Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
SEC Obtains Default Judgments Against Missouri Adviser, His Firm on Offering Fraud Charges & Against Relief Defendant
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 3:24-cv-05032; W.D. Mo. filed May 3, 2024):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Robert M. Thompson and The Financial Freedom Foundation d/b/a F3 Mastermind, et al., No. 3:24-cv-05032 (W.D. Mo. filed May 3, 2024)
On August 14, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a final judgment by default in a litigated action against Missouri resident Robert M. Thompson and a private entity he controls, The Financial Freedom Foundation d/b/a/ F3 Mastermind, for defrauding investors
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 3:24-cv-05032; W.D. Mo. filed May 3, 2024):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Robert M. Thompson and The Financial Freedom Foundation d/b/a F3 Mastermind, et al., No. 3:24-cv-05032 (W.D. Mo. filed May 3, 2024)
On August 14, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a final judgment by default in a litigated action against Missouri resident Robert M. Thompson and a private entity he controls, The Financial Freedom Foundation d/b/a/ F3 Mastermind, for defrauding investorsin three securities offerings. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri also entered a final judgment by default against relief defendant Brandon K. Stucki for receiving ill-gotten gains to which he had no legitimate claim.
The SEC's complaint, filed on May 3, 2024, alleged that Thompson marketed F3 Mastermind as a private membership group in which investors paid initial and monthly fees. Thompson and F3 Mastermind allegedly offered members investments in trading programs run by third-party operators that claimed to generate risk-free returns ranging from 20% per week to 4,000% per year. As alleged, between early 2019 and mid-2022, Thompson and F3 Mastermind recommended these investments to investors who subsequently invested in these programs. According to the complaint, F3 Mastermind members invested in these prime bank-like schemes and collectively provided at least $2 million to the third-party operators who conducted the schemes. Finally, the complaint alleged that relief defendant Brian K. Stucki received ill-gotten gains from the scheme to which he has no legitimate claim.
The Court entered a default judgment enjoining Thompson and F3 Mastermind from violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The judgment also ordered Thompson and F3 Mastermind to pay $72,946 in disgorgement with $18,005 prejudgment interest on a joint and several basis, and a $36,000 civil penalty against each of Thompson and F3 Mastermind. The court further ordered Stucki to pay $9,994 in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest of $2,689.
The SEC's litigation was led by Eric M. Phillips and the investigation was conducted by Matthew T. Wissa and supervised by Jeffrey Shank, all of the SEC's Chicago Regional Office.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2025/comp26384.pdf)
* Judgment (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2025/judg26384.pdf)
* Final Judgment (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2025/finaljudg26384.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26384
SEC Charges Ex-Director, 4 Others With Insider Trading
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 25-cv-14843; D.N.J. filed Aug. 22, 2025):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rouzbeh Haghighat et al., No. 25-cv-14843 (D.N.J. filed Aug. 22, 2025)
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Rouzbeh "Ross" Haghighat, a former director of biopharmaceutical company Chinook Therapeutics, Inc., along with two of Haghighat's family members and two of Haghighat's friends, with insider trading ahead of the June 12, 2023 announcement that Novartis AG would acquire Chinook.
According
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 25-cv-14843; D.N.J. filed Aug. 22, 2025):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rouzbeh Haghighat et al., No. 25-cv-14843 (D.N.J. filed Aug. 22, 2025)
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Rouzbeh "Ross" Haghighat, a former director of biopharmaceutical company Chinook Therapeutics, Inc., along with two of Haghighat's family members and two of Haghighat's friends, with insider trading ahead of the June 12, 2023 announcement that Novartis AG would acquire Chinook.
Accordingto the SEC's complaint, Ross Haghighat allegedly tipped his brother Behrouz "Bruce" Haghighat, his stepdaughter, Kirstyn Pearl, and his friends James Roberge and Seyedfarbod "Fabio" Sabzevari, with material nonpublic information he learned as a Chinook director about the upcoming acquisition. Based on this material nonpublic information, Bruce Haghighat, Pearl, Roberge, and Sabzevari each allegedly purchased Chinook common stock and/or options ahead of the acquisition announcement, and collectively made over $500,000 in illicit profits. The complaint further alleges Ross Haghighat also purchased Chinook common stock in a custodial account he managed for a minor stepchild four days before the acquisition was announced.
