Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Federal Regulatory Agencies
Featured Stories
FCC Eliminates Obsolete Employment Reporting Rule Following Court Ruling
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued an order conforming agency regulations to a federal court decision that nullified a long-standing broadcast employment reporting requirement.
The action stems from the Review of the Commission's Broadcast and Cable Equal Employment Opportunity Rules and Policies (MB Docket No. 98-204, GN Docket No. 25-133). Under the order, the Media Bureau deleted section 73.3612 and related references from Parts 73 and 74 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Section 73.3612 required broadcast stations to submit annual workforce demographic ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued an order conforming agency regulations to a federal court decision that nullified a long-standing broadcast employment reporting requirement. The action stems from the Review of the Commission's Broadcast and Cable Equal Employment Opportunity Rules and Policies (MB Docket No. 98-204, GN Docket No. 25-133). Under the order, the Media Bureau deleted section 73.3612 and related references from Parts 73 and 74 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Section 73.3612 required broadcast stations to submit annual workforce demographicdata regarding race, ethnicity, and gender within specific job categories. First established in 1969, the rule was suspended in 2001. The agency reinstated the data collection requirement via Form 395-B in 2024, prompting legal challenges from broadcasting groups.
In National Religious Broadcasters v. FCC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the agency lacked statutory authority to mandate employment data submissions under Form 395-B. The court vacated the 2024 decision, rendering the underlying regulation legally ineffective.
To clean up regulatory text, the Media Bureau deleted approximately 186 words and one rule from the CFR. Agency officials stated that section 73.3612 no longer possessed any operative effect, making its presence in official regulations unnecessary.
The agency invoked the good cause exception under federal administrative law to skip standard public notice and comment procedures. Officials reasoned that removing the vacated rule involved no independent discretion and simply reflected the court mandate.
The regulatory changes take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. Because section 73.3612 remained suspended for roughly 25 years prior to court intervention, officials noted the immediate effective date causes no practical disruption for broadcasters while preventing unneeded rules from remaining in official records.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1058A1.pdf
The action stems from the Review of the Commission's Broadcast and Cable Equal Employment Opportunity Rules and Policies (MB Docket No. 98-204, GN Docket No. 25-133). Under the order, the Media Bureau deleted section 73.3612 and related references from Parts 73 and 74 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Section 73.3612 required broadcast stations to submit annual workforce demographic ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued an order conforming agency regulations to a federal court decision that nullified a long-standing broadcast employment reporting requirement. The action stems from the Review of the Commission's Broadcast and Cable Equal Employment Opportunity Rules and Policies (MB Docket No. 98-204, GN Docket No. 25-133). Under the order, the Media Bureau deleted section 73.3612 and related references from Parts 73 and 74 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Section 73.3612 required broadcast stations to submit annual workforce demographicdata regarding race, ethnicity, and gender within specific job categories. First established in 1969, the rule was suspended in 2001. The agency reinstated the data collection requirement via Form 395-B in 2024, prompting legal challenges from broadcasting groups.
In National Religious Broadcasters v. FCC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the agency lacked statutory authority to mandate employment data submissions under Form 395-B. The court vacated the 2024 decision, rendering the underlying regulation legally ineffective.
To clean up regulatory text, the Media Bureau deleted approximately 186 words and one rule from the CFR. Agency officials stated that section 73.3612 no longer possessed any operative effect, making its presence in official regulations unnecessary.
The agency invoked the good cause exception under federal administrative law to skip standard public notice and comment procedures. Officials reasoned that removing the vacated rule involved no independent discretion and simply reflected the court mandate.
The regulatory changes take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. Because section 73.3612 remained suspended for roughly 25 years prior to court intervention, officials noted the immediate effective date causes no practical disruption for broadcasters while preventing unneeded rules from remaining in official records.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1058A1.pdf
Statistical Summary of 18-Month Campaign Activity of the 2025-2026 Election Cycle
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
Statistical Summary of 18-Month Campaign Activity of the 2025-2026 Election Cycle
*
Congressional candidates collected $2.8 billion and disbursed $2 billion, political parties received $1.4 billion and spent $1 billion, and political action committees (PACs) raised $8.3 billion and spent $6.5 billion, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission that cover activity from January 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026. Disbursements for independent expenditures reported in ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news release: * * * Statistical Summary of 18-Month Campaign Activity of the 2025-2026 Election Cycle * Congressional candidates collected $2.8 billion and disbursed $2 billion, political parties received $1.4 billion and spent $1 billion, and political action committees (PACs) raised $8.3 billion and spent $6.5 billion, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission that cover activity from January 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026. Disbursements for independent expenditures reported inthis period totaled $643.4 million. Communication costs reported to the Commission totaled $2.1 million and electioneering communications filings totaled $517,691 during this period.
Activity from Jan. 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026
(figures in millions)
Filers Receipts Disbursements
2026 Congressional Candidates $2,799.1 $2,036.7
Party Committees $1,376.4 $1,008.1
PACs $8,307.4 $6,549.2
Communications
Filings Total
Independent Expenditures $643.4
Electioneering Communications $0.5
Communication Costs $2.1
This summary of campaign activity in the 2025-2026 election cycle provides a benchmark for comparison with the same reporting period in other cycles. Supporting data tables are linked at the end of each summary section below.
I. Congressional Candidates
United States House and Senate candidates running in the 2026 election cycle reported raising a total of $2.8 billion and spending $2 billion between January 1, 2025 and June 30, 2026. Candidates for the two chambers reported combined total debts of $366.7 million and combined total cash-on-hand of $1.3 billion as of June 30, 2026.
The following table summarizes campaign finance activity of House and Senate candidates through June 30 of election years since the 2013-2014 election cycle.
18-Month Financial Activity of Congressional Candidates*
(dollar figures in millions)
Year No. of Cand. Receipts Disbursements Debts Owed Cash on Hand
2026 2,742 $2,799.1 $2,036.7 $366.7 $1,337.2
2024 2,064 $2,463.3 $1,834.4 $444.9 $1,112.0
2022 2,585 $2,422.8 $1,756.7 $267.5 $1,185.0
2020 2,273 $1,908.3 $1,199.1 $140.8 $1,019.0
2018 2,415 $1,699.2 $1,132.2 $166.0 $888.7
2016 1,556 $1,092.1 $698.9 $91.0 $681.8
2014 1,607 $1,143.4 $766.7 $95.2 $569.6
*Includes activity from January 1 of the pre-election year through June 30 of the election year. Contribution limits are indexed for inflation every cycle. The totals in the 2026 row may differ slightly from the sum of the numbers in the two subsequent paragraphs as the numbers have been rounded. The number of candidates reflects the number of candidate committees that filed reports with financial activity in a given election cycle.
The 315 candidates running for Senate in 2025 and 2026 reported total receipts of $864.3 million, disbursements of $614.2 million, debts of $40.6 million and cash-on-hand of $379.4 million.
The 2,427 candidates running for the House of Representatives reported combined total receipts of $1.9 billion, disbursements of $1.4 billion, debts of $326.1 million and cash-on-hand of $957.7 million in the 18-month period. In addition to the 2026 primary and general elections, these numbers encompass financial activity associated with the 2025 and 2026 special elections in Arizona's 7th Congressional District, California's 1st and 14th Congressional Districts, Florida's 1st and 6th Congressional Districts, Georgia's 13th and 14th Congressional Districts, New Jersey's 11th Congressional District, Tennessee's 7th Congressional District, Texas' 18th Congressional District, and Virginia's 11th Congressional District.
Data summary tables for reports submitted to the Commission through June 30, 2026 by 2025 and 2026 congressional candidate committees can be found here.
II. Political Party Committees
National, state, and local political party committees reported combined total receipts of $1.4 billion in federal funds, disbursements of $1 billion, debts of $21.7 million, and cash-on-hand of $488.5 million as of June 30, 2026. Of those totals, party committees other than the two major political parties reported receipts of $7.5 million, disbursements of $6.9 million, debts of $0.2 million and a combined cash-on-hand of $2.1 million as of June 30, 2026. (See the footnote in the following table for a list of these other party committees.)
The following table summarizes 2025-2026 campaign finance activity of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Republican National Committee (RNC), National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), as well as each party's state and local committees and other party committees.
