Federal Executive Branch
Here's a look at documents from the U.S. Executive Branch
Federal Agencies
Featured Stories
Secretary of State Rubio Issues Statement on Palau National Day
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The U.S. State Department issued the following news release:
* * *
Palau National Day
Press Statement
Marco Rubio, Secretary of State
September 30, 2026
On behalf of the United States of America, I extend warm congratulations to the people of Palau as you celebrate your national day.
Palau remains one of the United States' most trusted partners in the Pacific. Our partnership, rooted in mutual respect and trust, has grown significantly stronger the past year. We continue to work together to advance regional security and economic growth that benefit all Pacific nations.
... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The U.S. State Department issued the following news release: * * * Palau National Day Press Statement Marco Rubio, Secretary of State September 30, 2026 On behalf of the United States of America, I extend warm congratulations to the people of Palau as you celebrate your national day. Palau remains one of the United States' most trusted partners in the Pacific. Our partnership, rooted in mutual respect and trust, has grown significantly stronger the past year. We continue to work together to advance regional security and economic growth that benefit all Pacific nations. On this special day, the United States reaffirms its commitment, underpinned by the Compact of Free Association, to strengthening our partnership with Palau and supporting its continued leadership in advancing peace and prosperity across the Pacific.
I extend my best wishes to all Palauans as you commemorate this important day and your nation's achievements.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesman/2026/09/palau-national-day-2/
* * *
Palau National Day
Press Statement
Marco Rubio, Secretary of State
September 30, 2026
On behalf of the United States of America, I extend warm congratulations to the people of Palau as you celebrate your national day.
Palau remains one of the United States' most trusted partners in the Pacific. Our partnership, rooted in mutual respect and trust, has grown significantly stronger the past year. We continue to work together to advance regional security and economic growth that benefit all Pacific nations.
... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The U.S. State Department issued the following news release: * * * Palau National Day Press Statement Marco Rubio, Secretary of State September 30, 2026 On behalf of the United States of America, I extend warm congratulations to the people of Palau as you celebrate your national day. Palau remains one of the United States' most trusted partners in the Pacific. Our partnership, rooted in mutual respect and trust, has grown significantly stronger the past year. We continue to work together to advance regional security and economic growth that benefit all Pacific nations. On this special day, the United States reaffirms its commitment, underpinned by the Compact of Free Association, to strengthening our partnership with Palau and supporting its continued leadership in advancing peace and prosperity across the Pacific.
I extend my best wishes to all Palauans as you commemorate this important day and your nation's achievements.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesman/2026/09/palau-national-day-2/
SEC Staff Statement on Affiliations Between National Securities Exchanges and Broker-Dealers
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement:
* * *
Staff Statement on Affiliations Between National Securities Exchanges and Broker-Dealers
Division of Trading and Markets
Sept. 30, 2026
The Staff of the Division of Trading and Markets ("Staff") of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") is issuing the following statement[1] regarding the affiliation between registered national securities exchanges and entities that engage in broker-dealer activities on those exchanges. This statement would also solicit public input regarding such ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement: * * * Staff Statement on Affiliations Between National Securities Exchanges and Broker-Dealers Division of Trading and Markets Sept. 30, 2026 The Staff of the Division of Trading and Markets ("Staff") of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") is issuing the following statement[1] regarding the affiliation between registered national securities exchanges and entities that engage in broker-dealer activities on those exchanges. This statement would also solicit public input regarding suchaffiliation, particularly in light of the growing market interest in listing novel products.[2]
For further information, please contact the Staff by emailing TradingAndMarkets@sec.gov.
*****
Under Section 6(b)(1) of the Exchange Act, a national securities exchange must be so organized and have the capacity to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated with its members with the provisions of the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the exchange.[3] Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act requires that the rules of a national securities exchange must not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.[4] Section 6(b)(8) of the Exchange Act requires that the rules of a national securities exchange must not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.[5] An exchange that trades securities futures products that notice-registers with the Commission under Section 6(g) of the Exchange Act is a national securities exchange and is subject to Sections 6(b)(1), (5), and (8) of the Exchange Act.[6]
In light of changing market conditions, the Staff recognizes the potential questions market participants may have about a national securities exchange, including a notice-registered exchange, operating an affiliated broker-dealer, including a broker-dealer that acts as an introducing broker providing access to the exchange for others, provides custodial services and margin, or trades in a principal capacity on the exchange.
In approving certain affiliations between a registered national securities exchange and a broker-dealer, the Commission previously stated that "the financial interests of the national securities exchange may conflict with its responsibilities as an SRO regarding the affiliated broker-dealer."[7] The Commission stated that a conflict of interest arises if the national securities exchange "provided advantages to its broker-dealer affiliate that are not available to other members or provided a feature to all members that was designed to give its broker dealer a special advantage," including "greater access to information, improved speed of execution, or enhanced operational capabilities in dealing with the exchange."[8] The Commission also stated that exchange affiliation with an introducing broker that accesses the exchange raises questions about whether the introducing broker should be considered a facility of the exchange.[9]
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning affiliations among certain CFTC-regulated entities.[10] The proposal would, among other things, address disclosure requirements regarding affiliate relationships that a futures commission merchant ("FCM") has with a designated contract market ("DCM"), and would establish requirements for DCMs, including conflicts of interest rules, to address their relationships with FCM affiliates and affiliated principal trading firms.
The Commission recently received four Form 1-Ns for notice registration as security futures product exchanges under Section 6(g) of the Exchange Act.[11] Each of these registrants discloses in its Form 1-N that it is affiliated with an FCM that will perform introducing broker functions, extend margin to customers and hold client funds and property, and is a member of the exchange for purposes of trading security futures. None of these registrants disclose an affiliation with an entity that will trade security futures in a principal capacity. Certain of these registrants have filed proposed rule changes under Sections 19(b)(2) and 19(b)(7) of the Exchange Act seeking to establish margin and listing standards for products to be listed and traded on the security futures product exchange.
In light of these developments, the Staff invites comment from market participants regarding national securities exchange affiliations, including with entities that engage in broker activity on behalf of customers on the exchange or that trade in a principal capacity on the exchange.
Members of the public who wish to provide their views on this statement may submit their comments electronically or on paper. Please submit comments using one method only. Information that is submitted will be posted on the SEC's website and all comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that personal identifying information is not redacted or edited from comment submissions, and they should only submit information that they wish to make publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number 4-936, and the file number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
Electronic Comments:
Use the SEC's online submission form or send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov with "File Number 4-936" included in the subject line.
Paper Comments:
Send paper comments to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549-1090.
* * *
[1] This statement represents the views of the Staff. It is not a rule, regulation, guidance, or statement of the Commission, and the Commission has neither approved nor disapproved its content. This statement, like all staff statements, has no legal force or effect: it does not alter or amend applicable law, and it creates no new or additional obligations for any person.
[2] See infra notes 10 and 11.
[3] See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
[4] See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
[5] See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
[6] See 15 U.S.C. 78f(g)(4)(A)(i).
[7] Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44983 (Oct. 25, 2001) 66 FR 55225, 55233 (Nov. 1, 2001).
[8] Id.
[9] See id. at 55234.
[10] See 91 FR 50926 (Aug. 6, 2026).
