March 30, 2017 
 
FCC FACT SHEET* 
Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services 
 Order on Reconsideration, MB Docket No. 07-294 
 
Background:  Noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcasters, including public broadcasters, have 
complained that a recent Commission regulation will deter volunteers from serving their stations as 
officers or members of boards of directors.  In this Order, the Commission would eliminate that 
regulation.   
In January 2016, the Commission revised its broadcast ownership reporting forms (FCC Form 
323 for commercial stations and Form 323-E for NCE stations) to streamline the ownership reporting 
requirements for broadcasters and to refine the collection of data reported on the forms.  Among other 
things, the FCC revised Form 323-E to require that NCE broadcasters use a unique identifier—either an 
FCC Registration Number (FRN) or the newly created Restricted Use FRN—for each reportable interest 
holder, just as commercial broadcasters must do on Form 323.  This requirement compels those with 
reportable interests in an NCE station—typically the officers and governing board members—to provide 
the Commission with personal information, such as a social security number and/or date of birth.  The 
FCC also allowed NCE stations to rely on Special Use FRNs -- which do not require submission of 
personal information -- for individuals with reportable interests, if an individual refused to provide the 
information necessary to report a valid CORES FRN or Restricted Use FRN.  The Commission stated, 
however, that it may take enforcement action against the individual for refusing to provide such 
information.  The FCC stated further that the NCE station itself would be exempt from enforcement 
action if it demonstrates that it used reasonable and good-faith efforts to obtain the information needed to 
report an FRN or Restricted Use FRN before reporting a Special Use FRN, including informing the 
individual about the risk of enforcement action. 
In May 2016, a number of NCE broadcasters filed petitions for reconsideration contending that 
mandatory use of CORES FRNs and Restricted Use FRNs on Form 323-E would hinder the efforts of 
NCEs to recruit qualified volunteers to serve on their licensee boards and would pose other unique 
challenges for certain noncommercial entities.   
What the Order Would Do: 
? Expand the option for noncommercial broadcasters to use Special Use FRNs, which do not 
require submission of personal information, for reportable individuals on Form 323-E.   
o Specifically, the Order would eliminate the requirement that noncommercial broadcasters 
first use “reasonable and good-faith efforts” to obtain the information necessary to report 
an FRN or a Restricted Use FRN, including informing individuals about the threat of 
enforcement action, before reporting a Special Use FRN.   
o In doing so, the Order would remove a requirement that compels the officers and 
directors of noncommercial broadcasters to provide the FCC with personal information, 
such as a social security number or date of birth, or risk being subject to an FCC 
enforcement action. 
? Retain the use of FRNs and Restricted Use FRNs on Form 323-E to the extent that reportable 
interest holders may already have, or will not object to obtaining, such an identifier.  
                                                     
* This document is being released as part of a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding.  Any presentations or views on the 
subject expressed to the Commission or its staff, including by email, must be filed in MB Docket No. 07-294, which 
may be accessed via the Electronic Comment Filing System (https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/). 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC1704-07 
 
 
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 Pr ocedure, Amendment of 
CORES Registration System 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
MB Docket No. 07-294 
 
 
MD Docket No. 10-234 
 
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION ? 
 
Adopted:  [] Released:  []  
 
By the Commission: 
 
I.  I NTRODUCTION 
1. This Order on Reconsideration (Order) grants in part, dismisses in part, and denies in part 
several petitions for reconsideration1 of the 323 and 323-E Order2 and provides noncommercial 
broadcasters with relief from the requirement that they must report a unique FCC Registration Number 
(FRN) for each attributable interest holder on ownership reports filed with the Commission.3  Currently, 
                                                     
? This document has been circulated for tentative consideration by the Commission at its April open meeting.  The 
issues referenced in this document and the Commission’s ultimate resolution of those issues remain under 
consideration and subject to change.  This document does not constitute any official action by the Commission.  
However, the Chairman has determined that, in the interest of promoting the public’s ability to understand the nature 
and scope of issues under consideration by the Commission, the public interest would be served by making this 
document publicly available.  The FCC’s ex parte rules apply and presentations are subject to “permit-but-disclose” 
ex parte rules.  See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 1.1206, 1.1200(a).  Participants in this proceeding should familiarize 
themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 
1 Petition for Reconsideration of American Public Medi a Group (filed May 4, 2016) (APMG Petition); Petition for 
Reconsideration of the NCE Licensees (filed May 3, 20 16) (NCE Licensees Petition); Petition for Reconsideration 
of the Public Broadcasting Parties (filed May 4, 20 16) (Public Broadcasting Parties Petition); Petition for 
Reconsideration of Lisa S. Campo (filed May 3, 2016) (SUN Y Petition) (filed on behalf of the State University of 
New York).  The NCE Licensees are more than 60 noncommer cial educational television and radio station licensees, 
including public and private universities, governmental entities, and local and regional nonprofit organizations.  
NCE Licensees Petition at 13-17.  The Public Broadcasting Pa rties are 11 licensees of public radio and television 
stations and include nonprofit community organizations and public and private colleges and universities.  Public 
Broadcasting Parties Petition at 1-2 & App. A.    
2 Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services et al., Report and Order, Second Report and 
Order, and Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 398 (2016) ( 323 and 323-E Order). 
3 See infra notes 35, 41.  As discussed below, although our acti on today grants certain flexibility to NCEs, we retain 
the use of unique FRNs in the NCE context, to the extent attributable interest holders may already have, or will not 
object to obtaining, unique FRNs.  To the extent the petitioners request that we completely eliminate unique FRNs 
in the NCE context, we deny the petitions for reconsideration.  See infra note 35.  
(continued….) 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC1704-07   
 2
this requirement compels those with attributable interests in the licensee of a noncommercial educational 
(NCE) broadcast station—typically the officers and governing board members—to provide the 
Commission with identifying information, such as a social security number (SSN) or date of birth, or risk 
being subject to a Commission enforcement action.  Because this requirement, and the prospect of 
enforcement action against individuals who choose not to provide their personal information to the 
Commission, may raise unique concerns for some noncommercial entities, today we expand the option for 
NCE filers to report Special Use FRNs (SUFRNs), which do not require submission of personal 
information, for attributable individuals.   
II.  BACKGROUND 
2. Commercial and noncommercial broadcasters are required to submit ownership reports 
every two years and on other occasions specified in the Commission’s rules. 4  These reports must include 
information about the individuals and entities that hold attributable interests in the station licensee, 
including officers and directors.5   Commercial broadcasters submit ownership reports on FCC Form 323, 
and noncommercial broadcasters submit ownership reports on FCC Form 323-E.   
3. The 323 and 323-E Order revised Forms 323 and 323-E to address issues with the 
Commission’s data collection process that were identi fied previously by the United States Government 
Accountability Office (GAO), by researchers who wish to study the Commission’s ownership data, and 
by the Third Circuit as part of its review of the Commission’s Quadrennial Review proceeding. 6  Among 
other things, the 323 and 323-E Order revised Form 323-E to require that NCE filers provide a unique 
FRN generated by the Commission Registration System (CORES) for each attributable interest holder 
listed on Form 323-E, just as commercial broadcasters must do on Form 323.7 
                                                     
