Sponsorship Identification Requirements for Foreign Government-Provided Programming, 32221-32239 [2021-12207]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
085°13′59″ W; thence to 45°18′45″ N,
085°14′33″ W; and back to the beginning
point of origin.
(b) Enforcement period. This section
will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. through
10 p.m. on July 23, 2021. The section
will be enforced during additional times
while in effect with actual notice asneeded to mitigate risks associated with
the air show.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with
the general regulations in § 165.23, entry
into, transiting, or anchoring within
these safety zones are prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Sault Sainte. Marie or his on-scene
representative.
(2) This safety zone is closed to all
vessel traffic, except as may be
permitted by the Captain of the Port,
Sault Sainte Marie or his on-scene
representative.
(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of
the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte
Marie is any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer
who has been designated by the Captain
of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie to act on
his or her behalf. The on-scene
representative of the Captain of the Port,
Sault Sainte Marie will be aboard a
Coast Guard vessel.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter
or operate within the safety zone shall
contact the Captain of the Port, Sault
Sainte Marie, or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to
do so. The Captain of the Port, Sault
Sainte Marie or his on-scene
representative may be contacted via
VHF Channel 16 or telephone at 906–
635–3233. Vessel operators given
permission to enter or operate in the
safety zone must comply with all
directions given to them by the Captain
of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie or his onscene representative.
Dated: June 11, 2021.
A.R. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Sault Sainte Marie.
[FR Doc. 2021–12729 Filed 6–16–21; 8:45 am]
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
32221
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this action.
40 CFR Part 147
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[EPA–HQ–OW–2020–0595; FRL 10023–18–
OW]
PART 147—STATE, TRIBAL, AND EPAADMINISTERED UNDERGROUND
INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
RIN 2040–ZA35
Accordingly, the rule amending 40
CFR part 147, which published on
March 19, 2021 (86 FR 14846), is
withdrawn as of June 17, 2021.
■
State of Michigan Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Class II
Program; Primacy Approval
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
Because the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
received adverse comments, the agency
is withdrawing the direct final rule for
State of Michigan Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Class II Program;
Primacy Approval, published on March
19, 2021.
SUMMARY:
As of June 17, 2021, EPA
withdraws the direct final rule
published at 86 FR 14846, on March 19,
2021.
DATES:
Kyle
Carey, Drinking Water Protection
Division, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water (4606M), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460; telephone number: (202) 564–
2322; fax number: (202) 564–3754;
email address: carey.kyle@epa.gov, or
Anna Miller, UIC Section, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL
60604; telephone number: (312) 886–
7060; email address: miller.anna@
epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Because
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) received adverse
comment, the agency is withdrawing the
direct final rule for State of Michigan
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Class II Program; Primacy Approval,
published on March 19, 2021. EPA
stated in that direct final rule that if the
agency received adverse comments by
April 19, 2021, the direct final rule
would not take effect and we would
publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register. EPA subsequently
received adverse comments on that
direct final rule. EPA will address those
comments in any subsequent final
action, which will be based on the
parallel proposed rule also published on
March 19, 2021. As stated in the direct
final rule and the parallel proposed rule,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
[FR Doc. 2021–12918 Filed 6–16–21; 8:45 am]
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 20–299; FCC 21–42; FR ID
26887]
Sponsorship Identification
Requirements for Foreign
Government-Provided Programming
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) modifies its rules to adopt
specific disclosure requirements for
broadcast programming that is
sponsored, paid for, or provided by a
foreign government or its representative
pursuant to leasing agreements.
DATES: Effective July 19, 2021.
Compliance with § 73.1212(j) and (k)
will not be required until the
Commission publishes a document in
the Federal Register announcing the
compliance date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Radhika Karmarkar, Media Bureau,
Industry Analysis Division,
Radhika.Karmarkar@fcc.gov, (202) 418–
1523.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Report
and Order (Order), FCC 21–42, in MB
Docket No. 20–299, adopted on April
22, 2021, and released on April 22,
2021. The complete text of this
document is available electronically via
the search function on the FCC’s
Electronic Document Management
System (EDOCS) web page at https://
apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ (https://
apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/). To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov (mail
to: fcc504@fcc.gov) or call the FCC’s
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
32222
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (TTY).
Synopsis
1. Introduction: For over 60 years, the
Commission’s sponsorship
identification rules have required that
disclosures be made on-air when a
station has been compensated for
broadcasting particular material.
Reports regarding foreign governmental
entities’ increased use of leasing
agreements to broadcast programming
without disclosing the source thereof,
however, persuade us that more is
required to ensure transparency on the
airwaves. By this Order, the
Commission seeks to address
circumstances in which a foreign
governmental entity, pursuant to a lease
of airtime, is responsible for
programming, in whole or in part, on a
U.S. broadcast station. In this Order, the
use of the term ‘‘foreign governmentprovided programming’’ refers to all
programming that is provided by an
entity or individual that falls into one of
the four categories discussed below. In
turn, the phrase ‘‘provided by’’ when
used in relation to ‘‘foreign government
programming’’ covers both the broadcast
of programming in exchange for
consideration and furnishing of any
‘‘political program or any program
involving the discussion of a
controversial issue’’ for free as an
inducement to broadcast the
programming. Although under U.S. law
foreign governments and their
representatives are restricted from
holding a broadcast license directly,
there is no limitation on their ability to
enter into a contract with the licensee of
a station to air programming of its
choosing or to lease the entire capacity
of a radio or television station. Nor does
the Commission prohibit such
arrangements going forward. Rather, in
such instances, the rules the
Commission adopts in this document
will require that the programming aired
pursuant to such an agreement contain
a clear, standardized disclosure
statement indicating to the listener or
viewer that the material has been
sponsored, paid for, or furnished by a
foreign governmental entity and clearly
indicate the foreign country involved.
2. The foreign sponsorship
identification rules the Commission
adopts in this Order seek to eliminate
any potential ambiguity to the viewer or
listener regarding the source of
programming provided from foreign
governmental entities. Based upon
comments received in response to the
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),
85 FR 74955, Nov. 24, 2020, and as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
detailed further below, the Commission
amends § 73.1212 of the Commission’s
rules to require a specific disclosure at
the time of broadcast if material aired
pursuant to the lease of time on the
station has been sponsored, paid for, or
furnished by a foreign governmental
entity that indicates the specific entity
and country involved. In so doing, the
Commission will increase transparency
and ensure that audiences of broadcast
stations are aware when a foreign
government, or its representatives, are
seeking to persuade the American
public. Through the public filing
requirements associated with
disclosures, the Commission will also
enable interested parties to monitor the
extent of such efforts to persuade the
American public.
3. The new rules seek to address the
primary means identified in the record
by which foreign governmental entities
are accessing U.S. airwaves to persuade
the American public without adequate
disclosure of the true sponsor, namely
the lease of time to air programming on
a U.S. licensed broadcast station. In
focusing its disclosure requirement on
such situations, the Commission seeks
to address an important issue of public
concern while going no further than
necessary, thus balancing
considerations of the First Amendment
with the need for consumers to be
sufficiently informed as to the origin of
material broadcast on stations licensed
on their behalf in the public interest.
Further, the Commission’s approach
incorporates existing provisions of and
definitions contained in the Foreign
Agents Registration Act (FARA) (22
U.S.C. 611) and the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, so as to
minimize the burden on broadcasters as
they determine whether the
programming is from a foreign
governmental entity. In addition, the
Commission discusses the steps that
broadcasters must take to satisfy the
statutory ‘‘reasonable diligence’’
standard in determining whether a
foreign governmental entity is the
source of programming provided over
their stations.
4. In this manner, the Commission
refines its rules to further ensure that
the public is fully informed on the
source of programming consumed. The
Commission finds it is critical that the
American public be aware when a
foreign government has sponsored, paid
for, or, in the case of political programs
or programs involving the discussion of
a controversial issue, furnished the
programming for free as an inducement
to air the material, particularly given
what seems to be an increase in the
dissemination of programming in the
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
United States by foreign governments
and their representatives.
5. Background: The principle that the
public has a right to know the identity
of those that solicit their support is a
fundamental and long-standing tenet of
broadcasting. Congress and the
Commission have sought to ensure that
the public is informed when airtime has
been purchased in an effort to persuade
audiences, finding it essential to ensure
that audiences can distinguish between
paid content and material chosen by the
broadcaster itself. Accordingly,
beginning with the Radio Act of 1927,
broadcast stations have been required to
announce the name of any ‘‘person,
firm, company, or corporation’’ that has
paid ‘‘valuable consideration’’ either
‘‘directly or indirectly’’ to the station at
the time of broadcasting any
programming for which such
consideration has been given. With the
creation of the Federal Communications
Commission and the adoption of the
Communications Act of 1934 (the Act),
this disclosure requirement was
incorporated almost verbatim into
section 317 of the Act. Over the years,
various amendments to the rules,
decisions by the Commission, and a
1960 amendment to section 317 of the
Act have continued to underscore the
need for transparency and disclosure to
the public about the true identity of a
program’s sponsor.
6. The Commission last implemented
a major change to its sponsorship
identification rules in 1963 when it
adopted rules implementing Congress’s
1960 amendments to the Act. The
NPRM contained a thorough history of
the background of the Commission’s
sponsorship identification rules. The
sponsorship identification rules largely
tracked the provisions of section 317 of
the Act and make up the current
§ 73.1212 of the Commission’s rules. As
the NPRM noted, however, even with
these rules in place there appear to be
instances where foreign governments
pay for the airing of programming, or
provide it to broadcast stations free of
charge, and the programming does not
contain a clear indication, if any
indication at all, to the listener or
viewer that a foreign government has
paid for or provided the programming’s
content. Given the passage of nearly 60
years since the sponsorship
identification rules were last updated
and growing concerns about foreign
government-provided programming, the
Commission determined last year that
there was a further need to review the
sponsorship identification rules to
ensure that, consistent with its statutory
mandate, foreign government program
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
sponsorship over the airwaves is
evident to the American public.
7. Significantly, the Commission’s
current sponsorship identification rules
do not require a station to determine or
disclose whether the source of its
programming is in fact a foreign
government, registered foreign agent, or
foreign political party (what the
Commission refers to as a foreign
governmental entity). As the NPRM
notes, in many instances a foreign
government, foreign agent, or foreign
political party providing programming
to licensees may not be immediately
identifiable as such. In other instances,
the linkage between the foreign
governmental entity and the entity
providing the programming may be
deliberately attenuated in an effort to
obfuscate the true source of the
programming. Although current rules
require the disclosure of the sponsor’s
name, the relationship of that sponsor to
a foreign country is not required as part
of the current disclosure.
8. Consequently, to ensure that the
American public can better assess the
programming that is delivered over the
airwaves, the Commission found that
there is a need to identify instances
where foreign governmental entities are
involved in the provision of broadcast
programming. To that end, the NPRM
proposed to adopt specific disclosure
requirements for broadcast
programming to inform the public when
programming has been paid for, or
provided by, a foreign governmental
entity and to identify the country
involved. Specifically, the NPRM
proposed that when a foreign
governmental entity has paid a radio or
television station, directly or indirectly,
to air material, or if the programming
was provided to the station free of
charge by such an entity as an
inducement to broadcast the material,
the station, at the time of the broadcast,
shall include a specified disclosure
indicating the name of the foreign
governmental entity, as well as the
related country.
9. In defining ‘‘foreign governmental
entity,’’ the NPRM relied directly on
parts of the FARA statute (specifically
the definitions of a ‘‘government of a
foreign country,’’ ‘‘foreign political
party,’’ and ‘‘agents of foreign
principals’’), which covers entities and
individuals whose activities the United
States Department of Justice
(Department of Justice or DOJ) has
identified as requiring disclosure
because their activities are potentially
intended to influence American public
opinion, policy, and law. In addition,
the NPRM proposed to include ‘‘United
States-based foreign media outlets,’’ as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
defined by the Communications Act.
Under the proposal, any programming
provided by a ‘‘foreign governmental
entity’’ would be considered a ‘‘political
program’’ under section 317(a)(2) of the
Act, and thus require identification of
the sponsor of particular broadcast
programing, even if the only
inducement to air the programming was
the provision of the programming itself.
The NPRM further explored the
‘‘reasonable diligence’’ standard that
broadcasters must employ pursuant to
their statutory (47 U.S.C. 317 (c)) and
regulatory (47 CFR 73.1212(b) and (e))
requirements to determine whether its
programming was provided by a foreign
governmental entity.
10. The NPRM proposed that the
disclosure requirements should apply in
the context of time brokerage
agreements (TBAs) and local marketing
agreements (LMAs). Moreover, the
NPRM proposed to apply the new rules
to entities authorized pursuant to
section 325(c) to produce programing in
the United States and transmit it to a
non-U.S. licensed station in a foreign
country for broadcast back into the
United States. Also, the NPRM proposed
that the disclosure requirements would
apply equally to any programming
transmitted on a radio or television
stations’ multicast streams. Finally, in
addition to specifying the characteristics
of the proposed disclosures on
television and radio, the NPRM
proposed that stations place a copy of
the announcement in their online public
inspection file (OPIF).
11. A total of seven commenters filed
comments and reply comments in
response to the NPRM. The commenters
generally support the Commission’s goal
of identifying foreign sponsorship of
programming. Commenters assert,
however, that the Commission must
address how current regulations are
inadequate before adopting new rules,
and several commenters suggest ways to
narrow the proposed scope of the rules
to more directly address the
programming that is of most concern, as
discussed further below.
12. Discussion: For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission
adopts the rules proposed in the NPRM
with modifications to address more
precisely the primary method by which
foreign governmental entities appear to
be gaining carriage for their
programming on U.S.-licensed broadcast
stations without disclosing the origin of
such programming, namely through
leasing agreements with such stations.
By narrowly focusing its requirements,
the Commission seeks to minimize the
burden of compliance on licensees,
including those public television and
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32223
radio stations that carry programming
from entities that depend upon tax
credits, access to international locations,
and historical or archival footage from
foreign governmental sources in
producing their programming. The
Commission further notes that such
tailoring is in keeping with the First
Amendment by focusing its rules
narrowly on the area of potential harm.
13. Specifically, as discussed below,
the new rules require foreign
sponsorship identification for
programming content aired on a station
pursuant to a lease of airtime if the
direct or indirect provider of the
programming qualifies as a ‘‘foreign
governmental entity.’’ In the first section
below, the Commission analyzes which
entities or individuals meet that
definition and find that they include
governments of foreign countries,
foreign political parties, certain agents
of foreign principals, and U.S.-based
foreign media outlets. Next, the
Commission discusses the scope of the
foreign sponsorship identification rules,
explaining why and how the
Commission narrows the scope of the
NPRM’s proposed requirements to focus
on programming aired on U.S. broadcast
stations pursuant to an agreement for
the lease of time. The Commission then
discusses the scope of the reasonable
diligence obligation that broadcast
licensees must satisfy to determine if its
lessee is a foreign governmental entity
such that disclosures are necessary.
Next, the Commission discusses the
content and frequency requirements for
the mandated disclosures that will
ensure the identification of foreign
government-provided programming is
conveyed effectively to the public. As
the Commission makes clear in that
section, the rules also require quarterly
filings of copies of the disclosures, as
well as the name of the program to
which any disclosures are appended, in
stations’ OPIF. Then, the Commission
concludes that its foreign sponsorship
identification rules apply equally to any
programming broadcast pursuant to a
section 325(c) permit. Finally, the
Commission concludes that its foreign
sponsorship identification rules satisfy
the First Amendment and provide a
cost-benefit analysis of those new rules.
14. Entities or Individuals Whose
Involvement in the Provision of
Programming Triggers a Disclosure. The
Commission requires that programming
aired on a station pursuant to a lease of
airtime have a foreign sponsorship
identification if the entity who has
directly or indirectly provided the
programming qualifies as a foreign
governmental entity as defined herein.
Specifically, a ‘‘foreign governmental
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32224
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
entity’’ is defined as an entity included
in one of the following categories:
(1) A ‘‘government of a foreign
country’’ as defined by FARA (22 U.S.C.
611(e));
(2) A ‘‘foreign political party’’ as
defined by FARA (22 U.S.C. 611(f));
(3) An individual or entity registered
as an ‘‘agent of a foreign principal,’’
under section 611(c) of FARA (22 U.S.C.
611(c)), whose ‘‘foreign principal’’ is a
‘‘government of a foreign country,’’ a
‘‘foreign political party,’’ or is directly
or indirectly operated, supervised,
directed, owned, controlled, financed,
or subsidized by a ‘‘government of a
foreign country’’ or by a ‘‘foreign
political party’’ as defined by FARA,
and that is acting in its capacity as an
agent of such ‘‘foreign principal;’’
(4) An entity meeting the definition of
a ‘‘U.S.-based foreign media outlet’’
pursuant to section 722 of the Act that
has filed a report with the Commission
(47 U.S.C. 624).
The adopted definition is largely
consistent with the definition proposed
in the NPRM except for the exclusion of
foreign missions for the reasons
discussed below.
15. As discussed in the NPRM, in
establishing these categories to define
covered foreign governmental entities
that will trigger the disclosure
requirement, the Commission relies on
existing definitions, statutes, or
determinations by the U.S. Government
as to when an entity or individual is a
foreign government, a foreign political
party, or acting in the United States as
an agent on behalf of a foreign
government or foreign political party.
Relying on these sources allows us to
draw on the substantial experience and
authority in such matters that already
exists within the Federal Government
and avoids involving the Commission,
or the broadcaster, in subjective
determinations regarding who qualifies
as a foreign governmental entity.
16. FARA. In particular, the
Commission finds that reliance on both
the definitions contained in FARA and
the list of agents registered pursuant to
that act is appropriate. As discussed in
the NRPM, this long-standing statute
was designed specifically to identify
those foreign entities or individuals that
Congress has determined should be
known to the U.S. Government and the
American public when they are seeking
to influence American public opinion,
policy, and laws. The Commission notes
that no commenters object to the its
proposed use of the definitions set forth
in FARA or the list of foreign agents
registered pursuant to that statute as the
primary basis for its foreign sponsorship
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
identification rules. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that including
‘‘government of a foreign country’’ and
‘‘foreign political party,’’ as defined by
FARA, within the group of entities and
individuals that trigger its foreign
sponsorship identification rules is
appropriate given its primary goal of
ensuring that foreign governmentprovided programming is properly
disclosed to the public. Rather than
seeking to craft its own definitions, the
Commission finds it more appropriate to
turn to a definition of ‘‘foreign
government’’ and ‘‘foreign political
party’’ contained in a pre-existing
statute designed to promote
transparency about foreign
governmental activity in the United
States. Similarly, including FARAregistered ‘‘agents of foreign principals’’
who are defined by their engagement in
certain activities in the United States on
behalf of foreign interests furthers the
Commission’s goal of increasing
transparency when such agents may be
seeking to persuade the audiences of
broadcast stations.
17. The Commission notes that FARA
generally requires an ‘‘agent of foreign
principal’’ undertaking certain activities
in the United States (such as, political
activities or acting in the role of public
relations counsel, publicity agent, or
political consultant) on behalf of a
foreign principal to register with the
Department of Justice. Section 611(b)(1)
of FARA states that the term ‘‘foreign
principal’’ includes the ‘‘government of
a foreign country’’ and a ‘‘foreign
political party’’ (22 U.S.C. 611(b)(1)).
For purposes of its foreign sponsorship
identification rules, the Commission
includes FARA agents whose foreign
principal is either a ‘‘government of a
foreign country,’’ a ‘‘foreign political
party,’’ or is directly or indirectly
operated, supervised, directed, owned,
controlled, financed, or subsidized by a
‘‘government of a foreign country’’ or by
a ‘‘foreign political party’’ as those terms
are defined in sections 611(e) and (f) of
FARA respectively (22 U.S.C. 611(e),
(f)). As stated in the NPRM, to the extent
that an agent of a foreign principal,
whose ‘‘foreign principal’’ is either a
‘‘government of a foreign country’’ or a
‘‘foreign political party’’ is providing
programming to U.S. broadcast stations
in its capacity as an agent to that
principal, it is reasonable that the public
should be made aware of that fact. The
Commission also clarifies, however, that
the proposed disclosure is required not
only when programming is provided by
an ‘‘agent of a foreign principal’’ whose
foreign principal is a government of a
foreign country or a foreign political
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
party, but also when the foreign
principal is directly or indirectly
operated, supervised, directed, owned,
controlled, financed, or subsidized by a
government of a foreign country or by a
foreign political party. This clarification
to the original proposal will ensure that
the foreign sponsorship identification
rules cannot be circumvented by the
existence or creation of additional
corporate and/or ownership layers
between the entity acting as a foreign
principal and the government of a
foreign country or foreign political
party. This information is readily
ascertainable by those who examine the
FARA database.
18. The Commission recognizes that a
given entity may be registered as an
agent for multiple ‘‘foreign principals’’
or for a ‘‘foreign principal’’ other than
a ‘‘government of a foreign country’’ or
a ‘‘foreign political party.’’ The
Commission emphasizes, however, that
its foreign sponsorship identification
rules apply only when the FARA agent
is acting in its capacity as a registered
agent of a principal that is a
‘‘government of a foreign country,’’ a
‘‘foreign political party,’’ or is directly
or indirectly operated, supervised,
directed, owned, controlled, financed,
or subsidized by a government of a
foreign country or by a foreign political
party.
19. U.S.-Based Foreign Media Outlet.
In addition to drawing on FARA-based
definitions and registrations and
consistent with the NPRM, the
Commission concludes that its foreign
governmental entity definition should
also extend to any entity or individual
subject to section 722 of the Act that has
filed a report with the Commission.
Section 722 extends to any U.S.-based
foreign media outlet that: (a) Produces
or distributes video programming that is
transmitted, or intended for
transmission, by a multichannel video
programming distributor (MVPD) to
consumers in the United States and (b)
would be an agent of a ‘‘foreign
principal’’ but for an exemption in
FARA. The Commission notes that
Section 722 provides that the term
‘‘foreign principal’’ has the meaning
given such term in section 611(b)(1) of
FARA, which limits the scope of the
definition of ‘‘foreign principal’’ to ‘‘a
government of a foreign country’’ and a
‘‘foreign political party.’’ The
Commission incorporates this limitation
from section 722 of the Act into its
foreign sponsorship identification rules
to include both a ‘‘government of a
foreign country’’ and ‘‘foreign political
party,’’ as those terms are defined by
FARA, within its definition of ‘‘foreign
governmental entity.’’ Although the
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Commission could clarify—as the
Commission has done with respect to
foreign agents—that the disclosure
requirement also applies when an
outlet’s foreign principal is directly or
indirectly operated, supervised,
directed, owned, controlled, financed,
or subsidized by a government of a
foreign country or by a foreign political
party, the Commission notes that such
a clarification would accomplish
nothing as, pursuant to the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),
only entities whose foreign principals
are a government of a foreign country or
a foreign political party are required to
report as U.S.-based foreign media
outlets.
20. The Commission recognizes that
the term ‘‘U.S.-based foreign media
outlet’’ refers to an entity whose
programming is either transmitted or
intended for transmission by an MVPD,
rather than by a broadcaster. But the
Commission notes that there is no
prohibition on such video programming
also being transmitted by a broadcast
television station, and it seems likely
that an entity that is providing video
programming to cable operators or
direct broadcast satellite television
providers might also seek to air such
programming on broadcast stations.
Hence, the Commission believes it is
appropriate to include ‘‘U.S.-based
foreign media outlets’’ within the ambit
of its proposal when the programming
provided by such entities is aired by
broadcast stations. No commenter
opposed this proposal in response to the
NPRM.
21. Foreign Missions. While the
NPRM proposed to include ‘‘foreign
missions,’’ as designated pursuant to the
Foreign Missions Act, within the
Commission’s definition of foreign
governmental entities that trigger
foreign sponsorship identification,
commenters have persuaded us
otherwise. In particular, American
Public Television Stations (APTS) and
the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)
(referenced collectively herein as APTS)
expressed concern with the potential
difficulty of discerning whether an
entity is considered a ‘‘foreign mission’’
under the Foreign Missions Act. APTS
noted that there is no single source
identifying all foreign missions
analogous to those that exist for FARA
registrants and U.S.-based foreign media
outlets. The Commission agrees with
commenters that the lack of a single
source identifying all foreign missions
creates an additional burden for
licensees, as such entities cannot be as
readily and consistently identified as
FARA registrants and U.S.-based foreign
media outlets.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
22. In addition, the Commission notes
that, as discussed in the NPRM, most
‘‘foreign missions’’ are foreign
embassies and consular offices. The
primary purpose of the Foreign
Missions Act is to confer upon such
missions certain benefits, privileges,
and immunities, while also requiring
their observance of corresponding
obligations in accordance with
international law and principles of
reciprocity. Other types of non-entities
that are substantially owned or
effectively controlled by a foreign
government are from time to time
designated as ‘‘foreign missions’’ at the
discretion of the Secretary of State. By
comparison the FARA statute is
specifically designed to identify those
entities and individuals whose activities
should be disclosed because their
activities are potentially intended to
influence American public opinion,
policy, and law. Based on the concerns
raised by APTS and its own further
review of the intent behind the statute,
the Commission finds reliance on the
Foreign Missions Act to be
inappropriate and unnecessary for its
intended purpose.
