Federal Regulatory Agencies
Federal Regulatory Agencies
News releases, reports, statements and associated documents from federal regulatory agencies ranging from the Securities Exchange Commission to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission
Featured Stories
SEC Litigation: Portfolio Manager Ordered to Pay $11.2 Million, Prohibited From Managing Others' Money
WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 20-civ-076; W.D. Wisc. Filed Jan. 27, 2020) involving Edward S. Walczak:* * *
On November 19, 2024, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin entered a final judgment against Edward S. Walczak, a former mutual fund portfolio manager, for fraudulently misrepresenting to investors how he managed risk in the Catalyst Hedged Futures Strategy Fund. The Court ordered Walczak to pay $11.2 million and also restricted Walczak from managing or advising on investments ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 20-civ-076; W.D. Wisc. Filed Jan. 27, 2020) involving Edward S. Walczak: * * * On November 19, 2024, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin entered a final judgment against Edward S. Walczak, a former mutual fund portfolio manager, for fraudulently misrepresenting to investors how he managed risk in the Catalyst Hedged Futures Strategy Fund. The Court ordered Walczak to pay $11.2 million and also restricted Walczak from managing or advising on investmentsfor others. The order follows an April 18, 2022 jury verdict finding against Walczak on the SEC's negligence-based fraud claims.
The SEC's complaint against Walczak alleged that he toldinvestors that the Fund employed a risk management strategy involving safeguards to prevent losses of more than 8%, when in fact no such safeguards limited losses and Walczak did not otherwise consistently manage the Fund to an 8% loss threshold. The complaint further alleged that, between December 2016 and February 2017, the Fund breached certain risk parameters and Walczak failed to take the required corrective action. The fund lost more than $700 million - approximately 20% of its value - as markets moved against it, according to the complaint.
The jury found Walczak violated Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder, but also found he did not violate Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act and Section 206(1) of the Advisers Act. Based on the jury's verdict, the Court ordered Walczak to pay $7,765,105 in disgorgement, $1,868,158.50 in prejudgment interest, and a $1,600,000 civil penalty, and enjoined Walczak from managing or advising on investments in securities or commodity futures for any third parties, except for his wife or children, until April 18, 2027.
The SEC previously announced on January 27, 2020 a related settled action against the Fund's investment adviser, Catalyst Capital Advisors LLC, and its President and Chief Executive Officer, Jerry Szilagyi.
The SEC's litigation was led by Michael Foster, along with Jake Schmidt and Kristine Rodriguez of the Chicago Regional Office, David Benson of the Denver Regional Office, and Keefe Bernstein of the Fort Worth Regional Office. The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
* * *
Resources
* Judgment (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2024/judg26179.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26179
SEC Commissioner Lizarraga Issues Statement on His Planned Departure From Commission
WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on Nov. 22, 2024, by Commissioner Jaime Lizarraga on his planned departure from the commission:* * *
I notified President Joe Biden of my intent to step down as SEC Commissioner, effective January 17, 2025.
For the better part of this year, my wife, Kelly, has confronted serious illness with admirable courage and a strong spirit. We are grateful for the support of colleagues, friends and family and are hopeful for her speedy and full recovery in the ensuing months.
In reflecting on the challenges that ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on Nov. 22, 2024, by Commissioner Jaime Lizarraga on his planned departure from the commission: * * * I notified President Joe Biden of my intent to step down as SEC Commissioner, effective January 17, 2025. For the better part of this year, my wife, Kelly, has confronted serious illness with admirable courage and a strong spirit. We are grateful for the support of colleagues, friends and family and are hopeful for her speedy and full recovery in the ensuing months. In reflecting on the challenges thatlie ahead, we have decided that it is in the best interests of our family to close this chapter in my 34-year public service journey.
Until my departure in January, I will remain fully engaged in the Commission's ongoing work and activities.
I don't yet know what comes next, but I do know that it has been a great honor to serve as SEC Commissioner.
My thanks to President Biden for nominating me and to the U.S. Senate for confirming me unanimously.
My thanks to Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi for supporting my nomination and confirmation, and for the privilege of serving as her senior adviser for nearly 15 years.
There was no better preparation for the role of SEC Commissioner than the many lessons in effective leadership gleaned from those extraordinary 15 years.
My thanks to Chair Gary Gensler for welcoming me at the Commission. His leadership at the helm of the agency and his pursuit of excellence have been nothing short of exceptional.
My thanks to my fellow Commissioners - Hester Peirce, Caroline Crenshaw, and Mark Uyeda - for working so collaboratively with me. It has been an honor to serve alongside them.
I am proud of all that we have accomplished and for doing my part, with the support of the agency's staff, in advancing Chair Gensler's agenda and in fulfilling the SEC's mission.
The work of the SEC is vital to the health of our capital markets, to the investing public, and to the future of our country.
U.S. capital markets are the deepest, fairest, most transparent and most liquid in the world. The SEC's robust implementation of the federal securities laws makes it possible for the innovative spirit, ingenuity and entrepreneurship of our country to thrive in our capital markets.
To my talented team of counsels - Laura D'Allaird, Parisa Haghshenas, Brandon Hill, Diem-Mi Lu, and Kathryn Steinberg - my deepest gratitude. I pushed them to the limit to meet the highest possible standards of excellence in all of our work. By all measures, they delivered. Thank you! I will always be grateful.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/lizarraga-statement-departure-112224
NLRB Lists Decisions for Week of Nov. 4-8
WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 -- The National Labor Relations Board issued the following weekly case summary for Nov. 4-8, 2024:* * *
Summarized Board Decisions
Hiran Management, Inc. d/b/a Hungry Like the Wolf (16-CA-303914; 373 NLRB No. 130) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e7b5cf) Houston, TX, November 4, 2024.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees with discharge and other unspecified reprisals, and by discharging employees, because they engaged in a protected walkout and strike.
