Federal Communications Commission DA 17-5
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the 
Broadcasting Services
Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission’s Rules, 
Concerning Practice and Procedure, Amendment of 
CORES Registration System
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MB Docket No. 07-294
MD Docket No. 10-234
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted:  January 4, 2017 Released:  January 4, 2017
By the Chief, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. We have before us petitions for reconsideration
1
of the 323 and 323-E Order,
2
in which 
the Commission revised FCC Form 323, Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations, and FCC 
Form 323-E, Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations.  Among other improvements to 
Forms 323 and 323-E, the Commission adopted a requirement that filers provide a unique FCC 
Registration Number (FRN) generated by the Commission Registration System (CORES)—either a 
Restricted Use FRN or a traditional CORES FRN—for each attributable interest holder that must be 
reported on the forms.
3
  The American Public Media Group (APMG), the NCE Licensees, the Public 
Broadcasting Parties, and the State University of New York (SUNY) filed petitions seeking 
reconsideration of the Commission’s decision to apply the FRN requirement to Form 323-E.
4
  As 
discussed below, we deny the petitions for reconsideration because they repeat arguments that the 
Commission fully considered and rejected in the 323 and 323-E Order and they identify no material error, 
omission, or other reason warranting reconsideration.  We take this action pursuant to delegated authority 
under Section 1.429(l) of the Commission’s rules.
5
  
                                                     
1
Petition for Reconsideration of American Public Media Group (filed May 4, 2016) (APMG Petition); Petition for 
Reconsideration of NCE Licensees (filed May 3, 2016) (NCE Licensees Petition); Petition for Reconsideration of 
Public Broadcasting Parties (filed May 4, 2016) (Public Broadcasting Parties Petition); Petition for Reconsideration 
of Lisa S. Campo (filed May 3, 2016) (on behalf of the State University of New York) (SUNY Petition).
2
Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, Report and Order, Second Report and 
Order, and Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 398 (2016) (323 and 323-E Order).
3
See generally id.
4
APMG Petition at 1, 4; NCE Licensees Petition at 1-2, 4; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 1-2, 10; SUNY 
Petition at 1-2, 8.
5
Section 1.429(l) of the Commission’s rules provides that the relevant bureau(s) or office(s) may dismiss or deny 
petitions for reconsideration of a Commission action if the petitions “[r]ely on arguments that have been fully 
considered and rejected by the Commission within the same proceeding” or if they “[f]ail to identify any material 
error, omission, or reason warranting reconsideration.”  47 CFR § 1.429(l)(1), (3).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-5
2
II. BACKGROUND
2. The Commission requires commercial and noncommercial broadcasters to submit 
ownership reports every two years and on other occasions specified in the Commission’s rules.
6
  These 
reports must include information concerning the individuals and entities that hold attributable interests in 
the station licensee, including officers and directors.
7
  Commercial broadcasters submit ownership reports 
on Form 323, and noncommercial broadcasters submit ownership reports on Form 323-E.  The revisions
to Forms 323 and 323-E set forth in the 323 and 323-E Order were a result of the Commission’s
sustained efforts to improve the quality, utility, and reliability of its broadcast ownership data, including 
data on minority and female ownership of broadcast stations.
8
  The Commission’s efforts have addressed 
flaws in the data collection process that were identified by the United States Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) and by researchers who had attempted to use the data submitted on earlier versions of the 
forms.
9
  
3. The Commission substantially revised Form 323 in 2009 to improve the accuracy and 
completeness of the ownership data it collects from commercial broadcast stations.
10
  With the subsequent 
adoption of the 323 and 323-E Order, the Commission adopted additional enhancements to further 
improve the integrity and completeness of its broadcast ownership data collection.
11
  Those improvements 
included modifications to Form 323-E to conform the reporting requirements for noncommercial 
educational (NCE) broadcast stations more closely to those for commercial stations.
12
  Among other 
things, the 323 and 323-E Order revised the NCE reporting obligations to require that filers provide a 
unique FRN generated by CORES for each attributable interest holder listed on Form 323-E, just as 
commercial broadcasters must do on Form 323.
13
  The Commission found that Section 257 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act) and Section 309(j) of the Communications Act (the Act) 
authorize the Commission to collect this information from NCE stations.
14
4. The Commission recognized previously that the traditional CORES FRN, which requires 
submission of a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) to the Commission, offers a unique identifier and 
therefore plays an important role in promoting the integrity of the Commission’s ownership data.
15
  To 
                                                     
6
In addition to biennial submissions, licensees and permittees must submit broadcast ownership reports (i) within 30 
days of a grant of an application for original construction permit, (ii) on the date the permittee applies for a station 
license, and (iii) within 30 days of consummating an authorized assignment or transfer of control of a permit or 
license.  Id. §§ 73.3615, 74.797. 
7
The attribution standards—set forth in Section 73.3555 of Commission’s rules—seek to identify those interests 
that confer a degree of influence or control such that the holders have a realistic potential to affect the programming 
decisions of licensees or other core operating functions.  See id. § 73.3555, Note 2; see also infra paras. 9-10.
8
The 323 and 323-E Order provides a detailed discussion of the Commission’s efforts to improve the data collected 
on Forms 323 and 323-E.  323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 400-11, paras. 4-23. 
9
U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-08-383, Media Ownership: Economic Factors Influence the Number of 
Media Outlets in Local Markets, While Ownership by Minorities and Women Appears Limited and is Difficult to 
Assess (2008) (GAO Report).  GAO cited several shortcomings with the Commission’s data collection process:  (1) 
exemptions from the biennial filing requirement for certain types of broadcast stations; (2) inadequate data quality 
procedures; and (3) problems with storage and retrieval.  Id. at 4, 20.
10
323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 400, para. 4.
11
See generally id.
12
Id. at 399, para. 3.
13
Id. at 426-28, paras. 52-55.
14
Id. at 421, para. 44; see also 47 U.S.C. §§ 257, 309(j).
15
323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 412, para. 25.  An individual’s TIN is his or her Social Security Number.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-5
3
specifically address commenter concerns that mandatory reporting of TIN-backed CORES FRNs on 
Forms 323 and 323-E would require submission of individuals’ full Social Security Numbers (SSNs) to 
the Commission, the 323 and 323-E Order provided for a Restricted Use FRN (RUFRN) to provide an 
alternative means for obtaining a unique identifier for individual attributable interest holders without 
necessitating disclosure of their full SSNs.
16
  This accommodation balanced the goal of having a unique 
identifier for each individual attributable interest holder with the desire to minimize the collection of 
personal information from individuals.  To obtain an RUFRN, the applicant must submit—via a secure 
Commission website—an individual’s full name, residential address, date of birth, and the last four digits 
of his or her SSN.
17
  The Commission concluded that allowing filers to report RUFRNs for individuals 
listed on Forms 323 and 323-E properly balances the Commission’s need to uniquely identify individual 
attributable interest holders with the security and privacy concerns raised in the record.
18
5. Following the release of the 323 and 323-E Order, APMG, the NCE Licensees, the 
Public Broadcasting Parties, and SUNY filed timely petitions for reconsideration.
19
  The petitioners 
request that the Commission reconsider its decision to apply the FRN requirement to Form 323-E.
20
  
Although the Commission did not receive any oppositions to the petitions, SUNY and the NCE Licensees 
nonetheless filed replies in which they repeat their requests that the Commission eliminate the FRN 
requirement in the NCE context.
21
  In addition, several public broadcasting organizations and the Board of 
Trustees of the University of Alabama each filed pleadings styled as “comments” in support of the 
petitions for reconsideration.
22
                                                     
