Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
SEC Director Daly Issues (Re)Empowering Fiduciaries in Proxy Voting
NEW YORK, Jan. 10 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on Jan. 8, 2026, by Brian Daly, division director of investment management, to the New York City Bar Association:
* * *
(Re)Empowering Fiduciaries in Proxy Voting
Good afternoon.
Thank you, Vadim [Avdeychik] for that kind introduction.
Before I begin, I must - as always - inform you that my remarks today are provided in my official capacity as the Securities and Exchange Commission's Director of the Division of Investment Management, but do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, the Commissioners,
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Jan. 10 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on Jan. 8, 2026, by Brian Daly, division director of investment management, to the New York City Bar Association:
* * *
(Re)Empowering Fiduciaries in Proxy Voting
Good afternoon.
Thank you, Vadim [Avdeychik] for that kind introduction.
Before I begin, I must - as always - inform you that my remarks today are provided in my official capacity as the Securities and Exchange Commission's Director of the Division of Investment Management, but do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, the Commissioners,or other members of the staff.
I will also point out that, while I will be speaking for about 10 minutes straight, I do have on my hippopotamus cufflinks. If you follow my social media or read my last speech, you know what that means and I hope that, after these prepared remarks, I can do more listening than talking.
That being said, it's a privilege to be here today to speak with you about a topic that is current and consequential in our regulatory landscape: proxy voting by registered investment advisers.
A Thumbnail History
Many practitioners trace today's proxy voting practices to the Department of Labor's 1988 "Avon Letter," which asserted that "the fiduciary act of managing plan assets that are shares of corporate stock includes the voting of proxies" and that proxy voting determinations by pension plan managers are fiduciary acts that must be made for "the exclusive benefit of plan participants."
Read on its face, this is not a particularly controversial position. Is anyone really going to say that a fiduciary should not be voting a client's shares for anything other than the client's benefit?
However, this common-sense position on conflicts of interest (which was picked up by the SEC and enshrined in our 2003 proxy voting rule) metastasized over time across the regulatory landscape. While it took a few decades, investment adviser proxy voting policies now almost universally reflect the coupled mantras of "votes have value" and "we will vote all proxies."
This created a lucrative business opportunity for proxy advisory firms. Proxy advisors scaled their product offerings from limited-scope, non-discretionary research to today's end-to-end proxy voting "solutions," which not only handle the mechanics of the voting process, but provide substantive "recommendations" on corporate policy matters that can effectively become industry-wide fiats.
This evolution gave rise to a small oligopoly of proxy advisory firms with de facto power to impose their views on social and political matters upon a large portion of the American capital markets. In short, proxy advisors have acquired the ability to influence corporate policy and public company management, without having to buy a single share of stock, and have done so over time under the cover of a fundamental regulatory tenet that votes must be made in the best interest of the client.
And who pays the price for this dysfunctional system? Or, who ultimately pays the price.
In the interests of transparency, I will save you industry veterans the trouble of having to point out that the SEC contributed to this situation. Our past actions, even if undertaken with the best of intentions, may have contributed to investment advisers viewing proxy advisory services as a de facto regulatory safe harbor, as well as the most economically efficient way to operate in a "vote all proxies" environment. We even provided something of a road map through a series of - now-withdrawn - no-action letters that indicated investment advisers could avoid their own conflicts of interest by "outsourcing" their voting duties to proxy advisors,[1] but we did not step in quickly enough when this practice extended - in many cases - to ordinary course voting.
An Opportunity to Reset
But I don't want to focus on the past this afternoon. Instead, I would like to focus on how we should be empowering investment advisers to reconsider their proxy voting policies and processes.
Unless you were on a desert island for the past year, you have undoubtedly noticed that proxy voting is a focus of the SEC's overall regulatory agenda. Among other steps:
Last April, under Acting Chairman Uyeda, our colleagues in the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance rescinded Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14L and reiterated the Commission's longstanding view that a public company should look at its specific business circumstances in permitting or excluding shareholder proposals.
In October, Chairman Atkins called to "de-politicize shareholder meetings" and shift the focus back to director elections and significant corporate matters.
And in November, CorpFin halted substantive reviews for most exclusions of shareholder proposals, limiting its review of requests for no-action to proposed exclusions based on state law.