Political Party Activity from Jan. 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026
(figures in millions)
Party Committees Receipts Disbursements Debts Owed Cash
on Hand
DNC $207.4 $213.2 $18.5 $16.3
DSCC $140.0 $110.5 $0.0 $41.0
DCCC $198.1 $143.3 $0.0 $79.0
State and Local Democratic
Party Committees (federal funds) $155.5 $111.8 $2.0 $49.3
Total* $666.3 $544.1 $20.5 $185.6
Party Committees Receipts Disbursements Debts Owed Cash
on Hand
RNC $278.6 $188.1 $0.0 $128.5
NRSC $154.7 $101.6 $0.0 $55.9
NRCC $200.0 $118.3 $0.0 $92.7
State and Local Republican
Party Committees (federal funds) $84.7 $64.4 $1.0 $23.6
Total* $702.5 $457.1 $1.0 $300.8
Receipts Disbursements Debts Owed Cash
on Hand
Total Other Party** $7.5 $6.9 $0.2 $2.1
Receipts Disbursements Debts Owed Cash
on Hand
Total Party Activity* $1,376.4 $1,008.1 $21.7 $488.5
*The totals in this line may not equal the sum of the numbers in the corresponding columns as the receipts and disbursements have been adjusted to account for transfers between party committees, and the numbers have been rounded.
**Other party committees include the Libertarian National Committee, Libertarian National Congressional Committee, Green Party of the United States, Green Congressional Campaign Committee, Constitution Party National Committee, and the Reform Party of the United States of America.
Individuals, for whom contributions to national parties were limited to $44,300 per year during the 2025-2026 election cycle, were the largest source of federal funds for party committees' traditional accounts. Democratic and Republican party committees reported receiving $413.6 million and $367.7 million, respectively, from individuals. PACs and other political committees contributed $61 million to Democratic party committees and $50.3 million to Republican party committees as of June 30, 2026.
Democratic and Republican House candidate committees transferred $34.7 million and $26.9 million, respectively, from their campaign accounts to their national congressional party committees. Democratic Senate candidate committees transferred $310,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Their Republican counterparts transferred $111,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Provisions of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235), signed into law in December 2014, enable national party committees to establish accounts to defray certain expenses incurred with respect to Presidential nominating conventions, national party headquarters buildings, and election recounts and contests and other legal proceedings (collectively, "segregated party accounts").
The segregated party accounts of national party committees reported receiving $256.3 million between January 1, 2025 and June 30, 2026. Of that total, the Democratic national party committee segregated party accounts received $87.9 million, while the corresponding Republican national party committee accounts received $168.4 million.
The recount and other legal proceedings accounts reported the highest receipt total across all the segregated party accounts: $126.8 million. Headquarters and convention accounts raised $111.4 million and $18.1 million, respectively, through June 30, 2026.
Data summary tables for reports submitted by political party committees to the Commission through June 30, 2026 can be found here.
III. Political Action Committees (PACs)
Based on reports filed with the Commission from January 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026, 9,176 federal PACs reported total receipts of $8.3 billion, disbursements of $6.5 billion, debts of $39.4 million, and combined cash-on-hand of $3.3 billion.
The following table summarizes campaign finance activity of PACs based on PAC type in 2026. This table includes both separate segregated funds (SSFs), which have connected organizations such as corporations or labor organizations that establish, administer, or raise money on their behalf, and nonconnected committees.
PAC Activity from Jan. 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026
(dollar figures in millions)
Committee Type No. of PACs Receipts Disbursements Debts Owed Cash on Hand
Separate Segregated Funds
Corporate 1,694 $311.4 $309.4 $0.1 $228.0
Labor 261 $328.8 $225.7 $3.7 $278.4
Trade 715 $136.6 $132.4 $0.0 $109.4
Membership 322 $126.1 $118.2 $0.0 $68.3
Cooperative 52 $6.9 $6.1 $0.0 $9.0
Corporations without Stock 71 $8.4 $8.4 $0.0 $5.1
Committee Type No. of PACs Receipts Disbursements Debts Owed Cash on Hand
Nonconnected PACs*
Independent
Expenditure-Only Political Committees 2,419 $2,491.7 $1,648.9 $15.6 $1,280.3
Committees w/
Non-Contribution Accounts 1,049 $4,229.7 $3,501.7 $8.7 $1,021.4
Leadership PACs 884 $305.7 $258.4 $4.5 $169.2
Other Nonconnected PACs 1,709 $362.0 $340.1 $6.7 $138.7
No. of PACs Receipts Disbursements Debts Owed Cash on Hand
Total SSF and
Nonconnected PAC Activity** 9,176 $8,307.4 $6,549.2 $39.4 $3,307.9
*Nonconnected committees include Independent Expenditure-Only Political Committees, Committees with Non-Contribution Accounts, and Leadership PACs. Independent Expenditure-Only Political Committees are committees that may receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and labor organizations for the purpose of financing independent expenditures and other independent political activity. Committees with Non-Contribution Accounts solicit and accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor organizations, and other political committees to a segregated bank account for the same purposes as Independent Expenditure-Only Political Committees, while maintaining a separate bank account -subject to all of the statutory amount limitations and source prohibitions -that is permitted to make contributions to federal candidates. The data above includes receipts and disbursements from both bank accounts of Committees with Non-Contribution Accounts. Leadership PACs are political committees that are directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled by a candidate or an individual holding federal office, but are neither authorized committees of the candidate or officeholder nor affiliated with an authorized committee of a candidate or officeholder. Like other multicandidate PACs, a leadership PAC may contribute up to $5,000 per election to a federal candidate committee.
**The totals in this line may not equal the sum of the numbers in the corresponding columns as these numbers have been rounded. Instead, the bottom-line totals correspond to PAC Table 1.
Contributions by PACs to federal candidates seeking office in the 2025-2026 election cycle totaled approximately $350.2 million as of June 30, 2026. PAC contributions to Senate and House candidates totaled $56.6 million and $293.5 million, respectively. There were no reported contributions by PACs to 2028 presidential candidates as of June 30, 2026. Independent Expenditure-Only Political Committees are prohibited from making contributions to candidates.
Data summary tables for reports submitted by PACs to the Commission through June 30, 2026 can be found here.
IV. Independent Expenditures
Independent expenditures reported to the Commission through June 30, 2026 in connection with presidential and congressional elections in the 2025-2026 election cycle totaled $643.4 million.* Independent Expenditure-Only Political Committees accounted for $529.6 million of all independent expenditures disclosed to the Commission, Committees with Non-Contribution Accounts reported $97.3 million, and other PACs reported $11.5 million. Independent expenditures made by persons other than political committees totaled $4.8 million, and party committees reported independent expenditures totaling $233,461.
Data summary tables for independent expenditure filings submitted to the Commission through June 30, 2026 can be found here.
*A political committee must itemize its payments for independent expenditures once the calendar-year total paid to a vendor or other person exceeds $200 with respect to a particular election. Any other person (e.g., individual, partnership, or group of individuals) must file a report with the Commission at the end of the first reporting period in which independent expenditures with respect to a given election aggregate more than $250 in a calendar year and in any succeeding period during the same year in which additional independent expenditures of any amount are made.
V. Electioneering Communications
Electioneering communication filings totaling $517,691 were reported to the Commission in connection with activity between January 1, 2025 and June 30, 2026. An electioneering communication is a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified federal candidate and is distributed within 30 days prior to a primary election or within 60 days prior to a general election. These communications do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate.
Data summary tables for electioneering communications filings submitted to the Commission through June 30, 2026 can be found here.
VI. Communication Costs
A provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the Act), allows corporations and labor organizations to communicate to a "restricted class" of individuals on any subject, including express advocacy of the election or defeat of any Federal candidate. The costs of such communications must be reported to the Commission when the cost exceeds $2,000 per election but are not considered independent expenditures. This provision of the Act predates the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which struck down the ban on independent expenditures and electioneering communications financed by the general treasuries of corporations and labor unions.
The Commission received filings from 22 organizations during the reporting period, disclosing spending of $2.1 million in costs for communications to those organizations' restricted classes between January 1, 2025 and June 30, 2026.
The data summary table for communication cost filings submitted to the Commission through June 30, 2026 can be found here.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that administers and enforces federal campaign finance laws. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Established in 1975, the FEC is composed of six Commissioners who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
***
Original text here: https://www.fec.gov/updates/statistical-summary-of-18-month-campaign-activity-of-the-2025-2026-election-cycle/
(TNSmrp)
* * *
Statistical Summary of 18-Month Campaign Activity of the 2025-2026 Election Cycle
*
Congressional candidates collected $2.8 billion and disbursed $2 billion, political parties received $1.4 billion and spent $1 billion, and political action committees (PACs) raised $8.3 billion and spent $6.5 billion, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission that cover activity from January 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026. Disbursements for independent expenditures reported in ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news release: * * * Statistical Summary of 18-Month Campaign Activity of the 2025-2026 Election Cycle * Congressional candidates collected $2.8 billion and disbursed $2 billion, political parties received $1.4 billion and spent $1 billion, and political action committees (PACs) raised $8.3 billion and spent $6.5 billion, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission that cover activity from January 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026. Disbursements for independent expenditures reported inthis period totaled $643.4 million. Communication costs reported to the Commission totaled $2.1 million and electioneering communications filings totaled $517,691 during this period.