16
Id. at 412, para. 25.
17
Id. at 415, para. 33.
18
Id. at 412, para. 25.
19
Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding, 81 Fed. Reg. 31223 (May 18, 2016).
20
APMG Petition at 4; NCE Licensees Petition at 1-2; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 10; SUNY Petition at 
4, 8.
21
Reply of the NCE Licensees (filed June 13, 2016) (NCE Licensees Reply); Reply of the State University of New 
York (filed June 13, 2016) (SUNY Reply).  The Commission’s rules authorize the filing of replies to oppositions 
within 10 days after the deadline for filing oppositions in response to a petition for reconsideration of a rulemaking 
order.  47 CFR § 1.429(g).  The Commission’s rules, however, make no provision for filing replies when no 
oppositions are filed, and as stated above, the Commission received no oppositions to the petitions of APMG, 
SUNY, the NCE Licensees, and the Public Broadcasting Parties.  Nonetheless, we will consider the SUNY Reply 
and NCE Licensees Reply as informal comments because we believe that no party will be prejudiced by our doing 
so.  These additional pleadings briefly summarize arguments that SUNY and the NCE Licensees raised in their 
petitions for reconsideration, and others had an opportunity to respond to those arguments during the period for 
filing oppositions.
22
Comments of the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama (filed June 2, 2016) (Alabama Trustees 
Comments); Comments of America’s Public Television Stations, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National 
Public Radio, and the Public Broadcasting Service (filed June 13, 2016) (APTS et al. Comments).  The 
Commission’s rules do not provide for the filing of comments or responses in support of petitions for 
reconsideration in rulemaking proceedings.  See 47 CFR § 1.429.  In their supporting comments, the Alabama 
Trustees and APTS et al. urge the Commission to reconsider its decision to apply the FRN requirement in the NCE 
context.  Alabama Trustees Comments at 2; APTS et al. Comments at 2.  In addition, the Alabama Trustees also 
urge the Commission to eliminate the FRN requirement for all non-profit licensees, including those that operate 
commercial stations.  Alabama Trustees Comments at 2.  These supporting “comments” were filed after the deadline 
for filing petitions for reconsideration and were not accompanied by a motion to accept a late-filed pleading.  47 
CFR § 1.429; see Reuters Ltd. v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946, 951-52 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (the Commission may not waive the 
deadline for seeking reconsideration absent extraordinary circumstances).  Nonetheless, we will consider these 
pleadings as informal comments.  We believe no parties will be prejudiced by our decision to do so, because these 
pleadings were filed within the time allotted by Section 1.429 for filing oppositions and replies and thus caused no 
delay in this proceeding.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-5
4
III. DISCUSSION
6. Pursuant to Section 1.429 of the Commission’s rules, parties may petition for 
reconsideration of orders in rulemaking proceedings.
23
  Reconsideration is generally appropriate only 
where the petitioner shows either a material error or omission in the original order or raises additional 
facts not known or not existing until after the petitioner’s last opportunity to respond.
24
7. To allow the agency “to resolve certain petitions for reconsideration more efficiently and 
expeditiously,” the Commission amended its rules in 2011 to delegate authority to the relevant bureau or 
office to dismiss or deny petitions filed in either rulemaking or non-rulemaking proceedings if the petition 
“plainly does not warrant consideration by the full Commission.”
25
  Among the kinds of petitions that the 
Commission found would satisfy this standard are those that fail to identify any material error, omission, 
or reason warranting reconsideration or those that rely on arguments that have been fully considered and 
rejected by the Commission within the same proceeding.
26
  In this case, as discussed below, the petitions 
for reconsideration filed by APMG, SUNY, the NCE Licensees, and the Public Broadcasting Parties raise 
issues that the Commission fully considered and rejected in the 323 and 323-E Order, and the petitioners 
fail to identify any material error, omission, or reason warranting reconsideration of those issues by the 
Commission.
27
  Accordingly, we are exercising our delegated authority under Section 1.429(l) of the rules 
to address and deny the petitions for reconsideration of the 323 and 323-E Order.
A. The Petitions Repeat Arguments that the Commission Previously Fully Considered 
and Rejected
8. The petitioners repeat earlier arguments that the FRN requirement would be burdensome 
for NCE broadcasters because it would discourage individuals from serving on the governing boards of 
NCEs.
28
  As we discuss below, the Commission fully considered those arguments in the 323 and 323-E 
Order and found, based on the record in this proceeding, that the FRN requirement would not serve as a 
serious disincentive to participation in the governing boards of NCE stations.
29
  
                                                     
23
47 CFR § 1.429.
24
See Petition for Reconsideration by Acadiana Cellular General Partnership, Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC 
Rcd 8660, 8663, para. 8 (2006); 47 CFR 1.429(b), (l).
25
Amendment of Certain of the Commission’s Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure and Part 0 Rules of 
Commission Organization, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1594, 1606, paras. 27-28 (2011) (2011 Part 1/Part 0 
Rules Order); see also 47 CFR § 1.429(l) (codifying delegation in rulemaking proceedings); id. § 1.106(p) 
(codifying same delegation in non-rulemaking proceedings). 
26
See 47 CFR § 1.429(l).  These examples are drawn from the rule’s illustrative list of petitions for reconsideration 
that would “plainly . . . not warrant consideration” and thus fall within the staff’s delegated authority.  See id.
§ 1.429(l)(1), (3).  In adopting the rules, the Commission emphasized that this list is not intended to be exhaustive, 
as “it is difficult to foresee every circumstance in which staff appropriately should be allowed to exercise this 
authority,” and such a limitation would thus “depriv[e] staff of the necessary flexibility to handle particular 
petitions.”  2011 Part 1/Part 0 Rules Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 1607, para. 29.
27
See 47 CFR § 1.429(l).  Because we are denying the petitioners’ request to reconsider the Commission’s decision 
to apply the FRN requirement in the NCE context as discussed herein, we also are denying the Alabama Trustees’ 
request that the Commission eliminate the FRN requirement for non-profit licensees that operate commercial 
stations.  See Alabama Trustees Comments at 2; see also supra note 22. 
28
See 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 427, para. 55 (“Several commenters argue that the CORES FRN and 
RUFRN requirements would be unduly burdensome and would discourage people from serving on the boards of 
NCE stations.”); APMG Petition at 1, 3-4; NCE Licensees Petition at 4-8; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 4-
6, 9-10; SUNY Petition at 2, 4-6; SUNY Reply at 2; see NCE Licensees Reply at 3.  APTS et al. and the Alabama 
Trustees repeat this argument as well.  APTS et al. Comments at 4-5; Alabama Trustees Comments at 2-5.
29
See infra Section III.B.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-5
5
9. Similarly, the petitioners echo earlier arguments that collecting additional ownership 
information from NCEs would not improve—and perhaps would even skew—the Commission’s 
assessment of broadcast ownership trends.
30
  Like previous commenters, the petitioners attempt to support 
this claim by asserting that many NCE stations already strive to maintain boards that have diverse 
membership, that governing board members hold no equity interests in the NCE stations they serve, and 
that many board members are elected officials, political appointees, or ex officio members who serve by 
virtue of their positions in government.
31
  The Commission fully considered and rejected these arguments 
in the 323 and 323-E Order.
32
  The Commission found that comprehensive, reliable broadcast ownership 
data are essential to effectively study and analyze ownership trends, assess the impact of existing 
Commission diversity initiatives, and provide a foundation for adopting new diversity measures, among 
other things.
33
  The Commission concluded that collecting minority and female ownership data from 
                                                     
