Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
SEC Charges Texas Startup and Former CEO In Connection With Alleged Fraud in $4.2 Million Stock Offering
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 3:26-cv-00547-N; N.D. Tex. filed Feb. 19, 2026):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. C-Hear, Inc., et al., No. 3:26-cv-00547-N (N.D. Tex. filed Feb. 19, 2026)
On February 19, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Texas-based C-Hear, Inc. and its former CEO, Adena Harmon, with securities fraud, alleging that they made misleading statements that misrepresented C-Hear's technology and concealed Harmon's past criminal convictions. Harmon was also charged for allegedly
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 3:26-cv-00547-N; N.D. Tex. filed Feb. 19, 2026):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. C-Hear, Inc., et al., No. 3:26-cv-00547-N (N.D. Tex. filed Feb. 19, 2026)
On February 19, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Texas-based C-Hear, Inc. and its former CEO, Adena Harmon, with securities fraud, alleging that they made misleading statements that misrepresented C-Hear's technology and concealed Harmon's past criminal convictions. Harmon was also charged for allegedlymaking misrepresentations to investors in another company she controlled, Elite Performance Data Labs, LLC, and misappropriating investor funds in both C-Hear and Elite Performance.
According to the SEC's complaint, between January 2019 and October 2023, C-Hear raised more than $4.2 million from at least 48 investors who purchased C-Hear stock. The complaint alleges that, during the offering, Harmon and other C-Hear representatives made materially misleading statements and omissions to investors by falsely claiming that C-Hear's primary software product was in trials with third parties and that the federal government had tried and was unable to hack into one of C-Hear's products, and failing to disclose that Harmon had been convicted of numerous financial crimes, including theft by check. Harmon is also alleged to have opened two bank accounts in C-Hear's name without notifying the company, directed three investors to deposit their investment funds into these unauthorized accounts, and misappropriated approximately $641,000 of such funds for her personal benefit, including to pay personal expenses like shopping and to satisfy her outstanding criminal restitution order.
Separately, Harmon allegedly made misrepresentations to investors about Elite Performance's business dealings, including falsely claiming that the Dallas Cowboys had placed a multimillion-dollar order for Elite Performance's products. The complaint alleges Harmon misappropriated nearly all of the $405,000 raised from Elite Performance investors.
The SEC's complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, charges Harmon with violating 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 charges C-Hear with violating Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b) thereunder. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions and civil penalties against Harmon and C-Hear, and disgorgement with prejudgment interest and conduct based injunctions against Harmon.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Melanie Good of the SEC's Fort Worth Regional Office and supervised by Jaime Marinaro. The litigation will be led by Tyson Lies and supervised by Keefe Bernstein.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26486.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26486
FMC Assigns Presiding Officer to Gator Fabrication Technology Vs. Flador Global Logistics
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Federal Maritime Commission has appointed a presiding officer to oversee a legal challenge involving international logistics providers. Jamie L. Mendelson will preside over hearings and the presentation of evidence in the matter of "Gator Fabrication Technology, LLC v. Flador Global Logistics a/k/a Flador Global Uluslararasi Tasimacilik Loj. Distic Ltd. Sti and NTG Air & Ocean, LLC" (Docket No. 26-03).
The assignment follows a February 12, 2026, notice of filing. Chief Administrative Law Judge Erin M. Wirth issued the order designating Mendelson to lead the proceedings
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Federal Maritime Commission has appointed a presiding officer to oversee a legal challenge involving international logistics providers. Jamie L. Mendelson will preside over hearings and the presentation of evidence in the matter of "Gator Fabrication Technology, LLC v. Flador Global Logistics a/k/a Flador Global Uluslararasi Tasimacilik Loj. Distic Ltd. Sti and NTG Air & Ocean, LLC" (Docket No. 26-03).
The assignment follows a February 12, 2026, notice of filing. Chief Administrative Law Judge Erin M. Wirth issued the order designating Mendelson to lead the proceedingsand eventually issue an initial decision or dispositive ruling.