Activity from Jan. 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026
(figures in millions)
Filers Receipts Disbursements
2026 Congressional Candidates $2,799.1 $2,036.7
Party Committees $1,376.4 $1,008.1
PACs $8,307.4 $6,549.2
Communications
Filings Total
Independent Expenditures $643.4
Electioneering Communications $0.5
Communication Costs $2.1
This summary of campaign activity in the 2025-2026 election cycle provides a benchmark for comparison with the same reporting period in other cycles. Supporting data tables are linked at the end of each summary section below.
I. Congressional Candidates
United States House and Senate candidates running in the 2026 election cycle reported raising a total of $2.8 billion and spending $2 billion between January 1, 2025 and June 30, 2026. Candidates for the two chambers reported combined total debts of $366.7 million and combined total cash-on-hand of $1.3 billion as of June 30, 2026.
The following table summarizes campaign finance activity of House and Senate candidates through June 30 of election years since the 2013-2014 election cycle.
18-Month Financial Activity of Congressional Candidates*
(dollar figures in millions)
Year No. of Cand. Receipts Disbursements Debts Owed Cash on Hand
2026 2,742 $2,799.1 $2,036.7 $366.7 $1,337.2
2024 2,064 $2,463.3 $1,834.4 $444.9 $1,112.0
2022 2,585 $2,422.8 $1,756.7 $267.5 $1,185.0
2020 2,273 $1,908.3 $1,199.1 $140.8 $1,019.0
2018 2,415 $1,699.2 $1,132.2 $166.0 $888.7
2016 1,556 $1,092.1 $698.9 $91.0 $681.8
2014 1,607 $1,143.4 $766.7 $95.2 $569.6
*Includes activity from January 1 of the pre-election year through June 30 of the election year. Contribution limits are indexed for inflation every cycle. The totals in the 2026 row may differ slightly from the sum of the numbers in the two subsequent paragraphs as the numbers have been rounded. The number of candidates reflects the number of candidate committees that filed reports with financial activity in a given election cycle.
The 315 candidates running for Senate in 2025 and 2026 reported total receipts of $864.3 million, disbursements of $614.2 million, debts of $40.6 million and cash-on-hand of $379.4 million.
The 2,427 candidates running for the House of Representatives reported combined total receipts of $1.9 billion, disbursements of $1.4 billion, debts of $326.1 million and cash-on-hand of $957.7 million in the 18-month period. In addition to the 2026 primary and general elections, these numbers encompass financial activity associated with the 2025 and 2026 special elections in Arizona's 7th Congressional District, California's 1st and 14th Congressional Districts, Florida's 1st and 6th Congressional Districts, Georgia's 13th and 14th Congressional Districts, New Jersey's 11th Congressional District, Tennessee's 7th Congressional District, Texas' 18th Congressional District, and Virginia's 11th Congressional District.
Data summary tables for reports submitted to the Commission through June 30, 2026 by 2025 and 2026 congressional candidate committees can be found here.
II. Political Party Committees
National, state, and local political party committees reported combined total receipts of $1.4 billion in federal funds, disbursements of $1 billion, debts of $21.7 million, and cash-on-hand of $488.5 million as of June 30, 2026. Of those totals, party committees other than the two major political parties reported receipts of $7.5 million, disbursements of $6.9 million, debts of $0.2 million and a combined cash-on-hand of $2.1 million as of June 30, 2026. (See the footnote in the following table for a list of these other party committees.)
The following table summarizes 2025-2026 campaign finance activity of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Republican National Committee (RNC), National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), as well as each party's state and local committees and other party committees.
Political Party Activity from Jan. 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026
(figures in millions)
Party Committees Receipts Disbursements Debts Owed Cash
on Hand
DNC $207.4 $213.2 $18.5 $16.3
DSCC $140.0 $110.5 $0.0 $41.0
DCCC $198.1 $143.3 $0.0 $79.0
State and Local Democratic
Party Committees (federal funds) $155.5 $111.8 $2.0 $49.3
Total* $666.3 $544.1 $20.5 $185.6
Party Committees Receipts Disbursements Debts Owed Cash
on Hand
RNC $278.6 $188.1 $0.0 $128.5
NRSC $154.7 $101.6 $0.0 $55.9
NRCC $200.0 $118.3 $0.0 $92.7
State and Local Republican
Party Committees (federal funds) $84.7 $64.4 $1.0 $23.6
Total* $702.5 $457.1 $1.0 $300.8
Receipts Disbursements Debts Owed Cash
on Hand
Total Other Party** $7.5 $6.9 $0.2 $2.1
Receipts Disbursements Debts Owed Cash
on Hand
Total Party Activity* $1,376.4 $1,008.1 $21.7 $488.5
*The totals in this line may not equal the sum of the numbers in the corresponding columns as the receipts and disbursements have been adjusted to account for transfers between party committees, and the numbers have been rounded.
**Other party committees include the Libertarian National Committee, Libertarian National Congressional Committee, Green Party of the United States, Green Congressional Campaign Committee, Constitution Party National Committee, and the Reform Party of the United States of America.
Individuals, for whom contributions to national parties were limited to $44,300 per year during the 2025-2026 election cycle, were the largest source of federal funds for party committees' traditional accounts. Democratic and Republican party committees reported receiving $413.6 million and $367.7 million, respectively, from individuals. PACs and other political committees contributed $61 million to Democratic party committees and $50.3 million to Republican party committees as of June 30, 2026.
Democratic and Republican House candidate committees transferred $34.7 million and $26.9 million, respectively, from their campaign accounts to their national congressional party committees. Democratic Senate candidate committees transferred $310,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Their Republican counterparts transferred $111,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Provisions of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235), signed into law in December 2014, enable national party committees to establish accounts to defray certain expenses incurred with respect to Presidential nominating conventions, national party headquarters buildings, and election recounts and contests and other legal proceedings (collectively, "segregated party accounts").
The segregated party accounts of national party committees reported receiving $256.3 million between January 1, 2025 and June 30, 2026. Of that total, the Democratic national party committee segregated party accounts received $87.9 million, while the corresponding Republican national party committee accounts received $168.4 million.
The recount and other legal proceedings accounts reported the highest receipt total across all the segregated party accounts: $126.8 million. Headquarters and convention accounts raised $111.4 million and $18.1 million, respectively, through June 30, 2026.
Data summary tables for reports submitted by political party committees to the Commission through June 30, 2026 can be found here.
III. Political Action Committees (PACs)
Based on reports filed with the Commission from January 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026, 9,176 federal PACs reported total receipts of $8.3 billion, disbursements of $6.5 billion, debts of $39.4 million, and combined cash-on-hand of $3.3 billion.
The following table summarizes campaign finance activity of PACs based on PAC type in 2026. This table includes both separate segregated funds (SSFs), which have connected organizations such as corporations or labor organizations that establish, administer, or raise money on their behalf, and nonconnected committees.
PAC Activity from Jan. 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026
(dollar figures in millions)
Committee Type No. of PACs Receipts Disbursements Debts Owed Cash on Hand
Separate Segregated Funds
Corporate 1,694 $311.4 $309.4 $0.1 $228.0
Labor 261 $328.8 $225.7 $3.7 $278.4
Trade 715 $136.6 $132.4 $0.0 $109.4
Membership 322 $126.1 $118.2 $0.0 $68.3
Cooperative 52 $6.9 $6.1 $0.0 $9.0
Corporations without Stock 71 $8.4 $8.4 $0.0 $5.1
Committee Type No. of PACs Receipts Disbursements Debts Owed Cash on Hand
Nonconnected PACs*
Independent
Expenditure-Only Political Committees 2,419 $2,491.7 $1,648.9 $15.6 $1,280.3
Committees w/
Non-Contribution Accounts 1,049 $4,229.7 $3,501.7 $8.7 $1,021.4
Leadership PACs 884 $305.7 $258.4 $4.5 $169.2
Other Nonconnected PACs 1,709 $362.0 $340.1 $6.7 $138.7
No. of PACs Receipts Disbursements Debts Owed Cash on Hand
Total SSF and
Nonconnected PAC Activity** 9,176 $8,307.4 $6,549.2 $39.4 $3,307.9
*Nonconnected committees include Independent Expenditure-Only Political Committees, Committees with Non-Contribution Accounts, and Leadership PACs. Independent Expenditure-Only Political Committees are committees that may receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and labor organizations for the purpose of financing independent expenditures and other independent political activity. Committees with Non-Contribution Accounts solicit and accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor organizations, and other political committees to a segregated bank account for the same purposes as Independent Expenditure-Only Political Committees, while maintaining a separate bank account -subject to all of the statutory amount limitations and source prohibitions -that is permitted to make contributions to federal candidates. The data above includes receipts and disbursements from both bank accounts of Committees with Non-Contribution Accounts. Leadership PACs are political committees that are directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled by a candidate or an individual holding federal office, but are neither authorized committees of the candidate or officeholder nor affiliated with an authorized committee of a candidate or officeholder. Like other multicandidate PACs, a leadership PAC may contribute up to $5,000 per election to a federal candidate committee.
