Educational Blc Stations
Declaratory Ruling Educational Noncommercial TV Station
Reconsideration, Petition for, Denial of
895
Request for declaratory ruling of Second Report and Order, 86 FCC
2d 141, granted to resolve the uncertainty that exists as to the impact
of Public Blcing Amendments Act of,1981 upon the Second Report.
Petition for clarification granted Reconsideration petitions denied.
-Educational Blc Stations
BC Docket No. 21136
FCC 82--327
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Commission Policy Concerning the
Noncommercial Nature of Educational
Broadcast Stations.
BC Docket No.
21136
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: July 15, 1982; Released: July 30, 1982
By THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER WASHBURN ISSUING AN
ADDITIONAL STATEMENT.
1. The Second Report and Order in Docket No. 21136 evaluated the
financial needs ofpublic broadcasters as well as their obligation to provide
a noncommercial service.
1
The Commission relaxed certain restrictions
on public broadcasters' fundraising activities. Petitions for reconsidera 
tion and "clarification, and various comments in response thereto, were
filed with the commission concerning the Second Report. Additionally, a
petition for declaratory ruling was filed regardingthe impact ofthe Public
Broadcasting Amendments act of 1981 (with particular reference to Sec-
I Second Report and Order, 86 F.e.C. 2d 141 (1981). Hereinafter referred to as "Second Report."
90 F.e.e. 2d
896 Federal Communications Commission Reports
tions 399A and 399B of the Communications Act) upon the Second Re 
port.
2
The Second Report and Sections 399A and 399B serve a similar
underlying purpose and achieve similar ends, by providing public broad 
casters tbe opportunity to attract additional !inancial support while
focusing upon the noncommercial nature of public broadcasting in gener 
al. In light of the basic thrust of both the Second Report, and Sections
399A and 399B, and in the interest of expediting consideration of the
issues raised by the various pleadings, we will address the request for
declaratory ruling together with the petitions for reconsideration and
clarification.
3
Background
2. Essentially, the Second Report liberalized prior restrictions upon
noncommercial broadcasters by amending 47 C.F.R. §73.503 and 47
C.F.R. §73.621 to: (1) allow public broadcasters to air promotional an 
nouncements when deemed in the public interest and no consideration for
such announcements is received;4 (2) eliminate the name only require 
ment for donor acknowledgements and permit the broadcast of informa 
tional, but not promotional, messages (i.e., the messages may include
such information as the donor's logo, location and product lines or serv 
ices); and (3) delete any limitations on the timing and frequency of donor
acknowledgements. The amendments were designed to further the im 
portant governmental interest in preserving the essentially noncommer 
cial nature of public broadcasting within a minimal regulatory frame 
work by insulating public broadcasters from commercial marketplace
pressures and decisions.
o
The Commission believes that the rules satisfy
constitutional objections since they are narrowly fashioned to achieve an
important governmental interest (i.e., the rules prohibit the broadcast of
promotional announcements for consideration---no more, no less),6 and
that the rules satisfy the statutory mandate of 47 U.S.C. §317 (47 C.F.R.
§73.1212) since the donor acknowledgements, as allowed, better inform
the public as to the identity of the sponsoring entities.
7
Moreover, it was
2 Section 1231 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, P.L. 97-35, 97th Cong., 1st Session
(1981), amended the Communications Act by adding Sections 399A and 39gB.
.~By Order of April 23, 1981, the Commission consolidated. the petitions for reconsideration and
clarification.
4 Consideration is broadly defined "to denote anything of value given in exchange for something else of
value.~Second Report, 811pra at 142.
5 Second Report, supra, at 142-143.
6 A regulation which infringes upon First Amendment rights is valid jf,it furthers a substantial
government interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. U,S. v. O'BI'ieil, 391 U.S. 367, 377
(1968); Community ServieeBroadcasr'illgq/MidAmerim, Ille. v, FCC, 593 F. 2d 1102, 1111, 1114 (D.C.
eir., 1978),
7 Section 317 basically requires a station to make an announcement that the programming material was
broadcast for consideratiol')., unless the consideration consists ofgoods or services provided at little or
90 F.e.C. 2d
Educational Blc Stations
897
hoped that Sections 73.503 and 73.621, as amended, would enable non 
commercial broadcasters to attract additional revenue and broaden their
economic base. Stated another way, it was our hope that the liberalization
of restrictions on donor acknowledgements would encourage more
contributors.
3. The Second Report reflected the Commission's desire to strike "a
reasonable balance between the financial needs of [public broadcast]
stations and their obligation to provide an essentially noncommercial
broadcast service" and eliminate those proscriptive regulations deemed
unnecessary to preserve the media's noncommercial nature. The recent
amendments to the Communications Act relating to public broadcasting
reflect Congress' desire to ensure that the public telecommunications
media remains financially viable in view of substantial Federal funding
reductions, by encouraging and facilitating the ability of public broadcast 
ers to generate additional private financial support which is necessary for
their continued survival. 8 In this vein, Congress (1) created the Tempo 
rary Commission on alternative Financing for Public Telecommunications
(Temporary Commission) to undertake a study and aggressively explore
alternative sources of funding, and (2) authorized public broadcasters to
provide services, facilities and products in exchange for remuneration, so
long as such services, facilities or products would not interfere with the
delivery of public broadcasting service.
8
Moreover, like the Second Re 
port. Section 399A permits the inclusion of non-promotional identifying
information (i. e., the donor's aural visual logograms, slogans and location)
no cost for noncommercial, nonpromotional purposes. The basic premise of the sponsorship identifica 
tion requirement is that the public is entitled to know by whom they are being persuaded. Ap 
plicability of Sponsorship Ide-«tification Rules, 40 F.G.C. 141, 141 (1963).
~According to the House Report, one of the primary purposes of the legislation was "to facilitate and
encourage the efforts of public broadcasting licenses to seek and develop new- sources of non-Federal
revenue, which will be necessary for the long term support of the system as Federal funding is
reduced." Public Broadcasting Amendments Act of 1981, H.R. Rep. No. 97-82, 97th Cong., 1st 8ess.,
p. 7 (1981) (House ReJX)'rt 97-82).