But a seismic shift came a few weeks ago, when President Trump issued an executive order[2] addressing the influence that proxy advisors and their related consultancies wield to promote "radical politically-motivated agendas."
That E.O. directs the SEC Chairman to consider several points, including:
Whether to require proxy advisors to register with the SEC as investment advisers;
Whether to require proxy advisors to provide increased transparency on their recommendations, methodology, and conflicts of interest, especially regarding "diversity, equity, and inclusion" and "environmental, social, and governance" factors;
If and when the common use of a proxy advisor by investment advisers results in the formation of a Section 13(d) group; and
Examining whether registered investment advisers engaging proxy advisors to advise on (and following the recommendations of such proxy advisors with respect to) non-pecuniary factors (including DEI and ESG factors) is inconsistent with their fiduciary duties.
Obviously, this is a big assignment - stay tuned for how we address it.
Proxy Voting Policies and Processes
With that backdrop, I thought that it might make sense to share my thoughts on the proxy voting landscape. And, again, I will remind you of my opening disclaimer - I am speaking only for myself in my capacity as director here.
I often hear investment advisers say that they feel compelled to vote on matters they do not deem important to their investment programs and that they would welcome more clarity that they need not vote all proxies. Many investment advisers engage a proxy advisor and let the proxy advisor's recommendations serve as the investment adviser's default voting instructions. The investment adviser can override the default, to be sure, but we all know how much effort it takes, in any situation, to override a default setting.
It also appears to me that many investment advisers would welcome a broader consensus on the answers to two basic proxy voting questions:
Must I vote client proxies?
If I elect to - or am required to - vote, can I (or "must I?") still use a proxy advisor?
Question 1: Must I Vote Client Proxies?
If you look into this topic, the widespread, but superficial, view is that an adviser must vote client proxies. In fact, in the 2003 adopting release for the SEC's proxy voting rule, the Commission stated that the fiduciary duty of care requires an adviser "to monitor corporate actions and vote client proxies."
However, in that same paragraph, the Commission also stated that "We do not suggest that an adviser that fails to vote every proxy would necessarily violate its fiduciary obligations." The Commission, rather, pointed out that:
There may even be times when refraining from voting a proxy is in the client's best interest ... [such as] where the adviser determines that the cost of voting the proxy exceeds the expected benefit to the client.
The Commission's June 2019 Fiduciary Interpretation[3] stated the position that an adviser and its client may vary their fiduciary relationship by agreement, "provided that there is full and fair disclosure and informed consent." In considering how this applies to proxy voting, the Commission went out of its way not to reduce the scope of an adviser's discretion, simply stating that the release "does not address the specifics of how an investment adviser might satisfy its fiduciary duty when voting proxies."
But, two months later, the Commission issued guidance on proxy voting considerations, stating that:
the client and the investment adviser may instead agree [that] ... the investment adviser would only assume the authority to vote on behalf of the client in limited circumstances or not at all.
The Commission then provided two pages of examples of permissible arrangements to limit or eliminate an adviser's obligation to vote proxies.
Not voting makes sense in many situations. Look, for example, at quantitative and systematic managers, who often operate models that merely seek exposures to identified sources of alpha. Many investment advisers managing quantitative and systematic strategies will even say that voting on board members, management policies, or on precatory social and political matters is irrelevant to their strategy and imposes costs without conferring any measurable benefit to investors. Yet many systematic managers continue to vote proxies (often using a proxy advisor's default settings) because it is perceived as being "safer" than not voting.
Index funds present an interesting situation. Many mutual funds and ETFs purport to track a reference index, and the core mandate for the investment adviser is to replicate the performance of the reference index in the fund. No more, no less. But many index funds, like some systematic funds, vote proxies, notwithstanding their passive investment mandate. I suspect that some (perhaps many) of these investment advisers vote proxies - often according to some formula created by or in conjunction with a proxy advisor - because they feel pressured or obliged to do so. But it may be appropriate for these categories of investment advisers (and the Boards that exercise oversight over this function) to consider whether taking positions on fundamental corporate matters, or on precatory proposals, is consistent with their investment mandates.
But I do not want to leave you with the impression that I think that voting is not important. Because, for the overwhelming number of investment advisers, it is.
Fundamental managers can and generally should be voting on fundamental corporate matters. It would be unusual, absent a conflict of interest, for an activist, a private equity, or a venture fund manager not to vote on matters involving a portfolio company. I would think that traditional fundamental managers are in the same boat, at least for their core positions.