The case originated from the SEC Market Abuse Unit's Analysis and Detection Center, which uses data analysis tools to detect suspicious trading patterns.
In a parallel action, the U.S. Department of Justice previously announced criminal charges against Ross Haghighat, Bruce Haghighat, Pearl, Roberge, and Sabzevari.
The SEC's complaint, filed in federal court in the District of New Jersey, charges Ross Haghighat, Bruce Haghighat, Pearl, Roberge, and Sabzevari with violations of the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement, and civil monetary penalties as to all defendants, and an officer and director bar as to Ross Haghighat.
The SEC's investigation, which is continuing, was conducted by Andrew Palid, David Scheffler, John Rymas, and Michele T. Perillo of the Market Abuse Unit in the Boston Regional Office. This case has been supervised by Market Abuse Unit Chief Joseph G. Sansone. David London of the Boston Regional Office will lead the SEC's litigation. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice's Criminal Division Fraud Section, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2025/comp26383.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26383
FLRA Issues Decision Regarding Department of Homeland Security, Customs & Border Protection Vs. National Treasury Employees Union, Local 172
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Federal Labor Relations Authority issued the following decision (Case No. 0-AR-6024) on Aug. 21, 2025:
* * *
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (Agency)
and
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
LOCAL 172 (Union)
0-AR-6024
DECISION
August 21, 2025
* * *
Before the Authority: Colleen Duffy Kiko, Chairman, and Anne Wagner, Member
I. Statement of the Case
The Union filed a grievance alleging that the Agency violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)[1] by failing to pay overtime to employees on compressed work schedules
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Federal Labor Relations Authority issued the following decision (Case No. 0-AR-6024) on Aug. 21, 2025:
* * *
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (Agency)
and
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
LOCAL 172 (Union)
0-AR-6024
DECISION
August 21, 2025
* * *
Before the Authority: Colleen Duffy Kiko, Chairman, and Anne Wagner, Member
I. Statement of the Case
The Union filed a grievance alleging that the Agency violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)[1] by failing to pay overtime to employees on compressed work scheduleswhen they worked more than eighty hours in a biweekly pay period. Arbitrator Jeffrey W. Jacobs issued an award granting the grievance, finding that the Agency violated the FLSA. The Agency filed exceptions to the award on contrary to law, essence, and nonfact grounds. In its contrary to law exception, the Agency argues that the award conflicts with Sec.Sec. 6121 and 6128 of the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act (the Work Schedules Act).[2] For the reasons that follow, we find the Arbitrator's conclusion that the Agency violated the FLSA is contrary to the Work Schedules Act, and we set aside the award.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
The Union represents customs and border protection officers and agriculture specialists assigned to Chicago O'Hare airport, which is part of the Agency's Area Port of Chicago operations. Annually, the Agency consults with the Union before the Port Director determines which schedules and shifts will be available for employees to bid on in the upcoming year.
In accordance with the Work Schedules Act and the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the Agency offers alternative work schedules (AWS) including, as relevant here, three compressed schedules for employees assigned overnight shifts.[3] Section 6121(5)(A) of the Work Schedules Act defines a compressed schedule as "an [eighty] hour biweekly basic work requirement which is scheduled for less than [ten] workdays."[4] Within the bargaining unit, employees could bid for a "4/10" compressed schedule, with four ten hour workdays per week, or a "5/4/9" compressed schedule, requiring five nine hour workdays in one week, and three nine hour workdays and one eight hour workday the other week. The unit employees' compressed schedules rotate work days and off days regularly from one pay period to the next--for example, an employee with regularly scheduled days off on Monday and Tuesday in one pay period would be off on Tuesday and Wednesday the following pay period.
Occasionally, "due to the rotating nature" of the relevant compressed schedules,[5] night shift employees would start a shift on Saturday - the last day of a pay period - and conclude that shift on Sunday - the first day of the next pay period. As a result, an employee's time entries could reflect fewer than eighty hours worked in one pay period, and more than eighty hours in a subsequent pay period. When these imbalances occurred, the Agency's time and attendance system permitted managers to "carryover" an employee's work hours from one pay period to another.[6] That involved subtracting hours from the pay period exceeding eighty work hours and adding those excess hours to the pay period that had fewer than eighty work hours. Consequently, the Agency paid employees eighty hours of straight time compensation for pay periods involved in a carryover, rather than paying overtime.