4 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.  See FCC Form 323, Instructions for Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations (March 2013), 
https://transition.fcc.gov/Forms/Form323/323.pdf; FCC Form 323-E, Instructions for Ownership Report for 
Noncommercial Broadcast Stations (June 2002), https://transition.fcc.gov/Forms/Form323-E/323e.pdf; see also 
Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, Sixth Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 461, 463, n.13 (2013) ( Sixth Diversity Further Notice) (discussing ownership reporting 
requirements for commercial broadcast stations).  
5  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 core operating 
functions of the station, including the programming decisions of licensees.  See 47 CFR § 73.3555, Note 2; see also 
infra para. 14. 
6 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 399, 421, paras. 2, 45.  The 323 and 323-E Order provides a detailed 
discussion of the Commission’s sustained efforts to address these issues by improving the quality, utility, and 
reliability of the data collected on Forms 323 and 323-E.  Id. at 400-11, paras. 4-23.  See also Promoting 
Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services et al., Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 5896, 5900-02, paras. 7-10 (2009) ( 323 Order and Fourth Diversity Further 
Notice) (discussing issues identified by GAO and researchers); Sixth Diversity Further Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 467-
68, para. 10 (discussing issues id entified by the Third Circuit).   
7 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 426-28, paras. 52-55.  In doing so, the Commission found that Section 257 
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Section 309(j) of the Communications Act authorize the Commission to 
collect this information from NCE stations.  Id. at 421, para. 44.  Importantly, the 323 and 323-E Order also updated 
Form 323-E to collect information about the race, gender, and ethnicity of NCE attributable interest holders as 
proposed in the Fourth Diversity Further Notice, allowing the Commission to construct a much more complete 
picture of minority and female participation in broadcasting.  Id. at 425-26, para. 51.  These revisions addressed 
issues previously identified by GAO and harmonized Form 323-E with Form 323, which was revised in 2009 to 
collect such data.  The GAO previous ly criticized the Commission for its fa ilure to collect race, gender, and 
ethnicity information from NCE stations.  U.S. Gov’ t Accountability Office, GAO-08-383, Media Ownership:  
(continued….) 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC1704-07   
 3
4. In the 323 and 323-E Order, the Commission attempted to balance the importance of 
ensuring the integrity and usability of its broadcast ownership data through the use of unique identifiers 
against concerns that requiring attributable individuals to obtain a CORES FRN or RUFRN could have 
negative impacts on NCE stations.8   In response to concerns that mandatory use of a traditional CORES 
FRN on Forms 323 and 323-E would require submission of individuals’ full SSNs to the Commission, the 
323 and 323-E Order provided for a Restricted Use FRN (RUFRN) establishing an alternative means for 
obtaining a unique identifier for individual attributable interest holders that does not require disclosure of 
a full SSN.9  To obtain an RUFRN, the applicant must submit an individual’s full name, residential 
address, date of birth, and the last four digits of his or her SSN.10  The 323 and 323-E Order required 
filers to “us[e] reasonable and good-faith efforts to obtain RUFRNs [or CORES FRNs] from individuals 
with reportable interests,” including informing individuals of “the risk of enforcement action for failing to 
provide an RUFRN or CORES FRN or to permit an RUFRN or CORES FRN to be obtained on their 
behalf.”11  In dissent, then-Commissioner Pai stated that  he “would give more credence to those public 
broadcasters across the country who run the day-to-day operations of their stations,” who argued that the 
CORES FRN/RUFRN requirement might negatively impact their ability to recruit volunteers to serve on 
their licensee boards.12  Because, in his view, the 323 and 323-E Order’s alternative approach did not give 
appropriate weight to the concerns of NCE broadcasters, then-Commissioner Pai objected to the 
requirement that the officers and directors of NCEs provide the Commission with the information needed 
to obtain a CORES FRN or RUFRN.  Commissioner O’Rielly also expressed concerns about the 
requirement.13 
5.  Following the release of the 323 and 323-E Order, the American Public Media Group 
(APMG), the NCE Licensees, the Public Broadcasting Parties, and the State University of New York 
(SUNY) (together, the Petitioners) timely file d petitions for reconsideration (Petitions). 14  The Petitioners 
request that the Commission reconsider its decision to apply the CORES FRN/RUFRN requirement to 
Form 323-E.15   The Commission did not receive any oppositions to the petitions.  However, SUNY and 
                                                     