Gator Fabrication Technology, LLC, a shipper based in Port Orange, Florida, filed the complaint against two logistics entities. The respondents include Flador Global Logistics, located in Izmir, Turkiye, and NTG Air & Ocean, LLC, headquartered in Franklin Square, New York. The complainant alleges that the respondents violated the Shipping Act and federal regulations. According to the filing, the dispute involves claims that the logistics providers withheld cargo, imposed detention charges, and asserted a maritime lien to coerce payment on an unrelated shipment. The Federal Maritime Commission maintains jurisdiction over this matter as the respondents allegedly acted as ocean transportation intermediaries.
Under the current schedule, the respondents are required to file an answer to the allegations within 25 days of the service date. The presiding judge is expected to issue an initial decision by Feb. 12, 2027. A final decision from the Commission is anticipated by Aug. 26, 2027. The Office of Administrative Law Judges serves as an independent adjudicatory body within the Commission, conducting hearings and resolving disputes involving the oceanborne commerce of the United States.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/docs/26-03/(05)%2026-03%20Order%20Designating%20Administrative%20Law%20Judge.pdf/
FCC Issues Letter on Subsidiaries of Sinclair
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau issued the following letter (No. DA 26-177) on Feb. 20, 2026:
* * *
To: Sinclair, Inc., c/o Miles S. Mason, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 1200 Seventeenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036
HSH Flint (WEYI) Licensee, LLC, c/o Colby M. May, Law Offices of Colby M. May, P.O. Box 15473, Washington, DC 20003
Traverse City (WGTU-TV) Licensee, Inc. and Deerfield Media (Rochester) Licensee, LLC, c/o Scott R. Flick, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 1200 Seventeenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036
DIRECTV, LLC, c/o
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau issued the following letter (No. DA 26-177) on Feb. 20, 2026:
* * *
To: Sinclair, Inc., c/o Miles S. Mason, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 1200 Seventeenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036
HSH Flint (WEYI) Licensee, LLC, c/o Colby M. May, Law Offices of Colby M. May, P.O. Box 15473, Washington, DC 20003
Traverse City (WGTU-TV) Licensee, Inc. and Deerfield Media (Rochester) Licensee, LLC, c/o Scott R. Flick, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 1200 Seventeenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036
DIRECTV, LLC, c/oMichael Nilsson, HWG LLP, 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036
Re: Applications for Assignment of Licenses from
HSH Flint (WEYI) Licensee, LLC
LMS File No. 0000277992;
Traverse City (WGTU-TV) Licensee, Inc.
LMS File Nos. 0000277961;
and
Deerfield Media (Rochester) Licensee, LLC
LMS File No. 0000277940
to Subsidiaries of Sinclair, Inc.
Dear Counsel:
The Video Division, Media Bureau, has before it the three above-captioned applications (collectively, Applications) seeking consent to the assignment of the licenses of broadcast television stations to subsidiaries of Sinclair, Inc. (Sinclair). The first application seeks consent to the assignment of the license of WEYI-TV, Saginaw, Michigan, from HSH Flint (WEYI) Licensee, LLC (HSH), to Sinclair subsidiary WEYI Licensee, LLC./1 The second application seeks consent to the assignment of the license of WGTU(TV), Traverse City, Michigan, from Traverse City (WGTU-TV) Licensee, Inc., a subsidiary of Cunningham Broadcasting Corporation (Cunningham), to Sinclair subsidiary WGTU Licensee, LLC./2 The third application seeks consent to the assignment of the license of WHAM-TV, Rochester, New York, from Deerfield Media (Rochester) Licensee, LLC (Deerfield) to Sinclair subsidiary WHAM Licensee, LLC./3 DIRECTV, LLC (DIRECTV) filed a single, consolidated petition to deny the Applications./4 For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Petition and grant the Applications.
Applications. Grant of the Applications would result in Sinclair owning more than one station ranked among the top four in certain Nielsen Designated Market Areas (DMAs), as follows:
* Flint-Saginaw-Bay City. Sinclair currently owns WSMH-TV, Flint, Michigan, and would acquire WEYI-TV, Saginaw, Michigan.