**The totals in this line may not equal the sum of the numbers in the corresponding columns as these numbers have been rounded. Instead, the bottom-line totals correspond to PAC Table 1.
Contributions by PACs to federal candidates seeking office in the 2025-2026 election cycle totaled approximately $350.2 million as of June 30, 2026. PAC contributions to Senate and House candidates totaled $56.6 million and $293.5 million, respectively. There were no reported contributions by PACs to 2028 presidential candidates as of June 30, 2026. Independent Expenditure-Only Political Committees are prohibited from making contributions to candidates.
Data summary tables for reports submitted by PACs to the Commission through June 30, 2026 can be found here.
IV. Independent Expenditures
Independent expenditures reported to the Commission through June 30, 2026 in connection with presidential and congressional elections in the 2025-2026 election cycle totaled $643.4 million.* Independent Expenditure-Only Political Committees accounted for $529.6 million of all independent expenditures disclosed to the Commission, Committees with Non-Contribution Accounts reported $97.3 million, and other PACs reported $11.5 million. Independent expenditures made by persons other than political committees totaled $4.8 million, and party committees reported independent expenditures totaling $233,461.
Data summary tables for independent expenditure filings submitted to the Commission through June 30, 2026 can be found here.
*A political committee must itemize its payments for independent expenditures once the calendar-year total paid to a vendor or other person exceeds $200 with respect to a particular election. Any other person (e.g., individual, partnership, or group of individuals) must file a report with the Commission at the end of the first reporting period in which independent expenditures with respect to a given election aggregate more than $250 in a calendar year and in any succeeding period during the same year in which additional independent expenditures of any amount are made.
V. Electioneering Communications
Electioneering communication filings totaling $517,691 were reported to the Commission in connection with activity between January 1, 2025 and June 30, 2026. An electioneering communication is a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified federal candidate and is distributed within 30 days prior to a primary election or within 60 days prior to a general election. These communications do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate.
Data summary tables for electioneering communications filings submitted to the Commission through June 30, 2026 can be found here.
VI. Communication Costs
A provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the Act), allows corporations and labor organizations to communicate to a "restricted class" of individuals on any subject, including express advocacy of the election or defeat of any Federal candidate. The costs of such communications must be reported to the Commission when the cost exceeds $2,000 per election but are not considered independent expenditures. This provision of the Act predates the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which struck down the ban on independent expenditures and electioneering communications financed by the general treasuries of corporations and labor unions.
The Commission received filings from 22 organizations during the reporting period, disclosing spending of $2.1 million in costs for communications to those organizations' restricted classes between January 1, 2025 and June 30, 2026.
The data summary table for communication cost filings submitted to the Commission through June 30, 2026 can be found here.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that administers and enforces federal campaign finance laws. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Established in 1975, the FEC is composed of six Commissioners who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
***
Original text here: https://www.fec.gov/updates/statistical-summary-of-18-month-campaign-activity-of-the-2025-2026-election-cycle/
(TNSmrp)
SEC Charges Meyer Global Management, Its CEO With Defrauding Retail Investors in Private Funds That Held Interests in SpaceX, Other Pre-IPO Securities
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Owen E.H. Meyer and Meyer Global Management LLC, No. 26-cv-08607 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 30, 2026)
On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged private fund adviser Meyer Global Management LLC (MGM) and its CEO, Owen E.H. Meyer, with defrauding investors and MGM-managed funds in connection with investments in SpaceX and other pre-IPO securities.
According to the SEC's complaint, in a series of schemes from at least December ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release: * * * Securities and Exchange Commission v. Owen E.H. Meyer and Meyer Global Management LLC, No. 26-cv-08607 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 30, 2026) On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged private fund adviser Meyer Global Management LLC (MGM) and its CEO, Owen E.H. Meyer, with defrauding investors and MGM-managed funds in connection with investments in SpaceX and other pre-IPO securities. According to the SEC's complaint, in a series of schemes from at least December2021 to the present, the defendants violated their fiduciary duties by misusing client fund assets, and lied to the underlying investors in the funds. In at least three of those schemes, the defendants allegedly misappropriated client assets from certain MGM-managed funds to pay for Meyer's personal expenses. As outlined in the complaint, the defendants concealed their actions in one scheme by sending investors statements that inflated their account values.
The complaint also alleges that, in one of the misappropriation schemes involving three MGM-managed funds, defendants misappropriated portions of investor proceeds and required investors to sign releases accepting distributions of amounts that were less than they were owed in order to get any money at all. Finally, the complaint alleges that defendants repeatedly failed to address a capital call deficiency owed by an MGM-managed fund in connection with its investment in SpaceX, resulting in the fund forfeiting its nearly $3,000,000 investment.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges the defendants with violating antifraud provisions of the Advisers Act of 1940. The SEC seeks permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against both defendants, as well as a conduct-based injunction against Meyer.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Heather A. Hosmer of the Enforcement Division's Asset Management Unit and Victoria Bohannan of the SEC's Home Office with the assistance of Zachary Scrima, and was supervised by David A. Becker and Corey Schuster of the Asset Management Unit. The litigation will be led by Anna Area and supervised by James Carlson of the Home Office.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp-pr2026-98.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26659
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Owen E.H. Meyer and Meyer Global Management LLC, No. 26-cv-08607 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 30, 2026)
On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged private fund adviser Meyer Global Management LLC (MGM) and its CEO, Owen E.H. Meyer, with defrauding investors and MGM-managed funds in connection with investments in SpaceX and other pre-IPO securities.
According to the SEC's complaint, in a series of schemes from at least December ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release: * * * Securities and Exchange Commission v. Owen E.H. Meyer and Meyer Global Management LLC, No. 26-cv-08607 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 30, 2026) On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged private fund adviser Meyer Global Management LLC (MGM) and its CEO, Owen E.H. Meyer, with defrauding investors and MGM-managed funds in connection with investments in SpaceX and other pre-IPO securities. According to the SEC's complaint, in a series of schemes from at least December2021 to the present, the defendants violated their fiduciary duties by misusing client fund assets, and lied to the underlying investors in the funds. In at least three of those schemes, the defendants allegedly misappropriated client assets from certain MGM-managed funds to pay for Meyer's personal expenses. As outlined in the complaint, the defendants concealed their actions in one scheme by sending investors statements that inflated their account values.