30
See, e.g., 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 422, para. 46 (“Other commenters argue that dissimilarities 
between the governance of commercial and NCE stations precludes [sic] any definition of ‘ownership’ in the NCE 
context.”); NCE Licensees Petition at 2 (“[T]he collection, retention and presentation of NCE board member 
information with commercial broadcast ownership information will actually taint the value of such 
information . . . .”); Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 7 (“Lumping [NCE and commercial] broadcasters 
together would dramatically skew the ownership analysis of ‘diversity.’”); SUNY Petition at 3 (“Provision of 
[SSNs] of [University] Trustees and senior University leadership will do nothing to improve national statistics on 
ownership.”); see also Alabama Trustees Comments at 5 (“[T]he benefits which the Commission would obtain from 
this information are questionable at best.”).  In the 323 and 323-E Order, the Commission noted that researchers and 
other parties can download broadcast ownership data from the Commission’s website and study, search, and 
manipulate the data in a wide variety of ways.  323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 440-41, para. 87.  Given this 
ability to access and manipulate the data, including information from NCE stations will not make the owners of 
commercial stations seem more diverse, as SUNY asserts.  SUNY Petition at 3.  Further, such claims are largely 
speculative because they appear to rely on unsupported assumptions about how data will be used and/or presented in 
the future.  
31
See, e.g., 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 422, para. 46 (“[Some commenters] note that board members do 
not have equity stakes in the stations they serve; are often governmental officials, governmental appointees, 
individuals elected by station members, or volunteers; and often are not involved in day-to-day station operations.”); 
id. at 426, n.195 (“Noncommercial stations are already required to implement numerous diversity initiatives . . . and 
. . . are also subject to political pressures to promote diversity, state[s] [one commenter].”); APMG Petition at 2-3 
(“[P]ublic radio station boards are either (i) community volunteers with no financial interest in the organization; or 
(ii) appointees by state or university officials.”); NCE Licensees Petition at 2 (“[P]ersons reported on NCE 
ownership reports are not ‘owners’ of broadcast stations . . . .”); Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 2 
(“[O]wnership and operations of public broadcasting stations are already fundamentally structured so as to advance 
diversity.”); see also Alabama Trustees Comments at 5 (“As noted by all of the petitioners for reconsideration, non-
profit entities do not have owners . . . .”).
32
See 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 420-27, paras. 43-54.
33
Id. at 399, para. 2; see also 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission’s Broadcast 
Ownership Rules & Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Second 
Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 9864, 9961, para. 235 (2016), pets. for recon. pending and pets. for review pending 
sub nom. Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (3d Cir. filed Nov. 3, 2016) (“2014 Quadrennial Review R&O”) (noting 
“the Commission's ongoing initiatives to promote diversity of ownership among broadcast licensees and to expand 
opportunities for minorities and women to participate in the broadcast industry”); id. at 9975, para. 269 (ownership
data has been used in studies “examin[ing] issues such as media quality, innovation, viewpoint diversity, local 
information programming, the provision of programming to minority audiences, and local television news.”).  As the 
Supreme Court has recognized, “it has long been a basic tenant of national communications policy that the widest 
dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public.”  Turner 
Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 663-64 (1994) (quoting United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. 649, 
668, n.27 (1972) (plurality opinion) (quoting Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945))); see 2014 
Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules 
Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
and Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 4371, 4418, para. 114 (2014).  This Commission’s diversity goal is broad and is 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-5
6
NCEs will enable it to construct a complete picture of minority and female participation in broadcasting
in order to fully understand and analyze the ownership of broadcast stations and fulfil its statutory 
mandates, and that extending the FRN requirement to NCEs was necessary to help ensure the reliability 
of future data collections.
34
  Thus, the possibility that some NCEs may already strive to maintain diversity 
with respect to their governing boards does not obviate the Commission’s need for the data.
35
  In addition, 
the Commission rejected claims that dissimilarities between the governance of commercial and NCE 
stations preclude any definition of “ownership” in the NCE context.
36
  The Commission noted that, “[f]or 
Form 323 and Form 323-E purposes, the concept of ownership relies on the attribution standards set forth 
in Section 73.3555 of the Commission’s rules, which generally do not depend on equity interests but 
instead ‘seek to identify those interests . . . that confer . . . a degree of influence or control such that the 
holders have a realistic potential to affect the programming decisions of licensees or other core operating 
functions.’”
37
  The Commission observed that officers and directors are therefore attributable owners of 
the stations they serve because they have a realistic potential to affect station programming or core 
operations, regardless of whether they have an equity interest in the station at issue.
38
  The Commission 
noted that such individuals are already reported as attributable interest holders on both commercial and 
noncommercial broadcast ownership reports.
39
  
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
not limited to diverse ownership of commercial broadcast stations.  See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 257 (directing the 
Commission to “promote the policies and purposes of [the Act] favoring diversity of media voices”); id. § 309(j) 
(directing the Commission to disseminate among a wide variety of applicants, including women- and minority-
owned businesses, certain licenses that must be awarded by competitive bidding, including certain licenses for 
broadcast, wireless, and satellite services).   
34
323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 421, 425-27, paras. 44, 51-54.  Some petitioners disagree with the 
Commission’s conclusion that applying the FRN requirement to Form 323-E is consistent with its statutory 
mandates under Section 309(j) of the Act and Section 257 of the 1996 Act.  NCE Licensees Petition at 10-12; Public 
Broadcasting Parties Petition at 7, n.6.  We address these arguments below.  See infra Section III.B.
35
323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 399, para. 2.  Contrary to what some petitioners assert, the Commission did 
not conclude that applying the FRN requirement to NCEs was necessary in order to enforce and monitor compliance 
with the multiple ownership restrictions in Section 73.3555 of the Commission’s rules.  See NCE Licensees Petition 
at 10 & n.23 (asserting that “there is no regulatory necessity to be able to cross reference individuals listed on NCE 
ownership reports, as their presence on such reports has no relevance to broadcasting compliance with multiple 
ownership rules”).  Rather, the Commission concluded that the FRN requirement will help ensure that the broadcast 
ownership data the Commission collects is reliable, aggregable, and useful for studies and analyses of ownership 
trends in support of policy initiatives promoting diversity of ownership in broadcasting.  323 and 323-E Order, 31 
FCC Rcd at 412-16, 426-27, paras. 25-35, 52-54.  The Commission specifically rejected assertions that the 
collection of ownership data from NCEs is unnecessary because NCE stations are not subject to the multiple 
ownership restrictions in Section 73.3555 of the Commission’s rules.  Id. at 421, para. 45 & n.161; see also id. at 
426-27, paras. 53-54 (rejecting assertions that the ability to cross-reference based on a unique identifier “has little or 
no relevance to the NCE industry,” where according to commenters, the existence of multiple broadcast interests is 
“quite rare” in the case of NCE board members and directors).  
36
323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 422-24, paras. 44-50.
37
Id. at 422-23, para. 47 (quoting Review of the Commission’s Regulations Governing Attribution of Broadcast and 
Cable/MDS Interests, Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 12559, 12560, para. 1 (1999)).
38
Id. at 423-24, paras. 48 (“[The Commission’s] attribution standards apply to both commercial and noncommercial 
stations, and the individuals and entities these standards capture have the potential to exert influence over the 
licensee, regardless of whether the station at issue is commercial or noncommercial.  Officers and directors therefore 
are attributable owners of the NCE licensees they serve.”).
39
Id. at 422-24, paras. 47 (“Officers and directors of NCE stations already are defined as attributable interest holders 
in NCE stations and they already are reported on Form 323-E.”).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-5
7
10. The Commission declined to reach a different conclusion based on the observation that 
NCE board members are often volunteers, individuals elected by station members, or governmental 
officials or appointees.
40
  The Commission noted that “[o]ur attribution standards depend not on the 
manner in which an individual came to be a member of a station’s board of directors or other governing 
body, but rather on the ability to influence station programming or operations that his or her membership 
confers.”
41
  Similarly, the Commission also noted that its attribution rules do not depend on—or even 
reference—involvement in the day-to-day operations of a station because a party can still exert influence 
over a station even absent such involvement.
42
  The Commission recognized that “the extent to which 
NCE officers or directors are involved in day-to-day station operations may vary” but found that “this 
situation is not unique to NCE stations and does not provide a basis for different treatment” of NCE board 
members.
43
  