23. Other Potential Sources. In
addition, the Commission declines to
adopt APTS’s suggestion that the list of
FARA registrants included in the
definition of foreign governmental
entities be filtered through the United
States Treasury Department’s Office of
Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) list of
active U.S. sanctions. APTS asserts that
its proposal would narrow the list of
entities who qualify as a ‘‘foreign
governmental entity’’ by linking this
definition to a list of carefully predetermined countries whose interests
are directly at odds with the United
States. The Commission declines to
adopt this proposal. First, doing so
would seem to involve even more work
for licensees, as it would require them
to consult the OFAC list in addition to
the FARA list. Second, and most
importantly, the Commission finds the
basis for compiling the OFAC list to be
inconsistent with its purposes here. The
Commission’s goal in requiring
additional disclosure by foreign
governmental entities is not premised
on distinctions between countries that
may or may not be subject to the United
States sanctions. Rather, the
Commission seeks to provide the
American public with greater
transparency about programming
provided by any foreign government,
consistent with the requirements of
section 317 of the Act. In this regard, the
Commission finds that FARA, with its
associated definitions and reporting
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32225
requirements premised on promoting
transparency with respect to foreign
influence within the United States, is
better aligned with the goals of the
instant proceeding than the OFAC list.
As the Department of Justice has
explained when discussing FARA, the
government’s concern is not the content
of the speech but providing
transparency about the true identity of
the speaker.
24. Scope of Foreign Programming
that Requires a Disclosure. While the
Commission tentatively concluded in
the NPRM that its proposed foreign
sponsorship disclosure rules should
apply in any circumstances in which a
foreign governmental entity directly or
indirectly provides material for
broadcast or furnishes material to a
station free of charge (or at nominal
cost) as an inducement to broadcast
such material, the Commission now
narrows its focus to address specifically
those circumstances in which a foreign
governmental entity is programming a
U.S. broadcast station pursuant to the
lease of airtime. That is, for the reasons
discussed below, the Commission will
require a specific disclosure at the time
of broadcast if material aired pursuant
to the lease of time on the station has
been sponsored, paid for, or, in the case
of political program or any program
involving the discussion of a
controversial issue, if it has been
furnished for free as an inducement to
air by a foreign governmental entity.
While the Commission focuses in this
Order on the identification of
programming sponsored by foreign
governmental entities aired through a
lease of time, the Commission reiterates
that its existing sponsorship
identification rules, of course, continue
to apply even outside the specific
context described herein. As explained
below, leasing agreements potentially
subject to the rules include any
arrangement in which a licensee makes
a block of broadcast time on its station
available to another party in return for
some form of compensation.
25. Programming Aired Pursuant to a
Lease of Time. Based on the record
before us, the Commission agrees with
National Public Radio and find that
focusing on the airing of programming
on U.S. broadcast stations pursuant to
leasing agreements will address the
primary present concern with foreign
governmental actors gaining access to
American airwaves without disclosing
the programming’s origin to the public.
To date, it appears that the reported
instances of undisclosed foreign
government programming aired on
broadcast stations have involved lease
agreements between a licensee and
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32226
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
other entities. The record indicates that
such contractual arrangements present
the most prevalent instances of
undisclosed foreign government
programming to date. It also appears
that it is through such arrangements that
foreign governmental entities have
commonly aired programming on U.S.
broadcast stations, whether directly or
indirectly, without necessarily
disclosing the origin of the
programming. Accordingly, the
Commission believes that the foreign
governmental source of this
programming should be disclosed in
such circumstances.
26. Moreover, the Commission’s
action will serve to ensure greater
transparency to the public, and prevent
foreign governments and their
representatives, which are barred from
owning a U.S. broadcast license, from
leasing time on a station unbeknownst
to the public or the Commission.
Notably, Section 310(a) of the Act
outright bars ‘‘any foreign government
or the representative thereof’’ from
holding a broadcast license. In addition,
Section 310(b) limits the interest that a
foreign corporation or individual can
hold in a U.S. broadcast license, either
directly or indirectly. While the
Commission has revised its rules in
recent years to permit a greater degree
of ownership in U.S. broadcast stations
by non-governmental foreign entities or
individuals, acquisition of such
interests requires Commission approval
following proper consideration and
public review and may also be subject
to prior review and consideration by the
relevant executive branch agencies.
Despite these longstanding restrictions,
and particularly the complete
prohibition on a foreign government or
its representatives’ holding a U.S.
broadcast license, some foreign
governmental actors or their agents
appear nonetheless to be programming
stations that they otherwise would not
be able to own, as detailed in the NPRM.
When they do so, the American public
and the Commission may not be aware
that a foreign governmental entity has
leased the time on the station and is
programming the station.
27. As proposed in the NPRM, the
disclosure requirements the
Commission adopts in this document
apply to leasing agreements, regardless
of what those agreements are called,
how they are styled, and whether they
are reduced to writing. The Commission
recognizes that leasing agreements
within the broadcast industry may be
known by different designations. The
terms time brokerage agreement (TBA)
and local marketing agreement (LMA)
are used interchangeably to describe
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
contractual arrangements whereby a
party other than the licensee, i.e., a
brokering party, programs time on a
broadcast station, oftentimes also selling
the advertising during such time and
retaining the proceeds. Such leasing
agreements may be for either discrete
blocks of time (for example, two hours
every day from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.) or for
the complete broadcast capacity of the
station (i.e., 24 hours a day, seven days
a week). The agreements can be for the
duration of a single day or for a term of
years. Regardless of the title, terms, or
duration of such an agreement, the
purpose of such a contractual agreement
is to give one party—the brokering party
or programmer—the right and obligation
to program the station licensed to the
other party—the licensee or broadcaster.
In this manner, the programmer is able
to program a radio or television station
that it does not own or hold the license
to operate. A ‘‘time brokerage
agreement,’’ also known as a ‘‘local
marketing agreement’’ or ‘‘LMA,’’ is the
sale by a licensee of discrete blocks of
time to a ‘‘broker’’ that supplies the
programming to fill that time and sells
the commercial spot announcements in
it.
28. For the purposes of applying the
foreign sponsorship disclosure
requirement, a lease constitutes any
agreement in which a licensee makes a
discrete block of broadcast time on its
station available to be programmed by
another party in return for some form of
compensation. Thus, a licensee makes
broadcast time available for purposes of
the rule any time the licensee permits
the airing on its station of programming
either provided, or selected, by the
programmer in return for some form of
compensation. In describing a lease of
time, however, the Commission does
not mean to suggest that traditional,
short-form advertising time constitutes a
lease of airtime for these purposes. The
Commission notes that such
advertisements, whether they appear in
programming aired by the licensee or
provided by a third-party programmer
pursuant to a lease, remain subject to
the Commission’s existing sponsorship
identification rules under § 73.1212(f)
and must contain a clear indication of
the sponsor of the advertisement. The
Commission’s action in this document
is focused on agreements by which a
third party controls and programs a
discrete block of time on a broadcast
station. Ultimately, the Commission
believes that requiring a disclosure to
inform the audience of the source of the
programming whenever a foreign
governmental entity provides
programming to a station for broadcast
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
pursuant to the lease of time is wholly
consistent with sections 317(a)(1) and
(2) of the Act.
29. The Commission finds that its
focus on situations where there are
leasing agreements between a station
and a third party will narrow the
application of the disclosure rules
appropriately, and ensure that the new
disclosure obligations do not extend to
situations where there is no evidence of
foreign government sponsored
programming. For example, the record
does not demonstrate that
advertisements; archival, stock, or
supplemental video footage; or
preferential access to filming locations
are a significant source of unidentified
foreign sponsored programming. In
addition, given limitations on the ability
of noncommercial educational (NCE)
stations to engage in leasing
arrangements, the Commission expects
that NCE stations will rarely, if ever,
face the need to address the foreign
sponsorship disclosure rules, largely
assuaging the concerns of NCE
commenters. Therefore, the Commission
finds that limiting the application of its
disclosure requirement to the context of
leasing agreements obviates a number of
issues and suggestions put forth by
commenters concerned that the
Commission would inadvertently sweep
in additional programming that does not
carry the same concerns with foreign
influence as the unidentified lease of
programming time.
30. Programming Aired in Exchange
for Consideration Under 317(a)(1) of the
Act. As discussed in the NPRM, section
317(a)(1) of the Act requires the licensee
of a broadcast station to disclose at the
time of broadcast if it has received any
form of payment or consideration, either
directly or indirectly in exchange for the
broadcast of programming. While there
is no minimum level of ‘‘consideration’’
required to trigger the disclosure
requirement under this section, the
statute does permit the exclusion of
services or property furnished without
charge or at nominal charge in certain
circumstances. One notable exception to
the exclusion, however, is the provision
of certain material furnished free of
charge or at nominal cost as an
inducement to air the program and that
is related to any political program or
program involving the discussion of any
controversial issue, as discussed further
below. Thus, consistent with the statute
and current sponsorship identification
rules, the foreign sponsorship
identification rules the Commission
adopts in this document will be
triggered if any money, service, or other
valuable consideration is directly or
indirectly paid or promised to, or
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
charged or accepted by a broadcast
station in the context of a lease of
broadcast time in exchange for the
airing of material provided by a foreign
governmental entity.
31. While the Commission expects
that such consideration received by the
station directly will be apparent from
the terms and exercise of any lease
agreement, as discussed below, the
Commission notes that under section
507 of the Act, parties involved in the
production, preparation, or supply of a
program or program material that is
intended to be aired on a broadcast
station also have an obligation to
disclose to their employer or to the
party for whom the programming is
being produced or to the station
licensee, if they have accepted or agreed
to accept, or paid or agreed to pay, any
money or valuable consideration for
inclusion of any program or material.
Thus, as detailed further below, the
Commission requires that licensees will
exercise reasonable diligence to
ascertain whether consideration has
been provided in exchange for the lease
of airtime or in exchange for the airing
of materials directly or indirectly to the
station, as well as whether anyone
involved in the production, preparation,
or supply of the material has received
compensation, and that an appropriate
disclosure will be made about the
involvement of any foreign
governmental entity. The Commission
discusses what this obligation means for
the licensee and lessee below.
32. Programming Provided for Free as
an Inducement to Air Under 317(a)(2).
In addition to the payment of monetary
or other valuable consideration, section
317(a)(2) of the Act establishes that a
sponsorship disclosure may also be
required in some circumstances, even if
the only ‘‘consideration’’ being offered
to the station in exchange for the airing
of the material is the programming
itself. As stated above, the Commission
believes that, as a practical matter,
leasing agreements will involve the
exchange of money or other valuable
consideration from the programmer to
the licensee. It is not typical for a station
to enter into an agreement for the lease
of airtime in exchange solely for the
promise of free programming to be aired
on the station. However, to account for
such a circumstance, and consistent
with the discussion in the NPRM, the
Commission finds it is equally
important that the foreign sponsorship
identification rules apply in that
instance, should such a circumstance
arise. Section 317(a)(2) provides that a
disclosure is required at the time of
broadcast in the case of any ‘‘political
program or any program involving the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
discussion of a controversial issue’’ if
the program itself was furnished free of
charge, or at nominal cost, as an
inducement for its broadcast. The
Commission has previously interpreted
‘‘political program’’ in the context of
section 317(a)(2) to generally involve
programming seeking to persuade or
dissuade the American public on a
given political candidate or policy issue.
33. While the NPRM tentatively
concluded that all programming
provided by a foreign governmental
entity should be treated as a ‘‘political
program’’ pursuant to section 317(a)(2)
of the Act, and, thus, the provision of
such programming in and of itself could
be sufficient to trigger a disclosure,
based on the record before us and upon
further consideration, the Commission
declines to expand the definition of
political program in this context. Rather,
consistent with the approach in this
Order to narrow the scope of the rules
to target more appropriately the
reported instances of undisclosed
foreign governmental programming, the
Commission believes it is unnecessary
to expand the interpretation of
‘‘political program’’ and elect to apply
the existing interpretation of that term at
this time. Similarly, for purposes of the
foreign sponsorship identification rules
the Commission will continue to
interpret ‘‘any program involving the
discussion of any controversial issue’’
under section 317(a)(2) in a manner
consistent with precedent. The
Commission finds that applying the
existing definition of ‘‘political
program’’ consistent with long-standing
Commission precedent in this area
addresses many of the concerns raised
by commenters about various types of
programming that inadvertently might
be swept into the ambit the new foreign
sponsorship identification rules. The
Commission also clarifies that its new
rules do not override the guidance
provided in the Commission’s 1963
seminal order and accompanying public
notice about what would be considered
an ‘‘inducement’’ to broadcast
programming.
34. Additionally, similar to the
analysis above, the Commission finds
that section 507 of the Act applies in
this context as well. Specifically, the
Commission believes it is reasonable to
consider the provision of any ‘‘political
program or any program involving the
discussion of a controversial issue’’ by
a foreign governmental entity to a party
in the distribution chain for no cost and
as an inducement to air that material on
a broadcast station to be ‘‘service or
other valuable consideration’’ under the
terms of section 507. Accordingly, in the
event that an entity involved in the
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32227
production, preparation, or supply of
programming that is intended to be
aired on a station has received any
‘‘political program or any program
involving the discussion of a
controversial issue’’ from a foreign
governmental entity for free, or at
nominal charge, as an inducement for
its broadcast, the Commission finds that
under section 507 it must disclose that
fact to its employer, the person for
whom the program is being produced,
or the licensee of the station and will
require an appropriate foreign
sponsorship identification. The
Commission discusses what this
obligation means for the licensee and
lessee below.
35. Reasonable Diligence. The
Commission adopts its tentative
conclusion from the NPRM that the final
responsibility for any necessary foreign
sponsorship identification disclosure
rests with the licensee in accordance
with the statutory scheme. Accordingly,
the Commission finds that a broadcast
station licensee must exercise
‘‘reasonable diligence’’ to determine if
an entity within the scope addressed
above—i.e. an entity or individual that
is purchasing airtime on the station or
providing any ‘‘political program or any
program involving the discussion of a
controversial issue’’ free of charge as an
inducement to broadcast such material
on the station—is a foreign
governmental entity, such that a
disclosure is required under the foreign
sponsorship identification rules. As
explained below, the Commission
concludes that such diligence requires
that the licensee must, at a minimum:
(1) Inform the lessee at the time of
agreement and at renewal of the foreign
sponsorship disclosure requirement;
(2) Inquire of the lessee at the time of
agreement and at renewal whether it
falls into any of the categories that
qualify it as a ‘‘foreign governmental
entity’’;
(3) Inquire of the lessee at the time of
agreement and at renewal whether it
knows if anyone further back in the
chain of producing/distributing the
programming that will be aired pursuant
to the lease agreement, or a sub-lease,
qualifies as a foreign governmental
entity and has provided some type of
inducement to air the programming;
(4) Independently confirm the lessee’s
status, at the time of agreement and at
renewal by consulting the Department
of Justice’s FARA website and the
Commission’s semi-annual U.S.-based
foreign media outlets reports for the
lessee’s name. This need only be done
if the lessee has not already disclosed
that it falls into one of the covered
categories and that there is no separate
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32228
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
need for a disclosure because no one
further back in the chain of producing/
transmitting the programming falls into
one of the covered categories and has
provided some form of service or
consideration as an inducement to
broadcast the programming; and
(5) Memorialize the above-listed
inquiries and investigations to track
compliance in the event documentation
is required to respond to any future
Commission inquiry on the issue.
36. Finally, as discussed below, the
Commission clarifies that the lessee, in
accordance with sections 507(b) and (c)
of the Act likewise carries an
independent responsibility both to
respond to the licensee’s inquiries and
inform the licensee if, during the course
of the lease arrangement, it becomes
aware of any information that would
trigger a disclosure pursuant to the new
foreign sponsorship identification rules.
37. Licensee’s Responsibilities.
Pursuant to section 317(c) of the Act,
the licensee bears the responsibility to
engage in ‘‘reasonable diligence’’ to
determine the true source of the
programming aired on its station.
Section 317(c) of the Act states that the
licensee of each radio station shall
exercise reasonable diligence to obtain
from its employees, and from other
persons with whom it deals directly in
connection with any program or
program matter for broadcast,
information to enable such licensee to
make the announcement required by
this section. This statutory provision is
categoric and does not provide any
exceptions, as it is the licensee who has
been granted the right to use the public
airwaves. As discussed in the NPRM,
the licensee of a broadcast station must
ultimately remain in control of the
station and maintain responsibility for
the material transmitted over its
airwaves, even when it has entered into
a leasing agreement. While this
responsibility adheres in every instance,
the Commission finds that it is
particularly important here, where the
record shows that the audience is
typically unaware that the lessee/
brokering party that is sponsoring,
paying for, or furnishing the
programming could either be a foreign
governmental entity or be passing
through programming on behalf of such
an entity.
38. As a threshold matter, the
Commission expects the licensee to
convey clearly to the prospective lessee
that there is a Commission disclosure
requirement regarding foreign
government-provided programming. In
this regard, the Commission finds that
‘‘reasonable diligence’’ also includes
inquiring of the potential lessee whether
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
it qualifies under the definition of a
‘‘foreign governmental entity.’’ Given
that the licensee is entering into a
contractual agreement that allows the
lessee to program airtime or provide
programming on the station, the
Commission finds it reasonable to
expect that the licensee make these
basic inquiries of the lessee to ascertain
whether the programming to be aired
will require a disclosure under the rules
the Commission adopt herein. The
Commission notes that broadcasters
may choose to implement these
requirements through contractual
provisions between the licensee and
lessee though they are not required to
do so.
39. The Commission also expects the
licensee to inquire of the lessee whether
‘‘in connection with the production or
preparation of any program or program
matter’’ that it, or any sub-lessee,
intends to air it is aware of any money,
service or other valuable consideration
from a foreign governmental entity
provided as an inducement to air a part
of such program or program matter.
Such an inquiry is consistent with
sections 507(b) and (c) of the Act, which
impose a duty on the lessee to inform
the licensee to the extent it is aware of
any payments or other valuable
consideration, including inducements to
air for free, associated with the
programming such as to trigger a
disclosure. Likewise, section 317(b) of
the Act imposes an associated
requirement on the licensee to make any
disclosures necessitated by learning
such information pursuant to section
507 of the Act. The Commission finds
that this type of inquiry by the licensee
is particularly important given reports
about instances where programming
originating from foreign governmental
actors is being passed through program
distributors who lease time on U.S.
broadcast stations.
40. If in response to the licensee’s
initial inquiry, the lessee states that it
falls within the definition of a ‘‘foreign
governmental entity,’’ or is otherwise
aware of the need for a foreign
sponsorship identification disclosure,
then the licensee needs to ensure that
the programming contains the
appropriate disclosure. As discussed
above, licensees may become aware of
the need for a foreign sponsorship
identification disclosure via the
reporting obligation contained in
section 507 of the Act. On the other
hand, if the lessee’s response is that it
does not fall within the definition and
is not separately aware of the need for
a disclosure, the Commission requires
the licensee to verify independently that
the lessee does not qualify as a ‘‘foreign
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
governmental entity.’’ To do so, at a
minimum, the licensee will need to
conduct certain independent searches.
Specifically, the licensee should check
if the lessee appears on the Department
of Justice’s most recent FARA list as an
agent that is acting on behalf of a foreign
principal that is either a ‘‘government of
a foreign country,’’ as defined by FARA,
or a ‘‘foreign political party,’’ as defined
by FARA. The licensee should also
check if the lessee appears on the FARA
list as an agent whose principal is either
directly or indirectly operated,
supervised, directed, owned, controlled,
financed, or subsidized, in whole or in
part, by a ‘‘government of a foreign
country,’’ as defined by FARA, or a
‘‘foreign political party’’ as defined by
FARA.
41. Put differently, if a lessee named
‘‘ABC Corp.’’ appears as an agent on the
FARA list, but ABC Corp.’s principal is
XYZ Corp., the licensee’s search does
not stop at this point simply because
XYZ Corp. is neither a government of a
foreign country nor a foreign political
party. Rather the licensee should review
ABC Corp’s filing to see whether XYZ
Corp is in fact directly or indirectly
operated, supervised, directed, owned,
controlled, financed, or subsidized, in
whole or in part, by a government of a
foreign country or a foreign political
party. Such information will be
indicated on the filing. If there is such
direct or indirect operation, supervision,
direction, ownership, control, financing,
or subsidization, in whole or in part,
then the programming aired by ABC
Corp. will need a foreign sponsorship
disclosure.
42. In this regard, the Commission
notes that the FARA database is simple
to use and allows for a search by terms.
Consequently, the Commission
anticipates that in most cases a licensee
will need to do no more than merely run
a search of the lessee’s name on the
FARA database. If the search does not
generate any results, the licensee can
safely assume that the lessee is not a
FARA agent and no further search is
needed on the FARA database. If the
lessee’s name does appear on the FARA
database, the licensee may need to
review the materials filed as part of a
given agent’s registration to ascertain
whether the lessee qualifies as a
‘‘foreign governmental entity.’’ The
licensee should also check if the lessee’s
name appears in the Commission’s
semi-annual reports of U.S.-based
foreign media outlets. If the lessee’s
name does not appear on either the
FARA list or in the U.S.-based foreign
media outlet reports then no further
checks are needed of these sites. Finally,
the Commission requires that the
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
licensee memorialize its inquiries to
track compliance and create a record in
the event of any future Commission
inquiry.
43. The Commission requires that a
licensee investigate the nature of the
party to whom it is leasing airtime both
at the time the agreement between the
parties is executed and at renewal. As
part of its inquiries, the licensee should
also inquire whether the lessee is aware
of anyone further back in the chain of
producing/transmitting the
programming who might qualify as a
foreign governmental entity and has
provided some form of consideration as
an inducement to air the programming.
To the extent that the lessee confirms
that it still qualifies as a foreign
governmental entity, no other
investigation on the part of the licensee
is necessary beyond ensuring that the
disclosures specified by the rules
continue to be made. If the lessee
indicates that it is no longer a foreign
governmental entity, then programming
disclosures are no longer required under
the rules after the licensee
independently verifies that this is the
case.
44. The Commission requires
reasonable diligence to be conducted
not only at the time of the agreement is
entered into, but also at renewal time.
The Commission recognizes the lessee’s
status may change, particularly if the
duration of the lease agreement is for a
term of years. That is, over the course
of the lease, not only might the lessee
in fact become, due to actions on its
part, a ‘‘foreign governmental entity,’’
for example, by entering into an agency
relationship pursuant to FARA, but it
may also be the case that the lessee
contests the Department of Justice’s
designation of the lessee as a FARA
agent such that the lessee’s name only
appears on the FARA list subsequent to
the establishment of the lease
agreement. Moreover, the Commission
requires the licensee to memorialize the
results of its diligence in some manner
for its own records and maintain this
documentation for the remainder of the
then-current license term or one year,
whichever is longer. In this manner, the
licensee will have the necessary
documentation should the Commission
inquire about a particular lease
agreement or particular programming
aired on the licensee’s station pursuant
to the lease of time.
45. In addition, the Commission
strongly encourages licensees to include
a provision in their lease agreements
requiring the lessee to notify the
licensee about any change in the lessee’s
status such as to trigger the foreign
sponsorship identification rules. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
Commission expects that inclusion of
such a provision will impress upon the
lessee the importance of its rules and
result in a statement to the licensee if
there is a change in status. Some
commenters assert that in lieu of the
clear objective steps laid out above for
meeting the statutory ‘‘reasonable
diligence’’ requirement, the Commission
should instead require broadcasters to
engage in ‘‘reasonable diligence’’ only if
they have reason to believe that their
lessee is affiliated with a foreign
governmental entity. The Act does not,
however, contain a threshold showing
of ‘‘reason to believe’’ in advance of
requiring that broadcasters engage in
‘‘reasonable diligence.’’ Moreover, the
adoption of such a subjective standard
would make the rules adopted in the
instant Order virtually ineffectual and
unenforceable by leaving it up to the
broadcasters’ discretion whether to
check the status of a lessee, rather than
relying on quick objective searches of
reliable government databases. Some of
those that propose this ‘‘reason to
believe’’ standard assert by way of
example that there is no reason to
believe that a church or school group
with whom a licensee has had an
extended relationship is likely to be, or
have any connection with, a foreign
governmental entity, and, hence there is
no reason to inquire about such a
lessee’s status or its programming. The
practical implication of linking the
‘‘reasonable diligence’’ steps described
above to a broadcaster’s belief based on
its previous long-term relationships
with given lessees, however, is that only
new lessees or perhaps those with
characteristics unknown to the
broadcaster will be subject to
‘‘reasonable diligence,’’ an approach
that would seem to favor existing
lessees at the expense of new and
diverse entrants and to jeopardize the
Commission’s efforts to ensure
broadcast audiences know who is
seeking to persuade them.
46. Some commenters suggest that the
requirement to check the FARA list is
unduly burdensome. The Commission
finds that limiting the application of its
foreign sponsorship disclosure rules to
situations involving leasing agreements
and also narrowing the scope of the
term ‘‘political program’’ to align with
prior interpretations, should greatly
diminish the overall compliance burden
on licensees by limiting the
circumstances in which such searches
will be necessary to those areas that
raise important issues of public
concern—as compared to the proposal
laid out in the NPRM, which applied to
all programming arrangements and
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32229
required a special disclosure for all
programming provided by a foreign
governmental entity—while taking
necessary steps to ensure broadcasters
will identify those instances where
foreign sponsorship identification is
necessary. In addition, the objective
tests laid out above should facilitate
compliance, by specifying what
licensees have to do to comply with the
‘‘reasonable diligence’’ requirement in
terms of straightforward and limited
search requirements that minimize the
burden on broadcasters and are
necessary to ensure that the public is
adequately informed about the true
identity of a programmer’s ties to a
foreign government. Thus, the
Commission finds that these reasonable
diligence inquiries do not pose undue
burden on broadcast licensees and,
more importantly, will help ensure that
the licensee is cognizant of whether the
entity seeking to lease time on its station
is a foreign governmental entity.
