasters, associated 

with the rules are reduced significantly 

from the initial proposal. Research 

reviewed by Commission staff also 

suggests that there are measurable 

benefits to sponsorship identification 

disclosures. Therefore, the R&O finds 

that the costs, including the costs for 

small businesses, associated with 

adopting the rules, as modified by the 

R&O, do not outweigh the substantial 

public benefits associated with 

transparency regarding the source of 

programming heard or viewed by the 

American public. 

105. Report to Congress. The 

Commission will send a copy of this 

R&O, including this FRFA, in a report 

to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. In addition, the 

Commission will send a copy of the 

R&O, including the FRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. A copy of the 

R&O and FRFA (or summaries thereof) 

will also be published in the Federal 

Register. 

106. Federal Rules that May 

Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the 

Proposed Rule. The R&O contains 

requirements that may somewhat 

overlap with, but do not duplicate, DOJ 

rules for labelling of broadcast 

programming provided by an ‘‘agent of 

a foreign principal,’’ as that term is 

defined in the Foreign Agents 

Registration Act. 

107. Ordering Clauses. Accordingly, it 

is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 

found in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 

317, 325(c), 403, and 507 of the 

Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, 

152, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 317, 325(c), 

403, and 508 this Report and Order is 

adopted and shall be effective 30 days 

after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

108. It is further ordered that part 73 

of the Commission’s rules is amended as 

set forth in the Final Rules. The rule 

changes to § 73.1212 adopted herein 

contain new or modified information 

collection requirements subject to OMB 

review under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. The Commission directs the Media 

Bureau to announce the effective date 

for those information collections in a 

document published in the Federal 

Register after the completion of OMB 

review and directs the Media Bureau to 

cause § 73.1212 to be revised 

accordingly. 

109. 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. 

110. 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 in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as 

follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 

307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339. 

■ 2. Amend § 73.1212 by adding 

paragraphs (j) through (l) to read as 

follows: 

§ 73.1212 Sponsorship identification; list 

retention; related requirements. 

* * * * * 

(j)(1)(i) Where the material broadcast 

consistent with paragraph (a) or (d) of 

this section has been aired pursuant to 

the lease of time on the station and has 

been provided by a foreign 

governmental entity, the station, at the 

time of the broadcast, shall include the 

following disclosure: 

The [following/preceding] programming 

was [sponsored, paid for, or furnished], 

either in whole or in part, by [name of foreign 

governmental entity] on behalf of [name of 

foreign country]. 

(ii) If the material broadcast contains 

a ‘‘conspicuous statement’’ pursuant to 

the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 

1938 (FARA) (22 U.S.C. 614(b)), such 

conspicuous statement will suffice for 

purposes of this paragraph (j)(1) if the 

conspicuous statement also contains a 

disclosure about the foreign country 

associated with the individual/entity 

that has sponsored, paid for, or 

furnished the material being broadcast. 

(2) The term ‘‘foreign governmental 

entity’’ shall include governments of 

foreign countries, foreign political 

parties, agents of foreign principals, and 

United States-based foreign media 

outlets. 

(i) The term ‘‘government of a foreign 

country’’ has the meaning given such 

term in the Foreign Agents Registration 

Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611(e)). 

(ii) The term ‘‘foreign political party’’ 

has the meaning given such term in the 

Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 

(22 U.S.C. 611(f)). 

(iii) The term ‘‘agent of a foreign 

principal’’ has the meaning given such 

term in the Foreign Agents Registration 

Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611(c)), and who 

is registered as such with the 

Department of Justice, and whose 

‘‘foreign principal’’ is a ‘‘government of 

a foreign country,’’ a ‘‘foreign political 

party,’’ or directly or indirectly 

operated, supervised, directed, owned, 

controlled, financed, or subsidized by a 

‘‘government of a foreign country’’ or a 

‘‘foreign political party’’ as defined in 

paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 

section, and that is acting in its capacity 

as an agent of such ‘‘foreign principal’’. 

(iv) The term ‘‘United States-based 

foreign media outlet’’ has the meaning 

given such term in section 722(a) of the 

Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 

624(a)). 

(3) The licensee of each broadcast 

station shall exercise reasonable 

diligence to ascertain whether the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32239 

foreign sponsorship disclosure 

requirements in paragraph (j)(1) of this 

section apply at the time of the lease 

agreement and at any renewal thereof, 

including: 

(i) Informing the lessee of the foreign 

sponsorship disclosure requirement in 

paragraph (j)(1) of this section; 

(ii) Inquiring of the lessee whether the 

lessee falls into any of the categories in 

paragraph (j)(2) of this section that 

qualify the lessee as a foreign 

governmental entity; 

(iii) Inquiring of the lessee whether 

the lessee knows if anyone involved in 

the production or distribution of the 

programming that will be aired pursuant 

to the lease agreement, or a sub-lease, 

qualifies as a foreign governmental 

entity and has provided some type of 

inducement to air the programming; 

(iv) Independently confirming the 

lessee’s status, by consulting the 

Department of Justice’s FARA website 

and the Commission’s semi-annual U.S.- 

based foreign media outlets reports, if 

the lessee states that it does not fall 

within the definition of ‘‘foreign 

governmental entity’’ and that there is 

no separate need for a disclosure 

because no one further back in the chain 

of producing/transmitting the 

programming falls within the definition 

of ‘‘foreign governmental entity’’ and 

has provided an inducement to air the 

programming; and 

(v) Memorializing the inquiries in 

paragraphs (j)(3)(i) through (iv) of this 

section to track compliance therewith 

and retaining such documentation in 

the licensee’s records for either the 

remainder of the then-current license 

term or one year, whichever is longer, 

so as to respond to any future 

Commission inquiry. 

