Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-187
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Maricopa Community College District
       
Request for Experimental Authority to Relax 
Standards for Public Radio Underwriting 
Announcements on KJZZ(FM) and KBAQ(FM), 
Phoenix, Arizona
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
    
FID Nos. 40095 and 40096
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  November 21, 2014 Released: November 24, 2014
By the Commission: Commissioner Pai concurring and issuing a statement.
1. The Commission has before it an Application for Review filed on June 16, 2014 by 
Maricopa Community College District (“Maricopa”), licensee of noncommercial educational (“NCE”) 
FM radio stations in Phoenix, Arizona.
1
  Maricopa seeks review of a May 15, 2014 decision by the Media 
Bureau (“Bureau”) denying its request to conduct a three-year “controlled and limited experiment” on the 
effects of including prohibited material in NCE underwriting acknowledgements or, alternatively, for a 
waiver of the Commission’s underwriting rules and policies.
2
  We affirm the Bureau’s denial, as
discussed below.
2. Pursuant to Section 399B of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”)
and Section 73.503(d) of the Commission’s rules (the “Rules”), NCE radio stations may not air 
advertisements, i.e., promotional announcements on behalf of for-profit entities in exchange for any 
remuneration.
3
  They must, however, identify program sponsors,
4
and pursuant to guidelines adopted in 
the early 1980’s, can enhance that identification with a contributor’s slogan, location, value-neutral 
description of products, and trade names, provided that this material serves to identify rather than to 
promote.
5
  Other information continues to be banned, including comparative or qualitative descriptions, 
price information, calls to action, and inducements to buy, sell, rent or lease, because such material is 
                                                     
1
Maricopa is licensee of KJZZ(FM) and co-licensee with Arizona State University of KBAQ(FM) (the “Stations”),  
public broadcasting stations receiving federal funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (“CPB”).  
2
See Ernest T. Sanchez, Esq., Letter, 29 FCC Rcd 5180 (MB 2014) (“Decision”); Request for Experimental 
Authority to Relax Standards for Public Broadcaster Underwriter Announcements at 15 (Mar. 18, 2013) 
(“Request”).
3
47 U.S.C. § 399B; 47 C.F.R. § 73.503(d).  See also 47 C.F.R. § 73.621(e) (comparable provision for television).
4
See 47 U.S.C. § 317; 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212.  The sponsorship identification rules require announcements only where 
the monetary or other consideration is provided as an inducement for the broadcast of specific programming, 
whereas announcements acknowledging general contributions are discretionary. In either situation, where 
acknowledgments of contributions are aired, the underwriting rules apply.
5
See Commission Policy Concerning the Noncommercial Nature of Educational Broadcast Stations, Third Report 
and Order, 97 FCC 2d 255, 265 (1984) (“1984 Order”), Public Notice (1986) republished, 7 FCC Rcd 827, 827-28 
(1992) (“Nature PN”) (see Decision, 29 FCC Rcd at 5180, n.13 for proceeding’s complete prior history).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-187
2
promotional.
6
These limits are intended to remove NCE stations from the market pressures under which 
commercial broadcasters operate, and to retain their essential character, free from extraneous influence 
and control.
7
Additional provisions of the Act and Rules allow for the temporary use of spectrum for 
technical experimentation,
8
and the Commission has, on rare occasions authorized on a waiver basis non-
technical experiments including one to permit advertising on spectrum reserved for NCE use, at 
Congress’s specific direction.  
3. Maricopa requested experimental authority to study the effects of enhancing its 
underwriting acknowledgments to include: (1) interest rates; (2) sales, discounts, and special events; and 
(3) qualitative adjectives based in fact.
9
  It maintains that its proposed three-year demonstration project 
would gather data to ascertain whether such enhancements could increase revenue without harming 
program quality or listener satisfaction.  Maricopa stated that it developed this experimental proposal out 
of concern about the erosion of federal and state financial support, and to facilitate future policy choices 
by providing Congress, the Commission, and other NCE broadcasters with empirical data to test
presumptions that underlie the current guidelines.
10
4. In denying Maricopa’s request for experimental authority, the Bureau stated that such 
authorizations are meant to facilitate “technical experimentation” and that Maricopa had not justified a 
waiver of that limitation for its non-technical study.
11
  The Bureau also denied Maricopa’s alternative 
request for a waiver of underwriting Rules and policies, stating that the proposal could undermine the 
Stations’ NCE purpose, and that Maricopa’s potential economic challenges were not so unique as to 
warrant a waiver.  
5. On review, Maricopa contends that the Bureau’s action was arbitrary and capricious
12
because the conclusion that experimental authority pertains only to technical matters is inconsistent with 
broader language in the Act, and with the Commission’s approval of nontechnical experiments in the 
early 1980’s (the Expo Experiment and the TCAF Advertising Demonstration Program).
13
  Maricopa also 
                                                     
