Federal Executive Branch
Here's a look at documents from the U.S. Executive Branch
Federal Agencies
Featured Stories
US Department of Labor recovers more than $500K in back wages from San Diego deli for 6 workers
WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The U.S. Department of Labor issued the following news release:
* * *
US Department of Labor recovers more than $500K in back wages from San Diego deli for 6 workers
*
SAN DIEGO - The U.S. Department of Labor has recovered $500,256 in back wages for six deli workers who were not paid the local minimum wage for regular hours or overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 per workweek.
The department's Wage and Hour Division investigated Chau Deli, operating as A Chau Sandwich, and determined that the employer paid workers a flat rate of $100 per day despite often working ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The U.S. Department of Labor issued the following news release: * * * US Department of Labor recovers more than $500K in back wages from San Diego deli for 6 workers * SAN DIEGO - The U.S. Department of Labor has recovered $500,256 in back wages for six deli workers who were not paid the local minimum wage for regular hours or overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 per workweek. The department's Wage and Hour Division investigated Chau Deli, operating as A Chau Sandwich, and determined that the employer paid workers a flat rate of $100 per day despite often working11-hour days, averaging 55 hours each week. The investigation found that the regular rate of pay for these workers was less than the local minimum wage.
The division also found that workers were not paid overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime requirements. As a result of the investigation, each worker was paid approximately $83,000 in back wages.
"The Wage and Hour Division remains committed to upholding federal labor law protections for workers supporting themselves and their families," said Wage and Hour Division Administrator Andrew Rogers. "The division stands ready to assist employers with understanding and complying with the laws we enforce."
Learn more about the Wage and Hour Division, including a search tool to use if you think you may be owed back wages collected by the division.
Employers and workers can call the division with questions and requests for compliance assistance at its toll-free helpline, 866-4US-WAGE (487-9243). Employers are encouraged to use the agency's industry-specific compliance assistance toolkits to learn about their responsibilities under the laws enforced by the division. The agency's PAID program offers employers an opportunity to self-report and resolve potential minimum wage and overtime violations under the FLSA, as well as certain potential violations under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Download the agency's free timesheet app (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/timesheet-app) for iOS and Android devices to track hours and pay.
***
Original text here: https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20260717
* * *
US Department of Labor recovers more than $500K in back wages from San Diego deli for 6 workers
*
SAN DIEGO - The U.S. Department of Labor has recovered $500,256 in back wages for six deli workers who were not paid the local minimum wage for regular hours or overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 per workweek.
The department's Wage and Hour Division investigated Chau Deli, operating as A Chau Sandwich, and determined that the employer paid workers a flat rate of $100 per day despite often working ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The U.S. Department of Labor issued the following news release: * * * US Department of Labor recovers more than $500K in back wages from San Diego deli for 6 workers * SAN DIEGO - The U.S. Department of Labor has recovered $500,256 in back wages for six deli workers who were not paid the local minimum wage for regular hours or overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 per workweek. The department's Wage and Hour Division investigated Chau Deli, operating as A Chau Sandwich, and determined that the employer paid workers a flat rate of $100 per day despite often working11-hour days, averaging 55 hours each week. The investigation found that the regular rate of pay for these workers was less than the local minimum wage.
The division also found that workers were not paid overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime requirements. As a result of the investigation, each worker was paid approximately $83,000 in back wages.
"The Wage and Hour Division remains committed to upholding federal labor law protections for workers supporting themselves and their families," said Wage and Hour Division Administrator Andrew Rogers. "The division stands ready to assist employers with understanding and complying with the laws we enforce."
Learn more about the Wage and Hour Division, including a search tool to use if you think you may be owed back wages collected by the division.
Employers and workers can call the division with questions and requests for compliance assistance at its toll-free helpline, 866-4US-WAGE (487-9243). Employers are encouraged to use the agency's industry-specific compliance assistance toolkits to learn about their responsibilities under the laws enforced by the division. The agency's PAID program offers employers an opportunity to self-report and resolve potential minimum wage and overtime violations under the FLSA, as well as certain potential violations under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Download the agency's free timesheet app (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/timesheet-app) for iOS and Android devices to track hours and pay.
***
Original text here: https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20260717
Submissions Open for Thunder Dome 2027 Innovation Competition
HURLBURT FIELD, Florida, July 18 -- The U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command issued the following statement on July 17, 2026:
* * *
Submissions open for Thunder Dome 2027 Innovation Competition
Calling all AFSOC innovators for the fourth annual Thunder Dome. The submissions window for ideas is now open for AFSOC's innovation competition known as Thunder Dome. All submissions received by Sept. 13, 2026, will be considered.
This competition is open to any member within the command, and ideas can be submitted at https://gain.il4.afwerx.dso.mil/usaf/afsoc-thunderdome-2027, which is a CAC ... Show Full Article HURLBURT FIELD, Florida, July 18 -- The U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command issued the following statement on July 17, 2026: * * * Submissions open for Thunder Dome 2027 Innovation Competition Calling all AFSOC innovators for the fourth annual Thunder Dome. The submissions window for ideas is now open for AFSOC's innovation competition known as Thunder Dome. All submissions received by Sept. 13, 2026, will be considered. This competition is open to any member within the command, and ideas can be submitted at https://gain.il4.afwerx.dso.mil/usaf/afsoc-thunderdome-2027, which is a CAConly enabled site.
Finalists will be selected based on multiple factors including impact on readiness/advantage, alignment with AFSOC strategy, and feasibility of execution. Finalists will present their ideas on Nov. 19, 2026, for the chance to receive funding to further develop their innovative solutions and put them into action across the command.
To ensure we maintain our decisive advantage against evolving global threats, events like Thunder Dome empower Air Commandos to lean into our ethos of grassroots innovation by tackling issues impacting readiness and AFSOC's ability to operate across the spectrum of competition, ensuring we remain relevant through adaptation.
We must invest today in the capabilities we will need tomorrow. We look forward to seeing the great ideas Air Commandos share in this year's competition.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.afsoc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4549329/submissions-open-for-thunder-dome-2027-innovation-competition/
* * *
Submissions open for Thunder Dome 2027 Innovation Competition
Calling all AFSOC innovators for the fourth annual Thunder Dome. The submissions window for ideas is now open for AFSOC's innovation competition known as Thunder Dome. All submissions received by Sept. 13, 2026, will be considered.
This competition is open to any member within the command, and ideas can be submitted at https://gain.il4.afwerx.dso.mil/usaf/afsoc-thunderdome-2027, which is a CAC ... Show Full Article HURLBURT FIELD, Florida, July 18 -- The U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command issued the following statement on July 17, 2026: * * * Submissions open for Thunder Dome 2027 Innovation Competition Calling all AFSOC innovators for the fourth annual Thunder Dome. The submissions window for ideas is now open for AFSOC's innovation competition known as Thunder Dome. All submissions received by Sept. 13, 2026, will be considered. This competition is open to any member within the command, and ideas can be submitted at https://gain.il4.afwerx.dso.mil/usaf/afsoc-thunderdome-2027, which is a CAConly enabled site.
Finalists will be selected based on multiple factors including impact on readiness/advantage, alignment with AFSOC strategy, and feasibility of execution. Finalists will present their ideas on Nov. 19, 2026, for the chance to receive funding to further develop their innovative solutions and put them into action across the command.
To ensure we maintain our decisive advantage against evolving global threats, events like Thunder Dome empower Air Commandos to lean into our ethos of grassroots innovation by tackling issues impacting readiness and AFSOC's ability to operate across the spectrum of competition, ensuring we remain relevant through adaptation.
We must invest today in the capabilities we will need tomorrow. We look forward to seeing the great ideas Air Commandos share in this year's competition.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.afsoc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4549329/submissions-open-for-thunder-dome-2027-innovation-competition/
Statement on IOSCO Compliance for Federal Reserve Bank of New York Administered Reference Rates
NEW YORK, July 18 -- The Federal Reserve Bank of New York issued the following statement on July 17, 2026:
* * *
Statement on IOSCO Compliance for Federal Reserve Bank of New York Administered Reference Rates
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York (New York Fed) today updated its Statement of Compliance with the IOSCO Principles for Financial Benchmarks (the Principles).
The New York Fed's Audit Group independently reviewed the organizational and operational framework used to administer the Effective Federal Funds Rate (EFFR), Overnight Bank Funding Rate (OBFR), Tri-Party General Collateral Rate ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, July 18 -- The Federal Reserve Bank of New York issued the following statement on July 17, 2026: * * * Statement on IOSCO Compliance for Federal Reserve Bank of New York Administered Reference Rates The Federal Reserve Bank of New York (New York Fed) today updated its Statement of Compliance with the IOSCO Principles for Financial Benchmarks (the Principles). The New York Fed's Audit Group independently reviewed the organizational and operational framework used to administer the Effective Federal Funds Rate (EFFR), Overnight Bank Funding Rate (OBFR), Tri-Party General Collateral Rate(TGCR), Broad General Collateral Rate (BGCR), Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR), SOFR Averages, and SOFR Index with respect to governance, quality of the benchmark, quality of the methodology, and accountability.