47. Lessee’s Obligations. As
previously discussed, pursuant to
section 507, the lessee also holds an
independent obligation to communicate
information to the licensee relevant to
determining whether a disclosure is
needed. In this regard, the Commission
adopts the tentative conclusion
contained in the NPRM that sections
507(b) and (c) of the Act impose a duty
on the broker/lessee to inform the
licensee to the extent it is aware of any
payments (or other valuable
consideration) associated with the
programming such as to trigger a
disclosure. No party commented on the
Commission’s tentative conclusion that
sections 507(b) and (c) of the Act
impose a duty on the broker/lessee to
inform the licensee to the extent it is
aware of any payments (or other
valuable consideration) associated with
the programming. As stated in the
NPRM, in its 1960 amendments to the
Act, Congress imposed on non-licensees
associated with the transmission or
production of programming a
requirement to disclose any knowledge
of consideration paid as an inducement
to air particular material. Congress
added this provision in recognition that
individuals other than the licensee were
increasingly involved in programming
decisions. Thus, consistent with the
statute, the Commission concludes that
it is incumbent on a lessee to convey to
the licensee its knowledge of any
payment or consideration provided by,
or unpaid programming received as an
inducement from, an entity or
individual that triggers the foreign
sponsorship identification rules laid out
in this Order.
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32230
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
48. The Commission emphasizes here
that the reach of sections 507(b) and (c)
of the Act is not limited only to those
entities or individuals who have entered
into lease agreements with the licensee.
Rather, these provisions impose a
disclosure obligation on any person
who, in connection with the production
or preparation of any program or who
supplies to any other person any
program to convey any information such
person may have about the provision of
any inducement to broadcast the
program in order to necessitate a
sponsorship identification disclosure by
the licensee. Specifically, such nonlicensees must disclose to their
employer, the person for which such
program is being produced (e.g., the
next individual involved in the chain of
transmitting the programming to the
licensee), or the licensee itself, their
knowledge of any payment or ‘‘valuable
consideration’’ provided or accepted by
a foreign governmental entity. Section
507(a) of the Act imposes a similar
disclosure obligation on the licensee’s
own employees. Likewise, section
317(b) of the Act imposes a parallel
requirement on licensees to make a
required disclosure to the public at the
time of broadcast if they learn of the
need for a disclosure via the mechanism
laid out in section 507 of the Act.
49. Reasonable Diligence
Requirements to Apply on a Prospective
Basis. Some commenters have asked
that any new rules only apply on a
going forward basis. Recognizing that
some lease agreements may last for
several years, the Commission declines
to delay application of its rules to only
new lease agreements. Rather, the
Commission believes that the public
interest is best served if audiences are
notified of foreign sponsorship as soon
as reasonably possible. Thus, in
addition to applying the rules to new
lease agreements and renewals of
existing agreements, the Commission
requires that lease agreements in place
when the changes to the rules adopted
herein become effective come into
compliance with the new requirements,
including undertaking reasonable
diligence, within six months. In this
manner, the transparency the
Commission seeks to achieve can be
accomplished in a way that does not
unduly burden licensees.
50. Contents and Frequency of
Required Disclosure of Foreign
Sponsorship. Consistent with the
NPRM, the Commission adopts
standardized language to inform
audiences at the time of broadcast that
the program material has been provided
by a foreign governmental entity. Such
standardized language will avoid
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
confusion and ensure that the
information is conveyed clearly and
concisely to the audience. Accordingly,
as discussed below, the Commissions
adopts the disclosure language proposed
in the NPRM with two modifications,
one to provide greater flexibility in the
language used and the other to
harmonize its labeling requirements
with those imposed pursuant to FARA.
In addition, the Commission adopts a
requirement that stations airing
programming subject to the proposed
disclosure requirement must place
copies of the disclosures in their OPIFs,
in a standalone folder marked as
‘‘Foreign Government-Provided
Programming Disclosures’’ so that the
material is readily identifiable to the
public pursuant to the timing
requirements discussed below.
51. Labeling Requirement. First, as
requested by NAB, the Commission
allows licensees the flexibility to use
any of three terms (sponsored, paid for,
or furnished) in an on-air foreign
sponsorship disclosure statement, rather
than mandate the use of ‘‘paid for, or
furnished’’ as proposed, in order to
conform the new requirement more
closely to existing sponsorship
identification requirements. The
Commission notes that the language
proposed by the National Association of
Broadcasters (NAB) is consistent with
existing sponsorship identification
requirements. To the extent that the
foreign sponsorship identification rules
comport with existing rules and with
how broadcast station personnel are
accustomed to operating, the
Commission finds that such allowances
should facilitate compliance by
licensees and minimize the burden on
them. Hence, at the time a station
broadcasts programming that was
provided by a foreign governmental
entity, the Commission requires a
disclosure identifying that fact and the
origin of the programming as follows:
The [following/preceding] programming
was [sponsored, paid for, or furnished,]
either in whole or in part, by [name of foreign
governmental entity] on behalf of [name of
foreign country].
52. In establishing this disclosure
language, the Commission recognizes
that FARA also has a labelling
requirement and clarify that the
programming need not have two
separate labels—both the FARA label
and the Commission’s full disclosure.
Rather, for those entities that are subject
to FARA, the Commission accepts for
compliance purposes the contents of the
FARA label as long as it is modified to
include the country associated with the
foreign governmental entity named in
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the label and comports with the format
and frequency requirements described
below. As discussed further below, the
Commission notes that FARA requires
only that FARA agents label materials,
including broadcast programming, with
a conspicuous statement identifying the
FARA agent and its principal when
distributed in the United States;
therefore, unless the licensee has
registered under FARA, the licensee
may not have the required FARA label.
Thus, for those entities not registered
under FARA, the Commission requires
the disclosure language the Commission
adopts in this document. Moreover, the
Commission finds that its disclosure
statement—or, alternatively, the
passthrough of modified FARA labels—
provides audiences of broadcast stations
greater insight about the source of
foreign government-provided
programming than may exist with
existing FARA labeling practices. As
described above, the language the
Commission adopts in this document
requires that the country associated
with the foreign governmental entity be
named in the disclosure, which will
provide additional information when
that entity is a foreign political party or
an agent registered under FARA.
53. In the interest of ensuring
transparency for the intended viewers
and listeners of foreign governmentprovided programming, the Commission
also requires that, if the primary
language of the programming is other
than English, the disclosure statement
should be presented in the primary
language of the programming. Although
the NPRM sought comment on this
issue, no commenters addressed this
point. For programming that contains a
‘‘conspicuous statement’’ required by
FARA, and such a conspicuous
statement is in a language other than
English, an additional disclosure in
English is not needed.
54. With regard to the format of the
disclosure, for televised programming,
the Commission requires the disclosure
to be in letters equal to or greater than
four percent of the vertical picture
height and be visible for not less than
four seconds to ensure readability. The
NPRM sought comment on this format,
but no commenters addressed this
point. As this format convention
replicates the existing format rule for a
televised political advertisement
concerning a candidate for public office,
the Commission anticipates minimal
compliance burden on licensees. For
radio broadcasts, the Commission
incorporates into the rules the
Department of Justice guidance
provided to FARA registrants that the
disclosure shall be audible. Once again,
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
although the NPRM sought comment on
this issue, no commenters addressed
this point.
55. With regard to the frequency of
the disclosure, consistent with the
NPRM and the existing rules for
political broadcast matter or any
broadcast matter involving the
discussion of a controversial issue of
public importance, the Commission
requires that the disclosure be made at
both the beginning and conclusion of
the broadcast station programming to
ensure the audience is aware of the
source of its programming. Also
consistent with its existing rules for
political broadcast matter or any
broadcast matter involving the
discussion of a controversial issue of
public importance, the Commission
requires that for any broadcast of 5
minutes duration or less, only one such
announcement must be made at either
the beginning or conclusion of the
program.
56. The Commission deviates from its
existing sponsorship identification rules
in one respect. The Commission adopts
its tentative conclusion from the NPRM
that for programming of greater than
sixty minutes in duration, an
announcement must be made at regular
intervals during the broadcast, but no
less frequently than once every 60
minutes. Sponsorship announcements
at regular intervals are not explicitly
required under the current rules. While
NAB urges the Commission not to
deviate from the existing timing and
frequency rules, the Commission
believes that this one additional
requirement is necessary given the
importance of disclosure related to
foreign government-provided
programming. While APTS notes that
NCE stations are prohibited by statute
from interrupting programming to
identify funding sources, which could
override and nullify the proposed
frequency requirement in the context of
NCE stations, as stated above, the
Commission believes that NCE stations
will rarely, if ever, fall within the ambit
of the new rules. To the extent an issue
does arise, the Commission will address
such situations on a case-by-case basis
through either its waiver process or the
means that appear appropriate at that
time. As discussed in the NPRM, the
Commission finds that periodic
announcements are necessary,
particularly in those instances where a
foreign governmental entity is
continually broadcasting programming
without an identifiable beginning or
end, such as through a lease of a 100%
of a station’s airtime. No commenter
objected to the Commission’s reasoning
for this finding nor commented on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
burden of recurring announcements.
The Commission notes that in the case
of a political broadcast matter or any
broadcast matter involving the
discussion of a controversial issue of
public importance—which typically
does not have an obvious sponsor—the
current rules require a sponsorship
identification both at the beginning and
conclusion of any such broadcast of
greater than 5 minutes. Similarly, here
the Commission believes that periodic
announcements (once every 60 minutes)
are necessary for any foreign
government-provided programming
with a duration of greater than one hour
because of the lack of transparency
regarding the true sponsor of such
programming. The Commission notes
that periodic announcements (i.e., once
every hour versus at the beginning and
conclusion of the program) are also
necessary because of the longer blocks
of programming time foreign
governmental entities typically
purchase in connection with leasing
arrangements.
57. Finally, consistent with the
proposal in the NPRM, the Commission
finds that its standardized disclosure
requirements apply equally to any
programming transmitted on a broadcast
station’s multicast streams. The
Commission received no objections to
this proposal, and consequently finds
no reason to exclude multicast streams.
As such, multicast streams are subject to
all the disclosure requirements
pertaining to foreign governmentprovided programming that the
Commission adopts in this document.
58. Public File. Consistent with the
NPRM, the Commission adopts a
requirement that stations airing
programming subject to the proposed
disclosure requirement must place
copies of the disclosures in their OPIFs,
in a standalone folder marked as
‘‘Foreign Government-Provided
Programming Disclosures’’ so that the
material is readily identifiable to the
public, as well as a requirement with
regard to the frequency of placing such
material in the public file. For broadcast
stations that do not have obligations to
maintain OPIFs, the Commission
recommends such stations retain a
record of their disclosures in their
station files consistent with previous
Commission guidance. The Commission
does not, however, require licensees to
submit additional information to their
OPIFs concerning the list of persons
operating the foreign governmental
entity providing programming.
59. Specifically, the Commission
finds that licensees must place in their
OPIFs the actual disclosure and the
name of the program to which the
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32231
disclosure was appended. In addition,
the licensee must state the date and time
the program aired. If there were repeat
airings of the program, then those
additional dates and times should also
be included in the OPIF. With regard to
the frequency with which licensees
must update their OPIFs with this
disclosure information, the Commission
aligns this requirement with its existing
requirement to update the TV Issues/
Programs Lists on a quarterly basis, as
this will minimize the need for
licensees to track different public filing
requirements. The Commission also
establishes the same OPIF two-year
retention period for disclosures related
to foreign government-provided
programming as currently exists for the
retention of lists regarding the
executives of any entity that sponsored
programming concerning a political or
controversial matter.
60. The Commission does not adopt
the ‘‘as soon as possible’’ disclosure
standard contained in § 73.1943 of its
rules or require posting to occur ‘‘within
twenty-four hours of the material being
broadcast’’ as proposed in the NPRM.
The Commission is persuaded by NAB’s
comments that the ‘‘as soon as possible’’
standard contained in § 73.1943(c) of
the rules need not apply to disclosures
associated with foreign governmental
entities. As NAB notes, the immediacy
requirement in the political advertising
context stems from the need to ensure
that candidates can exercise their
statutory rights to equal opportunities at
statutorily mandated rates and the timesensitive need to reach potential voters
before an election. The Commission
finds no corresponding need to respond
within an expedited timeframe in the
case of foreign government-provided
programming.
61. The Commission concludes that,
to the extent the foreign programming
consists of a political matter or matter
involving the discussion of a
controversial issue of public
importance, licensees obtain and
disclose in their OPIFs a list of the
persons operating the entity providing
the programming, as currently required.
The Commission clarifies that licensees
can satisfy the required OPIF
disclosures by identifying the officers
and directors of the lessee in a single
filing per lessee (rather than separate
filings concerning each individual
program sponsored by the same lessee)
together with other filings required by
the foreign sponsorship identification
rules. The Commission is not persuaded
by NAB’s contention—that, in the case
of foreign-government-provided
programming, the on-air and OPIF
disclosures will provide the necessary
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32232
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
information to the American public
identifying the foreign governmental
entity that provided the programming
and the foreign country with which it is
affiliated—to grant what effectively
would be an exemption to existing
sponsorship identification rules for
political programming provided by
foreign governmental entities. However,
the Commission determines at this time
that the licensee need not provide any
additional information in its OPIF, as
considered in the NPRM, regarding the
relationship between the foreign
governmental entity and the foreign
country that the foreign governmental
entity represents, having no evidence to
support the need for such information to
enhance public disclosure at this time.
62. Finally, the Commission adopts
the unopposed tentative conclusion
contained in the NPRM that licensees
maintain in their OPIFs the disclosures
associated with foreign governmentprovided programming rather than
giving them the option of maintaining
such information at the network
headquarters if the programming was
originated by a network.
63. Concerns About Overlap with
Other Statutory or Regulatory
Requirements. The Commission rejects
any suggestion that its foreign
sponsorship identification rules are
either duplicative of requirements
imposed under FARA or unnecessary
given the Commission’s current
sponsorship identification rules. Rather,
as discussed above and consistent with
the admonitions of commenters, the
Commission adopts disclosure
requirements that further the its
statutory mandate to provide
transparency to audiences of broadcast
stations regarding the source of
sponsored programming, while avoiding
unnecessary duplication with the FARA
requirements.
64. As a preliminary matter, the
Commission emphasizes that although
the requirements laid out in the NPRM
and the instant Order look to FARA for
assistance in determining what qualifies
as a ‘‘foreign governmental entity,’’
section 317 of the Act and FARA each
cover different types of entities with
respect to their labeling requirements.
Section 317 and the Commission’s
sponsorship identification rules speak
specifically to the obligations of
licensees of broadcast stations, imposing
transparency requirements regarding the
origin of sponsored content as an
element of the licensee’s stewardship of
the public airwaves. In contrast, FARA
imposes an obligation on agents
required to register under FARA to label
materials with a conspicuous statement
identifying the FARA agent and its
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
principal when it is distributing
relevant materials within the United
States by any means or media.
Accordingly, unless the licensee of a
broadcast station itself is a registered
agent under FARA, the label required by
FARA may not appear. Even if such
labels are being passed through in some
instances, as discussed above and in the
NPRM, the reports about incidents of
undisclosed foreign government
programming indicate the need for
greater action to ensure transparency.
Consistent with the Commission’s own
statutory mandate, the requirements
adopted in the instant Order focus
specifically on broadcast licensees to
ensure they disclose foreign government
provided-programming consistent with
the intent and language of section 317
of the Act.
65. Further, as noted above, the rules
the Commission adopts in this
document require identification of the
country associated with the foreign
governmental entity that provided the
programming, whereas the FARA
disclosure statement does not require
this information. Rather, FARA requires
identification of only the foreign
principal, whose name may not identify
its connection to a foreign country. In
addition, while FARA requires that
covered materials that are televised or
broadcast, or which are caused to be
televised or broadcast shall be
introduced by a statement which is
reasonably adapted to convey to the
viewers or listeners thereof such
information as is required under FARA,
it does not dictate whether such
information should be repeated during a
broadcast or at what frequency. In
contrast, the foreign sponsorship
identification rules the Commission
adopts in this document contain
specific guidance for broadcast licensees
as to the frequency and content of the
required label to increase transparency
and ensure audiences are aware of the
foreign sources of such programming.
66. Given the key differences between
the FARA requirements and those the
Commission adopts in this document,
the Commission rejects NPR’s assertion
that enforcement of § 73.1212(e) of the
Commission’s rules could achieve the
Commission’s goals in this proceeding.
As REC Networks notes, compliance
with the Commission’s existing
sponsorship identification rules does
not currently result in the identification
of a foreign government as the ultimate
provider of programming to the extent
this is the case.
67. Section 325(c) Permits. The
Commission adopts the NPRM’s
tentative conclusion that the proposed
foreign sponsorship identification rules
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
should apply expressly, to the extent
applicable, to any programming
broadcast pursuant to a section 325(c)
permit, in addition to U.S.-licensed
broadcast stations. A section 325(c)
permit is required when an entity
produces programming in the United
States but, rather than broadcasting the
programming from a U.S.-licensed
station, transmits or delivers the
programming from a U.S. studio to a
non-U.S. licensed station in a foreign
country and broadcasts the
programming from the foreign station
with a sufficient transmission power or
from a geographic location that enables
the material to be received consistently
in the United States.
68. The Commission finds that
applying the same disclosure
requirements to programming broadcast
pursuant to a section 325(c) permit
serves the public interest because, like
programming from a U.S.-licensed
station, programming from a section
325(c) station is received by audiences
in the United States. In this context, the
section 325(c) permit holder has full
control over its programming content
and whether and how any programming
provided by foreign governmental
entities should be incorporated in the
programming broadcast pursuant to its
section 325(c) permit and broadcasted
by the foreign station. Accordingly, any
programming agreement with a section
325(c) holder will be subject to the
foreign sponsorship disclosure if
material aired on the foreign station has
been sponsored, paid for, or furnished
for free as an inducement to air by a
foreign governmental entity. Under the
rules the Commission adopts herein, a
section 325(c) permit holder must
ensure that the foreign station will
broadcast the disclosure along with the
programming provided under its section
325(c) permit. The Commission finds
that treating U.S.-licensed broadcast
station licensees and section 325(c)
permittees in the same manner with
respect to foreign government-provided
programming would serve the public
interest and could avoid creating a
potential loophole in the regulatory
framework with respect to the
identification of foreign governmentprovided programming.
69. The Commission received no
comment on its tentative conclusion
regarding programming provided
pursuant to section 325(c) permits,
including regarding whether any aspect
of the foreign sponsorship identification
requirements should be modified for
section 325(c) permit holders. The
Commission therefore finds no reason to
depart from its tentative conclusion in
this regard and find that the foreign
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
sponsorship identification rules will
apply to any programming broadcast
pursuant to a section 325(c) permit. The
Commission notes, however, that the
section 325(c) permit holders are not
required to maintain an online public
inspection file. Accordingly, a section
325(c) permit holder shall place copies
of the disclosures required along with
the name of the program to which the
disclosures were appended in the
International Bureau’s public filing
System (IBFS) under the relevant IBFS
section 325(c) permit file. The filing
must state the date and time the
program aired. In the case of repeat
airings of the program, those additional
dates and times should also be
included. Where an aural
announcement was made, its contents
must be reduced to writing and placed
in the IBFS in the same manner.
70. First Amendment Considerations.
Consistent with the NPRM, the
Commission finds that the foreign
sponsorship identification rules the
Commission adopts in this document
comport with the strictures of the First
Amendment to the Constitution, even
under the highest level of scrutiny. As
discussed above and at length in the
NPRM, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring that the
public is aware of when a party has
sponsored content on a broadcast
station. The Commission finds that
interest is even more important when a
foreign governmental entity is involved
in the sponsorship of the programming
material, and that transparency to
American audiences as to the
sponsorship of such programming is a
compelling interest. Having narrowed
the rules even further than initially
proposed, the Commission finds the
final rules to be ‘‘narrowly tailored’’ to
fulfill a ‘‘compelling’’ government
interest using the ‘‘least restrictive
means’’ to serve that goal. That being
said, consistent with the NPRM’s further
tentative conclusion, the Commission
believes the disclosure requirement the
Commission adopts in this document
will be evaluated under a less
restrictive, intermediate scrutiny
standard applied to content neutral
restrictions on broadcasters and thus
will be upheld if narrowly tailored to
achieve a substantial government
interest. Moreover, because the
disclosure requirement is content
neutral—that is, it does not ban any type
of speech but merely requires factual
disclosure of the source of certain of
programming—the Commission believes
that the rules comply with the First
Amendment as they are narrowly
tailored to achieve a substantial
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
Government interest. Thus, the
Commission finds that, regardless of the
level of scrutiny applied, its foreign
sponsorship identification rules satisfy
the First Amendment.
71. In addition, the Commission has
significantly narrowed the scope of the
programming covered by this rule and
minimized both the amount of speech
potentially affected and the compliance
burdens placed on broadcast licensees
to focus on the context in which the
record shows there are significant
transparency concerns. As discussed
above, the disclosure will now be
required only for programming aired
pursuant to a lease of airtime if directly
or indirectly provided by a foreign
governmental entity. By focusing the
foreign sponsorship identification rules
on leased programming, the
Commission excludes from coverage
programming that does not raise the
same level of transparency concerns and
a significant number of broadcast
stations that do not engage in such
leasing agreements and virtually all
non-commercial, educational
broadcasters, which rarely lease time to
third parties in the manner discussed.
72. Additionally, based on comments
in the record, the Commission has
clarified above how broadcast stations
can comply with the narrowed scope of
the rules to ensure that they are no more
burdensome than necessary to serve the
vital need for transparency about who is
attempting to influence viewers. For
example, the Commission has adopted
the commenters’ suggestion that if the
programming already contains an
appropriate disclosure pursuant to
FARA that conveys the same
information required by the
Commission’s rules and that is aired
with at least the same frequency, then
the station need not apply an additional
disclosure.
73. Ultimately, the rules the
Commission adopts in this document
are a minimal extension of the longstanding sponsorship identification
rules required by § 73.1212 of its rules
and well within the authority granted
under section 317 of the Act. Similarly,
the Commission believes its rules are
consistent with, and not duplicative of,
the equally long-standing labeling
requirement contained in FARA. As
such, the Commission finds that the
modification of the sponsorship
identification rules the Commission
adopts herein is entirely consistent with
the existing statutes and precedent in
this area and complies with the First
Amendment.
74. Broadcasters have stated that
focusing the rules on the type of
programming subject to FARA
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32233
disclosures and exempting
inconsequential programming would
appropriately focus the Commission’s
rules on foreign propaganda, rather than
the broad array of broadcast content that
raised a host of concerns, including
First Amendment issues, for NAB and
other commenters. Fox similarly states
that the rules should apply to longer
programming provided by a FARA
registrant and aired pursuant to a lease
agreement. NAB based its previous
claim that the rules would not
withstand either intermediate or strict
scrutiny on the assertion that they are
duplicative of FARA obligations and
thus fail to serve a compelling or
substantial Government interest. As the
Commission has discussed above, its
foreign sponsorship identification rules
apply to entities and programming not
necessarily covered by FARA because
they impose obligations directly on
broadcasters and their programming
suppliers. Further, the rules the
Commission adopts herein promote
greater transparency by requiring
identification of the specific foreign
government attempting to influence
American viewers rather than referring
viewers to a Government website to
review. For these reasons, the
Commission concludes that its modified
foreign sponsorship identification rules
comply with the First Amendment.
75. Cost-Benefit Analysis. The NPRM
sought comment on the benefits and
costs associated with adopting foreign
sponsorship identification rules. The
NPRM also requested specific data and
analysis in support of any claimed costs
and benefits. No commenter provided
quantified calculations of the benefits or
costs of the proposed rules.
Nevertheless, the Commission finds that
by limiting the proposed rules to the
circumstances stated above, the costs
associated with the rules are reduced
significantly from the initial proposal.
Research reviewed by Commission staff
also suggests that there are measurable
benefits to sponsorship identification
disclosures. Moreover, the lack of
transparency regarding foreign influence
and foreign government sponsored
media has become a major public
concern, including in Congress and for
the United States Department of State.
The public filing requirement will
provide data on the extent of foreign
government sponsored programming
airing on broadcast stations. Therefore,
the Commission finds that the costs
associated with adopting the foreign
sponsorship identification rules, as
modified herein, do not outweigh the
public benefits the Commission has
identified regarding transparency of the
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32234
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
source of programming heard or viewed
by the American public.
76. Regulatory Flexibility Act. As
required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Certification was incorporated into the
NPRM. Pursuant to the RFA, the
Commission has prepared a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Certification
relating to this Report and Order.
77. Paperwork Reduction Act. This
Report and Order contains proposed
new or revised information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The
requirements will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under section 3507(d)
of the PRA. OMB, the general public,
and other Federal agencies will be
invited to comment on the new or
modified information collection
requirements contained in this
proceeding. In addition, the
Commission notes that pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission previously
sought specific comment on how the
Commission might further reduce the
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.
78. Congressional Review Act. The
Commission has determined, and
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
concurs, that this rule is ‘‘non-major’’
under the Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will
send a copy of this Report & Order to
Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). The Commission
will send a copy of this Report and
Order to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
79. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
NPRM in this proceeding. The Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) sought written public
comment on the proposals in the NPRM,
including comment on the IRFA. The
Commission received no comments on
the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to
the RFA.
80. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules. As stated in the IRFA,
broadcast programming viewers and
listeners deserve to know when a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
foreign governmental entity has
provided programming so that they can
better evaluate the value and accuracy
of such programming. Broadcast stations
are entrusted with using the public
airwaves to benefit their local
communities and this obligation
includes ensuring that any foreign
government-provided programming is
clearly identified. The rules the
Commission adopts in this document
update its sponsorship identification
rules to provide specific guidance on
the language and frequency of the
necessary disclosures, provide clarity
about how to identify a foreign
governmental entity, and specify the
steps broadcasters should take to ensure
compliance with the ‘‘reasonable
diligence’’ standard contained in section
317(c) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (Act).
81. While the NPRM proposed that
the foreign sponsorship identification
rules would apply in any circumstance
in which a foreign governmental entity
directly or indirectly provided material
for broadcast or furnished material to a
station free of charge (or at nominal
cost) as an inducement to broadcast
such material, the Report and Order
(R&O) narrows the rule to address
specifically those circumstances in
which a foreign governmental entity is
programming a U.S. broadcast station
pursuant to the lease of airtime. The
rules adopted in the R&O require a
specific disclosure at the time of
broadcast if material aired pursuant to
the lease of time on the station has been
sponsored, paid for, or, in the case of
political programming or programming
involving a controversial issue,
furnished for free as an inducement to
air by a foreign governmental entity.
The focus on leasing agreements
narrows the application of the
disclosure rules significantly, thereby
minimizing the burden on broadcasters
while ensuring that viewers and
listeners are sufficiently informed as to
the origin of material broadcast on
stations when foreign governmental
entities are providing programming. For
example, the Commission anticipates
that most, and possibly all, NCE station
programming arrangements will fall
outside the ambit of the rules given
limitations on the ability of NCE
stations to engage in leasing agreements.
The foreign sponsorship identification
rules apply to any programming
broadcast pursuant to a section 325(c)
permit. A section 325(c) permit is
required when an entity produces
programming in the United States but,
rather than broadcasting the
programming from a U.S.-licensed
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
station, transmits or delivers the
programming from a U.S. studio to a
non-U.S. licensed station in a foreign
country and broadcasts the
programming from the foreign station
with a sufficient transmission power or
from a geographic location that enables
the material to be received consistently
in the United States.
82. The R&O defines foreign
governmental entities by referring to
existing statutory definitions included
in the Foreign Agents Registration Act
of 1938, as amended (FARA) and the
Communications Act. The definition
adopted in the R&O includes:
(1) A ‘‘government of a foreign
country’’ as defined by FARA;
(2) A ‘‘foreign political party’’ as
defined by FARA;
(3) An individual or entity registered
as an ‘‘agent of a foreign principal,’’
under section 611(c) of FARA, whose
‘‘foreign principal’’ is a ‘‘government of
a foreign country,’’ a ‘‘foreign political
party,’’ or is directly or indirectly
operated, supervised, directed, owned,
controlled, financed, or subsidized by a
‘‘government of a foreign country’’ or by
a ‘‘foreign political party’’ as defined by
FARA, and that is acting in its capacity
as an agent of such ‘‘foreign principal;’’
(4) An entity meeting the definition of
a ‘‘U.S.-based foreign media outlet’’
pursuant to section 722 of the Act that
has filed a report with the Commission.
83. Based on broadcaster concerns
regarding the difficulty of determining
whether an entity is a ‘‘foreign mission’’
as included in the proposed definition
of ‘‘foreign governmental entity,’’ the
final definition the Commission adopts
in this R&O excludes ‘‘foreign
missions.’’
84. The revised required standard
foreign sponsorship identification
disclosure must state:
The [following/preceding] programming
was [sponsored, paid for, or furnished,]
either in whole or in part, by [name of foreign
governmental entity] on behalf of [name of
foreign country].
In establishing this disclosure language,
the R&O first adjusts the language
proposed in the NPRM to allow
including the word ‘‘sponsored’’ as one
of the options that can be used.
Broadcasters sought this change because
it is consistent with existing
sponsorship identification language. In
addition, recognizing that FARA
requires a standard disclosure, the R&O
simplifies compliance by allowing
broadcasters, including small
broadcasters, to pass through any
required FARA label included with the
programming, so long as it also adds the
name of the foreign country involved in
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
providing the programming and
comports with the format and frequency
requirements described below. The R&O
concludes that the FARA disclosure
with the addition of the country name
satisfies the need to provide viewers
and listeners greater insight regarding
the source of foreign governmentprovided programming.
85. The R&O details what is required
of broadcasters to meet the ‘‘reasonable
diligence’’ standard contained in section
317(c) of the Act so that broadcasters
can determine if a foreign sponsorship
identification disclosure is needed. The
R&O concludes that such diligence at a
minimum requires the broadcaster to at
the time of agreement and at renewal:
(1) Inform the lessee of the foreign
sponsorship disclosure requirement;
(2) Inquire of the lessee whether it
falls into any of the categories that
qualify it as a ‘‘foreign governmental
entity’’;
(3) Inquire of the lessee whether it
knows if anyone further back in the
chain of producing/distributing the
programming that will be aired pursuant
to the lease agreement, or a sub-lease,
qualifies as a foreign governmental
entity and has provided some type of
inducement to air the programming;
(4) Independently confirm the lessee’s
status, by consulting the Department of
Justice’s FARA website and the
Commission’s semi-annual U.S.-based
foreign media outlets reports. This need
only be done if the lessee states that it
does not fall into one of the covered
categories and that there is no separate
need for a disclosure because no one
further back in the chain of producing/
transmitting the programming falls into
one of the covered categories and has
provided some form of service or
consideration as an inducement to
broadcast the programming; and
(5) Memorialize the above-listed
inquiries and investigations to track
compliance in the event documentation
is required to respond to any future
Commission inquiry on the issue.
86. The R&O specifies that the
licensee must memorialize the results of
its diligence in some manner for its own
records and maintain this
documentation for the remainder of the
then-current license term or one year,
whichever is longer. In addition, the
R&O clarifies that, under the revised
rules, the lessee of airtime, in
accordance with sections 507(b) and (c)
of the Act, also holds an independent
obligation to communicate information
to the licensee relevant to determining
whether a disclosure is needed.
87. In the interest of ensuring
transparency for viewers and listeners of
foreign government-provided
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
programming, the R&O requires that, if
the primary language of the
programming is other than English, the
disclosure statement should be
presented in the primary language of the
programming. The disclosure for
televised programming should be in
letters equal to or greater than four
percent of the vertical picture height
and be visible for not less than four
seconds to ensure readability. As this
requirement tracks existing rules for
televised political advertisements,
television licensees are familiar with
this format. For radio broadcasts, the
R&O incorporates the existing DOJ
interpretation for programming
provided by FARA registrants: That the
disclosure shall be audible. The R&O
requires that the disclosure be made at
both the beginning and end of the
programming, and, consistent with an
existing requirement for ‘‘political
broadcast matter,’’ for any broadcast of
5 minutes or less, only once. Finally, for
programming longer than sixty minutes,
the disclosure must be made at regular
intervals during the broadcast, but no
less frequently than once every sixty
minutes. The R&O finds that periodic
announcements are necessary,
particularly in those instances where a
foreign governmental entity is
continually broadcasting programming
without an identifiable beginning or
end, such as through a lease of a 100%
of a station’s airtime. Other than this
final requirement for longer
programming, the new size, frequency
and duration requirements of the new
foreign sponsorship identification rules
are consistent existing sponsorship
identification rules and are thus familiar
to broadcasters.
88. Consistent with the NPRM, the
R&O adopts a requirement that stations
airing foreign government-provided
programming must place copies of the
disclosures in their Online Public
Information Files (OPIFs), in a
standalone folder marked as ‘‘Foreign
Government-Provided Programming
Disclosures’’ so that the material is
readily identifiable to the public. The
R&O adopts the proposal discussed in
the NPRM, that, to the extent the foreign
programming consists of a political
matter or matter involving the
discussion of a controversial issue of
public importance, licensees obtain and
disclose in their OPIFs a list of the
persons operating the foreign
governmental entity that has provided
the programming. The R&O rules
require licensees to place in their OPIFs
the actual disclosure and the name of
the program to which the disclosure was
appended. In addition, the licensee
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32235
must state the date and time the
program aired. If there are repeat airings
of the program, then those additional
dates and times should also be included
in the OPIF. In response to broadcaster
concerns about burdens, the R&O does
not adopt the NPRM’s ‘‘as soon as
possible’’ standard for updating OPIFs
contained in § 73.1943 of existing rules,
nor interpret this phrase to mean
‘‘within twenty-four hours of the
material being broadcast.’’ Rather, for
frequency of updating OPIFs, the R&O
adopts rules that align with an existing
requirement to update the TV Issues/
Programs Lists on a quarterly basis, as
this will minimize the need for
licensees to track different public filing
requirements. The R&O also adopts the
same OPIF two-year retention period as
currently exists for the retention of lists
of the executives of any entity that
sponsored programming concerning a
political or controversial matter. For
broadcast stations that do not have
obligations to maintain OPIFs, the
Commission recommends such stations
retain a record of their disclosures in
their station files consistent with
previous Commission guidance. The
R&O rules also require section 325(c)
permit holders must place copies of the
disclosures required along with the
name of the program to which the
disclosures were appended in the
International Bureau’s public filing
System (IBFS) under the relevant IBFS
section 325(c) permit file. The filing
must state the date and time the
program aired. In the case of repeat
airings of the program, those additional
dates and times should also be
included. Where an aural
announcement was made, its contents
must be reduced to writing and placed
in the IBFS in the same manner.
89. Summary of Significant Issues
Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA. There were no comments
filed in response to the IRFA.
90. Response to Comments by the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. Pursuant to
the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010,
which amended the RFA, the
Commission is required to respond to a
comments filed by the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA), and to provide a
detailed statement of any change made
to the proposed rules as a result of those
comments. The Chief Counsel did not
file any comments in response to the
proposed rules in this proceeding.
91. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Rules Apply. The RFA directs agencies
to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32236
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rule revisions, if adopted.
The RFA generally defines the term
‘‘small entity’’ as having the same
meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’
‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition,
the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same
meaning as the term ‘‘small business
concern’’ under the Small Business Act
(SBA). A small business concern is one
which: (1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the
SBA. Below, the Commission provides a
description of such small entities, as
well as an estimate of the number of
such small entities, where feasible.
92. Television Broadcasting. This U.S.
Economic Census category comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
broadcasting images together with
sound. These establishments operate
television broadcast studios and
facilities for the programming and
transmission of programs to the public.
These establishments also produce or
transmit visual programming to
affiliated broadcast television stations,
which in turn broadcast the programs to
the public on a predetermined schedule.
Programming may originate in their own
studio, from an affiliated network, or
from external sources. The SBA has
created the following small business
size standard for such businesses: Those
having $41.5 million or less in annual
receipts. The 2012 Economic Census
reports that 751 firms in this category
operated in that year. Of that number,
656 had annual receipts of $25 million
or less, 25 had annual receipts between
$25 million and $49,999,999 and 70 had
annual receipts of $50 million or more.
Based on these data, the Commission
estimates that the majority of
commercial television broadcast stations
are small entities under the applicable
size standard.
93. Additionally, the Commission has
estimated the number of licensed
commercial television stations to be
1,374. Of this total, 1,269 stations (or
92%) had revenues of $41.5 million or
less in 2020, according to Commission
staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc.
Media Access Pro Television Database
(BIA) on April 20, 2021, and therefore
these stations qualify as small entities
under the SBA definition. In addition,
the Commission estimates the number
of noncommercial educational stations
to be 384. The Commission does not
compile and does not have access to
information on the revenue of NCE
stations that would permit it to
determine how many such stations
would qualify as small entities. There
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
are also 386 Class A stations. Given the
nature of this service, the Commission
presumes that all of these stations
qualify as small entities under the
applicable SBA size standard.
94. Radio Stations. This U.S.
Economic Census category comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
broadcasting aural programs by radio to
the public. Programming may originate
in the establishment’s own studio, from
an affiliated network, or from external
sources. The SBA has created the
following small business size standard
for such businesses: Those having $41.5
million or less in annual receipts.
Economic Census data for 2012 show
that 2,849 firms in this category
operated in that year. Of that number,
2,806 operated with annual receipts of
less than $25 million per year, 17 with
annual receipts between $25 million
and $49,999,999 million and 26 with
annual receipts of $50 million or more.
Based on these data, the Commission
estimates that the majority of
commercial radio broadcast stations
were small under the applicable SBA
size standard.
95. The Commission has estimated
the number of licensed commercial AM
radio stations to be 4,546 and the
number of commercial FM radio
stations to be 6,682 for a total of 11,228
commercial stations. Of this total,
11,227 stations (or 99%) had revenues
of $41.5 million or less in 2020,
according to Commission staff review of
the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro
Television Database (BIA) on April 20,
2021, and therefore these stations
qualify as small entities under the SBA
definition. In addition, there were 4,213
noncommercial educational FM
stations. The Commission does not
compile and does not have access to
information on the revenue of NCE
radio stations that would permit it to
determine how many such stations
would qualify as small entities.
96. In assessing whether a business
concern qualifies as small under the
above definition, business (control)
affiliations must be included. The
Commission’s estimate, therefore, likely
overstates the number of small entities
that might be affected by its action
because the revenue figure on which it
is based does not include or aggregate
revenues from affiliated companies. In
addition, an element of the definition of
‘‘small business’’ is that the entity not
be dominant in its field of operation.
The Commission is unable at this time
to define or quantify the criteria that
would establish whether a specific radio
or television station is dominant in its
field of operation. Accordingly, the
estimate of small businesses to which
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the proposed rules may apply does not
exclude any radio or television station
from the definition of small business on
this basis and is therefore possibly overinclusive.
97. Description of Projected
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements. The R&O
adopts rules that require a specific
disclosure at the time of broadcast if
material aired pursuant to the lease of
time on the station has been sponsored,
paid for, or, in the case of political
programming or programming involving
a controversial issue, furnished for free
as an inducement to air by a ‘‘foreign
governmental entity.’’ As described
above, the term ‘‘foreign governmental
entity’’ is defined by reference to
existing definitions in the Foreign
Agents Registration Act of 1938 as
amended (FARA) and Section 722 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (the Act). The R&O requires
that stations use the following standard
disclosure:
The [following/preceding] programming
was [sponsored, paid for, or furnished,]
either in whole or in part, by [name of foreign
governmental entity] on behalf of [name of
foreign country].
In addition, recognizing that FARA
requires a standard disclosure, the R&O
simplifies compliance by allowing
broadcasters, including small
broadcasters, to pass through any
required FARA label included with the
programming, so long as it also adds the
name of the foreign country involved in
providing the programming. The R&O
concludes that the FARA disclosure
with the addition of the country name
satisfies the need to provide viewers
and listeners greater insight regarding
the source of foreign governmentprovided programming. To further
reduce compliance burdens for
broadcasters, including small
broadcasters, the size, frequency, and
duration of the required disclosure
generally matches size, frequency and
duration requirements for other types of
programming requiring sponsorship
identification.
98. In response to requests from
broadcasters, including small
broadcasters, the R&O details what is
required of broadcasters to meet the
‘‘reasonable diligence’’ standard
contained in section 317(c) of the Act so
that broadcasters can determine if a
foreign sponsorship identification
disclosure is needed. As described
above, the R&O lists five specific steps
broadcasters must take to satisfy the
standard. The R&O states that searches
of the FARA database may require more
than simply reviewing the initial
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
screens that appear on the list, but
rather may also necessitate reviewing
materials filed as part of an agent’s
registration and using whatever search
features are available to investigate the
list’s contents. Licensees should also
check if the lessee’s name appears in the
Commission’s semi-annual reports of
U.S.-based foreign media outlets. The
R&O also requires, that, at regular
intervals, the licensee should
memorialize the results of its diligence
in some manner for its own records and
maintain this documentation for the
remainder of the then-current license
term or one year, whichever is longer.
The R&O clarifies that, under the
revised rules, the lessee of the airtime,
in accordance with sections 507(b) and
(c) of the Act, also holds an independent
obligation to communicate information
to the licensee relevant to determining
whether a disclosure is needed.
99. In the interest of ensuring
transparency for viewers and listeners of
foreign government-provided
programming, the R&O requires that, if
the primary language of the
programming is other than English, the
disclosure statement should be
presented in the primary language of the
programming. The disclosure for
televised programming should be in
letters equal to or greater than four
percent of the vertical picture height
and be visible for not less than four
seconds to ensure readability. As this
requirement tracks existing rules for
televised political advertisements,
television licensees are familiar with
this format, minimizing their
compliance burdens. For radio
broadcasts, the R&O incorporates the
existing DOJ interpretation for
programming provided by FARA
registrants: That the disclosure shall be
audible. The R&O requires that the
disclosure be made at both the
beginning and end of the programming,
and, consistent with an existing
requirement for ‘‘political broadcast
matter,’’ for any broadcast of 5 minutes
or less, only once. Finally, for
programming longer than sixty minutes,
the disclosure must be made at regular
intervals during the broadcast, but no
less frequently than once every sixty
minutes. The R&O finds that periodic
announcements are necessary,
particularly in those instances where a
foreign governmental entity is
continually broadcasting programming
without an identifiable beginning or
end, such as through a lease of 100% of
a station’s airtime. Other than this final
requirement for longer programming,
the new rules are consistent with
existing sponsorship identification rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
and are thus familiar to broadcasters to
reduce compliance burdens.
100. Consistent with the NPRM, the
R&O adopts a requirement that stations
airing foreign government-provided
programming must place copies of the
disclosures in their Online Public
Information Files (OPIFs), in a
standalone folder marked as ‘‘Foreign
Government-Provided Programming
Disclosures’’ so that the material is
readily identifiable to the public. The
R&O adopts the proposal discussed in
the NPRM, that, to the extent the foreign
programming consists of a political
matter or matter involving the
discussion of a controversial issue of
public importance, licensees obtain and
disclose in their OPIFs a list of the
persons operating the foreign
governmental entity providing the
programming. In response to
broadcaster concerns about burdens, the
R&O also does not adopt the NPRM’s
‘‘as soon as possible’’ standard for
updating OPIFs contained in § 73.1943
of existing rules, nor interpret this
phrase to mean ‘‘within twenty-four
hours of the material being broadcast.’’
Rather, for frequency of updating OPIFs,
the R&O adopts rules that align with an
existing requirement to update the TV
Issues/Programs Lists on a quarterly
basis, as this will minimize the need for
licensees to track different public filing
requirements. The R&O also adopts the
same OPIF two-year retention period as
currently exists for the retention of lists
of the executives of any entity that
sponsored programming concerning a
political or controversial matter.
101. Steps Taken to Minimize
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered. The RFA requires an
agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in
adopting its rules, which may include
the following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.
102. While the NPRM proposed that
foreign sponsorship disclosure rules
should apply in any circumstances in
which a foreign governmental entity
directly or indirectly provided material
for broadcast or furnished material to a
station free of charge (or at nominal
cost) as an inducement to broadcast
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32237
such material, the R&O narrows the rule
to address specifically those
circumstances in which a foreign
governmental entity is programming a
U.S. broadcast station pursuant to the
lease of airtime. The rules adopted in
the R&O require a specific disclosure at
the time of broadcast if material aired
pursuant to the lease of time on the
station has been sponsored, paid for, or,
in the case of political programming or
programming involving a controversial
issue, furnished for free as an
inducement to air by a foreign
governmental entity. The focus on
leasing agreements narrows the
application of the disclosure rules
significantly, thereby minimizing the
burden on broadcasters while ensuring
that viewers and listeners are
sufficiently informed as to the origin of
material broadcast on stations when
foreign governmental entities are
providing programming. Most, and
possibly all, noncommercial educational
NCE programming arrangements will
fall outside the ambit of the narrowed
rules given limitations on the ability of
NCE stations to engage in leasing
arrangements. Also, while the NPRM
proposed to include ‘‘foreign missions,’’
as designated pursuant to the Foreign
Missions Act, within the definition of
foreign governmental entities that
would trigger foreign sponsorship
identification, based on broadcaster
concerns regarding the difficulty and
compliance burden of including these
entities, the R&O eliminates then from
the definition.
103. Additionally, based on
comments from broadcasters, including
small broadcasters, the R&O clarifies
compliance obligations to ensure that,
under the narrowed scope of the rules,
they are no more burdensome than
necessary to serve the vital need for
transparency about who is attempting to
influence viewers and listeners. The
R&O details what is required of
broadcasters to meet the ‘‘reasonable
diligence’’ standard contained in section
317(c) of the Act so that broadcasters
can determine if a foreign sponsorship
identification disclosure is needed. The
R&O lists specific steps broadcasters
must take to satisfy the standard. The
R&O also advises broadcasters to
include a provision in their lease
agreements requiring the lessee to notify
the broadcaster about any change in the
lessee’s status such as to trigger the
foreign sponsorship identification rules.
The R&O also adopts broadcaster
suggestions to reduce compliance
burdens by matching, to the extent
possible, disclosure language, size,
frequency and duration requirements
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32238
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
contained in existing sponsorship
identification rules and allowing
broadcasters to satisfy the new foreign
sponsorship identification requirements
by simply passing through existing
FARA programming labels if they also
disclose the country involved with
provision of the programming and
comport with the size and frequency
requirements contained in the R&O.
Similarly, in response to comments
from broadcasters, including small
broadcasters, to the extent possible, the
Commission matches obligations to
place and update disclosures in station
OPIFs to other broadcaster OPIF
obligations. Broadcasters have indicated
that implementing such changes would
mean the burden on broadcasters would
be considerably less and more
appropriate.
104. The NPRM sought comment on
the benefits and costs associated with
adopting foreign government-provided
programming sponsorship identification
rules and requested specific data and
analysis in support of any claimed costs
and benefits. No commenters provided
quantified calculations of the benefits or
costs of the proposed rules. Thus, the
R&O finds that by narrowing the scope
of the programming for which foreign
governmental entity sponsorship is
required and minimizing compliance
burdens as described in the preceding
paragraphs, the costs for broadcasters,
including small broadcasters, associated
with the rules are reduced significantly
from the initial proposal. Research
reviewed by Commission staff also
suggests that there are measurable
benefits to sponsorship identification
disclosures. Therefore, the R&O finds
that the costs, including the costs for
small businesses, associated with
adopting the rules, as modified by the
R&O, do not outweigh the substantial
public benefits associated with
transparency regarding the source of
programming heard or viewed by the
American public.
105. Report to Congress. The
Commission will send a copy of this
R&O, including this FRFA, in a report
to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996. In addition, the
Commission will send a copy of the
R&O, including the FRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. A copy of the
R&O and FRFA (or summaries thereof)
will also be published in the Federal
Register.
106. Federal Rules that May
Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rule. The R&O contains
requirements that may somewhat
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
overlap with, but do not duplicate, DOJ
rules for labelling of broadcast
programming provided by an ‘‘agent of
a foreign principal,’’ as that term is
defined in the Foreign Agents
Registration Act.
107. Ordering Clauses. Accordingly, it
is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
found in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r),
317, 325(c), 403, and 507 of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 151,
152, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 317, 325(c),
403, and 508 this Report and Order is
adopted and shall be effective 30 days
after publication in the Federal
Register.
108. It is further ordered that part 73
of the Commission’s rules is amended as
set forth in the Final Rules. The rule
changes to § 73.1212 adopted herein
contain new or modified information
collection requirements subject to OMB
review under the Paperwork Reduction
Act. The Commission directs the Media
Bureau to announce the effective date
for those information collections in a
document published in the Federal
Register after the completion of OMB
review and directs the Media Bureau to
cause § 73.1212 to be revised
accordingly.
109. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Report and Order, including the
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
110. It is further ordered that the
Commission shall send a copy of this
Report and Order in a report to be sent
to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as
follows:
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST
SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303,
307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2. Amend § 73.1212 by adding
paragraphs (j) through (l) to read as
follows:
■
§ 73.1212 Sponsorship identification; list
retention; related requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(j)(1)(i) Where the material broadcast
consistent with paragraph (a) or (d) of
this section has been aired pursuant to
the lease of time on the station and has
been provided by a foreign
governmental entity, the station, at the
time of the broadcast, shall include the
following disclosure:
The [following/preceding] programming
was [sponsored, paid for, or furnished],
either in whole or in part, by [name of foreign
governmental entity] on behalf of [name of
foreign country].
(ii) If the material broadcast contains
a ‘‘conspicuous statement’’ pursuant to
the Foreign Agents Registration Act of
1938 (FARA) (22 U.S.C. 614(b)), such
conspicuous statement will suffice for
purposes of this paragraph (j)(1) if the
conspicuous statement also contains a
disclosure about the foreign country
associated with the individual/entity
that has sponsored, paid for, or
furnished the material being broadcast.
(2) The term ‘‘foreign governmental
entity’’ shall include governments of
foreign countries, foreign political
parties, agents of foreign principals, and
United States-based foreign media
outlets.
(i) The term ‘‘government of a foreign
country’’ has the meaning given such
term in the Foreign Agents Registration
Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611(e)).
(ii) The term ‘‘foreign political party’’
has the meaning given such term in the
Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938
(22 U.S.C. 611(f)).