6
Nature PN, 7 FCC Rcd at 827.
7
See Commission Policy Concerning the Noncommercial Nature of Educational Broadcast Stations, Second Report 
and Order, 86 FCC2d 141, 142 (1981) (subsequent history omitted).
8
See 47 U.S.C. § 303(g); 47 C.F.R. § 5.203.  At the time of Maricopa’s Request, experimental authorizations for 
broadcast stations were governed by 47 C.F.R. § 73.1510, but the Commission later moved the requirements to Part 
5 of the Rules, which had governed all other experiments.  See Promoting Expanded Opportunities for Radio 
Experimentation, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 758, 846 (2013), Order on Reconsideration, 28 FCC Rcd 8501.
9
For example, it would announce that a bank is “offering certificates of deposit with rates up to 2.5 annual 
percentage yield;” that a car dealership is having a “Sale on Memorial Day;” and that others are “certified,” 
“accredited,” “award-winning,” “experienced,” “long-established,” or ranked.  This, Maricopa argues, is merely a 
“gentle tweak” to the current underwriting guidelines.  Application at 4. 
10
Request at 3-5.  Maricopa acknowledged that there have been previous studies in 1983 and 2012, but argued that 
its own study would use superior methods to provide better, more empirical, and more timely information.  Id. at 4, 
10-13, 22.  
11
See Decision, 29 FCC Rcd at 5180, n.14, citing 47 C.F.R. §§ 5.203 and 73.1510.
12
5 U.S.C. § 706.
13
See 47 U.S.C. § 303(g); International Expo Information Broadcasters, Inc., 89 FCC 2d 1374 (1982) (“Expo 
Experiment”)(authorization of emergency and event-oriented information for 11 million people attending 1982 
World’s Fair in Knoxville, Tennessee); Temporary Commission on Alternative Financing of Public 
Telecommunications (“TCAF”), Report to Congress (Oct. 1, 1983) (“TCAF Report”), Executive Summary available 
at http://www.current.org/1983/01/temporary-commission-on-alternative-financing-1983/
(accessed Sept. 23, 2014) (at Congress’s direction, temporarily permitting ten NCE television stations to air 
advertising to facilitate recommendations to Congress on alternative financing);  Pub. L. No. 97–35, Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 §§ 1232-33, 95 Stat 357 (1981).  Maricopa also relies upon a proceeding in the 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-187
3
states that the Bureau’s waiver denial was perfunctory and used circular reasoning.  It argues that the 
Bureau did not give the waiver request a “hard look” and may have ignored or misunderstood material 
facts, such as the goals and benefits of the proposal.
14
  Finally, it argues that the Commission should 
revise the underwriting policies applied by the Bureau, which allegedly rely upon old, untested 
presumptions from an era politically more liberal and technologically less advanced.
15
6. Upon consideration of the Application for Review and the entire record, we affirm the 
Bureau’s denial of the waivers for the reasons stated herein.   First, although not explicitly discussed by 
the Bureau below, the Commission lacks authority to provide the relief which Maricopa seeks.  The 
advertising ban in Section 73.503(d) of the Rules, which Maricopa wants waived, implements the 
prohibition in Section 399B of the Act.  Section 73.503(d) and related Commission policies are carefully 
calibrated to avoid stations’ running afoul of the statutory prohibition on promotional announcements
16
on 
behalf of for-profit entities.
17
The rule and policies thus help ensure that NCE licensees do not cross the 
line between acceptable underwriting announcements and statutorily prohibited advertisements.  While 
Maricopa downplays the magnitude of the underwriting enhancements it proposes to air, saying that the 
material cannot “be deemed true commercial advertising” because it merely “pushes the envelope 
slightly”
18
we find nevertheless that Maricopa’s proposal would cross the line established in the statute.  
Indeed, the agency has issued numerous decisions in the enforcement context holding that the types of 
underwriting announcements Maricopa proposes, e.g., those including information about 
sales/discounts/special events and “qualitative adjectives” that are “factually-based,” violate not only the 
rules but also Section 399B of the Act.
19
  