The Audit Group determined that these reference rates are in compliance with the Principles.
In 2013, IOSCO published the Principles, which were then endorsed by the Financial Stability Board as being standards of best practice for benchmark administration. The purpose of releasing an updated version of this statement is to maintain transparency surrounding the administration of these benchmarks in a manner consistent with the Principles.
The New York Fed will continue to assess the compliance of all of its reference rates with the Principles on an annual basis and issue a Statement of Compliance accordingly.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/opolicy/operating_policy_260717
* * *
Statement on IOSCO Compliance for Federal Reserve Bank of New York Administered Reference Rates
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York (New York Fed) today updated its Statement of Compliance with the IOSCO Principles for Financial Benchmarks (the Principles).
The New York Fed's Audit Group independently reviewed the organizational and operational framework used to administer the Effective Federal Funds Rate (EFFR), Overnight Bank Funding Rate (OBFR), Tri-Party General Collateral Rate ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, July 18 -- The Federal Reserve Bank of New York issued the following statement on July 17, 2026: * * * Statement on IOSCO Compliance for Federal Reserve Bank of New York Administered Reference Rates The Federal Reserve Bank of New York (New York Fed) today updated its Statement of Compliance with the IOSCO Principles for Financial Benchmarks (the Principles). The New York Fed's Audit Group independently reviewed the organizational and operational framework used to administer the Effective Federal Funds Rate (EFFR), Overnight Bank Funding Rate (OBFR), Tri-Party General Collateral Rate(TGCR), Broad General Collateral Rate (BGCR), Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR), SOFR Averages, and SOFR Index with respect to governance, quality of the benchmark, quality of the methodology, and accountability.
The Audit Group determined that these reference rates are in compliance with the Principles.
In 2013, IOSCO published the Principles, which were then endorsed by the Financial Stability Board as being standards of best practice for benchmark administration. The purpose of releasing an updated version of this statement is to maintain transparency surrounding the administration of these benchmarks in a manner consistent with the Principles.
The New York Fed will continue to assess the compliance of all of its reference rates with the Principles on an annual basis and issue a Statement of Compliance accordingly.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/opolicy/operating_policy_260717
State Dept.: U.S. Hosts U.S.-Guyana Investment Forum
WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The U.S. State Department issued the following news release on July 17, 2026:
* * *
United States Hosts U.S.-Guyana Investment Forum
Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau addressed the U.S.-Guyana Investment Enabling Forum July 17, underscoring our efforts to strengthen investor confidence and expand U.S. commercial engagement in Guyana. Co-hosted with the Business Council for International Understanding at the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace, the forum brought together senior U.S. and Guyanese officials and private sector leaders to advance progress on the business ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The U.S. State Department issued the following news release on July 17, 2026: * * * United States Hosts U.S.-Guyana Investment Forum Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau addressed the U.S.-Guyana Investment Enabling Forum July 17, underscoring our efforts to strengthen investor confidence and expand U.S. commercial engagement in Guyana. Co-hosted with the Business Council for International Understanding at the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace, the forum brought together senior U.S. and Guyanese officials and private sector leaders to advance progress on the businessenvironment, energy, and infrastructure.
Commercial diplomacy is a core element of American foreign policy. The United States is committed to ensuring that where American companies invest, the U.S. Government stands behind them: cutting red tape, expanding access to financing, and creating the conditions for durable, high-quality investment. As Guyana's economy continues its unprecedented expansion, the United States is positioning American businesses to lead in energy, infrastructure, and other sectors central to the country's growth.
U.S. companies offer high standards, transparent financing, and quality workmanship. A strong U.S.-Guyana economic partnership is a strategic priority. Deepening these ties strengthens supply chains, advances energy security, and builds a more stable and prosperous hemisphere that delivers lasting benefits for American workers and businesses alike. When U.S. companies execute projects in Guyana, Guyanese communities can expect them to be built to last.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/07/united-states-hosts-u-s-guyana-investment-forum/
* * *
United States Hosts U.S.-Guyana Investment Forum
Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau addressed the U.S.-Guyana Investment Enabling Forum July 17, underscoring our efforts to strengthen investor confidence and expand U.S. commercial engagement in Guyana. Co-hosted with the Business Council for International Understanding at the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace, the forum brought together senior U.S. and Guyanese officials and private sector leaders to advance progress on the business ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The U.S. State Department issued the following news release on July 17, 2026: * * * United States Hosts U.S.-Guyana Investment Forum Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau addressed the U.S.-Guyana Investment Enabling Forum July 17, underscoring our efforts to strengthen investor confidence and expand U.S. commercial engagement in Guyana. Co-hosted with the Business Council for International Understanding at the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace, the forum brought together senior U.S. and Guyanese officials and private sector leaders to advance progress on the businessenvironment, energy, and infrastructure.
Commercial diplomacy is a core element of American foreign policy. The United States is committed to ensuring that where American companies invest, the U.S. Government stands behind them: cutting red tape, expanding access to financing, and creating the conditions for durable, high-quality investment. As Guyana's economy continues its unprecedented expansion, the United States is positioning American businesses to lead in energy, infrastructure, and other sectors central to the country's growth.
U.S. companies offer high standards, transparent financing, and quality workmanship. A strong U.S.-Guyana economic partnership is a strategic priority. Deepening these ties strengthens supply chains, advances energy security, and builds a more stable and prosperous hemisphere that delivers lasting benefits for American workers and businesses alike. When U.S. companies execute projects in Guyana, Guyanese communities can expect them to be built to last.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/07/united-states-hosts-u-s-guyana-investment-forum/
SEC Obtains Final Judgment as to Cannabis Company, Its Subsidiaries, CEO, COO Charged in Fraudulent Offering
WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 2:23-cv-05379; C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 16, 2023):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. American Patriot Brands, Inc., et al., No. 2:23-cv-05379 (C.D. Cal.) (filed Mar. 16, 2023)
On July 10, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a final judgment as to American Patriot Brands, Inc. (APB), a cannabis company, APB's CEO Robert Y. Lee, APB's COO Brian L. Pallas, and APB's subsidiaries Urban Pharms, LLC (Urban Pharms), TSL Distribution, LLC (TSL), and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 2:23-cv-05379; C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 16, 2023): * * * Securities and Exchange Commission v. American Patriot Brands, Inc., et al., No. 2:23-cv-05379 (C.D. Cal.) (filed Mar. 16, 2023) On July 10, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a final judgment as to American Patriot Brands, Inc. (APB), a cannabis company, APB's CEO Robert Y. Lee, APB's COO Brian L. Pallas, and APB's subsidiaries Urban Pharms, LLC (Urban Pharms), TSL Distribution, LLC (TSL), andDJ & S Property #1, LLC (DJ&S) in connection with previously-filed fraud charges.
The final judgment permanently enjoins APB, Urban Pharms, TSL, DJ&S, Lee, and Pallas from further violations of the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; permanently enjoins Lee and Pallas from participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of securities, except for purchases or sales for their personal accounts; prohibits Lee and Pallas from acting as an officer or director of a public company; orders APB, Urban Pharms, TSL, and DJ&S jointly and severally to pay disgorgement of $17,786,703, together with prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $6,202,777; orders APB and Urban Pharms each to pay a civil penalty of $4,729,004; orders TSL to pay a civil penalty of $2,364,502; orders DJ&S to pay a civil penalty of $1,182,251; orders Lee to pay a total of $6,399,792, consisting of disgorgement of $2,687,061, prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $1,025,670, and a civil penalty of $2,687,061; and orders Pallas to pay a civil penalty of $472,902. The final judgment separately rules in favor of Relief Defendant Castro Business Enterprises, LLC (CBE) with respect to the Commission's claim of unjust enrichment alleged as to CBE. The final judgment follows the Court's June 16, 2025 order granting the SEC's motion for partial summary judgment and its July 10, 2026 amended order granting in part and denying in part the SEC's motion for remedies and entry of final judgment.
Previously, on March 13, 2026, the Court entered a final judgment by consent as to J. Bernard Rice, APB's alleged former CFO. The Court also previously dismissed the SEC's unjust enrichment claims as to Relief Defendants Puerto Rico One Corporation and Legion Accounting Services, Inc. pursuant to a stipulation filed by the parties.
The entry of the final judgment concludes the litigation.