In 2024, the Agency transitioned to a new timekeeping system. Because the new system did not allow supervisors to carryover hours between pay periods, the Agency notified the Union that it would adjust the existing AWS start and stop times to ensure employees did not exceed eighty work hours in a pay period. Following negotiations, the parties executed a memorandum of agreement establishing new AWS schedules. Once the new schedules went into effect, the Union filed a grievance alleging, in pertinent part, that the Agency continuously violated the FLSA over the previous three years by failing to pay overtime when employees worked more than eighty hours in a pay period. The Agency denied the grievance, and the matter proceeded to arbitration.
At arbitration, the Arbitrator framed the following issue for resolution: "Whether the Agency violated the . . . [FLSA] by failing to properly compensate employees . . . placed on AWS schedules that were not compliant with 5 U.S.C. [Sec.] 6121(5), and if so, what is the appropriate remedy?"[7]
Addressing the framed issue, the Arbitrator found that "any employee who works more than [eighty] hours in a pay period is entitled to overtime for those hours," under the FLSA.[8] The Arbitrator determined that the Agency's timekeeping practice of using carryover hours violated the FLSA "to the extent that there were employees who worked more than [eighty] hours in a pay period but who were not paid overtime."[9] Although the Agency argued that its compressed schedules complied with the FLSA as modified by the Work Schedules Act,[10] the Arbitrator concluded that the FLSA mandated overtime pay for hours worked in excess of eighty in a pay period, "even if an employee worked fewer than [eighty] hours in the pay period before the one at issue."[11] On this point, the Arbitrator emphasized that the FLSA "does not contain any language" limiting the obligation to pay overtime based on events that occurred in "the pay period prior."[12] Additionally, the Arbitrator noted that the Agency's decision to change the compressed schedules outside the annual schedule bidding process suggested that the Agency knew the schedules were unlawful.[13] Therefore, the Arbitrator sustained the grievance and awarded FLSA remedies, including backpay and liquidated damages.
The Agency filed exceptions to the award on April 7, 2025, and the Union filed an opposition on May 6, 2025.
III. Analysis and Conclusion: The award is contrary to the Work Schedules Act.
The Agency argues that the award is contrary to law because it conflicts with the Work Schedules Act and its implementing regulations.[14] According to the Agency, the Arbitrator erroneously applied the FLSA because the Work Schedules Act specifically exempts hours worked within compressed schedules from the FLSA's overtime requirements.[15] When an exception involves an award's consistency with law, the Authority reviews any questions of law raised by the exception and the award de novo.[16] In applying the standard of de novo review, the Authority assesses whether the arbitrator's legal conclusions are consistent with the applicable standard of law.[17] In making that assessment, the Authority defers to the arbitrator's underlying factual findings unless the excepting party establishes they are nonfacts.[18]
Employees covered by the FLSA are entitled to one and a half times their regular rate of pay for all work hours over forty in a workweek.[19] However, Sec. 6128(a) of the Work Schedules Act provides that the FLSA's overtime requirement "shall not apply to the hours which constitute a compressed schedule."[20] Instead, the Work Schedules Act states that, with respect to employees working compressed schedules, only "hours worked in excess of the compressed schedule shall be overtime hours."[21]
The Authority has held that Sec. 6128 of the Work Schedules Act "prohibit[s]" agencies "from making overtime payments for 'hours which constitute a compressed schedule.'"[22] As noted above, a compressed schedule is defined as "an [eighty] hour biweekly basic work requirement which is scheduled for less than [ten] workdays."[23] It is undisputed that the compressed schedules at issue in this case required employees to work eighty hours every two weeks, although employees' workweeks did not always align with the Sunday through Saturday biweekly pay periods established by the Office of Personnel Management.