11. In addition to the arguments discussed above, the petitioners also repeat the privacy and 
security concerns that commenters raised previously in this proceeding
44
and that the Commission fully 
considered and addressed in the 323 and 323-E Order.
45
  Significantly, the Commission adopted the 
RUFRN, which allows attributable individuals to obtain unique identifiers without submitting full SSNs 
to the Commission, and concluded that this alternative to the traditional CORES FRN properly balances 
the Commission’s need to uniquely identify attributable interest holders with the privacy and security 
concerns raised by commenters.
46
  The Commission noted that “[n]o commercial entity contested our 
                                                     
40
Id. at 424, para. 49 (“The observation that NCE board members are often governmental officials, governmental 
appointees, individuals elected by station members, or volunteers does not lead us to a different conclusion.”).
41
Id.
42
Id. (“Similarly, because a party can exert influence over a station without being involved in the day-to-day 
operations of that station, our attribution rules do not depend on—or even reference—such involvement.”).
43
Id.  In addition, the Commission noted that “[o]ur rules . . . allow officers and directors to be exempted from 
attribution in limited circumstances” and “reiterate[d] that our attribution standards, including the standards 
applicable to attribution exemptions for officers and directors, apply to both commercial and NCE stations.”  Id. at 
424, para. 50.
44
See, e.g., id. at 418, para. 39 (“NCE commenters . . . continue to express concerns about identity theft . . . .”); id. 
at 418-19, para. 39 (“NCE commenters also raise concerns regarding the potential disclosure of individuals’ 
residential addresses . . . .”); id. at 419, para. 40 (“Even if the Commission’s systems have not been breached to date, 
NCE commenters argue, there is no assurance that a successful breach will not occur in the future.”); APMG 
Petition at 3 (“[G]overnment systems . . . have proven to be vulnerable recently.”); NCE Licensees Petition at 3 
(“[T]he NCE Licensees . . . have argued that the . . . information . . . required . . . to obtain an FRN . . . causes board 
members to have serious concerns about identity theft, violations of privacy, and compromised personal security.”); 
SUNY Petition at 4 (“Allowing for the collection of [SSNs] . . . places . . . Board members . . . at significant risk for 
identity theft.”); SUNY Reply at 2 (“[E]ven the last four digits of a[n] [SSN] can lead to stolen identity and fraud.”); 
see also Alabama Trustees Comments at 3-5 (“As noted in the [SUNY Petition], news outlets have been rife with 
stories of data breaches affecting government agencies.”).
45
See, e.g., 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 417-19, paras. 37-42.
46
Id. at 420, para. 42 (“We believe that the RUFRN as an alternative to a traditional CORES FRN is a reasonable 
approach that balances the Commission’s need to uniquely identify reportable individuals with the security and 
privacy concerns raised by the commenters.”).  SUNY argues that the Privacy Act prohibits the Commission from 
requiring officers and directors of NCE licensees to disclose their SSNs.  SUNY Petition at 7 (“[T]he Privacy Act 
. . . prevent[s] the forced disclosure of [SSNs] of Trustees and senior leadership of the University by the 
Commission.”); see also Alabama Trustees Comments at 6 (“Alabama Trustees . . . support the argument raised by 
[SUNY] regarding the Privacy Act . . . .”).  SUNY previously raised this issue in comments on the Commission’s 
proposal to require disclosure of an individual’s full SSN as the only means of obtaining an FRN.  SUNY Feb. 14, 
2013 Comments at 8 (“[T]he Privacy Act . . . prevent[s] the forced disclosure of [SSNs] of Trustees and senior 
leadership of the University by the Commission.”); see also 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 413-14, para. 30 
& n.117 (“Commenters to the Sixth Diversity Further Notice strongly objected to the proposed Commission 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-5
8
proposal to implement the RUFRN system for individual attributable interest holders in commercial 
broadcast stations” and that the record did not show that NCE attributable interest holders have greater 
system security needs or risks.
47
  The Commission also affirmed its commitment to protecting the privacy 
and security of personally identifiable information that the Commission collects, noting that “the 
Commission’s systems currently safely house a significant amount of information that is the same, 
similar, or—in the case of full SSNs—even more sensitive than the information underlying the 
RUFRN.”
48
  Additionally, the Commission discussed existing safeguards and improvements that have 
been implemented to assure the security of the Commission’s systems and noted that it was unaware of 
any breaches to CORES.
49
  
12. In short, the Commission fully considered and addressed these arguments in the 323 and 
323-E Order.  To the extent the petitions for reconsideration merely repeat these arguments, the petitions
are repetitious and therefore do not warrant consideration by the Commission.
50
B. The Petitions Identify No Material Error, Omission, or Reason Warranting 
Reconsideration
13. In addition to repeating arguments that the Commission fully considered and rejected in 
the 323 and 323-E Order, the petitions for reconsideration also fail to demonstrate any other grounds 
warranting reconsideration.  Specifically, we reject claims that the record did not support the 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
mandate that all individual attributable interest holders submit an SSN to the Commission to obtain a traditional 
CORES FRN.” (citing, inter alia, SUNY Feb. 14, 2013 Comments at 6-8)).  As noted above, the rule adopted in the 
323 and 323-E Order does not require individual attributable interest holders to disclose their full SSNs to the 
Commission but instead gives them the option of obtaining an RUFRN, requiring the submission of other limited 
personal information, including only the last four digits of the SSN.  In the 323 and 323-E Order, the Commission 
concluded that the availability of the RUFRN ensures that the FRN requirement is consistent with the Privacy Act 
and stated that no commenter argued otherwise.  See 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 420, n.156 (“No 
commenters assert that the Privacy Act would bar the adoption of the RUFRN requirement for the reporting of 
attributable interest holders on ownership reports for either commercial stations or NCEs.  We find that the RUFRN 
requirement described herein is consistent with the Privacy Act for Form 323 and Form 323-E.”).  We dismiss this 
aspect of SUNY’s petition.  In raising this argument, SUNY and Alabama Trustees do not even acknowledge that an 
individual can obtain an RUFRN without disclosing his or her full SSN.  Further, SUNY and the Alabama Trustees 
did not raise a Privacy Act objection in their comments on the Commission’s proposal to adopt the RUFRN, and 
SUNY has not given any reason why it was unable to raise this argument earlier, nor has it provided any analysis or 
case law identifying a material error, omission, or reason warranting reconsideration of this conclusion.  
Accordingly, they have not provided a basis for the Commission to revisit it.  See 47 CFR § 1.429(l).  See 
Expanding the Economic & Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, Second Order on 
Reconsideration, 30 FCC Rcd 6746, 6753-54, para. 18 (2015) (impermissible new argument dismissed); Reporting 
Requirements for U.S. Providers of International Telecommunications Services, Order, 30 FCC Rcd. 6318 (IB 2015) 
(same).
47
323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 420, para. 42; id. (“NCE commenters have offered no compelling reason 
why we must conclude that the system security needs or risks of NCE attributable interest holders are greater than 
those of commercial attributable interest holders.”). 
48
Id. at 419-20, para. 41; id. (“[T]he Commission agrees with commenters that privacy and security with respect to 
personally identifiable information are paramount, and we remain committed to protecting such interests.”); id.
(“The Commission will continue to make the necessary upgrades to ensure the security of CORES and all of its 
systems, and protecting the personally identifiable information contained in its system will remain one of the 
Commission’s highest priorities.”).
49
Id.
50
See 47 CFR 1.429(l).  It is by now well settled that the Commission will not consider a petition for reconsideration 
that merely repeats arguments that the Commission has previously rejected.  See, e.g., Federal-State Joint Board on 
Universal Service, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22305, 22306, para. 4 (2004).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-5
9
Commission’s decision to apply the FRN requirement in the NCE context.  Contrary to the petitioners’ 
assertions, the 323 and 323-E Order fully considered and rejected unsubstantiated claims that the FRN 
requirement would discourage participation in NCE station governance and concluded that, on balance, 
the record indicated that the requirement would not significantly inhibit individuals from serving as NCE 
board members.
51
  Similarly, we also reject assertions that the Commission failed to demonstrate that
Section 257 of the 1996 Act and Section 309(j) of the Act support the FRN requirement in the NCE 
context.  As discussed below, we find that the petitions fail to raise a material error, omission, or other 
reason warranting reconsideration of these findings.
52
14. The Decision to Apply the FRN Requirement to NCEs Was Reasonable and Supported by 
the Record.  Some petitioners argue that the decision to apply the FRN requirement in the NCE context is 
arbitrary and capricious because they believe the decision runs counter to evidence in the record that the 
FRN requirement would discourage participation in NCE station governance.
53
  These petitioners contend 
that the Commission offered no reasoned explanation in the 323 and 323-E Order for its conclusion that 
the FRN requirement would not significantly inhibit individuals from serving on the boards of NCE 
stations.
54
  According to the NCE Licensees, the Commission lacked the expertise to dismiss NCEs’ 
claims that the FRN requirement would discourage many individuals from serving as board members; 
therefore, its conclusion that the requirement would not be a serious disincentive to participation in NCE 
stations would not be entitled to deference by a reviewing court.
55
15. NCE Licensees also assert that the Commission failed to consider a “less harmful”
alternative proposal that they claim would satisfy the Commission’s need to track minority and female 
ownership of broadcast stations and also be “fully responsive” to the criticisms in the GAO Report.
56
  The 
NCE licensees cite a proposal offered previously by the University of Michigan, which recommended that 
certain public radio stations be required to report the race, gender, and ethnicity of attributable individuals 
listed on Form 323-E without providing unique RUFRNs or CORES FRNs for those individuals.
57
  