The SEC's litigation was led by Eugene Hansen and Samantha Williams, substantially assisted by Senior Accountant Jamie Wohlert, and supervised by James Carlson.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26587.pdf)
* Amended Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Remedies and Entry of FInal Judgment (https://www.sec.gov/system/files/filefield_paths/order26587.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26587
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. American Patriot Brands, Inc., et al., No. 2:23-cv-05379 (C.D. Cal.) (filed Mar. 16, 2023)
On July 10, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a final judgment as to American Patriot Brands, Inc. (APB), a cannabis company, APB's CEO Robert Y. Lee, APB's COO Brian L. Pallas, and APB's subsidiaries Urban Pharms, LLC (Urban Pharms), TSL Distribution, LLC (TSL), and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 2:23-cv-05379; C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 16, 2023): * * * Securities and Exchange Commission v. American Patriot Brands, Inc., et al., No. 2:23-cv-05379 (C.D. Cal.) (filed Mar. 16, 2023) On July 10, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a final judgment as to American Patriot Brands, Inc. (APB), a cannabis company, APB's CEO Robert Y. Lee, APB's COO Brian L. Pallas, and APB's subsidiaries Urban Pharms, LLC (Urban Pharms), TSL Distribution, LLC (TSL), andDJ & S Property #1, LLC (DJ&S) in connection with previously-filed fraud charges.
The final judgment permanently enjoins APB, Urban Pharms, TSL, DJ&S, Lee, and Pallas from further violations of the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; permanently enjoins Lee and Pallas from participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of securities, except for purchases or sales for their personal accounts; prohibits Lee and Pallas from acting as an officer or director of a public company; orders APB, Urban Pharms, TSL, and DJ&S jointly and severally to pay disgorgement of $17,786,703, together with prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $6,202,777; orders APB and Urban Pharms each to pay a civil penalty of $4,729,004; orders TSL to pay a civil penalty of $2,364,502; orders DJ&S to pay a civil penalty of $1,182,251; orders Lee to pay a total of $6,399,792, consisting of disgorgement of $2,687,061, prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $1,025,670, and a civil penalty of $2,687,061; and orders Pallas to pay a civil penalty of $472,902. The final judgment separately rules in favor of Relief Defendant Castro Business Enterprises, LLC (CBE) with respect to the Commission's claim of unjust enrichment alleged as to CBE. The final judgment follows the Court's June 16, 2025 order granting the SEC's motion for partial summary judgment and its July 10, 2026 amended order granting in part and denying in part the SEC's motion for remedies and entry of final judgment.
Previously, on March 13, 2026, the Court entered a final judgment by consent as to J. Bernard Rice, APB's alleged former CFO. The Court also previously dismissed the SEC's unjust enrichment claims as to Relief Defendants Puerto Rico One Corporation and Legion Accounting Services, Inc. pursuant to a stipulation filed by the parties.
The entry of the final judgment concludes the litigation.
The SEC's litigation was led by Eugene Hansen and Samantha Williams, substantially assisted by Senior Accountant Jamie Wohlert, and supervised by James Carlson.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26587.pdf)
* Amended Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Remedies and Entry of FInal Judgment (https://www.sec.gov/system/files/filefield_paths/order26587.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26587
MSPB Issues Board Decision Involving Department of the Navy Vs. Appellant Cynthia E. Montalvo
WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Merit Systems Protection Board issued the following case report on a board decision involving the Department of the Navy and appellant Cynthia E. Montalvo on July 17, 2026:
* * *
BOARD DECISIONS
Appellant: Cynthia E. Montalvo
Agency: Department of the Navy
Decision Number: 2026 MSPB 6
Docket Number: SF-0752-23-0327-X-1
Issuance Date: July 10, 2026
MIXED CASE PROCEDURES COMPLIANCE
In the underlying appeal, the administrative judge issued an initial decision that reversed the appellant's removal based on a charge of excessive absences and ordered the agency to ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Merit Systems Protection Board issued the following case report on a board decision involving the Department of the Navy and appellant Cynthia E. Montalvo on July 17, 2026: * * * BOARD DECISIONS Appellant: Cynthia E. Montalvo Agency: Department of the Navy Decision Number: 2026 MSPB 6 Docket Number: SF-0752-23-0327-X-1 Issuance Date: July 10, 2026 MIXED CASE PROCEDURES COMPLIANCE In the underlying appeal, the administrative judge issued an initial decision that reversed the appellant's removal based on a charge of excessive absences and ordered the agency tocancel the removal, retroactively restore the appellant to duty, and pay her back pay with interest and benefits. The appellant filed a petition for enforcement asserting that the agency was in noncompliance with the initial decision and alleging that its noncompliance was the result of discrimination based on disability and retaliation for equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity. The administrative judge issued a compliance initial decision finding that the agency was not in compliance with its back pay obligations. As to the appellant's discrimination and retaliation claims, the administrative judge rejected the agency's argument that such claims were outside of the scope of a compliance proceeding, relying on the Board's decision in Jimenez v. U.S. Postal Service, 58 M.S.P.R. 520, 525 (1993), but nevertheless concluded that the appellant failed to prove these "affirmative defenses." Neither party objected to the administrative judge's finding of noncompliance and the appellant's petition for enforcement was subsequently referred to the Board for a final decision on compliance.
Holding: The Board may not adjudicate discrimination claims under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7702 in a petition for enforcement; the Board's decision in Jimenez v. U.S. Postal Service, 58 M.S.P.R. 520 (1993), is overruled.
1. Pursuant to the Board's authority to hear and adjudicate an appealable action within its jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 1204(a)(1), the Board may adjudicate related claims of discrimination in what is known as a "mixed case." Because noncompliance is not an appealable action under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7702(a)(1)(A) that the Board may adjudicate under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 1204(a)(1), compliance matters may not be mixed cases as a matter of law, overruling Jimenez.
2. When the Board exercises its enforcement authority under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 1204(a)(2), by contrast, the sole issue before the Board is whether the agency complied with the Board's final order or decision, and therefore, the Board may not adjudicate discrimination claims in an enforcement proceeding, even if they pertain to the agency's alleged noncompliance.
Holding: The Board may consider allegations of agency retaliation, including claims of EEO reprisal, to the extent retaliation may constitute noncompliance with a final Board order or enforceable settlement agreement.
1. Because an employee who is being retaliated against for having filed an appeal with the Board has not been returned to the status quo ante, the Board may consider allegations of agency retaliation, including allegations of EEO retaliation, to the extent such retaliation may constitute noncompliance with a final Board order or enforceable settlement agreement.
2. The Board will limit its assessment of retaliation claims to whether the agency restored the appellant to the status quo ante, or the agency's compliance with a settlement term, as the case may be, and will not consider whether the claims constitute actionable discrimination.
Holding: Because the agency complied with its obligations to pay the appellant back pay and interest, the Board dismissed the petition for enforcement.
* * *
COURT DECISIONS
PRECEDENTIAL:
Petitioner: Casandra Ann Hernandez
Respondent: Department of Justice
Tribunal: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Case Number: 24-1482
MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-20-0229-I-1
Issuance Date: July 7, 2026
MIXED CASE PROCEDURES
APPEAL RIGHTS UNDER CSRA
As relevant here, the agency removed the petitioner based on charges of insubordination and lack of candor. The petitioner filed a Board appeal challenging her removal and raised an affirmative defense of retaliation for her prior protected EEO activity. The administrative judge issued an initial decision sustaining the insubordination charge, not sustaining the lack of candor charge, denying the petitioner's EEO reprisal affirmative defense, and sustaining her removal based on the insubordination charge alone. That decision became the final decision of the Board when neither party petitioned for review. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal in U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico alleging, among other things, that the removal decision was the product of retaliation for her protected EEO activity. The district court granted the agency's motion for summary judgment.
Holding: The Board's removal decision is supported by substantial evidence.
1. Substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that the agency instructed the petitioner to communicate by phone or in person with her immediate supervisor and that she failed to follow this instruction by either not communicating with him at all or by communicating with him through other people.
Holding: The Board correctly determined that the petitioner failed to prove her Title VII retaliation claim.
1. The agency articulated legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the removal decision, i.e. the petitioner's alleged insubordination and lack of candor. Therefore, even assuming that the petitioner proved a prima facie case or reprisal, she would still need to provide evidence that each of the agency's reasons supporting the removal were pretextual.
2. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the agency's failure to prove the lack of candor charge was evidence of pretext, concluding that the agency's failure to prove the charge before the Board did not warrant a finding that the petitioner's termination was retaliatory.
3. Similarly, the court rejected the petitioner's argument that the insubordination charge alone could not justify her removal because she was not actually insubordinate, concluding that the petitioner was "merely rehash[ing] her qualms against the [Board's] finding of insubordination."
4. Finally, the court rejected the petitioner's argument that it should infer a finding of pretext because the agency inhibited her ability to obtain key discovery information on the issue, pointing to its earlier determination that the district court properly denied the petitioner's discovery-related motion.
NONPRECEDENTIAL:
Hart v. Merit Systems Protection Board, No. 2026-1241 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2026) (MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-22-0558-B-1). The court affirmed the Board's decision, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal challenging her probationary termination for lack of jurisdiction. The court agreed with the Board's determination that the petitioner failed to establish that she was an "employee" with Board appeal rights under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1)(C) because (1) it was undisputed that she had not completed at least 2 years of current continuous service in the same or similar positions in an Executive agency under other than a temporary appointment limited to 2 years or less, and (2) she failed to demonstrate that she was not serving in a probationary or trial period at the time of her termination because she had not provided any evidence indicating that her Schedule A appointment was any different from the agency's other positions under Schedule A, which public-facing and internal agency documents confirmed were all subject to a probationary or trial period of 2 years for individuals who were not preference-eligible. The court also declined to disturb the Board's decision not to consider evidence the petitioner submitted for the first time on review and her argument challenging the merits of her termination.