Charge ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 -- The National Labor Relations Board issued the following weekly case summary for Nov. 4-8, 2024: * * * Summarized Board Decisions Hiran Management, Inc. d/b/a Hungry Like the Wolf (16-CA-303914; 373 NLRB No. 130) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e7b5cf) Houston, TX, November 4, 2024. The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees with discharge and other unspecified reprisals, and by discharging employees, because they engaged in a protected walkout and strike. Chargefiled by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Sharon Levinson Steckler issued her decision on February 13, 2024. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
* * *
Vermont Information Processing, Inc. (03-CA-301055; 373 NLRB No. 131) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e80345) Colchester, VT, November 5, 2024.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging four employees because of their protected concerted activities, which include creating and disseminating a salary spreadsheet and engaging in online communications about workplace conditions. The Board rejected the Respondent's argument that the judge failed to adequately address a purported violation of the sequestration order at the hearing.
Charge filed by individuals. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on July 31, 2023. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
* * *
Omnisource, LLC (08-RD-348156; 373 NLRB No. 134) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e8949c) Toledo, OH, November 7, 2024.
The Board (Members Kaplan and Wilcox; Member Prouty, dissenting) denied the Union's Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Board also denied the Union's request to stay the election as moot. Dissenting, Member Prouty would have granted review for the Board to reconsider the standards that Regional Directors should apply in exercising their discretion to designate the location of an election. Petitioner--an individual. Union--International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 20. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
* * *
Siren Retail Corp. d/b/a Starbucks (19-CA-290905; 373 NLRB No. 135) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e8feb6) Seattle, WA, November 8. 2024.
A full Board unanimously affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees that unionization would cause them to lose certain benefits and would cause the Respondent to prioritize giving new benefits to employees at its nonunionized stores over giving benefits to employees at its unionized stores. A full Board also unanimously affirmed the judge's dismissal of the allegation that the Respondent unlawfully held captive-audience meetings. A full Board majority consisting of Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox affirmed the judge's conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by making additional threatening statements that unionization would cause employees to lose certain benefits. The Board majority also affirmed the judge's conclusion that the Respondent threatened the futility of unionization, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), by implying that collective bargaining could not redress the employees' inability to receive tips from customers' credit card payments. The Board majority also found it unnecessary to pass on whether the Respondent threatened the futility of unionization by its statements concerning the duration of collective bargaining. The Board majority also reversed the judge to find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees about their strike- and union membership-related obligations if they chose to unionize.
Finally, the Board majority overruled Tri-Cast, Inc., 274 NLRB 377 (1985) and its progeny, in which the Board had deemed categorically lawful nearly any employer statement to employees touching on the impact that unionization would have on the relationship between individual employees and their employer. The Board reasoned the purposes of the Act are better served if the content and context of such statements are analyzed on a case-by-case basis, under the principles of the Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969) that the Board generally uses when analyzing whether allegedly threatening or coercive statements violate Section 8(a)(1). The Board explained that Tri-Cast and its progeny had categorically immunized employer campaign statements that, based on their content and context, could reasonably be understood to threaten employees with the loss of an established workplace benefit. The Board further explained that Section 9(a) expressly provides that, following unionization in certain specified circumstances, individual employees have the right to raise individualized issues with their employer and the employer is permitted to resolve such issues without engaging in unlawful direct dealing. Accordingly, the Board explained, when an employer, during a campaign, makes a statement that a reasonable employee would understand to mean that the employer would be obligated to discontinue such individualized treatment following unionization, the employer may be found to have unlawfully threatened to discontinue an employee benefit as a consequence of unionization.
Because employers have reasonably come to rely on the fact that they could lawfully make such statements concerning the employer-employee relationship, however anomalous that may have been under the Act's standards otherwise governing their conduct, the Board decided to apply its overruling of Tri-Cast only prospectively. Because of the prospective nature of this overruling, the full Board unanimously affirmed the judge's finding that the Respondent's campaign statements to employees concerning the impact unionization would have on the relationship between employer and employee were lawful.
Dissenting, Member Kaplan contended that only certain of the Respondent's statements unlawfully threatened that unionization would cause employees to lose certain benefits. Member Kaplan also contended that the Respondent did not threaten the futility of unionization by implying that collective bargaining could not redress the employees' inability to receive tips from customers' credit card payments or by its statements concerning the duration of collective bargaining. Member Kaplan also contended that the Respondent did not threaten employees about their strike- and union membership-related obligations if they chose to unionize. Member Kaplan also contended that the Board's overruling of Tri-Cast is dicta. Specifically, in his view, the overruling is dicta because: Tri-Cast could only be overruled in a representation case, not an unfair labor practice case; the Board has not actually or hypothetically applied the new standard to the facts of this case; the Board plans to apply its new standard to other unidentified statements not currently before the Board; it was not necessary to address Tri-Cast to decide the relevant issue; and Section 9(a) does not permit employers to address individualized grievances following employees' unionization.