[11] See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 106295 (Sept. 8, 2026), 91 FR 57944 (Sept. 11, 2026) (Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notice of Registration as a National Securities Exchange Pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Coinbase Derivatives, LLC); 106296 (Sept. 8, 2026), 91 FR 57947 (Sept. 11, 2026) (Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notice of Registration as a National Securities Exchange Pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by KalshiEX LLC); 106297 (Sept. 8, 2026), 91 FR 57949 (Sept. 11, 2026) (Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notice of Registration as a National Securities Exchange Pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Bitnomial Exchange, LLC); 106396 (Sept. 16, 2026) , 91 FR 59823 (Sept. 21, 2026) (Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notice of Registration as a National Securities Exchange Pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc.).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/tm-statement-affiliations-093026
* * *
Staff Statement on Affiliations Between National Securities Exchanges and Broker-Dealers
Division of Trading and Markets
Sept. 30, 2026
The Staff of the Division of Trading and Markets ("Staff") of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") is issuing the following statement[1] regarding the affiliation between registered national securities exchanges and entities that engage in broker-dealer activities on those exchanges. This statement would also solicit public input regarding such ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement: * * * Staff Statement on Affiliations Between National Securities Exchanges and Broker-Dealers Division of Trading and Markets Sept. 30, 2026 The Staff of the Division of Trading and Markets ("Staff") of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") is issuing the following statement[1] regarding the affiliation between registered national securities exchanges and entities that engage in broker-dealer activities on those exchanges. This statement would also solicit public input regarding suchaffiliation, particularly in light of the growing market interest in listing novel products.[2]
For further information, please contact the Staff by emailing TradingAndMarkets@sec.gov.
*****
Under Section 6(b)(1) of the Exchange Act, a national securities exchange must be so organized and have the capacity to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated with its members with the provisions of the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the exchange.[3] Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act requires that the rules of a national securities exchange must not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.[4] Section 6(b)(8) of the Exchange Act requires that the rules of a national securities exchange must not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.[5] An exchange that trades securities futures products that notice-registers with the Commission under Section 6(g) of the Exchange Act is a national securities exchange and is subject to Sections 6(b)(1), (5), and (8) of the Exchange Act.[6]
In light of changing market conditions, the Staff recognizes the potential questions market participants may have about a national securities exchange, including a notice-registered exchange, operating an affiliated broker-dealer, including a broker-dealer that acts as an introducing broker providing access to the exchange for others, provides custodial services and margin, or trades in a principal capacity on the exchange.
In approving certain affiliations between a registered national securities exchange and a broker-dealer, the Commission previously stated that "the financial interests of the national securities exchange may conflict with its responsibilities as an SRO regarding the affiliated broker-dealer."[7] The Commission stated that a conflict of interest arises if the national securities exchange "provided advantages to its broker-dealer affiliate that are not available to other members or provided a feature to all members that was designed to give its broker dealer a special advantage," including "greater access to information, improved speed of execution, or enhanced operational capabilities in dealing with the exchange."[8] The Commission also stated that exchange affiliation with an introducing broker that accesses the exchange raises questions about whether the introducing broker should be considered a facility of the exchange.[9]
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning affiliations among certain CFTC-regulated entities.[10] The proposal would, among other things, address disclosure requirements regarding affiliate relationships that a futures commission merchant ("FCM") has with a designated contract market ("DCM"), and would establish requirements for DCMs, including conflicts of interest rules, to address their relationships with FCM affiliates and affiliated principal trading firms.
The Commission recently received four Form 1-Ns for notice registration as security futures product exchanges under Section 6(g) of the Exchange Act.[11] Each of these registrants discloses in its Form 1-N that it is affiliated with an FCM that will perform introducing broker functions, extend margin to customers and hold client funds and property, and is a member of the exchange for purposes of trading security futures. None of these registrants disclose an affiliation with an entity that will trade security futures in a principal capacity. Certain of these registrants have filed proposed rule changes under Sections 19(b)(2) and 19(b)(7) of the Exchange Act seeking to establish margin and listing standards for products to be listed and traded on the security futures product exchange.
In light of these developments, the Staff invites comment from market participants regarding national securities exchange affiliations, including with entities that engage in broker activity on behalf of customers on the exchange or that trade in a principal capacity on the exchange.
Members of the public who wish to provide their views on this statement may submit their comments electronically or on paper. Please submit comments using one method only. Information that is submitted will be posted on the SEC's website and all comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that personal identifying information is not redacted or edited from comment submissions, and they should only submit information that they wish to make publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number 4-936, and the file number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
Electronic Comments:
Use the SEC's online submission form or send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov with "File Number 4-936" included in the subject line.
Paper Comments:
Send paper comments to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549-1090.
* * *
[1] This statement represents the views of the Staff. It is not a rule, regulation, guidance, or statement of the Commission, and the Commission has neither approved nor disapproved its content. This statement, like all staff statements, has no legal force or effect: it does not alter or amend applicable law, and it creates no new or additional obligations for any person.
[2] See infra notes 10 and 11.
[3] See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
[4] See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
[5] See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
[6] See 15 U.S.C. 78f(g)(4)(A)(i).
[7] Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44983 (Oct. 25, 2001) 66 FR 55225, 55233 (Nov. 1, 2001).
[8] Id.
[9] See id. at 55234.
[10] See 91 FR 50926 (Aug. 6, 2026).
[11] See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 106295 (Sept. 8, 2026), 91 FR 57944 (Sept. 11, 2026) (Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notice of Registration as a National Securities Exchange Pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Coinbase Derivatives, LLC); 106296 (Sept. 8, 2026), 91 FR 57947 (Sept. 11, 2026) (Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notice of Registration as a National Securities Exchange Pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by KalshiEX LLC); 106297 (Sept. 8, 2026), 91 FR 57949 (Sept. 11, 2026) (Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notice of Registration as a National Securities Exchange Pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Bitnomial Exchange, LLC); 106396 (Sept. 16, 2026) , 91 FR 59823 (Sept. 21, 2026) (Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notice of Registration as a National Securities Exchange Pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc.).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/tm-statement-affiliations-093026
SEC Obtains Judgments Against Three BitConnect Promoters
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Brown et al., No. 1:21-cv-04791 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 28, 2021)
On July 17, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment against Michael Noble for his involvement with BitConnect and the promotion of BitConnect's "lending program." The final judgment against Noble orders him to pay disgorgement in the amount of $731,281.00, prejudgment interest in the amount of $293,703.36, and a civil penalty ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release: * * * Securities and Exchange Commission v. Brown et al., No. 1:21-cv-04791 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 28, 2021) On July 17, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment against Michael Noble for his involvement with BitConnect and the promotion of BitConnect's "lending program." The final judgment against Noble orders him to pay disgorgement in the amount of $731,281.00, prejudgment interest in the amount of $293,703.36, and a civil penaltyin the amount of $50,000.00, for a total of $1,074,984.36. Previously, in a partial judgment on consent entered on August 12, 2021, the Court ordered permanent injunctions enjoining Noble from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and conduct-based injunctions permanently enjoining him from offering, operating, or participating in certain marketing or sales programs and from participating directly or indirectly in a digital asset securities offering.
On August 7, 2026, the Court entered a final default judgment against Craig Grant for his alleged involvement with BitConnect and the promotion of its "lending program." The final judgment against Grant permanently enjoins him from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act and Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, from offering, operating, or participating in certain marketing or sales programs, and from participating directly or indirectly in a digital asset securities offering. The judgment also orders Grant to pay disgorgement in the amount of $1,748,147.00, prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $702,105.84, and a civil penalty in the amount of $230,480.00, for a total of $2,680,732.84.
