Featured Stories
USITC Makes Determinations in Five-Year Reviews Concerning Non-Refillable Steel Cylinders From China
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
USITC Makes Determinations in Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews Concerning Non-Refillable Steel Cylinders from China
September 29, 2026
The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) today determined that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on imports non-refillable steel cylinders from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
As a result of the USITC's affirmative determinations, the existing orders
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
USITC Makes Determinations in Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews Concerning Non-Refillable Steel Cylinders from China
September 29, 2026
The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) today determined that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on imports non-refillable steel cylinders from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
As a result of the USITC's affirmative determinations, the existing orderson imports of these products from China will remain in place.
Chairman Brett W. Doyle and Commissioners Jason E. Kearns, Peter-Anthony Pappas, Bart Thanhauser, and David Foley Jr. voted in the affirmative. Commissioner Samuel T. Negatu did not participate in today's vote.
Today's action comes under the five-year (sunset) review process required by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. See the attached page for background on these five-year (sunset) reviews.
The USITC's public report, Non-Refillable Steel Cylinders from China (Inv. Nos. 701-TA- 644 and 731-TA-1494 (Review), USITC Publication 5799, October 2026), will contain the views of the USITC and information developed during the reviews.
The report will be available on the USITC website by November 8, 2026.
BACKGROUND
The Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires the Department of Commerce to revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, or terminate a suspension agreement, after five years unless the Department of Commerce and the USITC determine that revoking the order or terminating the suspension agreement would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidies (Commerce) and of material injury (USITC) within a reasonably foreseeable time.
The USITC's institution notice in five-year reviews requests that interested parties file responses with the USITC concerning the likely effects of revoking the order under review as well as other information. Generally, within 95 days from institution, the USITC will determine whether the responses it has received reflect an adequate or inadequate level of interest in a full review. If responses to the USITC's notice of institution are adequate, or if other circumstances warrant a full review, the USITC conducts a full review, which includes a public hearing and issuance of questionnaires.
The USITC generally does not hold a hearing or conduct further investigative activities in expedited reviews. Commissioners base their injury determination in expedited reviews on the facts available, including the USITC's prior injury and review determinations, responses received to its notice of institution, data collected by staff in connection with the reviews, and information provided by the Department of Commerce.
The five-year (sunset) reviews concerning Non-Refillable Steel Cylinders from China were instituted on April 1, 2026.
On July 6, 2026, the USITC determined to conduct expedited five-year reviews. Commissioners David S. Johanson, Jason E. Kearns, and Amy A. Karpel concluded that the domestic interested party group responses were adequate, and the respondent interested party group responses were inadequate. Commissioner Johanson voted for full reviews; Commissioners Kearns and Karpel voted for expedited reviews.
Chairman Brett W. Doyle and Commissioners Peter-Anthony Pappas, Bart Thanhauser, David Foley Jr., and Samuel T. Negatu did not participate in the adequacy votes, as they were not members of the USITC at the time.
A record of the USITC's vote to conduct expedited reviews is available on the investigations page for Non-Refillable Steel Cylinders from China; Inv. No. 701-TA-644 and 731-TA-1494 (Review) (https://ids.usitc.gov/case/4983/investigation/8912).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2026/er0929_69291.htm
SEC Files Settled Action Against Start-Up Space Station Construction Company, Its CEO, Its Ex-COO
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Timothy E. Alatorre, Rhonda D. Stevenson, and Above: Space Development Corporation f/k/a Orbital Assembly Corporation, No. 3:26-cv-11078 (N.D. Cal. filed Sept. 29, 2026)
On September 29, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed settled charges against Above: Space Development Corporation f/k/a Orbital Assembly Corporation ("Orbital"), an Alabama-based start-up company that purported to design and construct space stations, as well as Orbital's
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Timothy E. Alatorre, Rhonda D. Stevenson, and Above: Space Development Corporation f/k/a Orbital Assembly Corporation, No. 3:26-cv-11078 (N.D. Cal. filed Sept. 29, 2026)
On September 29, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed settled charges against Above: Space Development Corporation f/k/a Orbital Assembly Corporation ("Orbital"), an Alabama-based start-up company that purported to design and construct space stations, as well as Orbital'sformer Chief Operating Officer Timothy E. Alatorre and current Chief Executive Officer Rhonda D. Stevenson, in connection with providing allegedly misleading information to investors about the status of Orbital's projects, its intellectual property, and its relationships with other space industry companies.