* Traverse City-Cadillac. Sinclair currently owns WPBN-TV, Traverse City, Michigan, and its satellite station WTOM-TV, Cheboygan, Michigan, and would acquire WGTU(TV), Traverse City, Michigan./5
* Rochester. Sinclair currently owns WUHF(TV), Rochester, New York, and would acquire WHAM-TV, Rochester, New York.
Consistent with the Local Television Ownership Rule/6 in effect at the time the Applications were filed, the Applicants submitted showings contending that the proposed combinations would warrant approval under the Commission's case-by-case approach to the Local Television Ownership Rule./7 Nevertheless, they assert that they do not believe a case-by-case market analysis remains necessary in light of Zimmer Radio's invalidation of the Top-Four Prohibition./8
Background. At the time the Applications were filed, the Local Television Ownership Rule provided that an entity may own two television stations licensed in the same DMA if: "(i) The digital noise limited service contours of the stations . . . do not overlap; or (ii) At the time the application to acquire . . . the station(s) is filed, at least one of the stations is not ranked among the top-four stations in the DMA, based on the Sunday to Saturday, 7 AM to 1 AM daypart audience share ratings averaged over a 12-month period immediately preceding the date of the application, as measured by Nielsen Media Research or by any comparable professional, accepted audience ratings service."/9 The Commission, in its 2018 quadrennial regulatory review, tightened application of the latter provision--the Top-Four Prohibition--by amending Note 11 to the Local Television Ownership Rule to prohibit, in relevant part, new station combinations in a single DMA involving top-four affiliated program streams on a full-power station's multicast channel, or low power television stations with top-four affiliated program streams, as well as the assignment or transfer of such pre-existing combinations./10 For all transactions implicating the Top-Four Prohibition, the Commission, at the request of the applicants, would consider showings that the Top-Four Prohibition, including Note 11, should not apply due to specific circumstances in a local market or with respect to a specific transaction on a case-by-case basis./11
On July 23, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit (Eighth Circuit), issued its decision in Zimmer Radio, holding that, in the 2018 Quadrennial Review Order, the Commission had sufficiently justified "retention of the Two-Station Limit"/12 of the Local Television Ownership Rule, but that it "arbitrarily and capriciously retained the Top-Four Prohibition . . . and improperly tightened Note 11."/13 The court therefore vacated and remanded both the amendment to Note 11 and the Top-Four Prohibition, but it withheld for 90 days issuance of its Rule 41(b) mandate as to the Top-Four Prohibition./14 It provided this delay to allow the Commission "an opportunity . . . to identify--in the existing record-- adequate evidence to support any of its articulated justifications for retaining" the Top-Four Prohibition./15 The Commission did not submit an additional filing to the court, and the court issued its mandate on October 23, 2025./16
Pleadings. DIRECTV asserts in its Petition that it has standing to file, basing its claim primarily on allegations of direct economic harm due to higher input prices that it will have to pay as a result of the transactions./17 With regard to the applicable standard governing Commission review of the Applications in the wake of Zimmer Radio, DIRECTV contends that "[n]othing in Zimmer Radio alters the Applicants' affirmative obligation to show that the proposed license transfers are in the public interest."/18 DIRECTV further argues that the evidence shows that local television consolidation gives broadcasters more leverage to charge higher retransmission fees, which leads to higher bills for multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) customers./19 With regard to the public interest benefits articulated by the Applicants, raised in the context of the case-by-case market analysis, DIRECTV contends that the Applicants only provide vague and non-measurable assertions, and that simply stating that "synergies" will enable Sinclair to invest in the acquired stations and expand programming does not meet the requisite Commission standard of transaction-specific, measurable, and verifiable benefits./20
The Applicants jointly respond in their Opposition that they have demonstrated that the proposed transactions are in the public interest./21 They argue that the Commission "has historically considered compliance with its rules to demonstrate that a proposed broadcast transaction is prima facie consistent with the public interest, and has granted countless assignment applications on that basis alone without requiring a separate 'public interest' showing."/22 The Applicants further contend that DIRECTV's retransmission consent arguments, including the potential for increased retransmission consent rates, do not implicate cognizable or public interest harms./23 In addition, they argue that Zimmer Radio's vacatur of the Top-Four Prohibition undermines DIRECTV's standing to raise a retransmission consent-related challenge, since denial of the Applications would not prevent Sinclair from acquiring the top-four network affiliations of the stations being assigned./24
In reply, DIRECTV concedes that while "[b]roadcasters may have chosen not to make [a public interest] showing in routine, uncontroversial assignments, as Applicants suggest, and the Media Bureau may have even granted such routine applications, especially when unopposed," such a practice "does not mean that broadcast transaction review--and only broadcast transaction review--constitutes an analysis-free zone even when a petition to deny has been filed challenging the public interest benefits of the transaction."/25 DIRECTV further argues that there is no "retransmission consent exception" to the Commission's transaction review; the Commission's public interest analysis must address DIRECTV's contention that the transactions would allow the Applicants to raise retransmission consent rates./26