On September 9, 2026, Court entered a final judgment on consent against Trevon Brown for his alleged involvement with BitConnect and the promotion of its "lending program." The final judgment against Brown, permanently enjoins him from violating Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and orders him to pay disgorgement in the amount of $1,728,563.00, prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $182,902.15, and a civil penalty in the amount of $75,000.00 for a total of $1,986,465.15,
According to the SEC's complaint, filed on May 28, 2021, from approximately June 2017 to January 2018, Noble, Grant and Brown promoted BitConnect and marketed and sold securities in its "lending program." The SEC's complaint alleged that Noble, Grant, and Brown offered and sold the securities without registering the securities offering with the Commission, and without being registered as a broker-dealer with the Commission, as required by the federal securities laws.
The SEC's litigation is being conducted by senior trial counsel Todd D. Brody, supervised by Laura D'Allaird Chief of the Division of Enforcement's Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit and Jack Kaufman.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment - Trevon Brown (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26660-brown.pdf)
* Final Judgment - Craig Grant (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26660-grant.pdf)
* Final Judgment - Michael Noble (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26660-noble.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26660
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Brown et al., No. 1:21-cv-04791 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 28, 2021)
On July 17, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment against Michael Noble for his involvement with BitConnect and the promotion of BitConnect's "lending program." The final judgment against Noble orders him to pay disgorgement in the amount of $731,281.00, prejudgment interest in the amount of $293,703.36, and a civil penalty ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release: * * * Securities and Exchange Commission v. Brown et al., No. 1:21-cv-04791 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 28, 2021) On July 17, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment against Michael Noble for his involvement with BitConnect and the promotion of BitConnect's "lending program." The final judgment against Noble orders him to pay disgorgement in the amount of $731,281.00, prejudgment interest in the amount of $293,703.36, and a civil penaltyin the amount of $50,000.00, for a total of $1,074,984.36. Previously, in a partial judgment on consent entered on August 12, 2021, the Court ordered permanent injunctions enjoining Noble from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and conduct-based injunctions permanently enjoining him from offering, operating, or participating in certain marketing or sales programs and from participating directly or indirectly in a digital asset securities offering.
On August 7, 2026, the Court entered a final default judgment against Craig Grant for his alleged involvement with BitConnect and the promotion of its "lending program." The final judgment against Grant permanently enjoins him from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act and Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, from offering, operating, or participating in certain marketing or sales programs, and from participating directly or indirectly in a digital asset securities offering. The judgment also orders Grant to pay disgorgement in the amount of $1,748,147.00, prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $702,105.84, and a civil penalty in the amount of $230,480.00, for a total of $2,680,732.84.
On September 9, 2026, Court entered a final judgment on consent against Trevon Brown for his alleged involvement with BitConnect and the promotion of its "lending program." The final judgment against Brown, permanently enjoins him from violating Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and orders him to pay disgorgement in the amount of $1,728,563.00, prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $182,902.15, and a civil penalty in the amount of $75,000.00 for a total of $1,986,465.15,
According to the SEC's complaint, filed on May 28, 2021, from approximately June 2017 to January 2018, Noble, Grant and Brown promoted BitConnect and marketed and sold securities in its "lending program." The SEC's complaint alleged that Noble, Grant, and Brown offered and sold the securities without registering the securities offering with the Commission, and without being registered as a broker-dealer with the Commission, as required by the federal securities laws.
The SEC's litigation is being conducted by senior trial counsel Todd D. Brody, supervised by Laura D'Allaird Chief of the Division of Enforcement's Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit and Jack Kaufman.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment - Trevon Brown (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26660-brown.pdf)
* Final Judgment - Craig Grant (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26660-grant.pdf)
* Final Judgment - Michael Noble (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26660-noble.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26660
FCC Proposes Modernization of Ultra-Wideband Technology Rules
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FCC Proposes Modernization of Ultra-Wideband Technology Rules
Proposal Will Expand Connectivity and Economic Growth for Unlicensed Offerings
-
WASHINGTON, September 30, 2026--Today, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a proposal that seeks comment on ways to modernize the FCC's rules for ultra-wideband technology (UWB)--unlicensed offerings that power a range of IoT, consumer, and other cutting-edge devices.
Today's proposal represents the start of the next chapter in a great American ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release: * * * FCC Proposes Modernization of Ultra-Wideband Technology Rules Proposal Will Expand Connectivity and Economic Growth for Unlicensed Offerings - WASHINGTON, September 30, 2026--Today, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a proposal that seeks comment on ways to modernize the FCC's rules for ultra-wideband technology (UWB)--unlicensed offerings that power a range of IoT, consumer, and other cutting-edge devices. Today's proposal represents the start of the next chapter in a great Americansuccess story.
UWB technology powers many of the consumer, industrial, automotive, and public safety applications Americans rely on every day. It plays a vital role across a wide range of products from automobile collision avoidance radars, to door locks and key fobs, systems for tracking everything from packages to NFL players, and the ground- and wall-penetrating imaging systems that support critical public safety and rescue operations. Unlicensed device manufacturers are increasingly finding that UWB's high data rates, precise location capabilities, and ability to coexist with other services across multiple spectrum bands make it the right technology for today's needs.
Today's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) addresses the technology advancements and explosion in innovative use cases since the Commission's landmark 2002 decision to authorize the first unlicensed UWB operations. The NPRM undertakes a comprehensive look at the Commission's UWB rules and proposes forward-looking changes that will support the next wave of UWB innovation. The proposal includes a new UWB device category aimed at enabling emerging applications--from AI enabled sensing, to advanced ranging systems, and modern access control systems. The NPRM also addresses long-standing matters that have been raised through repeated waiver petitions and seeks comment on requests from the UWB manufacturing community to update specific elements of the existing UWB rules.
The proposed updates to the UWB rules will reduce compliance burdens and provide new opportunities for innovation while preserving the strong protection of incumbent radio services that has been the hallmark of nearly a quarter century of innovation. In moving away from a waiver-based framework, this proposal updates our UWB definition and overhaul legacy technical and operational restrictions, in the spirit of Delete, Delete, Delete.
Action by the Commission September 30, 2026 by Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 26-66). Chairman Carr, Commissioners Gomez and Trusty approving. Chairman Carr and Commissioner Trusty issuing separate statements.
ET Docket No. 26-245
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425494A1.pdf
* * *
FCC Proposes Modernization of Ultra-Wideband Technology Rules
Proposal Will Expand Connectivity and Economic Growth for Unlicensed Offerings
-
WASHINGTON, September 30, 2026--Today, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a proposal that seeks comment on ways to modernize the FCC's rules for ultra-wideband technology (UWB)--unlicensed offerings that power a range of IoT, consumer, and other cutting-edge devices.
Today's proposal represents the start of the next chapter in a great American ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release: * * * FCC Proposes Modernization of Ultra-Wideband Technology Rules Proposal Will Expand Connectivity and Economic Growth for Unlicensed Offerings - WASHINGTON, September 30, 2026--Today, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a proposal that seeks comment on ways to modernize the FCC's rules for ultra-wideband technology (UWB)--unlicensed offerings that power a range of IoT, consumer, and other cutting-edge devices. Today's proposal represents the start of the next chapter in a great Americansuccess story.
UWB technology powers many of the consumer, industrial, automotive, and public safety applications Americans rely on every day. It plays a vital role across a wide range of products from automobile collision avoidance radars, to door locks and key fobs, systems for tracking everything from packages to NFL players, and the ground- and wall-penetrating imaging systems that support critical public safety and rescue operations. Unlicensed device manufacturers are increasingly finding that UWB's high data rates, precise location capabilities, and ability to coexist with other services across multiple spectrum bands make it the right technology for today's needs.