Le v. Office of Personnel Management, No. 2024-1946 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2026) (MSPB Docket No. SF-844E-19-0097-I-1). The court dismissed the petitioner's appeal challenging the Board's decision denying his request for Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) disability retirement benefits for lack of jurisdiction. The Board had affirmed the decision of the Office of Personnel Management denying the petitioner's FERS disability retirement application on the basis that his medical evidence failed to establish a disabling medical condition. The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's challenge to the Board's determination, reaffirming that factual determinations made by the Board in disability retirement appeals under FERS are final and conclusive and not subject to court review, absent a limited set of exceptions related to procedural or legal errors. The court also rejected the petitioner's argument that his challenge fell within those narrow exceptions.
Lynn v. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 2026-1095 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2026) (MSPB Docket No. SF-0714-17-0702-C-1). The court affirmed the Board's decision, which denied the petitioner's petition for enforcement of a settlement agreement. The court agreed with the Board that the terms of the settlement agreement unambiguously stated that the settlement payment must be paid directly to the petitioner and not his designated representative. The court also rejected the petitioner's arguments that the court should consider extrinsic evidence of another agreement the agency executed, that the Board improperly credited the agency's post-hoc rationalizations for refusing to issue payment to the representative, and that the agency violated its duty of good faith and fair dealing.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/case_reports/Case_Report_July_17_2026.pdf
* * *
BOARD DECISIONS
Appellant: Cynthia E. Montalvo
Agency: Department of the Navy
Decision Number: 2026 MSPB 6
Docket Number: SF-0752-23-0327-X-1
Issuance Date: July 10, 2026
MIXED CASE PROCEDURES COMPLIANCE
In the underlying appeal, the administrative judge issued an initial decision that reversed the appellant's removal based on a charge of excessive absences and ordered the agency to ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Merit Systems Protection Board issued the following case report on a board decision involving the Department of the Navy and appellant Cynthia E. Montalvo on July 17, 2026: * * * BOARD DECISIONS Appellant: Cynthia E. Montalvo Agency: Department of the Navy Decision Number: 2026 MSPB 6 Docket Number: SF-0752-23-0327-X-1 Issuance Date: July 10, 2026 MIXED CASE PROCEDURES COMPLIANCE In the underlying appeal, the administrative judge issued an initial decision that reversed the appellant's removal based on a charge of excessive absences and ordered the agency tocancel the removal, retroactively restore the appellant to duty, and pay her back pay with interest and benefits. The appellant filed a petition for enforcement asserting that the agency was in noncompliance with the initial decision and alleging that its noncompliance was the result of discrimination based on disability and retaliation for equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity. The administrative judge issued a compliance initial decision finding that the agency was not in compliance with its back pay obligations. As to the appellant's discrimination and retaliation claims, the administrative judge rejected the agency's argument that such claims were outside of the scope of a compliance proceeding, relying on the Board's decision in Jimenez v. U.S. Postal Service, 58 M.S.P.R. 520, 525 (1993), but nevertheless concluded that the appellant failed to prove these "affirmative defenses." Neither party objected to the administrative judge's finding of noncompliance and the appellant's petition for enforcement was subsequently referred to the Board for a final decision on compliance.
Holding: The Board may not adjudicate discrimination claims under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7702 in a petition for enforcement; the Board's decision in Jimenez v. U.S. Postal Service, 58 M.S.P.R. 520 (1993), is overruled.
1. Pursuant to the Board's authority to hear and adjudicate an appealable action within its jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 1204(a)(1), the Board may adjudicate related claims of discrimination in what is known as a "mixed case." Because noncompliance is not an appealable action under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7702(a)(1)(A) that the Board may adjudicate under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 1204(a)(1), compliance matters may not be mixed cases as a matter of law, overruling Jimenez.
2. When the Board exercises its enforcement authority under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 1204(a)(2), by contrast, the sole issue before the Board is whether the agency complied with the Board's final order or decision, and therefore, the Board may not adjudicate discrimination claims in an enforcement proceeding, even if they pertain to the agency's alleged noncompliance.
Holding: The Board may consider allegations of agency retaliation, including claims of EEO reprisal, to the extent retaliation may constitute noncompliance with a final Board order or enforceable settlement agreement.
1. Because an employee who is being retaliated against for having filed an appeal with the Board has not been returned to the status quo ante, the Board may consider allegations of agency retaliation, including allegations of EEO retaliation, to the extent such retaliation may constitute noncompliance with a final Board order or enforceable settlement agreement.
2. The Board will limit its assessment of retaliation claims to whether the agency restored the appellant to the status quo ante, or the agency's compliance with a settlement term, as the case may be, and will not consider whether the claims constitute actionable discrimination.
Holding: Because the agency complied with its obligations to pay the appellant back pay and interest, the Board dismissed the petition for enforcement.
* * *
COURT DECISIONS
PRECEDENTIAL:
Petitioner: Casandra Ann Hernandez
Respondent: Department of Justice
Tribunal: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Case Number: 24-1482
MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-20-0229-I-1
Issuance Date: July 7, 2026
MIXED CASE PROCEDURES
APPEAL RIGHTS UNDER CSRA
As relevant here, the agency removed the petitioner based on charges of insubordination and lack of candor. The petitioner filed a Board appeal challenging her removal and raised an affirmative defense of retaliation for her prior protected EEO activity. The administrative judge issued an initial decision sustaining the insubordination charge, not sustaining the lack of candor charge, denying the petitioner's EEO reprisal affirmative defense, and sustaining her removal based on the insubordination charge alone. That decision became the final decision of the Board when neither party petitioned for review. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal in U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico alleging, among other things, that the removal decision was the product of retaliation for her protected EEO activity. The district court granted the agency's motion for summary judgment.
Holding: The Board's removal decision is supported by substantial evidence.
1. Substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that the agency instructed the petitioner to communicate by phone or in person with her immediate supervisor and that she failed to follow this instruction by either not communicating with him at all or by communicating with him through other people.
Holding: The Board correctly determined that the petitioner failed to prove her Title VII retaliation claim.
1. The agency articulated legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the removal decision, i.e. the petitioner's alleged insubordination and lack of candor. Therefore, even assuming that the petitioner proved a prima facie case or reprisal, she would still need to provide evidence that each of the agency's reasons supporting the removal were pretextual.
2. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the agency's failure to prove the lack of candor charge was evidence of pretext, concluding that the agency's failure to prove the charge before the Board did not warrant a finding that the petitioner's termination was retaliatory.
3. Similarly, the court rejected the petitioner's argument that the insubordination charge alone could not justify her removal because she was not actually insubordinate, concluding that the petitioner was "merely rehash[ing] her qualms against the [Board's] finding of insubordination."
4. Finally, the court rejected the petitioner's argument that it should infer a finding of pretext because the agency inhibited her ability to obtain key discovery information on the issue, pointing to its earlier determination that the district court properly denied the petitioner's discovery-related motion.
NONPRECEDENTIAL:
Hart v. Merit Systems Protection Board, No. 2026-1241 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2026) (MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-22-0558-B-1). The court affirmed the Board's decision, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal challenging her probationary termination for lack of jurisdiction. The court agreed with the Board's determination that the petitioner failed to establish that she was an "employee" with Board appeal rights under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1)(C) because (1) it was undisputed that she had not completed at least 2 years of current continuous service in the same or similar positions in an Executive agency under other than a temporary appointment limited to 2 years or less, and (2) she failed to demonstrate that she was not serving in a probationary or trial period at the time of her termination because she had not provided any evidence indicating that her Schedule A appointment was any different from the agency's other positions under Schedule A, which public-facing and internal agency documents confirmed were all subject to a probationary or trial period of 2 years for individuals who were not preference-eligible. The court also declined to disturb the Board's decision not to consider evidence the petitioner submitted for the first time on review and her argument challenging the merits of her termination.
Le v. Office of Personnel Management, No. 2024-1946 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2026) (MSPB Docket No. SF-844E-19-0097-I-1). The court dismissed the petitioner's appeal challenging the Board's decision denying his request for Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) disability retirement benefits for lack of jurisdiction. The Board had affirmed the decision of the Office of Personnel Management denying the petitioner's FERS disability retirement application on the basis that his medical evidence failed to establish a disabling medical condition. The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's challenge to the Board's determination, reaffirming that factual determinations made by the Board in disability retirement appeals under FERS are final and conclusive and not subject to court review, absent a limited set of exceptions related to procedural or legal errors. The court also rejected the petitioner's argument that his challenge fell within those narrow exceptions.