Standing. Under section 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), only a "party in interest" has standing to file a petition to deny./27 In addition to containing the necessary factual allegations to support a prima facie case that grant of the application would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, a petition to deny must contain specific allegations of fact demonstrating that the petitioner is a party in interest./28 The allegations of fact, except for those of which official notice may be taken, must be supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury of someone with personal knowledge of the facts alleged./29 In general, a petitioner in a transfer or assignment proceeding also must allege and prove that: (1) it has suffered or will suffer an injury in fact; (2) there is a causal link between the proposed assignment and the injury in fact; and (3) that not granting the transfer or assignment would remedy or prevent the injury in fact./30 In the broadcast regulatory context, standing is generally shown in one of three ways: (1) as a competitor in the market subject to signal interference; (2) as a competitor in the market subject to economic harm; or (3) as a resident of the station's service area or regular listener of the station./31 In the case of viewer standing, the petitioner must allege that he or she is a resident of the station's service area or a regular viewer of the station./32 An organization can establish standing on behalf of its members if it provides an affidavit or declaration "of one or more individuals entitled to standing indicating that the group represents local residents and that the petition is filed on their behalf."/33
We find that DIRECTV has demonstrated that it meets the requirements for standing with regard to the Applications. In its Petition, DIRECTV claims that grant of the transaction will have specific, negative effects on it, specifically related to retransmission consent fee negotiations, and that those harms can be cured by dismissal or denial of the Applications./34 Based on these claims, and consistent with precedent, we find that DIRECTV has met the requirements for standing./35
Discussion. Section 310(d) of the Act provides that no station license shall be transferred or assigned except upon application to the Commission and upon a finding by the Commission "that the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served thereby."/36 In making this determination, we first assess whether the proposed transaction complies with the specific provisions of the Act, other applicable statutes, and the Commission's rules./37 If the proposed transaction does not violate a statute or rule, we then consider whether the transaction could result in public interest harms by substantially frustrating or impairing the objectives or implementation of the Act or related statutes./38 For the reasons explained below, we find that the proposed transactions fully comply with the Commission's rules, including the post-Zimmer Radio Local Television Ownership Rule, and there are no issues or potential public interest harms identified in the record that would require further consideration. Notably, while the Commission will consider transaction-specific objections to otherwise rule-compliant transactions, we find that DIRECTV has failed to advance any such objections. Accordingly, we conclude that grant of the Applications will result in public interest benefits and serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
On February 3, 2026, the Bureau issued the Sinclair-Cunningham-Roberts Letter Order, which addressed and rejected many of the arguments presented by DIRECTV here./39 In that decision, we traced the history of the Local Television Ownership Rule from its initial adoption in the 1999 Television Ownership Order/40 through the Eighth Circuit's vacatur of the Top-Four Prohibition, and recognized that "the Two-Station Limit, without restriction, now is the Local Television Ownership Rule."/41 We also rejected the contention that the Commission must engage in a balancing process pursuant to Section 310(d) of the Act before granting an application, explaining that "[w]here the Commission has adopted a specific, numerical ownership limit, as it has with the Two-Station Limit, an applicant satisfies its initial burden of showing that the transaction is in compliance with the Act and the Commission's rules and policies related to competition and diversity by correctly certifying compliance with that limit."/42
We find that the Applications fully comply with the Two-Station Limit, and DIRECTV has failed to provide any transaction-specific arguments that raise a substantial and material question of fact sufficient to show that grant of the Applications would be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest./43 The Petition focuses primarily on the retransmission consent harms raised by the proposed combinations./44 However, just as we found in the Sinclair-Cunningham-Roberts Letter Order that similar concerns were speculative, we reach the same determinations here./45 And again, as we explained in the Sinclair-Cunningham-Roberts Letter Order, the Commission has found on multiple occasions in the past that issues of broad applicability, such as the effect of common ownership of two top-four stations on the market for retransmission consent, are best handled in a rulemaking of industry-wide effect./46 We emphasize again that we will not consider such issues in an adjudication involving rule-compliant broadcast television duopolies./47
Finally, based on our own review of the proposed transactions, we have not identified any issues or potential public interest harms that would require further consideration.