Citing the FLSA, the Arbitrator concluded that "any employee who works more than [eighty] hours in a pay period is entitled to overtime for those hours," as a matter of law.[24] In reaching this conclusion, the Arbitrator failed to recognize that the FLSA's overtime standard does "not apply to the hours which constitute a compressed schedule" under the Work Schedules Act.[25] Rather, Sec. 6128(b) of the Act permits the Agency to pay overtime only if employees work more hours than the hours set forth in their compressed schedule, regardless of the number of work hours in a particular pay period.[26] But here, the Arbitrator did not find that any employee on a compressed schedule worked more than the hours specified in their compressed work schedule. In fact, the Arbitrator expressly found that when employees occasionally exceeded eighty hours worked in a pay period, it was "due to the rotating nature of . . . [their] schedules"[27] - not because the Agency ordered or approved, or suffered or permitted, any employee to work overtime. And to the extent the Arbitrator's award relies on the Agency's decision to modify its compressed schedules in coordination with the Union,[28] that fact has no bearing on whether the Agency owed any employee overtime compensation. Because employees are not entitled to overtime merely for fulfilling a compressed schedule's biweekly basic work requirement,[29] the Arbitrator's finding that the Agency unlawfully denied overtime pay is legally deficient.[30]
The Union does not assert that any employee worked hours in addition to the hours comprising their compressed schedules. Rather, the Union argues that the compressed schedules themselves violated Sec. 6121(5) of the Work Schedules Act by "caus[ing] employees to work less or more than [eighty] hours in a biweekly period" - specifically, a biweekly pay period.[31] However, Sec. 6121(5) defines a compressed schedule as "an [eighty]-hour biweekly basic work requirement which is scheduled for less than [ten] workdays" and makes no reference to biweekly pay periods.[32] Similarly, the Union contends that the definition of overtime in Sec. 6121(7) contemplates biweekly pay periods,[33] yet that subsection refers only to hours worked outside the compressed schedule - not to biweekly pay periods.[34] Thus, Sec. 6121's plain wording does not support the Union's argument that the Work Schedules Act requires biweekly compressed work schedules to precisely align with biweekly pay periods.
For these reasons, we find the award is contrary to the Work Schedules Act. Accordingly, we set aside the award,[35] and we find it unnecessary to resolve the Agency's remaining exceptions.[36]
IV. Decision
We set aside the award.
* * *
Footnotes:
[1] 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216.
[2] 5 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 6121, 6128.
[3] Award at 19; see also 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6127(a) ("[E]ach agency may establish programs which use a [four] day workweek or other compressed schedule."); Exceptions, Attach. 4, Joint Ex. 1, National Collective Bargaining Agreement at 51 (authorizing "bargaining over the establishment and implementation of" AWS "[a]t the local level").
[4] 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6121(5)(A).
[5] Award at 20.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 2. In the award, the Arbitrator stated that "[t]he parties stipulated to" the issue for arbitration. Id. The Agency disputes that the parties stipulated to an issue, Exceptions Br. at 4 n.1, and the Union's post hearing brief notes that "[t]he parties were unable to stipulate a statement of the issue." Exceptions, Attach. 4, Union's Post Hr'g Br. at 3. Because the existence of a stipulation, or lack thereof, does not affect the resolution of this case, it is unnecessary to address the matter further.
[8] Award at 31.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 10 (summarizing Agency's argument).
[11] Id. at 32.
[12] Id.; see also id. (observing that the FLSA "does not . . . condition" the requirement to pay overtime "on the number of hours worked in a prior pay period").
[13] Id.
[14] Exceptions Br. at 22 27.
[15] See id. at 22.
[16] NTEU, Chapter 133, 74 FLRA 242, 244 (2025).
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
[19] 29 U.S.C. Sec. 207(a).
[20] 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6128(a).
[21] Id. Sec. 6128(b); see also 5 C.F.R Sec. 610.111(d) ("[A]ll work performed by an [AWS] employee within the basic work requirement is considered regularly scheduled work for premium pay and hours[ ]of[ ]duty purposes.").
[22] FAA, Little Rock Air Traffic Control Tower, Little Rock, Ark., 51 FLRA 1046, 1050 (1996) (FAA) (quoting 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6128(a)).
[23] 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6121(5)(A).
[24] Award at 31.
[25] 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6128(a); see also 5 C.F.R. Sec. 551.501(a)(6) (excluding from FLSA overtime-pay provisions "hours of work that are not 'overtime hours,' as defined in 5 U.S.C. [Sec.] 6121, for employees under . . . compressed work schedules").