Today's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) addresses the technology advancements and explosion in innovative use cases since the Commission's landmark 2002 decision to authorize the first unlicensed UWB operations. The NPRM undertakes a comprehensive look at the Commission's UWB rules and proposes forward-looking changes that will support the next wave of UWB innovation. The proposal includes a new UWB device category aimed at enabling emerging applications--from AI enabled sensing, to advanced ranging systems, and modern access control systems. The NPRM also addresses long-standing matters that have been raised through repeated waiver petitions and seeks comment on requests from the UWB manufacturing community to update specific elements of the existing UWB rules.
The proposed updates to the UWB rules will reduce compliance burdens and provide new opportunities for innovation while preserving the strong protection of incumbent radio services that has been the hallmark of nearly a quarter century of innovation. In moving away from a waiver-based framework, this proposal updates our UWB definition and overhaul legacy technical and operational restrictions, in the spirit of Delete, Delete, Delete.
Action by the Commission September 30, 2026 by Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 26-66). Chairman Carr, Commissioners Gomez and Trusty approving. Chairman Carr and Commissioner Trusty issuing separate statements.
ET Docket No. 26-245
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425494A1.pdf
FCC Modernizes Its Approach to NEPA Environmental Regulations
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Chairman Brendan Carr:
* * *
FCC Modernizes its Approach to NEPA Environmental Regulations
Re: Modernizing the Commission's National Environmental Policy Act Rules, WT Docket No. 25-217, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (September 30, 2026).
Unleashing infrastructure builds through permitting reform is a central pillar of the FCC's Build America agenda. After all, cutting through red tape means faster builds, more choice for consumers, and greater competition in communities ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Chairman Brendan Carr: * * * FCC Modernizes its Approach to NEPA Environmental Regulations Re: Modernizing the Commission's National Environmental Policy Act Rules, WT Docket No. 25-217, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (September 30, 2026). Unleashing infrastructure builds through permitting reform is a central pillar of the FCC's Build America agenda. After all, cutting through red tape means faster builds, more choice for consumers, and greater competition in communitiesacross the country.
We know that this playbook works. During President Trump's first term, the FCC's infrastructure reforms paved the way for America's leadership in 5G. But in the years that followed, FCC infrastructure reforms stalled out. And Americans paid the price through slower deployments and more expensive service. Just look at the FCC's NEPA environmental review process.
Consider one recent case in Arizona. A crew had to wait more than four years for NEPA clearance to build a 100-foot structure--not in any sort of sensitive area but on top of previously disturbed dirt near a gas station and public storage facility. In another case involving a monopole in North Carolina, NEPA was weaponized as part of a family feud. The whole saga ended up consuming nearly half a decade and burned through thousands of pages of pleadings, the submission of an environmental assessment along with multiple amendments, and even a consultation with the Fish & Wildlife Service. After it was all said and done, the FCC found that the tower would have no significant impact. No legitimate environmental interests were served in these cases. It was all just needless cost and needless delay in service of environmental larping.
Faced with these types of abuses, all three branches of the federal government have acted to rein in these wayward applications of NEPA. Specifically, Congress amended NEPA in 2023 to make it clear that the law's environmental procedures apply to major federal actions only. The legislation also codified something that was true from the start: NEPA was never intended to regulate private decisions made by private parties. The Supreme Court and President Trump followed suit by confirming that NEPA is a procedural law of limited application.
With today's action, we finish the job here at the FCC. We confirm that the FCC's NEPA regulations do not apply to private wireless infrastructure decisions made by private companies.
This one reform will make a big difference. Today's vote and related reforms are expected to save over $2 billion in compliance costs while zeroing out over $7 billion in economic harm over the next ten years. This means that our decision will likely eliminate evaluations for more than 14,800 wireless deployments--and this will translate into millions of dollars in savings each year from forgone environmental assessments and other paperwork requirements. Those savings will mean faster builds, too.
This decision is also a big deal for America's leadership in space. We make clear today that the FCC will not extend backwards-looking NEPA regulation to next-gen satellite constellations--whether orbital datacenters or D2D systems. This clarification means that our nation's innovators can continue to build without the unpredictable specter of activist lawsuits or last-minute surprises. In the end, by eliminating uncertainty and delays, providers can accelerate the deployment of network solutions, allowing consumers to enjoy improved service quality sooner.
For their great work on this Build America win, I want to extend my thanks to Jeff Bartlett, Deborah Broderson, Jennifer Flynn, Garnet Hanly, Thomas Hastings, Kari Hicks, Allison Jones, Karl Kensinger, Robert Krinsky, John Lockwood, Jennifer Salhus, and Anjali Singh.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425491A2.pdf
* * *
FCC Modernizes its Approach to NEPA Environmental Regulations
Re: Modernizing the Commission's National Environmental Policy Act Rules, WT Docket No. 25-217, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (September 30, 2026).
Unleashing infrastructure builds through permitting reform is a central pillar of the FCC's Build America agenda. After all, cutting through red tape means faster builds, more choice for consumers, and greater competition in communities ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Chairman Brendan Carr: * * * FCC Modernizes its Approach to NEPA Environmental Regulations Re: Modernizing the Commission's National Environmental Policy Act Rules, WT Docket No. 25-217, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (September 30, 2026). Unleashing infrastructure builds through permitting reform is a central pillar of the FCC's Build America agenda. After all, cutting through red tape means faster builds, more choice for consumers, and greater competition in communitiesacross the country.
We know that this playbook works. During President Trump's first term, the FCC's infrastructure reforms paved the way for America's leadership in 5G. But in the years that followed, FCC infrastructure reforms stalled out. And Americans paid the price through slower deployments and more expensive service. Just look at the FCC's NEPA environmental review process.
Consider one recent case in Arizona. A crew had to wait more than four years for NEPA clearance to build a 100-foot structure--not in any sort of sensitive area but on top of previously disturbed dirt near a gas station and public storage facility. In another case involving a monopole in North Carolina, NEPA was weaponized as part of a family feud. The whole saga ended up consuming nearly half a decade and burned through thousands of pages of pleadings, the submission of an environmental assessment along with multiple amendments, and even a consultation with the Fish & Wildlife Service. After it was all said and done, the FCC found that the tower would have no significant impact. No legitimate environmental interests were served in these cases. It was all just needless cost and needless delay in service of environmental larping.
Faced with these types of abuses, all three branches of the federal government have acted to rein in these wayward applications of NEPA. Specifically, Congress amended NEPA in 2023 to make it clear that the law's environmental procedures apply to major federal actions only. The legislation also codified something that was true from the start: NEPA was never intended to regulate private decisions made by private parties. The Supreme Court and President Trump followed suit by confirming that NEPA is a procedural law of limited application.
With today's action, we finish the job here at the FCC. We confirm that the FCC's NEPA regulations do not apply to private wireless infrastructure decisions made by private companies.
This one reform will make a big difference. Today's vote and related reforms are expected to save over $2 billion in compliance costs while zeroing out over $7 billion in economic harm over the next ten years. This means that our decision will likely eliminate evaluations for more than 14,800 wireless deployments--and this will translate into millions of dollars in savings each year from forgone environmental assessments and other paperwork requirements. Those savings will mean faster builds, too.
This decision is also a big deal for America's leadership in space. We make clear today that the FCC will not extend backwards-looking NEPA regulation to next-gen satellite constellations--whether orbital datacenters or D2D systems. This clarification means that our nation's innovators can continue to build without the unpredictable specter of activist lawsuits or last-minute surprises. In the end, by eliminating uncertainty and delays, providers can accelerate the deployment of network solutions, allowing consumers to enjoy improved service quality sooner.
