Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
SEC Charges Real Estate Fund Manager, 3 California Residents in Alleged Multimillion Dollar Fraud Scheme
WASHINGTON, April 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:26-cv-02985-JLT-SAB; E.D. Cal. filed April 20, 2026):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Voyager Pacific Capital Management, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-02985-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal. filed April 20, 2026)
The Securities and Exchange Commission charged Voyager Pacific Capital Management, LLC, its CEO, Roger David Hardcastle, its former CFO, John Giarmarco, and its then-COO, Vanessa Lung-Medlock, with allegedly engaging in a multi-year fraudulent scheme in connection with
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:26-cv-02985-JLT-SAB; E.D. Cal. filed April 20, 2026):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Voyager Pacific Capital Management, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-02985-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal. filed April 20, 2026)
The Securities and Exchange Commission charged Voyager Pacific Capital Management, LLC, its CEO, Roger David Hardcastle, its former CFO, John Giarmarco, and its then-COO, Vanessa Lung-Medlock, with allegedly engaging in a multi-year fraudulent scheme in connection witha real-estate investment fund managed by Voyager. Hardcastle and Giarmarco have agreed to bifurcated settlements in connection with this civil enforcement action.
The SEC's complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleges that, from September 2020 through March 2024, rather than investing equity investor money as promised, Hardcastle, Giarmarco, and Medlock caused Voyager to use more than $15 million dollars in new investor money to pay current investors in Ponzi-like fashion. According to the complaint, these Ponzi-like payments were necessary, in part, because Hardcastle and Giarmarco had taken millions of dollars of investor money from the real-estate investment fund and given that money to entities that they owned or controlled in a series of undisclosed and prohibited transactions. The complaint alleges that, in total, millions of dollars of investor funds were not invested as promised, resulting in losses to the fund, and ultimately its investors.
Voyager, Hardcastle, and Giarmarco are charged with violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Medlock is charged with violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties, and a conduct-based injunction against each of the individual defendants permanently enjoining each from participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any security except for purchases or sales for the defendant's own personal accounts. The complaint also names Adagio SPE LLC, Andante SPE LLC, Brighton Cove LLC, Cayucos Dream, LLC, GSD Equities, LLC, HGM Holdings LLC, Kastlemark LLC, Martin-Taylor Company LLC, and Premier Property Management Group, LLC as relief defendants and seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest from each.
Hardcastle consented to the entry of a judgment, subject to court approval, in which he agreed (1) to be permanently enjoined from violating the charged provisions of the federal securities laws, (2) to be permanently enjoined pursuant to the conduct-based injunction described above, and (3) that, upon motion of the Commission, the Court shall determine whether it is appropriate to order disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and/or a civil penalty. Giarmarco, without admitting or denying the allegations made in the complaint, consented to the entry of a judgment, subject to court approval, containing the same injunctive and monetary relief agreed to by Hardcastle.
In a parallel criminal proceeding, United States v. David Hardcastle, 1:25-cr-00016-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal. filed Feb. 18, 2026), David Hardcastle pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to commit wire fraud.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Grace M. Osberg and Tracy W. Bowen, and was supervised by Kimberly L. Frederick and Nicholas P. Heinke, all of the SEC's Denver Regional Office. The litigation is being conducted by Jacqueline M. Moessner and Ms. Osberg, and supervised by Gregory A. Kasper.
The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Sacramento Field Office.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26534.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26534
SEC Suspends Accountant Following Fraud Judgment
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued an order to suspend George John Drazenovic, a Chartered Professional Accountant, from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant. This action follows the entry of a final judgment against Drazenovic in a separate civil action regarding his involvement in penny stock schemes.
Drazenovic, a resident of Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, previously served as Chief Financial Officer for Sun Cal Energy Inc., Oramed Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Tornado Gold International Corp. According to the Order Instituting
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued an order to suspend George John Drazenovic, a Chartered Professional Accountant, from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant. This action follows the entry of a final judgment against Drazenovic in a separate civil action regarding his involvement in penny stock schemes.
Drazenovic, a resident of Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, previously served as Chief Financial Officer for Sun Cal Energy Inc., Oramed Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Tornado Gold International Corp. According to the Order InstitutingPublic Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (3-22628), Drazenovic submitted an offer of settlement which the Commission accepted.
The Commission findings indicate that on February 24, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment against Drazenovic. This judgment permanently enjoined him from future violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act. The court ordered Drazenovic to pay $331,595 in disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, $51,050 in prejudgment interest, and a $236,451 civil money penalty.