9 The House Report 97--82 stated that Section 399B prohibits public broadcast stations from using their
"fucilities for the broadcast of any advertisement" but "explicitly authorize(s) [them] ... to engage
in the offering of services, facilities, or products in exchange for remuneration." For instance, such
offerings may include the provision of "instructional, educational and cultUral material, for remunera 
tion, to public school systems and other nonprofit institutions. ." Id. at 25. Itshould be noted that 26
U. S. C. § 513 requires public broadcast stations to report and pay taxes on unrelated business income.
Thus for tax purposes, Section 399B provides that public broadcast stations establish a separate
accounting system for the above noted actiVities. Public broadcast stations should be cautioned that
their tax-exempt status may be jeopardized if the Internal Revenue Service determines that profit
making has become their primary activity. See e.g" Carle Foundation v. United Slates, 611 F. 2d 1192
(7th Cir. 1979); Iowa State University QfScience and Technology, 500 F. 2d 508 (Ct. Cl. 1974). See also,
America.nColiege ofPhysicians v. United States, 530 F. 2d 930 (Ct. C1.1976) (profits received by a tax
exempt organization generated through advertising in its trade journal did not constitute taxable
income of an unrelated trade or business).
90 F.C.C. 2d
898 Federal Communications Commission Reports
in donor acknowledgements,1O and Section 399B prohibits the broadcast
of promotional announcements for consideration.
l1
4. Although Sections 399A and 399B parallel the Second Report in most
important respects, there are three notable differences. First, Section
399A imposed a restriction upon the scheduling of donor acknowledge 
ments, whereas the Second Report eliminated all timing and frequency
restrictions. Second, although Section 399A retains the Second Report's
promotion vs. identification" distinction regarding donor acknowledge 
ments, the statute appears to he more restrictive as to the information
which may be included in such acknowledgements. Third, while both the
Second Report and Section 399B disallow the broadcast of promotional
announcements for consideration, the proscription inthe Second Report
is unquestionably broader than that found in Section 399B. These dif 
ferences will be dealt with, in greater detail, in connection with the
petition for declaratory ruling.
10 Section 399A provides:
(a) For purposes of this section, the term 'business or institutional logogram' means any aural or
visual letters or words, or any symbol or sign, which is used for the exclusive purpose ofidentifying
any corporation, company, orotherorganization, which is not used for the purpose of promoting the
products, services, or facilities of .such corporation, company, or other organization.
(b) Each public television station and each public radio station shall be authorized to broadcast
announcements which include the use of any business or institutional logogram and which includes
a reference to the location of the corporation, company, or other organization involved, except that
such announcements may not interrupt regular programming.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Commission to
prescribe regulations relating to the manner in which logograms may be used to identify corpora 
tions, companies or other organizations.
11 Section 399B provides, in pertinent part:
(a) For purposes of this section, the term 'advertisement' means any message or other program 
ming material which is broadcast or otherwise transmitted in exchange for any remuneration, and
which is intended-
(1) to promote any service, facility, or product offered by any person who is engaged in such
offering for profit;
(2) to express the views of any person with respect to any matter ofpublic importance or interest:
0'
(3) to support or oppose any candidate for public office.
(b)(l) Except as provided in paragraph (2), each public broadcast station shall be authorized to
engage in the offering of services, facilities or products in exchange for remuneration.
(b)(2) No public broadcast station may make its facilities available to any person for thebroadcast~
ing of any advertisement.
90 F.C.C. 2d
Educational Elc Stations
Discussion
899
5. Having generally discussed the Second Report and Sections 399A
and 399B, we will proceed to consider the: (1) petition for declaratory
ruling; (2) petition for clarification; and (3) petition for reconsideration.
(1) Petition for Declamtory Ruling
6. The petition urged the Commission to issue a ruling, declaring that
Section 399B is mandatory and self-executing and, in effect, that it
supersedes the Second Report's more restrictive consideration received
rule.
J2
Specifically, the petitioner declared that Section 399B is broader in
that it:
(a) Permits public broadcasters to broadcast nonpromotional material even when
consideration is received; and
(b) Even permits the broadcast of promotional announcements as long as the person
offering the services, facilities or products is not engaged in the offering of those
products, services or facilities for a profit.
According to the parties, a declaratory ruling is necessary to dispel the
uncertainty public broadcasters face regarding their potential for
fundraising and encourage them to take full "advantage of their new
flexibility to seek out the additional, non-Federal sources of revenue they
vitally need."
7. In its discretion, the Commission may issue a declaratory ruling to
terminate a controversy or remove an uncertainty. 5 U.S.C. § 554(e); 47
C.F.R. § 1.2. In recognition of the importance to public broadcasters in
developing non-Federal revenue sources which will ensure continued high
quality programming, we believe a declaratory ruling is warranted to
resolve the uncertainty that exists as to the impact of Section 399B, as
well as Section 399A, upon the Second Report.
8. As we previOUSly stated, the Second Report's prohibition against the
broadcast of'promotional announcements is broader than that found in
Section 399B. The Second Report prohibits all promotional announce 
ments for consideration (i.e., the l'considerationrfc~lvedrule") irrespec 
tive of the nature of the sponsoring entity-be it a profit or a non-profit
organization. Section 399B's preclusion, however, is unambiguously and
clearly limited to the broadcast of promotional announcements ("adver 
tisements")13 sponsored by profit entities.
14
We recognize that Section
12 The petition for declaratory ruling was jointly filed by the National Association of Public Television
Stations (NAPTS) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The law firm of Dow, Lohnes and
Albertson filed comments in support of the petition.
13 Section 399B also prohibits sponsored announcements which "express the views of any person with
respect to any matter ofpublic importance or interest" or which "support oroppose any candidate for
political office," by defining all such announcements as "advertisements."
14 The plain language of the statute restricts the definition of advertisements to promotional announce 
ments spon.sored by profit entities and excludes from that definition, by way of omission, similar
90 F.e.e. 2d
900 Federal Communications Commission Reports
399B is part of the legislative scheme to increase non-Federal support for
the public telecommunications media, and as such the allowance of promo 
tional announcements sponsored by non-profit organizations may prove to
be an additional revenue source. We are also cognizant ofCongress' intent
to preserve the essentially noncommercial nature ofthe public broadcast 
ing service-a service that is responsive to the overall public as opposed
to the sway of particular political, economic, social or religious interests.
In this regard, we note that the Temporary Commission (supra at para.