Lynn v. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 2026-1095 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2026) (MSPB Docket No. SF-0714-17-0702-C-1). The court affirmed the Board's decision, which denied the petitioner's petition for enforcement of a settlement agreement. The court agreed with the Board that the terms of the settlement agreement unambiguously stated that the settlement payment must be paid directly to the petitioner and not his designated representative. The court also rejected the petitioner's arguments that the court should consider extrinsic evidence of another agreement the agency executed, that the Board improperly credited the agency's post-hoc rationalizations for refusing to issue payment to the representative, and that the agency violated its duty of good faith and fair dealing.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/case_reports/Case_Report_July_17_2026.pdf
FCC Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau Issues Public Notice: Seeking Comment on Prohibiting Importation, Marketing of Certain Covered UAS, UAS Critical Components
WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (PS Docket No. 26-184):
* * *
Introduction
By this Public Notice, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) and Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) propose to prohibit the continued importation and marketing of certain previously authorized equipment that has been determined to "pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons" (covered equipment)./1 Such prohibitions ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (PS Docket No. 26-184): * * * Introduction By this Public Notice, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) and Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) propose to prohibit the continued importation and marketing of certain previously authorized equipment that has been determined to "pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons" (covered equipment)./1 Such prohibitionswould apply to the advertising, distribution, and sale of such equipment./2 In particular, we propose to apply such prohibitions to certain previously-authorized foreign-produced uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) and UAS critical components, and certain communications and video surveillance equipment listed in section 1709 of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 (FY2025 NDAA), added to the Covered List in December 2025./3 This would encompass all covered equipment produced by the following entities and their affiliates, subsidiaries, and other partners: Cogito Tech Company, Limited (Cogito); Fikaxo Technology Inc. (Fikaxo); Lyno Dynamics LLC (Lyno Dynamics); Skyhigh Tech LLC (Skyhigh Tech); Spatial Hover Inc (Spatial Hover); SZ Knowact Robot Technology Co., Ltd. (SZ Knowact); WaveGo Tech LLC (WaveGo); Xtra Technology LLC (Xtra); and Guangzhou Xaircraft Technology Co. Ltd (XAG). These prohibitions would not apply to any importation or marketing for the purpose of use by the federal government, nor for the purpose of commercial testing and product development. Moreover, while importation and marketing would be prohibited, this prohibition would not affect continued use or operation of already-purchased covered equipment. We seek comment on these proposals and the relevant factors, including national security and economic and supply chain considerations, that would justify prohibiting the continued importation and marketing of such previously authorized covered equipment.
Background
In November 2022, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) adopted rules to prohibit authorization of equipment identified on the Covered List./4 However, the Commission did not revoke previously granted authorizations of covered equipment./5 In October 2025, the Commission adopted the EA Security Second R&O which, among other things, established a procedure to limit the scope of an existing authorization of covered equipment to prohibit continued importation or marketing of such equipment, without revoking the underlying authorization./6 The Commission noted that its goal is to mitigate potential national security risks associated with covered equipment in the nation's supply chain that was authorized prior to a Covered List addition under 47 U.S.C Sec. 1601(b)./7 The Commission directed PSHSB and OET to "institute proceedings to determine whether to apply these prohibitions to some or all of the equipment currently on the Covered List" and it delegated authority to PSHSB and OET to apply such prohibitions pursuant to the framework and process outlined in the EA Security Second R&O./8 The Commission gave specific directives to PSHSB and OET regarding how to analyze and implement the new procedures./9
On December 22, 2025, PSHSB added all UAS and UAS critical components produced in a foreign country to the Covered List./10 PSHSB also added communications and video surveillance equipment and services listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA to the Covered List./11 This action was based on a National Security Determination from an Executive Branch interagency body, including several appropriate national security agencies, determining (among other things) that such equipment and services pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of U.S. persons./12
On January 7, 2026, the Commission received a subsequent National Security Determination from the Department of War (DoW) stating that certain equipment should be removed from the Covered List because it does not pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of U.S. persons./13 Accordingly, PSHSB updated the Covered List to exempt: UAS and UAS critical components included on the Defense Contract Management Agency's (DCMA) Blue UAS Cleared List until January 1, 2027; and UAS and UAS critical components that qualify as "domestic end products" under the Buy American Standard (48 CFR Sec. 25.101(a)), until January 1, 2027.
Both National Security Determinations provided that the identified UAS and UAS critical components should be included on the Covered List, unless DoW or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) makes a specific determination to the FCC that a given UAS or class of UAS, or a specific UAS critical component, does not pose risks to U.S. national security. The FCC established a process for entities to request individual Conditional Approvals for their covered UAS and UAS critical components by submitting the required information, and DoW has granted several such Conditional Approvals./14 Additionally, on June 15, 2026, based on a National Security Determination from DoW, PSHSB updated the Covered List to exempt "Toy Drones" as defined in the National Security Determination and "Toy Drones that contain foreign-produced components."/15
On March 27, 2026, PSHSB and OET released a Public Notice (March 27 Public Notice) seeking comment on a proposal to prohibit the continued importation and marketing of equipment that had been placed on the Covered List in 2024 or earlier but was originally authorized prior to the adoption of the Commission's 2022 equipment authorization and national security rules./16 The March 27 Public Notice explained that those additions to the Covered List were made pursuant to a specific national security determination made by Congress, which the Commission found constituted a "specific determination that such equipment poses an 'unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons.'"/17 PSHSB and OET sought comment on whether maintaining such authorizations would undermine the Commission's national security framework and whether prohibiting continued importation and marketing would better serve the public interest./18
On June 26, 2026, after review of the record, PSHSB and OET issued a second Public Notice (June 26 Public Notice) summarizing the comments received, evaluating the technical, economic, and national security considerations raised by commenters, and assessing the public interest implications of the proposed prohibition./19 The June 26 Public Notice concluded that continued importation and marketing of equipment authorized before the adoption of the Commission's 2022 rules posed unacceptable risks to national security when imported or marketed in the United States./20 The Commission therefore determined that adoption of the prohibition was warranted and announced that the prohibition would become effective 10 days after publication in the Federal Register./21 The June 26 Public Notice emphasized that expedited action was necessary because a delayed but impending prohibition could incentivize importers and markets to accelerate shipments of covered equipment into the U.S market, which is a result that is directly contrary to the purpose of the Notice./22 Following the release of the June 26 Public Notice, the Commission updated its website to reflect the newly adopted prohibitions./23 These prohibitions went into effect on July 16, 2026.
On March 30, 2026, the Enforcement Bureau (EB) opened an investigation and issued a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) to Xtra,/24 based on publicly available information that Xtra was producing hardware copies of certain communications and video surveillance equipment listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA, and that code from the equipment listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA was copied and pasted into Xtra devices./25 On May 8, 2026, EB opened an investigation and issued LOIs to Cogito, Fikaxo, Lyno Dynamics, Skyhigh Tech, Spatial Hover, SZ Knowact, and WaveGo,/26 based on publicly available information that such companies produce UAS and UAS critical components that contain hardware copies of communications and video surveillance equipment listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA./27 All of these companies failed to respond to EB's March and May 2026 LOIs as directed in violation of Commission rules. On July 10, 2026, OET temporarily deferred the grantee codes of these companies based on publicly available information that these companies are producing covered equipment, which is prohibited from receiving equipment authorization, and for the failure to respond to the LOIs./28
On April 9, 2026, EB issued an LOI to XAG, a company that produces UAS and UAS critical components in a foreign country,/29 based on XAG's failure to provide updated U.S. agent for service of process information pursuant to Section 2.929(c) of the Commission's rules and granted XAG's request for extension of time to respond to the LOI to May 26, 2026./30 On May 21, 2026, XAG requested another 60-day extension of time concerning responses to two questions on the grounds that the information may be subject to export controls by the People's Republic of China (PRC), and XAG needed time to seek an official determination from the PRC Ministry of Commerce regarding whether XAG was permitted to respond to FCC inquiries under PRC law./31 On July 16, 2026, OET temporarily deferred XAG's grantee code based on XAG's failure to provide updated U.S. agent for service of process information pursuant to Section 2.929(c) of the Commission's rules./32
Today, we initiate another proceeding to prohibit the continued importation and marketing of certain previously-authorized covered equipment added to the Covered List in 2025.