Charge filed by Workers United a/w Service Employees International Union. Administrative Law Judge John T. Giannopoulos issued his decision on January 31, 2023. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
* * *
Davis Defense Group, Inc. (10-CA-284049; 373 NLRB No. 132) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e81884) North Charleston, SC, November 8, 2024.
A Board majority (Chairman McFerran and Member Kaplan) affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's dismissal of the allegation that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by disciplining and discharging the Charging Party. In affirming the judge's conclusion that the General Counsel failed to sustain her initial burden under Wright Line, this Board majority agreed with the judge that the General Counsel failed to establish, as a threshold matter, that the Charging Party engaged in protected concerted activity. This Board majority also affirmed the judge's dismissal of the allegation that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) when its manager emailed employees a memo on COVID-19 Executive Orders directing further questions to the manager and not the entire email distribution. The majority found that the email was not sent in response to employees' protected concerted activity or to preempt such activity, nor would employees have reasonably perceived the email as limiting their right to engage in protected concerted activities going forward.
Dissenting in part, Member Wilcox would find that the Charging Party was engaged in protected concerted activity for the purpose of mutual aid or protection and that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by disciplining and discharging the Charging Party for that conduct. Member Wilcox would also find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by promulgating a rule requiring employees to raise any questions regarding COVID-19 executive orders solely through the Respondent's internal processes because she finds that, by its plain language, the rule explicitly restricts Section 7 activity by prohibiting employees from communicating about terms and conditions of employment with coworkers and third parties.
A separate majority (Chairman McFerran and Member Wilcox) reversed the judge to find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) in its reprimand letter by instructing the Charging Party to obtain approval from her supervisor before emailing her coworkers and representatives of the Respondent's government client. This majority found that, regardless of whether the Charging Party had previously engaged in protected concerted activity by raising her scheduling concerns in various communications, the Charging Party would have reasonably understood the instructions in the reprimand letter to generally restrict her Section 7 right to discuss terms and conditions of employment with her coworkers and third parties by requiring her to first receive approval for such communications from her supervisor.
Dissenting in part, Member Kaplan agreed with the judge that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) when its manager issued the letter of reprimand Based on the context and the specific references to the Respondent's government client's complaints about the Charging Party in the letter, he found that a reasonable employee in the Charging Party's place would not reasonably speculate that the directive went beyond the specific nature of the communications for which the Charging Party was reprimanded, nor that it conveyed a broader message restricting her Section 7-protected activity.
Charge filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi issued his decision on August 8, 2022. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
* * *
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
DIY Bar (19-RC-345216) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e96897) Portland, OR, November 7, 2024. The Board denied the Petitioner's Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner-Craft Tenders Union. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
Warrior Met Coal Mining, LLC (10-RD-315651) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e96bc2) Brookwood, AL, November 7, 2924. The Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Prouty) denied the Employer's and Petitioner's Requests for Review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order Dismissing Petition as they raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Board also denied the Employer's request for extraordinary relief as moot. Member Kaplan, dissenting in part, agreed with the denial of the request for extraordinary relief but would have granted the Requests for Review. Petitioner--an individual. Union--International Union, United Mine Workers of America. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
Chippendales Las Vegas, LLC (28-RC-352347) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e9955e) Las Vegas, NV, November 8, 2024. The Board denied the Employer's Requests for Review of the Regional Director's decision denying its request to file post-hearing briefs and of the Regional Director's Order Denying the Employer's Motion for Special Permission to File Post-Hearing Briefs as they raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Employer's requests to stay the election were denied as moot. Petitioner --Actors' Equity Association. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
YAPP USA Automotive Systems, Inc. (07-CA-320369 and 07-CA-336485) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e98d14) Romulus, MI, November 8, 2024. The Board granted the Respondent's Request for Special Permission to Appeal the Administrative Law Judge's order denying the Respondent's motion to allow a witness to testify by videoconferencing. On the merits, the Board denied the appeal, finding that the Respondent failed to establish that the judge abused his discretion in denying the motion. Charge filed by Local 174, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
* * *
Appellate Court Decisions
No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.
* * *
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Trader Joe's East, Inc. (02-CA-306679; JD-68-24) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e91087) New York, NY. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on November 5, 2024. Charge filed by United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.
Amazon.com Services, LLC (10-CA-290944, et al.; JD(NY)-22-24) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e91de7) Birmingham, NY. Administrative Law Judge Michael P. Silverstein issued his decision on November 5, 2024. Charges filed by Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union,
Hawaii Pacific Health (20-CA-309614, et al.; JD(SF)-31-24) Honolulu, HI, November 6, 2024. Errata to the October 22, 2024 Decision. Errata (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e93639) Amended Decision (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e7554b).
Advanced Marine Concepts, LLC, d/b//a Atlas Docks (14-CA-326677; JD-69-24) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e9820f) Camdenton, MO. Administrative Law Judge Christal J. Key issued her decision on November 8, 2024. Charge filed by an individual.
Trader Joe's East, Inc. (01-CA-296847, et al.; JD-70-24) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e98d26) Hadley, MA and Minneapolis, MN. Administrative Law Judge Charles J. Muhl issued his decision on November 8, 2024. Charges filed by individuals and Trader Joe's United.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nlrb.gov/cases-decisions/weekly-summaries-decisions/summary-of-nlrb-decisions-for-week-of-november-4-8-2024
NLRB Lists Decisions for Week of Nov. 12-15
WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 -- The National Labor Relations Board issued the following weekly case summary for Nov. 12-15, 2024:* * *
Summarized Board Decisions
Amazon.com Services LLC (29-CA-280153, et al.; 373 NLRB No. 136) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e96e24) Staten Island, NY, November 13, 2024.