Economic Factors Influence the Number of Media Outlets in Local Markets, While Ownership by Minorities and 
Women Appears Limited and Is Difficult to Assess at 4, 20, 22 (2008), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-383 ; 
see also supra note 6. 
8  323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 412-420, 426-28, paras. 25-42, 52-55. 
9 Id. at 412, para. 25. 
10 Id. at 415, para. 33.  By contrast, an applicant must subm it a full taxpayer identification number (TIN) to obtain a 
traditional CORES FRN.  Because an individual’s TIN is generally his or her SSN, an individual must submit a full 
SSN to obtain a traditional CORES FRN.  The applicant’s name and CORES FRN/RUFRN are available publicly, 
but the underlying identifying information is stored confidentially within the CORES database.  Id. at 415, para. 34. 
11 Id. at 428, para. 57. 
12 Id. at 517 (Statement of Commissioner Pai). 
13 Id. at 518 (Statement of Commissioner O’Rielly). 
14 Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaki ng Proceeding, 81 Fed. Re g. 31223 (May 18, 2016). 
15  APMG Petition at 4; NCE Licensees Petition at 1-2, 4;  Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 2, 10; SUNY 
Petition at 2, 4, 8.  In support of their request fo r relief from the CORES FRN/RUFRN requirement, petitioners 
claim, among other things, that NCE boards are already diverse and that NCE board members should not be treated 
as “owners.”  NCE Licensees Petition at  2 (“[P]ersons reported on NCE ownership reports are not ‘owners’ of 
broadcast stations . . . .”); Public Broadcasting Par ties Petition at 2 (“[O]wnership and operations of public 
broadcasting stations are already fundamentally structured so as to advance diversity.”).  They also claim that 
mandatory submission of SSNs would violate the Privacy Act, and that the Commission lacks statutory authority to 
require the use of CORES FRNs or RUFRNs.  SUNY Petiti on at 7-8 (Privacy Act bars mandatory submission of 
SSNs); NCE Licensees Petition at 10-12 (Commission lacks statutory authority to require submission of CORES 
FRN/RUFRN);  Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 7 n.6 (same). 
(continued….) 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC1704-07   
 4
the NCE Licensees filed replies in which they ag ain urge the Commission to eliminate the CORES 
FRN/RUFRN requirement in the NCE context.16  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.17 
6. On January 4, 2017, the Media Bureau, acting on delegated authority, released the 323-E 
Order18  dismissing and denying the Petitions pursuant to  Section 1.429(l) of the Commission’s rules. 19  
Subsequently, the Bureau set aside the 323-E Order pursuant to Section 1.113 of the Commission’s 
rules,20 concluding that it was more appropriate for the Petitions to be addressed at the Commission 
level.21 
III.  DISCUSSION 
7. As set forth below, we find that the Petitions  provide valid reasons to reconsider the 323 
and 323-E Order ’s decision to require filers to report a CORES FRN or RUFRN for each attributable 
interest holder reported on Form 323-E.  We therefor e provide relief to NCE filers by allowing them 
discretion to report SUFRNs—which do not require disclosure of an SSN, date of birth, or other personal 
information—for individual attributable interest holders reported on Form 323-E in cases where the 
attributable individual has not obtained a CORES FRN or RUFRN.  Currently, NCE filers are permitted 
to report an SUFRN for an attributable individual only if they have used reasonable and good-faith efforts 
to obtain the information needed to report a CORES FRN or RUFRN, including informing an individual 
about the risk of enforcement action in the event that the individual chooses not to provide his or her 
personal information to the Commission.22  On reconsideration, however, we eliminate that requirement 
for NCE filers.  
8.  We find that the Petitioners and other NCEs pa rticipating in this proceeding have raised 
legitimate concerns that the CORES FRN/RUFRN requirement, and the prospect of enforcement action 
for failing to comply with this requirement, may hinder their efforts to recruit volunteers to serve on their 
                                                     
16 Reply of the NCE Licensees (filed June 13, 2016) (NCE Licensees Reply); Reply of th e State University of New 
York (filed June 13, 2016) (SUNY Re ply).  As noted above, the Commission received no oppositions to the 
Petitions.  Nonetheless, we consider herein the additiona l pleadings filed by SUNY and the NCE Licensees.  The 
additional pleadings simply summarize arguments that SUNY  and the NCE Licensees raised in their petitions.   
17 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 et al. (filed June 13, 2016) (APTS et al. 
Comments).  Section 1.429 of the Commission’s rules does  not provide for the filing of comments in support of 
petitions for reconsideration in rulemaking proceedings.  See 47 CFR § 1.429.  Nonetheless, we consider these 
pleadings herein in the interest of developing a full record and because no party would be prejudiced thereby. 
18  See Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services et al., Order on Reconsideration, 32 
FCC Rcd 17 (MB 2017) (323-E Order). 
19 47 CFR § 1.429(l).  Then-Commissioner Pai and Commissioner O’Rielly objected to the Bureau’s decision, 
stating that “requir[ing] board members of NCE stations to report sensitive personal information . . . will only serve 
to discourage these volunteers from serving their communities.”  Press Release, FCC, Statement of Commissioners 
Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly on Protecting Noncommerc ial Educational Broadcasters from Needless Regulation 
(Jan. 4, 2017), https://www.fcc.gov/document/cm-pai-orielly-protecting-noncommercial-educational-broadcasters.   
20 47 CFR § 1.113. 
21   Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services et al., Order, DA 17-121 (MB Feb. 2, 
2017), 2017 WL 467874 .  The Bureau returned the Petitions to pending status, stating that they would be considered 
by the Commission.  Prior to the Bureau’s action setting aside its 323-E Order, the NCE Licensees and the 
University of Michigan filed applications for review of the 323-E Order.  Application for Review of the NCE 
Licensees (filed Feb. 1, 2017); Applica tion for Review of the University of Michigan (filed Jan. 31, 2017).  Because 
the Bureau set aside the underlying order, we dismiss the applications for review as moot.  
22 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 427-29, paras. 55-58. 
(continued….) 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC1704-07   
 5
licensee boards and pose other unique challenges.  Unlike their counterparts in the commercial context 
and certain not-for-profit entities, NCE governing board members are, in many cases, unpaid volunteers.23  
Because unpaid NCE board members receive no fee or other remuneration for their services, they lack the 
financial incentive to serve on boards that paid directors or board members have.24  In the 323 and 323-E 
Order, the Commission affirmed its commitment to protecting the privacy and security of personally 
identifiable information that the Commission collects,25  and we re-affirm that commitment here.  
However, we recognize that some NCE licensees may face unique circumstances with respect to their 
ability to recruit and retain qualified individuals to serve in governance positions.  We share the 
Petitioners’ concern that individuals who are reluctan t to disclose personal information may then decline 
to serve as unpaid board members or, to the extent they are able to do so, those already serving as unpaid 
board members may resign rather than risk a Commission enforcement action for failure to provide the 
information needed to report a CORES FRN or RUFRN.26  Further, the Petitioners assert that many 
licensee board members—particularly those associated with colleges, universities, and state or local 
public broadcasting entities—are individuals chosen by public election or political appointment, or are ex 
officio members who serve by virtue of the public office they hold, such as Governor or State 
Superintendent of Education.27  The CORES FRN/RUFRN requirement and prospect of enforcement 
action could pose particular challenges in instances where a public official refuses to provide the 
information needed to obtain a CORES FRN or RUFRN but is unable to withdraw freely from the 
governing board.28  
                                                     