According to the SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, between January 2021 and March 2024, Orbital raised approximately $2.9 million from more than 1,400 retail investors through five securities offerings conducted pursuant to Regulation Crowdfunding. As alleged, in offering materials, Orbital misrepresented to investors that it would design and construct large-scale space stations within four to six years, even though it knew or should have known that it lacked the staffing, technical capabilities, and funding, among other things, to realistically achieve its stated timelines. In addition, as alleged, Orbital made misrepresentations to investors about having several patents and created the misleading impression it had partnerships with two well-known aerospace launch service companies. The SEC further alleges that Alatorre and Stevenson approved and helped create, draft, and arrange for the dissemination of Orbital's misrepresentations and misleading information, which they should have known were false or misleading.
Without admitting the allegations in the SEC's complaint, Alatorre, Stevenson, and Orbital each consented to the entry of final judgments, subject to court approval, that would permanently enjoin them from violating Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933, and, as to Orbital, further Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act; enjoin Alatorre and Stevenson for a period of three years from directly or indirectly participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any security, except for purchases or sales for their own personal accounts; order Alatorre to pay a $50,000 civil penalty; and decline to order a civil penalty against Stevenson contingent upon the accuracy and completeness of her Statement of Financial Condition.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Christine Hom, with assistance from Jason M. Bussey, and was supervised by Chrissy Filipp, David Zhou, and Jason H. Lee, all of the SEC's San Francisco Regional Office.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26655.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26655
SEC Charges New Jersey Resident as Additional Defendant in Alleged Insider Trading Scheme
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jordan Meadow, et. al., No. 1:23-cv-05573 (S.D.N.Y. filed June 29, 2023)
On September 29, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed an amended complaint to name Chris Farrant, a New Jersey resident, as an additional defendant in a previously filed insider trading case. According to the SEC's amended complaint, Farrant traded in the securities of two issuers based on material nonpublic information he received from his close friend, previously-charged
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jordan Meadow, et. al., No. 1:23-cv-05573 (S.D.N.Y. filed June 29, 2023)
On September 29, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed an amended complaint to name Chris Farrant, a New Jersey resident, as an additional defendant in a previously filed insider trading case. According to the SEC's amended complaint, Farrant traded in the securities of two issuers based on material nonpublic information he received from his close friend, previously-chargeddefendant Stephen Teixeira, who had obtained the information from the laptop of his then-romantic partner, an executive assistant at an investment bank.
Additionally, the SEC alleges that Farrant tipped the material nonpublic information he knew to be misappropriated to his close friend, previously-charged defendant Jordan Meadow. The amended complaint further alleges that Meadow then traded on the basis of that information and tipped his colleague and friend, Ronald Smith, who also traded on the basis of that information for himself, his then-girlfriend, and brokerage customers. The SEC previously filed charges against Smith in a separate action.
The amended complaint alleges that the scheme generated illicit profits of approximately $28,600 for Teixeira, $25,860 for Farrant, more than $730,000 for Meadow, and more than $530,000 for Smith. According to the amended complaint, Meadow and Smith allegedly used the misappropriated information to recommend profitable trades to their customers, who made millions of dollars on trades, while Meadow and Smith made hundreds of thousands of dollars in commissions.
The SEC's amended complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges Farrant with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and civil monetary penalties.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Norman P. Ostrove of the SEC's Philadelphia Regional Office and Julia C. Green of the Division of Enforcement's Market Abuse Unit, with assistance from John S. Rymas of the Market Abuse Unit's Analysis and Detection Center. It was supervised by Scott A. Thompson of the Philadelphia Regional Office and Joseph G. Sansone, Chief of the Market Abuse Unit. The litigation will be led by Kara F. Sweet and supervised by Gregory Bockin of the Philadelphia Regional Office. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26653.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26653
SEC Charges Multiple Entities in Fraud Schemes Totaling at Least $15 Million That Used WhatsApp, Other Platforms to Lure Investors
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cryptoaiml Ltd.; Cryptoaiml Capital Foundation, No. 26-civ-08508 (S.D.N.Y filed Sept. 29, 2026)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. TSAI Pro Ltd.; TSAI Capital Foundation, No. 26-civ-08518 (S.D.N.Y filed Sept. 29, 2026)
On September 29, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged multiple entities that are likely operated by individuals located overseas for defrauding hundreds of retail investors, including many in the U.S., through so-called
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cryptoaiml Ltd.; Cryptoaiml Capital Foundation, No. 26-civ-08508 (S.D.N.Y filed Sept. 29, 2026)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. TSAI Pro Ltd.; TSAI Capital Foundation, No. 26-civ-08518 (S.D.N.Y filed Sept. 29, 2026)
On September 29, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged multiple entities that are likely operated by individuals located overseas for defrauding hundreds of retail investors, including many in the U.S., through so-calledinvestment confidence scams where the perpetrators sought to build online relationships with unsuspecting clients before stealing their money.