A full Board majority consisting of Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox overruled Babcock & Wilcox, 77 NLRB 577 (1948) and held that captive-audience meetings are unlawful. The Board explained that such meetings violate Section 8(a)(1) because they have a reasonable tendency ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 -- The National Labor Relations Board issued the following weekly case summary for Nov. 12-15, 2024: * * * Summarized Board Decisions Amazon.com Services LLC (29-CA-280153, et al.; 373 NLRB No. 136) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e96e24) Staten Island, NY, November 13, 2024. A full Board majority consisting of Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox overruled Babcock & Wilcox, 77 NLRB 577 (1948) and held that captive-audience meetings are unlawful. The Board explained that such meetings violate Section 8(a)(1) because they have a reasonable tendencyto interfere with and coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 right to freely decide whether or not to unionize, including the right to decide whether, when, and how they will listen to and consider their employer's views concerning that choice. Specifically, the Board explained that this unlawful interference and coercion manifests itself in three independent ways. First, captive-audience meetings impinge on employees' right to choose the degree to which they will participate in the debate concerning union representation. Second, captive-audience meetings serve as a mechanism for employers to observe and surveil employees as they address the exercise of employees' Section 7 rights. And third, because the employer has compelled employees, either implicitly or explicitly, to attend captive-audience meetings on pain of discipline or discharge, the employer's message in the meeting is reasonably likely to take on a similarly coercive character.
The Board further explained that neither Section 8(c) nor the First Amendment precludes it from deeming captive-audience meetings unlawful. Concerning Section 8(c), the Board explained that both the plain meaning of that provision's statutory text and its legislative history support the conclusion that it permits employers and unions to non-coercively express their views concerning unionization to employees but does not permit employers to compel employees to listen to those views. Concerning the First Amendment, the Board explained that the Supreme Court has long recognized that in the unique "labor relations setting" an employer's speech rights "cannot outweigh" the equal rights of employees to associate freely, and a prohibition on captive-audience meetings strikes the proper balance by not interfering with employers' right to express their views on unionization while protecting employees' right to decide, for themselves, whether, when, and how to engage with those views.
The Board further explained that because a voluntary workplace meeting concerning employees' decision whether or not to unionize does not interfere with and coerce employees as to the exercise of their Section 7 rights, employers may still lawfully hold such genuinely voluntary meetings. To that end, the Board articulated basic and straightforward "safe harbor" assurances employers may provide to employees reasonably in advance of a meeting to ensure that the meeting does not violate Section 8(a)(1).
Because employers have reasonably come to rely on the fact that they could lawfully hold captive-audience meetings, however anomalous that may have been under the Act's standards otherwise governing their conduct, the Board decided to apply its prohibition on captive-audience meetings only prospectively.
Dissenting, Member Kaplan contended that captive-audience meetings do not interfere with employees' Section 7 rights. In his view, captive-audience meetings are not materially different from other mandatory workplace meetings, and, in his view, it is lawful for employers to require employees to listen to an employer's views concerning the employees' decision whether or not to unionize even if they do not want to listen to those views. He also contended that the text and legislative history of Section 8(c) support the conclusion that that provision protects captive-audience meetings. He also contended that the Board's prohibition on captive-audience meetings is precluded on First Amendment constitutional avoidance grounds. In his view, the Board's prohibition singles out meetings about unionization while permitting mandatory meetings on other subjects, which is a content-based regulation of speech that fails First Amendment strict scrutiny.
The Board also ruled on three subsidiary issues. First, it found that the Respondent had engaged in discriminatory enforcement of its Solicitation Policy in removing a post on its Voice of Associates or "VOA" board by an employee requesting that employees come to the Union tent to sign a petition in support of a paid Juneteenth holiday while leaving up an employee post asking employees to come to a break room and pick up a "VOTE NO" t-shirt. It further found that the Respondent had unlawfully threatened the employee in telling her that there would be "additional followup" if she reposted her message. Finally, it found that the Respondent had unlawfully solicited and impliedly promised to remedy grievances at the captive-audience meetings in continually telling employees to "escalate" their concerns up the chain of command until (presumably) they got the response they wanted. Member Kaplan dissented on all three of these issues.
Charges filed by an individual and Amazon Labor Union. Administrative Law Judge Benjamin W. Green issued his decision on January 30, 2023. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
* * *
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Edgewood Properties, Inc. (22-RC-345133) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583e97e3f) South Plainfield, NJ, November 12, 2024. The Board denied the Employer's Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision Overruling Objections and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner--Edgewood Properties, Inc. Union--League of International Federated Employees, Local 719. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
Cogent Waste Solutions LLC (29-RC-339367) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583ea0cf9) Brooklyn, NY, November 14, 2024. The Board denied the Intervenor's Request for Review of the Regional Director's letter rejecting its objections as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Regional Director rejected the Intervenor's objections as untimely. Petitioner--International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 813. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 959, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters (United Freight & Transport, Inc,) (19-CB-311844) (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583ea3ceb) Anchorage, AK, November 15, 2024. No exceptions having been filed to the October 3, 2024 decision of Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter's finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted the judge's findings and conclusions, and ordered the Respondent to take the action set forth in the judge's recommended Order. Charge filed by an individual.
* * *
Appellate Court Decisions
Blue School, Board Case No. 02-CA-294227 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 18) (2d Cir. decided November 12, 2024).