Discussion
The Commission has legal authority to review an existing authorization for covered equipment, and to revoke such authorization pursuant to current rules./33 Under section 2.939(a), the Commission may "revoke . . . any equipment authorization" for various reasons, including "conditions coming to the attention of the Commission which would warrant it in refusing to grant an original application."/34 Likewise, under section 2.939(e), PSHSB and OET "may place limitations on an existing authorization for covered equipment authorizations to prohibit continued importation or marketing" of such equipment./35
Scope. Pursuant to section 2.939(e), we propose to prohibit the continued importation and marketing of certain previously-authorized covered equipment referenced above. We tentatively conclude that such equipment is covered equipment. Specifically, we propose to apply prohibitions to the following covered equipment:
(1) foreign-produced UAS and UAS critical components and white-labeled devices listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA produced by the following entities:
o Cogito, including FCC IDs 2BCHV-TQFDUB2, 2BCHV-GL3323, 2BCHV- TQFDUB1;
o Fikaxo, including FCC IDs 2BRQB-FKABZF and 2BRQB-YZABFI;
o Lyno Dynamics, including FCC IDs 2BQ98-LD2202508, 2BQ98-LD220RC, and 2BQ98-LD220RD;
o Skyhigh Tech, including FCC IDs 2BLZI-T60X2411 and 2BLZI-YKBP22411;
o Spatial Hover, including FCC IDs 2BQAI-S3T and 2BQAI-NRC01;
o SZ Knowact, including FCC IDs 2BMUV-ARDCF25 and 2BMUV-AUDAFV25; and
o WaveGo LLC, including FCC IDs 2BPFE-DD001 and 2BPFE-RC001;
(2) communications and video surveillance equipment listed in section 1709 produced by Xtra, to include FCC IDs 2BQH2-XCAMA01, 2BQH2-XCAMB01, 2BQH2-XCAMC01, 2BQH2-XCAMD01, and 2BQH2-XCAME01; and
(3) foreign-produced UAS and UAS critical components produced by XAG, to include UAS and UAS critical components with FCC IDs beginning with the 2A46G grantee code.
We tentatively conclude that such equipment is covered equipment. As stated above, public reporting indicates that equipment listed in categories (1) and (2) are exact hardware copies of certain communications and video surveillance equipment listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA./36 Even if the equipment is not an exact hardware copy, equipment that relies on substantial design, manufacture, assembly, or development by entities listed in section 1709 could still be considered "produced by" such entities./37 Additionally, as reflected in the materials submitted as part of the application for certification, three companies--Lyno Dynamics, Spatial Hover, and Skyhigh Tech--submitted equipment certification applications that still display branding of or reference companies listed in section 1709./38 Even if not produced by an entity named in section 1709, the equipment listed in categories (1) and (2) might still be produced by a "partner," or entity "to which [a] named entity has a technology sharing or licensing agreement," given the closeness of the designs./39 Moreover, publicly available equipment authorization records indicate that several of the UAS and UAS critical components in category (1) are in any event produced abroad, rendering them covered equipment even apart from the section 1709 connection./40 Equipment listed in category 3 is equipment produced in a foreign country. For example, XAG identified in its response to EB's April 9, 2026 LOI that its manufacturing facilities are located in a foreign country./41
For reasons discussed below, this prohibition on importation and marketing would not apply to any other already-authorized covered equipment, including UAS or UAS critical components or other communications and video surveillance equipment listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA. It would also only apply to covered UAS and UAS critical components and would therefore not apply to any UAS or UAS critical components that are exempt from the Covered List--including UAS and UAS critical components identified on the Defense Contract Management Agency's (DCMA's) Blue UAS Cleared List; UAS and UAS critical components that qualify as "domestic end products" under the Buy American Standard, 48 CFR Sec. 25.101(a); and UAS and UAS critical components granted a Conditional Approval by DoW or DHS. Furthermore, this prohibition would not apply to importation or marketing for the purpose of use by the federal government, nor for the purpose of commercial testing and product development. Finally, while importation and marketing would be prohibited, this prohibition would not affect the continued use or operation of already-purchased UAS or UAS critical components that were foreign produced or communications and video surveillance equipment listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA.
We seek comment on our tentative conclusions that the above-referenced equipment is covered equipment. We invite commenters to provide specific evidence in response to our tentative conclusions. Below, we provide a brief analysis of the relevant factors that would justify limitation on the authorization of previously authorized "covered" equipment and tentatively conclude that prohibiting the continued importation and marketing of this previously authorized covered equipment serves the public interest.
National security impacts. We start with national security concerns, because, as the Commission noted in the EA Security Second R&O, "[i]t is obvious and unarguable that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation."/42 In the EA Security Second R&O, the Commission stated that older models of covered equipment, which are still widely sold in the U.S., pose an unacceptable risk to national security when imported or marketed in the United States, "not only when such equipment is new to the market."/43 The Commission agreed with commenters who pointed out that certain previously authorized devices that are now considered covered equipment "likely remain[] marketable in the United States" and "may present continuing national security threats."/44
Subject to exceptions,/45 an Executive Branch interagency body with appropriate national security expertise, including appropriate national security agencies, one of whom was the DoW,/46 specifically determined that UAS and UAS critical components produced in foreign countries and communications and video surveillance equipment and services listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA "pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or the safety and security of United States persons."/47 This determination of "unacceptable risks" was based on an assessment of "threats from unauthorized surveillance, sensitive data exfiltration, supply chain vulnerabilities, and other potential threats to the homeland."/48 We believe this determination included all already-authorized covered equipment described in this Public Notice, which are UAS and UAS critical components produced in foreign countries and/or communications and video surveillance equipment and services listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA./49 We tentatively accept this determination and "give [it] particular weight," as the Commission directed./50
Therefore, based on the EA Security Second R&O and the December 21, 2025, National Security Determination, we tentatively conclude that prohibiting the continued importation and marketing of previously authorized covered UAS and UAS critical components and communications and video surveillance equipment and services listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA as described above is necessary to protect national security by mitigating risks to the U.S. communications sector.
Economic and supply chain impacts. We seek comment on the potential economic and supply chain impacts of prohibiting the continued importation and marketing of the above-referenced already authorized covered equipment. How would this proposed action affect the financial interests of consumers, providers, and manufacturers in the communications sector? As the Commission noted in the EA Security Second R&O, it may consider "countervailing economic concerns when implementing the prohibitions for already-authorized devices."/51 What are the economic or supply chain considerations that weigh in favor or against taking this proposed action? We invite commenters to provide data that we should consider in our analysis.
We tentatively conclude that our proposed action would not have substantial economic and supply chain impacts, especially given that the devices subject to our proposed limitation comprise a very small share of the market. None of the companies whose equipment is identified in this Public Notice-- Cogito; Fikaxo; Lyno Dynamics; Skyhigh Tech; Spatial Hover; SZ Knowact; WaveGo; XAG; or Xtra-- appear in major industry market analyses or rankings./52 Do commenters agree that economic and supply chain impacts are relatively minor? Could other equipment fill any gaps created by this proposed prohibition? Has the Conditional Approval process provided an adequate source for trusted equipment now or in the future? Would this proposal be cost-effective for the public in terms of obtaining trusted equipment? Would providers' compliance costs decrease as they replace covered equipment with trusted equipment? We strongly encourage commenters to supply data and other specific evidence of economic costs to this prohibition.
On the other hand, we seek comment on any economic benefits that might arise as a result of these prohibitions. We note that after the initial update to the Covered List, billions of dollars have already been raised by domestic UAS producers, creating thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs./53 Additionally, billions more have been committed for domestic production of UAS and UAS critical components, which are expected to generate additional jobs./54 These investments include capital from domestic investors as well as foreign investors supporting U.S. manufacturing./55 We tentatively conclude that if the proposed prohibitions of the previously authorized covered equipment subject to this Public Notice generated economic harm by noticeably reducing supply, such prohibition would spur investments in domestic production that would generate a countervailing positive economic impact. Do commenters agree? We seek comment on the economic effects of the likely investment in U.S. production that this proposed prohibition would yield.
Public interest analysis. We tentatively conclude that prohibiting the importation and marketing of previously authorized covered equipment subject to this Public Notice is consistent with the public interest, because it protects American communications networks from devices specifically determined by an Executive Branch interagency body to "pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons."/56 We also tentatively conclude that there are no public interest factors that outweigh our tentative conclusion regarding the proposed ban on import and marketing of this previously authorized covered equipment. We seek comment on this public interest analysis. Do commenters agree that the national security benefits outweigh any negative economic or supply chain factors? Are there any other public interest considerations that weigh in favor or against taking this proposed action? We invite commenters to provide any information that would assist the Commission in its balancing of the need to address the national security risks posed by the continued importation and marketing of previously authorized covered equipment in communications networks with the impact of the proposed prohibitions on government partners, consumers, industry, and the public at large.
Implementation
Existing authorizations. We clarify that, if this prohibition is adopted, the continued use or operation of previously-authorized UAS and UAS critical components that are foreign-produced and communications and video surveillance equipment listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA that are the subject of this Public Notice that are already in the hands of users would remain authorized. This is consistent with the approach that the Commission adopted in the EA Security Second R&O./57 The limitation on existing authorizations would not result in the revocation of an existing authorization of covered equipment and, therefore, would not affect the continued use or operation of devices that consumers already possess.
Implementation timeline. We propose that all parties must cease all importation and marketing activities within 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. We believe that this timeline is reasonable and strikes the appropriate balance between addressing the national security concerns and minimizing any potential adverse economic or supply chain impacts. We seek comment on the proposed timeline and invite input from responsible parties and relevant manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, and other interested entities. Specifically, we request that commenters address implementation considerations including the quantity of devices that have already been imported into the U.S. and are available for or being held for marketing or sale, new or recently updated device models that are en route to the U.S. or pending shipment, and devices that are subject to executed distribution, marketing, or sales agreements, but have not yet entered the supply chain.