APMG and SUNY also favor this approach, asserting that it would alleviate concerns that individuals 
would decline to serve on NCE boards as a result of the FRN requirement.
58
  SUNY adds that NCEs could 
                                                     
51
See infra paras. 14-19.
52
See infra paras. 20-23.
53
NCE Licensees Petition at 1, 4-7; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 4-5; see SUNY Petition at 1-2 
(supporting the NCE Licensees Petition); APMG Petition at 3 (asserting that “[b]road consensus among public 
media entities that [the FRN requirement] will be damaging is irrefutable”); see also Alabama Trustees Comments 
at 2-3 (asserting that the Commission dismissed NCE’s claims “without any countervailing evidence”); APTS et al. 
Comments at 4-5 (supporting the NCE Licensees Petition).
54
NCE Licensees Petition at 1, 4-6; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 5-6.
55
NCE Licensees Petition at 7-8; see also APTS et al. Comments at 4-5 (supporting the NCE Licensees Petition).
56
NCE Licensees Petition at 8-10.
57
Id. at 9-10 (discussing Letter from Scott Blake Harris, Counsel to the University of Michigan, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed Dec. 7, 2015) (Univ. of Mich. Dec. 7, 2015 Ex Parte Letter)); see Univ. of Mich. Dec. 
7, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 1 (suggesting that public educational institutions that own radio stations be allowed to 
provide demographic information about their governing board members without reporting a unique RUFRN or 
CORES FRN for those individuals).  The NCE Licensees state that this proposal could be expanded to apply to other 
NCEs, including other public sector licensees (e.g., state public broadcasting commissions) and private non-
profit/non-stock licensees (e.g., private educational institutions and charitable community organizations).  NCE 
Licensees Petition at 9.
58
APMG Petition at 4; SUNY Petition at 6.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-5
10
certify the accuracy of the information reported on Form 323-E and, if necessary, the Commission could 
conduct random audits to verify that the information is accurate.
59
16. Contrary to petitioners’ assertions, the Commission did not ignore record evidence that 
the FRN requirement would be unduly burdensome for NCE stations.
60
  Rather, the Commission found 
that the record contained no evidence that the FRN requirement would significantly inhibit individuals 
from serving on the boards of NCEs,
61
and the petitioners have failed to introduce such evidence.  In 
particular, neither the petitioners nor any other participant in this proceeding have provided any facts or 
other information demonstrating that existing or potential NCE board members have resigned or declined 
to serve as a result of having to disclose the type of information required to obtain a CORES FRN or 
RUFRN.
62
  The petitioners merely point to earlier wholly unsupported assertions that the FRN
requirement would discourage participation on NCE boards without providing any substantiating facts or 
other information to support their claims.
63
  However, as discussed below, the Commission considered 
and rejected these assertions in the 323 and 323-E Order.  Such assertions amount to nothing more than 
allegations; the petitioners have failed to provide any supporting evidence in the form of declarations, 
surveys, or other documentation showing that their concerns are not merely speculative.
64
  Absent any 
evidence demonstrating that NCE board members have resigned or declined to serve—or are likely to do 
so—as a result of having to disclose confidentially the type of information required to obtain an RUFRN, 
there is no record evidence that the requirement that licensees report a CORES FRN or RUFRN for 
individuals holding attributable interests would serve as a serious disincentive to participation in NCE 
station governance.      
                                                     
59
SUNY Petition at 6.
60
See APMG Petition at 3; NCE Licensees Petition at 1, 4-7; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 4-5; SUNY 
Petition at 1-2; see also Alabama Trustees Comments at 2-3 (asserting that the Commission dismissed NCE’s claims 
“without any countervailing evidence”); APTS et al. Comments at 4-5 (supporting the NCE Licensees Petition).
61
323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 429, n.207.
62
As stated in the 323 and 323-E Order, an individual does not need to provide his or her personal information to 
anyone other than the Commission to obtain a CORES FRN or RUFRN.  The individual can provide that 
information to the Commission alone and then provide the CORES FRN or RUFRN to the licensee for reporting 
purposes.  The underlying identifying information will be stored confidentially and securely within CORES, and 
only the individual’s name and FRN will be available publicly.  Id at 416, 427-28, paras. 36, 55.   
63
As we discuss below, the Commission fully considered such arguments in the 323 and 323-E Order and found 
that other information in the record indicated that the FRN requirement would not significantly inhibit individuals 
from serving on the boards of NCEs.  See infra paras. 17-18.  In addition, we note that the information required to 
obtain an FRN (CORES FRN or RUFRN) is similar to information already required to be a board member/regent at 
some universities.  See, e.g., Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Appointments Application, 
https://govnews.gov.ca.gov/gov39app/index.php (last visited Dec. 20, 2016) (requiring the full name, date of birth, 
full SSN, and residential address of a person who applies for an appointment to a position in the California state 
government, including a regent of the University of California).
64
See, e.g., NCE Licensees Petition at 5 (citing a commenter’s earlier, unsubstantiated, claim that one NCE board 
member resigned in order to avoid having to disclose his full SSN to the Commission for purposes of reporting a 
CORES FRN on Form 323); id. at 6 (citing a commenter’s earlier claim that he would not have served as an NCE 
board member had he been required to disclose “personal information”).  As stated above, these claims are not 
supported by affidavits or declarations demonstrating that they are more than mere speculation.  Moreover, the 
Commission has already addressed the concerns raised in these comments.  In direct response to concerns regarding 
SSNs, the Commission adopted the RUFRN option for NCE board members and other attributable individuals, 
which will not require applicants to submit a full SSN to the Commission.  323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 
427, para. 55.  Also, as noted above, the attributable individual need not share any of the personally identifying 
information with anyone other than the Commission, and the Commission will store the personal information 
confidentially and securely.  See supra note 62.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-5
11
17. Based on the existing reporting requirements for NCEs and details about the RUFRN 
system that the Commission provided when it initially proposed to adopt the RUFRN, the 323 and 323-E 
Order reasonably rejected unsubstantiated assertions that the FRN requirement would discourage 
individuals from serving as NCE board members.
65
  Specifically, the Commission noted that officers and 
directors of NCE stations are already reported as attributable interest holders on the existing version of 
Form 323-E
66
and that registering for a new CORES FRN or RUFRN will require applicants to complete 
once a short online form requiring only a few pieces of information.
67
  The Commission also noted that 
“each attributable [individual] [will] ha[ve] the option of obtaining either a CORES FRN, requiring 
submission of an SSN to the Commission, or an RUFRN, requiring submission of other limited personal 
information, including only the last four digits of the SSN.”
68
  Further, the Commission noted that it “will 
house the [underlying FRN] information confidentially and securely”
69
and that attributable individuals 
will be able to provide their personal information directly to the Commission.
70
  Attributable individuals 
will need to provide only the CORES FRN or RUFRN to the licensee for reporting purposes.
71
  