And investment advisers to passive or systematic strategies may deem some kind of neutral (or neutral-ish) voting policy to be essential for quorum and similar reasons.
So, there is no stock answer to the "Must I vote?" question... Instead, it is important that advisers and clients have a fair amount of latitude to decide what works in their individual cases.
Question 2: How Must I Vote?
This is an easy one to answer, at least at a certain level of abstraction: An adviser is a fiduciary and should cast ballots in the client's best interests, on an informed basis.
In terms of how to get there in the real world, questions on how much of the deliberative process can be outsourced to proxy advisors are frequently raised. That's a good question to ask, but one that, in my experience, winds up being situationally dependent. So, as a general principle, I think that we regulators should let advisers and clients have the first crack at deciding that.
Because when we do--when we step out of the way of market participants--innovation flourishes. Take, for example, those fund managers--including index fund managers--who right now are spearheading programs that enable their investors to express their voting preferences and direct their proportionate share of voting power. This is exactly the type of innovation we don't want to inadvertently slow down: so long, of course, as they offer investors a sufficient number of options, accompanied by clear disclosure as to how shares would be voted under those options.
And let me be clear: there is nothing inherently wrong with an investment adviser using a proxy advisor. When operating pursuant to specific instructions within a tailored mandate and subject to periodic review, a proxy advisor can provide valuable research, analysis, and logistical support to an investment adviser.
But shouldn't clients and investors be concerned when an investment adviser's track record on non-routine matters is nearly identical to a proxy advisor's standard voting policies and positions? In such a case, are clients and investors benefitting from the investment adviser's expertise? And are the votes cast in the best interest of clients? Again, the answers will differ in each individual situation, but this is a topic that might be worth a review.
And if we are raising issues for consideration, I will also mention, because the President did, that there is real concern out there that habitual adherence to a proxy consultant's recommendations could pull an adviser into a Section 13(d) group.
So Where Do We Go From Here?
"Here" is pretty clearly an unsatisfying locale.
"Here" is a place where retail and institutional investors are directly and indirectly supporting a system where an oligopoly of proxy advisors exercise influence over voting decisions for a large portion of the investment management industry. What happens "here" contributes to the de facto imposition of external political and social ideologies on US-listed public companies through the proxy voting process.
But we do not have to stay "here."
Proxy voting should not be a rote box-checking exercise. It is a discretionary act within a relationship of trust that can influence corporate behavior, shareholder value, and client outcomes. A fund manager should be free to ask itself tough questions and to act in accordance with the honest answers.
Investment advisers that determine proxy voting is not required by, or may even be inconsistent with, their investment program should not be afraid to take that position. Assuming that such a determination is consistent with all relevant client agreements and is effectively disclosed to investors - and, of course, otherwise satisfies the adviser's fiduciary duties of care and loyalty - I would find it hard to second-guess the adviser and the client.
Investment advisers that do vote, on the other hand, should be empowered to utilize their best judgment and whatever resources they deem appropriate under the circumstances when making that vote. At the same time, to the extent that the underlying investment mandate seeks passive exposure, those advisers should (re)confirm that they are comfortable with their authority to vote, both as a general matter and, in particular, when a vote reflects an investment adviser's or a proxy advisor's personal view or opinion on a social or political matter.
And in assessing proposed votes, investment advisers might utilize the Fiduciary Interpretation's concept of a "reasonable inquiry into the client's objectives." If an investment adviser routinely follows a proxy advisor's stock recommendations without a tailored engagement or independent analysis, is this "reasonable inquiry?" Maybe, but it is certainly worth thinking about. And, to go back to the first question, if the voting process is so burdensome that it requires extensive external resources, why is the adviser voting at all?
Is AI the (AN) Answer?
Finally, I want to insert a plug for artificial intelligence.
As advisers grapple with the scale and complexity of proxy voting--especially across large portfolios--AI tools like large language models and agentic AI, offer a compelling opportunity.
Imagine an AI agent that can review dozens or hundreds of proxy statements, assess them against your expressed values, and efficiently generate a large quantity of principled voting recommendations. And, pretty much, for free. This isn't science fiction--it's a near-term reality.