Accordingly, having reviewed the Applications and the record in this matter, IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons specified herein, the Applications (LMS File Nos. 0000277961, 0000277992, 0000277940) ARE GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request for continued operation of WGTQ(TV), Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan as a satellite station of WGTU(TV), Traverse City, Michigan, pursuant to the "satellite exception" of Note 5 to section 73.3555 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Sec. 73.3555, IS GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition to Deny (LMS Pleading File Nos. 0000280866, 0000280869, 0000280872) filed by DIRECTV, LLC IS DENIED.
These actions are taken pursuant to Sections 0.61 and 0.283 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 0.61, 0.283, and Sections 4(i) and (j), and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 154(i), 154(j), 310(d).
Sincerely,
David J. Brown, Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau
* * *
Original text plus footnotes here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-177A1.pdf
Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma to Pay $90,000 in EEOC Pregnancy and Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma to Pay $90,000 in EEOC Pregnancy and Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
*
Medical practice settles federal lawsuit charging medical assistant was denied reasonable accommodations during high-risk pregnancy
OKLAHOMA CITY - Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma, Inc., a medical practice that operates five clinics employing two dozen physicians in Oklahoma, Arkansas and Missouri, will pay $90,000 and furnish other relief to settle a pregnancy and disability discrimination
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma to Pay $90,000 in EEOC Pregnancy and Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
*
Medical practice settles federal lawsuit charging medical assistant was denied reasonable accommodations during high-risk pregnancy
OKLAHOMA CITY - Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma, Inc., a medical practice that operates five clinics employing two dozen physicians in Oklahoma, Arkansas and Missouri, will pay $90,000 and furnish other relief to settle a pregnancy and disability discriminationlawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
According to the EEOC's suit, in 2023, Urologic Specialists denied reasonable accommodations to a medical assistant at its Tulsa facility during the final trimester of her high-risk pregnancy. Rather than allow the medical assistant to sit, take short breaks, or work part-time, as recommended by her doctor to protect her health and safety, the medical practice forced her to take unpaid leave, refused to guarantee her job when she returned to work following the birth of her child, and refused to guarantee that it would provide breaks for her to express breast milk. When the assistant stated she could not return to work without those guaranteed breaks, Urologic Specialists fired her.
"Federal law provides robust protections for pregnant women and new mothers in the workplace," said Andrea G. Baran, regional attorney for the EEOC's St. Louis District. "Employers must follow the law, train their supervisors, and ensure that they provide required accommodations to women who are pregnant or have pregnancy-related disabilities."
Such alleged conduct violates the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Americas with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibit pregnancy and disability discrimination. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma, Inc., Case No. 24-cv-00452-JFJ) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.
"The EEOC vigorously protects pregnant women in the workplace," said David S. Davis, district director of the EEOC's St. Louis District Office. "The EEOC is committed to ensuring that expectant and new mothers will not be denied equal employment opportunities because of pregnancy."