3), assigned to the task ofexploring alternative means of financing for the
public telecommunications media, was directed to consider and satisfy
the following criteria:
Cal Continued growth in audience coverage and programming excellence; and
(b) Insulation of program control and content from the influence of special interests 
be they commercial, political or religious. \5
9. We believe that the Second Report's blanket prohibition against all
sponsored promotiol)al announcements served to retain a substantial
distinction between commercial and noncommercial stations, by ensuring
that public broadcasters' judgments are made in the public interests, and
insulated from the commercial pressures of an open marketplace 
whether those pressures are exerted by profit or non-profit entities.
'6
The
consideration received rule thus preserved a reasonable distinction be 
tween commercial and noncommercial services without casting undue
financial constraints upon public broadcasters. However, our rule undeni 
ably restricts public broadcasters in their fundraising activities to a
greater degree than Section 399B, and thus is inconsistent with the
statute. A regulation that is inconsistent, or more restrictive, or not in
harmony with the governing statute is invalid, U.S. v. Larionoff, 431 U.S.
864 (1977); Miller v. U.S., 294 U.S. 435, 440, rehearing denied, 294 U.S.
734, (1935); Ellis v. United States, 610 F. 2d 760, 764-765 (Ct. Cl. 1979);
Scofield v. Lewis, 251 F. 2d 128, 132 (5th Cir. 1958).
announcements sponsored by non-profit entities. Given the fact that the amendment was enacted
subsequent to the issuance of the Second Report and that the Second Report's prohibition against
sponsored promotional announcements extended to non-profit, as well as profit entities, we can only
conclude that Congress \vas cognizant of our broader proscription and excluded from its definition of
advertisements that which it intended to exclude. See e.g., Patrolmens BenevolentAssociation q(the
City ofNew York v. City ofNew York, 41 N.Y. 2d 205, 391 N.Y.S. 2d 544, 359 N.E. 2d 1338, 1341 (1976).
J5 House Report 97-82, supm at 16.
16 In this context, it should be noted that~non-profit"entities encompass a multitude of organizations
with varied purpose and functions. For example, according to the Internal Revenue Service, the
following organizations, among others, may be designated non-profit: athletic, labor and agricultural
associations or organizations; mutua! insurance companies or associations; benevolent life insurance
association; mutual or cooperative telephone companies; and state chartered credit unions. The
Exempt Organization Handbook, Internal Revenue Service, p. 12-13 (March 15, 1982).
90 F.e.c. 2d
Educational Bic Stations
901
10. To reconcile this apparent inconsistency and thus conform to the
legislative mandate of Section 399B, we are revising the Second Report's
consideration received rule to the extent that it prohibits the broadcast of
promotional announcements sponsored by non-profit organizations. This
action is taken pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 303(a) and (b) which authorizes
the Commission to classify and regulate classes of service, and 47 U.S.C.
§ 303(r) which authorizes the Commission to promulgate rules and reg 
ulations to implement applicable laws in a consistent fashion. I? In so
limiting the consideration received rule, we should emphasize that the
Second Report, as well as Sections 399A and 399B, represent an interim
step to afford public broadcasters more freedom in their programming
determinations and in their ability to procure necessary financial support.
Studies designed to assess the goals and purposes of public broadcasting
and alternative means of financing are currently in progress by the
Commission and the Congress. However, the pendency of these studies
does not prevent the Commission from according public broadcasters the
full freedom contemplated by the statute. Specifically, public broadcast 
ers are authorized to air promotional announcements sponsored by non 
profit organizations.
11. Additionally, we should point out that public broadcasters are, in
fact, required under 47 U.S.C. § 317 (47 C.F.R. § 73.1212) to acknowledge
donors. Contrary to petitioners' assertions, the Second Report, as well as
Section 399A, provide that such acknowledgements may contain identify 
ing, but nonpromotional, information. IS As previously noted, however,
Section 399A differs from the Second Report's treatment of donor ac-
17 As petitioner pointed out, the Commission may amend its rules and regulations to conform to and
comply with subsequent legislation without engaging in arule making proeeeding. See e.g., Amend·
ment of Part 73 (Radio Broadcast Services) and Pari 76 (Cable Television Service) of the Rules
(State Conducted Lotteries), 51 F.e.C. 2d 173 (1975).
18 In a related context, the Broadcast Bureau received a request for a waiver of the Commission's
sponsorship identification rules from Southern Educational Communications Association (SECAl,
the production agency for the television series, "Firing Line." SECA states that "Firing Line" is
aired weekly on PBS, and is funded by PBS and through the contributions from corporations and
individuals. SECArepresented that there are currently 45 contributors ("41 have contributed $5,000
or less; the other four are major underwriters with grants of $20,{l00 to 8100,000"). According to
SECA, PBS policy only allots twenty seconds to identify such contributors. It is thus difficult to
identify all the contributors in the alloted time frame, which in turn inhibits their efforts to broaden
their financial base of support, SECA proposes to give credit to the major underwriters and identify
all minor contributors as "Friends of Firing Line." SECA stated that it would maintain an updated
list of all underwriters at PBS or the Commission. We find that SECA's proposal is reasonable and
does not violate the spirit of 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212: that the public knows by whom they are being
persuaded. (See footnote 6, supra). As a general proposition, we believe that if programs, such as
"Firing Line," for the most part receive a fe,';" major contributions and numerous minor contribu 
tions, it would be sufficient to identify the substantial underwriters and generally acknowledge the
other underwriters. The substantiality or insubstantiality of contributions sbould relate to and be
determined by the actualprogramming costs. However, the general reference to the minor contribu 
tors should a!Ofo include a statement advising the public that a complete donor list is maintained and
accessible through PBS or the individual public broadcast station, whichever is appropriate.
90 F.e.C. 2d
902 Federal Communicalions Commission Reports
knowledgements in two respects: (1) the scheduling; and (2) the informa 
tion that may be included in such acknowledgements. We will address
these differences below.
12. First, the Second Report removed all timing and frequency restric 
tions for the broadcast of donor acknowledgements, whereas Section
399A contains a caveat: the scheduling of donor acknowledgements shall
not interrupt regular programming. In other words, it is permissible to
air such acknowledgements at "the beginning and end of pro 
grams ... between identifiable segments of a longer program" or, in the
absence of identifiable segments, in progra.mming during "station
breaks," such that the flow of programming is not "unduly disrupted.""
The Second Report relied upon the reasonable, good faith judgments of
public broadcast licensees to avoid commercial clutter and further consid 
ered audience resistence a sufficient deterrent to abuse. However, Sec 
tion 399A does impose a limited restriction upon the timing and frequency
of donor acknowledgements. Accordingly, we are changing our rules,
pursuantto47U.S.C. § 303(r)and47U.S.C. § 399A(c), to conform to the
"scheduling" restriction required by Section 399A. (See Appendix A).
