**DA 06-2088**

In Reply Refer to:

1800B3-JWR

Released: October 25, 2006

Mr. and Mrs. Robert Vessot

51 Harbor Avenue

Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945

The Rev. Stephen C. Washburn\
57 Mill Pond Lane\
Marshfield, Massachusetts 02050

John Wells King, Esq.\
Garvey Schubert Barer\
1000 Potomac Street NW\
Fifth Floor\
Washington, DC 20007

In re: WCRB(FM), Waltham, MA

Facility ID No. 10542

File No. BRH--20051128ADO

Application for Renewal of License

**Informal Objections**

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Vessot, Rev. Washburn, and Counsel:

This letter concerns the captioned application (the "Application") filed
by Charles River Broadcasting WCRB License Corp. ("CRB") to renew the
license of Station WCRB(FM), Waltham, Massachusetts. Also on file are
informal objections filed by Norma and Robert Vessot (the "Vessots") on
February 3, 2006, (the "Vessot Objection ") and Rev. Stephen C. Washburn
("Washburn") filed on April 3, 2006, (the "Washburn Objection").[^1] For
the reasons set forth below, we deny the informal objections and grant
the Application.

**Background.** [The Vessot Objection]{.underline}. In their Objection,
the Vessots state that they were informed by their local newspaper that
WCRB(FM) was going to be sold, pending the renewal of the station's
license,[^2] and that the purchasers proposed to change the station's
format from classical to country and western music, which "would create
a considerable imbalance in the culture of Boston area radio music." The
Vessots request that the Commission "postpone this renewal" to allow the
continuation of "the only FM station" which plays classical music 24
hours a day, 7 days week.

[The Washburn Objection]{.underline}**.** In his objection, Washburn
states that he received a letter from a principal of CRB which confirmed
that CRB intended to sell the station and that the 24-hour classical
format "would likely cease." In this regard, Washburn asserts that CRB
is proposing to sell WCRB(FM) "without safeguarding the intent" of the
trust established, "and affirmed by the Commission," in 1979. Washburn
states that he objects to the renewal of the WCRB(FM) license "unless
the 1979 restriction affirmed by the FCC is reaffirmed now as a
condition of license renewal." Specifically, Washburn submits that in
1979, the then-licensee principals Ted and Nathalie Jones "preserved the
classical format" for future generations by establishing a trust which
provided, "with unprecedented Federal Communications Commission
approval," that the station operate as a commercial classical station
\"for the next 100 years as long as there is a market need." Washburn
asserts that the sale of WCRB(FM) to an owner that would not continue
the 24-hour classical format would both "violate the trust and fly in
the face of its affirmation by the FCC in 1979."

Washburn also states that "\[he\] and other regular listeners have not
heard" WCRB(FM)'s pre-filing announcements and suggests that the
announcements be rebroadcast to better inform the public of the pendency
of the Application. In opposition, CRB states that, despite the fact
that Washburn did not hear WCRB(FM)'s pre- and post-filing
announcements, the station scheduled and broadcast them in accordance
with Commission requirements. It provides both a certification of the
dates and times when the announcements were aired and the text that was
used in the announcements. Washburn does not dispute these
representations by CRB.

**Discussion.** In evaluating an application for license renewal, the
Commission's decision is governed by Section 309(k) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act").[^3] That section
provides that we are to grant the renewal application if, upon
consideration of the application and pleadings, we find that (1) the
station has served the public interest, convenience, and necessity; (2)
there have been no serious violations of the Act or the Commission's
Rules; and (3) there have been no other violations which, taken
together, constitute a pattern of abuse. If, however, the licensee fails
to meet that standard, the Commission may deny the application -- after
notice and opportunity for a hearing under Section 309(e) of the Act --
or grant the application "on terms and conditions that are appropriate,
including a renewal for a term less than the maximum otherwise
permitted."[^4] The objectors' allegations, which are founded upon an
anticipated format change subsequent to a pending transfer of control of
CRB, are not relevant to the staff's consideration of the WCRB(FM)
license renewal application under Section 309(k) and, if anything, are
more properly raised in the context of that pending transfer
application.[^5] Nevertheless, for administrative convenience, we will
address the objectors' contentions here. We find them to be without
merit.