[26] 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6128(b) ("[H]ours worked in excess of the compressed schedule shall be overtime hours."); see also 5 C.F.R. Sec. 610.111(d) (providing that work performed "within the basic work requirement" of a compressed schedule "is considered regularly scheduled work for premium pay and hours[ ]of[ ]duty purposes").
[27] Award at 20.
[28] Id. at 32.
[29] 5 C.F.R. Sec. 610.111(d) (work performed "within the basic work requirement" of a compressed schedule "is considered regularly scheduled work for premium pay and hours[ ]of[ ]duty purposes").
[30] See FAA, 51 FLRA at 1051 (finding Work Schedules Act barred agency "from making overtime payments for . . . hours[] which were part of regularly assigned shifts that comprised the grievants' compressed schedules").
[31] Opp'n Br. at 13 14.
[32] 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6121(5)(A) (emphasis added).
[33] Opp'n Br. at 14.
[34] 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6121(7) (describing "overtime hours" as "any hours in excess of those specified hours which constitute the compressed schedule").
[35] See FAA, 51 FLRA at 1050 51 (setting aside award "as contrary to the Work Schedules Act" where "the facts, as found by the [a]rbitrator, d[id] not establish that the grievants were required to work any hours in excess of their compressed schedules").
[36] See, e.g., U.S. DHS, U.S. CBP, U.S. Border Patrol, Del Rio Sector, 74 FLRA 239, 241 (2025) (citing U.S. Dep't of Com., Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin., Se. Fisheries Sci. Ctr., 74 FLRA 205, 206 (2025)) (finding it unnecessary to resolve party's additional exceptions after setting aside award as contrary to law).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v74/74-46
FEC Issues Digest for Week of Aug. 18-22, 2025
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest:
* * *
Commission meetings and hearings
No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week.
* * *
Litigation
McDonald v. FEC (Case No. 25-10830) On August 20, Plaintiff-Appellant McDonald filed a Memorandum Opposing the Motion for Summary Affirmance in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. FEC, et al. (Case No. 24-621) On August 21, the Federal Respondents filed a Brief in Support of Petitioners in the U.S. Supreme Court.
*
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest:
* * *
Commission meetings and hearings
No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week.
* * *
Litigation
McDonald v. FEC (Case No. 25-10830) On August 20, Plaintiff-Appellant McDonald filed a Memorandum Opposing the Motion for Summary Affirmance in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. FEC, et al. (Case No. 24-621) On August 21, the Federal Respondents filed a Brief in Support of Petitioners in the U.S. Supreme Court.
** *
Outreach
This week, the Commission published an updated interactive timeline to mark the agency's 50th anniversary. From the earliest days of the agency to more recent developments, the timeline offers brief descriptions of key events, supplemented by photos, videos and links to additional information.
* * *
Electronic Filing
Version 8.5 of the FEC's electronic filing specifications will be released on September 2, 2025. Committees will be required to update FECFile or their third-party electronic filing software prior to filing any reports on or after that date.
* * *
Press releases
FEC publishes interactive timeline for agency's 50th anniversary (issued August 18)
* * *
Election Dates
The Commission has posted a list of preliminary 2026 Congressional Primary Dates.
* * *
Upcoming Commission meetings and hearings
September 16, 2025: The Commission is scheduled to meet in executive session.
* * *
Upcoming educational opportunities
September 17, 2025: The Commission is scheduled to host a Seminar for Separate Segregated Funds at its headquarters in Washington, DC.
October 1, 2025: The Commission is scheduled to host a Reporting and FECFile Webinar for Candidate Committees.
October 22, 2025: The Commission is scheduled to host a Seminar for Candidates and Political Parties.
For more information on upcoming training opportunities, see the Commission's Trainings page.
* * *
Upcoming reporting due dates
September 20: September Monthly Reports are due. For more information, see the 2025 Monthly Reporting schedule.
* * *
Additional research materials
Contribution Limits: In addition to the current limits, the Commission has posted an archive of contribution limits that were in effect going back to the 1975-1976 election cycles.
Federal election results are available. The data was compiled from the official vote totals published by state election offices.
FEC Notify: Want to be notified by email when campaign finance reports are received by the agency? Sign up here.