The original complaint alleged that between April 2010 and October 2019, Drazenovic participated in pump and dump schemes involving penny stocks. He acted as a finder of mineral properties that functioned as assets for various issuers used as vehicles for fraud. In exchange for these services, Drazenovic received proceeds from stock sales during misleading promotional campaigns. These payments were made on a furtive basis while the stock prices were artificially inflated. Under Rule 102(e), the Commission maintains authority to suspend any accountant who has been permanently enjoined by a court for misconduct in an action brought by the Commission. Consequently, Drazenovic is now barred from practicing before the Commission, effective immediately, to protect the public interest and maintain the integrity of financial reporting.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2026/34-105271.pdf
SEC Commissioner Uyeda Issues Statement on the Amendments to Form PF
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on April 20, 2026, by Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda:
* * *
I am pleased to support the proposal to amend Form PF,[1] which represents a thoughtful recalibration of our regulatory approach to private fund reporting. Congress made a deliberate choice to exempt private funds from the Investment Company Act.[2] However, over the past several years, the Commission has sought to impose regulatory obligations on private funds that exceed the obligations imposed on mutual funds through the financial stability authority
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on April 20, 2026, by Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda:
* * *
I am pleased to support the proposal to amend Form PF,[1] which represents a thoughtful recalibration of our regulatory approach to private fund reporting. Congress made a deliberate choice to exempt private funds from the Investment Company Act.[2] However, over the past several years, the Commission has sought to impose regulatory obligations on private funds that exceed the obligations imposed on mutual funds through the financial stability authorityin the Investment Advisers Act.[3] Fortunately, the judicial system has served as a check on this unbounded reading of authority under the federal securities laws.[4]
The Commission's authority is best exercised when read in context of the broader statutory framework. The proposed amendments reflect a careful consideration of the regulatory obligations imposed on private funds and their advisers with the objective that the Commission and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) receive the data necessary to monitor systemic risk and protect investors -- and not to use Form PF as a backdoor attempt to more broadly regulate private funds.
The 2024 amendments to Form PF significantly expanded reporting requirements without adequate justification for additional data collection. It imposed disproportionate compliance burdens on smaller advisers and collected information that was neither actionable nor aligned with statutory authority. The amendments proposed today directly address these issues by, among other things, raising the reporting thresholds for all filers and large hedge fund advisers.[5] Importantly, the proposal includes a requirement that the Commission review the Form PF filing and reporting thresholds at least every five years to help ensure that these thresholds remain appropriately calibrated.[6]
Good regulation demands a careful evaluation of the benefits of information collection and the burdens imposed on those who must comply. The Commission's willingness to revisit and revise Form PF in light of the extensive criticism of the 2024 amendments demonstrates a commitment to regulatory humility and effectiveness. By focusing reporting obligations on the largest and most systemically significant advisers, while relieving smaller entities of unnecessary costs, these amendments better align with the statutory mandate and promote a more resilient and competitive marketplace.
I commend the staff of the Division of Investment Management, the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, and the Office of the General Counsel for their diligent work, as well as the constructive engagement of market participants. The adoption of these amendments is a positive step toward a regulatory framework that is both robust and appropriately tailored, and I look forward to continued dialogue as we monitor the effectiveness of these reforms.
* * *
[1] Form PF; Reporting Requirements for All Filers, proposed Apr. 20, 2026, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/ia-6959.pdf.
[2] See, e.g., Investment Company Act of 1940 Sections 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 80a-3(c)(1), (7).
[3] See Private Fund Advisers; Documentation of Registered Investment Adviser Compliance Reviews, 88 Fed. Reg. 63206 (Aug. 23, 2023) [17 CFR 275 (Nov. 19, 2024)], available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/2024/ia-6773.pdf.
[4] National Association of Private Fund Managers v. SEC, No. 23-60471 (5th Cir. 2024), available at https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60471CV0.pdf.
[5] See supra note 1.