In two separate complaints, both filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the SEC charged Cryptoaiml Ltd. and Cryptoaiml Capital Foundation as well as TSAI Pro Ltd. and TSAI Capital Foundation with fraud in connection with schemes that feigned SEC compliance while misappropriating more than $12.5 and $2.8 million, respectively, from investors through online platforms.
According to the SEC complaint against Cryptoaiml and Cryptoaiml Capital Foundation, from at least August 2024 through March 2025, the entities formed WhatsApp group chats where they gained investor trust by impersonating investment professionals and issuing supposed AI-generated trading "signals" or tips claiming to produce large profits. The defendants allegedly directed investors and clients to open accounts on their fake trading platform and manipulated them into transferring crypto assets to the platform. In some cases, the defendants allegedly established an investment adviser client relationship with unwitting investors who signed investment management agreements that were represented to be legitimate. As alleged, the entities also lured investors and clients to their platform by falsely claiming to be certified by regulators, including the SEC, and posted a screenshot on their website of a falsified Form D filed by Cryptoaiml Ltd. with the SEC. The complaint alleges that there was no genuine trading platform as no trading took place, the reflected profits were fictitious, and investors who attempted to withdraw funds were told that their accounts were frozen until they paid fraudulent advance fees.
According to the SEC's complaint against TSAI Pro Ltd. and TSAI Capital Foundation, from September 2024 to March 2025, the entities represented to investors through their website, WhatsApp chats, and public Facebook that they could earn guaranteed profits by, among other things, depositing funds on their online platform for the purpose of renting bots programmed with artificial intelligence to trade on investors' behalf. The defendants also told investors that they could earn money by recruiting others to invest in the AI-trading bot program. They also falsely represented that TSAI--which offered and sold the bot program to investors--was fully regulated by the SEC and posted a phony certificate from the agency on their website that referenced a falsified Form D filed by TSAI Pro Ltd. As alleged, the entire AI-trading bot program was a fraud: there were no AI trading bots and deposited funds never were used to earn returns for investors.
The complaints, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, charge Cryptoaiml Ltd. and Cryptoaiml Capital Foundation with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b 5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and charge TSAI Pro Ltd. and TSAI Capital Foundation with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b 5 thereunder, and Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaints seek permanent injunctions, conduct based injunctions, disgorgement of ill gotten gains, and civil penalties.
The SEC's investigation of Cryptoaiml Ltd. and Cryptoaiml Capital Foundation was conducted by David S. Brown and Madiha M. Zuberi with assistance from Thomas Bedkowski and supervised by Diana K. Tani and Laura D'Allaird, and the SEC's investigation of TSAI Pro Ltd. and TSAI Capital Foundation was conducted by Jennie B. Krasner with assistance from Bryan Hsueh and supervised by Paul Kim and Laura D'Allaird, all of the Division of Enforcement's Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit. The litigations will be led by Ruth Pinkel and supervised by Stephen Kam of the SEC's Los Angeles Regional Office.
The SEC's Office of Investor Education and Assistance has issued investor alerts warning investors that fraudsters may use popular group chats or claim to be officially registered with the SEC to lure investors into scams. The SEC encourages investors to use Investor.gov to check the background of anyone offering or selling them an investment.
Separately, the Forms D filed by Cryptoaiml Ltd. and TSAI Pro Ltd. have been removed from the Commission website.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint - TSAI (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp-pr2026-95-tsai.pdf)
* SEC Complaint - Cryptoaiml (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp-pr2026-95-cryptoaiml.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26654
FCC Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau Issues Public Notice: Guidance for Filing in Network Outage Reporting System
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (PS Docket No. 15-80; ET Docket No. 04-35):
* * *
The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) issues this Public Notice to remind communications service providers to submit accurate and complete Network Outage Reporting System (NORS) reports. NORS filings are a critical tool that provides the Commission, as well as federal, state, Tribal, and territorial public-safety agencies, with situational
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (PS Docket No. 15-80; ET Docket No. 04-35):
* * *
The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) issues this Public Notice to remind communications service providers to submit accurate and complete Network Outage Reporting System (NORS) reports. NORS filings are a critical tool that provides the Commission, as well as federal, state, Tribal, and territorial public-safety agencies, with situationalawareness during outages, supports analysis of outage causes and trends, and enables the Bureau to promote implementation of network reliability best practices.