In an unpublished summary order in this test-of-certification case, the Court enforced the Board's order that issued against this private educational institution in New York City requiring it to bargain with Local 2110, Technical, Office & Professional Union, UAW, AFL-CIO, after the Union prevailed in an election held in Summer 2021. In doing so, the Court rejected a challenge to the Board's severance of a remedial issue, found no error in the Board's pre-election determinations, and held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in overruling the School's election objection without holding a hearing.
In the underlying representation case, after the Union filed a petition seeking to represent the School's employees, the Regional Director determined that the Union's showing of interest was sufficient and scheduled a pre-election hearing on contentions raised by the School. Thereafter, the Regional Director issued a decision finding that a mail-ballot election was appropriate due to the scattered nature of the employees' summer schedules, and rejected the School's challenge to the sufficiency of the showing of interest and its contention that the election should be delayed. During the election period, eight employees posted pictures or videos on Instagram of themselves holding their sealed ballot-return envelopes that included expressions of union support.
After the election, the School filed an objection claiming that the posts destroyed ballot secrecy and constituted improper electioneering. The Regional Director overruled the objection without a hearing, ordered the ballots opened and counted, and on a tally of 24 to 4, certified the Union. The School filed a Request for Review, which was denied by the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Ring). After the School refused to bargain, the Board granted the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment, found its refusal violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1), but severed and retained for further consideration the General Counsel's request that the Board order an additional remedy for the Employer's refusal to bargain that would compensate employees for the value of that lost opportunity. Subsequently, the Board denied the School's Motion for Reconsideration, and an enforcement proceeding was initiated.
As a preliminary matter, the Court rejected the School's contention that it lacked jurisdiction because the Board's severance of the remedial issue rendered the Board's decision non-final, stating: "Like the other Circuits to consider this issue, we conclude that the Board's severance of a discrete remedial issue does not impact our jurisdiction over the Board's application for enforcement," citing Longmont United Hospital v. NLRB, 70 F.4th 573 (D.C. Cir. 2023), NLRB v. Siren Retail Corp., 99 F.4th 1118 (9th Cir. 2024), and NLRB. v. United Scrap Metal PA, LLC, 116 F.4th 194 (3d Cir. 2024).
On the pre-election issues, the Court held that the adequacy of the Union's showing of interest was not an issue for litigation, and found no error in the Regional Director's determination to hold a mail-ballot election without the delay. On the election objection, the Court recognized that a claim that nonparties had engaged in objectionable conduct would lead to setting aside an election only if the conduct substantially impaired the employees' exercise of free choice, and held that the School made no such showing. The Court also agreed with the Board that the School was not entitled to a hearing because its offer of proof was insufficient. Citing the long-settled standard for review of Board election matters, that "'Congress has entrusted the Board with a wide degree of discretion in establishing the procedure and safeguards necessary to insure the fair and free choice of bargaining representatives by employees.' NLRB v. A. J. Tower Co., 329 U.S. 324 (1946)," the Court enforced the Board's order.
The Court's opinion is here (https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww3.ca2.uscourts.gov%2Fdecisions%2Fisysquery%2Fbaba5e39-2fc5-476c-9908-1de96511f9b4%2F30%2Fdoc%2F23-6305_so.pdf%23xml%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fww3.ca2.uscourts.gov%2Fdecisions%2Fisysquery%2Fbaba5e39-2fc5-476c-9908-1de96511f9b4%2F30%2Fhilite%2F&data=05%7C02%7CMary.Meyers%40nlrb.gov%7C10240a49a2a94546072008dd0a567467%7C5e453ed8e33843bb90754ed5b8a8caa4%7C0%7C0%7C638678088639714895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vfQWjjfZyDtIZ3Db%2BgSm2NqAiR%2FBocsN4lN871UzntI%3D&reserved=0).
* * *
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
No Administrative Law Judge Decisions Issued.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nlrb.gov/cases-decisions/weekly-summaries-decisions/summary-of-nlrb-decisions-for-week-of-november-12-15-1
FEC Issues Digest for Week of Nov. 18-22
WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest:* * *
Commission meetings and hearings
No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week.
* * *
Administrative Fines
The Commission made public five closed cases, as follows. For more information, see the case documents in the Administrative Fine Search System.
AF 4696 Committee to Elect Marcus Jones and Marcus Jones, in official capacity as treasurer. The Commission made a final determination and assessed a civil penalty of $1,594.
AF 4697 Raja Chaudhry Campaign, Inc. and Leon Zeno, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest: * * * Commission meetings and hearings No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week. * * * Administrative Fines The Commission made public five closed cases, as follows. For more information, see the case documents in the Administrative Fine Search System. AF 4696 Committee to Elect Marcus Jones and Marcus Jones, in official capacity as treasurer. The Commission made a final determination and assessed a civil penalty of $1,594. AF 4697 Raja Chaudhry Campaign, Inc. and Leon Zeno,in official capacity as treasurer. The Commission made a final determination and assessed a civil penalty of $10,609.
AF 4699 American Financial Services Association PAC and Bill Himpler, in official capacity as treasurer. The Commission made a final determination and assessed a civil penalty of $3,325.
AF 4700 Farmers' Rice Cooperative Fund and Bill Tanimoto, in official capacity as treasurer. The Commission made a final determination and assessed a civil penalty of $481.
AF 4701 Hillsborough County Republican Executive Committee and Patrick Bailey, in official capacity as treasurer. The Commission made a final determination and assessed a civil penalty of $832.