Furthermore, the Commission also noted that “[o]ur rules . . . allow officers and directors to be exempted 
from attribution in limited circumstances”
72
and the standards for such exemptions apply in the NCE 
context,
73
which means that some NCE board members may not have to obtain a CORES FRN or RUFRN 
in any event if they are exempt from attribution under the applicable standards.
74
  Consistent with the 
Commission’s conclusion in the 323 and 323-E Order, these facts indicate that registering for a CORES 
FRN or RUFRN will be a one-time process that takes just a few moments to complete and will not require 
individuals to share personally identifying information with anyone other than the Commission.
75
  
                                                     
65
See 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 427-28, para. 55 (“We are not persuaded that the [FRN] requirement 
will significantly inhibit individuals from serving on the boards of NCEs.”).
66
Id. (“[T]he individuals at issue are already attributable interest holders in NCE stations and they are already 
identified as such on Form 323-E.”).
67
Id. (“[T]he process for obtaining a CORES FRN or RUFRN is quite simple and will only need to be done once.”); 
see also id. at 417, para. 36 (“An individual need only fill out a short online form requiring just a few pieces of 
information: a name, address, birth date, and the last for digits of the SSN.”).
68
Id. at 427, para. 55.
69
Id.
70
Id. (“The attributable individual need not share any of the personally identifying information with anyone other 
than the Commission; he or she may obtain the FRN number directly from the Commission and provide only the 
FRN to the licensee and the public.”).
71
Id.
72
Id. at 424, para. 50.
73
Id. (“We reiterate that our attribution standards, including the standards applicable to attribution exemptions for 
officers and directors, apply to both commercial and NCE stations.”).
74
See 47 CFR § 73.3555, Note 2(g).  
75
323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 417, 427-28 paras. 36, 55.  Contrary to some petitioners’ assertions, the 
Commission did not rely on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)’s collection of demographic information 
to conclude that the FRN requirement will not be burdensome in the NCE context.  Rather, the Commission 
referenced the CPB’s collection of demographic information as evidence refuting the assertion that requiring NCEs 
to provide similar information regarding race and gender on Form 323-E would be burdensome or discourage 
participation in NCE governance.  The Commission noted further that the record did not indicate that the CPB 
reporting was burdensome or discouraged participation.  Id. at 425, para. 51.  With respect to the FRN requirement, 
as discussed above, the Commission concluded that the process for obtaining a CORES FRN or RUFRN is quite 
simple and will only need to be done once, and that the lead time between the release of the 323 and 323-E Order 
and the 2017 biennial filing window should be sufficient for NCE filers to coordinate with attributable interest 
holders for purposes of obtaining the information needed to report a valid CORES FRN or RUFRN as required.  Id.  
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-5
12
Further, this evidence suggests that there are at most de minimis costs or burdens associated with 
obtaining an FRN, and a mechanism exists for excluding any individuals that are exempt from 
attribution.
76
  Thus, contrary to what some petitioners contend, the Commission offered a reasoned 
explanation for its conclusion that the FRN requirement (including the option to use an RUFRN) would 
not significantly inhibit individuals from serving on the boards of NCE stations.
77
  Because the petitioners 
and supporting commenters have introduced no evidence indicating otherwise, they have failed to identify 
a material error, omission, or other reason warranting reconsideration of this issue.
78
18. In addition, contrary to what some petitioners suggest,
79
the 323 and 323-E Order did not 
conclude that all NCE attributable interest holders would voluntarily provide the information needed to 
report a valid CORES FRN or RUFRN and that no board member would decline a filer’s request for such 
information.  While the Commission noted its expectation that individuals and entities will comply with 
the Commission’s rules,
80
the Commission also confirmed that Special Use FRNs (SUFRNs)
81
will be 
available for use on Form 323-E where an attributable individual still refuses to provide a means of 
reporting a valid CORES FRN or RUFRN even after the filer has used reasonable and good-faith efforts 
as discussed in the 323 and 323-E Order.
82
  The Commission decided to retain the availability of the 
SURFN specifically for the limited purpose of allowing filers to submit reports in situations where a 
board member flatly refuses to provide a means of reporting a valid CORES FRN or RUFRN.  Thus, the 
Commission considered and made allowance for the possibility that some attributable interest holders 
might decline to provide the information needed to report a valid CORES FRN or RUFRN; therefore, 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
The Commission also concluded that the use of CORES FRNs and FRNs on Forms 323 and 323-E will enable the 
Commission to make certain modifications to the forms that will reduce the burdens on all filers.  See id. at 417, 
para. 36.
76
Id. at 417, para. 36. We note that the Commission has significant expertise and experience regarding the FRN 
registration process.  As discussed above, the Commission considered facts about the CORES registration process in 
the 323 and 323-E Order and found that those facts indicated that the FRN requirement would not be a serious 
disincentive to participation in NCE station governance.  Thus, those who assert that the Commission had no basis 
in its expertise and experience to reject commenters’ unsupported claims to the contrary are wrong.  See NCE 
Licensees Petition at 7-8 (arguing that the burdens imposed on NCEs by the FRN requirement is not a matter within 
the Commission’s expertise and therefore the decision to apply the FRN requirement to NCEs would not be entitled 
to deference by a reviewing court); see also APTS et al. Comments at 4-5 (supporting the NCE Licensees’ argument 
that the Commission lacks the expertise to reject assertions that the FRN requirement would be burdensome in the
NCE context).
77
323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 417, 427-28 paras. 36, 55; see NCE Licensees Petition at 1, 4-6; Public 
Broadcasting Parties Petition at 5-6.
78
47 CFR § 1.429(l).
79
See, e.g., Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 6.
80
323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 416, para. 35 (“[W]e expect that individuals and entities will comply with 
our rules and provide accurate information during the CORES registration process to the greatest extent possible.”).
81
The SUFRN is “a computer-generated number [that] [is] created [when a filer] click[s] a button within Form 323 
. . . and [is] not backed by any identifying information.”  Id. at 413, para. 29.  
82
Id. at 428-29, para. 57 (“We confirm that SUFRNs will remain available for the limited purpose of protecting the 
position of filers in the case of interest holders that refuse to obtain an FRN or provide the licensee with the 
information necessary to generate an FRN for the interest holder.”).  In such circumstances, the filer will be exempt 
from enforcement action if the filer substantiates that it has used reasonable and good-faith efforts to comply with 
the reporting requirements as described in the Order. Id.  In response to concerns about identity theft, the 
Commission noted that its systems currently safely house a significant amount of information that is the same, 
similar, or—in the case of full SSNs—even more sensitive than the information underlying the RUFRN.  The 
Commission also discussed existing safeguards and improvements that have been implemented to assure the security 
of the Commission’s systems and noted that it was unaware of any breaches to CORES.  Id. at 419-20, para. 41.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-5
13
petitioners have failed to identify a material error, omission, or other reason warranting reconsideration by 
the Commission.
83
19. We also reject assertions that the Commission failed to consider an alternative proposal 
for collecting data from NCE stations that would fully satisfy the Commission’s need for comprehensive 
data on minority and female ownership of broadcast stations.
84
  The petitioners cite a proposal put 
forward by the University of Michigan that the Commission allow public educational institutions that 
own radio stations to report demographic information about their governing board members without 
providing unique CORES FRNs or RUFRNs for those individuals, arguing that this approach should also 
apply to other NCEs.
85
  In the 323 and 323-E Order, the Commission considered and rejected this 
approach and the expanded version that the petitioners continue to advocate in their requests for 
reconsideration.
86
  The Commission specifically dismissed claims that the use of CORES FRNs and 
RUFRNs on Form 323-E is not necessary to help ensure the reliability of the Commission’s broadcast 
ownership data.
87
  The Commission concluded that having “a unique identifier for each individual 
attributable interest holder is necessary to make the NCE data aggregable, machine readable, and 
searchable in the same manner as [the ownership information the Commission collects from] commercial 
broadcast station[s].”
88
  The Commission also concluded that the prescribed use of CORES FRNs and 
RUFRNs “enable[d] the Commission to make certain modifications to broadcast ownership reporting that 
will reduce the burdens on all filers” and thereby “further improve the quality of the ownership data 
submitted to the Commission.”
89
  Because the petitioners’ “alternative” approach omits the unique 
identifier requirement, which the Commission has concluded is crucial to the quality and usability of its 
broadcast ownership data, their approach would not satisfy the Commission’s need for complete and 
reliable broadcast ownership information.
90
  Accordingly, we reject assertions that the Commission failed 
                                                     