7. Maricopa’s original request to conduct its proposed experiment expressly recognized that 
the Commission lacks authority to waive the statute, and claimed only to be seeking “suspend[ed] 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
1960’s allowing, on an experimental basis, a commercial station’s one-year test of an all-advertising format.  See 
McLendon Pacific Corp., Letter, 4 FCC 2d 722 (1966).
14
For example, Maricopa stresses that it is motivated by the potential de-funding of public broadcasting, not by a 
desire to increase its own revenue.  Application at 11.
15
Id. at 6.
16
The rules proscribe “promotional announcements.” 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.503(d), 73.621(e). The statutory definition of 
“advertisement” is any message or programming aired for remuneration that is intended “to promote any service, 
facility, or product offered by any person who is engaged in such offering for profit,” 47 U.S.C. § 399B(a)(1) 
(emphasis added).
17
See 1984 Order, 97 FCC 2d at 256-57 (the statutory provisions closely paralleled the Commission’s underwriting 
rules and the Commission subsequently “modified and clarified its rules and policies to conform to the 
Congressional mandate”) (citing Commission Policy Regarding the Noncommercial Nature of Educational 
Broadcast Stations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 90 FCC 2d 895 (1982)), and 265 (modifying Commission 
rules “in accordance with” statute to relax restrictions not required by the statute).
18
Application at 4.
19
See, e.g., Educational Community Radio, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, 
28 FCC Rcd 5283, 5287 (MB 2013) (announcement referencing appearance of “Canada’s #1 Bluegrass Band” 
violated rule and statute and that statement’s factuality or truth was irrelevant to determining if it was promotional);  
Independence Public Media of Philadelphia, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 857, 861 
(EB 2009) (reference to design award); Ministerio Radial Cristo Viene Pronto, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 241, 243-44 & Attachment (EB 2009) (announcements including “finance it for 12, 14, or 
up to 18 months without interest,” “without interest,” and “10% discounts”); Penfold Communications, Inc., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Forfeiture Order, 13 FCC Rcd 23731, 23732-34 (MMB 1998) (references to 
“clearance sale” and “grand opening”). Nat'l Farm Workers Service Center, Inc., Letter, 9 FCC Rcd 6855 (MMB 
1994) (availability of “special financing” and “different plans for financing” impermissible because “financial 
information [is] violative of Section 399B, even where the price is not specifically identified”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-187
4
enforcement” of Section 399B.
20
  However, Maricopa cited no legal basis upon which the Commission 
could so abstain, and Maricopa’s Application for Review states only that Maricopa is not seeking a 
waiver of the statute but rather a waiver of the Commission’s rules.
21
  The Commission’s power to waive
its own Rules cannot confer upon it any authority to ignore a statute.
22
While some portions of the Act 
contain specific language authorizing the Commission to waive provisions thereof, the Act grants no such 
authority with respect to Section 399B.
23
    Nor has Congress specifically called for the proposed study, in 
contrast to the TCAF Advertising Demonstration Program upon which Maricopa relies.
24
  Expo 
Experiment, unlike the case at hand, did not implicate section 399B or the underwriting rules.
25
  
Accordingly, we conclude that we cannot grant Maricopa’s request because the underwriting 
enhancements Maricopa seeks authority to broadcast would violate the statutory prohibition against airing 
advertisements on NCE broadcast stations.  In view of the foregoing, Maricopa’s request for an 
experimental license is moot and it is therefore unnecessary to address Maricopa’s arguments that the 
Bureau failed to give a hard look to Maricopa’s request for waiver of the experimental authorization rule 
to permit a non-technical experiment.  
                                                     