* * *
Litigation
Campaign Legal Center v. FEC (Case No. 24-2585) On November 18, the Commission filed an Answer in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
End Citizens United PAC v. FEC (Case No. 22-5277) On November 18, Appellant End Citizens United PAC filed an En Banc Brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Colleen Oliver and Steve Oliver v. FEC (Case No. 24-1166) On November 22, the parties filed a Stipulated Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
* * *
Public Disclosure
This week, the Office of the Inspector General made public a report on Management and Performance Challenges Facing the FEC for FY 2025 and a Fiscal Year 2024 Financial Statement Audit Report.
* * *
Outreach
On November 18, Vice Chair Ellen L. Weintraub participated in "Money and Politics: Workshops on Public Policies on Electoral Campaigns and Political Parties Financing" hosted by the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington, DC.
On November 20, the Commission held a webinar on Winding Down the Campaign and Post-General Reporting.
On November 22, Vice Chair Weintraub met with a visiting delegation from the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs to discuss campaign finance in the U.S. and the work of the Commission.
* * *
Employment opportunities
The Commission is accepting applications for the position of Attorney-Adviser (Administrative Law) through November 30, 2024.
* * *
Upcoming Commission meetings and hearings
December 10, 2024: The Commission is scheduled to meet in executive session.
December 12, 2024: The Commission is scheduled to hold an open meeting.
* * *
Upcoming educational opportunities
For more information on upcoming training opportunities, see the Commission's Trainings page.
* * *
Upcoming reporting due dates
December 5: 30-Day Post-General Reports are due. For more information, see the 2024 Pre- and Post-General Reporting schedule.
* * *
Additional research materials
Contribution Limits. In addition to the current limits, the Commission has posted an archive of contribution limits that were in effect going back to the 1975-1976 election cycles.
Federal Elections 2020: Election Results for the U.S. President, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives is available. The data was compiled from the official vote totals published by state election offices.
FEC Notify: Want to be notified by email when campaign finance reports are received by the agency? Sign up here.
The Combined Federal State Disclosure and Election Directory is available. This publication identifies the federal and state agencies responsible for the disclosure of campaign finances, lobbying, personal finances, public financing, candidates on the ballot, election results, spending on state initiatives and other financial filings.
The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Tax Checkoff Chart provides information on balance of the Fund, monthly deposits into the Fund reported by the Department of the Treasury, payments from the Fund as certified by the FEC, and participation rates of taxpayers as reported by the Internal Revenue Service. For more information on the Presidential Public Funding Program, see the Public Funding of Presidential Elections page.
The FEC Record is available as a continuously updated online news source.
* * *
Other election-related resources
Videos on protecting U.S. elections. The FBI's Protected Voices initiative provides videos designed to help political campaigns protect themselves from foreign influence. The 2019 videos offer guidance on ransomware, business email compromise, supply chain, social media literacy, and foreign influence operations. Other videos, released in 2018, include cyber hygiene topics such as social engineering, patching, router hardening, and app and browser safety.
* * *
Join the FEC on X and YouTube
Follow @FEC on X to receive the latest information on agency updates, news releases, and weekly activity. Subscribe to our YouTube channel, FECTube: FECConnect on Demand, to watch instructional videos that have been designed to help candidates and committees comply with federal campaign finance laws. Note that the FEC is not currently available through other social media platforms. The use of the agency's logo, name, and likeness on other media has not been authorized by the FEC.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fec.gov/updates/week-of-november-18-22-2024/
FCC Issues Order Involving Lifeline & Link Up Reform, Modernization
WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following order (WC Dockets No. 11-42; 09-197) on Nov. 22, 2024:* * *
In the Matter of Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support
ORDER
By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Order, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) takes emergency action to ensure continuity of Lifeline service for the Lifeline households formerly served by Q Link Wireless LLC (Q Link) prior to its suspension./1
2. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following order (WC Dockets No. 11-42; 09-197) on Nov. 22, 2024: * * * In the Matter of Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support ORDER By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) takes emergency action to ensure continuity of Lifeline service for the Lifeline households formerly served by Q Link Wireless LLC (Q Link) prior to its suspension./1 2.In the extraordinary circumstances before us, we find good cause exists to temporarily waive certain Lifeline requirements to prevent disruption to certain Lifeline subscribers' service in the wake of Q Link's suspension from the Lifeline program. The waiver of these rules will allow T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile), with which Q Link contracted as an underlying service provider for its previous Lifeline offering, to provide the Lifeline-discounted service on an emergency basis to persons who would otherwise abruptly lose that service. Most recently, despite non-payment by Q Link, T-Mobile has provided, and continues to provide, the impacted Lifeline subscriber base with service./2 However, TMobile has indicated that it cannot do so indefinitely and these customers will remain at imminent risk for loss of service. With these temporary waivers, the impacted consumers will continue to have access to the Lifeline-supported voice and broadband service on which they rely, provided by T-Mobile through its Lifeline eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC), Assurance Wireless (Assurance/3), unless and until they choose to opt-out and select a different Lifeline provider.