Procedural Matters
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
* Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
* Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.
* Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
* Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
* Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
* Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
The proceeding this Public Notice initiates shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./58 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
* * *
Original text plus footnotes here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-742A1.pdf
* * *
Introduction
By this Public Notice, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) and Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) propose to prohibit the continued importation and marketing of certain previously authorized equipment that has been determined to "pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons" (covered equipment)./1 Such prohibitions ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (PS Docket No. 26-184): * * * Introduction By this Public Notice, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) and Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) propose to prohibit the continued importation and marketing of certain previously authorized equipment that has been determined to "pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons" (covered equipment)./1 Such prohibitionswould apply to the advertising, distribution, and sale of such equipment./2 In particular, we propose to apply such prohibitions to certain previously-authorized foreign-produced uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) and UAS critical components, and certain communications and video surveillance equipment listed in section 1709 of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 (FY2025 NDAA), added to the Covered List in December 2025./3 This would encompass all covered equipment produced by the following entities and their affiliates, subsidiaries, and other partners: Cogito Tech Company, Limited (Cogito); Fikaxo Technology Inc. (Fikaxo); Lyno Dynamics LLC (Lyno Dynamics); Skyhigh Tech LLC (Skyhigh Tech); Spatial Hover Inc (Spatial Hover); SZ Knowact Robot Technology Co., Ltd. (SZ Knowact); WaveGo Tech LLC (WaveGo); Xtra Technology LLC (Xtra); and Guangzhou Xaircraft Technology Co. Ltd (XAG). These prohibitions would not apply to any importation or marketing for the purpose of use by the federal government, nor for the purpose of commercial testing and product development. Moreover, while importation and marketing would be prohibited, this prohibition would not affect continued use or operation of already-purchased covered equipment. We seek comment on these proposals and the relevant factors, including national security and economic and supply chain considerations, that would justify prohibiting the continued importation and marketing of such previously authorized covered equipment.
Background
In November 2022, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) adopted rules to prohibit authorization of equipment identified on the Covered List./4 However, the Commission did not revoke previously granted authorizations of covered equipment./5 In October 2025, the Commission adopted the EA Security Second R&O which, among other things, established a procedure to limit the scope of an existing authorization of covered equipment to prohibit continued importation or marketing of such equipment, without revoking the underlying authorization./6 The Commission noted that its goal is to mitigate potential national security risks associated with covered equipment in the nation's supply chain that was authorized prior to a Covered List addition under 47 U.S.C Sec. 1601(b)./7 The Commission directed PSHSB and OET to "institute proceedings to determine whether to apply these prohibitions to some or all of the equipment currently on the Covered List" and it delegated authority to PSHSB and OET to apply such prohibitions pursuant to the framework and process outlined in the EA Security Second R&O./8 The Commission gave specific directives to PSHSB and OET regarding how to analyze and implement the new procedures./9
On December 22, 2025, PSHSB added all UAS and UAS critical components produced in a foreign country to the Covered List./10 PSHSB also added communications and video surveillance equipment and services listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA to the Covered List./11 This action was based on a National Security Determination from an Executive Branch interagency body, including several appropriate national security agencies, determining (among other things) that such equipment and services pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of U.S. persons./12
On January 7, 2026, the Commission received a subsequent National Security Determination from the Department of War (DoW) stating that certain equipment should be removed from the Covered List because it does not pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of U.S. persons./13 Accordingly, PSHSB updated the Covered List to exempt: UAS and UAS critical components included on the Defense Contract Management Agency's (DCMA) Blue UAS Cleared List until January 1, 2027; and UAS and UAS critical components that qualify as "domestic end products" under the Buy American Standard (48 CFR Sec. 25.101(a)), until January 1, 2027.
Both National Security Determinations provided that the identified UAS and UAS critical components should be included on the Covered List, unless DoW or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) makes a specific determination to the FCC that a given UAS or class of UAS, or a specific UAS critical component, does not pose risks to U.S. national security. The FCC established a process for entities to request individual Conditional Approvals for their covered UAS and UAS critical components by submitting the required information, and DoW has granted several such Conditional Approvals./14 Additionally, on June 15, 2026, based on a National Security Determination from DoW, PSHSB updated the Covered List to exempt "Toy Drones" as defined in the National Security Determination and "Toy Drones that contain foreign-produced components."/15
On March 27, 2026, PSHSB and OET released a Public Notice (March 27 Public Notice) seeking comment on a proposal to prohibit the continued importation and marketing of equipment that had been placed on the Covered List in 2024 or earlier but was originally authorized prior to the adoption of the Commission's 2022 equipment authorization and national security rules./16 The March 27 Public Notice explained that those additions to the Covered List were made pursuant to a specific national security determination made by Congress, which the Commission found constituted a "specific determination that such equipment poses an 'unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons.'"/17 PSHSB and OET sought comment on whether maintaining such authorizations would undermine the Commission's national security framework and whether prohibiting continued importation and marketing would better serve the public interest./18
On June 26, 2026, after review of the record, PSHSB and OET issued a second Public Notice (June 26 Public Notice) summarizing the comments received, evaluating the technical, economic, and national security considerations raised by commenters, and assessing the public interest implications of the proposed prohibition./19 The June 26 Public Notice concluded that continued importation and marketing of equipment authorized before the adoption of the Commission's 2022 rules posed unacceptable risks to national security when imported or marketed in the United States./20 The Commission therefore determined that adoption of the prohibition was warranted and announced that the prohibition would become effective 10 days after publication in the Federal Register./21 The June 26 Public Notice emphasized that expedited action was necessary because a delayed but impending prohibition could incentivize importers and markets to accelerate shipments of covered equipment into the U.S market, which is a result that is directly contrary to the purpose of the Notice./22 Following the release of the June 26 Public Notice, the Commission updated its website to reflect the newly adopted prohibitions./23 These prohibitions went into effect on July 16, 2026.
On March 30, 2026, the Enforcement Bureau (EB) opened an investigation and issued a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) to Xtra,/24 based on publicly available information that Xtra was producing hardware copies of certain communications and video surveillance equipment listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA, and that code from the equipment listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA was copied and pasted into Xtra devices./25 On May 8, 2026, EB opened an investigation and issued LOIs to Cogito, Fikaxo, Lyno Dynamics, Skyhigh Tech, Spatial Hover, SZ Knowact, and WaveGo,/26 based on publicly available information that such companies produce UAS and UAS critical components that contain hardware copies of communications and video surveillance equipment listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA./27 All of these companies failed to respond to EB's March and May 2026 LOIs as directed in violation of Commission rules. On July 10, 2026, OET temporarily deferred the grantee codes of these companies based on publicly available information that these companies are producing covered equipment, which is prohibited from receiving equipment authorization, and for the failure to respond to the LOIs./28
On April 9, 2026, EB issued an LOI to XAG, a company that produces UAS and UAS critical components in a foreign country,/29 based on XAG's failure to provide updated U.S. agent for service of process information pursuant to Section 2.929(c) of the Commission's rules and granted XAG's request for extension of time to respond to the LOI to May 26, 2026./30 On May 21, 2026, XAG requested another 60-day extension of time concerning responses to two questions on the grounds that the information may be subject to export controls by the People's Republic of China (PRC), and XAG needed time to seek an official determination from the PRC Ministry of Commerce regarding whether XAG was permitted to respond to FCC inquiries under PRC law./31 On July 16, 2026, OET temporarily deferred XAG's grantee code based on XAG's failure to provide updated U.S. agent for service of process information pursuant to Section 2.929(c) of the Commission's rules./32
Today, we initiate another proceeding to prohibit the continued importation and marketing of certain previously-authorized covered equipment added to the Covered List in 2025.
Discussion
The Commission has legal authority to review an existing authorization for covered equipment, and to revoke such authorization pursuant to current rules./33 Under section 2.939(a), the Commission may "revoke . . . any equipment authorization" for various reasons, including "conditions coming to the attention of the Commission which would warrant it in refusing to grant an original application."/34 Likewise, under section 2.939(e), PSHSB and OET "may place limitations on an existing authorization for covered equipment authorizations to prohibit continued importation or marketing" of such equipment./35
Scope. Pursuant to section 2.939(e), we propose to prohibit the continued importation and marketing of certain previously-authorized covered equipment referenced above. We tentatively conclude that such equipment is covered equipment. Specifically, we propose to apply prohibitions to the following covered equipment:
(1) foreign-produced UAS and UAS critical components and white-labeled devices listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA produced by the following entities:
o Cogito, including FCC IDs 2BCHV-TQFDUB2, 2BCHV-GL3323, 2BCHV- TQFDUB1;
o Fikaxo, including FCC IDs 2BRQB-FKABZF and 2BRQB-YZABFI;
o Lyno Dynamics, including FCC IDs 2BQ98-LD2202508, 2BQ98-LD220RC, and 2BQ98-LD220RD;
o Skyhigh Tech, including FCC IDs 2BLZI-T60X2411 and 2BLZI-YKBP22411;
o Spatial Hover, including FCC IDs 2BQAI-S3T and 2BQAI-NRC01;
o SZ Knowact, including FCC IDs 2BMUV-ARDCF25 and 2BMUV-AUDAFV25; and
o WaveGo LLC, including FCC IDs 2BPFE-DD001 and 2BPFE-RC001;
(2) communications and video surveillance equipment listed in section 1709 produced by Xtra, to include FCC IDs 2BQH2-XCAMA01, 2BQH2-XCAMB01, 2BQH2-XCAMC01, 2BQH2-XCAMD01, and 2BQH2-XCAME01; and
(3) foreign-produced UAS and UAS critical components produced by XAG, to include UAS and UAS critical components with FCC IDs beginning with the 2A46G grantee code.