The complaint also alleges that, in one of the misappropriation schemes involving three MGM-managed funds, defendants misappropriated portions of investor proceeds and required investors to sign releases accepting distributions of amounts that were less than they were owed in order to get any money at all. Finally, the complaint alleges that defendants repeatedly failed to address a capital call deficiency owed by an MGM-managed fund in connection with its investment in SpaceX, resulting in the fund forfeiting its nearly $3,000,000 investment.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges the defendants with violating antifraud provisions of the Advisers Act of 1940. The SEC seeks permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against both defendants, as well as a conduct-based injunction against Meyer.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Heather A. Hosmer of the Enforcement Division's Asset Management Unit and Victoria Bohannan of the SEC's Home Office with the assistance of Zachary Scrima, and was supervised by David A. Becker and Corey Schuster of the Asset Management Unit. The litigation will be led by Anna Area and supervised by James Carlson of the Home Office.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp-pr2026-98.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26659
FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Issues Public Notice: Bureau Seeks Comment on Preliminary Cost Catalog for Upper C-Band Incumbent Transition
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued the following public notice (GN Docket No. 25-59):
* * *
With this Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) invites interested parties to comment on the Upper C-band Transition Preliminary Cost Catalog (Cost Catalog) contained in Attachment A./1 In the Upper C-band R&O, the Commission adopted rules to make 160 megahertz of mid-band spectrum available for flexible use throughout the contiguous United States by transitioning incumbent Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) operations ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued the following public notice (GN Docket No. 25-59): * * * With this Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) invites interested parties to comment on the Upper C-band Transition Preliminary Cost Catalog (Cost Catalog) contained in Attachment A./1 In the Upper C-band R&O, the Commission adopted rules to make 160 megahertz of mid-band spectrum available for flexible use throughout the contiguous United States by transitioning incumbent Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) operationsout of 4.0-4.16 GHz./2 The Upper C-band R&O established that new Upper C-band wireless licensees will reimburse the reasonable and necessary transition costs of eligible space station operators and incumbent earth station operators (collectively, incumbents) to transition out of the reconfigured portion of the band./3 The Upper C-band R&O further gives incumbent earth station operators the option to elect--on a per-site basis--a lump sum payment in lieu of actual cost reimbursement./4 The lump sum election is irrevocable, and any incumbent earth station operators opting for the lump sum will have opted out of the formal transition process, be responsible for their own transition work for the relevant sites from that point forward, and must comply with the relevant Transition Deadline for the partial economic area (PEA) where they are located./5 To provide guidance as to a range of presumptively reasonable and necessary actual transition costs, as well as the lump sum election categories and amounts, the Commission in the Upper C-band R&O directed the Bureau to formulate a Cost Catalog./6
Actual Cost Reimbursement. To provide additional guidance on compensable costs in connection with actual cost reimbursements, the Commission directed the Bureau to develop a Cost Catalog, and instructed the Upper C-band Clearinghouse, which will administer the financial aspects of the transition,/7 to presume as reasonable all reimbursement claims that fall within the estimated range of costs that the Cost Catalog identifies./8 To this end, the Commission engaged a contractor, Teltrium, Inc. (Teltrium), to assist with developing the Preliminary Cost Catalog in Attachment A, which contains draft categories for the most common anticipated transition tasks and related ranges of presumptively reasonable expenses that incumbents may incur as they clear FSS operations out of 4.0-4.16 GHz. This Preliminary Cost Catalog is based in part upon the Final Cost Catalog that was developed in 2020 for the Lower C-band transition,/9 with adjustments for inflation since that time,/10 but it also includes proposed new categories tailored to the different anticipated transition steps implicated by the Upper C-band transition. To compile the information needed for the Preliminary Cost Catalog, Teltrium considered comments and filings in the underlying record in GN Docket No. 25-59,/11 publicly available pricing and technical information, and information obtained from confidential interviews with vendors and other targeted stakeholders, including satellite operators and earth station operators, about their anticipated transition work.
We seek comment on the Preliminary Cost Catalog, including whether the draft categories and estimated range of expenses for each category are reasonable. As mentioned above, this Preliminary Cost Catalog is based in part upon the Lower C-band Final Cost Catalog, and we seek comment on whether additional updates are necessary to better suit the specific circumstances of the Upper C-band transition. If so, what additional transition tasks and categories should we include? In this context, we note that the Cost Catalog is only intended to cover the most common anticipated transition tasks and is not a comprehensive list of every possible relocation action whose costs may ultimately be deemed reimbursable. Claimants may still submit claims for items not included in the final Cost Catalog, and those claims will be subject to review and disposition by the Upper C-band Clearinghouse as part of its remit to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. Further, in formulating this list as a guidance resource, we do not intend for it to constrain the Upper C-band Clearinghouse from exercising its independent judgment on what claims or elements thereof constitute optional upgrades or non-compensable costs as it assesses the specific merits of individual claims. For the initial categories set forth in the Preliminary Cost Catalog, and for any additions that commenters may suggest, commenters seeking adjustments are encouraged to provide specific pricing information for individual items, as well as more general information on the costs that incumbents expect to incur.
Incumbent Earth Station Lump Sum Payments. The Preliminary Cost Catalog sets forth specific lump sum categories and amounts for incumbent earth station operators seeking to opt out of the formal transition process led by the eligible space station operators./12 This mechanism will afford lump sum electees the option to: (1) perform their own transition work to maintain FSS service; (2) migrate to an alternative distribution technology such as an IP-delivered service; or (3) discontinue service altogether./13 While the decision to opt for the lump sum payment in lieu of actual cost reimbursement is irrevocable, incumbent earth station operators may elect lump sum payments on a per-site basis to enable operators with a mix of facilities in urban and rural areas to opt for the type of transition that best meets their long term needs./14 We reiterate that any incumbent earth station operators electing the lump sum will be responsible for their own transition work for the relevant sites from that point forward and must comply with the relevant Transition Deadline for the PEA where they are located./15
We seek comment on the preliminary lump sum categories and amounts provided in Appendix A, which, as directed by the Commission in the Upper C-band R&O, are based upon the average estimated, reasonable costs of transitioning those facilities out of 4.0-4.16 GHz, including costs related to the potential migration of service or links to the Ku-band./16 We also seek comment on the proposed lump sum amount for each category and the methodology used to arrive at those amounts. Does the methodology described in Appendix A--and do these amounts--reflect the appropriate lump sum inputs for each class of earth station? Should we make any adjustments to account for other factors? We also seek comment on the specific filing and certification procedures used in connection with the Lower Cband transition/17 and whether to repurpose them here or adjust them in any way given the shift to a persite lump sum approach in the instant transition.
Procedural Matters
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the date indicated on the first page of this document and must reference GN Docket No. 25-59. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
* Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
* Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.
- Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
- Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
- Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
- Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (e.g., 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.
Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./18 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Additional Information. For further information regarding this Public Notice, please contact Andrew McArdell, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at Andrew.McArdell@fcc.gov.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ See Upper C-band (3.98-4.2 GHz), Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket Nos. 25-59 and 18-122, Report and Order, Order of Proposed Modification, and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 26-46, at 60, para. 121 (July 24, 2026) (Upper C-band R&O).
2/ The full Upper C-band includes 3.98-4.2 GHz, and new licensees in the 3.7 GHz Service will operate from 3.98- 4.14 GHz, with a guard band from 4.14-4.16 GHz. Upper C-band R&O at 3-4, 13, paras. 3, 27. The instant Public Notice only addresses cost related issues associated with the transition of eligible space station operators and incumbent earth station operators out of 4.0-4.16 GHz. Id. at 57-65, 77, paras. 114-129, 154. As directed in the Upper C-band R&O, a separate public notice will be issued by the Bureau seeking comment on issues relating to adjacent band radio altimeter rebates. Id. at 87-91, paras. 177-183.
3/ See id. at 44, 57, paras. 91, 114; see also id. at Appx. A, Final Rules, 47 CFR Sec. 27.1416(a)-(b), (d) (establishing procedures for processing actual cost reimbursement claims and lump sum claims and for payment of approved claims). The Upper C-band R&O defines the eligible space station operators and incumbent earth station operators that may be reimbursed for their reasonable and necessary transition costs. See id. at 45, para. 93 ("[F]or transition cost reimbursement purposes, . . . an 'eligible space station operator' [i]s an incumbent space station operator that has demonstrated as of February 1, 2020, that it has an existing relationship to provide service via C-band satellite transmission to one or more incumbent earth stations in the contiguous United States."); id. at 45-47, paras. 94-96 (defining incumbent earth stations to "include fixed and temporary fixed earth stations that were operational as of April 19, 2018, and that: (1) continue to be operational; (2) were licensed or registered in the IBFS (now ICFS) database on November 7, 2018; and (3) timely certified the accuracy of the information on file with the Commission by May 28, 2019"); id. at Appx. A, Final Rules, 47 CFR Sec. 27.1411(b)(2)-(3) (defining "eligible space station operator" and "incumbent earth station").
4/ See id. at 63, para. 125.
5/ See id.
6/ See id. at 60, 77, paras. 121, 154.
7/ The Upper C-band Clearinghouse's responsibilities include claims processing, cost apportionment, dispute resolution, and reporting obligations. Id. at 70-71, paras. 142-43. The process by which costs will be determined to be reimbursable is set forth in section 27.1416. Id. at Appx. A, Final Rules, 47 CFR Sec. 27.1416.
8/ Id. at 77, para. 154.
9/ See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Releases Final Cost Category Schedule for 3.7-4.2 GHz Band Relocation Expenses and Announces Process and Deadline for Lump Sum Elections, GN Docket No. 18-122, IB Docket No. 20-205, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 7967, Attach. (WTB 2020) (Lower C-band Cost Catalog PN). Certain portions of the Lower C-band Cost Catalog PN that have no relevance to the Upper C-band transition, such as TT&C site consolidation and Fixed Service relocation costs, have not been carried forward to the Preliminary Cost Catalog in Appendix A.