23 APMG Petition at 2-3; NCE Licensees Petition at 6-7, 12, n.27; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 4, 8; 
Alabama Trustees Comments at 2, 6; APTS et al. Comments at 4; see 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 517 
(Statement of then-Commissioner Pai). 
24 APGM Petition at 2-3; NCE Licensees Petition at 6; Pub lic Broadcasting Parties Petitio n at 4-6, 9; SUNY Petition 
at 5; APTS et al. Comments at 4.  Indeed, the record indicates that some public broadcasters have difficulty finding 
qualified, committed individuals to donate their time and attention to station governance.  NCE Licensees Petition at 
5-6; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 4; see 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 517 (Statement of then-
Commissioner Pai).   
25  323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd 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.”). 
26 APMG Petition at 2-3; NCE Licensees Petition at 4-8; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 5-6, 9; SUNY 
Petition at 4-5; APTS et al. Comments at 4-5; see 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 517 (Statement of 
Commissioner Pai). According to SUNY, the CORES FRN/RUFRN requirement “would place the University in an 
untenable position” if a Trustee refused to provide his or her SSN “due to the risk of a breach or discomfort with 
sharing such a private data point.”  SUNY Petition at 5.  According to SUNY, “[t]he University would be left with 
three awful choices: (1) ask the Trustee to resign and lose the invaluable experience and expertise . . .; (2) pay the 
fines assessed by the Commission; or (3) withdraw from Licensing /Permitting our 20 stations . . . .”  Id. at 5-6; see 
also id. at 4 (suggesting that attributable individuals may still have concerns about submitting the identifying 
information required to obtain an RUFRN). 
27 NCE Licensees Petition at 7; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 3-4; SUNY Petition at 2-3; Alabama Trustees 
Comments at 4, 6; APTS et al. Comments at 4; see 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 517, n.5 (Statement of 
then-Commissioner Pai).  The petitioners and other NCE commenters assert that governmental board members may 
be reluctant to submit their personal information to the Commission because they fear being targeted by critics of 
their actions if the information were to become publicly available due to a security breach.  See Alabama Trustees 
Comments at 4; 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 517, n.5 (Statement of then-Commissioner Pai). 
28  NCE Licensees Petition at 5-7; Public  Broadcasting Parties Petition at 8-9; see also Alabama Trustees Comments 
at 5 (“Politicians in elected positions which entail state university or other non-profit board membership may worry 
about later political ramifications of their actions.  The result would be to place a board member in an untenable 
dilemma, which requires the member to choose between the potential safety of himself/herself and his/her family 
(continued….) 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC1704-07   
 6
9. We find that the 323 and 323-E Order erred in rejecting the valid concerns raised by 
NCEs regarding the potential impact that the CORES FRN/RUFRN requirement, including the threat of 
possible enforcement action, could have in the NCE context.29  As the Petitioners note, there is consensus 
among NCE commenters in this proceeding that requiring NCE filers to report CORES FRNs or RUFRNs 
for attributable individuals and inform such individuals about the risk of enforcement action could 
discourage volunteers from serving on the governing boards of NCE stations and pose unique challenges 
for board members who are politically elected or appointed.30  No commenter in this proceeding has 
disputed these assertions.31  Petitioners contend that these assertions are based on the reactions of unpaid 
board members to the Commission’s actions in this proceeding to date. 32  The 323 and 323-E Order 
should have given more credence to the concerns raised by NCE broadcasters, particularly given their 
representations that these concerns were based on their experience with the day-to-day operations of their 
stations and interactions with volunteers serving on their governing boards.33   
10. While use of unique identifiers improves the integrity and usability of the Commission’s 
broadcast ownership data,34 we believe that the potential chilling effect on participation in NCE station 
governance, and the potentially deleterious effect that loss of NCE leaders could have on the 
                                                     