13. Second, Section 399A also appears to differ from the Second Report
with respect to the information that may be included in the donor ac 
knowledgements, although Section 399A retains the Second Report's
"promotion vs. identification" distinction. The Second Report provides
that the acknowledgements may state, among other things, the donor's
products lines or services. In delineating that information which may be
incorporated in such acknowledgements, Section 399A explicitly autho 
rizes the non-promotional use of the donor's aural or visual logograms
and location, but is silent as to product lines or services. Despite this
ommission, we believe that by broadly defining the term "logogram,"
Congress, in fact, authorized that which was intended by the Second
Report. Although the House Report, declared that "products or services
[should not be] included as part of such announcements at this time," it
proceeded to state:
Accordingly, it is the Committee's intentthat a logogram could contain the broadcast of
a corporate symbol, accompanied by the identification: "XYZ Oil Corporation, ofNew
York, refiners of petroleum products," but could not contain: "XYZ Oil Corporation of
New York, manufacturers of Super 94 unleaded gasoline;" or that a logogram could
contain:'~BC) the telephone company of Maryland," but could not contain ''ABC, the
telephone company ofMar~yland,with a variety of telephones to serve you." The
Committee intends that logograms by value neutral, and solely for the purpose of
generic identification.
* * * * *
19 House Report 97-82 supra, at 24. We should point out that the HOUBe Report is very instructive since
the Senate did not have a comparable provision, and Section 399A as proposed in H.R. 3238, supra.
was fully adopted by the Conference Report with the amendment contained in3~9A(c)empowering
the Commission to further regulate in this area.
90 F.e.e. 2d
Educational Blc Stations
903
In allowing the use of logograms, the Committee reemphasizes the clear distinction
made by the Commission in its decision, that they will be allowed to the extent they
help identify a contributor without promoting him. No comparisons are allowed. No
qualitative objectives are allowed.
* * * * *
In allowing the use ofslogans, the Committee sought to provide to radio the non-ViS1Ual
equivalent that is allowed for television through logograms. Allowable slogans must
meet the "identification without promotion" test. Again, the entire announcement
should be brief.
According the the House Report, Section 399A further limits the Second
Report which allegedly allowed for the "listings of products and services;'
in donor acknowledgements. Id. In this connection, it is noted that the
Second Report did not contemplate or authorize the listing of products or
services per se. Rather, the Second Report, at 155, emphasized that the
mention of products or services should be "strictly" for identification
purposes, and that any comparative, qualitative information was imper 
missible. It appears that Congress defined the term "logogram" in such a
way as to embrace the Second Report's intended use of a donor's product
lines or services for purposes of "generic identification," if suchuS(~is
"value-neutral" (i.e, non-comparative, non-qualitative).20 It is thus our
interpretation that under Section 399A, and the Second Report, the
logogram may include a description of the donor's general product line or
services, but may not include the specific listing or promoting ofsuch. For
example, it would be permissible for an acknowledgement to state, "IGen 
eral Motors, maker of automobiles and automobile accessories;" but it
would impermissible for it to state, "General Motors, maker of
Oldsmobile Cutlass, Pontiac Firebird, Buick Century, and Cadillacc El 
dorado" or "General Motors, maker of fine automobiles and automobile
accessories."
14. To recapitulate, public broadcasters may broadcast: (1) donor ac 
knowledgements which inform but do not promote (i.e., the donor's
logogram, may include a general description of product lines or services,
as well as the donor's location); (2) announcements which promote the
goods, services or activities of profit entities deemed in the public interest
for which no consideration is received; and (3) announcements which
promote the goods, services or activities of non-profit organizations,
whether or not consideration is received. However, public broadcasters
may not schedule announcements so as to interrupt regular
programming.
20 In fact, the example of"XYZ Oil Corporation of New York, refiners ofpetroleum products" is similar
to that found in the Second Report, wherein the Commission :'Itated:
[wJhile an announcement identifying Exxon Corporation, producer ofpetroleum products would be
permissible, announcements identifying Exxon as the producer of "fine" or the "best" petroleum
products would be prohibited. [Second Report, sup-ra at 155.)
90 F.C.C. 2d
904 Federal Communications Commission Reports
Petition for Clarifteation
15. The petition urges the Commission to clarify the Second Report by
assuring public broadcasters that it is permissible to air brief promo 
tional-fundraising announcements on behalfof non-profit performing arts
organizations during the intermission features of broadcasts furnished by
such organizations.2> The petition is specifically tailored to the intermis 
sion features, and the announcements contained therein, of Metropolitan
(Dpera's performance broadcasts. Metropolitan Opera described its inter 
n1ission features as an integral part of its broadcasts. According to
IVietropolitan Opera, its intermission features include discussion "on the
hlistory of opera, the works of particular composers, the theory and styles
of' operatic music, or the Metropolitan Opera itself, such as a backstage
look at the opera, an interview with performers, the history of the
Metropolitan Opera, or an account of its current program!' In addition to
thils information format, the intermission feature may contain brief
fUrldraising announcements (three to four minutes of a twenty minute
intermission) which may include direct solicitation of contributions or
indirect requests for support through the offering of premiums or mem 
bership in the Opera Guild, an auxiliary organization which supports the
Metropolitan Opera.
16.. Relying upon language of the Second Report, concerning fundrais 
ing on behalfof third parties,22 the petitioner contends that the broadcast
of fundraising activities (i.e., auctions, marathons) on behalfof organiza 
tions other than the licensee which would significantly alter or suspend
regular programming is prohibited," but that the broadcast of promo 
tional fundraising announcements which do not interrupt regular pro 
gramming is permissible. Since the announcements on behalf of non 
profit performing arts organizations occur during intermission periods
and do not significantly alter regular programming, the petition states
that the announcements are allowable under the Second Report. More 
over, it is stated that the Second Report affords public broadcasters
greater discretion and specifically authorizes them, on their own, to air
announcements promoting or urging support of performing arts organi 
zations ifthe licensee determines that it would be in the public interest to
do so. Specifically, the petition states:
The exercise of alicense~'sdiscretion with regard to announcements publicizing the
Metropolitan Opera's fund raising activities is thes~ewhether the licensee itself
21 The petition for clarification was filed by the Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc. (Metropolitan
Opera). A formal opposition to the petition was filed by NPR and an informal opposition was filed by
Minnesota Public Radio. Metropolitan Opera filed reply comments.