(4) In the case of any video 

programming, the foreign governmental 

entity and the country represented shall 

be identified with letters equal to or 

greater than four percent of the vertical 

picture height that air for not less than 

four seconds. 

(5) At a minimum, the announcement 

required by paragraph (j)(1) of this 

section shall be made at both the 

beginning and conclusion of the 

programming. For programming of 

greater than sixty minutes in duration, 

an announcement shall be made at 

regular intervals during the broadcast, 

but no less frequently than once every 

sixty minutes. 

(6) Where the primary language of the 

programming is other than English, the 

disclosure statement shall be made in 

the primary language of the 

programming. If the programming 

contains a ‘‘conspicuous statement’’ 

pursuant to the Foreign Agents 

Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 

614(b)), and such conspicuous 

statement is in a language other than 

English so as to conform to the Foreign 

Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 

U.S.C. 611 et seq.), an additional 

disclosure in English is not needed. 

(7) A station shall place copies of the 

disclosures required by this paragraph 

(j) and the name of the program to 

which the disclosures were appended in 

its online public inspection file on a 

quarterly basis in a standalone folder 

marked as ‘‘Foreign GovernmentProvided Programming Disclosures.’’ 

The filing must state the date and time 

the program aired. In the case of repeat 

airings of the program, those additional 

dates and times should also be 

included. Where an aural 

announcement was made, its contents 

must be reduced to writing and placed 

in the online public inspection file in 

the same manner. 

(k) The requirements in paragraph (j) 

of this section shall apply to programs 

permitted to be delivered to foreign 

broadcast stations under an 

authorization pursuant to the section 

325(c) of the Communications Act of 

1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(c)) if any part of the 

material has been sponsored, paid for, 

or furnished for free as an inducement 

to air on the foreign station by a foreign 

governmental entity. A section 325(c) 

permit holder shall place copies of the 

disclosures required along with the 

name of the program to which the 

disclosures were appended in the 

International Bureau’s public filing 

System (IBFS) under the relevant IBFS 

section 325(c) permit file. The filing 

must state the date and time the 

program aired. In the case of repeat 

airings of the program, those additional 

dates and times should also be 

included. Where an aural 

announcement was made, its contents 

must be reduced to writing and placed 

in the IBFS in the same manner. 

(l) Paragraphs (j) and (k) of this 

section contain information-collection 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Compliance with paragraphs (j) and (k) 

of this section shall not be required 

until after review by the Office of 

Management and Budget. The 

Commission will publish a document in 

the Federal Register announcing 

compliance dates and removing this 

paragraph (l) accordingly. 

■ 3. Amend § 73.3526 by adding 

paragraph (e)(19) to read as follows: 

§ 73.3526 Online public inspection file of 

commercial stations. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(19) Foreign sponsorship disclosures. 

Documentation sufficient to 

demonstrate that the station is 

continuing to meet the requirements set 

forth at § 73.1212(j)(7). 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 73.3527 by adding 

paragraph (e)(15) to read as follows: 

§ 73.3527 Online public inspection file of 

noncommercial educational stations. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(15) Foreign sponsorship disclosures. 

Documentation sufficient to 

demonstrate that the station is 

continuing to meet the requirements set 

forth at § 73.1212(j)(7). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–12207 Filed 6–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 665 

[RTID 0648–XB172] 

Pacific Island Fisheries; 2021 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

Lobster Harvest Guideline 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notification of lobster harvest 

guideline. 

SUMMARY: NMFS establishes the annual 

harvest guideline for the commercial 

lobster fishery in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) for calendar 

year 2021 at zero lobsters. 

DATES: June 17, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark R. Fox, NMFS PIR Sustainable 

Fisheries, tel 808–725–5171. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the NWHI commercial lobster 

fishery under the Fishery Ecosystem 

Plan for the Hawaiian Archipelago. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 665.252(b) require 

NMFS to publish an annual harvest 

guideline for lobster Permit Area 1, 

comprised of Federal waters around the 

NWHI. 

Regulations governing the 

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 

Monument in the NWHI prohibit the 

unpermitted removal of monument 

resources (50 CFR 404.7), and establish 

a zero annual harvest guideline for 

lobsters (50 CFR 404.10(a)). 

Accordingly, NMFS establishes the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1