and an enforcement penalty for either the individual or his/her organization.”); APTS et al. Comments at 4 (“NCE 
licensees explained that the new FRN/RUFRN burdens would . . . put board members who cannot decline to serve, 
such as state government officials, in a particularly unique and complex bind.”).  The Petitioners allege that, under 
the circumstances discussed above, the CORES FRN/RUFRN requirement could increase tension between NCE 
stations and their board members, cause the quality of board leadership to decrease for NCEs, and undermine NCE 
station operations.  NCE Licensees Petition at 3, 5-6, 7- 8; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 4, 9; SUNY 
Petition at 2, 5-6 & n.9; Alabama Trustees Comments at 5; APTS et al. Comments at 4-5. 
29 See 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 516-17 (Statement of then-Commissioner Pai).  In discussing the 
availability of SUFRNs for both commercial and noncommercial ownership reports, the 323 and 323-E Order went 
so far as to state that the Commission may take enforcement action against the filer and/or the “recalcitrant 
individual” in the event an SUFRN is used.  Id. at 428-29, para. 57.   
30 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; Comments at 4-5; Alabama Trustees Comments at 2-5; see NCE Licensees 
Reply at 3.  APTS et al. 
31 See 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 427-28, para. 55; NCE Licensees Petition at 4-5; see also supra paras. 
5, 8 (noting that the Commission r eceived no oppositions to the Petitions).  
32 NCE Licensees Petition at 3, 5. 
33 See 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 517 (Statement of then-Commissioner Pai); NCE Licensees Petition at 
4-8; Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 5-6; SUNY Petiti on at 1-2; Alabama Trustees Comments at 3; APTS et 
al. Comments at 4-5.  For example, in dismissing these assertions, the 323 and 323-E Order did not adequately 
consider claims that some noncommercial entities that hold commercial station licenses previously encountered 
difficulties when attempting to obtain similar identifying information from board members.  Compare 323 and 323-
E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 427-28, para. 55 (concluding that the CORES FRN/RUFRN requirement would not 
significantly inhibit individuals from serving on the boards of NCEs), with NCE Licensees Petition at 5 (“[T]here 
are examples of strong objection by a senior government official serving on an NCE board and the actual resignation 
of a prominent NCE board member.”).  Moreover, the 323 and 323-E Order did not adequately consider whether, 
when faced with the prospect of a Commission enforcement action against the individual interest holder, current or 
prospective board-member volunteers would decline to participate on the board.  Compare 323 and 323-E Order, 31 
FCC Rcd at 429, n.207 (“The commenters have offered no evidence in the record that the prospect of enforcement 
action for failing to comply with the RUFRN requirements adopted herein will have a chilling effect on participation 
in public broadcasting.”), with Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 6 (asserting that the 323 and 323-E Order did 
not consider whether unpaid board members would provide what they may regard as sensitive information as a 
condition of service or refuse to provide such information at the risk of enforcement action). 
34 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 412-17, paras. 25-36, 426-28, paras. 52-55; see supra para. 4.   
(continued….) 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC1704-07   
 7
noncommercial broadcast service to the public, outweigh this benefit in the NCE context.35   Therefore, we 
conclude that the better course is to make reporting of CORES FRNs and RUFRNs optional for 
individuals who hold an attributable interest in an NCE station.  Accordingly, NCE filers may report an 
SUFRN on Form 323-E for an attributable individual who has not obtained a CORES FRN or RUFRN at 
the time the filer submits its ownership report, without the need to first use reasonable and good-faith 
efforts to obtain the information needed to report a CORES FRN or RUFRN, including informing 
individuals about the threat of enforcement action.     
11. We conclude that taking this step will addr ess the concerns raised by the Petitioners and 
NCE commenters in this proceeding.  Unlike registering for a CORES FRN or RUFRN, obtaining an 
SUFRN does not require submission of any personal information, be it an SSN, date of birth, or 
residential address.  Filers can generate an SUFRN simply by clicking a button within the electronic Form 
323-E as the noncommercial ownership report is being prepared.  Use of an SUFRN therefore does not 
involve any of the types of information that the Petitioners and other NCE commenters assert would 
discourage participation in NCE station governance.36  By allowing NCE filers to report SUFRNs without 
first using reasonable and good-faith efforts to obtain the information needed to report a CORES FRN or 
RUFRN, we will avoid the potential chilling effect that the prospect of enforcement action could have on 
participation in NCE station governance for unpaid board members who choose not to provide their 
personal information to the Commission.     
12. We find that our action today properly balances the need to improve the integrity and 
usability of the Commission’s broadcast ownership data  with the public interest in avoiding the potential 
chilling effect that a mandatory reporting requirement could have on participation in NCE station 
governance.37  In particular, we expect that allowing NCE filers greater flexibility to report SUFRNs will 
not delay or significantly limit the value of our data collection.  Because expanded use of SUFRNs on 
Form 323-E will not require significant changes to the revised form, we do not believe that our action 
today will delay implementation of revised Form 323-E.  Moreover, we expect that, due to the nature of 
our ruling, the use of SUFRNs and the resulting collective impact on our broadcast ownership data will be 
limited.  In this regard, we emphasize that our rulin g today applies only to noncommercial broadcasters.  
Commercial broadcasters remain subject to the CORES FRN and RUFRN requirements set forth in the 
323 and 323-E Order.38   Further, because SUFRNs are available only for individuals, unique FRNs will 
                                                     
35  Commenters claim that difficulties retaining or attracting qualified individuals to serve in leadership positions will 
adversely affect station operations.  See Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 9 (CORES FRN/RUFRN 
requirement would make it difficult for NCE licensees “to assemble effective and competent boards that are critical 
to successful operation in a challenging environment.”); id.at 4 (many members of NCE community group boards 
“provide important financial support” to licensees);  NCE Licensees Petition at 5 (disincentives created by the FRN 
requirement will “undermine the ability of NCE licensees to perform their missions”; losing qualified individuals 
“would exact a heavy toll public broadcasting”).   
36 NCE Licensees Petition at 4-6; APTS et al. Comments at 2. 
37 In the 323 and 323-E Order, the Commission concluded that requiring unique identifiers for parties that hold 
attributable interests in broadcast stations helps ensure that the Commission’s ownership data is reliable and usable 
for studies and analyses.  323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 412-17, 426-28, paras. 25-36, 52-55.  We affirm 
these conclusions and deny the Petitions to the extent they suggest that we abandon entirely the use of CORES 
FRNs and RUFRNs in the NCE context.  See NCE Licensees Petition at 8-10; Alabama Trustees Comments at 7.  In 
light of the relief afforded by our action herein expanding the option to use SUFRNs on Form 323-E, there is no 
justification for removing the option for NCE filers to report a CORES FRN or RUFRN for attributable individuals 
on Form 323-E.    
38  323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 411-20, paras. 25-42.  In the 323 and 323-E Order, the Commission noted 
that, in the limited cases where a non-profit entity holds a commercial license, the Commission will deem the filing 
of Form 323-E, in accordance with the standards set forth in the Order, compliant with the Commission’s biennial 
filing obligation in those circumstances and the non-profit entity would not be required to file Form 323.  Id. at 424, 
n.175.  Accordingly, we will deem the filing of Form 323-E, in accordance with the standards set forth herein and in 
(continued….) 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC1704-07   
 8
be reported for entities on Forms 323 and 323-E.39  Importantly, as we have previously emphasized, filers 
that report an SUFRN for an attributable individual must do so consistently.40  If an SUFRN was reported 
previously for an individual and the individual does not have a CORES FRN or RUFRN, the filer must 
use the same SUFRN that was reported previously for that individual.  Furthermore, if an individual is 
reported on multiple reports, the filer must ensure that the same SUFRN is reported consistently for that 
individual, assuming that the individual does not have a CORES FRN or RUFRN.  
13. In addition, although we are expanding the option to use SUFRNs on Form 323-E, in 
many cases an NCE filer will continue to nonetheless report a CORES FRN or RUFRN for an attributable 
individual.  For instance, some individuals with attributable interests in NCE stations may not object to 
obtaining a CORES FRN or RUFRN.  Also, if an individual with an attributable interest in an NCE 
station has already obtained a CORES FRN or RUFRN for another reason (for example, because the 
individual also appears on one or more commercial Form 323 filings), filers must report that FRN for the 
individual on Forms 323 and 323-E.  In such circumstances, use of the CORES FRN or RUFRN could 
not be expected to have a chilling effect on the individual’s participation in NCE station governance. 41  
This further supports our conclusion that expanded use of SUFRNs on Form 323-E will have a limited 
collective impact on our data collection.   
14.   In opposing the CORES FRN/RUFRN requirement, some commenters to this 
proceeding42 suggest that certain individuals serving on NCE boards may be uninvolved with the 
licensing, operation, or ultimate disposition of the noncommercial broadcast license and that it is not 
necessary to include information about these individuals on broadcast ownership reports.  We take this 
opportunity to reiterate that, as discussed in the 323 and 323-E Order, our rules already contemplate that 
circumstance and afford appropriate relief.43  Specifically, an officer or director can be exempted from 
attribution in the licensee if his or her duties are wholly unrelated to the operation of the broadcast 
station(s) at issue.44  Exempted officers and directors would not be reported as attributable interest holders 
on the Form 323-E and thus would not need to obtain a CORES FRN or RUFRN for Form 323 or Form 
323-E reporting purposes.  Appropriate use of this existing exemption would further reduce the burden on 
                                                     