Z2 Second Reports, supra, at 157-158.
23 "Suspended programming" denotes broadcast material which goes beyond a mere announeement.
and as such disrupts normal programming.
90 F.e.C. 2d
Educational Blc Stations
905
originates the announcement or whether the licensee chooses to air a broadcast
performance which incorporates these annOWlcements during the intermission
feature.
In a related context, the petition states, "Certainly, a request for dona 
tions or the offering of memberships or publications which support or
promote nonprofit performing arts organizations such as the Metro 
politan Opera should raise fewer concerns about commercial like pro 
gramming than the explicit promotions of goods and services [for which
no consideration has been received] which the Commission has expressly
approved." Therefore, it is argued, that a public broadcaster should be
able to exercise discretion in determining whether such announcements
are in the public interest, and if so, be able to air them. Finally, it is
contended that the Second Report's prohibition against announcements
promoting the sale of program-related materials by or on behalf of pro 
gram suppliers was intended to ensure that such offerings are motivated
by public interest considerations rather than the economic interest of the
offerer. The petition concedes that non-profit performing arts organiza 
tions that provide live program offerings over public broadcast stations
are program suppliers, but argues that the solicitation of contributions
for such non-profit organizations could hardly be considered to be moti 
vated by a commercial gain. Rather, such contributions are necessary to
ensure continued quality Pl70gramming particularly in light of the pro 
spective reductions in appropriations to the National Endowment of the
Arts, which will adversely affect such organizations.
17. In comments opposing the petition, it is argued that the flexibility
afforded to public broadcasters in the Second Report is limited to the "on 
air promotion of offcair fundraising activities."" The Second Report is thus
interpreted as prohibiting the broadcast of any direct fundraising ac 
tivity, in the form of briefannouncements as well as suspended program 
ming, which inures to the benefit of any individual, organization or entity
other than the licensee. To hold otherwise would place public broadcas 
ters in the position of a general charitable fundraiser. Moreover, it is
argued that if direct fundraising activity is allowed, the distinction be 
tween commercial and noncommercial stations will be weakened.
18. A reply comment was filed in which the petitioner essentially
reiterates its position that the Second Report's prohibition against on-the 
air fundraising activities for third parties applies only to those activities
which substantially alter regular programming. According to the peti 
tioner, to accept the position presented in the opposing comments would
2, "Off-air fundraising activities" refers to transitory, nonbroadcast events for which an admission
charge is required, or goods or services are offered for sale. Prior to the Second Report, public
broadcasters were not permitted to promote such events.. or even mention the admission fee, on the
air. However, the Second Report perMits the public broadcasters to promote such community events
"in any manner they choose,~in the absence of consideration.
90 F.e.C. 2d
906 Federal Communications Commission Reports
mean that a "public station receiving no consideration could freely pro 
mote sales of goods and services by profit-making organizations, but
could not broadcast any announcement requesting donations to a non 
profit organization:' Moreover, petitioner states that such a position will
constrain public broadcasters in their exercise of the wide discretion
afforded them under the Second Report. Finally, petitioner argues that
the Second Report is content-neutral, and does not distinguish between
direct and indirect promotional announcements and certainly is not lim 
ited to "on-air promotion of off-air fundraising activities."
19. In view of the conflicting interpretations of the Second Repo;·t" as it
relates to announcements which directly or indirectly solicit funds for
non-profit performing arts organizations during programming furnished
by such organizations, we believe that it is necessary to clarify public
broadcasters' responsibilities in this area. Under the consideration re 
ceived rule, the public broadcaster may air announcements that promote
goods, services or activities of any individuaL or entity, for which no
consideration is received. The rule was not limited by the nature or
content of the particular broadcast-i.e., the rule was not limited to on 
the-air promotion of off-the-air fundraising events. The rule is.limited by
the public broadcasters' determination that such promotion is in the
public interest, and in this area, the Second Report accords public broad 
casters great latitude. The furnishing of live or taped performances by
organizations such as the Metropolitan Opera to public broadcasters for
airing would constitute consideration.
26
As such, the consideration re 
ceived rule would have barred any brief announcements which directly
solicited contributions or support for such organizations. However, given
the non-profit status of such organizations, the receipt of consideration
would no longer prevent 'the broadcast of the announcements under the
Second Report, as revised to reflect the Congressional mandate of Section
399B. Therefore, the broadcast of such announcements are permissible.
20. The Second Report also prohibited broadcasts that promote the sale
of program-related goods or services by program producers and suppliers
(1) where the cost was more than nominal; or (2) where consideration had
been received; and (3) where the offering was designed to .further the
economic interest of the offerer, as opposed to the general interest of the
public.
27
This principle was based upon the Commission's belief that such
2S Metropolitan Opera, as well as PBS, view the broadcast ofthese fund raising announcements, made
in connection with the programming,-as a matter for licensee discretion. The law firm of Sch,vartz,
Woods and Miller believes that a waive} is appropriate. NPR and Minnesota Radio considers such
announcements to be inappropriate and precluded by the Second Report.
20 The contribution ofprogramming material or funds for programming constitutes consideration, and
as such the contributor must be acknowledged. See 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212.
27 For purposes of discussion, we are assuming that the cost of program-related materials which are
promoted during the intermission features ofperformance broadcasts by program suppliers, such as
Metropolitan Opera, is not nominal.
90 F.C.C. 2d
Educational Blc Stations
907
announcements are "overtly commercial" and was an extension of prior
case law that prohibits promotional broadcasts of the licensee's or the
licensee's agents' outside business or financial interests.