83
47 CFR § 1.429(l); see, e.g., NCE Licensees Petition at 7; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 6-7.  As noted 
above, while filers may require additional time and effort to coordinate with attributable interest holders the first 
time they file revised Form 323-E, the Commission found that the lead time between the release of the 323 and 323-
E Order and the 2017 filing window should be sufficient for this purpose.  See supra note 75.
84
See APMG Petition at 4; NCE Licensees Petition at 8-10; SUNY Petition at 6. APTS et al. contend that the 
Commission has no need to apply the FRN requirement in the NCE context given the availability of general race, 
ethnicity, and gender information from CPB regarding the board members of CPB-funded stations.  APTS et al. 
Comments at 6-7.  The Commission considered and rejected this approach in the 323 and 323-E Order, concluding 
that, for various reasons, the CPB data collection cannot be used as a substitute for the data collected on Form 323-
E.  See 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 425-26, n.188; id. (“For example, CPB does not collect information 
from all NCE stations; CPB data does not contain the same level of detail necessary to provide the snapshot of 
ownership data to effectively study and analyze ownership trends together with Form 323 data; there is no way to 
incorporate CPB’s data into LMS to create a searchable and aggregable database; and there is no public access to 
CPB’s underlying data to permit analysis and study.”).
85
See supra para. 15 & note 57.
86
See 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 426, para. 53 (“While some commenters support our conclusion that 
RUFRNs are essential to allow analysis of the data, other commenters dispute that position.” (citing, inter alia, 
Univ. of Mich. Dec. 7, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2)); id. at 427, para. 54 (“We believe a unique identifier for each 
individual attributable interest holder is necessary to make the NCE data aggregable, machine readable, and 
searchable in the same manner as commercial broadcast station information.”).
87
See supra note 86.
88
323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 427, para. 54.
89
Id. at 417, para. 36.
90
We note that the existing versions of Forms 323 and 323-E already require respondents to certify the accuracy and 
completeness of the information they report on the forms.  FCC Form 323-E, Ownership Report for Noncommercial 
Broadcast Stations (June 2002), https://transition.fcc.gov/Forms/Form323-E/323e.pdf; FCC Form 323, Ownership 
Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations (March 2013), https://transition.fcc.gov/Forms/Form323/323.pdf.  
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-5
14
to consider an alternative approach that would fully satisfy its need for comprehensive ownership data 
and find that petitioners have failed to identify a material error, omission, or other reason warranting 
reconsideration by the Commission.
91
  
20. The Petitioners Have Identified No Reason Warranting Reconsideration of the 
Commission’s Conclusion that Sections 257 and 309(j) Support the FRN Requirement in the NCE 
Context.  Some petitioners argue that the Commission erred in concluding that Section 257 of the 1996
Act and Section 309(j) of the Act support the Commission’s decision to apply the FRN requirement to 
NCEs.
92
  They assert that the Commission cannot plausibly interpret Section 257 as authorizing an FRN 
requirement in the NCE context for purposes of fulfilling the statute’s mandate to report to Congress on 
certain market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses.
93
The petitioners question 
whether this mandate applies to NCE broadcasting.
94
  They contend that none of the Commission’s 
Section 257 reports has discussed market entry barriers to NCE broadcasting and that it would be 
inconsistent for the Commission to find that Section 257 applies in the NCE context.
95
  In addition, the 
NCE Licensees argue that Section 309(j), which authorizes the Commission to award certain licenses and 
construction permits by competitive bidding, does not apply to NCE stations because Section 309(j)(2)(c) 
exempts such stations from competitive bidding.
96
  
21. As the Commission explained in the 323 and 323-E Order, Section 257 directs the 
Commission, in identifying and eliminating market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small 
businesses in the provision and ownership of telecommunications and information services, to “promote 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Despite this certification requirement, Commission staff still found inaccuracies in the biennial ownership data 
submitted on Form 323 in previous years.  See 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 406-07, para. 15 (“In preparing 
the[] [2012 and 2014 323 Reports], Commission staff observed difficulties with, and errors within, the broadcast 
ownership data submitted to the Commission.”); id. at 427, para. 54 (“As described above, the Commission’s 
experience with the commercial biennial ownership reports from 2009, 2011, and 2013 revealed that use of SUFRNs 
is not workable to create data reliability and the record of this proceeding offers no reason to believe that use of 
SUFRNs in broadcast ownership reports for NCE stations would likely be any more successful.”).  Therefore, 
contrary to SUNY’s assertion, requiring filers to certify the accuracy of the ownership information they report—
without also providing unique identifiers for their attributable interest holders—is not sufficient to ensure the 
reliability and utility of the Commission’s ownership data.  See supra para. 15 & note 59.
91
47 CFR § 1.429(l); see APMG Petition at 3-4; NCE Licensees Petition at 1, 4-10; Public Broadcasting Parties 
Petition at 4-6; SUNY Petition at 1-2, 6.
92
NCE Licensees Petition at 10-12; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 7, n.6; see also APTS et al. Comments at 
3-4 (arguing that the Commission “erred” in citing Sections 257 and 309(j) as authorizing the FRN requirement in 
the NCE context).
93
NCE Licensees Petition at 11-12; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 7, n.6.  In addition to the reporting 
obligation, Section 257 directs the Commission to identify and eliminate “market entry barriers for entrepreneurs 
and other small businesses in the provision and ownership of telecommunications services and information services, 
or in the provision of parts or services to providers of telecommunications services and information services.”  47 
U.S.C. § 257; see 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 412, para. 26.
94
NCE Licensees Petition at 12; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 7, n.6; see also APTS et al. Comments at 4 
(arguing that Section 257 provides no basis for regulating NCEs).
95
NCE Licensees Petition at 12; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 7, n.6.  On the other hand, the NCE 
Licensees contend that, in the event Section 257 applies to NCE stations, the record in this proceeding demonstrates 
that extending the FRN requirement to NCEs is a “regulatory barrier” that should be eliminated.  NCE Licensees 
Petition at 12, n.27.
96
NCE Licensees Petition at 11 (citing Nat’l Pub. Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 254 F.3d 226 (D.C. Cir. 2001)); see also 
APTS et al. Comments at 3 & n.9 (arguing that Section 309(j) exempts NCEs from the competitive bidding 
authority it grants the Commission).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-5
15
the policies and purposes of [the Act] favoring diversity of media voices.”
97
  Similarly, Section 309(j) 
directs the Commission, in resolving mutually exclusive applications for commercial broadcast licenses 
by competitive bidding, to promote the public policy of “avoiding excessive concentration of licenses” by 
“disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applicants, including . . . businesses owned by members 
of minority groups and women.”
98
  The statute further requires that the Commission “ensure that . . . 
businesses owned by members of minority groups and women are given the opportunity to participate in 
the provision of spectrum-based services.”
99
  In the 323 and 323-E Order, the Commission concluded that 
it must have information about minority and female ownership in broadcasting as a whole—including 
“the entire universe of NCE stations”—to fulfill its statutory mandates under Sections 257 and 309(j).
100
  