I. BACKGROUND
The Commission plays an essential role in "ensuring that the communications network promotes public safety, including matters involving the national security and emergency preparedness of the United States."/1 To perform these duties effectively, the Commission needs "timely, accurate and longitudinal information about the nation's communications infrastructure."/2 Cable communications providers, satellite operators, satellite communications providers, wireless service providers, wireline service providers, Signaling System 7 (SS7) providers, and submarine cable licensees must submit a Notification, Initial Report, and Final Report in NORS about outages that exceed certain thresholds./3 Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers must submit a Notification and a Final Report about reportable outages./4
II. GUIDANCE ON RECURRING NORS REPORTING ISSUES
A. Describe the Incident Clearly and in Detail
The web-based NORS reporting form includes a freeform text "Description of Incident" field. Providers must enter information in that field sufficient to enable a reader who is unfamiliar with the provider's internal systems to understand what happened./5 The content of the "Description of Incident" field should include "the sequence of events leading up to the incident, the steps taken to try and resolve the incident once it . . . occurred, and the action(s) that finally resolved the incident," as well as any contributing factors./6 Providers should also "[i]nclude any factors that may have contributed to the duration of the event, 'quick fix' actions that may have resolved or at least mitigated the immediate problem but were not the final, long-term solution, and any other contributing factors."/7 The Commission expects that the Initial Report will contain as much of this information as is available at the time of filing,/8 and that complete information will be available by the time the Final Report is filed./9 Providers should complete this field using clear, plain language. Descriptions that merely contain technical terminology or codes, unintelligible notes from internal ticketing systems, or bare, generic statements that the matter remains "under investigation," are not helpful and fail to satisfy the requirement of our rules./10
B. Provide a Reasonable Estimate of the Number of "Users Affected"
Providers should use the best estimate reasonably available at each filing stage to identify the number of users potentially affected by an outage,/11 by using the metric applicable to the service type under section 4.7./12 For telephony and certain paging services, that metric is based on assigned or working telephone numbers;/13 for other services, it is generally based on the number of "end users" potentially affected, subject to any service-specific calculation./14 When determining the number of end users potentially affected by an outage, a provider should base its assessment on the number of individual users affected by the outage rather than the number of individual customer accounts./15 As the Commission explained in 2004, reporting an outage affecting a business or government entity as affecting a single user, where the relevant customer account might include tens of thousands of telephone lines, may grossly underestimate the outage's impact./16
Similarly, a provider must not use a figure representing its entire subscriber base as a nominal placeholder for the true number of users potentially affected when information actually available to the provider supports a different figure./17 The number of potentially affected users in an outage is essential to help the Commission assess the outage's scope and scale./18 At the Initial Report and Final Report stages, presenting accurate information about an outage's scope is part of a provider's obligation to include "all pertinent information then available on the outage. . . ."/19 If the exact number of users potentially affected is not yet known, the provider must provide the best estimate reasonably available at each filing stage by using the metric applicable to the service type under section 4.7, identify the figure as an estimate where appropriate, and update the figure as more accurate information becomes available./20
C. Submit NORS Reports for Outages Arising on Facilities that Are Leased or Otherwise Utilized
The Commission's rules require cable communications providers, satellite operators, SS7 providers, wireless service providers, wireline service providers, and interconnected VoIP providers to report outages that they have "experienced on any facilities that they own, operate, lease, or otherwise utilize."/21 Thus, these providers must submit outage reports for outages that arise not only in their own call origination networks but also in other network locations and platforms, such as the "middle mile" or transport network facilities./22 This requirement applies to the extent the reporting provider "leases or otherwise utilizes" the affected facilities and the outage otherwise meets the applicable reporting criteria in section 4.9./23
D. Non-Facilities-Based Providers Must Report in NORS
We remind non-facilities-based resellers, including mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs), of their NORS outage reporting obligations./24 A review of NORS data shows that very few MVNOs submit outage reports./25 Non-facilities-based resellers, including MVNOs, must submit NORS reports when they fall within a provider category covered by section 4.9 and "lease or otherwise utilize" facilities to provide communications services to their customers./26 Such resellers are uniquely equipped to provide information to the Commission about how outages affect their customers./27
E. Select the Most Precise Root Cause Supported by the Information Available