28
However, since
direct promotional fundraising announcements sponsored by non-profit
organizations are now permissible, we believe that this aspect of the
Second Report should also reflect that change. Accordingly, public broad 
casters may now air announcements that promote program related mate 
rials sold by non-profit organizations, including the station itself. To allow
announcements that promote the goods, services andlor activities of non 
profit organizations, but prohibit the offering of program related material
by a non-profit program supplier, would indeed be inconsistent and arbi 
trary. In addition to the foregoing, a public broadcaster may in its
discretion broadcast briefannouncements; (1) which directly or indirectly
raise funds for the non-profit performing arts organizations in connection
with programming furnished by such organizations; and (2) which would
not interrupt regular progranuning. By so ruling, we must emphasize
that pUblic broadcasters are not required or obligated to air these or any
other fundraising announcements. Public broadcasters may in the exer 
cise of their good faith jUdgement do so if they determine that such
announcements ultimately serve the public interest. Although we are
relaxing our policies regarding promotional announcements to an even
greater extent than permitted under the Second Report, we should also
emphasize that we will continue to follow Ohio State University, 38 RR 2d
22 (1976), to the extent that public broadcasters are generally prohibited
from engaging in fundraising activities on behalfofany entity other than
the licensee where such activities substantially alter or suspend regular
programming.29
Petitions for Reconsideration
21. The petitioners requested that the Commission reconsider the
policies set forth in the Second Report on substantive and procedural
grounds.
30
They stated that the Second Report estahlished new rules that
2.8 See Fordham University, 18 F.e.C. 2d 209, 210-211 (1969); compare WFLI, Inc. ,13 F.e.C. 2d846, 847
(l968); Crowell-Collier Broadcasting Co., 14 F.e.C. 2d 358 (1966).
2'.l1t should be noted that the Commission recently granted a waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 73.621 to Greater
Washington Educational Telecommunications Association, Inc. (GWETA), licensee of noncommer 
cial educational television Station WETA-TV, Washington, D.C., FCC 82--198 (April 22, 1982). The
waiver allowed GWETA to broadcast a three hour fundraising program for the WolfTrap Foundation
to assist in its restoration efforts after a fire destroyed its facilities. The Commission determined that
a waiver was warranted under the unique circumstances presented there.
3C Petitions for reconsideration were filed by: the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB); and
were jointly filed by the Committee to Save KQED, the Association of Independent Video and
Filmmakers Inc., the Citizens Committee on the Media (Chicago), the Chicago Citizens Cable
Coalition, Public Media Center and the Committee to Make Public Television Public (referred to
collectively as the Committee to Save KQED). Oppositions to the petitions were filed by the PBS, the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the law firm of Dow, Lohnes and Albertson on behalf of
90 F.C.C. 2d
908 Federal Communications Commission Reports
"radically depart" from the Commission's previous policies, which pro 
hibited public broadcasters from operating in substantially the same
manner as commercial stations by proscribing the broadcast of commer 
cial or commercial like matter on noncommercial stations. 31 It is argued
that this radical departure was procedurally deficient since it was made:
(1) without a complete understanding of the nature and goals of public
broadcasting; (2) without a clearly articulated, well "demonstrated fac 
tual or policy basis;" and (3) without affording the public sufficient notice
and opportunity to respond to the action taken, in violation of the Admin 
istrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b). .
22. Substantively, the new rules are said to suffer from the lack of
adequate standards to guide public broadcasters in carrying out their
responsibilities and to protect against abusive practices. The following
matters were specifically referred to as generating confusion or inviting
abuse:
(1) What is meant by consideration and when must consideration be received so as to
preclude the broadcast of promotionalannouncemens7·~2
(2) At what point does an acknowledgement promote, as opposed to identify, the
donor?
(3) When does mention of the origination point, in a remote broadcasting context,
promote an establishment?3.1 and
(4) How will commercial clutter be avoided without any time limitations on suspended
fundraising activities?
It is feared that the authorization of promotional announcements (even in
the absence of consideration), and more importantly, the failure to estab 
lish defined guidelines in the above noted areas, will ultimately erase the
distinction between commercial and noncommercial stations. The com-
various noncommercial licensees, the law firm of Schwartz, Woods & Miller on behalf of various
noncommercial licensees, WGBH Educational Foundation (licensee of WGBH-TV, WGBX-TV,
WGBH(FM) Boston, and WBGY-TV Springfield, Massachusetts), NAPTS and NPR. NAB and the
Committee to Save KQED filed replies. Responsive comments were filed by the lawfirrn of Schwartz,
Woods and Miller, NPR and NAPTS.
31 First Report and Notice qr Proposed Rule Making, 69 Ee.C, 2d 200, 204-207 (1978); Noncommer 
cial Educational Stations, 26 F.C.C. 2d 339, 341 (1970); Sixth Report and Order. 41 F.C.C. 148, 166
(1952).
az The Commission noted that if promotional announcements on behalf of a commercial entity are
broadcast and preceded or followed by a donation from that entity, questions would be raised under
the consideration received rule. The Commission stated that the "proximity" between the announce 
ment and the donation would be viewed as a "significant factor" in evaluating public broadcasters'
good faith judgments, but declined to prescribe "minimal time periods" to gauge their conduct.
Second Report, supra n. 18 at 155-156.
n Remote broadcasting refers to those situations where programming originates from a place other
than the licensee's studio in the licensee's community-e.g.. live broadcasts from nightclubs. the 
atres and athletic stadiums. The Commission determined that on-the-air promotion ofthe broadcast 
ing event, if "reasonably related" to the production of the program, would not constitute
consideration.
90 F.C.C. 2d
Educational Blc Stations
909
ments opposing the petitions generally supported the Second Report on
both procedural and substantive grounds. The parties, mostly public
broadcasters or those associated with the public broadcasting media,
perceive the Commission's liberalized policies as providing opportunities
to enable them to survive the imminent Federal funding reductions. They
do not anticipate abusive practices or a trend toward the commercializa 
tion of the media, given the fact that public broadcasting licensees (com 
prised of governmental, educational and community bodies) are com 
mitted to serving the public interest and will face audience resistance if
that commitment falters.
23. The Second Report undeniably marked a departure from the Com 
mission's prior regulatory posture concerning public broadcasting in gen 
eral and its fundraising activities in particular. The fact that the Second
Report altered established regulatory policy or that the rules adopted
differed from those proposed, does not mean that the promulgation ofthe
new rules was arbitrary or in violation of the notice requirements of 5
U.S.C. § 553(b). Our Second Report, which was premised upon our
current understanding of the nature of public broadeating, established a
minimum regulatory framework within which public broadcasters were
accorded wider discretion and greater flexibility in their programming
determinations, and in their ability to plan for and develop increased non 
Federal financial support. The Second Report eliminated prior restric 
tions and an array of highly proscriptive rules that were deemed un 
necessary to preserve an essentially noncommercial service and that
were constitutionally suspect (see para. 2 supra). We should point out that
Congress not only ratified our action, but further relaxed our policies"
by: (1) permitting the use of visual as well as aural logograms; and (2)