The Combined Federal State Disclosure and Election Directory is available. This publication identifies the federal and state agencies responsible for the disclosure of campaign finances, lobbying, personal finances, public financing, candidates on the ballot, election results, spending on state initiatives, and other financial filings.
The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Tax Checkoff Chart provides information on balance of the Fund, monthly deposits into the Fund reported by the Department of the Treasury, payments from the Fund as certified by the FEC, and participation rates of taxpayers as reported by the Internal Revenue Service. For more information on the Presidential Public Funding Program, see the Public Funding of Presidential Elections page.
The FEC Record is available as a continuously updated online news source.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fec.gov/updates/week-of-august-18-22-2025/
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice: Comments Invited on Sec. 214 Applications to Discontinue Domestic Telecommunications Services as Part of Technology Transition
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket Nos. 25-256, 25-257) on Aug. 22, 2025:
* * *
Unless otherwise specified, the following procedures and dates apply to the application(s) (the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s)) listed in the Appendix.
The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau), upon initial review, has found the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s) listed herein to be acceptable for filing and subject to the procedures set forth in section 63.71 of the Commission's rules./1 The application
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket Nos. 25-256, 25-257) on Aug. 22, 2025:
* * *
Unless otherwise specified, the following procedures and dates apply to the application(s) (the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s)) listed in the Appendix.
The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau), upon initial review, has found the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s) listed herein to be acceptable for filing and subject to the procedures set forth in section 63.71 of the Commission's rules./1 The applicationrequests authority, under section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,/2 and section 63.71 of the Commission's rules,/3 to discontinue, reduce, or impair certain domestic telecommunications service(s) (Affected Service(s)) in specified geographic areas (Service Area(s)) as applicable and as fully described in each application.
In accordance with section 63.71(f) of the Commission's rules, the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s) listed in the Appendix will be deemed granted automatically on September 22, 2025, the 31st day after the release date of this public notice, unless the Commission notifies any applicant(s) that their grant will not be automatically effective./4 We note that the date on which an application for Commission authorization is deemed granted may be different from the date on which applicants are authorized to discontinue service ("Authorized Date"). Any applicant whose application has been deemed granted may discontinue their Affected Service(s) in their Service Area(s) on or after the authorized discontinuance date(s) specified in the Appendix, in accordance with their filed representations. Accordingly, pursuant to section 63.71(f), and the terms outlined in each application, absent further Commission action, each applicant may discontinue the Affected Service(s) in the Service Area(s) described in their application on or after the authorized discontinuance date(s) listed in the Appendix for that application. For purposes of computation of time when filing a petition for reconsideration, application for review, or petition for judicial review of the Commission's decision(s), the date of "public notice" shall be the later of the auto grant date stated above in this Public Notice, or the release date(s) of any further public notice(s) or order(s) announcing final Commission action, as applicable. Should no petitions for reconsideration, applications for review, or petitions for judicial review be timely filed, the proceeding(s) listed in this Public Notice shall be terminated, and the docket(s) will be closed.
Comments objecting to the application listed in the Appendix must be filed with the Commission on or before September 8, 2025./5 Comments should refer to the specific WC Docket No. and Comp. Pol. File No. listed in the Appendix for the Section 214 Discontinuance Application. Comments should include specific information about the impact of the proposed discontinuance on the commenter, including any inability to acquire reasonable substitute service. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
This proceeding shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./6 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.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
For further information, please see the contact(s) for the specific discontinuance proceeding you are interested in as listed in the Appendix. For further information on procedures regarding section 214 please visit https://www.fcc.gov/general/domestic-section-214-discontinuance-service.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ 47 CFR Sec. 63.71.
2/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 214.
3/ 47 CFR Sec. 63.71.