Of course, with great power comes great responsibility. AI agents need to be trained and their output needs to be reviewed. Any adviser's use of AI in proxy voting would also need to take into consideration principles of transparency, auditability, and consistency with fiduciary duties.
But done right, AI can be a valuable tool that enhances--not replaces--human judgment, and that helps advisers better serve their clients.
In Conclusion
In conclusion, if you are an adviser and you and your clients are content with your tailored proxy voting arrangements, great. I am not here to force you to change your approach.
But if you are dissatisfied with your current proxy voting arrangements, or if you have not reconsidered them in a while, this is a great time to re-evaluate and reassess - and perhaps to redirect.
And to the extent that you find that Division or Commission action would be helpful, please give us a call or come in for a chat. And if you want to chat on the matters flagged in the President's Executive Order, we are all ears.
Thank you for your time, and thank you for your continued commitment to serving investors with excellence and accountability.
* * *
[1] See, e.g., ISS, SEC Staff No-Action Letter (Sept. 15, 2004) (withdrawn), available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/noaction/iss091504.htm and Egan Jones, SEC Staff No-Action Letter (May 27, 2004) (withdrawn), available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/noaction/egan052704.htm
[2] Entitled "Protecting American Investors from Foreign-Owned and Politically-Motivated Proxy Advisors"
[3] Commission Interpretation Regarding Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers, Release No. IA-5248 (2019), at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/interp/2019/ia-5248.pdf .
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/daly-remarks-nycba-proxy-010826
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice: Comments Invited on Section 214 Application to Discontinue Domestic Non-Dominant Carrier Telecommunications Services
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-4) on Jan. 9, 2026:
* * *
Unless otherwise specified, the following procedures and dates apply to the application(s) (the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s)) listed in the Appendix.
The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau), upon initial review, has found the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s) listed herein to be acceptable for filing and subject to the procedures set forth in Section 63.71 of the Commission's rules./1 The application(s)
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-4) on Jan. 9, 2026:
* * *
Unless otherwise specified, the following procedures and dates apply to the application(s) (the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s)) listed in the Appendix.
The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau), upon initial review, has found the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s) listed herein to be acceptable for filing and subject to the procedures set forth in Section 63.71 of the Commission's rules./1 The application(s)request authority, under section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,/2 and section 63.71 of the Commission's rules,/3 to discontinue, reduce, or impair certain domestic telecommunications service(s) (Affected Service(s)) in specified geographic areas (Service Area(s)) as applicable and as fully described in each application.
In accordance with section 63.71(f) of the Commission's rules, the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s) listed in the Appendix will be deemed granted automatically on February 9, 2026, the 31st day after the release date of this public notice, unless the Commission notifies any applicant(s) that their grant will not be automatically effective./4 We note that the date on which an application for Commission authorization is deemed granted may be different from the date on which applicants are authorized to discontinue service ("Authorized Date"). Any applicant whose application has been deemed granted may discontinue their Affected Service(s) in their Service Area(s) on or after the authorized discontinuance date(s) specified in the Appendix, in accordance with their filed representations. Accordingly, pursuant to section 63.71(f), and the terms outlined in each application, absent further Commission action, each applicant may discontinue the Affected Service(s) in the Service Area(s) described in their application on or after the authorized discontinuance date(s) listed in the Appendix for that application. For purposes of computation of time when filing a petition for reconsideration, application for review, or petition for judicial review of the Commission's decision(s), the date of "public notice" shall be the later of the auto grant date stated above in this Public Notice, or the release date(s) of any further public notice(s) or order(s) announcing final Commission action, as applicable. Should no petitions for reconsideration, applications for review, or petitions for judicial review be timely filed, the proceeding(s) listed in this Public Notice shall be terminated, and the docket(s) will be closed.
Comments objecting to the application(s) listed in the Appendix must be filed with the Commission on or before January 26, 2026. Comments should refer to the specific WC Docket No. and Comp. Pol. File No. listed in the Appendix for the Section 214 Discontinuance Application. Comments should include specific information about the impact of the proposed discontinuance on the commenter, including any inability to acquire reasonable substitute service. 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. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number.
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.
This proceeding(s) shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding(s) in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./5 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(s) should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
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.
For further information, please see the contact(s) for the specific discontinuance proceeding you are interested in as listed in the Appendix. For further information on procedures regarding section 214 please visit https://www.fcc.gov/general/domestic-section-214-discontinuance-service.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ 47 CFR Sec. 63.71.