limiting the prohibition against sponsored announcements promoting
goods or services to those paid for by profit entities. (See, paras. 7 and 10,
supra.) Moreover, in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act,
the public was afforded sufficient notice and opportunity to comment. The
Second Report terminated a two year proceeding in which we published a
Notice of Inquiry35 and a First Report and Notice of Proposed Rule
Making." In our Notices we proposed specific rules, apprised the public
ofthe areas under consideration, and solicited comments. The comments
received were made public and generally alluded to in the First Report,
S1trpa, The inherent nature and purpose of a rule making proceeding is
open-ended, to allow the agency to analyze and assess the viability and
the impact of the proposed rules. We carefully assessed the rules, as
34 But for the restriction upon the schedulingofdonof acknowledgements, Sections 399A and 399B are
more liberal than the Second Report
35 Notice of Inquiry, FCC 77-162 (March 15, 1977), 42 Fed. Reg. 15927 (March 24, 1977).
36 69 F.e.c. 2d 200 (1978).
90 FC.C. 2d
910 Federal Communications Commission Reports
proposed, in light of the comments received and our own expertise, and
determined that the rules were unduly proscriptive in nature, par 
ticularly in the absence of any significant pattern of abuse. We thus
abandoned the proposed rules in favor of the more moderate policies set
forth in the Second Report. An agency is not obligated to continue
longstanding policies, with or without a change in circumstances, and
may refrain from ultimately adopting rules, as proposed, 37 but is required
to rationally and explicitly explain its changed course.'" In announcing
our new policies, we clearly articulated our reasons for not adopting the
proposed rules and for altering our policies with respect to public broad 
casting.
39
Moreover, the policies enunciated in the Second Report came
directly within the scope of the entire rule making proceeding (as it
concerned the nature of public broadcasting and its fundraising ac 
tivities), were specifically raised in some of the comments and were
directly related to, albeit different from, the rules as proposed.
24. In the Second Report and Order, we noted that we had undertaken a
comprehensive study of the nature and goals of the public broadcasting
system. However, that study was not completed at the time the Second
Report was adopted. Nevertheless, we believed that we had an adequate
record on the rules and policies proposed and an adequate understanding
on the nature of the public broadcasting system to go forward with the
Second Report. Since that action, Congress has made its own statement
on the nature and goals ofthe public broadcasting system, has taken steps
to remove restraints on the ability of public stations to raise funds, and
has authorized additional studies on the funding problems of public
stations by formation ofthe Temporary Commission on Alternative Fund 
ing for Public Telecommunications. Admittedly, at this point, questions
still remain as to the nature and goals of the public broadcasting system.
However, on the basis of our experience, information gained in various
rule making proceedings, pronouncements by Congress, and information
gained through the Temporary Commission, we believe we have an ade 
quate understanding of the system to justify the action taken herein.
40
25. After examining all the information before it, the Commission
expressed great confidence in public broadcasters and determined that
they will continue to serve the public by providing alternative quality
~7Spartan Radiocasting Co. v. FCC, 619 F. 2d 314, 322 (4th Cir. 1980); Office ofCommull1calionil qf
United Church ajChrist v. FCC, 560 F. 2d 529, 532 (D.C. Cir.1977); Home Box Office v. FCC; 567 F.
2d 9, 32 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F. 2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1970).
•1fl Spartan Radiocasting Co. v. FCC, suVra at 322 (4th Cir. 1980).
:l9 'The fact that the rules promulgated differ from those proposed does not require an additional notice,
nor does it entitle parties to submit additional comments. Spartan RadiocastJ-ng Co. v. FCC, supra
at 321; Consolidated Coal V. Castle, supra at 248; Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F. 2d 1, 48 (D.C. Cir.) cert.
denied, 426 U. S. 941 (1976).
40 FCC v. National Citizens Comm1"tteefor Broadcasting, 436 U.S. 775, 814 (1978).
90 F.C.C. 2d
Educational Blc Stations
911
programming, without cumbersome, unnecessary restrictions which will
hinder their ability to remain financially viable. Certainly, it would serve
no useful purpose to adopt rigid regulations to ensure the noncommercial
nature of public broadcasting, if those regulations prevent public broad 
casters from obtaining the funds needed to present quality programming
or even to survive. The Commission will continue to reviewcompl~ints,
however, and in the event of abuse will revisit this area.
26. For purposes of clarification, we believe that a brief statement
concerning (1) the definition ofthe term "consideration;" and (2) the public
broadcasters' responsibilities regarding donor acknowledgements, may
be in order. As stated in the Second Report, consideration is a broad term
that denotes anything of value provided to the public broadcaster, li 
censee, its principals or its employees. Consideration, thus, encompasses
the contribution of prograrnnilng material and funds, goods and/or serv 
ices used for programming, as well as in kind contributions (e.g. studio
equipment) which frees station funds for programming purposes. A
public broadcaster is precluded from promoting an individual's or entity's
goods, services or activities, where the broadcaster receives or reason 
ably anticipates the receipt of consideration from such individual or entity
(other than a non-profit organization). Thus, a public broadcaster's deci 
sion to promote third parties must be based on public-spirited determina 
tions rather than economic considerations. Where consideration, in the
form of specific or in-kind contribution is provided, the public broadcaster
is, however, required to acknowledge the donor under 47 C.F.R.
§ 73.1212. The donor acknowledgement may include such identifying
information as the donor's logogram, and location, but may not promote
the donor's goods, services or activities, unless the donor is a non-profit
entity. It should be noted that some of the commenting parties believed
that logograms are, by definition, informational and thus always per 
missible. However, logograms are not necessarily limited to identifying
the donor, but may contain comparative or qualitative language and be
construed as being promotional. Therefore, public broadcasters should
review donor acknowledgements, and make a reasonable, good faith
determination as to whether they identify, rather than promote. We
recognize that it may be difficult to distinguish at times between an 
nouncements that promote and those that identify. We only expect our
public broadcast licensees to exercise their reasonable, good faith judge 
ments in this regard.
27. The petitioners cite several areas in the Second Report as par 
ticularly confusing and in need of specific guidelines. Those include (1) the
scheduling of licensees' own suspended fundraising activities; (2) the
determination of the appropriateness of a promotional announcement;
and (3) the identification of the origination point of a remote broadcast.
The Second Report provided public broadcasters with basic standards,
90 F.e.c. 2d
912 Federal Communications C01nmission Reports
and reposed in them the responsibility for its specific implementation.