the 323 and 323-E Order, compliant with our biennial reporting requirement where a non-profit entity holds a 
commercial license.  See Alabama Trustees Comments at 2 (asserting that the concerns raised by the Petitions may 
also apply to non-profit entities that operate commercial stations).     
39 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 403-404, 426, 428-29, paras. 10, 56-58 & n.191. 
40 Id. at 404, para. 10 & n.41. 
41 Because we are relieving NCE licensees of the obligation to report a CORES FRN or RUFRN for individuals 
holding attributable interests, we need not address NCE Licensees’ and Public Broadcasting Petitioners’ claim that 
the statutory authority the Commission relied on in adopting the requirement does not apply to NCE stations.  NCE 
Licensees Petition at 10-12;  Public Broadcasting Parties’ Petition at 7 n. 6.  These arguments are moot.  Thus, we 
dismiss these portions of the NCE Licensees Petition and Public Broadcasting Parties Petition.  SUNY’s argument 
that the Privacy Act bars mandatory collection of SSNs from individuals holding attributable interests in NCE 
licensees is moot for the same reason, and we dismiss this aspect of the SUNY Petition.  SUNY Petition at 7-8.  
42 See Alabama Trustees Comments at 5 (“Often, university and other non-profit board members are focused on the 
primary mission of the institution rather than on the broadcast stations licensed to the institution.”). 
43 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 424, para. 50.  Our attribution standards, including the standards applicable 
to attribution exemptions for officers and directors, apply to both commercial and NCE stations.  See 47 CFR § 
73.3555(f), Note 2(g); see also Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational 
Applicants, 16 FCC Rcd 5074, 5102, ¶¶ 82-83 (2001) (noting, in the context of the NCE point system, that 
attribution exemptions are available to NCE stations pursuant to the same standards and rationale that apply to their 
commercial counterparts). 
44 47 CFR § 73.3555, Note 2(g). 
(continued….) 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC1704-07   
 9
NCE licensees and potentially avoid the concern of a chilling effect raised by the Petitioners. 45   We 
therefore encourage NCE filers to avail themselves of this exemption in order to avoid reporting potential 
interest holders who are uninvolved with the operation of the station(s) and whose interests therefore need 
not be reported.46   
IV.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS 
A.  Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
15.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 47 the 
Commission has prepared a Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) relating to this 
Report and Order.  The Supplemental FRFA is set forth in the Appendix. 
B.  Paperwork Reduction Analysis 
16. This document contains a non-substantive and non-material modification of information 
collection requirements that were previously reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduc tion Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. 48   In 
addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of  2002, Public Law 107-198, 
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how it might further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 
17. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of requiring NCE filers to report a 
CORES FRN or RUFRN for each attributable interest holder on ownership reports filed with the 
Commission, and we have expanded the option for such filers to report SUFRNs for attributable 
individuals by eliminating the requirement that NCE filers first use reasonable and good-faith efforts to 
obtain the personal information needed to report a CORES FRN or RUFRN before using an SUFRN.  We 
find that this action properly balances the need to improve the integrity and usability of the Commission’s 
broadcast ownership data with the potential chilling effects that a mandatory reporting requirement could 
have on participation in NCE station governance, and that our action will have the effect of reducing the 
burden on NCE filers, including those with fewer than 25 employees. 
 
                                                     
45  See 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 424, para. 50.  
46 Although some petitioners argue that differences between NCEs and commercial licensees make the collection of 
NCE data unnecessary, the Commission previously rejected this argument, and, as we have granted reconsideration 
regarding the specific aspect of our data collection that petitioners challenge, we need not revisit the Commission’s 
response to this argument.  Compare Public Broadcasting Parties Petition at 8-9 (“The relationship of such 
individuals to NCE station operations is important and is attributable, but is substantially different from the business 
relationship of a commercial broadcast company owner to a station.  Such board composition certainly has little 
bearing on the Commission’s laudable goal of promoting television and radio station ownership by small businesses, 
women and minorities.”), with 323 and 323-E Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 422-24, paras. 46-49 (dismissing arguments 
that dissimilarities between the governance of commercial and NCE stations precludes any definition of 
“ownership” in the NCE context).  We note that even though the Commission’s multiple ownership rules do not 
apply to NCE stations, collecting race, gender, and ethnicity information from NCEs will enable the Commission, as 
well as GAO and other outside researchers, to more fully understand and analyze the broadcasting industry, and 
thereby support the Commission’s efforts to promote diversity of ownership in broadcasting.   
47 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No . 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).  The SBREFA 
was enacted as Title II of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA).  
48  See OMB, Notice of Office of Management and Budget Action, ICR Reference No. 201609-3060-006, OMB 
Control No. 3060-0084 (Nov. 25, 2016), https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201609-3060-
006#  (select the “Retrieve Notice of Action (NOA)” hyperlink); 5 CFR § 1320.5(g) (only substantive or material 
modification requires supplemental OMB approval). 
(continued….) 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC1704-07   
 10
 
V.  ORDERING CLAUSES 
18.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
Sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 257, 303(r), 307, 309, and 310  of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. §§ 151, 152(a), 154(i), 257, 303(r), 307,  309, and 310, this Order on Reconsideration IS 
ADOPTED.  
19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT , pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 405, and Section 1.429 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 1.429, 
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 
GRANTED IN PART, DISMISSED to the extent discussed in footnote 41, AND OTHERWISE ARE 
DENIED , to the extent stated herein. 
20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED  that the applications for review filed by the NCE 
Licensees and the University of Michigan ARE DISMISSED as moot. 
21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED  that, pursuant to section 553(d) of the Administrative 
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(d), and Section 1.427(b) of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 1.427(b), 
this Order on Reconsideration SHALL BE EFFECTIVE  immediately upon publication in the Federal 
Register,49 except those provisions that contain new or modified information collection requirements that 
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Pape rwork Reduction Act will 
become effective after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing such 
approval and the relevant effective date. 
22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Order on Reconsideration, 
including the Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration. 
 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
 