10/ The Producer Prices Indexes by Industry used to make some of these adjustments include: Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing; Communications Equipment Manufacturing; a composite of Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing and New Nonresidential Building Construction by Region; General Freight Trucking; Passenger Car Rental; Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV Rental and Leasing: Rental of Trucks, Truck Trailers, RVs; and Wired Telecommunications Carriers. See Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, FRED, https://fred.stlouisfed.org. The Employment Cost Indexes used for other adjustments include the total compensation for private industry workers in: Construction; Management, Business, and Financial; Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; and ServiceProviding, Natural Resources, Construction, and Maintenance. Id.
11/ See, e.g., Upper C-band R&O at 64, para. 127 & n.461.
12/ Id. at 63-64, paras. 125-26.
13/ Id. at 63, para. 125. But see id. at 63, para. 125 & n.454 (noting that "incumbent earth station owners may not elect a lump sum payment for earth stations outside of the contiguous United States").
14/ Id. at 63, para. 125.
15/ Id.
16/ Id. at 63-64, para. 126.
17/ See Lower C-band Cost Catalog PN, 35 FCC Rcd at 7991-93, paras. 39-42.
18/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1049A1.pdf
* * *
With this Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) invites interested parties to comment on the Upper C-band Transition Preliminary Cost Catalog (Cost Catalog) contained in Attachment A./1 In the Upper C-band R&O, the Commission adopted rules to make 160 megahertz of mid-band spectrum available for flexible use throughout the contiguous United States by transitioning incumbent Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) operations ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued the following public notice (GN Docket No. 25-59): * * * With this Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) invites interested parties to comment on the Upper C-band Transition Preliminary Cost Catalog (Cost Catalog) contained in Attachment A./1 In the Upper C-band R&O, the Commission adopted rules to make 160 megahertz of mid-band spectrum available for flexible use throughout the contiguous United States by transitioning incumbent Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) operationsout of 4.0-4.16 GHz./2 The Upper C-band R&O established that new Upper C-band wireless licensees will reimburse the reasonable and necessary transition costs of eligible space station operators and incumbent earth station operators (collectively, incumbents) to transition out of the reconfigured portion of the band./3 The Upper C-band R&O further gives incumbent earth station operators the option to elect--on a per-site basis--a lump sum payment in lieu of actual cost reimbursement./4 The lump sum election is irrevocable, and any incumbent earth station operators opting for the lump sum will have opted out of the formal transition process, be responsible for their own transition work for the relevant sites from that point forward, and must comply with the relevant Transition Deadline for the partial economic area (PEA) where they are located./5 To provide guidance as to a range of presumptively reasonable and necessary actual transition costs, as well as the lump sum election categories and amounts, the Commission in the Upper C-band R&O directed the Bureau to formulate a Cost Catalog./6
Actual Cost Reimbursement. To provide additional guidance on compensable costs in connection with actual cost reimbursements, the Commission directed the Bureau to develop a Cost Catalog, and instructed the Upper C-band Clearinghouse, which will administer the financial aspects of the transition,/7 to presume as reasonable all reimbursement claims that fall within the estimated range of costs that the Cost Catalog identifies./8 To this end, the Commission engaged a contractor, Teltrium, Inc. (Teltrium), to assist with developing the Preliminary Cost Catalog in Attachment A, which contains draft categories for the most common anticipated transition tasks and related ranges of presumptively reasonable expenses that incumbents may incur as they clear FSS operations out of 4.0-4.16 GHz. This Preliminary Cost Catalog is based in part upon the Final Cost Catalog that was developed in 2020 for the Lower C-band transition,/9 with adjustments for inflation since that time,/10 but it also includes proposed new categories tailored to the different anticipated transition steps implicated by the Upper C-band transition. To compile the information needed for the Preliminary Cost Catalog, Teltrium considered comments and filings in the underlying record in GN Docket No. 25-59,/11 publicly available pricing and technical information, and information obtained from confidential interviews with vendors and other targeted stakeholders, including satellite operators and earth station operators, about their anticipated transition work.
We seek comment on the Preliminary Cost Catalog, including whether the draft categories and estimated range of expenses for each category are reasonable. As mentioned above, this Preliminary Cost Catalog is based in part upon the Lower C-band Final Cost Catalog, and we seek comment on whether additional updates are necessary to better suit the specific circumstances of the Upper C-band transition. If so, what additional transition tasks and categories should we include? In this context, we note that the Cost Catalog is only intended to cover the most common anticipated transition tasks and is not a comprehensive list of every possible relocation action whose costs may ultimately be deemed reimbursable. Claimants may still submit claims for items not included in the final Cost Catalog, and those claims will be subject to review and disposition by the Upper C-band Clearinghouse as part of its remit to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. Further, in formulating this list as a guidance resource, we do not intend for it to constrain the Upper C-band Clearinghouse from exercising its independent judgment on what claims or elements thereof constitute optional upgrades or non-compensable costs as it assesses the specific merits of individual claims. For the initial categories set forth in the Preliminary Cost Catalog, and for any additions that commenters may suggest, commenters seeking adjustments are encouraged to provide specific pricing information for individual items, as well as more general information on the costs that incumbents expect to incur.
Incumbent Earth Station Lump Sum Payments. The Preliminary Cost Catalog sets forth specific lump sum categories and amounts for incumbent earth station operators seeking to opt out of the formal transition process led by the eligible space station operators./12 This mechanism will afford lump sum electees the option to: (1) perform their own transition work to maintain FSS service; (2) migrate to an alternative distribution technology such as an IP-delivered service; or (3) discontinue service altogether./13 While the decision to opt for the lump sum payment in lieu of actual cost reimbursement is irrevocable, incumbent earth station operators may elect lump sum payments on a per-site basis to enable operators with a mix of facilities in urban and rural areas to opt for the type of transition that best meets their long term needs./14 We reiterate that any incumbent earth station operators electing the lump sum will be responsible for their own transition work for the relevant sites from that point forward and must comply with the relevant Transition Deadline for the PEA where they are located./15
We seek comment on the preliminary lump sum categories and amounts provided in Appendix A, which, as directed by the Commission in the Upper C-band R&O, are based upon the average estimated, reasonable costs of transitioning those facilities out of 4.0-4.16 GHz, including costs related to the potential migration of service or links to the Ku-band./16 We also seek comment on the proposed lump sum amount for each category and the methodology used to arrive at those amounts. Does the methodology described in Appendix A--and do these amounts--reflect the appropriate lump sum inputs for each class of earth station? Should we make any adjustments to account for other factors? We also seek comment on the specific filing and certification procedures used in connection with the Lower Cband transition/17 and whether to repurpose them here or adjust them in any way given the shift to a persite lump sum approach in the instant transition.
Procedural Matters
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the date indicated on the first page of this document and must reference GN Docket No. 25-59. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
* Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
* Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.
- Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
- Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
- Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
- Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (e.g., 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.
Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./18 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Additional Information. For further information regarding this Public Notice, please contact Andrew McArdell, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at Andrew.McArdell@fcc.gov.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ See Upper C-band (3.98-4.2 GHz), Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket Nos. 25-59 and 18-122, Report and Order, Order of Proposed Modification, and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 26-46, at 60, para. 121 (July 24, 2026) (Upper C-band R&O).
2/ The full Upper C-band includes 3.98-4.2 GHz, and new licensees in the 3.7 GHz Service will operate from 3.98- 4.14 GHz, with a guard band from 4.14-4.16 GHz. Upper C-band R&O at 3-4, 13, paras. 3, 27. The instant Public Notice only addresses cost related issues associated with the transition of eligible space station operators and incumbent earth station operators out of 4.0-4.16 GHz. Id. at 57-65, 77, paras. 114-129, 154. As directed in the Upper C-band R&O, a separate public notice will be issued by the Bureau seeking comment on issues relating to adjacent band radio altimeter rebates. Id. at 87-91, paras. 177-183.
3/ See id. at 44, 57, paras. 91, 114; see also id. at Appx. A, Final Rules, 47 CFR Sec. 27.1416(a)-(b), (d) (establishing procedures for processing actual cost reimbursement claims and lump sum claims and for payment of approved claims). The Upper C-band R&O defines the eligible space station operators and incumbent earth station operators that may be reimbursed for their reasonable and necessary transition costs. See id. at 45, para. 93 ("[F]or transition cost reimbursement purposes, . . . an 'eligible space station operator' [i]s an incumbent space station operator that has demonstrated as of February 1, 2020, that it has an existing relationship to provide service via C-band satellite transmission to one or more incumbent earth stations in the contiguous United States."); id. at 45-47, paras. 94-96 (defining incumbent earth stations to "include fixed and temporary fixed earth stations that were operational as of April 19, 2018, and that: (1) continue to be operational; (2) were licensed or registered in the IBFS (now ICFS) database on November 7, 2018; and (3) timely certified the accuracy of the information on file with the Commission by May 28, 2019"); id. at Appx. A, Final Rules, 47 CFR Sec. 27.1411(b)(2)-(3) (defining "eligible space station operator" and "incumbent earth station").
