Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
May 15, 2014
DA 14-661
In Reply Refer To:
1800B3-HS
Released:  May 15, 2014
Ernest T. Sanchez, Esq.
1155 F Street, N.W.
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
In re: Maricopa County Community
College District
Request for Experimental Authority
To Relax Standards For Public Radio
Underwriter Announcements 
Dear Counsel:
We have before us the above-referenced March 18, 2013, “Request for Experimental Authority
To Relax Standards For Public Radio Underwriter Announcements” (“Request”) filed by Maricopa 
County Community College District (“Maricopa”).  Maricopa is the licensee or joint licensee of two 
noncommercial educational (“NCE”) stations,
1
and seeks temporary experimental authority to test a 
“loosening of the Commission’s enhanced underwriting policies,”
2
or alternatively, a waiver of the 
Commission’s underwriting Rules and policies.
3
Background.  In the Request, Maricopa requests that the Stations be allowed conduct a 
temporary three year experiment that would allow the Stations to enhance their underwriting 
announcements in the following ways:  (1) provide “[f]actually accurate information concerning interest 
rates” available at local businesses, including underwriter banks, credit unions, automobile dealerships; 
(2) notify listeners of underwriter sales or special events; and (3) include qualitative adjectives in 
underwriting announcements, “particularly where the adjectives have a logogram quality that is factually 
based, such as ‘certified,’ ‘accredited,’ ‘award-winning,’ ‘experienced,’ or ‘long-established,’” including 
publicly-determined rankings.
4
  Maricopa explains the purpose of this demonstration is to “test the 
effects, if any, on listener satisfaction, program quality, and station revenue which might result from such 
a limited relaxation” of the Commission’s underwriting requirements.
5
                                                          
1
Maricopa is the licensee of KJZZ(FM), Phoenix, Arizona and joint licensee of KBAQ(FM), Phoenix, Arizona (the 
“Stations”).
2
Request at 2.
3
Request at 3. 
4
Request at 2. 
5
Id.
2Discussion.  An applicant seeking waiver of a Rule has the burden to plead with particularity the 
facts and circumstances that warrant such action.
6
Thus, an applicant for waiver “faces a high hurdle even 
at the starting gate.”
7
  Although the Commission must consider carefully all waiver requests, such 
requests must be supported by a compelling showing in order to be granted.
8
  Waiver is appropriate only 
if both (1) special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and (2) such deviation better 
serves the public interest.
9
  
In creating an NCE service the Commission has sought to remove the programming decisions of 
public broadcasters from the “normal kinds of commercial market pressures under which broadcasters in 
the unreserved spectrum usually operate.”
10
  In order to maintain the essential character of the 
noncommercial service, Section 399B of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
11
Sections 
73.503(d) and 73.621(e) of the Commission’s Rules,
12
and the Commission’s subsequent policies,
13
specifically proscribe the broadcast of announcements by public broadcast stations which promote the 
sale of goods and services of for-profit entities in return for consideration paid to the stations. 
We will deny the Request for several reasons.  First, as Maricopa recognizes, it does not meet the 
basic qualifications of an experimental authorization, as the waiver does not seek to “conduct technical 
experimentation directed toward improvement of the technical phases of operation and service. . . .”
14
                                                          
6
See Columbia Communications Corp. v. FCC, 832.F.2d 189, 192 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (citing Rio Grande Family 
Radio Fellowship, Inc. v. FCC, 406 F.2d 644, 666 (D.C. Cir. 1968)).
7
See WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969), aff'd, 459 F.2d 1203 (1972), cert. denied, 93 S.Ct. 
461 (1972) (“WAIT Radio”) (finding that the Commission may decide in some instances that rule waiver serves the 
public interest if an applicant's proposal will not undermine the policy served by the rule).  See also Thomas Radio v. 
FCC, 716 F.2d 921, 924 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
8
Greater Media Radio Co., Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7090 (1999) (citing Stoner 
Broadcasting System, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 49 FCC 2d 1011, 1012 (1974)).
9
See NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 125-128 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 
897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990); WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1159.
10
Commission Policy Concerning the Noncommercial Nature of Educational Broadcasting Stations, Second Report 
and Order, 86 FCC 2d 141, 142 (1981).
11
47 U.S.C. § 399B, which states, in relevant part, that “No public broadcast station may make its facilities available 
to any person for the broadcasting of any advertisement.”
12
47 C.F.R. §§ 73.503(d); 73.621(e), which state that “No promotional announcement on behalf of for profit entities
shall be broadcast at any time in exchange for the receipt, in whole or in part, of consideration to the licensee, its 
principals, or employees” (emphasis in original).
13
See Commission Policy Concerning the Noncommercial Nature of Educational Broadcasting Stations, Public 
Notice, 7 FCC Rcd 827 (1992); Commission Policy Concerning the Noncommercial Nature of Educational 
Broadcasting Stations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 97 FCC 2d 255 (1984); Commission Policy Regarding the 
Noncommercial Nature of Educational Broadcast Stations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 90 FCC 2d 895 
(1982); Commission Policy Regarding the Noncommercial Nature of Educational Broadcast Stations, Second 
Report and Order, 86 FCC 2d 141 (1981); Commission Policy Concerning the Noncommercial Nature of 
Educational Broadcast Stations, First Report and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 69 FCC 2d 200 (1978).
14
47 C.F.R. § 5.203, which was codified as 47 C.F.R. § 73.1510 at the time of Maricopa’s filing. We also deny 
Maricopa’s request that we waive the technical requirements of this provision, finding that such a waiver would 
eviscerate the purpose of the Rule, unlike the waiver granted in International Expo Information Broadcast, 89 FCC 
2d 1374 (1982). See Request at 2-3.
3Second, we also deny Maricopa’s alternative request that we waive Sections 73.503 and 73.621 
of the Commission’s Rules, and the Commission’s underwriting policies.
15
  Permitting Maricopa to 
enhance their underwriting announcements would undermine the statutory and regulatory purposes in 
authorizing NCE stations – that is, to encourage the development of a public broadcasting system that is 
free from extraneous influence and control.  The manner in which the Commission currently permits 
donor and underwriter acknowledgements was established to balance the financial needs of public 
broadcasting stations and their obligation to provide a noncommercial service.  We believe that the public 
interest is better served by requiring strict adherence to the underwriting Rules and policies.  
Further, Maricopa’s stated purposes for the waiver – to adopt measures to address the economic 
challenges due to decreased funding from federal and state sources and the prolonged economic 
recovery
16
- while laudatory, are not so unique and unusual in itself as to warrant a waiver of the 
underwriting Rules and policies.  Many NCE licensees face similar circumstances and Maricopa fails to 
identify any special circumstances that distinguish it from all other NCE licensees.  If Maricopa wishes to 
petition for a change in the rule, the appropriate vehicle would be a petition for rulemaking, not a waiver 
request.
17
Accordingly, the March 18, 2013, “Request for Experimental Authority To Relax Standards For 
Public Radio Underwriter Announcements” filed by Maricopa County Community College District, IS
DENIED.
Sincerely,
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau
                                                          
15
47 C.F.R. §§ 73.503; 73.621; Request at 3.
16
Request at 8.
17
In reaching the merits of Maricopa's waiver request, we do not prejudge the outcome of any future petition for 
rulemaking. Any such petition would be addressed separately, and subject to the outcome of any broader 
proceeding that the Commission may choose to undertake with respect to such a rulemaking petition.