The Second Report relied upon public broadcasters' good faith judge 
ments and primary interest in serving the public. We thus do not believe
that it is desirable to fashion narrow rules which will circumscribe a
licensee's discretion and flexibility in the above-cited areas.
28. Concern has been expressed before Congress and the Commission
thatthis new flexibility afforded public broadcasters in theiridentification
of contributors and in their public-spirited promotion of certain activities
(as well as goods or services) marks a trend toward the commercialization
of the media and a substantial departure from previous standards. We
appreciate the concern, but at this time consider predictions of over 
commercialism as speculative and conjectural. We also do not believe that
the new standards denigrate the basic distinction between noncommer 
cial and commercial stations. The broadcast of promotional announce 
ments on behalf of profit entities will be based upon public interest
determinations, not motivated by profit, since public broadcasters are
still prohibited from airing such announcements for consideration. Sever 
al comments have also expressed fear that the public broadcasting media
will succumb to the influence of major corporations with a resultant loss in
the public broadcasting service. If anything, we believe that such influ 
ence is minimized hy the rules concerning donor acknowledgements. By
eliminating the "name only" requirement and providing for the inclusion
of identifying information, puhlic broadcasters hopefully will be able to
attract additional sources of revenue and diversify their pool ofunderwri 
tel's. Thus, we believe that under the new standards, the basic noncom 
mercial nature of public broadcastingis maintained and the opportunities
for a broadened financial base of support are increased."
Conclusion
29. In the following manner, the Second Report is revised to conform to
Sections 399A and 399B:
L Donor acknowledgements may include the donor's visual or aurallogogr?-m (which
may identifythe donor's products or services, in a value-neutral, generic sense) as well
as the donor's location.
2. The scheduling of donor acknowledgements may not interrupt regular
programming.
~lIt should be noted that the Congressionally atuhorized Temporary Commission recommended,
among other things, that "FCC rules and policies governing on-air fund-raising activities and
promotional identification" be reviewed "in order to adjust rules that inhibit revenue production.
consistent with the desire to maintain the noncommercial character of public telecommunications
services." Alternative Financing Options/or Pllblic Bl'Oadcaslillg. the Tellipom/'Y Commission 011
Alternative Financingfor Pllblic Telerommunicaliolls. Vol. I pp. £9--70 (July 1982). \Ve belie\·e that
this Order implements the Temporary Commission's recommendation in a manner consistent with·
the Congressional mandate as set forth in Section 399A and Section 399B of the Communications
Act.
90 F.C.C. 2d
Educational Bic Stations 913
3. Announcements for which consideration is received and which promote the goods,
services or activities of rwn-profit entities are permissible.
30. For the reasons set forth herein, the Petition for Declaratory
Ruling IS GRANTED; the Petition for Clarification IS GRANTED; the
Southern Educational Communications Association's Sponsorship Identi·
fication Waiver Request (see n. 17, infra) IS GRANTED; and the Peti·
tions for Reconsideration ARE DENIED. The Commission's rules are
amended as set forth in the Appendix, effective September 3, 1982.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William J. Tricarico SecretaTy
Appendix A
1. Section 73.503 of the Commission's Rules, paragraph (d) and the NOTE immediately
following, are revised to read as follows: .
Section 73.503 Licensing requirements and service
*
,
* *
,
(d) Each station shall furnish a nonprofit and noncommercial broadcast service.
Noncommercial educational FM broadcast stations are subject to the provisions
of § 73.1212 to the extent they are applicable to the broadcast of programs
produced by, or at the expense of, or furnished by others. No promotional
announcement on behalf offOT profit entities shall be broadcast at any time in
exchange for the receipt, in whole or in part, ofconsideration to the licensee, its
principals, or employee:>. However, acknowledgements of contributions can be
made. The scheduling of any announcements and acknowledgements may not
intert'Upt regular progmntming.
NOTE: Commission interpretation of this rule, including the acceptable form ofacknowl 
edgements, may be found in the Second Report and Order, (Commission Policy
Concerning the Noncommercial Nature ofEducational Broadcast Stations), 86
F.G.G. 2d 141 (1982), and the subsequent Commission's Order, Docket No. 21136
(July 15, 1982).
II. Section 73.621 of the Commission's Rules, paragraph (e) and the NOTE immediately
following, are revised to read as follows:
Section 73.621 Noncommercial educational stations
,
*
(e) Each station shall furnish a nonprofit and noncommercial broadcast service.
Noncommercial educational television stations shall be subject to the provisions
of § 73.1212 to the extent that they are applicable to the broadcast of programs
produced by, or at the expense of, or furnished by others. No promotional
announcements on behalfoffor 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. However, acknowledgements of contributions can be
made. The scheduling ofany announcements and acknowledgements may not
interrupt regular programming.
90 F.e.e. 2d
914 Federal Communications Commission Reports
NOTE: Commission interpretation of this rule, including the acceptable fann of acknowl 
edgements, may be found in the Second Report and Order, (Commission Policy
Concerning the Noncommercial Nature ofEducational Bmadcast Stations), 86
F.e.C. 2d 141 (1982), and the subsequent Commission Order, Docket No. 21136
(July 15, 1982).
July 15, 1982
ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ABBOTT WASHBURN
RE: COMMISSION POLICY CONCERNING THE NONCOMMERCIAL NA 
TURE OF EDUCATIONAL STATIONS
Once again the Commission brings a fresh, creative approach to fund 
raising issues of great concern to public broadcasters. In these days of
constricting federal, state and local appropriations and grants to noncom 
merciallicensees, such an approach is particularlyuseful. The Temporary
Commission on Alternative Financing, ably chaired by Commissioner
Quello, set a splendid example. Our action today responds affirmatively to
one of the Temporary Commission's recommendations to the FCC, speci 
fically, to "review FCC rules and policies governing on-air fund-raising
activities and promotional identification in order to adjust rules that
inhibit revenue production, consistent with the desire to maintain the
noncommercial character or public telecommunications services."*
The item cites the Commission's traditional encouragement of public
broadcasting and herein, again, we express our confidence in public
broadcasters and add our encouragement to their efforts to maintain
financial viability while, at the same time, providing a unique noncom 
mercial service to the public.
... Thmporary Commission on Alternative Financing for Public Telecommunications, Alternative Fi 
nancing Options/or Public Broadcasting, Vol. 1,69--70 (1982).
90 F.e.c. 2d