In addition to the required monetary relief, the four-year consent decree settling the suit obligates Urologic Specialists to designate personnel tasked with ensuring compliance with the PWFA and ADA going forward, adopt strong policies and procedures for the provision of reasonable accommodations for pregnant or disabled employees, and train supervisors and other employees. The decree also requires Urologic Specialists to adopt and use a system to track and maintain all requests for pregnancy or disability accommodations, post a notice to employees about their federal right to be free from pregnancy and disability discrimination, and report periodically to the EEOC.
Joshua C. Stockton, lead EEOC trial attorney, said, "The PWFA's requirements are simple and fair. The policies and procedures required by this decree are a model that all employers should follow to ensure that pregnant women are never forced to choose between their jobs and their health and safety."
For more information about pregnancy discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/pregnancy-discrimination.
The EEOC's St. Louis District Office has jurisdiction over Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and a portion of southern Illinois, with area offices in Kansas City, Kansas, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public sector employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government's employment antidiscrimination effort. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/urologic-specialists-oklahoma-pay-90000-eeoc-pregnancy-and-disability-discrimination
SEC Commissioner Peirce Issues Cutting by Two Would Do
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on Feb. 19, 2026, by commissioner Hester M. Peirce:
* * *
Cutting by Two Would Do
Today, the staff of the Division of Trading and Markets issued an FAQ relating to the treatment of payment stablecoins[1] under the broker-dealer net capital rule (Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1). The FAQ provides that the staff would not object if a broker-dealer were to apply a 2% haircut on proprietary positions in a payment stablecoin when calculating its net capital.[2] I appreciate the staff's approach.
Stablecoins are
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on Feb. 19, 2026, by commissioner Hester M. Peirce:
* * *
Cutting by Two Would Do
Today, the staff of the Division of Trading and Markets issued an FAQ relating to the treatment of payment stablecoins[1] under the broker-dealer net capital rule (Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1). The FAQ provides that the staff would not object if a broker-dealer were to apply a 2% haircut on proprietary positions in a payment stablecoin when calculating its net capital.[2] I appreciate the staff's approach.
Stablecoins areessential to transacting on blockchain rails. Using stablecoins will make it feasible for broker-dealers to engage in a broader range of business activities relating to tokenized securities and other crypto assets.
FAQs like this shed light on the staff's thinking about emerging issues. At the Commission level, I would like to consider how Rule 15c3-1 could be amended to account for payment stablecoins. To that end, I would be grateful to hear from market participants about their views, and welcome input on other aspects of our rules that they believe should be modified to address the use of payment stablecoins by SEC-registered entities.
[1] The term "payment stablecoin" is defined in the FAQ as: (a) prior to the effective date of the GENIUS Act, a USD-denominated stablecoin that: (1) is issued by a state regulated money transmitter, state-regulated trust company, or a national trust bank; (2) maintains reserve assets that meet the requirements of 12 U.S.C. 5903(a)(1)(A); (3) publicly discloses the issuer's redemption policy; and (4) publishes a monthly attestation report prepared by a registered public accounting firm as defined in 12 U.S.C. 5901(26) applying the attestation standards of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants regarding the composition of the reserve assets and whether the fair value of the assets held in reserve is equal to the amount of stablecoins in circulation; and (b) following the effective date of the GENIUS Act, a stablecoin that meets the requirements contained in the GENIUS Act's definition of "payment stablecoin" and is issued by a "permitted payment stablecoin issuer" or a "foreign payment stablecoin issuer" that complies with the GENIUS Act's requirements applicable to such issuers.