[6] Id.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/uyeda-statement-re-admendments-04-20-2026-statement-amendments-form-pf
SEC Commissioner Peirce Issues Statement on the Proposed Amendments to Form PF
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on April 20, 2026, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce:
* * *
"PF" Stands for Please Fix: Statement on the Proposed Amendments to Form PF
Today, the Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") (collectively, "Commissions") proposed amendments to eliminate certain Form PF filing and reporting obligations and to streamline others. My thanks to the hardworking staff in the Division of Investment Management, Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, and Office of the General Counsel and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on April 20, 2026, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce:
* * *
"PF" Stands for Please Fix: Statement on the Proposed Amendments to Form PF
Today, the Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") (collectively, "Commissions") proposed amendments to eliminate certain Form PF filing and reporting obligations and to streamline others. My thanks to the hardworking staff in the Division of Investment Management, Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, and Office of the General Counsel andto the CFTC for their work on this proposal. I support this proposal and hope to receive robust feedback from investors, investment advisers, private funds, and other interested parties.
I have been hearing calls to fix Form PF since I started as a commissioner. Form PF generates a lot of data at great expense that does not present a useful window into private fund activity. To date, the Commissions' response to these pleas has been to make the form more--rather than less--onerous. The granular data required by the 2024 amendments, for example, made an already problematic form worse, as commenters warned would happen.[1] The fundamental problem with Form PF is that it has wandered from its core purpose: generating information to assist FSOC in identifying and monitoring risks to the financial stability of the United States.[2]
Many of today's proposed amendments acknowledge and address the concerns we have heard. If adopted, these amendments should help to restore Form PF to its intended purpose. I urge commenters to look closely at both the proposed changes and what is not changing so that you can tell us whether additional or alternative changes would better restore the form to its intended role. I would welcome feedback on, among other questions, the following:
* The filing threshold for private fund advisers and the reporting threshold for large private fund advisers have not changed since the thresholds were adopted in 2011. Yet, as noted in the proposing release, the aggregated private fund gross asset value has more than tripled since 2013.[3] In addition, when we adopted the large private fund adviser reporting thresholds we noted that they were designed so that the group of large private fund advisers (including large hedge fund advisers) filing Form PF would be relatively small in number but represent a substantial portion of the assets of their respective industries.[4] The number of overall private fund adviser filers and the number of large private fund advisers have grown because the thresholds have not changed since they were adopted. The proposed amendments include an increase to the filing threshold for Form PF filers and the reporting threshold for large hedge fund advisers. Should we update other Form PF thresholds as well? Should we adopt amendments to require that these thresholds be updated periodically to account for inflation and industry changes?
* The Commissions are proposing to pare back some of the 2024 amendments and other information currently required by Form PF. Do these changes align Form PF with its systemic risk purpose? Are other changes necessary? Should we, for example, eliminate questions 42 and 43 rather than slimming them down?
* What information required by Form PF is useful in monitoring systemic risk and, conversely, what information is not?
* For information that is or might be useful, do the benefits to FSOC and the Commissions of having that information outweigh the costs incurred by funds and advisers in compiling and reporting that information?
Now is the time to tell the Commissions what we got right and where we have gone astray.
* * *
[1] See, e.g., Comment Letter of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Oct. 11, 2022) at 4 ("The amendments under consideration represent a significant rewrite of Form PF and would require funds to provide extensive new streams of data unrelated to systemic risk."), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-22-22/s72222-20145434-310656.pdf.
[2] See Title IV of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 was amended to require that an adviser must maintain records and reports for each private fund it advises, that include a description of the following: (1) the amount of assets under management and use of leverage, including off-balance-sheet leverage; (2) counterparty credit risk exposure; (3) trading and investment positions; (4) valuation policies and practices of the fund; (5) types of assets held; (6) side arrangements or side letters, whereby certain investors in a fund obtain more favorable rights or entitlements than other investors; (7) trading practices. The statute also allows the Commissions to require the disclosure of other information, including for investor protection purposes, but the statute's primary objective is to inform the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which--as its name suggests--has a systemic risk monitoring and mitigation mandate.
[3] Form PF; Reporting Requirements for All Filers, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 6959 (Apr. 20, 2026) at 15, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/ia-6959.pdf.
[4] Id. at 22.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-statement-form-pf-042026
FEC to host June 2 & 3 Trade Association PAC Webinar (2026)
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news:
* * *
FEC to host June 2 & 3 Trade Association PAC Webinar (2026)
*
The Commission will hold an in-depth, online training event for trade associations and their political action committees (PACs) on Tuesday, June 2 and Wednesday, June 3.
This live, interactive webinar is designed for those seeking an introduction to the basic provisions of the law as well as for those more experienced in the campaign finance laws relevant to PACs set up and administered by trade associations.
Attendees can choose one of two
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news:
* * *
FEC to host June 2 & 3 Trade Association PAC Webinar (2026)
*
The Commission will hold an in-depth, online training event for trade associations and their political action committees (PACs) on Tuesday, June 2 and Wednesday, June 3.