(iii) The term ‘‘agent of a foreign
principal’’ has the meaning given such
term in the Foreign Agents Registration
Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611(c)), and who
is registered as such with the
Department of Justice, and whose
‘‘foreign principal’’ is a ‘‘government of
a foreign country,’’ a ‘‘foreign political
party,’’ or directly or indirectly
operated, supervised, directed, owned,
controlled, financed, or subsidized by a
‘‘government of a foreign country’’ or a
‘‘foreign political party’’ as defined in
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section, and that is acting in its capacity
as an agent of such ‘‘foreign principal’’.
(iv) The term ‘‘United States-based
foreign media outlet’’ has the meaning
given such term in section 722(a) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
624(a)).
(3) The licensee of each broadcast
station shall exercise reasonable
diligence to ascertain whether the
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
foreign sponsorship disclosure
requirements in paragraph (j)(1) of this
section apply at the time of the lease
agreement and at any renewal thereof,
including:
(i) Informing the lessee of the foreign
sponsorship disclosure requirement in
paragraph (j)(1) of this section;
(ii) Inquiring of the lessee whether the
lessee falls into any of the categories in
paragraph (j)(2) of this section that
qualify the lessee as a foreign
governmental entity;
(iii) Inquiring of the lessee whether
the lessee knows if anyone involved in
the production or distribution of the
programming that will be aired pursuant
to the lease agreement, or a sub-lease,
qualifies as a foreign governmental
entity and has provided some type of
inducement to air the programming;
(iv) Independently confirming the
lessee’s status, by consulting the
Department of Justice’s FARA website
and the Commission’s semi-annual U.S.based foreign media outlets reports, if
the lessee states that it does not fall
within the definition of ‘‘foreign
governmental entity’’ and that there is
no separate need for a disclosure
because no one further back in the chain
of producing/transmitting the
programming falls within the definition
of ‘‘foreign governmental entity’’ and
has provided an inducement to air the
programming; and
(v) Memorializing the inquiries in
paragraphs (j)(3)(i) through (iv) of this
section to track compliance therewith
and retaining such documentation in
the licensee’s records for either the
remainder of the then-current license
term or one year, whichever is longer,
so as to respond to any future
Commission inquiry.
(4) In the case of any video
programming, the foreign governmental
entity and the country represented shall
be identified with letters equal to or
greater than four percent of the vertical
picture height that air for not less than
four seconds.
(5) At a minimum, the announcement
required by paragraph (j)(1) of this
section shall be made at both the
beginning and conclusion of the
programming. For programming of
greater than sixty minutes in duration,
an announcement shall be made at
regular intervals during the broadcast,
but no less frequently than once every
sixty minutes.
(6) Where the primary language of the
programming is other than English, the
disclosure statement shall be made in
the primary language of the
programming. If the programming
contains a ‘‘conspicuous statement’’
pursuant to the Foreign Agents
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jun 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C.
614(b)), and such conspicuous
statement is in a language other than
English so as to conform to the Foreign
Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22
U.S.C. 611 et seq.), an additional
disclosure in English is not needed.
(7) A station shall place copies of the
disclosures required by this paragraph
(j) and the name of the program to
which the disclosures were appended in
its online public inspection file on a
quarterly basis in a standalone folder
marked as ‘‘Foreign GovernmentProvided Programming Disclosures.’’
The filing must state the date and time
the program aired. In the case of repeat
airings of the program, those additional
dates and times should also be
included. Where an aural
announcement was made, its contents
must be reduced to writing and placed
in the online public inspection file in
the same manner.
(k) The requirements in paragraph (j)
of this section shall apply to programs
permitted to be delivered to foreign
broadcast stations under an
authorization pursuant to the section
325(c) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(c)) if any part of the
material has been sponsored, paid for,
or furnished for free as an inducement
to air on the foreign station by a foreign
governmental entity. A section 325(c)
permit holder shall place copies of the
disclosures required along with the
name of the program to which the
disclosures were appended in the
International Bureau’s public filing
System (IBFS) under the relevant IBFS
section 325(c) permit file. The filing
must state the date and time the
program aired. In the case of repeat
airings of the program, those additional
dates and times should also be
included. Where an aural
announcement was made, its contents
must be reduced to writing and placed
in the IBFS in the same manner.
(l) Paragraphs (j) and (k) of this
section contain information-collection
and recordkeeping requirements.
Compliance with paragraphs (j) and (k)
of this section shall not be required
until after review by the Office of
Management and Budget. The
Commission will publish a document in
the Federal Register announcing
compliance dates and removing this
paragraph (l) accordingly.
■ 3. Amend § 73.3526 by adding
paragraph (e)(19) to read as follows:
§ 73.3526 Online public inspection file of
commercial stations.
*
*
*
(e) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00055
*
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
32239
(19) Foreign sponsorship disclosures.
Documentation sufficient to
demonstrate that the station is
continuing to meet the requirements set
forth at § 73.1212(j)(7).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Amend § 73.3527 by adding
paragraph (e)(15) to read as follows:
§ 73.3527 Online public inspection file of
noncommercial educational stations.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(15) Foreign sponsorship disclosures.
Documentation sufficient to
demonstrate that the station is
continuing to meet the requirements set
forth at § 73.1212(j)(7).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2021–12207 Filed 6–16–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 665
[RTID 0648–XB172]
Pacific Island Fisheries; 2021
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
Lobster Harvest Guideline
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notification of lobster harvest
guideline.
AGENCY:
NMFS establishes the annual
harvest guideline for the commercial
lobster fishery in the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) for calendar
year 2021 at zero lobsters.
DATES: June 17, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark R. Fox, NMFS PIR Sustainable
Fisheries, tel 808–725–5171.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS
manages the NWHI commercial lobster
fishery under the Fishery Ecosystem
Plan for the Hawaiian Archipelago. The
regulations at 50 CFR 665.252(b) require
NMFS to publish an annual harvest
guideline for lobster Permit Area 1,
comprised of Federal waters around the
NWHI.
Regulations governing the
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National
Monument in the NWHI prohibit the
unpermitted removal of monument
resources (50 CFR 404.7), and establish
a zero annual harvest guideline for
lobsters (50 CFR 404.10(a)).
Accordingly, NMFS establishes the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 115 (Thursday, June 17, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32221-32239]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12207]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 20-299; FCC 21-42; FR ID 26887]
Sponsorship Identification Requirements for Foreign Government-
Provided Programming
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) modifies its rules to adopt specific disclosure
requirements for broadcast programming that is sponsored, paid for, or
provided by a foreign government or its representative pursuant to
leasing agreements.
DATES: Effective July 19, 2021. Compliance with Sec. 73.1212(j) and
(k) will not be required until the Commission publishes a document in
the Federal Register announcing the compliance date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Radhika Karmarkar, Media Bureau,
Industry Analysis Division, [email protected], (202) 418-1523.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order (Order), FCC 21-42, in MB Docket No. 20-299, adopted on April
22, 2021, and released on April 22, 2021. The complete text of this
document is available electronically via the search function on the
FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) web page at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ (https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/). To
request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities
(braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email
to [email protected] (mail to: [email protected]) or call the FCC's
[[Page 32222]]
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice),
(202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Synopsis
1. Introduction: For over 60 years, the Commission's sponsorship
identification rules have required that disclosures be made on-air when
a station has been compensated for broadcasting particular material.
Reports regarding foreign governmental entities' increased use of
leasing agreements to broadcast programming without disclosing the
source thereof, however, persuade us that more is required to ensure
transparency on the airwaves. By this Order, the Commission seeks to
address circumstances in which a foreign governmental entity, pursuant
to a lease of airtime, is responsible for programming, in whole or in
part, on a U.S. broadcast station. In this Order, the use of the term
``foreign government-provided programming'' refers to all programming
that is provided by an entity or individual that falls into one of the
four categories discussed below. In turn, the phrase ``provided by''
when used in relation to ``foreign government programming'' covers both
the broadcast of programming in exchange for consideration and
furnishing of any ``political program or any program involving the
discussion of a controversial issue'' for free as an inducement to
broadcast the programming. Although under U.S. law foreign governments
and their representatives are restricted from holding a broadcast
license directly, there is no limitation on their ability to enter into
a contract with the licensee of a station to air programming of its
choosing or to lease the entire capacity of a radio or television
station. Nor does the Commission prohibit such arrangements going
forward. Rather, in such instances, the rules the Commission adopts in
this document will require that the programming aired pursuant to such
an agreement contain a clear, standardized disclosure statement
indicating to the listener or viewer that the material has been
sponsored, paid for, or furnished by a foreign governmental entity and
clearly indicate the foreign country involved.
2. The foreign sponsorship identification rules the Commission
adopts in this Order seek to eliminate any potential ambiguity to the
viewer or listener regarding the source of programming provided from
foreign governmental entities. Based upon comments received in response
to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 85 FR 74955, Nov. 24,
2020, and as detailed further below, the Commission amends Sec.
73.1212 of the Commission's rules to require a specific disclosure at
the time of broadcast if material aired pursuant to the lease of time
on the station has been sponsored, paid for, or furnished by a foreign
governmental entity that indicates the specific entity and country
involved. In so doing, the Commission will increase transparency and
ensure that audiences of broadcast stations are aware when a foreign
government, or its representatives, are seeking to persuade the
American public. Through the public filing requirements associated with
disclosures, the Commission will also enable interested parties to
monitor the extent of such efforts to persuade the American public.
3. The new rules seek to address the primary means identified in
the record by which foreign governmental entities are accessing U.S.
airwaves to persuade the American public without adequate disclosure of
the true sponsor, namely the lease of time to air programming on a U.S.
licensed broadcast station. In focusing its disclosure requirement on
such situations, the Commission seeks to address an important issue of
public concern while going no further than necessary, thus balancing
considerations of the First Amendment with the need for consumers to be
sufficiently informed as to the origin of material broadcast on
stations licensed on their behalf in the public interest. Further, the
Commission's approach incorporates existing provisions of and
definitions contained in the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) (22
U.S.C. 611) and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, so as to
minimize the burden on broadcasters as they determine whether the
programming is from a foreign governmental entity. In addition, the
Commission discusses the steps that broadcasters must take to satisfy
the statutory ``reasonable diligence'' standard in determining whether
a foreign governmental entity is the source of programming provided
over their stations.
4. In this manner, the Commission refines its rules to further
ensure that the public is fully informed on the source of programming
consumed. The Commission finds it is critical that the American public
be aware when a foreign government has sponsored, paid for, or, in the
case of political programs or programs involving the discussion of a
controversial issue, furnished the programming for free as an
inducement to air the material, particularly given what seems to be an
increase in the dissemination of programming in the United States by
foreign governments and their representatives.
5. Background: The principle that the public has a right to know
the identity of those that solicit their support is a fundamental and
long-standing tenet of broadcasting. Congress and the Commission have
sought to ensure that the public is informed when airtime has been
purchased in an effort to persuade audiences, finding it essential to
ensure that audiences can distinguish between paid content and material
chosen by the broadcaster itself. Accordingly, beginning with the Radio
Act of 1927, broadcast stations have been required to announce the name
of any ``person, firm, company, or corporation'' that has paid
``valuable consideration'' either ``directly or indirectly'' to the
station at the time of broadcasting any programming for which such
consideration has been given. With the creation of the Federal
Communications Commission and the adoption of the Communications Act of
1934 (the Act), this disclosure requirement was incorporated almost
verbatim into section 317 of the Act. Over the years, various
amendments to the rules, decisions by the Commission, and a 1960
amendment to section 317 of the Act have continued to underscore the
need for transparency and disclosure to the public about the true
identity of a program's sponsor.
6. The Commission last implemented a major change to its
sponsorship identification rules in 1963 when it adopted rules
implementing Congress's 1960 amendments to the Act. The NPRM contained
a thorough history of the background of the Commission's sponsorship
identification rules. The sponsorship identification rules largely
tracked the provisions of section 317 of the Act and make up the
current Sec. 73.1212 of the Commission's rules. As the NPRM noted,
however, even with these rules in place there appear to be instances
where foreign governments pay for the airing of programming, or provide
it to broadcast stations free of charge, and the programming does not
contain a clear indication, if any indication at all, to the listener
or viewer that a foreign government has paid for or provided the
programming's content. Given the passage of nearly 60 years since the
sponsorship identification rules were last updated and growing concerns
about foreign government-provided programming, the Commission
determined last year that there was a further need to review the
sponsorship identification rules to ensure that, consistent with its
statutory mandate, foreign government program
[[Page 32223]]
sponsorship over the airwaves is evident to the American public.
7. Significantly, the Commission's current sponsorship
identification rules do not require a station to determine or disclose
whether the source of its programming is in fact a foreign government,
registered foreign agent, or foreign political party (what the
Commission refers to as a foreign governmental entity). As the NPRM
notes, in many instances a foreign government, foreign agent, or
foreign political party providing programming to licensees may not be
immediately identifiable as such. In other instances, the linkage
between the foreign governmental entity and the entity providing the
programming may be deliberately attenuated in an effort to obfuscate
the true source of the programming. Although current rules require the
disclosure of the sponsor's name, the relationship of that sponsor to a
foreign country is not required as part of the current disclosure.
8. Consequently, to ensure that the American public can better
assess the programming that is delivered over the airwaves, the
Commission found that there is a need to identify instances where
foreign governmental entities are involved in the provision of
broadcast programming. To that end, the NPRM proposed to adopt specific
disclosure requirements for broadcast programming to inform the public
when programming has been paid for, or provided by, a foreign
governmental entity and to identify the country involved. Specifically,
the NPRM proposed that when a foreign governmental entity has paid a
radio or television station, directly or indirectly, to air material,
or if the programming was provided to the station free of charge by
such an entity as an inducement to broadcast the material, the station,
at the time of the broadcast, shall include a specified disclosure
indicating the name of the foreign governmental entity, as well as the
related country.
9. In defining ``foreign governmental entity,'' the NPRM relied
directly on parts of the FARA statute (specifically the definitions of
a ``government of a foreign country,'' ``foreign political party,'' and
``agents of foreign principals''), which covers entities and
individuals whose activities the United States Department of Justice
(Department of Justice or DOJ) has identified as requiring disclosure
because their activities are potentially intended to influence American
public opinion, policy, and law. In addition, the NPRM proposed to
include ``United States-based foreign media outlets,'' as defined by
the Communications Act. Under the proposal, any programming provided by
a ``foreign governmental entity'' would be considered a ``political
program'' under section 317(a)(2) of the Act, and thus require
identification of the sponsor of particular broadcast programing, even
if the only inducement to air the programming was the provision of the
programming itself. The NPRM further explored the ``reasonable
diligence'' standard that broadcasters must employ pursuant to their
statutory (47 U.S.C. 317 (c)) and regulatory (47 CFR 73.1212(b) and
(e)) requirements to determine whether its programming was provided by
a foreign governmental entity.
10. The NPRM proposed that the disclosure requirements should apply
in the context of time brokerage agreements (TBAs) and local marketing
agreements (LMAs). Moreover, the NPRM proposed to apply the new rules
to entities authorized pursuant to section 325(c) to produce programing
in the United States and transmit it to a non-U.S. licensed station in
a foreign country for broadcast back into the United States. Also, the
NPRM proposed that the disclosure requirements would apply equally to
any programming transmitted on a radio or television stations'
multicast streams. Finally, in addition to specifying the
characteristics of the proposed disclosures on television and radio,
the NPRM proposed that stations place a copy of the announcement in
their online public inspection file (OPIF).
11. A total of seven commenters filed comments and reply comments
in response to the NPRM. The commenters generally support the
Commission's goal of identifying foreign sponsorship of programming.
Commenters assert, however, that the Commission must address how
current regulations are inadequate before adopting new rules, and
several commenters suggest ways to narrow the proposed scope of the
rules to more directly address the programming that is of most concern,
as discussed further below.
12. Discussion: For the reasons discussed below, the Commission
adopts the rules proposed in the NPRM with modifications to address
more precisely the primary method by which foreign governmental
entities appear to be gaining carriage for their programming on U.S.-
licensed broadcast stations without disclosing the origin of such
programming, namely through leasing agreements with such stations. By
narrowly focusing its requirements, the Commission seeks to minimize
the burden of compliance on licensees, including those public
television and radio stations that carry programming from entities that
depend upon tax credits, access to international locations, and
historical or archival footage from foreign governmental sources in
producing their programming. The Commission further notes that such
tailoring is in keeping with the First Amendment by focusing its rules
narrowly on the area of potential harm.
13. Specifically, as discussed below, the new rules require foreign
sponsorship identification for programming content aired on a station
pursuant to a lease of airtime if the direct or indirect provider of
the programming qualifies as a ``foreign governmental entity.'' In the
first section below, the Commission analyzes which entities or
individuals meet that definition and find that they include governments
of foreign countries, foreign political parties, certain agents of
foreign principals, and U.S.-based foreign media outlets. Next, the
Commission discusses the scope of the foreign sponsorship
identification rules, explaining why and how the Commission narrows the
scope of the NPRM's proposed requirements to focus on programming aired
on U.S. broadcast stations pursuant to an agreement for the lease of
time. The Commission then discusses the scope of the reasonable
diligence obligation that broadcast licensees must satisfy to determine
if its lessee is a foreign governmental entity such that disclosures
are necessary. Next, the Commission discusses the content and frequency
requirements for the mandated disclosures that will ensure the
identification of foreign government-provided programming is conveyed
effectively to the public. As the Commission makes clear in that
section, the rules also require quarterly filings of copies of the
disclosures, as well as the name of the program to which any
disclosures are appended, in stations' OPIF. Then, the Commission
concludes that its foreign sponsorship identification rules apply
equally to any programming broadcast pursuant to a section 325(c)
permit. Finally, the Commission concludes that its foreign sponsorship
identification rules satisfy the First Amendment and provide a cost-
benefit analysis of those new rules.
14. Entities or Individuals Whose Involvement in the Provision of
Programming Triggers a Disclosure. The Commission requires that
programming aired on a station pursuant to a lease of airtime have a
foreign sponsorship identification if the entity who has directly or
indirectly provided the programming qualifies as a foreign governmental
entity as defined herein. Specifically, a ``foreign governmental
[[Page 32224]]
entity'' is defined as an entity included in one of the following
categories:
(1) A ``government of a foreign country'' as defined by FARA (22
U.S.C. 611(e));
(2) A ``foreign political party'' as defined by FARA (22 U.S.C.
611(f));
(3) An individual or entity registered as an ``agent of a foreign
principal,'' under section 611(c) of FARA (22 U.S.C. 611(c)), whose
``foreign principal'' is a ``government of a foreign country,'' a
``foreign political party,'' or is directly or indirectly operated,
supervised, directed, owned, controlled, financed, or subsidized by a
``government of a foreign country'' or by a ``foreign political party''
as defined by FARA, and that is acting in its capacity as an agent of
such ``foreign principal;''
(4) An entity meeting the definition of a ``U.S.-based foreign
media outlet'' pursuant to section 722 of the Act that has filed a
report with the Commission (47 U.S.C. 624).
The adopted definition is largely consistent with the definition
proposed in the NPRM except for the exclusion of foreign missions for
the reasons discussed below.
15. As discussed in the NPRM, in establishing these categories to
define covered foreign governmental entities that will trigger the
disclosure requirement, the Commission relies on existing definitions,
statutes, or determinations by the U.S. Government as to when an entity
or individual is a foreign government, a foreign political party, or
acting in the United States as an agent on behalf of a foreign
government or foreign political party. Relying on these sources allows
us to draw on the substantial experience and authority in such matters
that already exists within the Federal Government and avoids involving
the Commission, or the broadcaster, in subjective determinations
regarding who qualifies as a foreign governmental entity.
16. FARA. In particular, the Commission finds that reliance on both
the definitions contained in FARA and the list of agents registered
pursuant to that act is appropriate. As discussed in the NRPM, this
long-standing statute was designed specifically to identify those
foreign entities or individuals that Congress has determined should be
known to the U.S. Government and the American public when they are
seeking to influence American public opinion, policy, and laws. The
Commission notes that no commenters object to the its proposed use of
the definitions set forth in FARA or the list of foreign agents
registered pursuant to that statute as the primary basis for its
foreign sponsorship identification rules. Accordingly, the Commission
finds that including ``government of a foreign country'' and ``foreign
political party,'' as defined by FARA, within the group of entities and
individuals that trigger its foreign sponsorship identification rules
is appropriate given its primary goal of ensuring that foreign
government-provided programming is properly disclosed to the public.
Rather than seeking to craft its own definitions, the Commission finds
it more appropriate to turn to a definition of ``foreign government''
and ``foreign political party'' contained in a pre-existing statute
designed to promote transparency about foreign governmental activity in
the United States. Similarly, including FARA-registered ``agents of
foreign principals'' who are defined by their engagement in certain
activities in the United States on behalf of foreign interests furthers
the Commission's goal of increasing transparency when such agents may
be seeking to persuade the audiences of broadcast stations.
17. The Commission notes that FARA generally requires an ``agent of
foreign principal'' undertaking certain activities in the United States
(such as, political activities or acting in the role of public
relations counsel, publicity agent, or political consultant) on behalf
of a foreign principal to register with the Department of Justice.
Section 611(b)(1) of FARA states that the term ``foreign principal''
includes the ``government of a foreign country'' and a ``foreign
political party'' (22 U.S.C. 611(b)(1)). For purposes of its foreign
sponsorship identification rules, the Commission includes FARA agents
whose foreign principal is either a ``government of a foreign
country,'' a ``foreign political party,'' or is directly or indirectly
operated, supervised, directed, owned, controlled, financed, or
subsidized by a ``government of a foreign country'' or by a ``foreign
political party'' as those terms are defined in sections 611(e) and (f)
of FARA respectively (22 U.S.C. 611(e), (f)). As stated in the NPRM, to
the extent that an agent of a foreign principal, whose ``foreign
principal'' is either a ``government of a foreign country'' or a
``foreign political party'' is providing programming to U.S. broadcast
stations in its capacity as an agent to that principal, it is
reasonable that the public should be made aware of that fact. The
Commission also clarifies, however, that the proposed disclosure is
required not only when programming is provided by an ``agent of a
foreign principal'' whose foreign principal is a government of a
foreign country or a foreign political party, but also when the foreign
principal is directly or indirectly operated, supervised, directed,
owned, controlled, financed, or subsidized by a government of a foreign
country or by a foreign political party. This clarification to the
original proposal will ensure that the foreign sponsorship
identification rules cannot be circumvented by the existence or
creation of additional corporate and/or ownership layers between the
entity acting as a foreign principal and the government of a foreign
country or foreign political party. This information is readily
ascertainable by those who examine the FARA database.
18. The Commission recognizes that a given entity may be registered
as an agent for multiple ``foreign principals'' or for a ``foreign
principal'' other than a ``government of a foreign country'' or a
``foreign political party.'' The Commission emphasizes, however, that
its foreign sponsorship identification rules apply only when the FARA
agent is acting in its capacity as a registered agent of a principal
that is a ``government of a foreign country,'' a ``foreign political
party,'' or is directly or indirectly operated, supervised, directed,
owned, controlled, financed, or subsidized by a government of a foreign
country or by a foreign political party.
19. U.S.-Based Foreign Media Outlet. In addition to drawing on
FARA-based definitions and registrations and consistent with the NPRM,
the Commission concludes that its foreign governmental entity
definition should also extend to any entity or individual subject to
section 722 of the Act that has filed a report with the Commission.
Section 722 extends to any U.S.-based foreign media outlet that: (a)
Produces or distributes video programming that is transmitted, or
intended for transmission, by a multichannel video programming
distributor (MVPD) to consumers in the United States and (b) would be
an agent of a ``foreign principal'' but for an exemption in FARA. The
Commission notes that Section 722 provides that the term ``foreign
principal'' has the meaning given such term in section 611(b)(1) of
FARA, which limits the scope of the definition of ``foreign principal''
to ``a government of a foreign country'' and a ``foreign political
party.'' The Commission incorporates this limitation from section 722
of the Act into its foreign sponsorship identification rules to include
both a ``government of a foreign country'' and ``foreign political
party,'' as those terms are defined by FARA, within its definition of
``foreign governmental entity.'' Although the
[[Page 32225]]
Commission could clarify--as the Commission has done with respect to
foreign agents--that the disclosure requirement also applies when an
outlet's foreign principal is directly or indirectly operated,
supervised, directed, owned, controlled, financed, or subsidized by a
government of a foreign country or by a foreign political party, the
Commission notes that such a clarification would accomplish nothing as,
pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only
entities whose foreign principals are a government of a foreign country
or a foreign political party are required to report as U.S.-based
foreign media outlets.
20. The Commission recognizes that the term ``U.S.-based foreign
media outlet'' refers to an entity whose programming is either
transmitted or intended for transmission by an MVPD, rather than by a
broadcaster. But the Commission notes that there is no prohibition on
such video programming also being transmitted by a broadcast television
station, and it seems likely that an entity that is providing video
programming to cable operators or direct broadcast satellite television
providers might also seek to air such programming on broadcast
stations. Hence, the Commission believes it is appropriate to include
``U.S.-based foreign media outlets'' within the ambit of its proposal
when the programming provided by such entities is aired by broadcast
stations. No commenter opposed this proposal in response to the NPRM.
21. Foreign Missions. While the NPRM proposed to include ``foreign
missions,'' as designated pursuant to the Foreign Missions Act, within
the Commission's definition of foreign governmental entities that
trigger foreign sponsorship identification, commenters have persuaded
us otherwise. In particular, American Public Television Stations (APTS)
and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) (referenced collectively
herein as APTS) expressed concern with the potential difficulty of
discerning whether an entity is considered a ``foreign mission'' under
the Foreign Missions Act. APTS noted that there is no single source
identifying all foreign missions analogous to those that exist for FARA
registrants and U.S.-based foreign media outlets. The Commission agrees
with commenters that the lack of a single source identifying all
foreign missions creates an additional burden for licensees, as such
entities cannot be as readily and consistently identified as FARA
registrants and U.S.-based foreign media outlets.