4/ See 47 CFR Sec. 63.71(f)(1) (stating, in relevant part, that an application filed by "any carrier meeting the requirements of paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section shall be automatically granted on the 31st day... unless the Commission has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective."); see also 47 CFR Sec. 63.71(f)(2)(ii) (stating that "[a]n application to discontinue, reduce, or impair an existing retail service as part of a technology transition, as defined in Sec. 63.60(i), may be automatically granted only if: ...The applicant (A) Offers a stand-alone interconnected VoIP service, as defined in Sec. 9.3 of this chapter, throughout the affected service area, and (B) At least one other alternative stand-alone facilities-based wireline or wireless voice service is available from another unaffiliated provider throughout the affected service area."); Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84, Order, DA 25-248, para. 6 (WCB Mar. 20, 2025) (waiving the "stand-alone" requirement for a period of two years when a carrier seeks to discontinue a legacy voice service pursuant to section 214(a), thereby allowing carriers to satisfy both prongs of the Alternative Options Test with a bundled service) (Standalone Waiver Order)).
5/ Comments are normally due 15 days after the Commission releases public notice of the proposed discontinuance. 47 CFR Sec. 63.71(a). For purposes of computation of time, if the comment deadline falls on a weekend or officially recognized Federal legal holiday, however, comments will be due on the next business day. See 47 CFR Sec. 1.4(e) and (j).
6/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-752A1.pdf
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice Announcing Comment Dates for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 17-84) on Aug. 22, 2025:
* * *
By this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau announces that comments in response to the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Fourth Further Notice) in the Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment proceeding are due no later than September 22, 2025, and the reply comments are due no later than October 22, 2025./1 In the Fourth Further Notice, the Commission
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 17-84) on Aug. 22, 2025:
* * *
By this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau announces that comments in response to the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Fourth Further Notice) in the Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment proceeding are due no later than September 22, 2025, and the reply comments are due no later than October 22, 2025./1 In the Fourth Further Notice, the Commissionseeks comment on ways to further facilitate the processing of pole attachment applications and make-ready and on whether light poles fall within the purview of section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended./2
The Fourth Further Notice set deadlines for filing comments and reply comments at 30 and 60 days after the date of publication of the summary of the Fourth Further Notice in the Federal Register./3 The Federal Register published a summary of the Fourth Further Notice on August 22, 2025./4 Complete filing instructions are contained in the Fourth Further Notice and the Federal Register Notice./5
For additional information, contact Michael Ray by email at Michael.Ray@fcc.gov or by phone at (202) 418-0357.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84, Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 25-38 (rel. July 25, 2025) (Fourth Further Notice). The document is available on the Commission's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-2538A1.pdf. The document is also available electronically via the Commission's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs (by FCC Number, FCC 25-38) or via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (by docket number, WC Docket No. 17-84).
2/ Fourth Further Notice at 34-67, paras. 51-103.
3/ Id. at 1.
4/ FCC, Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 90 Fed. Reg. 40993 (Aug. 22, 2025) (Federal Register Notice).
5/ Fourth Further Notice at 86-87, para. 146; Federal Register Notice, 90 Fed. Reg. at 40994.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-748A1.pdf
FCC Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Issues Public Notice Announcing Comment Dates for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Protecting Consumers From Unauthorized Carrier Changes
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau issued the following public notice (CG Docket No. 17-169, CC Docket No. 98-170) on Aug. 22, 2025:
* * *
On July 25, 2025, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to streamline and simplify the slamming and truth-in-billing rules to reduce regulatory burdens for providers while retaining core consumer protections./1 The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking also seeks comment on other issues. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sets deadlines for filing comments and reply comments
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau issued the following public notice (CG Docket No. 17-169, CC Docket No. 98-170) on Aug. 22, 2025:
* * *
On July 25, 2025, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to streamline and simplify the slamming and truth-in-billing rules to reduce regulatory burdens for providers while retaining core consumer protections./1 The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking also seeks comment on other issues. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sets deadlines for filing comments and reply commentsat 30 days and 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
On August 22, 2025, a summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register./2 Accordingly, comments are due September 22, 2025, and reply comments are due October 21, 2025. Complete comment filing instructions are set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the Federal Register.
For further information, contact Richard D. Smith, Attorney Advisor, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (717) 338-2797 or richard.smith@fcc.gov.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ Protecting Consumers from Unauthorized Carrier Changes and Related Unauthorized Charges; Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, CG Docket No. 17-169, CC Docket No. 98-170, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 25-41 (rel. July 25, 2025).
2/ Federal Communications Commission, Protecting Consumers from Unauthorized Carrier Changes and Related Unauthorized Charges, Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 90 FR 41016 (Aug. 22, 2025).
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-753A1.pdf