This live, interactive webinar is designed for those seeking an introduction to the basic provisions of the law as well as for those more experienced in the campaign finance laws relevant to PACs set up and administered by trade associations.
Attendees can choose one of twooptions.
Option 1 includes three sessions: a Basics for Beginners workshop on Tuesday, which will introduce federal campaign finance laws, regulations and reporting requirements to those new to federal committees; and a two-part Trade Association PAC Operations workshop on Wednesday, which will go into much more detail on fundraising, making contributions, reporting scenarios and the disclosure rules that apply to these types of PACs.
Option 2, for those with more experience, includes just the two Wednesday afternoon sessions. This will be the only in-depth webinar geared specifically toward trade association PACs this year, so register today to reserve your spot.
***
Original text here: https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-to-host-june-2-3-trade-association-pac-webinar-2026/
FCC: GOMEZ APPLAUDS COURT RULING HALTING UNLAWFUL NEXSTAR-TEGNA MERGER
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement on April 20, 2026:
* * *
GOMEZ APPLAUDS COURT RULING HALTING UNLAWFUL NEXSTAR-TEGNA MERGER
FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez issued the following statement today after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a preliminary injunction halting the unlawful Nexstar-TEGNA merger:
"I welcome the court's decision to pause this transaction and bring much-needed scrutiny to a deeply flawed approval process. What we saw here was a coordinated, multi-agency effort to avoid accountability
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement on April 20, 2026:
* * *
GOMEZ APPLAUDS COURT RULING HALTING UNLAWFUL NEXSTAR-TEGNA MERGER
FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez issued the following statement today after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a preliminary injunction halting the unlawful Nexstar-TEGNA merger:
"I welcome the court's decision to pause this transaction and bring much-needed scrutiny to a deeply flawed approval process. What we saw here was a coordinated, multi-agency effort to avoid accountabilityand judicial review, culminating in a same-day clearance, approval, and closing designed to shield the public from the real harms of this unprecedented merger.
"The FCC and other government agencies have used what is now recognized as the Billionaire Buddy Bypass to grant expedited, closed-door approval to powerful friends of this administration. Today's ruling is an important step toward restoring accountability and ensuring that decisions of this magnitude are made with consumers in mind, not billion-dollar companies cutting backroom deals out of public view."
Background: The Nexstar-TEGNA merger is the largest local broadcast television transaction in American history, combining the country's two largest station groups into a single company that would reach more than 80 percent of U.S. television households. The combined company would far exceed the FCC's 39 percent national ownership cap, a limit written into law to protect media diversity and local competition, and one the FCC had no legal authority to waive. Critics warn the deal would accelerate harmful consolidation at a time when local journalism is already under extraordinary strain, concentrating broadcast power in fewer corporate hands and shrinking independent editorial voices in communities across the country. The merger would also dramatically increase Nexstar's leverage in retransmission consent negotiations, driving up the fees providers must pay to carry local stations, costs that are ultimately passed on to consumers through higher monthly bills.
The FCC approved the transaction through a bureau-level process that bypassed a full commission vote, a move that drew bipartisan criticism. Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz and Ranking Member Maria Cantwell formally challenged the FCC over that approval, calling on the agency to answer for a process they said ignored questions about existing law, and lacked transparency and proper oversight.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-420884A1.pdf
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice Reminding Rip-and-Replace Program Recipients of Necessary Steps to Complete Program Participation
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 18-89) on April 20, 2026:
* * *
The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) reminds recipients in the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program (Rip-and-Replace Program, Reimbursement Program, or Program) of their obligations and deadlines during the final stages of their participation in the Reimbursement Program.
I. BACKGROUND
The Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (Secure Networks Act) directed the Commission
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 18-89) on April 20, 2026:
* * *
The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) reminds recipients in the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program (Rip-and-Replace Program, Reimbursement Program, or Program) of their obligations and deadlines during the final stages of their participation in the Reimbursement Program.