2/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 214.
3/ 47 CFR Sec. 63.71.
4/ See 47 CFR Sec. 63.71(f)(1) (stating, in relevant part, that an application filed by a non-dominant carrier "shall be automatically granted on the 31st day... unless the Commission has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective.").
5/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-32A1.pdf
NRC Staff Guidance Shapes Collaboration With Interagency Partners on Reactor Designs
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
NRC Staff Guidance Shapes Collaboration with Interagency Partners on Reactor Designs
The NRC has underscored its commitment to the whole-of-government approach to deployment of new nuclear in the United States by issuing staff guidance that establishes expectations for working with reactor vendors who leverage authorizations from the Departments of Energy or War in moving their designs toward commercialization.
"By observing interagency partner authorization activities, we're laying the groundwork
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
NRC Staff Guidance Shapes Collaboration with Interagency Partners on Reactor Designs
The NRC has underscored its commitment to the whole-of-government approach to deployment of new nuclear in the United States by issuing staff guidance that establishes expectations for working with reactor vendors who leverage authorizations from the Departments of Energy or War in moving their designs toward commercialization.
"By observing interagency partner authorization activities, we're laying the groundworkfor a more informed and responsive licensing process," said Jeremy Groom, Acting Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. "We'll work with vendors and our federal partners to gain familiarity with the technologies and their safety cases. This will improve our efficiency during commercial reactor licensing reviews."
NRC staff will treat observation of authorization reviews in the same manner as the agency conducts pre-application activities today.
The issuance of staff guidance is part of the NRC's efforts to implement Executive Order 14300 in support of safely enabling new reactors to meet the nation's growing energy needs. The internal guidance is a pivotal step in establishing an expedited pathway to approve reactor designs that have been tested under the DOE or DOW programs and have demonstrated the ability to function safely.
"Our partners at DOE are making good progress on their reactor pilot projects," said Mike King, the NRC's Executive Director for Operations. "As we conduct our independent reviews, we will focus on risks associated with commercializing these designs, leveraging insights from DOE and DOW reviews to avoid duplicating efforts. This collaboration will make our reviews more efficient and effective and strengthen our ability to ensure safety as these innovative technologies move toward deployment."
More information about the NRC's implementation of Executive Order 14300 and ADVANCE Act requirements is available on the NRC website.
* * *
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was created as an expert, technical agency to protect public health, safety, and security, and regulate the civilian use of nuclear materials, including enabling the deployment of nuclear power for the benefit of society. Among other responsibilities, the agency issues licenses, conducts inspections, initiates and enforces regulations, and plans for incident response. The global gold standard for nuclear regulation, the NRC is collaborating with interagency partners to implement reforms outlined in new Executive Orders and the ADVANCE Act to streamline agency activities and enhance efficiency
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nrc.gov/sites/default/files/cdn/doc-collection-news/2026/26-004.pdf
FTC Issues Annual Report on Ethanol Market Concentration 2025
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Issues Annual Report on Ethanol Market Concentration 2025
*
The Federal Trade Commission has issued its 2025 Report on Ethanol Market Concentration. The Clean Air Act, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, directs the Commission to perform an annual review of market concentration in the ethanol production industry "to determine whether there is sufficient competition among industry participants to avoid price-setting and other anticompetitive behavior."
As in prior years, the 2025 report
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Issues Annual Report on Ethanol Market Concentration 2025
*
The Federal Trade Commission has issued its 2025 Report on Ethanol Market Concentration. The Clean Air Act, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, directs the Commission to perform an annual review of market concentration in the ethanol production industry "to determine whether there is sufficient competition among industry participants to avoid price-setting and other anticompetitive behavior."
As in prior years, the 2025 reportconcludes that "the level of concentration and number of market participants in the U.S. ethanol production industry continue to suggest that the exercise of market power to set prices, or coordinate on price or output levels, is unlikely on a nationwide basis."
The Commission vote to approve the report was 2-0.
The lead staff attorney on this matter for the FTC is Christopher Grengs in the Office of Policy Planning.
***
Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/01/ftc-issues-annual-report-ethanol-market-concentration-2025
FMC Finalizes Dismissal of EcoBamboo Case Against Ship4wd
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 (TNSdok) -- The Federal Maritime Commission issued a notice on Jan. 8, 2026, confirming that the regulatory body will not review a decision to end a legal dispute between a small business operator and an ocean transportation intermediary.