We tentatively conclude that such equipment is covered equipment. As stated above, public reporting indicates that equipment listed in categories (1) and (2) are exact hardware copies of certain communications and video surveillance equipment listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA./36 Even if the equipment is not an exact hardware copy, equipment that relies on substantial design, manufacture, assembly, or development by entities listed in section 1709 could still be considered "produced by" such entities./37 Additionally, as reflected in the materials submitted as part of the application for certification, three companies--Lyno Dynamics, Spatial Hover, and Skyhigh Tech--submitted equipment certification applications that still display branding of or reference companies listed in section 1709./38 Even if not produced by an entity named in section 1709, the equipment listed in categories (1) and (2) might still be produced by a "partner," or entity "to which [a] named entity has a technology sharing or licensing agreement," given the closeness of the designs./39 Moreover, publicly available equipment authorization records indicate that several of the UAS and UAS critical components in category (1) are in any event produced abroad, rendering them covered equipment even apart from the section 1709 connection./40 Equipment listed in category 3 is equipment produced in a foreign country. For example, XAG identified in its response to EB's April 9, 2026 LOI that its manufacturing facilities are located in a foreign country./41
For reasons discussed below, this prohibition on importation and marketing would not apply to any other already-authorized covered equipment, including UAS or UAS critical components or other communications and video surveillance equipment listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA. It would also only apply to covered UAS and UAS critical components and would therefore not apply to any UAS or UAS critical components that are exempt from the Covered List--including UAS and UAS critical components identified on the Defense Contract Management Agency's (DCMA's) Blue UAS Cleared List; UAS and UAS critical components that qualify as "domestic end products" under the Buy American Standard, 48 CFR Sec. 25.101(a); and UAS and UAS critical components granted a Conditional Approval by DoW or DHS. Furthermore, this prohibition would not apply to importation or marketing for the purpose of use by the federal government, nor for the purpose of commercial testing and product development. Finally, while importation and marketing would be prohibited, this prohibition would not affect the continued use or operation of already-purchased UAS or UAS critical components that were foreign produced or communications and video surveillance equipment listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA.
We seek comment on our tentative conclusions that the above-referenced equipment is covered equipment. We invite commenters to provide specific evidence in response to our tentative conclusions. Below, we provide a brief analysis of the relevant factors that would justify limitation on the authorization of previously authorized "covered" equipment and tentatively conclude that prohibiting the continued importation and marketing of this previously authorized covered equipment serves the public interest.
National security impacts. We start with national security concerns, because, as the Commission noted in the EA Security Second R&O, "[i]t is obvious and unarguable that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation."/42 In the EA Security Second R&O, the Commission stated that older models of covered equipment, which are still widely sold in the U.S., pose an unacceptable risk to national security when imported or marketed in the United States, "not only when such equipment is new to the market."/43 The Commission agreed with commenters who pointed out that certain previously authorized devices that are now considered covered equipment "likely remain[] marketable in the United States" and "may present continuing national security threats."/44
Subject to exceptions,/45 an Executive Branch interagency body with appropriate national security expertise, including appropriate national security agencies, one of whom was the DoW,/46 specifically determined that UAS and UAS critical components produced in foreign countries and communications and video surveillance equipment and services listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA "pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or the safety and security of United States persons."/47 This determination of "unacceptable risks" was based on an assessment of "threats from unauthorized surveillance, sensitive data exfiltration, supply chain vulnerabilities, and other potential threats to the homeland."/48 We believe this determination included all already-authorized covered equipment described in this Public Notice, which are UAS and UAS critical components produced in foreign countries and/or communications and video surveillance equipment and services listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA./49 We tentatively accept this determination and "give [it] particular weight," as the Commission directed./50
Therefore, based on the EA Security Second R&O and the December 21, 2025, National Security Determination, we tentatively conclude that prohibiting the continued importation and marketing of previously authorized covered UAS and UAS critical components and communications and video surveillance equipment and services listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA as described above is necessary to protect national security by mitigating risks to the U.S. communications sector.
Economic and supply chain impacts. We seek comment on the potential economic and supply chain impacts of prohibiting the continued importation and marketing of the above-referenced already authorized covered equipment. How would this proposed action affect the financial interests of consumers, providers, and manufacturers in the communications sector? As the Commission noted in the EA Security Second R&O, it may consider "countervailing economic concerns when implementing the prohibitions for already-authorized devices."/51 What are the economic or supply chain considerations that weigh in favor or against taking this proposed action? We invite commenters to provide data that we should consider in our analysis.
We tentatively conclude that our proposed action would not have substantial economic and supply chain impacts, especially given that the devices subject to our proposed limitation comprise a very small share of the market. None of the companies whose equipment is identified in this Public Notice-- Cogito; Fikaxo; Lyno Dynamics; Skyhigh Tech; Spatial Hover; SZ Knowact; WaveGo; XAG; or Xtra-- appear in major industry market analyses or rankings./52 Do commenters agree that economic and supply chain impacts are relatively minor? Could other equipment fill any gaps created by this proposed prohibition? Has the Conditional Approval process provided an adequate source for trusted equipment now or in the future? Would this proposal be cost-effective for the public in terms of obtaining trusted equipment? Would providers' compliance costs decrease as they replace covered equipment with trusted equipment? We strongly encourage commenters to supply data and other specific evidence of economic costs to this prohibition.
On the other hand, we seek comment on any economic benefits that might arise as a result of these prohibitions. We note that after the initial update to the Covered List, billions of dollars have already been raised by domestic UAS producers, creating thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs./53 Additionally, billions more have been committed for domestic production of UAS and UAS critical components, which are expected to generate additional jobs./54 These investments include capital from domestic investors as well as foreign investors supporting U.S. manufacturing./55 We tentatively conclude that if the proposed prohibitions of the previously authorized covered equipment subject to this Public Notice generated economic harm by noticeably reducing supply, such prohibition would spur investments in domestic production that would generate a countervailing positive economic impact. Do commenters agree? We seek comment on the economic effects of the likely investment in U.S. production that this proposed prohibition would yield.
Public interest analysis. We tentatively conclude that prohibiting the importation and marketing of previously authorized covered equipment subject to this Public Notice is consistent with the public interest, because it protects American communications networks from devices specifically determined by an Executive Branch interagency body to "pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons."/56 We also tentatively conclude that there are no public interest factors that outweigh our tentative conclusion regarding the proposed ban on import and marketing of this previously authorized covered equipment. We seek comment on this public interest analysis. Do commenters agree that the national security benefits outweigh any negative economic or supply chain factors? Are there any other public interest considerations that weigh in favor or against taking this proposed action? We invite commenters to provide any information that would assist the Commission in its balancing of the need to address the national security risks posed by the continued importation and marketing of previously authorized covered equipment in communications networks with the impact of the proposed prohibitions on government partners, consumers, industry, and the public at large.
Implementation
Existing authorizations. We clarify that, if this prohibition is adopted, the continued use or operation of previously-authorized UAS and UAS critical components that are foreign-produced and communications and video surveillance equipment listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA that are the subject of this Public Notice that are already in the hands of users would remain authorized. This is consistent with the approach that the Commission adopted in the EA Security Second R&O./57 The limitation on existing authorizations would not result in the revocation of an existing authorization of covered equipment and, therefore, would not affect the continued use or operation of devices that consumers already possess.
Implementation timeline. We propose that all parties must cease all importation and marketing activities within 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. We believe that this timeline is reasonable and strikes the appropriate balance between addressing the national security concerns and minimizing any potential adverse economic or supply chain impacts. We seek comment on the proposed timeline and invite input from responsible parties and relevant manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, and other interested entities. Specifically, we request that commenters address implementation considerations including the quantity of devices that have already been imported into the U.S. and are available for or being held for marketing or sale, new or recently updated device models that are en route to the U.S. or pending shipment, and devices that are subject to executed distribution, marketing, or sales agreements, but have not yet entered the supply chain.
Procedural Matters
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
* Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
* Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.
* Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
* Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
* Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
* Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
The proceeding this Public Notice initiates shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./58 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
* * *
Original text plus footnotes here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-742A1.pdf