[2] Rule 15c3-1 does not explicitly address payment stablecoins. I understand that some broker-dealers, out of an abundance of caution, have proposed to take a 100% haircut on payment stablecoins held in their inventory. In my view, a 100% haircut would be unnecessarily punitive given the underlying reserve assets that back payment stablecoins (generally, U.S. dollars, short-term U.S. Treasury securities and other similar instruments). For context, a haircut of 2% aligns with the haircut imposed on registered investment companies that are money market funds, which hold similar instruments as payment stablecoin issuers. In fact, following the effective date of the GENIUS Act, the reserve requirements for permitted payment stablecoin issuers will be more limiting than the "eligible securities" requirements that apply to registered money market funds, including government money market funds.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-stablecoin-021926-cutting-two-would-do
FCC Seeks Comment on NCE FM Translator Applications for 2026 Window
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Chairman Brendan Carr:
* * *
FCC Seeks Comment on NCE FM Translator Applications for 2026 Window
STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRENDAN CARR
Re: FCC Seeks Comment on Proposed Application Limit for New Noncommercial Educational Reserved Band FM Translator Station Applications in Upcoming 2026 Window, MB Docket No. 26-20, Public Notice (February 18, 2026)
Today, we take steps to launch the first-ever filing window for FM translator stations in the band reserved for noncommercial radio service. The FM translator
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Chairman Brendan Carr:
* * *
FCC Seeks Comment on NCE FM Translator Applications for 2026 Window
STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRENDAN CARR
Re: FCC Seeks Comment on Proposed Application Limit for New Noncommercial Educational Reserved Band FM Translator Station Applications in Upcoming 2026 Window, MB Docket No. 26-20, Public Notice (February 18, 2026)
Today, we take steps to launch the first-ever filing window for FM translator stations in the band reserved for noncommercial radio service. The FM translatorservice was created over 50 years ago, but this window will mark the first opportunity for noncommercial FM, LPFM, and AM stations to obtain new FM translator stations. This will particularly benefit educational broadcasters, to allow them to extend the programming their stations provide to the public and reach remote, rural, and underserved communities.
Today, we seek comment on how to tailor this upcoming window. We explore eligibility requirements and application limits to prevent gamesmanship and preserve the airwaves for future local and community focused services. I look forward to seeing the positive results of this unique window and the continued growth of noncommercial service in the FM band.
For their great work on this item, I'd like to thank Jim Bradshaw, Joseph Cohen, Lisa Scanlan, Al Shuldiner, Joe Price, Erin Boone, and Amy Van de Kerckhove from the Media Bureau.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-10A2.pdf
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving JJGoo LED Balloon Lights
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert on Feb. 19, 2026:
* * *
Name of Product: JJGoo LED Balloon Lights
Hazard: The recalled lights violate the mandatory standard for consumer products containing button cell or coin batteries because they contain button cell batteries that can be accessed easily by children, posing an ingestion hazard. Additionally, the LED lights do not have the warnings required by Reese's Law. When button cell batteries are swallowed, the ingested batteries can cause serious injuries, internal chemical burns and death.
Remedy:
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert on Feb. 19, 2026:
* * *
Name of Product: JJGoo LED Balloon Lights
Hazard: The recalled lights violate the mandatory standard for consumer products containing button cell or coin batteries because they contain button cell batteries that can be accessed easily by children, posing an ingestion hazard. Additionally, the LED lights do not have the warnings required by Reese's Law. When button cell batteries are swallowed, the ingested batteries can cause serious injuries, internal chemical burns and death.
Remedy:Refund
Recall Date: February 19, 2026
Units: About 3,400
Consumer Contact: JJGoo by email at JJGooLEDBalloonLightsrecall@outlook.com.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves JJGoo- branded balloon lights. The recalled, submersible lights were sold in packs of 100 LED color-changing lights. Each multi-color, blinking light measures about 0.6 inches in diameter and has 200 preinstalled LR41 batteries."MY1005E-Colorfu1-100" is printed on a label on the product packaging.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled LED lights immediately, place them in an area that children cannot access and properly dispose of the batteries. Contact JJGoo for a full refund. Consumers should throw the balloon lights away and send a photo of the product in the trash to JJGooLEDBalloonLightsrecall@outlook.com.
Note: Button cell and coin batteries are hazardous. Batteries should be disposed of or recycled by following local hazardous waste procedures.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported
Sold Online At: Amazon.com from October 2025 through November 2025 for about $10.
Retailer: Shenzhen Yimu Technology Co., Ltd. dba JJGoo, of China
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-274
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/JJGoo-LED-Balloon-Lights-Recalled-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-or-Death-from-Battery-Ingestion-Violates-Mandatory-Standard-for-Consumer-Products-with-Button-Cell-Batteries