For their great work on this Build America win, I want to extend my thanks to Jeff Bartlett, Deborah Broderson, Jennifer Flynn, Garnet Hanly, Thomas Hastings, Kari Hicks, Allison Jones, Karl Kensinger, Robert Krinsky, John Lockwood, Jennifer Salhus, and Anjali Singh.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425491A2.pdf
Comptroller of the Currency Reports Q2 2026 Bank Trading Revenue
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The U.S. Department of the Treasury Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued the following news release:
* * *
September 30, 2026
OCC Reports Second Quarter 2026 Bank Trading Revenue
WASHINGTON--The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) reported cumulative trading revenue of U.S. commercial banks and savings associations of $21.6 billion in the second quarter of 2026. The second quarter trading revenue was $5.3 billion, or 32.5 percent, more than in the previous quarter and $5.1 billion, or 30.6 percent, more than a year earlier.
In the report, Quarterly ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The U.S. Department of the Treasury Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued the following news release: * * * September 30, 2026 OCC Reports Second Quarter 2026 Bank Trading Revenue WASHINGTON--The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) reported cumulative trading revenue of U.S. commercial banks and savings associations of $21.6 billion in the second quarter of 2026. The second quarter trading revenue was $5.3 billion, or 32.5 percent, more than in the previous quarter and $5.1 billion, or 30.6 percent, more than a year earlier. In the report, QuarterlyReport on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activities, the OCC also reported that as of the second quarter of 2026:
* a total of 1,173 insured U.S. national and state commercial banks and savings associations held derivatives.
* four large banks held 80.2 percent of the total banking industry notional amount of derivatives.
* initial credit exposure from derivatives before netting increased in the second quarter of 2026 by $106 billion, or 3.6 percent, to $3.1 trillion, while net current credit exposure decreased by $34.3 billion, or 10.6 percent, to $291 billion.
* derivative notional amounts increased in the second quarter of 2026 by $4 trillion, or 1.3 percent, to $300.5 trillion.
* derivative contracts remained concentrated in interest rate products, which totaled $205.9 trillion, or 68.5 percent of total derivative notional amounts.
* * *
Original text here: https://occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2026/nr-occ-2026-83.html
* * *
September 30, 2026
OCC Reports Second Quarter 2026 Bank Trading Revenue
WASHINGTON--The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) reported cumulative trading revenue of U.S. commercial banks and savings associations of $21.6 billion in the second quarter of 2026. The second quarter trading revenue was $5.3 billion, or 32.5 percent, more than in the previous quarter and $5.1 billion, or 30.6 percent, more than a year earlier.
In the report, Quarterly ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The U.S. Department of the Treasury Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued the following news release: * * * September 30, 2026 OCC Reports Second Quarter 2026 Bank Trading Revenue WASHINGTON--The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) reported cumulative trading revenue of U.S. commercial banks and savings associations of $21.6 billion in the second quarter of 2026. The second quarter trading revenue was $5.3 billion, or 32.5 percent, more than in the previous quarter and $5.1 billion, or 30.6 percent, more than a year earlier. In the report, QuarterlyReport on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activities, the OCC also reported that as of the second quarter of 2026:
* a total of 1,173 insured U.S. national and state commercial banks and savings associations held derivatives.
* four large banks held 80.2 percent of the total banking industry notional amount of derivatives.
* initial credit exposure from derivatives before netting increased in the second quarter of 2026 by $106 billion, or 3.6 percent, to $3.1 trillion, while net current credit exposure decreased by $34.3 billion, or 10.6 percent, to $291 billion.
* derivative notional amounts increased in the second quarter of 2026 by $4 trillion, or 1.3 percent, to $300.5 trillion.
* derivative contracts remained concentrated in interest rate products, which totaled $205.9 trillion, or 68.5 percent of total derivative notional amounts.
* * *
Original text here: https://occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2026/nr-occ-2026-83.html
BLS Issues Report on Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment August 2026
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 (TNSLrpt) -- Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment August 2026 - A report from U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics - Sept. 30, 2026 (24 pages)
* * *
Unemployment rates were lower in August than a year earlier in 234 of the 387 metropolitan areas, higher in 126 areas, and unchanged in 27 areas, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. A total of 27 areas had jobless rates of less than 3.0 percent, and 6 areas had rates of at least 8.0 percent. Nonfarm payroll employment increased over the year in 9 metropolitan areas, decreased in 5 areas, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 (TNSLrpt) -- Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment August 2026 - A report from U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics - Sept. 30, 2026 (24 pages) * * * Unemployment rates were lower in August than a year earlier in 234 of the 387 metropolitan areas, higher in 126 areas, and unchanged in 27 areas, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. A total of 27 areas had jobless rates of less than 3.0 percent, and 6 areas had rates of at least 8.0 percent. Nonfarm payroll employment increased over the year in 9 metropolitan areas, decreased in 5 areas,and was essentially unchanged in 373 areas. The national unemployment rate in August was 4.3 percent, not seasonally adjusted, little changed from a year earlier.
This news release presents statistics from two monthly programs. The civilian labor force and unemployment data are based on the same concepts and definitions as those used for the national household survey estimates. These data pertain to people by where they reside. The employment data are from an establishment survey that measures nonfarm employment, hours, and earnings by industry. These data pertain to jobs on payrolls defined by where the establishments are located. For more information about the concepts and statistical methodologies used by these two programs, see the Technical Note.
Metropolitan Area Unemployment (Not Seasonally Adjusted)
In August, Cleveland, OH, had the lowest unemployment rate, 1.8 percent, followed by Bismarck, ND, 2.0 percent. El Centro, CA, had the highest rate, 21.9 percent, followed by Yuma, AZ, 19.0 percent. A total of 230 areas had August jobless rates below the U.S. rate of 4.3 percent, 142 areas had rates above it, and 15 areas had rates equal to that of the nation. (See table 1 and map 1.)
The largest over-the-year unemployment rate decreases in August occurred in Cleveland, OH, and Kokomo, IN (-1.8 percentage points each). Thirty-seven other areas had rate decreases of at least 1.0 percentage point. Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ, had the largest over-the-year rate increase in August (+1.5 percentage points). Four other areas had rate increases of at least 1.0 percentage point.
Of the 56 metropolitan areas with a 2020 Census population of 1 million or more, Cleveland, OH, had the lowest jobless rate in August, 1.8 percent. Fresno, CA, had the highest rate, 7.8 percent. Twenty-eight large areas had over-the-year unemployment rate decreases, 24 had increases, and 4 had no change. The largest rate decline occurred in Cleveland, OH (-1.8 percentage points). The largest jobless rate increase occurred in Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI (+1.0 percentage point).
Metropolitan Division Unemployment (Not Seasonally Adjusted)
Thirteen of the most populous metropolitan areas are made up of 37 metropolitan divisions, which are essentially separately identifiable employment centers. In August, Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL, had the lowest division unemployment rate, 2.7 percent, followed by Rockingham County-Strafford County, NH, 2.8 percent. Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia, MI, had the highest rate among the divisions, 6.9 percent. (See table 2.)
In August, 24 metropolitan divisions had over-the-year unemployment rate decreases, 10 had increases, and 3 had no change. The largest decline occurred in Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA (-1.3 percentage points). The largest unemployment rate increases from August 2025 occurred in Chicago-Naperville-Schaumburg, IL, and Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia, MI (+1.1 percentage points each).