4/ See id. at 63, para. 125.
5/ See id.
6/ See id. at 60, 77, paras. 121, 154.
7/ The Upper C-band Clearinghouse's responsibilities include claims processing, cost apportionment, dispute resolution, and reporting obligations. Id. at 70-71, paras. 142-43. The process by which costs will be determined to be reimbursable is set forth in section 27.1416. Id. at Appx. A, Final Rules, 47 CFR Sec. 27.1416.
8/ Id. at 77, para. 154.
9/ See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Releases Final Cost Category Schedule for 3.7-4.2 GHz Band Relocation Expenses and Announces Process and Deadline for Lump Sum Elections, GN Docket No. 18-122, IB Docket No. 20-205, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 7967, Attach. (WTB 2020) (Lower C-band Cost Catalog PN). Certain portions of the Lower C-band Cost Catalog PN that have no relevance to the Upper C-band transition, such as TT&C site consolidation and Fixed Service relocation costs, have not been carried forward to the Preliminary Cost Catalog in Appendix A.
10/ The Producer Prices Indexes by Industry used to make some of these adjustments include: Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing; Communications Equipment Manufacturing; a composite of Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing and New Nonresidential Building Construction by Region; General Freight Trucking; Passenger Car Rental; Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV Rental and Leasing: Rental of Trucks, Truck Trailers, RVs; and Wired Telecommunications Carriers. See Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, FRED, https://fred.stlouisfed.org. The Employment Cost Indexes used for other adjustments include the total compensation for private industry workers in: Construction; Management, Business, and Financial; Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; and ServiceProviding, Natural Resources, Construction, and Maintenance. Id.
11/ See, e.g., Upper C-band R&O at 64, para. 127 & n.461.
12/ Id. at 63-64, paras. 125-26.
13/ Id. at 63, para. 125. But see id. at 63, para. 125 & n.454 (noting that "incumbent earth station owners may not elect a lump sum payment for earth stations outside of the contiguous United States").
14/ Id. at 63, para. 125.
15/ Id.
16/ Id. at 63-64, para. 126.
17/ See Lower C-band Cost Catalog PN, 35 FCC Rcd at 7991-93, paras. 39-42.
18/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1049A1.pdf
FCC Proposes Modernization of Ultra-Wideband Technology Rules
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Chairman Brendan Carr:
* * *
FCC Proposes Modernization of Ultra-Wideband Technology Rules
Re: Unleashing the Power of Unlicensed Ultra-Wideband Devices, ET Docket No. 26-245, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (September 30, 2026).
Since launching our Delete, Delete, Delete initiative, the Commission has been constantly reviewing our regulations and asking the same questions: have those rules kept pace with changes in the marketplace, and, if not, how can we update our rules to remove barriers to innovation ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Chairman Brendan Carr: * * * FCC Proposes Modernization of Ultra-Wideband Technology Rules Re: Unleashing the Power of Unlicensed Ultra-Wideband Devices, ET Docket No. 26-245, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (September 30, 2026). Since launching our Delete, Delete, Delete initiative, the Commission has been constantly reviewing our regulations and asking the same questions: have those rules kept pace with changes in the marketplace, and, if not, how can we update our rules to remove barriers to innovationand investment?
The Commission's rules for ultra-wideband technologies offer a textbook example of how we can unleash progress through modernization.
Ultra-wideband technologies are an unsung contributor to our connectivity economy. They operate over unlicensed airwaves and are embedded in virtually every smartphone. If you've ever lost your ear buds and had to use a Find My app, then you've benefited from ultra-wideband technology. Other supported activities include vehicular radars for collision avoidance, medical imaging for non-invasive diagnostics, and precision tracking and location systems for inventory control and package tracking.
One key aspect of ultra-wideband technology that has enabled its expansion is that its power requirements are extremely low. As a result, it can co-exist with other wireless technologies without creating interference. In fact, there has never been a complaint against UWB operations for harmful interference.
Here's the problem. The Commission's rules for UWB were written in 2002. Fast forward to today, and too many companies that want to bring new and innovative UWB technologies into the market can't navigate through those now 20 year-old rules and get quick enough approval from the Commission to roll out a new product. Instead, they need to get a waiver, which can take months to obtain and takes up agency resources. Door-unlocking devices are a popular UWB offering, but multiple providers had to wait an average of six months to get FCC approval before releasing their product.
With this item, we are launching a comprehensive review of our ultra-wideband rules and looking at the UWB needs of the future. In particular, we propose creating a new UWB device category to enable emerging applications such as super intelligence enabled sensing, advanced ranging systems, and modern access control systems.
It's been nearly a quarter-century since the Commission wrote our rules for ultra-wideband technologies. Today, we take an important step toward reshaping those rules to meet today's needs and to unlock a future of continuing innovation.
For their work on today's item, I thank Syed Hasan, Jamison Prime, Michael Ha, Tom Struble, Ira Keltz, and Andy Hendrickson at the Office of Engineering and Technology.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425494A2.pdf
* * *
FCC Proposes Modernization of Ultra-Wideband Technology Rules
Re: Unleashing the Power of Unlicensed Ultra-Wideband Devices, ET Docket No. 26-245, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (September 30, 2026).
Since launching our Delete, Delete, Delete initiative, the Commission has been constantly reviewing our regulations and asking the same questions: have those rules kept pace with changes in the marketplace, and, if not, how can we update our rules to remove barriers to innovation ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Chairman Brendan Carr: * * * FCC Proposes Modernization of Ultra-Wideband Technology Rules Re: Unleashing the Power of Unlicensed Ultra-Wideband Devices, ET Docket No. 26-245, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (September 30, 2026). Since launching our Delete, Delete, Delete initiative, the Commission has been constantly reviewing our regulations and asking the same questions: have those rules kept pace with changes in the marketplace, and, if not, how can we update our rules to remove barriers to innovationand investment?
The Commission's rules for ultra-wideband technologies offer a textbook example of how we can unleash progress through modernization.
Ultra-wideband technologies are an unsung contributor to our connectivity economy. They operate over unlicensed airwaves and are embedded in virtually every smartphone. If you've ever lost your ear buds and had to use a Find My app, then you've benefited from ultra-wideband technology. Other supported activities include vehicular radars for collision avoidance, medical imaging for non-invasive diagnostics, and precision tracking and location systems for inventory control and package tracking.
One key aspect of ultra-wideband technology that has enabled its expansion is that its power requirements are extremely low. As a result, it can co-exist with other wireless technologies without creating interference. In fact, there has never been a complaint against UWB operations for harmful interference.
Here's the problem. The Commission's rules for UWB were written in 2002. Fast forward to today, and too many companies that want to bring new and innovative UWB technologies into the market can't navigate through those now 20 year-old rules and get quick enough approval from the Commission to roll out a new product. Instead, they need to get a waiver, which can take months to obtain and takes up agency resources. Door-unlocking devices are a popular UWB offering, but multiple providers had to wait an average of six months to get FCC approval before releasing their product.
With this item, we are launching a comprehensive review of our ultra-wideband rules and looking at the UWB needs of the future. In particular, we propose creating a new UWB device category to enable emerging applications such as super intelligence enabled sensing, advanced ranging systems, and modern access control systems.
It's been nearly a quarter-century since the Commission wrote our rules for ultra-wideband technologies. Today, we take an important step toward reshaping those rules to meet today's needs and to unlock a future of continuing innovation.
For their work on today's item, I thank Syed Hasan, Jamison Prime, Michael Ha, Tom Struble, Ira Keltz, and Andy Hendrickson at the Office of Engineering and Technology.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425494A2.pdf
FCC Announces Winners of the 2026 Excellence in Engineering and Economics Awards
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FCC Announces Winners of the 2026 Excellence in Engineering and Economics Awards
WASHINGTON, September 30, 2026--Today, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced the winners of the agency's Excellence in Engineering (EIE) and Excellence in Economic Analysis (EEA) Awards. The Excellence in Economic Analysis Award recognizes Commission staff for outstanding economic analysis conducted in the course of their work at the FCC, while the Excellence in Engineering Award recognizes Commission staff who have ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release: * * * FCC Announces Winners of the 2026 Excellence in Engineering and Economics Awards WASHINGTON, September 30, 2026--Today, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced the winners of the agency's Excellence in Engineering (EIE) and Excellence in Economic Analysis (EEA) Awards. The Excellence in Economic Analysis Award recognizes Commission staff for outstanding economic analysis conducted in the course of their work at the FCC, while the Excellence in Engineering Award recognizes Commission staff who havemade outstanding engineering, scientific, or technical contributions. The selection committee included leadership from two FCC offices.