22. In addition, the Commission notes that, as discussed in the
NPRM, most ``foreign missions'' are foreign embassies and consular
offices. The primary purpose of the Foreign Missions Act is to confer
upon such missions certain benefits, privileges, and immunities, while
also requiring their observance of corresponding obligations in
accordance with international law and principles of reciprocity. Other
types of non-entities that are substantially owned or effectively
controlled by a foreign government are from time to time designated as
``foreign missions'' at the discretion of the Secretary of State. By
comparison the FARA statute is specifically designed to identify those
entities and individuals whose activities should be disclosed because
their activities are potentially intended to influence American public
opinion, policy, and law. Based on the concerns raised by APTS and its
own further review of the intent behind the statute, the Commission
finds reliance on the Foreign Missions Act to be inappropriate and
unnecessary for its intended purpose.
23. Other Potential Sources. In addition, the Commission declines
to adopt APTS's suggestion that the list of FARA registrants included
in the definition of foreign governmental entities be filtered through
the United States Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) list of active U.S. sanctions. APTS asserts that its
proposal would narrow the list of entities who qualify as a ``foreign
governmental entity'' by linking this definition to a list of carefully
pre-determined countries whose interests are directly at odds with the
United States. The Commission declines to adopt this proposal. First,
doing so would seem to involve even more work for licensees, as it
would require them to consult the OFAC list in addition to the FARA
list. Second, and most importantly, the Commission finds the basis for
compiling the OFAC list to be inconsistent with its purposes here. The
Commission's goal in requiring additional disclosure by foreign
governmental entities is not premised on distinctions between countries
that may or may not be subject to the United States sanctions. Rather,
the Commission seeks to provide the American public with greater
transparency about programming provided by any foreign government,
consistent with the requirements of section 317 of the Act. In this
regard, the Commission finds that FARA, with its associated definitions
and reporting requirements premised on promoting transparency with
respect to foreign influence within the United States, is better
aligned with the goals of the instant proceeding than the OFAC list. As
the Department of Justice has explained when discussing FARA, the
government's concern is not the content of the speech but providing
transparency about the true identity of the speaker.
24. Scope of Foreign Programming that Requires a Disclosure. While
the Commission tentatively concluded in the NPRM that its proposed
foreign sponsorship disclosure rules should apply in any circumstances
in which a foreign governmental entity directly or indirectly provides
material for broadcast or furnishes material to a station free of
charge (or at nominal cost) as an inducement to broadcast such
material, the Commission now narrows its focus to address specifically
those circumstances in which a foreign governmental entity is
programming a U.S. broadcast station pursuant to the lease of airtime.
That is, for the reasons discussed below, the Commission will require a
specific disclosure at the time of broadcast if material aired pursuant
to the lease of time on the station has been sponsored, paid for, or,
in the case of political program or any program involving the
discussion of a controversial issue, if it has been furnished for free
as an inducement to air by a foreign governmental entity. While the
Commission focuses in this Order on the identification of programming
sponsored by foreign governmental entities aired through a lease of
time, the Commission reiterates that its existing sponsorship
identification rules, of course, continue to apply even outside the
specific context described herein. As explained below, leasing
agreements potentially subject to the rules include any arrangement in
which a licensee makes a block of broadcast time on its station
available to another party in return for some form of compensation.
25. Programming Aired Pursuant to a Lease of Time. Based on the
record before us, the Commission agrees with National Public Radio and
find that focusing on the airing of programming on U.S. broadcast
stations pursuant to leasing agreements will address the primary
present concern with foreign governmental actors gaining access to
American airwaves without disclosing the programming's origin to the
public. To date, it appears that the reported instances of undisclosed
foreign government programming aired on broadcast stations have
involved lease agreements between a licensee and
[[Page 32226]]
other entities. The record indicates that such contractual arrangements
present the most prevalent instances of undisclosed foreign government
programming to date. It also appears that it is through such
arrangements that foreign governmental entities have commonly aired
programming on U.S. broadcast stations, whether directly or indirectly,
without necessarily disclosing the origin of the programming.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that the foreign governmental
source of this programming should be disclosed in such circumstances.
26. Moreover, the Commission's action will serve to ensure greater
transparency to the public, and prevent foreign governments and their
representatives, which are barred from owning a U.S. broadcast license,
from leasing time on a station unbeknownst to the public or the
Commission. Notably, Section 310(a) of the Act outright bars ``any
foreign government or the representative thereof'' from holding a
broadcast license. In addition, Section 310(b) limits the interest that
a foreign corporation or individual can hold in a U.S. broadcast
license, either directly or indirectly. While the Commission has
revised its rules in recent years to permit a greater degree of
ownership in U.S. broadcast stations by non-governmental foreign
entities or individuals, acquisition of such interests requires
Commission approval following proper consideration and public review
and may also be subject to prior review and consideration by the
relevant executive branch agencies. Despite these longstanding
restrictions, and particularly the complete prohibition on a foreign
government or its representatives' holding a U.S. broadcast license,
some foreign governmental actors or their agents appear nonetheless to
be programming stations that they otherwise would not be able to own,
as detailed in the NPRM. When they do so, the American public and the
Commission may not be aware that a foreign governmental entity has
leased the time on the station and is programming the station.
27. As proposed in the NPRM, the disclosure requirements the
Commission adopts in this document apply to leasing agreements,
regardless of what those agreements are called, how they are styled,
and whether they are reduced to writing. The Commission recognizes that
leasing agreements within the broadcast industry may be known by
different designations. The terms time brokerage agreement (TBA) and
local marketing agreement (LMA) are used interchangeably to describe
contractual arrangements whereby a party other than the licensee, i.e.,
a brokering party, programs time on a broadcast station, oftentimes
also selling the advertising during such time and retaining the
proceeds. Such leasing agreements may be for either discrete blocks of
time (for example, two hours every day from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.) or for
the complete broadcast capacity of the station (i.e., 24 hours a day,
seven days a week). The agreements can be for the duration of a single
day or for a term of years. Regardless of the title, terms, or duration
of such an agreement, the purpose of such a contractual agreement is to
give one party--the brokering party or programmer--the right and
obligation to program the station licensed to the other party--the
licensee or broadcaster. In this manner, the programmer is able to
program a radio or television station that it does not own or hold the
license to operate. A ``time brokerage agreement,'' also known as a
``local marketing agreement'' or ``LMA,'' is the sale by a licensee of
discrete blocks of time to a ``broker'' that supplies the programming
to fill that time and sells the commercial spot announcements in it.
28. For the purposes of applying the foreign sponsorship disclosure
requirement, a lease constitutes any agreement in which a licensee
makes a discrete block of broadcast time on its station available to be
programmed by another party in return for some form of compensation.
Thus, a licensee makes broadcast time available for purposes of the
rule any time the licensee permits the airing on its station of
programming either provided, or selected, by the programmer in return
for some form of compensation. In describing a lease of time, however,
the Commission does not mean to suggest that traditional, short-form
advertising time constitutes a lease of airtime for these purposes. The
Commission notes that such advertisements, whether they appear in
programming aired by the licensee or provided by a third-party
programmer pursuant to a lease, remain subject to the Commission's
existing sponsorship identification rules under Sec. 73.1212(f) and
must contain a clear indication of the sponsor of the advertisement.
The Commission's action in this document is focused on agreements by
which a third party controls and programs a discrete block of time on a
broadcast station. Ultimately, the Commission believes that requiring a
disclosure to inform the audience of the source of the programming
whenever a foreign governmental entity provides programming to a
station for broadcast pursuant to the lease of time is wholly
consistent with sections 317(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
29. The Commission finds that its focus on situations where there
are leasing agreements between a station and a third party will narrow
the application of the disclosure rules appropriately, and ensure that
the new disclosure obligations do not extend to situations where there
is no evidence of foreign government sponsored programming. For
example, the record does not demonstrate that advertisements; archival,
stock, or supplemental video footage; or preferential access to filming
locations are a significant source of unidentified foreign sponsored
programming. In addition, given limitations on the ability of
noncommercial educational (NCE) stations to engage in leasing
arrangements, the Commission expects that NCE stations will rarely, if
ever, face the need to address the foreign sponsorship disclosure
rules, largely assuaging the concerns of NCE commenters. Therefore, the
Commission finds that limiting the application of its disclosure
requirement to the context of leasing agreements obviates a number of
issues and suggestions put forth by commenters concerned that the
Commission would inadvertently sweep in additional programming that
does not carry the same concerns with foreign influence as the
unidentified lease of programming time.
30. Programming Aired in Exchange for Consideration Under 317(a)(1)
of the Act. As discussed in the NPRM, section 317(a)(1) of the Act
requires the licensee of a broadcast station to disclose at the time of
broadcast if it has received any form of payment or consideration,
either directly or indirectly in exchange for the broadcast of
programming. While there is no minimum level of ``consideration''
required to trigger the disclosure requirement under this section, the
statute does permit the exclusion of services or property furnished
without charge or at nominal charge in certain circumstances. One
notable exception to the exclusion, however, is the provision of
certain material furnished free of charge or at nominal cost as an
inducement to air the program and that is related to any political
program or program involving the discussion of any controversial issue,
as discussed further below. Thus, consistent with the statute and
current sponsorship identification rules, the foreign sponsorship
identification rules the Commission adopts in this document will be
triggered if any money, service, or other valuable consideration is
directly or indirectly paid or promised to, or
[[Page 32227]]
charged or accepted by a broadcast station in the context of a lease of
broadcast time in exchange for the airing of material provided by a
foreign governmental entity.
31. While the Commission expects that such consideration received
by the station directly will be apparent from the terms and exercise of
any lease agreement, as discussed below, the Commission notes that
under section 507 of the Act, parties involved in the production,
preparation, or supply of a program or program material that is
intended to be aired on a broadcast station also have an obligation to
disclose to their employer or to the party for whom the programming is
being produced or to the station licensee, if they have accepted or
agreed to accept, or paid or agreed to pay, any money or valuable
consideration for inclusion of any program or material. Thus, as
detailed further below, the Commission requires that licensees will
exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain whether consideration has
been provided in exchange for the lease of airtime or in exchange for
the airing of materials directly or indirectly to the station, as well
as whether anyone involved in the production, preparation, or supply of
the material has received compensation, and that an appropriate
disclosure will be made about the involvement of any foreign
governmental entity. The Commission discusses what this obligation
means for the licensee and lessee below.
32. Programming Provided for Free as an Inducement to Air Under
317(a)(2). In addition to the payment of monetary or other valuable
consideration, section 317(a)(2) of the Act establishes that a
sponsorship disclosure may also be required in some circumstances, even
if the only ``consideration'' being offered to the station in exchange
for the airing of the material is the programming itself. As stated
above, the Commission believes that, as a practical matter, leasing
agreements will involve the exchange of money or other valuable
consideration from the programmer to the licensee. It is not typical
for a station to enter into an agreement for the lease of airtime in
exchange solely for the promise of free programming to be aired on the
station. However, to account for such a circumstance, and consistent
with the discussion in the NPRM, the Commission finds it is equally
important that the foreign sponsorship identification rules apply in
that instance, should such a circumstance arise. Section 317(a)(2)
provides that a disclosure is required at the time of broadcast in the
case of any ``political program or any program involving the discussion
of a controversial issue'' if the program itself was furnished free of
charge, or at nominal cost, as an inducement for its broadcast. The
Commission has previously interpreted ``political program'' in the
context of section 317(a)(2) to generally involve programming seeking
to persuade or dissuade the American public on a given political
candidate or policy issue.
33. While the NPRM tentatively concluded that all programming
provided by a foreign governmental entity should be treated as a
``political program'' pursuant to section 317(a)(2) of the Act, and,
thus, the provision of such programming in and of itself could be
sufficient to trigger a disclosure, based on the record before us and
upon further consideration, the Commission declines to expand the
definition of political program in this context. Rather, consistent
with the approach in this Order to narrow the scope of the rules to
target more appropriately the reported instances of undisclosed foreign
governmental programming, the Commission believes it is unnecessary to
expand the interpretation of ``political program'' and elect to apply
the existing interpretation of that term at this time. Similarly, for
purposes of the foreign sponsorship identification rules the Commission
will continue to interpret ``any program involving the discussion of
any controversial issue'' under section 317(a)(2) in a manner
consistent with precedent. The Commission finds that applying the
existing definition of ``political program'' consistent with long-
standing Commission precedent in this area addresses many of the
concerns raised by commenters about various types of programming that
inadvertently might be swept into the ambit the new foreign sponsorship
identification rules. The Commission also clarifies that its new rules
do not override the guidance provided in the Commission's 1963 seminal
order and accompanying public notice about what would be considered an
``inducement'' to broadcast programming.
34. Additionally, similar to the analysis above, the Commission
finds that section 507 of the Act applies in this context as well.
Specifically, the Commission believes it is reasonable to consider the
provision of any ``political program or any program involving the
discussion of a controversial issue'' by a foreign governmental entity
to a party in the distribution chain for no cost and as an inducement
to air that material on a broadcast station to be ``service or other
valuable consideration'' under the terms of section 507. Accordingly,
in the event that an entity involved in the production, preparation, or
supply of programming that is intended to be aired on a station has
received any ``political program or any program involving the
discussion of a controversial issue'' from a foreign governmental
entity for free, or at nominal charge, as an inducement for its
broadcast, the Commission finds that under section 507 it must disclose
that fact to its employer, the person for whom the program is being
produced, or the licensee of the station and will require an
appropriate foreign sponsorship identification. The Commission
discusses what this obligation means for the licensee and lessee below.
35. Reasonable Diligence. The Commission adopts its tentative
conclusion from the NPRM that the final responsibility for any
necessary foreign sponsorship identification disclosure rests with the
licensee in accordance with the statutory scheme. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that a broadcast station licensee must exercise
``reasonable diligence'' to determine if an entity within the scope
addressed above--i.e. an entity or individual that is purchasing
airtime on the station or providing any ``political program or any
program involving the discussion of a controversial issue'' free of
charge as an inducement to broadcast such material on the station--is a
foreign governmental entity, such that a disclosure is required under
the foreign sponsorship identification rules. As explained below, the
Commission concludes that such diligence requires that the licensee
must, at a minimum:
(1) Inform the lessee at the time of agreement and at renewal of
the foreign sponsorship disclosure requirement;
(2) Inquire of the lessee at the time of agreement and at renewal
whether it falls into any of the categories that qualify it as a
``foreign governmental entity'';
(3) Inquire of the lessee at the time of agreement and at renewal
whether it knows if anyone further back in the chain of producing/
distributing the programming that will be aired pursuant to the lease
agreement, or a sub-lease, qualifies as a foreign governmental entity
and has provided some type of inducement to air the programming;
(4) Independently confirm the lessee's status, at the time of
agreement and at renewal by consulting the Department of Justice's FARA
website and the Commission's semi-annual U.S.-based foreign media
outlets reports for the lessee's name. This need only be done if the
lessee has not already disclosed that it falls into one of the covered
categories and that there is no separate
[[Page 32228]]
need for a disclosure because no one further back in the chain of
producing/transmitting the programming falls into one of the covered
categories and has provided some form of service or consideration as an
inducement to broadcast the programming; and
(5) Memorialize the above-listed inquiries and investigations to
track compliance in the event documentation is required to respond to
any future Commission inquiry on the issue.
36. Finally, as discussed below, the Commission clarifies that the
lessee, in accordance with sections 507(b) and (c) of the Act likewise
carries an independent responsibility both to respond to the licensee's
inquiries and inform the licensee if, during the course of the lease
arrangement, it becomes aware of any information that would trigger a
disclosure pursuant to the new foreign sponsorship identification
rules.
37. Licensee's Responsibilities. Pursuant to section 317(c) of the
Act, the licensee bears the responsibility to engage in ``reasonable
diligence'' to determine the true source of the programming aired on
its station. Section 317(c) of the Act states that the licensee of each
radio station shall exercise reasonable diligence to obtain from its
employees, and from other persons with whom it deals directly in
connection with any program or program matter for broadcast,
information to enable such licensee to make the announcement required
by this section. This statutory provision is categoric and does not
provide any exceptions, as it is the licensee who has been granted the
right to use the public airwaves. As discussed in the NPRM, the
licensee of a broadcast station must ultimately remain in control of
the station and maintain responsibility for the material transmitted
over its airwaves, even when it has entered into a leasing agreement.
While this responsibility adheres in every instance, the Commission
finds that it is particularly important here, where the record shows
that the audience is typically unaware that the lessee/brokering party
that is sponsoring, paying for, or furnishing the programming could
either be a foreign governmental entity or be passing through
programming on behalf of such an entity.
38. As a threshold matter, the Commission expects the licensee to
convey clearly to the prospective lessee that there is a Commission
disclosure requirement regarding foreign government-provided
programming. In this regard, the Commission finds that ``reasonable
diligence'' also includes inquiring of the potential lessee whether it
qualifies under the definition of a ``foreign governmental entity.''
Given that the licensee is entering into a contractual agreement that
allows the lessee to program airtime or provide programming on the
station, the Commission finds it reasonable to expect that the licensee
make these basic inquiries of the lessee to ascertain whether the
programming to be aired will require a disclosure under the rules the
Commission adopt herein. The Commission notes that broadcasters may
choose to implement these requirements through contractual provisions
between the licensee and lessee though they are not required to do so.
39. The Commission also expects the licensee to inquire of the
lessee whether ``in connection with the production or preparation of
any program or program matter'' that it, or any sub-lessee, intends to
air it is aware of any money, service or other valuable consideration
from a foreign governmental entity provided as an inducement to air a
part of such program or program matter. Such an inquiry is consistent
with sections 507(b) and (c) of the Act, which impose a duty on the
lessee to inform the licensee to the extent it is aware of any payments
or other valuable consideration, including inducements to air for free,
associated with the programming such as to trigger a disclosure.
Likewise, section 317(b) of the Act imposes an associated requirement
on the licensee to make any disclosures necessitated by learning such
information pursuant to section 507 of the Act. The Commission finds
that this type of inquiry by the licensee is particularly important
given reports about instances where programming originating from
foreign governmental actors is being passed through program
distributors who lease time on U.S. broadcast stations.
40. If in response to the licensee's initial inquiry, the lessee
states that it falls within the definition of a ``foreign governmental
entity,'' or is otherwise aware of the need for a foreign sponsorship
identification disclosure, then the licensee needs to ensure that the
programming contains the appropriate disclosure. As discussed above,
licensees may become aware of the need for a foreign sponsorship
identification disclosure via the reporting obligation contained in
section 507 of the Act. On the other hand, if the lessee's response is
that it does not fall within the definition and is not separately aware
of the need for a disclosure, the Commission requires the licensee to
verify independently that the lessee does not qualify as a ``foreign
governmental entity.'' To do so, at a minimum, the licensee will need
to conduct certain independent searches. Specifically, the licensee
should check if the lessee appears on the Department of Justice's most
recent FARA list as an agent that is acting on behalf of a foreign
principal that is either a ``government of a foreign country,'' as
defined by FARA, or a ``foreign political party,'' as defined by FARA.
The licensee should also check if the lessee appears on the FARA list
as an agent whose principal is either directly or indirectly operated,
supervised, directed, owned, controlled, financed, or subsidized, in
whole or in part, by a ``government of a foreign country,'' as defined
by FARA, or a ``foreign political party'' as defined by FARA.
41. Put differently, if a lessee named ``ABC Corp.'' appears as an
agent on the FARA list, but ABC Corp.'s principal is XYZ Corp., the
licensee's search does not stop at this point simply because XYZ Corp.
is neither a government of a foreign country nor a foreign political
party. Rather the licensee should review ABC Corp's filing to see
whether XYZ Corp is in fact directly or indirectly operated,
supervised, directed, owned, controlled, financed, or subsidized, in
whole or in part, by a government of a foreign country or a foreign
political party. Such information will be indicated on the filing. If
there is such direct or indirect operation, supervision, direction,
ownership, control, financing, or subsidization, in whole or in part,
then the programming aired by ABC Corp. will need a foreign sponsorship
disclosure.
42. In this regard, the Commission notes that the FARA database is
simple to use and allows for a search by terms. Consequently, the
Commission anticipates that in most cases a licensee will need to do no
more than merely run a search of the lessee's name on the FARA
database. If the search does not generate any results, the licensee can
safely assume that the lessee is not a FARA agent and no further search
is needed on the FARA database. If the lessee's name does appear on the
FARA database, the licensee may need to review the materials filed as
part of a given agent's registration to ascertain whether the lessee
qualifies as a ``foreign governmental entity.'' The licensee should
also check if the lessee's name appears in the Commission's semi-annual
reports of U.S.-based foreign media outlets. If the lessee's name does
not appear on either the FARA list or in the U.S.-based foreign media
outlet reports then no further checks are needed of these sites.
Finally, the Commission requires that the
[[Page 32229]]
licensee memorialize its inquiries to track compliance and create a
record in the event of any future Commission inquiry.
43. The Commission requires that a licensee investigate the nature
of the party to whom it is leasing airtime both at the time the
agreement between the parties is executed and at renewal. As part of
its inquiries, the licensee should also inquire whether the lessee is
aware of anyone further back in the chain of producing/transmitting the
programming who might qualify as a foreign governmental entity and has
provided some form of consideration as an inducement to air the
programming. To the extent that the lessee confirms that it still
qualifies as a foreign governmental entity, no other investigation on
the part of the licensee is necessary beyond ensuring that the
disclosures specified by the rules continue to be made. If the lessee
indicates that it is no longer a foreign governmental entity, then
programming disclosures are no longer required under the rules after
the licensee independently verifies that this is the case.
44. The Commission requires reasonable diligence to be conducted
not only at the time of the agreement is entered into, but also at
renewal time. The Commission recognizes the lessee's status may change,
particularly if the duration of the lease agreement is for a term of
years. That is, over the course of the lease, not only might the lessee
in fact become, due to actions on its part, a ``foreign governmental
entity,'' for example, by entering into an agency relationship pursuant
to FARA, but it may also be the case that the lessee contests the
Department of Justice's designation of the lessee as a FARA agent such
that the lessee's name only appears on the FARA list subsequent to the
establishment of the lease agreement. Moreover, the Commission requires
the licensee to memorialize the results of its diligence in some manner
for its own records and maintain this documentation for the remainder
of the then-current license term or one year, whichever is longer. In
this manner, the licensee will have the necessary documentation should
the Commission inquire about a particular lease agreement or particular
programming aired on the licensee's station pursuant to the lease of
time.
45. In addition, the Commission strongly encourages licensees to
include a provision in their lease agreements requiring the lessee to
notify the licensee about any change in the lessee's status such as to
trigger the foreign sponsorship identification rules. The Commission
expects that inclusion of such a provision will impress upon the lessee
the importance of its rules and result in a statement to the licensee
if there is a change in status. Some commenters assert that in lieu of
the clear objective steps laid out above for meeting the statutory
``reasonable diligence'' requirement, the Commission should instead
require broadcasters to engage in ``reasonable diligence'' only if they
have reason to believe that their lessee is affiliated with a foreign
governmental entity. The Act does not, however, contain a threshold
showing of ``reason to believe'' in advance of requiring that
broadcasters engage in ``reasonable diligence.'' Moreover, the adoption
of such a subjective standard would make the rules adopted in the
instant Order virtually ineffectual and unenforceable by leaving it up
to the broadcasters' discretion whether to check the status of a
lessee, rather than relying on quick objective searches of reliable
government databases. Some of those that propose this ``reason to
believe'' standard assert by way of example that there is no reason to
believe that a church or school group with whom a licensee has had an
extended relationship is likely to be, or have any connection with, a
foreign governmental entity, and, hence there is no reason to inquire
about such a lessee's status or its programming. The practical
implication of linking the ``reasonable diligence'' steps described
above to a broadcaster's belief based on its previous long-term
relationships with given lessees, however, is that only new lessees or
perhaps those with characteristics unknown to the broadcaster will be
subject to ``reasonable diligence,'' an approach that would seem to
favor existing lessees at the expense of new and diverse entrants and
to jeopardize the Commission's efforts to ensure broadcast audiences
know who is seeking to persuade them.
46. Some commenters suggest that the requirement to check the FARA
list is unduly burdensome. The Commission finds that limiting the
application of its foreign sponsorship disclosure rules to situations
involving leasing agreements and also narrowing the scope of the term
``political program'' to align with prior interpretations, should
greatly diminish the overall compliance burden on licensees by limiting
the circumstances in which such searches will be necessary to those
areas that raise important issues of public concern--as compared to the
proposal laid out in the NPRM, which applied to all programming
arrangements and required a special disclosure for all programming
provided by a foreign governmental entity--while taking necessary steps
to ensure broadcasters will identify those instances where foreign
sponsorship identification is necessary. In addition, the objective
tests laid out above should facilitate compliance, by specifying what
licensees have to do to comply with the ``reasonable diligence''
requirement in terms of straightforward and limited search requirements
that minimize the burden on broadcasters and are necessary to ensure
that the public is adequately informed about the true identity of a
programmer's ties to a foreign government. Thus, the Commission finds
that these reasonable diligence inquiries do not pose undue burden on
broadcast licensees and, more importantly, will help ensure that the
licensee is cognizant of whether the entity seeking to lease time on
its station is a foreign governmental entity.
