The FCC Enforcement Bureau proposed a $14,000 penalty for Audacy over allegations that it violated the agency’s contest rules by not selecting and notifying winners of a radio contest according to the contest’s stated terms, a notice of apparent liability in Friday’s Daily Digest said. The NAL is a response to a complaint about a 2021 “National Cash Contest” Audacy conducted for 21 days on 194 stations. Under the contest’s terms, 11 times daily listeners could listen for a keyword and win $1,000 by submitting that keyword to the station within the hour it was announced. “One national winner was to be selected randomly from each hour’s eligible entries from all participating stations, for a total of 297 (27x11) opportunities to win,” the NAL said. The contest terms said winners would be notified within 72 hours of selection and get their prize within eight to 12 weeks. After receiving a letter of inquiry (LOI) from the EB, Audacy admitted it “did not act timely in selecting and/or notifying 50 winners out of the 297 time slots, which is 16.8% of the potential winners.” Audacy said part-time employees' performance caused the mishap and that it sent out the remaining contest winnings after receiving the LOI. The NAL said that wasn’t sufficient. “We hold that the Licensee’s conduct constitutes an apparent willful violation of the requirement of section 73.1216 of the Commission’s rules to conduct the Contest ‘substantially as announced or advertised,’” the NAL said.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision eliminating Chevron deference shouldn’t affect the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' approach to Gray Television’s appeal of an FCC $518,000 forfeiture order, the agency said in a supplemental brief Wednesday. The 11th Circuit requested supplemental briefs from the FCC and Gray after SCOTUS’ Loper Bright v. Raimondo decision (see 2407110058). The agency applied the best reading of its rule against affiliate swaps and so doesn’t require special deference for the court to rule in its favor, the FCC said. Gray’s argument that its purchase of a station affiliation in Anchorage didn't “result” in a top-four duopoly because Gray already owned such a duopoly “is not the best or most natural reading” of the text of the FCC’s rules, the agency said. The court should also favor the FCC’s interpretation of its own rules under another SCOTUS precedent that wasn’t affected by Loper Bright, Kisor v. Wilkie, the FCC said. Kisor requires that the court consider a regulation as if there were no agency interpretation, but if ambiguity remains, it allows the court to conclude that the agency interpretation may be appropriate. Gray has argued that the Loper Bright decision invalidated Kisor precedent. “This Court is not the proper forum to revisit binding Supreme Court precedent,” the FCC said. The 11th Circuit shouldn’t consider Gray’s arguments that the FCC doesn’t have statutory authority over the sale of a station’s affiliation because Gray didn’t raise the argument earlier in the case and because it's outside the scope of the supplemental brief the court requested, the agency said. Gray “improperly expanded the scope of the supplemental briefing, and the court may not reach arguments on which the FCC had no ‘opportunity to pass’ in the administrative proceedings,” the FCC said.

Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel on Wednesday defended the FCC’s proposal to require disclosures on political ads created with generative AI (see 2407250046). Rosenworcel was asked during a news conference about comments from Commissioner Brendan Carr characterizing the NPRM as part of a Democratic National Committee effort to put a “thumb on the scales” ahead of the 2024 election. “That’s not remotely accurate,” Rosenworcel said of Carr’s characterization. “We came up with this proceeding on our own, because we have familiarity with what a public and political file looks like at our nation’s broadcasters. After all, we’ve been doing this kind of work for decades.” AI is “a technology that is going to show up in so many aspects of our economy, communications technology included,” she said. “So it's smart to wrap our arms around these issues.”

The full FCC unanimously granted low-power FM licensee Park Public Radio’s appeal of a Media Bureau decision rejecting the company's modification application in part for being filed a few hours too early, an order released Tuesday said. The item was slated for Wednesday’s open meeting but listed as an “adjudicatory item” on the agenda. The matter concerns Park’s March 3, 2021, application to modify KPPS-LP, St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Its modification would have interfered with another station that was silent for a year and had a license that expired at 3 a.m. the next day, April 1. Another licensee, Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis, filed a conflicting application to modify its translator at 9 a.m. on April 1. The Media Bureau originally rejected the Park application and granted Central Baptist's because the silent station’s license hadn’t yet expired when Park filed and the application had short spacing defects. The full FCC ruled that Central Baptist's and Park’s filings were premature, and should have been filed after the MB issued a public notice announcing cancelation of the silent station’s license. The FCC also ruled that the Media Bureau should have allowed Park to amend its defective application. In the past, the agency has acknowledged that previously filed defective modification applications could, if corrected, prevail over later filed nondefective applications, the order said. The order rescinds the grant to Central Baptist and maintains the dismissal of the Park application but allows Park to refile an amended application.