The Commission noted that GAO and outside researchers have criticized the Commission specifically for 
its failure to collect race, gender, and ethnicity information from NCE stations, and that many have 
described its prior broadcast ownership data collections as incomplete.
101
  The Commission concluded 
that NCE stations must be included in the ownership data the Commission collects to enable the 
Commission to construct a complete picture of minority and female participation in broadcasting in order 
to effectively study and analyze ownership trends in support of policy initiatives that further the diversity 
mandates of Sections 257 and 309(j).
102
    
22. In addition to concluding that it must collect comprehensive ownership data in order to 
fulfill its statutory mandates, the Commission further concluded that it is imperative that these data also 
be reliable, aggregable, and usable for study and analysis.
103
  Noting GAO’s observation that “more 
accurate, complete, and reliable [broadcast ownership] data would allow [the Commission] to better 
assess the impact of its rules and regulations,”
104
the Commission concluded that it must be able to 
uniquely identify individuals and entities reported on broadcast ownership reports for purposes of creating 
reliable and usable data in support of Commission policy initiatives to promote diversity to further the 
                                                     
97
323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 412, para. 26 (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 257(b)); see also 47 U.S.C. § 257.
98
323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 412, para. 27 (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(B)); see also 47 U.S.C. § 
309(j).
99
323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 412, para. 27 (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(D)); see also 47 U.S.C. § 
309(j).  In addition, it is well established that the Commission has wide latitude to collect information necessary to 
discharge its functions.  See, e.g., 2014 Quadrennial Review R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 10015, para. 356 (citing Stahlman 
v. FCC, 126 F.2d 124, 128 (D.C. Cir. 1942)); 47 U.S.C. §§ 303(j), 303(r), 308(b), 309(a)); see also 47 U.S.C. §403 
(“The Commission shall have full authority and power at any time to institute an inquiry, on its own motion, in any 
case and as to any matter or thing . . . concerning which any question may arise under any of the provisions of this 
chapter . . . .”).
100
323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 421, para. 45 (“The Commission has previously found that, in order to 
adopt policies or regulations to promote minority and female ownership of broadcast stations, it is imperative to 
have information about female and minority ownership in broadcasting as a whole—specifically including the entire 
universe of NCE stations.” (internal quotations omitted)).  The Commission explained this rationale in 2009 when it 
revised the Form 323 and first proposed adopting similar revisions for the Form 323-E.  Promoting Diversification 
of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
24 FCC Rcd 5896, 5897, para. 1 (2009) (“Unfortunately, the Commission currently does not possess reliable data on 
the precise status of minority and female ownership—data that we will need to establish and maintain effective 
policies over time. . .”).
101
323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 425, para. 51 (citing GAO Report at 4); id. at 421, para. 45 & n.163.
102
See id. at 425, para. 51 (“As a result of our commitment to obtaining robust and complete ownership data 
concerning minority and female participation in broadcasting, we believe that the collection of [race and gender] 
information about the NCE station category is necessary.”).
103
Id. at 413, para. 28.
104
Id. at 400, para. 4 (quoting GAO Report at 5).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-5
16
mandates of Sections 257 and 309(j).
105
  Because CORES FRNs and RUFRNs are unique identifiers that 
can be cross referenced easily, the Commission concluded that those identifiers must be used on Forms 
323 and 323-E to ensure that the broadcast ownership data the Commission collects is not only 
comprehensive but also reliable and usable for studies and trend analyses.
106
  The Commission concluded 
that collecting such comprehensive, reliable ownership data “enables the Commission not only to assess 
the current state of minority and female ownership of broadcast stations but also to determine the success 
of programs that are designed to [further the Commission’s statutory mandates to] facilitate opportunities 
for women- and minority-owned businesses and to promote a diversity of media voices.”
107
  
23. The petitioners have failed to identify grounds warranting reconsideration of the 
Commission’s conclusion that Sections 257 and 309(j) support its decision to apply the FRN requirement 
to NCEs.
108
  While some petitioners assert that Section 257 does not address entry barriers in the NCE 
context,
109
the petitioners do not identify anything in the statute that would bar the Commission from 
collecting the comprehensive, reliable data it needs to effectively study and analyze ownership trends in 
support of policy initiatives that promote a “diversity of media voices.”
110
  Similarly, although Section 
309(j) exempts NCE stations from the competitive bidding authority that provision grants the 
Commission,
111
the petitioners identify nothing in the statute that would preclude the Commission from 
collecting complete and reliable information about minority and female ownership of broadcast stations—
including NCE stations—in order to fulfill its mandate to “avoid[] excessive concentration of licenses” 
and “disseminat[e] licenses among a wide variety of applicants, including . . . businesses owned by 
members of minority groups and women.”
112
  By failing to identify anything in the statutes or any other 
relevant authority that would prohibit the Commission from collecting ownership information from NCE 
stations, the petitioners fail to identify a material error, omission, or other reason warranting 
reconsideration of the Commission’s conclusion that collecting such data is necessary “to effectively 
study and analyze ownership trends, to assess the impact of the Commission’s existing rules, and to 
provide a foundation for adopting new rules” that further the diversity mandates of Sections 257 and 
309(j).
113
  
                                                     
105
Id. at 412, para. 25.
106
See id. at 427, para. 54 (“We believe a unique identifier for each individual attributable interest holder is 
necessary to make the NCE data aggregable, machine readable, and searchable . . . .”).
107
Id. at 412-13, para. 28.
108
See NCE Licensees Petition at 11-12; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 7, n.6; see also APTS et al. 
Comments at 3-4.
109
NCE Licensees Petition at 11-12; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 7, n.6; see also APTS et al. Comments 
at 4.
110
47 U.S.C. § 257; see also NCE Licensees Petition at 11-12; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 7, n.6; APTS 
et al. Comments at 4.  We reject the NCE Licensees’ contention that in the NCE context the FRN requirement is a 
regulatory barrier that should be eliminated pursuant to Section 257.  See NCE Licensees Petition at 12, n.27.  This 
argument was not raised previously in this proceeding, and the petitioners have failed to make any showing that this 
argument is due to changed circumstances, or was unknown or could not have been discovered through the use of 
ordinary diligence prior to issuance of the 323 and 323-E Order, or that its consideration would serve the public 
interest, as provided by Section 1.429(b) of the Commission’s rules.  47 CFR § 1.429(b).   Notwithstanding our 
decision to dismiss this argument pursuant to Section 1.429(b), we note that the Commission concluded that there 
are at most de minimis costs or burdens associated with the requirement as discussed above.  See supra paras. 16-18.  
111
Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants, Memorandum 
Opinion and Third Order on Reconsideration, 23 FCCR 17423, 17425-26, para. 8 (2008).
112
47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(B); see also NCE Licensees Petition at 11; APTS et al. Comments at 3 & n.9.
113
323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 399, para. 2; see also NCE Licensees Petition at 11-12; Public 
Broadcasting Parties Petition at 7, n.6; APTS et al. Comments at 3-4.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-5
17
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
24. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 405, and Section 1.429(l) of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 
1.429(l), that the petitions for reconsideration filed by the American Public Media Group, the NCE 
Licensees, the Public Broadcasting Parties, and Lisa S. Campo on behalf of the State University of New 
York, ARE DISMISSED to the extent stated in footnotes 46 and 110 AND OTHERWISE ARE 
DENIED for the reasons stated herein.
25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order on Reconsideration SHALL BE 
EFFECTIVE upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William T. Lake
Chief, Media Bureau