Leon A. Williams, Esq.

327 S. 13th Street

Philadelphia, PA 19107

David D. Oxenford, Esq.

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

1500 K Street, NW, Suite 450

Washington, D.C. 20005

Nia C. Mathis, Esq.

Latham and Watkins LLP

555 11^th^ Street, NW, Suite 1000

Washington, D.C. 20004-1304

> Re: WHAT(AM), Philadelphia, PA
>
> Facility ID No. 33686

File No. BAL-20061108AHP

> **Application for Consent to Assignment of License**
>
> **Petition for Reconsideration**

Dear Counsel:

We have before us a January 29, 2007, Petition for Reconsideration
("Petition") filed by Leon A. Williams, Esq. ("Williams"), a
Philadelphia resident and former candidate for public office who listens
to and advertises his law practice on WHAT(AM), Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Williams argues that we should set aside our December 28,
2006, grant of an application to assign WHAT(AM)'s license from Urban
Radio 1, LLC ("Urban") to Marconi Broadcasting Company, Ltd. For the
reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition and affirm our grant of
the application.

Williams opposes the assignment because he believes that a resulting
change in the station's format from talk radio to music will adversely
affect the flow of election-related information in the African American
community.[^1] Although the assignment application was uncontested,
Williams argues that he and other listeners would have filed timely
objections to the transaction had the station given adequate public
notice, as required. In support, Williams provides affidavits of two
individuals who state that they are regular WHAT(AM) listeners, did not
hear any on-air notices about the assignment, and would have opposed the
application had they known about it in advance.[^2]

Assuming *arguendo* that the station's public notice was defective,
Williams' earlier non-participation would not be a bar to his filing the
Petition.[^3] Consideration of the Petition would not, however, alter
the outcome of the underlying assignment application. Williams' focus is
a listener desire to preserve WHAT(AM)'s former talk radio format. It is
well-settled policy that the Commission does not regulate programming
formats, nor does it take potential format changes into consideration in
reviewing license assignment applications. In 1976, the Commission
issued a *Policy Statement* in which it concluded that review of program
formats was not required by the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Act"), would not benefit the public, and would deter innovation,
as well as impose substantial administrative burdens on the
Commission.[^4] The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld this
policy and the Commission\'s determination that "the public interest is
best served by promoting diversity in entertainment formats through
market forces and competition among broadcasters" and that a change in
programming is not a material factor that should be considered by the
Commission in ruling on applications for license assignment or
transfer.[^5] A petitioner's phrasing of a format issue in public
interest language is not sufficient to alter these policies.[^6]

Regardless of program format, licensees have a duty to respond to local
needs and issues by choosing appropriate issue-responsive informational
programming. They also have broad discretion to determine, in good
faith, the issues they believe to be of concern to their communities and
the manner in which to address those issues.[^7] Whether a licensee has
met the needs of its community through such programming is a matter that
is generally considered at the time of license renewal. We would
encourage Williams and other listeners to make their specific interests
in local election coverage and other issues of concern to the African
American community known to the station's new licensee. In our
experience, stations appreciate hearing from their listeners.

Accordingly, the January 29, 2007, Petition for Reconsideration filed by
Leon A. Williams IS DENIED.

Sincerely,

Peter H. Doyle

Chief, Audio Division

Media Bureau

[^1]: *See* Petition at 1-2.

[^2]: *See* Affidavits of Joyce Hammond and Saboor Muhammad (Jan 23,
    2007) (Petition, Exhibits C and D). Urban responds that it complied
    fully with the Commission's public notice requirements, and submits
    supporting documentation. *See* Declaration of Christopher Squire,
    Vice President of Operations, Urban (Feb. 14, 2007); Inner City
    Broadcasting Company, Inc., Time Order (Nov. 13, 2006); WHAT(AM)
    Contract Confirmation (Nov. 13, 2006) (Urban Opposition, Exhibit A);
    Sworn Declaration of Anna Dickerson, Philadelphia Inquirer (Nov. 28,
    2006) (Urban Opposition, Exhibit B); 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3580(c) and
    (d)(3)(i).

[^3]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(1).

[^4]: *See Changes in the Entertainment Formats of Broadcast Stations,*
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 66 FCC 2d 78 (1977), *rev'd sub nom.,
    WNCN Listeners Guild v. FCC,* 610 F.2d 838 (D.C. Cir. 1979),
    *rev'd,* 450 U.S. 582 (1981). Section 326 of the Act expressly
    prohibits the Commission from interfering with the right of free
    speech of broadcasters. 47 U.S.C. § 326.

[^5]: *See FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild,* 450 U.S. 582, 585 (1981).

[^6]: *See, e.g., College of Staten Island,* Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 4890,
    4894 (MB 2007) (license renewal petition alleging station's failure
    to play enough music by local musicians considered as a disagreement
    over program content although phrased by the petitioner in terms of
    the public's interest in local diversity).

[^7]: *See Time-Life Broadcast, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 33
    FCC 2d 1081, 1092 (1972).