The case, titled "Roger Waterloo dba EcoBamboo v. Ship4wd, Inc." (Docket No. 25-26), reached its conclusion after the time for the Commission to initiate a review of the Initial Decision expired. Under agency rules, the ruling issued by the Administrative Law Judge on December 8, 2025, is now administratively final.
The proceeding began when
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 (TNSdok) -- The Federal Maritime Commission issued a notice on Jan. 8, 2026, confirming that the regulatory body will not review a decision to end a legal dispute between a small business operator and an ocean transportation intermediary.
The case, titled "Roger Waterloo dba EcoBamboo v. Ship4wd, Inc." (Docket No. 25-26), reached its conclusion after the time for the Commission to initiate a review of the Initial Decision expired. Under agency rules, the ruling issued by the Administrative Law Judge on December 8, 2025, is now administratively final.
The proceeding began whenRoger Waterloo, operating as EcoBamboo, filed a complaint against Ship4wd, Inc. The conflict centered on a shipment of bamboo mats and poles transported from Indonesia to Oklahoma. The complainant alleged that the respondent failed to provide proper fumigation and phytosanitary certification, leading to issues with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the re-export of the cargo.
The complainant sought a default determination, arguing that the respondent failed to file a timely answer to the allegations. However, the respondent, a subsidiary of ZIM operating as an ocean transportation intermediary, argued that the complaint was not served until September 9, 2025, making subsequent filings timely.
In the December ruling, the judge denied the request for default. The judge found that the respondent acted within procedural timelines following the service of the complaint by the Commission Secretary.
The judge also granted the motion to dismiss the case. The ruling indicated that the complaint failed to establish a claim under the Shipping Act, specifically regarding requirements to prove that the alleged acts occurred on a customary or continuous basis rather than as an isolated incident.
With the issuance of the Notice Not to Review, the Commission has declined to alter these findings. The dismissal stands, and the proceeding is discontinued. David Eng, Secretary of the Commission, served the notice, closing the docket on the matter.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/docs/25-26/(19)%2025-26%20Not.%20Not%20Review%20(public).pdf/
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice Reminding Rip-and-Replace Program Recipients of Their Feb. 10 Spending Report Filing Obligation
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 18-89) on Jan. 8, 2026:
* * *
By this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) reminds recipients/1 in the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program (Reimbursement Program) of their obligation to file reimbursement spending reports with the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) "[w]ithin 10 days after the end of January and July . . . starting with the recipient's initial draw down of reimbursement funds."/2
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 18-89) on Jan. 8, 2026:
* * *
By this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) reminds recipients/1 in the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program (Reimbursement Program) of their obligation to file reimbursement spending reports with the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) "[w]ithin 10 days after the end of January and July . . . starting with the recipient's initial draw down of reimbursement funds."/2All recipients that have been notified of the approval of a reimbursement claim request must submit their next spending report by February 10, 2026. For additional information about Reimbursement Program spending report requirements, please refer to the Initial Spending Report Public Notice./3 For information on procedures for submitting spending reports, see the User Guide on spending reports, which is available on the Reimbursement Program webpage, https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/reimbursement.
Recipients must submit their spending reports through the Supply Chain Reimbursement Program Online Portal, https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/scrp by completing FCC Form 5640 Part L: Spending Reports. Requests for confidential treatment must be submitted by filing a written request electronically in WC Docket No. 18-89 in the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), https://www.fcc.gov/efcs.
Additional Information and Resources. Recipients with questions may contact the Fund Administrator Help Desk by email at SCRPFundAdmin@fcc.gov or by calling (202) 418-7540 from 9:00 AM ET to 5:00 PM ET, Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. General information and Commission documents regarding the Reimbursement Program are available on the Reimbursement Program webpage, https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/reimbursement.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ The Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019, as amended, defines "recipient" as "any provider of advanced communications service the application of which for a reimbursement under the [Reimbursement] Program has been approved by the Commission, regardless of whether the provider has received reimbursement funds." Secure and Trusted Communications Act of 2019, Pub. L. No. 116-124, 134 Stat. 158, Sec. 9(11) (2019) (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 1608(11)), as amended by Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, Sec. 901, 134 Stat. 1182 (2021), and as further amended by the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025, H.R. 5009, 118th Cong. (2024); see also 47 CFR Sec. 1.50001(h) ("The term 'Reimbursement Program recipient' or 'recipient' means an eligible advanced communications service provider that has requested via application and been approved for funding in the Reimbursement Program, regardless of whether the provider has received reimbursement funds.").