 
 
 
Marlene H. Dortch 
Secretary 
 
                                                     
49 See 5 USC § 553(d); 47 CFR § 1.427(b) (action removing a restriction may be made effective immediately upon 
publication in the Federal Register).   
 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC1704-07   
 11
APPENDIX 
 
Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
 
1. In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),1 this Supplemental Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (SFRFA) supplements the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 
included in the 323 and 323-E Order,2 to the extent that changes adopted on reconsideration require 
changes in the conclusions reached in the FRFA.  As required by the RFA,3 the FRFA was preceded by an 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) incorporated in the Fourth Diversity Further Notice,4 Sixth 
Diversity Further Notice,5  and Seventh Diversity Further Notice,6 which sought public comment on the 
policies and rules proposed in those further notices of proposed rulemaking.     
A.  Need for, and Objectives of, the Order 
2. This Order on Reconsideration grants in part, dismisses in part, and denies in part, several 
petitions for reconsideration of the 323 and 323-E Order7 and provides noncommercial broadcasters with 
relief from the requirement that they report a unique FCC Registration Number (FRN) generated by the 
Commission Registration System (CORES) for each attributable interest holder on ownership reports 
filed with the Commission.8   Currently, this requirement compels those with an attributable interest in the 
licensee of a noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast station—typically the officers and governing 
board members—to provide the Commission with identifying information, such as a social security 
number (SSN) or date of birth, or risk being subject to a Commission enforcement action.9  Because this 
requirement, and the prospect of enforcement action for individuals who choose not to provide their 
personal information to the Commission, may raise unique concerns for some noncommercial entities, 
this Order on Reconsideration expands the option for NCE filers to report Special Use FRNs (SUFRNs), 
which do not require personal information, for attributable individuals.10   
3. Currently, NCE filers are permitted to report an SUFRN for an attributable individual 
only if the filer has used reasonable and good-faith efforts to obtain the information needed to report a 
CORES FRN or RUFRN, including informing the individual about the risk of enforcement action for 
choosing not to provide his or her personal information to the Commission.11  This Order on 
                                                     
1  See 5 U.S.C. § 604.  
2 Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services et al., Report and Order, Second Report and 
Order, and Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 398, Appx. C (2016). 
3  5 U.S.C. § 603. 
4 Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, MB Docket No. 07-294, Report and Order 
and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 5896 (2009). 
5  Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, MB Docket No. 07-294, Sixth Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 461 (2013). 
6 Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, MB Docket No. 07-294, Second Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 1725 (2015). 
7 See supra note 2. 
8  Report and Order at 1-2, para. 1.  Although our action today grants certain flexibility to NCEs, we retain the use of 
unique FRNs in the NCE context, to the extent attributable interest holders may already have, or will not object to 
obtaining, unique FRNs.  To the extent the petitioners request that we completely eliminate unique FRNs in the 
NCE context, we deny the petitions for reconsideration.  See id. at 6-7, note 35; id. at 13, para. 8. 
9 Id. 
10 Id. 
11 Id. 
(continued….) 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC1704-07   
 12
Reconsideration eliminates that requirement for NCE filers.12  The Commission finds that NCEs 
participating in this proceeding have raised legitimate concerns that the CORES FRN/RUFRN 
requirement, and the prospect of enforcement action for failing to comply with this requirement, may 
hinder their efforts to recruit volunteers to serve on their licensee boards and pose other unique 
challenges.13  The Commission finds that the 323 and 323-E Order erred in rejecting those valid concerns.  
While use of unique identifiers improves the inte grity and usability of the Commission’s broadcast 
ownership data,14 the Commission believes that the potential chilling effect on participation in NCE 
station governance, and the potentially deleterious effect that loss of NCE leaders could have on the 
noncommercial broadcast service to the public, outweigh this benefit in the NCE context.15   Therefore, the 
Commission concludes that the better course is to make reporting of CORES FRNs and RUFRNs optional 
for individuals who hold an attributable interest in an NCE station.  Accordingly, NCE filers may report 
an SUFRN on Form 323-E for an attributable individual who has not obtained a CORES FRN or RUFRN 
at the time the filer submits its ownership report, without the need to first use reasonable and good-faith 
efforts to obtain information needed to report a CORES FRN or RUFRN.16   
4. The Commission concludes that allowing NCEs to report an SUFRN for an attributable 
individual who has not obtained a CORES FRN or RUFRN, without first using reasonable and good-faith 
efforts to obtain the information necessary to report the latter identifiers, will address the concerns raised 
by the petitioners and NCE commenters in this proceeding.17  The Commission also finds that its action 
today properly balances the need to improve the integrity and usability of the Commission’s broadcast 
ownership data with the public interest in avoiding the potential chilling effect that a mandatory reporting 
requirement could have on participation in NCE station governance.18  
B.  Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Pub lic Comments in Response to the IRFA 
and FRFA 
5. The Commission received no comments in dir ect response to the IRFAs contained in the 
Fourth Diversity Further Notice, Sixth Diversity Further Notice, and Seventh Diversity Further Notice, or 
the FRFA. 
C.  Response to Comments by the Chief Coun sel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration 
6. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this 
proceeding. 
D.  Description and Estimate of the Number of  Small Entities to Which the Rules Will 
Apply 
7. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted in this Order on Reconsideration.19  
The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small 
                                                     
12 Id. at 4, para. 7. 
13 Id. at 4-5, para. 8. 
14 Id. at 6-7, para. 10.   
15   Id.   
16 Id. 
17 Id. at 7, para. 11. 
18  Id. at 7-8, para. 12. 
19 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3). 
(continued….) 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC1704-07   
 13
business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 20  In addition, the term “small 
business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.21  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 additio nal criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).22  The FRFA accompanying the 323 and 323-E Order described and estimated the 
number of small entities that would be affected by the revisions to FCC Forms 323 and 323-E.  The 
actions taken in this Order on Reconsideration apply to the same entities affected by the revisions to Form 
323-E that the Commission adopted in the 323 and 323-E Order.    
8. Television Broadcasting.   This Economic Census category “comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.”23  These establishments operate 
television broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the 
public.24  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 $38.5 
million or less in annual receipts.25   The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category 
operated in that year.  Of that number, 656 had annu al receipts of less than $25,000,000, 25 had annual 
receipts ranging from $25,000,000 to $49,999,999, and 70 had annual receipts of $50,000,000 or more. 26  
Based on this data we therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small 
entities under the applicable SBA size standard.  
9. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to 
be 1,384. 27  Of this total, 1,275 stati ons (or about 92 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less, 
according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database 
(BIA) on March 9, 2017, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.  
In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) 
television stations to be 394.28   The Commission, however, does not compile and otherwise 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.   
                                                     