II. BACKGROUND
3. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) rules contain several protections to help ensure that households eligible for Lifeline are not enrolled or transferred in the program without their consent, and that the program does not make duplicate payments to multiple Lifeline providers for service provided to the same household. In particular, the Lifeline rules require providers to obtain subscribers' consent prior to submitting their personal information to the NLAD to enroll or transfer the subscriber./4 The program rules also limit Lifeline reimbursement to the provider that directly serves the Lifeline household, to prevent duplicate support being sent to both a direct Lifeline service provider and a wholesale provider for the same household./5 The rules also require Lifeline providers to de-enroll Lifeline households that do not pay a monthly fee for their service and have not used their service for a 30-day period and have not cured their non-usage./6
4. Q Link Suspension from the Lifeline Program. On October 15, 2024, Q Link pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud and commit offenses against the United States in connection with a yearslong scheme to fraudulently claim over $100 million from the Lifeline program./7 Q Link and its owner admitted to engaging in conduct designed to mislead the FCC as to how many of Q Link's Lifeline subscribers were continuing to use their Lifeline service, and to prevent subscribers who sought to deenroll from ending their relationship with Q Link, which would have prevented Q Link from billing the Lifeline program for these households./8 Based on Q Link's guilty plea and factual proffer in United States v. Q Link Wireless, LLC, on November 8, 2024, the Commission's Enforcement Bureau suspended Q Link from participation in Lifeline or other universal service support programs and began a proceeding to debar Q Link from future participation in all federal universal service support mechanisms./9
5. Q Link's Business Relationship with T-Mobile. T-Mobile provided wholesale mobile service to Q Link, which then resold that service to households participating in the Lifeline program./10 The Bureau has been made aware that, due to non-payment by Q Link and more recently as a result of Q Link's guilty plea and its subsequent suspension from Lifeline, T-Mobile has been providing service to these households itself and without compensation./11
III. DISCUSSION
6. The Bureau acts on its own motion to temporarily waive certain Lifeline rules to enable former Q Link Lifeline subscribers who would otherwise lose service to continue to receive Lifeline service through T-Mobile and Assurance Wireless. In evaluating whether good cause exists for waiver of its rules,/12 the Commission considers whether the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest./13 The Commission may also take into account concerns of hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy on an individual basis./14 Waiver of the Commission's rules is therefore only appropriate if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such deviation will serve the public interest./15 As further discussed below, the Bureau finds good cause to act on delegated authority to temporarily waive the Lifeline rules as described herein./16
7. We find that good cause exists to temporarily waive for Assurance the Lifeline requirements regarding the "direct" provision of Lifeline service, subscriber consent to transmitting subscriber information in the NLAD, and certain de-enrollment timelines./17 T-Mobile has continued to provide service to certain Lifeline households despite Q Link's exit from the Lifeline program and inability to continue providing Lifeline service under the terms of that suspension./18 Temporarily waiving the Lifeline program's direct service requirement to the limited extent necessary to permit Assurance to claim Lifeline reimbursement for service provided to these households will enable T-Mobile and Assurance to continue providing service to impacted households and allow those Lifeline households to receive the benefits of information, outreach, and customer service support from a Lifeline provider, and the establishment of accounts with appropriate pricing and billing information.
8. We also find good cause to waive the Lifeline rules regarding household consent to transmit consumer information to the NLAD for the purpose of permitting Assurance to transfer impacted subscribers in the NLAD and continue providing Lifeline-supported service to those households. In the extremely unusual and emergency circumstance of a Lifeline provider's suspension and sudden exit from the program due to criminal misconduct and the former Lifeline provider's resulting inability to continue in the Lifeline program after its suspension, we find that the privacy and consent protections of these provisions are outweighed by the strong interest in protecting Lifeline subscribers from sudden disconnection. Affected subscribers may, however, opt-out of receiving service from Assurance by transferring their Lifeline benefit to another Lifeline provider in their area, or requesting to de-enroll from the program./19
9. Our decision to provide this waiver is based on careful consideration of how to continue to support the stable provision of services through the Lifeline Program, and this waiver is limited to the extent needed to allow for the effective transition of households' Lifeline-discounted service from Q Link to Assurance for customers who would otherwise lose service. There is good cause to minimize disruptions and maintain service for these customers--especially where, as here, the customers are already receiving T-Mobile service. Additionally and through no fault of their own, the affected subscribers are at risk of losing their service solely as a result of Q Link's malfeasance.
10. In addition, we find that good cause exists for a limited waiver of Lifeline program recordkeeping requirements, to the extent accurate records are not readily available, for customers transferred from Q Link to Assurance under this Order./20 It is unlikely T-Mobile can acquire accurate records as to these subscribers regarding their activity in Lifeline prior to Q Link's suspension from the program. However, we understand that T-Mobile has continued to provide service to these households./21 This waiver of recordkeeping requirements only encompasses records arising during the time period before the impacted subscribers are enrolled in Assurance's Study Area Codes in NLAD. Additionally, if relevant compliance information exists in the Universal Service Administrative Company's (USAC) systems and is accessible for Assurance for these households, Assurance should maintain those records consistent with their Lifeline compliance practices.
11. Further, we find good cause to temporarily waive the Lifeline program's annual ETC certification requirement/22 for customers transferred from Q Link to Assurance under this Order, for a period of 180 days after the issuance of this Order. In the normal course annual ETC certifications are due on January 31,/23 but we believe this additional time is necessary to allow T-Mobile to work through its compliance processes for the transferred subscribers and accurately report information in the Form 555 after completing those processes. We direct USAC to permit Assurance to file revisions to their Form 555 filings to account for the households affected by this Order.