20
Request at 3, 20.  Maricopa thus sought to distinguish its request from one in which the Bureau denied a waiver of 
the statutory ban on advertising.  Id. at 20, citing Network of Glory, Letter, 26 FCC Rcd 14259 (MB 2011).
21
Application at 13.
22
See Metromedia, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 56 FCC 2d 909, 909-10 (1975) (Commission could not 
accept reconsideration petition filed one day late because despite Commission’s discretion under its Rules to accept 
late filings, it was bound by a statutory 30-day reconsideration deadline in the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 405(a)).
23
For example, a longstanding provision in Section 10 of the Act allows the Commission to forbear from enforcing 
provisions relating to telecommunications, but not to broadcasting.  See 47 U.S.C. § 160.  More recently enacted 
laws give the Commission waiver authority over limited issues not applicable here.  See generally Implementation of 
Commercial Advertising Loudness Mitigation Act, Second Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6244, 6295(2014); 
Considering Deployment of Text-to-911, Policy Statement and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 
FCC Rcd 1547, ¶56 (2014).   
24
That Commission-facilitated study, undertaken at the direction of Congress, ultimately recommended that 
Congress not allow NCE advertising but permit the non-promotional enhancements now in effect.  Maricopa’s 
proposal, while well-intentioned, is unilateral and seeks to provide Congress with information it has not requested.  
Maricopa shows only that Congress apparently has remained generally interested in the issue, having in 2012 asked 
CPB to report on alternative financing options.  Request at 4, citing CPB, Alternative Sources of Funding for Public 
Broadcast Stations (June 20, 2012) (“CPB Report”) available at 
http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/Alternative_Sources_of_Funding_for_Public_Broadcasting_Stations.pdf (accessed 
Sept. 24, 2014).  However, in contrast with the TCAF Demonstration Program, Congress has not directed Maricopa 
to undertake this study.
25
  The non-profit applicant therein referenced noncommercial broadcasting only to illustrate its belief that its 
acceptance of donations to cover operating expenses would not run afoul of a rule prohibiting the holder of an 
experimental authorization from charging others for transmission of information.  See Expo Experiment, 89 FCC 2d 
at 1383; 47 C.F.R. § 74.182.  See also 47 C.F.R. § 5.215.   As to Maricopa’s references to the possibility that 
Section 399B may be invalidated, Application at 10-12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently 
upheld the statute against a constitutional challenge, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari. See 
Minority Television Project, Inc. v. FCC, 676 F.3d 869 (9
th
Cir 2012), aff’d en banc, 736 F.3d 1192 (9
th
Cir. 2013)
(upholding section 399B as constitutional), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 2874 (2014).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-187
5
8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Application for Review of Maricopa 
Community College District IS DENIED, pursuant to section 5(c)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5), and section 1.115(g) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(g).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-187
6
CONCURRING STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
Re: Maricopa Community College District, Request for Experimental Authority to Relax Standards 
for Public Radio Underwriting Announcements for KJZZ(FM) and KBAQ(FM), Phoenix, 
Arizona, MO&O, FCC No. 14-187
I agree with my colleagues that the Application for Review should be denied.  While I do not 
doubt that Maricopa Community College District’s (Maricopa’s) proposed experiment involving the 
Commission’s underwriting rules and policies was requested with the best of intentions, it does not meet 
the standard necessary to obtain a waiver.  Among other things, as the Media Bureau has pointed out, 
Maricopa has not presented any special circumstances that distinguish it from all other noncommercial 
educational FM licensees.
1
  Moreover, any reform of our underwriting rules and policies should be 
handled through industry-wide proceedings, rather than granting individual licensees special dispensation 
to air underwriting announcements that all other licensees would not be able to broadcast.
However, the Commission does not rest its decision on these narrow grounds.  It instead goes 
much further, denying the Application for Review because it finds that the types of underwriting 
announcements that Maricopa would like to broadcast would violate the Communications Act.
2
  
Specifically, it concludes that these announcements would constitute advertisements, which 
noncommercial educational stations are prohibited by statute from airing.
3
  
In my view, the Commission would have been better off avoiding this question of statutory 
interpretation.  For one thing, as explained above, the Application for Review could have (and should 
have) been denied for other reasons.  For another thing, today’s decision could have a broader impact on 
public broadcasting.  In particular, I have a hard time understanding how some of the “underwriting 
advertisements” that air before many of PBS’s most popular programs, such as Downton Abbey, are 
lawful if all of the “underwriting announcements” that Maricopa would like to air are statutorily 
prohibited.  For example, if it violates the statute for underwriting announcements to use qualitative 
adjectives based in fact,
4
how can Viking River Cruises tout its “modern river cruise vessel[s]” in a thirty-
second “underwriting announcement” that obviously appears designed to entice viewers into taking a 
river cruise so that they can be “transported . . . to a another world, a world of dramatic landscapes, 
majestic castles and remarkable characters”?
5
                                                     
1
See Ernest T. Sanchez, Esq., Letter, 29 FCC Rcd 5180, 5182 (MB 2014).   
2
See 47 U.S.C. § 399B.  
3
SeeMemorandum Opinion and Order at para. 6.  
4
See id.
5
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9BQj49zfXg