First, it is the Commission\'s general policy to leave format issues to
the discretion of the licensee.[^6] The Commission has determined that
the public interest is best served by promoting diversity in
entertainment formats through market forces and competition among
broadcasters.[^7] Further, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
and Section 326 of the Act [^8] generally prohibit any Commission
actions which would improperly interfere with the programming decisions
of licensees.[^9] In this regard, any favorable action the Commission
may take on an application or request only confirms that the permittee
or licensee is legally and technically qualified, or otherwise complies
with the Commission's rules and regulations, and that grant of the
application will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
The Commission action does not purport to "affirm" any underlying
private agreement, much less one that contravenes Commission policy or
the Act, as Washburn suggests in the instant case.[^10] Therefore,
Washburn's contention that the Commission "affirmed" the intent of the
trust as to WCRB(FM)'s music format is without merit.

Finally, Washburn has presented no information to demonstrate that the
CRB violated the local public notice provisions of Section 73.3580 in
its pre-filing announcements of the filing of WCRB(FM)'s Application.
Accordingly, there is no need to further address that matter.[^11]

**Conclusion/Actions**. We find that neither the Vessot nor Washburn
objections contains adequate or specific factual allegations sufficient
to warrant further inquiry regarding renewal of WCRB(FM)'s license.
Furthermore, pursuant to Section 309(k) of the Act, we find neither
evidence of serious violations of the Act or the Commission's Rules nor
of other violations that, when considered together, evidence a pattern
of abuse. Further, we find that Station WCRB(FM) served the public
interest, convenience, and necessity during the subject license term.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, pursuant to Section 309(k)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61 and
0.283 of the Commission's rules,[^12] the informal objections filed by
Norma and Robert Vessot and by Rev. Stephen C. Washburn ARE DENIED, and
the application (File No. BRH--20051128ADO) of Charles River
Broadcasting WCRB License Corp. for renewal of the license for station
WCRB(FM), Waltham, Massachusetts, IS GRANTED.

> Sincerely,

Peter H. Doyle

Chief, Audio Division

Media Bureau

cc Charles River Broadcasting WCRB License Corp.

[^1]: CRB filed a Joint Opposition to the informal objections on April
    19, 2006.

[^2]: On August 3, 2006, an application was filed to transfer control of
    CRB to Greater Media, Inc. (File No. BTCH-20060803AMV). The
    application is unopposed and remains pending with the staff.

[^3]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(k)(2), 309(k)(3).

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. §309(k)(1). The renewal standard was amended to read as
    described by *Section 204(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*,
    Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). *See Implementation of
    Sections 204(a) and 204(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
    (Broadcast License Renewal Procedures),* Order, 11 FCC Rcd 6363
    (1996).

[^5]: *See Stockholders of CBS, Inc.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11
    FCC Rcd 3733 (1995).

[^6]: *See* *Multicultural Radio Broadcasting, Inc.*, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 20630 (2000), *citing Changes in the
    Entertainment Formats of Broadcast Stations*, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 60 FCC 2d 858 (1976).

[^7]: *Id., citing FCC v. WNCN Listener\'s Guild*, 450 U.S. 582, 585
    (1981).

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 326.

[^9]: ^?^ Section 326 of the Act states in part: \"Nothing in this
    chapter shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the
    power of censorship \... and no regulation or condition shall be
    promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with
    the right of free speech by means of radio communication.\" 47
    U.S.C. § 326.

[^10]: *Cf. Satellite CD Radio, Inc*., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13
    FCC Rcd 7971 (1997) (the standard of review the Commission uses for
    granting an authorization provides that authorizations will be
    granted if the Commission finds that the applicant is legally,
    technically, and otherwise qualified and grant of the application
    will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity). As
    observed in CRB's Joint Opposition, the staff in 1989 granted
    unconditional consent to the transfer of control of the licensee to
    a trust -- the "Theodore Jones Trust - 1979" -- which expressed the
    intent of the grantor that WCRB(FM) would continue to broadcast
    classical music. In granting consent, the staff did not ratify the
    grantor's private intention or impose a programming obligation on
    the WCRB licensee. *See* Application No. BTCH-19890711HV, granted
    August 4, 1989.

[^11]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3580.

[^12]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(k); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.61, 0.283.