"Today, it is our honor to highlight six staffers for their tremendous contributions to the Commission's work over the past year," said Jonathan Williams, Chief of the Office of Economics and Analytics. "Their work is a testament to what we already know--that the outstanding staff who work here at the FCC are the best in the business, and it is their hard work and dedication that enable us to pursue our mission and serve the American people."
"Their innovative thinking is apparent in the projects highlighted today," said Andy Hendrickson, Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology. "From developing sophisticated solutions to combat illegal radio broadcasting, to supporting the Commission's satellite spectrum work, we thank them for their dedication and expertise to drive the FCC's mission forward."
Excellence in Engineering Award
Nathan Bohne, Adam Woffard, and Eric Krueger of the Enforcement Bureau share the 2026 Excellence in Engineering Award for their exemplary work through innovative engineering in support of work within the FCC's field offices. Project PERMIT distinguished itself by delivering a custom, technically sophisticated solution mandated under the PIRATE Act, modernizing enforcement tools, strengthening field operations, and directly supporting the Commission's statutory responsibilities. The project exemplifies engineering innovation that delivers measurable, mission critical impact across FCC operations.
Excellence in Economic Analysis Award
Mohammad Ahmad, Patrick Sun, and Aleks Yankelevich share the 2026 Excellence in Economic Analysis Award for their outstanding work using economic and data analysis to support the Commission's work. Their rigorous and collaborative economic analysis significantly advanced the Commission's understanding of the economic value associated with expanding access to key satellite spectrum bands. Their work provided essential insights supporting the FCC's spectrum abundance initiatives and demonstrated exceptional analytical depth and methodological excellence.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425502A1.pdf
* * *
FCC Announces Winners of the 2026 Excellence in Engineering and Economics Awards
WASHINGTON, September 30, 2026--Today, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced the winners of the agency's Excellence in Engineering (EIE) and Excellence in Economic Analysis (EEA) Awards. The Excellence in Economic Analysis Award recognizes Commission staff for outstanding economic analysis conducted in the course of their work at the FCC, while the Excellence in Engineering Award recognizes Commission staff who have ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release: * * * FCC Announces Winners of the 2026 Excellence in Engineering and Economics Awards WASHINGTON, September 30, 2026--Today, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced the winners of the agency's Excellence in Engineering (EIE) and Excellence in Economic Analysis (EEA) Awards. The Excellence in Economic Analysis Award recognizes Commission staff for outstanding economic analysis conducted in the course of their work at the FCC, while the Excellence in Engineering Award recognizes Commission staff who havemade outstanding engineering, scientific, or technical contributions. The selection committee included leadership from two FCC offices.
"Today, it is our honor to highlight six staffers for their tremendous contributions to the Commission's work over the past year," said Jonathan Williams, Chief of the Office of Economics and Analytics. "Their work is a testament to what we already know--that the outstanding staff who work here at the FCC are the best in the business, and it is their hard work and dedication that enable us to pursue our mission and serve the American people."
"Their innovative thinking is apparent in the projects highlighted today," said Andy Hendrickson, Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology. "From developing sophisticated solutions to combat illegal radio broadcasting, to supporting the Commission's satellite spectrum work, we thank them for their dedication and expertise to drive the FCC's mission forward."
Excellence in Engineering Award
Nathan Bohne, Adam Woffard, and Eric Krueger of the Enforcement Bureau share the 2026 Excellence in Engineering Award for their exemplary work through innovative engineering in support of work within the FCC's field offices. Project PERMIT distinguished itself by delivering a custom, technically sophisticated solution mandated under the PIRATE Act, modernizing enforcement tools, strengthening field operations, and directly supporting the Commission's statutory responsibilities. The project exemplifies engineering innovation that delivers measurable, mission critical impact across FCC operations.
Excellence in Economic Analysis Award
Mohammad Ahmad, Patrick Sun, and Aleks Yankelevich share the 2026 Excellence in Economic Analysis Award for their outstanding work using economic and data analysis to support the Commission's work. Their rigorous and collaborative economic analysis significantly advanced the Commission's understanding of the economic value associated with expanding access to key satellite spectrum bands. Their work provided essential insights supporting the FCC's spectrum abundance initiatives and demonstrated exceptional analytical depth and methodological excellence.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425502A1.pdf
EEOC Sues Walmart for Disability Discrimination
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
EEOC Sues Walmart for Disability Discrimination
*
Federal suit says Fredericksburg store failed to accommodate deaf employee
FREDERICKSBURG, Va. -Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, the largest operator of discount department stores in the country, violated federal law by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to a deaf employee at a Fredericksburg Walmart, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, starting ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release: * * * EEOC Sues Walmart for Disability Discrimination * Federal suit says Fredericksburg store failed to accommodate deaf employee FREDERICKSBURG, Va. -Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, the largest operator of discount department stores in the country, violated federal law by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to a deaf employee at a Fredericksburg Walmart, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, startingin September 2020, a deaf employee who worked as a stocker requested sign language interpreter services for daily staff meetings. These services were not and are still not provided. For a time, a supervisor gave him written notes after meetings, but the notes were not sufficient to convey all the relevant information and did not allow the employee to engage or actively participate in the meetings. The employee continued to request a reasonable accommodation throughout his employment, making the request multiple times to each of his supervisors.
In August 2023, the Virginia Department of Aging & Rehabilitation Services wrote to Walmart on the employee's behalf and provided information about accessing video remote interpreter (VRI) services as an effective accommodation. Even after receiving the letter, Walmart did not provide the employee with a reasonable accommodation for his disability.
"The Americans with Disabilities Act exists to ensure that employees with disabilities, such as deaf employees, can fully participate in the workplace," said Melinda Dugas, regional attorney for the EEOC's Charlotte District. "Providing access to a sign language interpreter is often a reasonable accommodation that can be provided by an employer without experiencing undue hardship."
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires the accommodation of disabilities absent undue hardship, and requires that any accommodation provided be effective in meeting the needs of the individual employee in light of their disability. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Case No. 3:26-cv-01037) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.
For more information on disability discrimination and accommodations, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination and https://askjan.org/.
The EEOC's Charlotte District Office has jurisdiction over North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.
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/eeoc-sues-walmart-disability-discrimination-10
(TNSmlt)
* * *
EEOC Sues Walmart for Disability Discrimination
*
Federal suit says Fredericksburg store failed to accommodate deaf employee
FREDERICKSBURG, Va. -Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, the largest operator of discount department stores in the country, violated federal law by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to a deaf employee at a Fredericksburg Walmart, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, starting ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release: * * * EEOC Sues Walmart for Disability Discrimination * Federal suit says Fredericksburg store failed to accommodate deaf employee FREDERICKSBURG, Va. -Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, the largest operator of discount department stores in the country, violated federal law by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to a deaf employee at a Fredericksburg Walmart, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, startingin September 2020, a deaf employee who worked as a stocker requested sign language interpreter services for daily staff meetings. These services were not and are still not provided. For a time, a supervisor gave him written notes after meetings, but the notes were not sufficient to convey all the relevant information and did not allow the employee to engage or actively participate in the meetings. The employee continued to request a reasonable accommodation throughout his employment, making the request multiple times to each of his supervisors.
In August 2023, the Virginia Department of Aging & Rehabilitation Services wrote to Walmart on the employee's behalf and provided information about accessing video remote interpreter (VRI) services as an effective accommodation. Even after receiving the letter, Walmart did not provide the employee with a reasonable accommodation for his disability.
"The Americans with Disabilities Act exists to ensure that employees with disabilities, such as deaf employees, can fully participate in the workplace," said Melinda Dugas, regional attorney for the EEOC's Charlotte District. "Providing access to a sign language interpreter is often a reasonable accommodation that can be provided by an employer without experiencing undue hardship."
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires the accommodation of disabilities absent undue hardship, and requires that any accommodation provided be effective in meeting the needs of the individual employee in light of their disability. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Case No. 3:26-cv-01037) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.
For more information on disability discrimination and accommodations, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination and https://askjan.org/.
The EEOC's Charlotte District Office has jurisdiction over North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.
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/eeoc-sues-walmart-disability-discrimination-10
(TNSmlt)