20 Id. § 601(6). 
21 Id. § 601(3) incorporates by reference the definition of “s mall business concern” in 15 U.S.C. § 632.  Pursuant to 
the RFA, the statutory definition of small business applies, “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of 
Advocacy of the [SBA] and after opportuni ty for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term 
which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”  
22 15 U.S.C. § 632. 
23 U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, http://www.census.gov./cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited 
Feb. 28, 2017) (515120 Television Broadcasting). 
24 Id.   
25  13 CFR. § 121.201;  2017 NAICS code 515120.  
26 U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series - Establishment and Firm Size: 
Receipts Size of Firms for the Unite d States: 2012 (Jan. 8, 2016), 
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2 012_US_51SSSZ4&prod
Type=table (515120 Television Broadcasting). 
27 Press Release, FCC, Broadcast Station Totals  as of December 31, 2016 (January 5, 2017) 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/broadcast-station-totals-december-31-2016.    
28  Id. 
(continued….) 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC1704-07   
 14
10. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” 
under the above definition, business (control) affiliations29 must be included.  Our estimate, therefore, 
likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue 
figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.  In addition, 
another element of the definition of “small business” requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of 
operation.  We are unable at this time to define or  quantify the criteria that would establish whether a 
specific television station is dominant in its field of operation.  Accordingly, the estimate of small 
businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small 
business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive.   
11. Radio Stations.   This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily 
engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.  Programming may originate in their own 
studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.”30  The SBA has established a small business 
size standard for this category as firms ha ving $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. 31  The 2012 
Economic Census reports that 2,849 firms in this cate gory operated in that year.  Of that number, 2,806 
had annual receipts of less than $25,000,000, 17 had annual receipts ranging from $25,000,000 to 
$49,999,999, and 26 had an nual receipts of $50,000,000 or more. 32  Based on this data we therefore 
estimate that the majority of commercial radio stations are small entities under the applicable SBA size 
standard.  
12. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial radio stations to be 
11,415. 33  Of this total, 11,506 stati ons (or about 99.9 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less, 
according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database 
(BIA) on March 9, 2017, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.  
In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) 
radio stations to be 4,101.34  The Commission, however, does not compile and otherwise 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.   
13. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” 
under the above definition, business (control) affiliations35  must be included.  Our estimate, therefore, 
likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue 
figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.  In addition, 
another element of the definition of “small business” requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of 
operation.36  We further note that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media 
                                                     
29 “[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one [concern] controls or  has the power to control the other, 
or a third party or parties controls or has to power to control both.”  13 CFR § 121.103(a)(1). 
30 U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, http://www.census.gov./cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited 
Mar. 7, 2017) (515112 Radio Stations). 
31 13 CFR. § 121.201;  2017 NAICS code 515112.  
32 U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series - Establishment and Firm Size: 
Receipts Size of Firms for the Unite d States: 2012 (Jan. 8, 2016), 
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2 012_US_51SSSZ4&prod
Type=table (51511 Radio Broadcasting). 
33 Press Release, FCC, Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2016 (January 5, 2017) ( Broadcast Station 
Totals), https://www.fcc.gov/document/broadcast-station-totals-december-31-2016.    
34 Id. 
35  “[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one [concern] controls or  has the power to control the other, 
or a third party or parties controls or has to power to control both.”  13 CFR § 121.103(a)(1). 
36 13 FR § 121.102(b). 
(continued….) 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC1704-07   
 15
entities, and the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any radio station 
from the definition of a small business on this basis;  thus, our estimate of small businesses may therefore 
be over-inclusive.   
14. Class A TV and LPTV Stations.   The same SBA definition that applies to television 
broadcast licensees would apply to Class A TV stations  and other low power television (LPTV) stations.  
The SBA defines a television broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more than $38.5 
million in annual receipts.37  As of December 31, 2016, there are approximately 409 licensed Class A 
stations and 1,917 licensed LPTV stations. 38   Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all 
of these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.  We note, however, that under the 
SBA’s definition, revenue of affiliates that are not LPTV stations should be aggregated with the LPTV 
station revenues in determining whether a concern is small.  Our estimate may thus overstate the number 
of small entities since the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from 
non-LPTV affiliated companies.  
E.  Description of Projected Reporting,  Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities 
15. The Order on Reconsideration provides NCE filers with greater flexibility to report 
SUFRNs than previously allowed by the 323 and 323-E Order.  It does not adopt additional reporting, 
recordkeeping, other compliance requirements. 
F.  Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant 
Alternatives Considered 
16. The Order on Reconsideration provides relief to NCE filers by allowing them wider 
latitude to report SUFRNs—which do not require disclosure of an SSN, date of birth, or other personal 
information—for individual attributable interest holders reported on Form 323-E.39  Accordingly, NCE 
filers may report an SUFRN on Form 323-E for an attributable individual who has not obtained a CORES 
FRN or RUFRN at the time the filer submits its ownership report, without the need to substantiate that 
they have used reasonable and good-faith efforts to obtain personal data.40  The Commission concludes 
that allowing NCEs greater flexibility to report an SUFRN for an attributable individual, in lieu of a 
CORES FRN or RUFRN, will address the concerns that have been raised regarding the potential impact 
of the CORES FRN/RUFRN requirement on NCE stations, including small entities.41   
Report to Congress: 
 The Commission will send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration, including this 
Supplemental FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act42 and to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  A copy of this Order on 
Reconsideration and Supplemental FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal 
Register. 43 
 
                                                     
37 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, 2012 NAICS Code 515120. 
38  Broadcast Station Totals supra n. 33. 
39 Report and Order, para. 7. 
40 Id. 
41 Id. at para. 11. 
42 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). 
43 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).