2/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.50004(l)(1); see also Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs, WC Docket No. 18-89, Second Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 14284, 14360, para. 188 (2020) (2020 Supply Chain Order). This reporting obligation terminates once the recipient has filed a "final spending report showing the expenditure of all funds received as compared to the estimated costs" submitted. 47 CFR Sec. 1.50004(l)(2). The final spending report is due after the filing of a final certification by the recipient. 2020 Supply Chain Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 14360, para. 188. Specifically, the final spending report is due "no later than 60 days after the expiration of the program participant's reimbursement claim deadline." Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs, WC Docket No. 18-89, Third Report and Order, 36 FCC Rcd 11958, 12000, para. 105 (2021).
3/ Wireline Competition Bureau Reminds Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program Recipients of Their Spending Report Filing Obligation, WC Docket No. 18-89, Public Notice, DA 23-25 (WCB Jan. 11, 2023).
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-31A1.pdf
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving Isla Rae Magnetic Wireless Chargers
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert on Jan. 8, 2026:
* * *
Name of Product: Isla Rae Magnetic Wireless Chargers
Hazard: The chargers can explode while in use, posing a fire and burn hazard.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: January 08, 2026
Units: About 13,200 (In addition, about 7,000 units were sold in Canada)
Consumer Contact: TJX toll-free at 888-256-1564 from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, by email to powerbank@realtimeresults.net, or online at https://www.recallrtr.com/powerbank for more information; Marshalls at https://m.marshalls.com/us/m/jump/topic/Product-Recalls/2400019
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert on Jan. 8, 2026:
* * *
Name of Product: Isla Rae Magnetic Wireless Chargers
Hazard: The chargers can explode while in use, posing a fire and burn hazard.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: January 08, 2026
Units: About 13,200 (In addition, about 7,000 units were sold in Canada)
Consumer Contact: TJX toll-free at 888-256-1564 from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, by email to powerbank@realtimeresults.net, or online at https://www.recallrtr.com/powerbank for more information; Marshalls at https://m.marshalls.com/us/m/jump/topic/Product-Recalls/2400019or Marshalls.com and scroll to the bottom of the page where it says "Product Recalls"; T.J. Maxx at https://m.tjmaxx.tjx.com/m/jump/topic/product-recalls/2400019 or TJmaxx.com and scroll to the bottom of the page where it says "Product Recalls" for more information.
Recall Details
In Conjunction With:
Description: This recall involves magnetic wireless chargers sold under the Isla Rae brand. The chargers are compatible with magnetic charging systems and attach magnetically to the back of a phone to charge the device. The chargers were sold in the following colors: white, pink, and purple. The model number "RM5PBM" can be found on the side of the magnetic wireless charger, below the markings "5000 mAh 3.7V."
Note: Do not throw this recalled lithium-ion battery or device in the trash, the general recycling stream (e.g., street-level or curbside recycling bins), or used battery recycling boxes found at various retail and home improvement stores. Recalled lithium-ion batteries must be disposed of differently than other batteries, because they present a greater risk of fire. Your municipal household hazardous waste (HHW) collection center may accept this recalled lithium-ion battery or device for disposal. Before taking your battery or device to a HHW collection center, contact that office ahead of time and ask whether it accepts recalled lithium-ion batteries. If it does not, contact your municipality for further guidance.
Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled magnetic wireless chargers and go to https://www.recallrtr.com/powerbank to register for the recall and for instructions on how to receive a full refund. After registering, consumers should dispose of the power bank in accordance with local and state regulations and not discard it in the household trash.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported
Sold At: Marshalls and T.J. Maxx stores nationwide between June 2024 and November 2025 for $15.
Importer(s): Hello to Green dba Press Play Products of Bell, California
Retailer: The TJX Companies Inc., of Framingham, Massachusetts
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-179
Fast Track Recall
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Isla-Rae-Magnetic-Wireless-Chargers-Recalled-Due-to-Fire-and-Burn-Hazards-Sold-by-TJX-at-TJ-Maxx-and-Marshalls-Stores