Metropolitan Area Nonfarm Employment (Not Seasonally Adjusted)
In August 2026, nonfarm payroll employment increased over the year in 9 metropolitan areas, decreased in 5 areas, and was essentially unchanged in 373 areas. The largest over-the-year employment increases occurred in Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX (+44,700), Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI (+27,800), and Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NCSC (+21,400). The largest over-the-year percentage gains in employment occurred in Baton Rouge, LA, and Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC (+3.2 percent each), followed by Salt Lake City-Murray, UT (+2.5 percent). The largest over-the-year decreases in employment occurred in Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (-66,000), Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA (-18,800), and Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ (-5,800). The largest over-the-year percentage decline in employment occurred in Bloomington, IN (-5.9 percent), followed by Flagstaff, AZ (-3.6 percent), and Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ (-3.1 percent). (See table 3 and map 2.)
Over the year, nonfarm employment increased in 6 metropolitan areas with a 2020 Census population of 1 million or more, decreased in 2 areas, and was essentially unchanged in 48 areas. The largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment occurred in Salt Lake City-Murray, UT (+2.5 percent), followed by Raleigh-Cary, NC (+2.2 percent), and San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA (+1.6 percent). Over the year, employment decreased in Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (-2.0 percent), and Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA (-1.5 percent).
Metropolitan Division Nonfarm Employment (Not Seasonally Adjusted)
In August, nonfarm payroll employment decreased in 1 metropolitan division and was essentially unchanged in 36 divisions. The only over-the-year decrease in employment occurred in Washington, DC-MD (-35,500, or -3.2 percent). (See table 4.)
* * *
The State Employment and Unemployment news release for September 2026 is scheduled to be published on Tuesday, October 20, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. (ET). The Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment news release for September 2026 is scheduled to be published on Wednesday, October 28, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. (ET).
* * *
Technical Note
This news release presents civilian labor force and unemployment data from the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program (tables 1 and 2) for 387 metropolitan statistical areas, plus 6 areas in Puerto Rico. Estimates for 37 metropolitan divisions also are presented. Nonfarm payroll employment estimates from the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program (tables 3 and 4) are provided for the same areas. State estimates were previously published in the State Employment and Unemployment news release and are republished in this news release for ease of reference. The LAUS and CES programs are both federal-state cooperative endeavors.
Civilian labor force and unemployment--from the LAUS program
Definitions. The civilian labor force and unemployment data are based on the same concepts and definitions as those used for the official national estimates obtained from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a sample survey of households that is conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) by the U.S. Census Bureau. The LAUS program measures employed people and unemployed people on a place-of-residence basis. The universe for each is the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years of age and older. Employed people are those who did any work at all for pay or profit in the reference week (typically the week including the 12th of the month) or worked 15 hours or more without pay in a family business or farm, plus those not working who had a job from which they were temporarily absent, whether or not paid, for such reasons as labor-management dispute, illness, or vacation. Unemployed people are those who were not employed during the reference week (based on the definition above), had actively looked for a job sometime in the 4-week period ending with the reference week, and were currently available for work; people on layoff expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The civilian labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed people. The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force.
Method of estimation. Estimates for states, the District of Columbia, the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metropolitan division, and New York City are produced using time-series models with real-time benchmarking to national CPS totals. Model-based estimates are also produced for the following areas and their respective balances: the Chicago-Naperville-Schaumburg, IL Metropolitan Division; Cleveland, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area; Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area; Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL Metropolitan Division; and Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area. Modeling improves the statistical basis of the estimation for these areas and provides important tools for analysis, such as measures of errors and seasonally adjusted series. For all other substate areas in this news release, estimates are prepared through indirect estimation procedures using a building-block approach. Estimates of employed people, which are based largely on "place of work" estimates from the CES program, are adjusted to refer to place of residence as used in the CPS. Unemployment estimates are aggregates of people previously employed in industries covered by state Unemployment Insurance (UI) laws and entrants to the labor force from the CPS. The substate estimates of employment and unemployment, which geographically exhaust the entire state, are adjusted proportionally to ensure that they add to the independently estimated model-based area totals. A detailed description of the estimation procedures is available from BLS upon request.
Annual revisions. Civilian labor force and unemployment data shown for the prior year reflect adjustments made at the beginning of each year, usually implemented with the issuance of January estimates. The adjusted model-based estimates typically reflect updated population data from the U.S. Census Bureau, any revisions in other input data sources, and model re-estimation. All substate estimates then are re-estimated using updated inputs and adjusted to add to the revised model-based totals. In early 2025, implementation of synthetic intercensal population estimates for states and the 2020-based delineations for federal statistical areas necessitated the replacement of substate estimates back to their series beginnings. For more information, see www.bls.gov/lau/geography-and-data-changes-in-2025.htm.
Employment--from the CES program
Definitions. Employment data refer to people on establishment payrolls who receive pay for any part of the pay period that includes the 12th of the month. People are counted at their place of work rather than at their place of residence; those appearing on more than one payroll are counted on each payroll. Industries are classified on the basis of their principal activity in accordance with the 2022 version of the North American Industry Classification System.
Method of estimation. CES State and Area employment data are produced using several estimation procedures. Where possible, these data are produced using a "weighted link relative" estimation technique in which a ratio of current month weighted employment to that of the previous-month weighted employment is computed from a sample of establishments reporting for both months. The estimates of employment for the current month are then obtained by multiplying these ratios by the previous month's employment estimates. The weighted link relative technique is utilized for data series where the sample size meets certain statistical criteria. For some employment series, the estimates are produced with a model that uses direct sample estimates (described above) combined with other regressors to compensate for smaller sample sizes.
Annual revisions. Employment estimates are adjusted annually to a complete count of jobs, called benchmarks, derived principally from tax reports that are submitted by employers who are covered under state unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The benchmark information is used to adjust the monthly estimates between the new benchmark and the preceding one and also to establish the level of employment for the new benchmark month. Thus, the benchmarking process establishes the level of employment, and the sample is used to measure the month-to-month changes in the level for the subsequent months. Information on recent benchmark revisions is available online at www.bls.gov/web/laus/benchmark.pdf.
Seasonal adjustment. Payroll employment data are seasonally adjusted for states, metropolitan areas, and metropolitan divisions at the total nonfarm level. For states, data are seasonally adjusted at the super-sector level as well. Revisions to historical data for the most recent 5 years are made once a year, coincident with annual benchmark adjustments.
Payroll employment data are seasonally adjusted concurrently, using all available estimates, including those for the current month, to develop sample-based seasonal factors. Concurrent sample-based factors are created every month for the current month's preliminary estimate as well as the previous month's final estimate.
Reliability of the estimates
The estimates presented in this news release are based on sample surveys, administrative data, and modeling and, thus, are subject to sampling and other types of errors. Sampling error is a measure of sampling variability--that is, variation that occurs by chance because a sample rather than the entire population is surveyed. Survey data also are subject to nonsampling errors, such as those which can be introduced into the data collection and processing operations. Estimates not directly derived from sample surveys are subject to additional errors resulting from the specific estimation processes used. The sums of individual items may not always equal the totals shown in the same tables because of rounding.
Use of error measures
Civilian labor force and unemployment estimates. Measures of sampling error are not available for metropolitan areas or metropolitan divisions. Model-based error measures for states are available on the BLS website at www.bls.gov/lau/lastderr.htm. Measures of nonsampling error are not available for the areas contained in this news release.
Employment estimates. Changes in metropolitan area nonfarm payroll employment are cited in the analysis of this news release only if they have been determined to be statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence level.
Measures of sampling error for the total nonfarm employment series are available for metropolitan areas and metropolitan divisions at www.bls.gov/web/laus/790stderr.htm. Measures of sampling error for more detailed series at the area and division level are available upon request. Measures of sampling error for states at the supersector level and for the private service providing, goods-producing, total private and total nonfarm levels are available on the BLS website at www.bls.gov/web/laus/790stderr.htm.