A recent Media and Democracy Project (MAD) submission of a petition with 25,000 signatures against the renewal of Fox-owned WTXF-TV Philadelphia (see 2407250056) is an attempt at “distort[ing] the Commission’s processes” and less than 2.3% of the signatories reside in WTXF’s viewing area, the network said in an ex parte filing Friday. “Taking at face value MAD’s claim as to the accuracy of the names and locations in its filing,” only 571 of them “possibly reside in Fox 29 Philadelphia’s viewing area,” Fox said. “In contrast, over 3.1 million households, and many more people, live in the Philadelphia” designated market area. The FCC “does not, and should not, make decisions on whether to grant a license renewal application based on the number of persons allegedly willing to fill out a webform.” The petition “cannot outweigh the testimony of numerous viewers of Fox 29 Philadelphia who have urged the Commission to swiftly renew the station’s broadcast license.” The FCC “should adhere to its own precedent, weigh the evidence in the record fairly, and grant Fox 29 Philadelphia’s license renewal without further delay.” The "issues raised in the petition go well beyond the Philadelphia station and raise serious questions about the decisions made by its owner to knowingly spread dangerous lies to protect profit,” MAD Executive Director Milo Vassallo said in an email. “It is time to remind Fox that we the people own the airwaves, not any single individual or corporation."

The FCC should reconsider resurrecting rules restricting commonly owned, same market FM stations from duplicating content, NAB said in a petition for reconsideration posted Monday in docket 19-310. In 2020, the previous FCC dropped the rule for FM and AM stations, but the current commission reinstated the FM portion in June, responding to a 2020 petition from REC Networks, the musicFIRST Coalition and the Future of Music Coalition (see 2407020055). The FCC “has no basis to reverse its initial judgment in this proceeding and willfully turned a blind eye to conducting any research including seeking any updated comment after waiting nearly four years to act,” NAB said. The FCC should have sought comment on whether the reversal was needed but instead acted based only on the record from 2020, NAB added. The trade group also said the recon order returning the nonduplication rules “turns the petition for reconsideration standard on its head.” FCC precedent requires showing a material error or omission in the order, but in the FM nonduplication recon order the agency “reasons that it has the ability to reconsider the Order here because the material error is that the Order itself was wrongly decided.” NAB added, “Were the FCC to adopt this new approach to petitions for reconsideration, the standard would amount to no standard at all.” The FCC should “reconsider its grant of the Reconsideration Petition in this proceeding, and solicit comment on the effect of eliminating the FM radio duplication rule during the past four years.”

The Media Bureau granted permission for Amar Broadcasting to exceed the 25% foreign-ownership benchmark, a declaratory ruling in Friday’s Daily Digest said. Amar is the parent company of KNTS (AM) Seattle owner BAAZ, and the ruling allows Canadian citizen Sukhdev Dhillon to own 100% of Amar. No oppositions were filed in response to the petition, the ruling said.

The FCC updated the Licensing and Management System (LMS), making major change applications for Class A, low-power TV and TV translator stations available in advance of the Aug. 20 lifting of the 14-year freeze on channel change filings (see 2405290068), a public notice in Friday’s Daily Digest said. “Effective immediately, applicants are permitted to input information in their major change application, but should not submit their application prior to August 20, 2024,” the PN said. Applications filed before Aug. 20 “will be dismissed and applicants will need to re-file once the freeze is lifted.” The PN also included a reminder that after updates to the FCC’s TVStudy software, all TV broadcast applications filed after Aug. 1, must use 2020 Census Data for conducting interference analyses. “Failure to do so will require amendment and may result in dismissal of applications as defective,” the PN said.

The full FCC approved a $2.3 million forfeiture against Bronx, New York, pirate radio broadcaster Johnny Peralta, an order released Thursday said. Peralta was operating the pirate station La Mia Radio for years. The Enforcement Bureau initially contacted him in 2018. EB agents have noted La Mia Radio’s continued unauthorized broadcasts ever since, according to a notice of apparent liability in November. Peralta didn’t respond to the NAL, the FCC said. The forfeiture is the maximum allowed under law. “Some of the most egregious pirate radio operations are run by individuals who have ignored prior enforcement actions by the Commission,” the forfeiture order said. “As such, it merits the strongest possible enforcement measures to the fullest extent of the law.” The FCC lacks the power to enforce collecting fines, especially from non-licensees. Only DOJ can bring delinquent forfeiture subjects to court, but broadcasters have told us that the high fine amounts like Peralta’s are expected to make pursuing collection more worthwhile for prosecutors. Peralta couldn’t be reached for comment. The forfeiture order was originally part of the agenda for Wednesday's FCC meeting, though it was listed only as an Enforcement Bureau item, as is typical for enforcement actions. A deletion notice was released late Thursday.

It isn’t a conflict of interest for Dan Alpert to represent multiple people in an FCC hearing proceeding because all the parties have given him permission and their testimony doesn’t conflict, the broadcast attorney said in a filing posted Monday in docket 23-267. Alpert was responding to a request from Administrative Law Judge Jane Halprin, who temporarily suspended discovery in the proceeding over conflict concerns (see 2407230051). The facts conceded by Alpert’s client Antonio Guel don’t conflict with those of Guel’s daughter, Maria Guel, or his niece, Jennifer Juarez, Alpert said. The Enforcement Bureau claims Guel arranged a false sale of broadcast stations to Juarez while maintaining control of them, and that Maria Guel runs companies involved in the transaction. Alpert, who practices in Virginia, also told Halprin that he checked on the ethics of his position with the Commonwealth of Virginia Bar counsel. “As long as all three persons were aware of the simultaneous representation, that representation of all three persons was permissible,” Alpert said. “If at any point in time, circumstances change, and an actual conflict arises, that undersigned counsel will discontinue such simultaneous representation.”