47. Lessee's Obligations. As previously discussed, pursuant to
section 507, the lessee also holds an independent obligation to
communicate information to the licensee relevant to determining whether
a disclosure is needed. In this regard, the Commission adopts the
tentative conclusion contained in the NPRM that sections 507(b) and (c)
of the Act impose a duty on the broker/lessee to inform the licensee to
the extent it is aware of any payments (or other valuable
consideration) associated with the programming such as to trigger a
disclosure. No party commented on the Commission's tentative conclusion
that sections 507(b) and (c) of the Act impose a duty on the broker/
lessee to inform the licensee to the extent it is aware of any payments
(or other valuable consideration) associated with the programming. As
stated in the NPRM, in its 1960 amendments to the Act, Congress imposed
on non-licensees associated with the transmission or production of
programming a requirement to disclose any knowledge of consideration
paid as an inducement to air particular material. Congress added this
provision in recognition that individuals other than the licensee were
increasingly involved in programming decisions. Thus, consistent with
the statute, the Commission concludes that it is incumbent on a lessee
to convey to the licensee its knowledge of any payment or consideration
provided by, or unpaid programming received as an inducement from, an
entity or individual that triggers the foreign sponsorship
identification rules laid out in this Order.
[[Page 32230]]
48. The Commission emphasizes here that the reach of sections
507(b) and (c) of the Act is not limited only to those entities or
individuals who have entered into lease agreements with the licensee.
Rather, these provisions impose a disclosure obligation on any person
who, in connection with the production or preparation of any program or
who supplies to any other person any program to convey any information
such person may have about the provision of any inducement to broadcast
the program in order to necessitate a sponsorship identification
disclosure by the licensee. Specifically, such non-licensees must
disclose to their employer, the person for which such program is being
produced (e.g., the next individual involved in the chain of
transmitting the programming to the licensee), or the licensee itself,
their knowledge of any payment or ``valuable consideration'' provided
or accepted by a foreign governmental entity. Section 507(a) of the Act
imposes a similar disclosure obligation on the licensee's own
employees. Likewise, section 317(b) of the Act imposes a parallel
requirement on licensees to make a required disclosure to the public at
the time of broadcast if they learn of the need for a disclosure via
the mechanism laid out in section 507 of the Act.
49. Reasonable Diligence Requirements to Apply on a Prospective
Basis. Some commenters have asked that any new rules only apply on a
going forward basis. Recognizing that some lease agreements may last
for several years, the Commission declines to delay application of its
rules to only new lease agreements. Rather, the Commission believes
that the public interest is best served if audiences are notified of
foreign sponsorship as soon as reasonably possible. Thus, in addition
to applying the rules to new lease agreements and renewals of existing
agreements, the Commission requires that lease agreements in place when
the changes to the rules adopted herein become effective come into
compliance with the new requirements, including undertaking reasonable
diligence, within six months. In this manner, the transparency the
Commission seeks to achieve can be accomplished in a way that does not
unduly burden licensees.
50. Contents and Frequency of Required Disclosure of Foreign
Sponsorship. Consistent with the NPRM, the Commission adopts
standardized language to inform audiences at the time of broadcast that
the program material has been provided by a foreign governmental
entity. Such standardized language will avoid confusion and ensure that
the information is conveyed clearly and concisely to the audience.
Accordingly, as discussed below, the Commissions adopts the disclosure
language proposed in the NPRM with two modifications, one to provide
greater flexibility in the language used and the other to harmonize its
labeling requirements with those imposed pursuant to FARA. In addition,
the Commission adopts a requirement that stations airing programming
subject to the proposed disclosure requirement must place copies of the
disclosures in their OPIFs, in a standalone folder marked as ``Foreign
Government-Provided Programming Disclosures'' so that the material is
readily identifiable to the public pursuant to the timing requirements
discussed below.
51. Labeling Requirement. First, as requested by NAB, the
Commission allows licensees the flexibility to use any of three terms
(sponsored, paid for, or furnished) in an on-air foreign sponsorship
disclosure statement, rather than mandate the use of ``paid for, or
furnished'' as proposed, in order to conform the new requirement more
closely to existing sponsorship identification requirements. The
Commission notes that the language proposed by the National Association
of Broadcasters (NAB) is consistent with existing sponsorship
identification requirements. To the extent that the foreign sponsorship
identification rules comport with existing rules and with how broadcast
station personnel are accustomed to operating, the Commission finds
that such allowances should facilitate compliance by licensees and
minimize the burden on them. Hence, at the time a station broadcasts
programming that was provided by a foreign governmental entity, the
Commission requires a disclosure identifying that fact and the origin
of the programming as follows:
The [following/preceding] programming was [sponsored, paid for,
or furnished,] either in whole or in part, by [name of foreign
governmental entity] on behalf of [name of foreign country].
52. In establishing this disclosure language, the Commission
recognizes that FARA also has a labelling requirement and clarify that
the programming need not have two separate labels--both the FARA label
and the Commission's full disclosure. Rather, for those entities that
are subject to FARA, the Commission accepts for compliance purposes the
contents of the FARA label as long as it is modified to include the
country associated with the foreign governmental entity named in the
label and comports with the format and frequency requirements described
below. As discussed further below, the Commission notes that FARA
requires only that FARA agents label materials, including broadcast
programming, with a conspicuous statement identifying the FARA agent
and its principal when distributed in the United States; therefore,
unless the licensee has registered under FARA, the licensee may not
have the required FARA label. Thus, for those entities not registered
under FARA, the Commission requires the disclosure language the
Commission adopts in this document. Moreover, the Commission finds that
its disclosure statement--or, alternatively, the passthrough of
modified FARA labels--provides audiences of broadcast stations greater
insight about the source of foreign government-provided programming
than may exist with existing FARA labeling practices. As described
above, the language the Commission adopts in this document requires
that the country associated with the foreign governmental entity be
named in the disclosure, which will provide additional information when
that entity is a foreign political party or an agent registered under
FARA.
53. In the interest of ensuring transparency for the intended
viewers and listeners of foreign government-provided programming, the
Commission also requires that, if the primary language of the
programming is other than English, the disclosure statement should be
presented in the primary language of the programming. Although the NPRM
sought comment on this issue, no commenters addressed this point. For
programming that contains a ``conspicuous statement'' required by FARA,
and such a conspicuous statement is in a language other than English,
an additional disclosure in English is not needed.
54. With regard to the format of the disclosure, for televised
programming, the Commission requires the disclosure to be in letters
equal to or greater than four percent of the vertical picture height
and be visible for not less than four seconds to ensure readability.
The NPRM sought comment on this format, but no commenters addressed
this point. As this format convention replicates the existing format
rule for a televised political advertisement concerning a candidate for
public office, the Commission anticipates minimal compliance burden on
licensees. For radio broadcasts, the Commission incorporates into the
rules the Department of Justice guidance provided to FARA registrants
that the disclosure shall be audible. Once again,
[[Page 32231]]
although the NPRM sought comment on this issue, no commenters addressed
this point.
55. With regard to the frequency of the disclosure, consistent with
the NPRM and the existing rules for political broadcast matter or any
broadcast matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of
public importance, the Commission requires that the disclosure be made
at both the beginning and conclusion of the broadcast station
programming to ensure the audience is aware of the source of its
programming. Also consistent with its existing rules for political
broadcast matter or any broadcast matter involving the discussion of a
controversial issue of public importance, the Commission requires that
for any broadcast of 5 minutes duration or less, only one such
announcement must be made at either the beginning or conclusion of the
program.
56. The Commission deviates from its existing sponsorship
identification rules in one respect. The Commission adopts its
tentative conclusion from the NPRM that for programming of greater than
sixty minutes in duration, an announcement must be made at regular
intervals during the broadcast, but no less frequently than once every
60 minutes. Sponsorship announcements at regular intervals are not
explicitly required under the current rules. While NAB urges the
Commission not to deviate from the existing timing and frequency rules,
the Commission believes that this one additional requirement is
necessary given the importance of disclosure related to foreign
government-provided programming. While APTS notes that NCE stations are
prohibited by statute from interrupting programming to identify funding
sources, which could override and nullify the proposed frequency
requirement in the context of NCE stations, as stated above, the
Commission believes that NCE stations will rarely, if ever, fall within
the ambit of the new rules. To the extent an issue does arise, the
Commission will address such situations on a case-by-case basis through
either its waiver process or the means that appear appropriate at that
time. As discussed in the NPRM, the Commission finds that periodic
announcements are necessary, particularly in those instances where a
foreign governmental entity is continually broadcasting programming
without an identifiable beginning or end, such as through a lease of a
100% of a station's airtime. No commenter objected to the Commission's
reasoning for this finding nor commented on the burden of recurring
announcements. The Commission notes that in the case of a political
broadcast matter or any broadcast matter involving the discussion of a
controversial issue of public importance--which typically does not have
an obvious sponsor--the current rules require a sponsorship
identification both at the beginning and conclusion of any such
broadcast of greater than 5 minutes. Similarly, here the Commission
believes that periodic announcements (once every 60 minutes) are
necessary for any foreign government-provided programming with a
duration of greater than one hour because of the lack of transparency
regarding the true sponsor of such programming. The Commission notes
that periodic announcements (i.e., once every hour versus at the
beginning and conclusion of the program) are also necessary because of
the longer blocks of programming time foreign governmental entities
typically purchase in connection with leasing arrangements.
57. Finally, consistent with the proposal in the NPRM, the
Commission finds that its standardized disclosure requirements apply
equally to any programming transmitted on a broadcast station's
multicast streams. The Commission received no objections to this
proposal, and consequently finds no reason to exclude multicast
streams. As such, multicast streams are subject to all the disclosure
requirements pertaining to foreign government-provided programming that
the Commission adopts in this document.
58. Public File. Consistent with the NPRM, the Commission adopts a
requirement that stations airing programming subject to the proposed
disclosure requirement must place copies of the disclosures in their
OPIFs, in a standalone folder marked as ``Foreign Government-Provided
Programming Disclosures'' so that the material is readily identifiable
to the public, as well as a requirement with regard to the frequency of
placing such material in the public file. For broadcast stations that
do not have obligations to maintain OPIFs, the Commission recommends
such stations retain a record of their disclosures in their station
files consistent with previous Commission guidance. The Commission does
not, however, require licensees to submit additional information to
their OPIFs concerning the list of persons operating the foreign
governmental entity providing programming.
59. Specifically, the Commission finds that licensees must place in
their OPIFs the actual disclosure and the name of the program to which
the disclosure was appended. In addition, the licensee must state the
date and time the program aired. If there were repeat airings of the
program, then those additional dates and times should also be included
in the OPIF. With regard to the frequency with which licensees must
update their OPIFs with this disclosure information, the Commission
aligns this requirement with its existing requirement to update the TV
Issues/Programs Lists on a quarterly basis, as this will minimize the
need for licensees to track different public filing requirements. The
Commission also establishes the same OPIF two-year retention period for
disclosures related to foreign government-provided programming as
currently exists for the retention of lists regarding the executives of
any entity that sponsored programming concerning a political or
controversial matter.
60. The Commission does not adopt the ``as soon as possible''
disclosure standard contained in Sec. 73.1943 of its rules or require
posting to occur ``within twenty-four hours of the material being
broadcast'' as proposed in the NPRM. The Commission is persuaded by
NAB's comments that the ``as soon as possible'' standard contained in
Sec. 73.1943(c) of the rules need not apply to disclosures associated
with foreign governmental entities. As NAB notes, the immediacy
requirement in the political advertising context stems from the need to
ensure that candidates can exercise their statutory rights to equal
opportunities at statutorily mandated rates and the time-sensitive need
to reach potential voters before an election. The Commission finds no
corresponding need to respond within an expedited timeframe in the case
of foreign government-provided programming.
61. The Commission concludes that, to the extent the foreign
programming consists of a political matter or matter involving the
discussion of a controversial issue of public importance, licensees
obtain and disclose in their OPIFs a list of the persons operating the
entity providing the programming, as currently required. The Commission
clarifies that licensees can satisfy the required OPIF disclosures by
identifying the officers and directors of the lessee in a single filing
per lessee (rather than separate filings concerning each individual
program sponsored by the same lessee) together with other filings
required by the foreign sponsorship identification rules. The
Commission is not persuaded by NAB's contention--that, in the case of
foreign-government-provided programming, the on-air and OPIF
disclosures will provide the necessary
[[Page 32232]]
information to the American public identifying the foreign governmental
entity that provided the programming and the foreign country with which
it is affiliated--to grant what effectively would be an exemption to
existing sponsorship identification rules for political programming
provided by foreign governmental entities. However, the Commission
determines at this time that the licensee need not provide any
additional information in its OPIF, as considered in the NPRM,
regarding the relationship between the foreign governmental entity and
the foreign country that the foreign governmental entity represents,
having no evidence to support the need for such information to enhance
public disclosure at this time.
62. Finally, the Commission adopts the unopposed tentative
conclusion contained in the NPRM that licensees maintain in their OPIFs
the disclosures associated with foreign government-provided programming
rather than giving them the option of maintaining such information at
the network headquarters if the programming was originated by a
network.
63. Concerns About Overlap with Other Statutory or Regulatory
Requirements. The Commission rejects any suggestion that its foreign
sponsorship identification rules are either duplicative of requirements
imposed under FARA or unnecessary given the Commission's current
sponsorship identification rules. Rather, as discussed above and
consistent with the admonitions of commenters, the Commission adopts
disclosure requirements that further the its statutory mandate to
provide transparency to audiences of broadcast stations regarding the
source of sponsored programming, while avoiding unnecessary duplication
with the FARA requirements.
64. As a preliminary matter, the Commission emphasizes that
although the requirements laid out in the NPRM and the instant Order
look to FARA for assistance in determining what qualifies as a
``foreign governmental entity,'' section 317 of the Act and FARA each
cover different types of entities with respect to their labeling
requirements. Section 317 and the Commission's sponsorship
identification rules speak specifically to the obligations of licensees
of broadcast stations, imposing transparency requirements regarding the
origin of sponsored content as an element of the licensee's stewardship
of the public airwaves. In contrast, FARA imposes an obligation on
agents required to register under FARA to label materials with a
conspicuous statement identifying the FARA agent and its principal when
it is distributing relevant materials within the United States by any
means or media. Accordingly, unless the licensee of a broadcast station
itself is a registered agent under FARA, the label required by FARA may
not appear. Even if such labels are being passed through in some
instances, as discussed above and in the NPRM, the reports about
incidents of undisclosed foreign government programming indicate the
need for greater action to ensure transparency. Consistent with the
Commission's own statutory mandate, the requirements adopted in the
instant Order focus specifically on broadcast licensees to ensure they
disclose foreign government provided-programming consistent with the
intent and language of section 317 of the Act.
65. Further, as noted above, the rules the Commission adopts in
this document require identification of the country associated with the
foreign governmental entity that provided the programming, whereas the
FARA disclosure statement does not require this information. Rather,
FARA requires identification of only the foreign principal, whose name
may not identify its connection to a foreign country. In addition,
while FARA requires that covered materials that are televised or
broadcast, or which are caused to be televised or broadcast shall be
introduced by a statement which is reasonably adapted to convey to the
viewers or listeners thereof such information as is required under
FARA, it does not dictate whether such information should be repeated
during a broadcast or at what frequency. In contrast, the foreign
sponsorship identification rules the Commission adopts in this document
contain specific guidance for broadcast licensees as to the frequency
and content of the required label to increase transparency and ensure
audiences are aware of the foreign sources of such programming.
66. Given the key differences between the FARA requirements and
those the Commission adopts in this document, the Commission rejects
NPR's assertion that enforcement of Sec. 73.1212(e) of the
Commission's rules could achieve the Commission's goals in this
proceeding. As REC Networks notes, compliance with the Commission's
existing sponsorship identification rules does not currently result in
the identification of a foreign government as the ultimate provider of
programming to the extent this is the case.
67. Section 325(c) Permits. The Commission adopts the NPRM's
tentative conclusion that the proposed foreign sponsorship
identification rules should apply expressly, to the extent applicable,
to any programming broadcast pursuant to a section 325(c) permit, in
addition to U.S.-licensed broadcast stations. A section 325(c) permit
is required when an entity produces programming in the United States
but, rather than broadcasting the programming from a U.S.-licensed
station, transmits or delivers the programming from a U.S. studio to a
non-U.S. licensed station in a foreign country and broadcasts the
programming from the foreign station with a sufficient transmission
power or from a geographic location that enables the material to be
received consistently in the United States.
68. The Commission finds that applying the same disclosure
requirements to programming broadcast pursuant to a section 325(c)
permit serves the public interest because, like programming from a
U.S.-licensed station, programming from a section 325(c) station is
received by audiences in the United States. In this context, the
section 325(c) permit holder has full control over its programming
content and whether and how any programming provided by foreign
governmental entities should be incorporated in the programming
broadcast pursuant to its section 325(c) permit and broadcasted by the
foreign station. Accordingly, any programming agreement with a section
325(c) holder will be subject to the foreign sponsorship disclosure if
material aired on the foreign station has been sponsored, paid for, or
furnished for free as an inducement to air by a foreign governmental
entity. Under the rules the Commission adopts herein, a section 325(c)
permit holder must ensure that the foreign station will broadcast the
disclosure along with the programming provided under its section 325(c)
permit. The Commission finds that treating U.S.-licensed broadcast
station licensees and section 325(c) permittees in the same manner with
respect to foreign government-provided programming would serve the
public interest and could avoid creating a potential loophole in the
regulatory framework with respect to the identification of foreign
government-provided programming.
69. The Commission received no comment on its tentative conclusion
regarding programming provided pursuant to section 325(c) permits,
including regarding whether any aspect of the foreign sponsorship
identification requirements should be modified for section 325(c)
permit holders. The Commission therefore finds no reason to depart from
its tentative conclusion in this regard and find that the foreign
[[Page 32233]]
sponsorship identification rules will apply to any programming
broadcast pursuant to a section 325(c) permit. The Commission notes,
however, that the section 325(c) permit holders are not required to
maintain an online public inspection file. Accordingly, a section
325(c) permit holder shall place copies of the disclosures required
along with the name of the program to which the disclosures were
appended in the International Bureau's public filing System (IBFS)
under the relevant IBFS section 325(c) permit file. The filing must
state the date and time the program aired. In the case of repeat
airings of the program, those additional dates and times should also be
included. Where an aural announcement was made, its contents must be
reduced to writing and placed in the IBFS in the same manner.
70. First Amendment Considerations. Consistent with the NPRM, the
Commission finds that the foreign sponsorship identification rules the
Commission adopts in this document comport with the strictures of the
First Amendment to the Constitution, even under the highest level of
scrutiny. As discussed above and at length in the NPRM, the Government
has a compelling interest in ensuring that the public is aware of when
a party has sponsored content on a broadcast station. The Commission
finds that interest is even more important when a foreign governmental
entity is involved in the sponsorship of the programming material, and
that transparency to American audiences as to the sponsorship of such
programming is a compelling interest. Having narrowed the rules even
further than initially proposed, the Commission finds the final rules
to be ``narrowly tailored'' to fulfill a ``compelling'' government
interest using the ``least restrictive means'' to serve that goal. That
being said, consistent with the NPRM's further tentative conclusion,
the Commission believes the disclosure requirement the Commission
adopts in this document will be evaluated under a less restrictive,
intermediate scrutiny standard applied to content neutral restrictions
on broadcasters and thus will be upheld if narrowly tailored to achieve
a substantial government interest. Moreover, because the disclosure
requirement is content neutral--that is, it does not ban any type of
speech but merely requires factual disclosure of the source of certain
of programming--the Commission believes that the rules comply with the
First Amendment as they are narrowly tailored to achieve a substantial
Government interest. Thus, the Commission finds that, regardless of the
level of scrutiny applied, its foreign sponsorship identification rules
satisfy the First Amendment.
71. In addition, the Commission has significantly narrowed the
scope of the programming covered by this rule and minimized both the
amount of speech potentially affected and the compliance burdens placed
on broadcast licensees to focus on the context in which the record
shows there are significant transparency concerns. As discussed above,
the disclosure will now be required only for programming aired pursuant
to a lease of airtime if directly or indirectly provided by a foreign
governmental entity. By focusing the foreign sponsorship identification
rules on leased programming, the Commission excludes from coverage
programming that does not raise the same level of transparency concerns
and a significant number of broadcast stations that do not engage in
such leasing agreements and virtually all non-commercial, educational
broadcasters, which rarely lease time to third parties in the manner
discussed.
72. Additionally, based on comments in the record, the Commission
has clarified above how broadcast stations can comply with the narrowed
scope of the rules to ensure that they are no more burdensome than
necessary to serve the vital need for transparency about who is
attempting to influence viewers. For example, the Commission has
adopted the commenters' suggestion that if the programming already
contains an appropriate disclosure pursuant to FARA that conveys the
same information required by the Commission's rules and that is aired
with at least the same frequency, then the station need not apply an
additional disclosure.
73. Ultimately, the rules the Commission adopts in this document
are a minimal extension of the long-standing sponsorship identification
rules required by Sec. 73.1212 of its rules and well within the
authority granted under section 317 of the Act. Similarly, the
Commission believes its rules are consistent with, and not duplicative
of, the equally long-standing labeling requirement contained in FARA.
As such, the Commission finds that the modification of the sponsorship
identification rules the Commission adopts herein is entirely
consistent with the existing statutes and precedent in this area and
complies with the First Amendment.
74. Broadcasters have stated that focusing the rules on the type of
programming subject to FARA disclosures and exempting inconsequential
programming would appropriately focus the Commission's rules on foreign
propaganda, rather than the broad array of broadcast content that
raised a host of concerns, including First Amendment issues, for NAB
and other commenters. Fox similarly states that the rules should apply
to longer programming provided by a FARA registrant and aired pursuant
to a lease agreement. NAB based its previous claim that the rules would
not withstand either intermediate or strict scrutiny on the assertion
that they are duplicative of FARA obligations and thus fail to serve a
compelling or substantial Government interest. As the Commission has
discussed above, its foreign sponsorship identification rules apply to
entities and programming not necessarily covered by FARA because they
impose obligations directly on broadcasters and their programming
suppliers. Further, the rules the Commission adopts herein promote
greater transparency by requiring identification of the specific
foreign government attempting to influence American viewers rather than
referring viewers to a Government website to review. For these reasons,
the Commission concludes that its modified foreign sponsorship
identification rules comply with the First Amendment.
75. Cost-Benefit Analysis. The NPRM sought comment on the benefits
and costs associated with adopting foreign sponsorship identification
rules. The NPRM also requested specific data and analysis in support of
any claimed costs and benefits. No commenter provided quantified
calculations of the benefits or costs of the proposed rules.
Nevertheless, the Commission finds that by limiting the proposed rules
to the circumstances stated above, the costs associated with the rules
are reduced significantly from the initial proposal. Research reviewed
by Commission staff also suggests that there are measurable benefits to
sponsorship identification disclosures. Moreover, the lack of
transparency regarding foreign influence and foreign government
sponsored media has become a major public concern, including in
Congress and for the United States Department of State. The public
filing requirement will provide data on the extent of foreign
government sponsored programming airing on broadcast stations.
Therefore, the Commission finds that the costs associated with adopting
the foreign sponsorship identification rules, as modified herein, do
not outweigh the public benefits the Commission has identified
regarding transparency of the
[[Page 32234]]
source of programming heard or viewed by the American public.
76. Regulatory Flexibility Act. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Certification was incorporated into the NPRM. Pursuant to
the RFA, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Certification relating to this Report and Order.
77. Paperwork Reduction Act. This Report and Order contains
proposed new or revised information collection requirements subject to
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). The requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the
general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment
on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in
this proceeding. In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on
how the Commission might further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
78. Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is ``non-
major'' under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The
Commission will send a copy of this Report & Order to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). The
Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
79. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the NPRM in
this proceeding. The Federal Communications Commission (Commission)
sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including
comment on the IRFA. The Commission received no comments on the IRFA.
This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to
the RFA.
80. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. As stated in
the IRFA, broadcast programming viewers and listeners deserve to know
when a foreign governmental entity has provided programming so that
they can better evaluate the value and accuracy of such programming.
Broadcast stations are entrusted with using the public airwaves to
benefit their local communities and this obligation includes ensuring
that any foreign government-provided programming is clearly identified.
The rules the Commission adopts in this document update its sponsorship
identification rules to provide specific guidance on the language and
frequency of the necessary disclosures, provide clarity about how to
identify a foreign governmental entity, and specify the steps
broadcasters should take to ensure compliance with the ``reasonable
diligence'' standard contained in section 317(c) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended (Act).
81. While the NPRM proposed that the foreign sponsorship
identification rules would apply in any circumstance in which a foreign
governmental entity directly or indirectly provided material for
broadcast or furnished material to a station free of charge (or at
nominal cost) as an inducement to broadcast such material, the Report
and Order (R&O) narrows the rule to address specifically those
circumstances in which a foreign governmental entity is programming a
U.S. broadcast station pursuant to the lease of airtime. The rules
adopted in the R&O require a specific disclosure at the time of
broadcast if material aired pursuant to the lease of time on the
station has been sponsored, paid for, or, in the case of political
programming or programming involving a controversial issue, furnished
for free as an inducement to air by a foreign governmental entity. The
focus on leasing agreements narrows the application of the disclosure
rules significantly, thereby minimizing the burden on broadcasters
while ensuring that viewers and listeners are sufficiently informed as
to the origin of material broadcast on stations when foreign
governmental entities are providing programming. For example, the
Commission anticipates that most, and possibly all, NCE station
programming arrangements will fall outside the ambit of the rules given
limitations on the ability of NCE stations to engage in leasing
agreements. The foreign sponsorship identification rules apply to any
programming broadcast pursuant to a section 325(c) permit. A section
325(c) permit is required when an entity produces programming in the
United States but, rather than broadcasting the programming from a
U.S.-licensed station, transmits or delivers the programming from a
U.S. studio to a non-U.S. licensed station in a foreign country and
broadcasts the programming from the foreign station with a sufficient
transmission power or from a geographic location that enables the
material to be received consistently in the United States.