Area definitions
The substate area data published in this news release reflect the delineations issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget on July 21, 2023. A detailed list of the geographic definitions is available online at www.bls.gov/lau/lausmsa.htm.
Additional information
Estimates of unadjusted and seasonally adjusted civilian labor force and unemployment data for states and seven substate areas are available in the news release State Employment and Unemployment. Estimates of civilian labor force and unemployment for all states, metropolitan areas, counties, cities with a population of 25,000 or more, and other areas used in the administration of various federal economic assistance programs are available online at www.bls.gov/lau/. Employment data from the CES program for states and metropolitan areas are available on the BLS website at www.bls.gov/sae/.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
* * *
LABOR FORCE DATA NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED
Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area
Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area -- Continued
Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area -- Continued
Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area -- Continued
Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area -- Continued
Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area -- Continued
Table 2. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state, selected metropolitan area, and metropolitan division1
ESTABLISHMENT DATA NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED
Table 3. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state and metropolitan area, not seasonally adjusted
Table 3. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state and metropolitan area, not seasonally adjusted -- Continued
Table 3. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state and metropolitan area, not seasonally adjusted -- Continued
Table 3. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state and metropolitan area, not seasonally adjusted -- Continued
Table 3. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state and metropolitan area, not seasonally adjusted -- Continued
Table 3. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state and metropolitan area, not seasonally adjusted -- Continued
Table 3. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state and metropolitan area, not seasonally adjusted -- Continued
Table 3. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state and metropolitan area, not seasonally adjusted -- Continued
Table 4. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state, selected metropolitan area, and metropolitan division, not seasonally adjusted1
Map 1. Unemployment rates for metropolitan areas, not seasonally adjusted, August 2026
Map 2. Over-the-year percentage change in employment, by metropolitan area, not seasonally adjusted, August 2026
* * *
View original text plus charts and tables here: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/metro.pdf
* * *
Unemployment rates were lower in August than a year earlier in 234 of the 387 metropolitan areas, higher in 126 areas, and unchanged in 27 areas, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. A total of 27 areas had jobless rates of less than 3.0 percent, and 6 areas had rates of at least 8.0 percent. Nonfarm payroll employment increased over the year in 9 metropolitan areas, decreased in 5 areas, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 (TNSLrpt) -- Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment August 2026 - A report from U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics - Sept. 30, 2026 (24 pages) * * * Unemployment rates were lower in August than a year earlier in 234 of the 387 metropolitan areas, higher in 126 areas, and unchanged in 27 areas, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. A total of 27 areas had jobless rates of less than 3.0 percent, and 6 areas had rates of at least 8.0 percent. Nonfarm payroll employment increased over the year in 9 metropolitan areas, decreased in 5 areas,and was essentially unchanged in 373 areas. The national unemployment rate in August was 4.3 percent, not seasonally adjusted, little changed from a year earlier.
This news release presents statistics from two monthly programs. The civilian labor force and unemployment data are based on the same concepts and definitions as those used for the national household survey estimates. These data pertain to people by where they reside. The employment data are from an establishment survey that measures nonfarm employment, hours, and earnings by industry. These data pertain to jobs on payrolls defined by where the establishments are located. For more information about the concepts and statistical methodologies used by these two programs, see the Technical Note.
Metropolitan Area Unemployment (Not Seasonally Adjusted)
In August, Cleveland, OH, had the lowest unemployment rate, 1.8 percent, followed by Bismarck, ND, 2.0 percent. El Centro, CA, had the highest rate, 21.9 percent, followed by Yuma, AZ, 19.0 percent. A total of 230 areas had August jobless rates below the U.S. rate of 4.3 percent, 142 areas had rates above it, and 15 areas had rates equal to that of the nation. (See table 1 and map 1.)
The largest over-the-year unemployment rate decreases in August occurred in Cleveland, OH, and Kokomo, IN (-1.8 percentage points each). Thirty-seven other areas had rate decreases of at least 1.0 percentage point. Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ, had the largest over-the-year rate increase in August (+1.5 percentage points). Four other areas had rate increases of at least 1.0 percentage point.
Of the 56 metropolitan areas with a 2020 Census population of 1 million or more, Cleveland, OH, had the lowest jobless rate in August, 1.8 percent. Fresno, CA, had the highest rate, 7.8 percent. Twenty-eight large areas had over-the-year unemployment rate decreases, 24 had increases, and 4 had no change. The largest rate decline occurred in Cleveland, OH (-1.8 percentage points). The largest jobless rate increase occurred in Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI (+1.0 percentage point).
Metropolitan Division Unemployment (Not Seasonally Adjusted)
Thirteen of the most populous metropolitan areas are made up of 37 metropolitan divisions, which are essentially separately identifiable employment centers. In August, Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL, had the lowest division unemployment rate, 2.7 percent, followed by Rockingham County-Strafford County, NH, 2.8 percent. Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia, MI, had the highest rate among the divisions, 6.9 percent. (See table 2.)
In August, 24 metropolitan divisions had over-the-year unemployment rate decreases, 10 had increases, and 3 had no change. The largest decline occurred in Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA (-1.3 percentage points). The largest unemployment rate increases from August 2025 occurred in Chicago-Naperville-Schaumburg, IL, and Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia, MI (+1.1 percentage points each).
Metropolitan Area Nonfarm Employment (Not Seasonally Adjusted)
In August 2026, nonfarm payroll employment increased over the year in 9 metropolitan areas, decreased in 5 areas, and was essentially unchanged in 373 areas. The largest over-the-year employment increases occurred in Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX (+44,700), Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI (+27,800), and Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NCSC (+21,400). The largest over-the-year percentage gains in employment occurred in Baton Rouge, LA, and Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC (+3.2 percent each), followed by Salt Lake City-Murray, UT (+2.5 percent). The largest over-the-year decreases in employment occurred in Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (-66,000), Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA (-18,800), and Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ (-5,800). The largest over-the-year percentage decline in employment occurred in Bloomington, IN (-5.9 percent), followed by Flagstaff, AZ (-3.6 percent), and Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ (-3.1 percent). (See table 3 and map 2.)
Over the year, nonfarm employment increased in 6 metropolitan areas with a 2020 Census population of 1 million or more, decreased in 2 areas, and was essentially unchanged in 48 areas. The largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment occurred in Salt Lake City-Murray, UT (+2.5 percent), followed by Raleigh-Cary, NC (+2.2 percent), and San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA (+1.6 percent). Over the year, employment decreased in Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (-2.0 percent), and Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA (-1.5 percent).
Metropolitan Division Nonfarm Employment (Not Seasonally Adjusted)
In August, nonfarm payroll employment decreased in 1 metropolitan division and was essentially unchanged in 36 divisions. The only over-the-year decrease in employment occurred in Washington, DC-MD (-35,500, or -3.2 percent). (See table 4.)
* * *
The State Employment and Unemployment news release for September 2026 is scheduled to be published on Tuesday, October 20, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. (ET). The Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment news release for September 2026 is scheduled to be published on Wednesday, October 28, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. (ET).
* * *
Technical Note
This news release presents civilian labor force and unemployment data from the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program (tables 1 and 2) for 387 metropolitan statistical areas, plus 6 areas in Puerto Rico. Estimates for 37 metropolitan divisions also are presented. Nonfarm payroll employment estimates from the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program (tables 3 and 4) are provided for the same areas. State estimates were previously published in the State Employment and Unemployment news release and are republished in this news release for ease of reference. The LAUS and CES programs are both federal-state cooperative endeavors.