12. Finally, we waive certain Lifeline de-enrollment requirements to allow Assurance to issue notice to households that have not recently used their service prior to de-enrollment, but we do not waive the Lifeline program's usage requirements for purposes of reimbursement./24 Because T-Mobile is currently providing service to these households, we anticipate that Assurance will be able to promptly determine whether or not individual subscribers are compliant with the Lifeline program's usage requirements. However, we also recognize that households who do not pay a monthly fee for their service and have not used their service for 30 days may have never been issued cure notices about their usage by Q Link, both because Q Link's access to subscriber information may have been impacted by its contractual dispute with T-Mobile and because Q Link has stipulated to facts indicating broad noncompliance with the Commission's usage rules. While we do not permit Assurance to claim reimbursement for households that do not meet the Lifeline usage requirements, it is appropriate for these households to be given notice and the opportunity to cure their non-usage. As such, Assurance is not required to de-enroll these households, but it may instead, within 45 days of the effective date of this Order, issue 15-day cure notices to households with non-usage greater than 30 days. If these households do not cure their usage within the cure period, they must be de-enrolled consistent with the Lifeline program's rules./25 We will continue to apply the existing reimbursement rules for these households to ensure that only households actually using their service pursuant to the rules are claimed for reimbursement. With this waiver, households will be given the opportunity to cure their non-usage, while we are also protecting against reimbursement for service that has not been used.
13. To implement this waiver, we direct USAC to transfer subscribers that continue to receive service from T-Mobile to Assurance. The Bureau also expects that Assurance will notify affected households of the terms of their ongoing service as soon as practicable and to indicate that they may choose a different Lifeline provider at any time, consistent with Lifeline Program rules. This waiver only applies to the extent necessary to effectuate this emergency transfer to Assurance; this waiver does not apply to any other T-Mobile or Assurance subscribers. We also direct USAC to work with the Lifeline administrator in Texas, the only NLAD opt-out state with impacted subscribers, to effectuate a similar transfer. Additionally, we encourage the Texas Lifeline administrator to implement similar changes to its systems and processes to allow for similar relief, ensuring continued Lifeline service for these subscribers.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
14. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3, that sections 54.201(a)(1), 54.400(k), 54.401(a), 54.404 (b)(9) and (c)(5), 54.405(e)(3), 54.407(a) and (e), 54.410(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2), (c)(1)(ii), and (c)(2), 54.416(b), and 54.417(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 54.201(a)(1), 54.400(k), 54.401(a), 54.404 (b)(9) and (c)(5), 54.405(e)(3), 54.407(a) and (e), 54.410(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2), (c)(1)(ii), and (c)(2), 54.416(b), and 54.417(a), ARE WAIVED to the limited extent provided herein.
15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Sec. 1.102(b)(1), this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Trent B. Harkrader, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau
* * *
Original text plus footnotes here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24-1182A1.pdf
FCC Commissioner Starks Issues Statement on FM Broadcast Booster Stations
WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement on Nov. 22, 2024, by Commissioner Geoffrey Starks on an action entitled "Amendment of Section 74.1231(i) of the Commission's Rules on FM Broadcast Booster Stations, Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration" (MB Docket No. 20-401):* * *
The media landscape is constantly changing. Earlier this year, the Commission unanimously approved the First Order to allow geo-targeting on an experimental basis, and broadcasters were given the green light. They began innovating business plans and exploring ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement on Nov. 22, 2024, by Commissioner Geoffrey Starks on an action entitled "Amendment of Section 74.1231(i) of the Commission's Rules on FM Broadcast Booster Stations, Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration" (MB Docket No. 20-401): * * * The media landscape is constantly changing. Earlier this year, the Commission unanimously approved the First Order to allow geo-targeting on an experimental basis, and broadcasters were given the green light. They began innovating business plans and exploringopportunities to leverage this technology that could unlock new revenue streams.
Today's Order finalizes the new tools broadcasters can utilize as they adapt and thrive in a competitive media environment. The ability to offer hyper-localized content means that stations can attract small businesses looking to customize their advertisements to a targeted audience and better reach their local communities. These new advertising streams can make a real difference, especially for the many small or minority broadcasters that are working hard to stay on the air.
I know because I got to witness the potential and excitement of this technology firsthand. Last month, I hit the road and visited KADD, 93.5 FM, "La Mejor" in Las Vegas. La Mejor is one of the largest Spanish-speaking stations in the region and is investing in truly local content, including news, talk, and music. To reach new listeners outside of their current range and target content with greater precision, KADD is deploying FM boosters that will provide the station with access to an estimated 100,000 new listeners. For KADD this is a game-changer -- the opportunity to provide more Spanish speakers in the local area with bespoke content, and establish a crucial link to their community. Geo-targeted content is the dawn of new possibility for radio. From my perspective, we've set the policy and opened up the technology. Now it's up to each business to determine if this opportunity is right for them. I look forward to seeing how this industry continues to harness this technology to better serve and uplift communities.
This Order is many years in the making and the result of the tireless advocacy of broadcasters, civil rights organizations, and leaders in Congress, including Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Steven Horsford, Congressman Bennie Thompson, and Congressman Hank Johnson. But of course, none of this would be possible without the true collaboration of my colleague, Commissioner Carr. He and I have worked side-by-side to bring this proposal to the finish line and I am tremendously proud of this result.
I'd also like to thank Chairwoman Rosenworcel for working with us and for prioritizing this item, and to Commissioner Simington and Commissioner Gomez for their collaboration to see this through the tape. Finally, my thanks to the staff in the Media Bureau for all their great work. This item has my full support.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-121A3.pdf