I. BACKGROUND
The Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (Secure Networks Act) directed the Commissionto establish the Rip-and-Replace Program./1 The Program reimburses eligible providers for reasonable costs incurred in the removal, replacement, and disposal of communications equipment and services produced or provided by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation./2 Pursuant to the Secure Networks Act, recipients must complete their removal, replacement, and disposal (RRD) work "within one year of receiving the initial draw down disbursement from their funding allocation."/3
When the Bureau approved applications to participate in the Program in 2022 demand exceeded available funding, which resulted in recipients receiving 39.5% of their approved allocation amounts./4 After Congress authorized additional funding to support the goal of removing, replacing, and disposing of covered equipment and services,/5 the Commission made a further allocation of funding to all active Priority 1 recipients/6 to fully fund their projects./7 The Bureau issued the initial draw down disbursement from this funding allocation to all active Priority 1 recipients on May 8, 2025./8 As the Bureau recently reminded active Priority 1 recipients, this action established a deadline of May 8, 2026 for these recipients to complete the work to permanently remove, replace, and dispose of the covered communications equipment and services listed in their application to the Reimbursement Program (RRD Deadline)./9
II. DISCUSSION
A. Overview
The following table gives an overview of the final steps and deadlines for a recipient to complete its participation in the Program, beginning with the RRD Deadline:
* * *
Table: Summary of Final Steps in Rip-and-Replace Program and Current Deadlines for Priority 1 Recipients
* * *
B. Specific Requirements
RRD deadline: The RRD deadline is the date by which a recipient must complete its removal, replacement, and disposal work./10 The deadline for all Priority 1 recipients is May 8, 2026. Costs related to RRD work incurred after the RRD deadline are not eligible for reimbursement./11
Final certification deadline: Each recipient must file FCC Form 5640 Part M (i.e., their Final Certification) within 10 calendar days after its RRD deadline./12 Recipients must indicate in their certifications whether they have fully complied with all terms and conditions of the Program, the commitments made in their applications, and the timeline submitted with their application./13 Recipients must also indicate whether they have permanently removed all covered communications equipment and services that were in their network as of the date of application submission./14 Recipients that have not fully complied with all terms of Program participation may file a Final Certification stating that they are "in the process of" meeting those requirements, after which they have 60 days to file an updated Final Certification stating that they fully complied with and completed the requirements./15 Failure to submit a timely Final Certification or updated Final Certification may result in forfeitures or other penalties./16
Reimbursement claim deadline: Recipients must file all claims for reimbursement within 120 days following the RRD Deadline./17 Recipients may request a single a single extension of the reimbursement claim deadline./18 Any requests for extension must be filed by the reimbursement claim deadline./19 The Bureau shall grant any timely filed extension request of the reimbursement claim filing deadline for no more than 120 days./20 As a result, Priority 1 recipients that request and receive an extension of the reimbursement claim deadline will have until January 3, 2027, at the latest, to file all claims for reimbursement.
Final spending report deadline: Recipients must file a final spending report no later than 60 days following the expiration of the recipient's reimbursement claim deadline./21 The final spending report must show the expenditure of all funds received as compared to estimated costs identified in the recipient's application for funding./22
Site visit: At some point during its participation in the Program, every recipient will undergo a site visit by the Fund Administrator to verify compliance with Program requirements./23 The Fund Administrator sends a letter to provide advance notice of such site visits. In most cases the Fund Administrator will initiate the site visit process for a recipient after the recipient has submitted all reimbursement claim requests and initiated the close-out process, although the Fund Administrator may conduct a site visit at any point during the Program.
Close-out: After a recipient has (i) filed a final certification stating that it has completed all Program obligations, (ii) submitted all its invoices for reimbursement, and (iii) submitted its final spending report, it must initiate the close-out process on the SCRP Online Portal. The Bureau uses the close-out process to, among other things, verify the recipient has used the reimbursements provided by the Program for the intended purposes./24 Once the recipient completes the close-out process it will receive a final close-out letter to complete its participation in the Program, subject to the obligations described below.
C. Ongoing Obligations
Retention of documents: Recipients must retain all relevant documents, including invoices and receipts, pertaining to all costs eligible for reimbursement actually incurred for the removal, replacement, and disposal of covered communications equipment or services for a period ending not less than 10 years after the date on which the recipient receives its final disbursement./25 Failure to produce required documentation in a review, audit, or investigation could lead to monetary recoveries and enforcement action.
Audits and investigations: Recipients continue to be subject to audits and other investigations to evaluate their compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements for the Program./26 Recipients must provide consent to allow vendors or contractors used by the recipient in connection with the Program to release confidential information related to the recipient's Program participation to the auditor, reviewer, or other representative./27 Recipients shall permit any representative (including any auditor) appointed by the Commission to enter their premises to conduct compliance inspections./28
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.
* * *
Original text plus footnotes here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-386A1.pdf