Civilian labor force and unemployment--from the LAUS program
Definitions. The civilian labor force and unemployment data are based on the same concepts and definitions as those used for the official national estimates obtained from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a sample survey of households that is conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) by the U.S. Census Bureau. The LAUS program measures employed people and unemployed people on a place-of-residence basis. The universe for each is the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years of age and older. Employed people are those who did any work at all for pay or profit in the reference week (typically the week including the 12th of the month) or worked 15 hours or more without pay in a family business or farm, plus those not working who had a job from which they were temporarily absent, whether or not paid, for such reasons as labor-management dispute, illness, or vacation. Unemployed people are those who were not employed during the reference week (based on the definition above), had actively looked for a job sometime in the 4-week period ending with the reference week, and were currently available for work; people on layoff expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The civilian labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed people. The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force.
Method of estimation. Estimates for states, the District of Columbia, the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metropolitan division, and New York City are produced using time-series models with real-time benchmarking to national CPS totals. Model-based estimates are also produced for the following areas and their respective balances: the Chicago-Naperville-Schaumburg, IL Metropolitan Division; Cleveland, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area; Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area; Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL Metropolitan Division; and Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area. Modeling improves the statistical basis of the estimation for these areas and provides important tools for analysis, such as measures of errors and seasonally adjusted series. For all other substate areas in this news release, estimates are prepared through indirect estimation procedures using a building-block approach. Estimates of employed people, which are based largely on "place of work" estimates from the CES program, are adjusted to refer to place of residence as used in the CPS. Unemployment estimates are aggregates of people previously employed in industries covered by state Unemployment Insurance (UI) laws and entrants to the labor force from the CPS. The substate estimates of employment and unemployment, which geographically exhaust the entire state, are adjusted proportionally to ensure that they add to the independently estimated model-based area totals. A detailed description of the estimation procedures is available from BLS upon request.
Annual revisions. Civilian labor force and unemployment data shown for the prior year reflect adjustments made at the beginning of each year, usually implemented with the issuance of January estimates. The adjusted model-based estimates typically reflect updated population data from the U.S. Census Bureau, any revisions in other input data sources, and model re-estimation. All substate estimates then are re-estimated using updated inputs and adjusted to add to the revised model-based totals. In early 2025, implementation of synthetic intercensal population estimates for states and the 2020-based delineations for federal statistical areas necessitated the replacement of substate estimates back to their series beginnings. For more information, see www.bls.gov/lau/geography-and-data-changes-in-2025.htm.
Employment--from the CES program
Definitions. Employment data refer to people on establishment payrolls who receive pay for any part of the pay period that includes the 12th of the month. People are counted at their place of work rather than at their place of residence; those appearing on more than one payroll are counted on each payroll. Industries are classified on the basis of their principal activity in accordance with the 2022 version of the North American Industry Classification System.
Method of estimation. CES State and Area employment data are produced using several estimation procedures. Where possible, these data are produced using a "weighted link relative" estimation technique in which a ratio of current month weighted employment to that of the previous-month weighted employment is computed from a sample of establishments reporting for both months. The estimates of employment for the current month are then obtained by multiplying these ratios by the previous month's employment estimates. The weighted link relative technique is utilized for data series where the sample size meets certain statistical criteria. For some employment series, the estimates are produced with a model that uses direct sample estimates (described above) combined with other regressors to compensate for smaller sample sizes.
Annual revisions. Employment estimates are adjusted annually to a complete count of jobs, called benchmarks, derived principally from tax reports that are submitted by employers who are covered under state unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The benchmark information is used to adjust the monthly estimates between the new benchmark and the preceding one and also to establish the level of employment for the new benchmark month. Thus, the benchmarking process establishes the level of employment, and the sample is used to measure the month-to-month changes in the level for the subsequent months. Information on recent benchmark revisions is available online at www.bls.gov/web/laus/benchmark.pdf.
Seasonal adjustment. Payroll employment data are seasonally adjusted for states, metropolitan areas, and metropolitan divisions at the total nonfarm level. For states, data are seasonally adjusted at the super-sector level as well. Revisions to historical data for the most recent 5 years are made once a year, coincident with annual benchmark adjustments.
Payroll employment data are seasonally adjusted concurrently, using all available estimates, including those for the current month, to develop sample-based seasonal factors. Concurrent sample-based factors are created every month for the current month's preliminary estimate as well as the previous month's final estimate.
Reliability of the estimates
The estimates presented in this news release are based on sample surveys, administrative data, and modeling and, thus, are subject to sampling and other types of errors. Sampling error is a measure of sampling variability--that is, variation that occurs by chance because a sample rather than the entire population is surveyed. Survey data also are subject to nonsampling errors, such as those which can be introduced into the data collection and processing operations. Estimates not directly derived from sample surveys are subject to additional errors resulting from the specific estimation processes used. The sums of individual items may not always equal the totals shown in the same tables because of rounding.
Use of error measures
Civilian labor force and unemployment estimates. Measures of sampling error are not available for metropolitan areas or metropolitan divisions. Model-based error measures for states are available on the BLS website at www.bls.gov/lau/lastderr.htm. Measures of nonsampling error are not available for the areas contained in this news release.
Employment estimates. Changes in metropolitan area nonfarm payroll employment are cited in the analysis of this news release only if they have been determined to be statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence level.
Measures of sampling error for the total nonfarm employment series are available for metropolitan areas and metropolitan divisions at www.bls.gov/web/laus/790stderr.htm. Measures of sampling error for more detailed series at the area and division level are available upon request. Measures of sampling error for states at the supersector level and for the private service providing, goods-producing, total private and total nonfarm levels are available on the BLS website at www.bls.gov/web/laus/790stderr.htm.
Area definitions
The substate area data published in this news release reflect the delineations issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget on July 21, 2023. A detailed list of the geographic definitions is available online at www.bls.gov/lau/lausmsa.htm.
Additional information
Estimates of unadjusted and seasonally adjusted civilian labor force and unemployment data for states and seven substate areas are available in the news release State Employment and Unemployment. Estimates of civilian labor force and unemployment for all states, metropolitan areas, counties, cities with a population of 25,000 or more, and other areas used in the administration of various federal economic assistance programs are available online at www.bls.gov/lau/. Employment data from the CES program for states and metropolitan areas are available on the BLS website at www.bls.gov/sae/.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
* * *
LABOR FORCE DATA NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED
Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area
Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area -- Continued
Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area -- Continued
Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area -- Continued
Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area -- Continued
Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area -- Continued
Table 2. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state, selected metropolitan area, and metropolitan division1
ESTABLISHMENT DATA NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED
Table 3. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state and metropolitan area, not seasonally adjusted
Table 3. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state and metropolitan area, not seasonally adjusted -- Continued
Table 3. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state and metropolitan area, not seasonally adjusted -- Continued
Table 3. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state and metropolitan area, not seasonally adjusted -- Continued
Table 3. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state and metropolitan area, not seasonally adjusted -- Continued
Table 3. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state and metropolitan area, not seasonally adjusted -- Continued
Table 3. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state and metropolitan area, not seasonally adjusted -- Continued
Table 3. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state and metropolitan area, not seasonally adjusted -- Continued
Table 4. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by state, selected metropolitan area, and metropolitan division, not seasonally adjusted1
Map 1. Unemployment rates for metropolitan areas, not seasonally adjusted, August 2026
Map 2. Over-the-year percentage change in employment, by metropolitan area, not seasonally adjusted, August 2026
* * *
View original text plus charts and tables here: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/metro.pdf