82. The R&O defines foreign governmental entities by referring to
existing statutory definitions included in the Foreign Agents
Registration Act of 1938, as amended (FARA) and the Communications Act.
The definition adopted in the R&O includes:
(1) A ``government of a foreign country'' as defined by FARA;
(2) A ``foreign political party'' as defined by FARA;
(3) An individual or entity registered as an ``agent of a foreign
principal,'' under section 611(c) of FARA, whose ``foreign principal''
is a ``government of a foreign country,'' a ``foreign political
party,'' or is directly or indirectly operated, supervised, directed,
owned, controlled, financed, or subsidized by a ``government of a
foreign country'' or by a ``foreign political party'' as defined by
FARA, and that is acting in its capacity as an agent of such ``foreign
principal;''
(4) An entity meeting the definition of a ``U.S.-based foreign
media outlet'' pursuant to section 722 of the Act that has filed a
report with the Commission.
83. Based on broadcaster concerns regarding the difficulty of
determining whether an entity is a ``foreign mission'' as included in
the proposed definition of ``foreign governmental entity,'' the final
definition the Commission adopts in this R&O excludes ``foreign
missions.''
84. The revised required standard foreign sponsorship
identification disclosure must state:
The [following/preceding] programming was [sponsored, paid for,
or furnished,] either in whole or in part, by [name of foreign
governmental entity] on behalf of [name of foreign country].
In establishing this disclosure language, the R&O first adjusts the
language proposed in the NPRM to allow including the word ``sponsored''
as one of the options that can be used. Broadcasters sought this change
because it is consistent with existing sponsorship identification
language. In addition, recognizing that FARA requires a standard
disclosure, the R&O simplifies compliance by allowing broadcasters,
including small broadcasters, to pass through any required FARA label
included with the programming, so long as it also adds the name of the
foreign country involved in
[[Page 32235]]
providing the programming and comports with the format and frequency
requirements described below. The R&O concludes that the FARA
disclosure with the addition of the country name satisfies the need to
provide viewers and listeners greater insight regarding the source of
foreign government-provided programming.
85. The R&O details what is required of broadcasters to meet the
``reasonable diligence'' standard contained in section 317(c) of the
Act so that broadcasters can determine if a foreign sponsorship
identification disclosure is needed. The R&O concludes that such
diligence at a minimum requires the broadcaster to at the time of
agreement and at renewal:
(1) Inform the lessee of the foreign sponsorship disclosure
requirement;
(2) Inquire of the lessee whether it falls into any of the
categories that qualify it as a ``foreign governmental entity'';
(3) Inquire of the lessee whether it knows if anyone further back
in the chain of producing/distributing the programming that will be
aired pursuant to the lease agreement, or a sub-lease, qualifies as a
foreign governmental entity and has provided some type of inducement to
air the programming;
(4) Independently confirm the lessee's status, by consulting the
Department of Justice's FARA website and the Commission's semi-annual
U.S.-based foreign media outlets reports. This need only be done if the
lessee states that it does not fall into one of the covered categories
and that there is no separate need for a disclosure because no one
further back in the chain of producing/transmitting the programming
falls into one of the covered categories and has provided some form of
service or consideration as an inducement to broadcast the programming;
and
(5) Memorialize the above-listed inquiries and investigations to
track compliance in the event documentation is required to respond to
any future Commission inquiry on the issue.
86. The R&O specifies that the licensee must memorialize the
results of its diligence in some manner for its own records and
maintain this documentation for the remainder of the then-current
license term or one year, whichever is longer. In addition, the R&O
clarifies that, under the revised rules, the lessee of airtime, in
accordance with sections 507(b) and (c) of the Act, also holds an
independent obligation to communicate information to the licensee
relevant to determining whether a disclosure is needed.
87. In the interest of ensuring transparency for viewers and
listeners of foreign government-provided programming, the R&O requires
that, if the primary language of the programming is other than English,
the disclosure statement should be presented in the primary language of
the programming. The disclosure for televised programming should be in
letters equal to or greater than four percent of the vertical picture
height and be visible for not less than four seconds to ensure
readability. As this requirement tracks existing rules for televised
political advertisements, television licensees are familiar with this
format. For radio broadcasts, the R&O incorporates the existing DOJ
interpretation for programming provided by FARA registrants: That the
disclosure shall be audible. The R&O requires that the disclosure be
made at both the beginning and end of the programming, and, consistent
with an existing requirement for ``political broadcast matter,'' for
any broadcast of 5 minutes or less, only once. Finally, for programming
longer than sixty minutes, the disclosure must be made at regular
intervals during the broadcast, but no less frequently than once every
sixty minutes. The R&O finds that periodic announcements are necessary,
particularly in those instances where a foreign governmental entity is
continually broadcasting programming without an identifiable beginning
or end, such as through a lease of a 100% of a station's airtime. Other
than this final requirement for longer programming, the new size,
frequency and duration requirements of the new foreign sponsorship
identification rules are consistent existing sponsorship identification
rules and are thus familiar to broadcasters.
88. Consistent with the NPRM, the R&O adopts a requirement that
stations airing foreign government-provided programming must place
copies of the disclosures in their Online Public Information Files
(OPIFs), in a standalone folder marked as ``Foreign Government-Provided
Programming Disclosures'' so that the material is readily identifiable
to the public. The R&O adopts the proposal discussed in the NPRM, that,
to the extent the foreign programming consists of a political matter or
matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public
importance, licensees obtain and disclose in their OPIFs a list of the
persons operating the foreign governmental entity that has provided the
programming. The R&O rules require licensees to place in their OPIFs
the actual disclosure and the name of the program to which the
disclosure was appended. In addition, the licensee must state the date
and time the program aired. If there are repeat airings of the program,
then those additional dates and times should also be included in the
OPIF. In response to broadcaster concerns about burdens, the R&O does
not adopt the NPRM's ``as soon as possible'' standard for updating
OPIFs contained in Sec. 73.1943 of existing rules, nor interpret this
phrase to mean ``within twenty-four hours of the material being
broadcast.'' Rather, for frequency of updating OPIFs, the R&O adopts
rules that align with an existing requirement to update the TV Issues/
Programs Lists on a quarterly basis, as this will minimize the need for
licensees to track different public filing requirements. The R&O also
adopts the same OPIF two-year retention period as currently exists for
the retention of lists of the executives of any entity that sponsored
programming concerning a political or controversial matter. For
broadcast stations that do not have obligations to maintain OPIFs, the
Commission recommends such stations retain a record of their
disclosures in their station files consistent with previous Commission
guidance. The R&O rules also require section 325(c) permit holders must
place copies of the disclosures required along with the name of the
program to which the disclosures were appended in the International
Bureau's public filing System (IBFS) under the relevant IBFS section
325(c) permit file. The filing must state the date and time the program
aired. In the case of repeat airings of the program, those additional
dates and times should also be included. Where an aural announcement
was made, its contents must be reduced to writing and placed in the
IBFS in the same manner.
89. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in
Response to the IRFA. There were no comments filed in response to the
IRFA.
90. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act
of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond
to a comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of
any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments.
The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed
rules in this proceeding.
91. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which the Rules Apply. The RFA directs agencies to provide a
description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of
[[Page 32236]]
small entities that may be affected by the proposed rule revisions, if
adopted. The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having
the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition,
the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small
business concern'' under the Small Business Act (SBA). A small business
concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the SBA. Below, the Commission
provides a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate
of the number of such small entities, where feasible.
92. Television Broadcasting. This U.S. Economic Census category
comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images
together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcast
studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs
to the public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual
programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn
broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule.
Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated
network, or from external sources. The SBA has created the following
small business size standard for such businesses: Those having $41.5
million or less in annual receipts. The 2012 Economic Census reports
that 751 firms in this category operated in that year. Of that number,
656 had annual receipts of $25 million or less, 25 had annual receipts
between $25 million and $49,999,999 and 70 had annual receipts of $50
million or more. Based on these data, the Commission estimates that the
majority of commercial television broadcast stations are small entities
under the applicable size standard.
93. Additionally, the Commission has estimated the number of
licensed commercial television stations to be 1,374. Of this total,
1,269 stations (or 92%) had revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2020,
according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media
Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on April 20, 2021, and therefore
these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In
addition, the Commission estimates the number of noncommercial
educational stations to be 384. The Commission does not compile and
does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that
would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as
small entities. There are also 386 Class A stations. Given the nature
of this service, the Commission presumes that all of these stations
qualify as small entities under the applicable SBA size standard.
94. Radio Stations. This U.S. Economic Census category comprises
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by
radio to the public. Programming may originate in the establishment's
own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The
SBA has created the following small business size standard for such
businesses: Those having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts.
Economic Census data for 2012 show that 2,849 firms in this category
operated in that year. Of that number, 2,806 operated with annual
receipts of less than $25 million per year, 17 with annual receipts
between $25 million and $49,999,999 million and 26 with annual receipts
of $50 million or more. Based on these data, the Commission estimates
that the majority of commercial radio broadcast stations were small
under the applicable SBA size standard.
95. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial
AM radio stations to be 4,546 and the number of commercial FM radio
stations to be 6,682 for a total of 11,228 commercial stations. Of this
total, 11,227 stations (or 99%) had revenues of $41.5 million or less
in 2020, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc.
Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on April 20, 2021, and
therefore these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA
definition. In addition, there were 4,213 noncommercial educational FM
stations. The Commission does not compile and does not have access to
information on the revenue of NCE radio stations that would permit it
to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.
96. In assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small
under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be
included. The Commission's estimate, therefore, likely overstates the
number of small entities that might be affected by its action because
the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate
revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity not be dominant in
its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define
or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio
or television station is dominant in its field of operation.
Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which the proposed
rules may apply does not exclude any radio or television station from
the definition of small business on this basis and is therefore
possibly over-inclusive.
97. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements. The R&O adopts rules that require a specific
disclosure at the time of broadcast if material aired pursuant to the
lease of time on the station has been sponsored, paid for, or, in the
case of political programming or programming involving a controversial
issue, furnished for free as an inducement to air by a ``foreign
governmental entity.'' As described above, the term ``foreign
governmental entity'' is defined by reference to existing definitions
in the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 as amended (FARA) and
Section 722 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act).
The R&O requires that stations use the following standard disclosure:
The [following/preceding] programming was [sponsored, paid for,
or furnished,] either in whole or in part, by [name of foreign
governmental entity] on behalf of [name of foreign country].
In addition, recognizing that FARA requires a standard disclosure, the
R&O simplifies compliance by allowing broadcasters, including small
broadcasters, to pass through any required FARA label included with the
programming, so long as it also adds the name of the foreign country
involved in providing the programming. The R&O concludes that the FARA
disclosure with the addition of the country name satisfies the need to
provide viewers and listeners greater insight regarding the source of
foreign government-provided programming. To further reduce compliance
burdens for broadcasters, including small broadcasters, the size,
frequency, and duration of the required disclosure generally matches
size, frequency and duration requirements for other types of
programming requiring sponsorship identification.
98. In response to requests from broadcasters, including small
broadcasters, the R&O details what is required of broadcasters to meet
the ``reasonable diligence'' standard contained in section 317(c) of
the Act so that broadcasters can determine if a foreign sponsorship
identification disclosure is needed. As described above, the R&O lists
five specific steps broadcasters must take to satisfy the standard. The
R&O states that searches of the FARA database may require more than
simply reviewing the initial
[[Page 32237]]
screens that appear on the list, but rather may also necessitate
reviewing materials filed as part of an agent's registration and using
whatever search features are available to investigate the list's
contents. Licensees should also check if the lessee's name appears in
the Commission's semi-annual reports of U.S.-based foreign media
outlets. The R&O also requires, that, at regular intervals, the
licensee should memorialize the results of its diligence in some manner
for its own records and maintain this documentation for the remainder
of the then-current license term or one year, whichever is longer. The
R&O clarifies that, under the revised rules, the lessee of the airtime,
in accordance with sections 507(b) and (c) of the Act, also holds an
independent obligation to communicate information to the licensee
relevant to determining whether a disclosure is needed.
99. In the interest of ensuring transparency for viewers and
listeners of foreign government-provided programming, the R&O requires
that, if the primary language of the programming is other than English,
the disclosure statement should be presented in the primary language of
the programming. The disclosure for televised programming should be in
letters equal to or greater than four percent of the vertical picture
height and be visible for not less than four seconds to ensure
readability. As this requirement tracks existing rules for televised
political advertisements, television licensees are familiar with this
format, minimizing their compliance burdens. For radio broadcasts, the
R&O incorporates the existing DOJ interpretation for programming
provided by FARA registrants: That the disclosure shall be audible. The
R&O requires that the disclosure be made at both the beginning and end
of the programming, and, consistent with an existing requirement for
``political broadcast matter,'' for any broadcast of 5 minutes or less,
only once. Finally, for programming longer than sixty minutes, the
disclosure must be made at regular intervals during the broadcast, but
no less frequently than once every sixty minutes. The R&O finds that
periodic announcements are necessary, particularly in those instances
where a foreign governmental entity is continually broadcasting
programming without an identifiable beginning or end, such as through a
lease of 100% of a station's airtime. Other than this final requirement
for longer programming, the new rules are consistent with existing
sponsorship identification rules and are thus familiar to broadcasters
to reduce compliance burdens.
100. Consistent with the NPRM, the R&O adopts a requirement that
stations airing foreign government-provided programming must place
copies of the disclosures in their Online Public Information Files
(OPIFs), in a standalone folder marked as ``Foreign Government-Provided
Programming Disclosures'' so that the material is readily identifiable
to the public. The R&O adopts the proposal discussed in the NPRM, that,
to the extent the foreign programming consists of a political matter or
matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public
importance, licensees obtain and disclose in their OPIFs a list of the
persons operating the foreign governmental entity providing the
programming. In response to broadcaster concerns about burdens, the R&O
also does not adopt the NPRM's ``as soon as possible'' standard for
updating OPIFs contained in Sec. 73.1943 of existing rules, nor
interpret this phrase to mean ``within twenty-four hours of the
material being broadcast.'' Rather, for frequency of updating OPIFs,
the R&O adopts rules that align with an existing requirement to update
the TV Issues/Programs Lists on a quarterly basis, as this will
minimize the need for licensees to track different public filing
requirements. The R&O also adopts the same OPIF two-year retention
period as currently exists for the retention of lists of the executives
of any entity that sponsored programming concerning a political or
controversial matter.
101. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an
agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered
in adopting its rules, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
102. While the NPRM proposed that foreign sponsorship disclosure
rules should apply in any circumstances in which a foreign governmental
entity directly or indirectly provided material for broadcast or
furnished material to a station free of charge (or at nominal cost) as
an inducement to broadcast such material, the R&O narrows the rule to
address specifically those circumstances in which a foreign
governmental entity is programming a U.S. broadcast station pursuant to
the lease of airtime. The rules adopted in the R&O require a specific
disclosure at the time of broadcast if material aired pursuant to the
lease of time on the station has been sponsored, paid for, or, in the
case of political programming or programming involving a controversial
issue, furnished for free as an inducement to air by a foreign
governmental entity. The focus on leasing agreements narrows the
application of the disclosure rules significantly, thereby minimizing
the burden on broadcasters while ensuring that viewers and listeners
are sufficiently informed as to the origin of material broadcast on
stations when foreign governmental entities are providing programming.
Most, and possibly all, noncommercial educational NCE programming
arrangements will fall outside the ambit of the narrowed rules given
limitations on the ability of NCE stations to engage in leasing
arrangements. Also, while the NPRM proposed to include ``foreign
missions,'' as designated pursuant to the Foreign Missions Act, within
the definition of foreign governmental entities that would trigger
foreign sponsorship identification, based on broadcaster concerns
regarding the difficulty and compliance burden of including these
entities, the R&O eliminates then from the definition.
103. Additionally, based on comments from broadcasters, including
small broadcasters, the R&O clarifies compliance obligations to ensure
that, under the narrowed scope of the rules, they are no more
burdensome than necessary to serve the vital need for transparency
about who is attempting to influence viewers and listeners. The R&O
details what is required of broadcasters to meet the ``reasonable
diligence'' standard contained in section 317(c) of the Act so that
broadcasters can determine if a foreign sponsorship identification
disclosure is needed. The R&O lists specific steps broadcasters must
take to satisfy the standard. The R&O also advises broadcasters to
include a provision in their lease agreements requiring the lessee to
notify the broadcaster about any change in the lessee's status such as
to trigger the foreign sponsorship identification rules. The R&O also
adopts broadcaster suggestions to reduce compliance burdens by
matching, to the extent possible, disclosure language, size, frequency
and duration requirements
[[Page 32238]]
contained in existing sponsorship identification rules and allowing
broadcasters to satisfy the new foreign sponsorship identification
requirements by simply passing through existing FARA programming labels
if they also disclose the country involved with provision of the
programming and comport with the size and frequency requirements
contained in the R&O. Similarly, in response to comments from
broadcasters, including small broadcasters, to the extent possible, the
Commission matches obligations to place and update disclosures in
station OPIFs to other broadcaster OPIF obligations. Broadcasters have
indicated that implementing such changes would mean the burden on
broadcasters would be considerably less and more appropriate.
104. The NPRM sought comment on the benefits and costs associated
with adopting foreign government-provided programming sponsorship
identification rules and requested specific data and analysis in
support of any claimed costs and benefits. No commenters provided
quantified calculations of the benefits or costs of the proposed rules.
Thus, the R&O finds that by narrowing the scope of the programming for
which foreign governmental entity sponsorship is required and
minimizing compliance burdens as described in the preceding paragraphs,
the costs for broadcasters, including small broadcasters, associated
with the rules are reduced significantly from the initial proposal.
Research reviewed by Commission staff also suggests that there are
measurable benefits to sponsorship identification disclosures.
Therefore, the R&O finds that the costs, including the costs for small
businesses, associated with adopting the rules, as modified by the R&O,
do not outweigh the substantial public benefits associated with
transparency regarding the source of programming heard or viewed by the
American public.
105. Report to Congress. The Commission will send a copy of this
R&O, including this FRFA, in a report to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In addition, the Commission will send
a copy of the R&O, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the R&O and
FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal
Register.
106. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with
the Proposed Rule. The R&O contains requirements that may somewhat
overlap with, but do not duplicate, DOJ rules for labelling of
broadcast programming provided by an ``agent of a foreign principal,''
as that term is defined in the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
107. Ordering Clauses. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to
the authority found in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 317, 325(c),
403, and 507 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
154(j), 303(r), 317, 325(c), 403, and 508 this Report and Order is
adopted and shall be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register.
108. It is further ordered that part 73 of the Commission's rules
is amended as set forth in the Final Rules. The rule changes to Sec.
73.1212 adopted herein contain new or modified information collection
requirements subject to OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The Commission directs the Media Bureau to announce the effective date
for those information collections in a document published in the
Federal Register after the completion of OMB review and directs the
Media Bureau to cause Sec. 73.1212 to be revised accordingly.
109. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
110. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of
this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334,
336, 339.
0
2. Amend Sec. 73.1212 by adding paragraphs (j) through (l) to read as
follows:
Sec. 73.1212 Sponsorship identification; list retention; related
requirements.
* * * * *
(j)(1)(i) Where the material broadcast consistent with paragraph
(a) or (d) of this section has been aired pursuant to the lease of time
on the station and has been provided by a foreign governmental entity,
the station, at the time of the broadcast, shall include the following
disclosure:
The [following/preceding] programming was [sponsored, paid for,
or furnished], either in whole or in part, by [name of foreign
governmental entity] on behalf of [name of foreign country].
(ii) If the material broadcast contains a ``conspicuous statement''
pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) (22
U.S.C. 614(b)), such conspicuous statement will suffice for purposes of
this paragraph (j)(1) if the conspicuous statement also contains a
disclosure about the foreign country associated with the individual/
entity that has sponsored, paid for, or furnished the material being
broadcast.
(2) The term ``foreign governmental entity'' shall include
governments of foreign countries, foreign political parties, agents of
foreign principals, and United States-based foreign media outlets.
(i) The term ``government of a foreign country'' has the meaning
given such term in the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22
U.S.C. 611(e)).
(ii) The term ``foreign political party'' has the meaning given
such term in the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C.
611(f)).
(iii) The term ``agent of a foreign principal'' has the meaning
given such term in the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22
U.S.C. 611(c)), and who is registered as such with the Department of
Justice, and whose ``foreign principal'' is a ``government of a foreign
country,'' a ``foreign political party,'' or directly or indirectly
operated, supervised, directed, owned, controlled, financed, or
subsidized by a ``government of a foreign country'' or a ``foreign
political party'' as defined in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section, and that is acting in its capacity as an agent of such
``foreign principal''.
(iv) The term ``United States-based foreign media outlet'' has the
meaning given such term in section 722(a) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 624(a)).
(3) The licensee of each broadcast station shall exercise
reasonable diligence to ascertain whether the
[[Page 32239]]
foreign sponsorship disclosure requirements in paragraph (j)(1) of this
section apply at the time of the lease agreement and at any renewal
thereof, including:
(i) Informing the lessee of the foreign sponsorship disclosure
requirement in paragraph (j)(1) of this section;
(ii) Inquiring of the lessee whether the lessee falls into any of
the categories in paragraph (j)(2) of this section that qualify the
lessee as a foreign governmental entity;
(iii) Inquiring of the lessee whether the lessee knows if anyone
involved in the production or distribution of the programming that will
be aired pursuant to the lease agreement, or a sub-lease, qualifies as
a foreign governmental entity and has provided some type of inducement
to air the programming;
(iv) Independently confirming the lessee's status, by consulting
the Department of Justice's FARA website and the Commission's semi-
annual U.S.-based foreign media outlets reports, if the lessee states
that it does not fall within the definition of ``foreign governmental
entity'' and that there is no separate need for a disclosure because no
one further back in the chain of producing/transmitting the programming
falls within the definition of ``foreign governmental entity'' and has
provided an inducement to air the programming; and
(v) Memorializing the inquiries in paragraphs (j)(3)(i) through
(iv) of this section to track compliance therewith and retaining such
documentation in the licensee's records for either the remainder of the
then-current license term or one year, whichever is longer, so as to
respond to any future Commission inquiry.
(4) In the case of any video programming, the foreign governmental
entity and the country represented shall be identified with letters
equal to or greater than four percent of the vertical picture height
that air for not less than four seconds.
(5) At a minimum, the announcement required by paragraph (j)(1) of
this section shall be made at both the beginning and conclusion of the
programming. For programming of greater than sixty minutes in duration,
an announcement shall be made at regular intervals during the
broadcast, but no less frequently than once every sixty minutes.
(6) Where the primary language of the programming is other than
English, the disclosure statement shall be made in the primary language
of the programming. If the programming contains a ``conspicuous
statement'' pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22
U.S.C. 614(b)), and such conspicuous statement is in a language other
than English so as to conform to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of
1938 (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.), an additional disclosure in English is
not needed.
(7) A station shall place copies of the disclosures required by
this paragraph (j) and the name of the program to which the disclosures
were appended in its online public inspection file on a quarterly basis
in a standalone folder marked as ``Foreign Government-Provided
Programming Disclosures.'' The filing must state the date and time the
program aired. In the case of repeat airings of the program, those
additional dates and times should also be included. Where an aural
announcement was made, its contents must be reduced to writing and
placed in the online public inspection file in the same manner.
(k) The requirements in paragraph (j) of this section shall apply
to programs permitted to be delivered to foreign broadcast stations
under an authorization pursuant to the section 325(c) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(c)) if any part of the
material has been sponsored, paid for, or furnished for free as an
inducement to air on the foreign station by a foreign governmental
entity. A section 325(c) permit holder shall place copies of the
disclosures required along with the name of the program to which the
disclosures were appended in the International Bureau's public filing
System (IBFS) under the relevant IBFS section 325(c) permit file. The
filing must state the date and time the program aired. In the case of
repeat airings of the program, those additional dates and times should
also be included. Where an aural announcement was made, its contents
must be reduced to writing and placed in the IBFS in the same manner.
(l) Paragraphs (j) and (k) of this section contain information-
collection and recordkeeping requirements. Compliance with paragraphs
(j) and (k) of this section shall not be required until after review by
the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will publish a
document in the Federal Register announcing compliance dates and
removing this paragraph (l) accordingly.
0
3. Amend Sec. 73.3526 by adding paragraph (e)(19) to read as follows:
Sec. 73.3526 Online public inspection file of commercial stations.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(19) Foreign sponsorship disclosures. Documentation sufficient to
demonstrate that the station is continuing to meet the requirements set
forth at Sec. 73.1212(j)(7).
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 73.3527 by adding paragraph (e)(15) to read as follows:
Sec. 73.3527 Online public inspection file of noncommercial
educational stations.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(15) Foreign sponsorship disclosures. Documentation sufficient to
demonstrate that the station is continuing to meet the requirements set
forth at Sec. 73.1212(j)(7).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-12207 Filed 6-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P