NORS enables providers to identify an outage's root cause by selecting from among a dropdown menu of root causes. A provider should select the most specific root cause supported by the information available before the Final Report deadline./28 The fact that an outage began on another provider's network does not obviate the requirement that the reporting provider conduct a reasonable investigation of the outage to determine its root cause./29 Providers should only select "Insufficient Data" in rare instances when, after a reasonable investigation, they cannot identify the root cause./30 The Commission has explained that, by the Final Report deadline, "complete information will, in almost all cases, be available and the [F]inal [R]eport must contain this information,"/31 including the root causes and any contributing factors./32 Moreover, the fact that an outage investigation may continue after the 30-day Final Report deadline does not, standing alone, justify selecting "Insufficient Data" when the available evidence supports a more specific cause./33 Section 4.11 requires providers to submit "all pertinent information" about an outage./34 Even where a provider must select the "Insufficient Data" root cause, it should explain what is known about the outage, why a more specific cause cannot be identified, and any known contributing factors. In addition, providers should only select "Other" as the root cause when the cause is known but no listed root cause accurately describes it./35 When selecting "Other," providers should provide a plain-language explanation of the specific cause in their report, including any known contributing factors./36
III. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
We expect NORS filers' submissions to provide informative incident descriptions, specific root cause information, and the best estimate of impacted users. Consistent with the Commission's rules, we also expect that non-facilities-based providers will submit NORS reports concerning reportable outages, and we expect that outages that arise from facilities that the NORS filer leases or otherwise utilizes in its provision of service will be reported as well. These measures will help ensure the Commission and its public-safety partners have visibility into the impacts, causes, and resolution of all outages that must be reported in NORS.
* * *
Original text plus footnotes here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1047A1.pdf
FCC Issues Public Notice: Office of International Affairs Seeks Comment on Recommendations Approved by World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory Committee
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following public notice (OIA Docket No. 24-30):
* * *
On September 29, 2026, the World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory Committee (WRC-27 Advisory Committee, or WAC) approved and provided for Commission consideration its draft recommendations on issues that will be considered by the 2027 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-27). Based upon an initial review of the draft recommendations forwarded to the Commission, the Office of International Affairs, in coordination with other Commission Bureaus and Offices, tentatively
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following public notice (OIA Docket No. 24-30):
* * *
On September 29, 2026, the World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory Committee (WRC-27 Advisory Committee, or WAC) approved and provided for Commission consideration its draft recommendations on issues that will be considered by the 2027 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-27). Based upon an initial review of the draft recommendations forwarded to the Commission, the Office of International Affairs, in coordination with other Commission Bureaus and Offices, tentativelyconcludes that we can generally support most of the content found in Attachment A (the WRC-27 Advisory Committee draft recommendations dated September 29, 2026).
We seek comment on the draft recommendations provided in Attachment A. In addition, we seek comment on National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) draft proposals in Attachment B. The comments provided by interested parties will assist the FCC in its upcoming consultations with the U.S. Department of State and NTIA in the development of U.S. positions for WRC-27. The proposed recommendations that are attached to this Public Notice may evolve in the course of interagency discussions as we approach WRC-27 and, therefore, do not constitute any final U.S. Government positions on any issue.
The deadline for comments on the proposed recommendations is October 13, 2026. It is necessary that all comments be received by October 13, 2026, in order to allow sufficient time to finalize U.S. positions before commencement of regional WRC-27 preparatory meetings.
All comments are to reference OIA Docket No. 24-30 and to specific recommendations by specific WAC document numbers. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before October 13, 2026.
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.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 commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street, N.E., Washington DC 20554.
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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 1-888-835-5322 (tty). In addition, one copy of each pleading must be sent to: Gregory Baker, Designated Federal Official, Global Strategy and Negotiation Division, Office of International Affairs, 45 L Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20554; email: WRC-27@fcc.gov. The complete texts of these recommendations are available by accessing the FCC's WRC-27 web site at: www.fcc.gov/wrc-27. For further information, please contact Gregory Baker at (202) 919-0758 or by email at: WRC-27@fcc.gov.
* * *
Original text plus attachment here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1052A1.pdf
FCC Issues Daily Digest for Sept. 29
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following Daily Digest (Vol. 45, No. 187) on Sept. 29, 2026:
* * *
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE DATED AND RELEASED TODAY:
PUBLIC NOTICES
Released: 2026-09-29. EX PARTE PRESENTATIONS AND POST-REPLY COMMENT PERIOD FILING IN PERMIT-BUT-DISCLOSURE PROCEEDINGS RECEIVED ON 9-28-26. OMD. Contact: Kenneth Hill, 202-418-7521. DOC-425423A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425423A1.pdf) DOC-425423A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425423A1.txt)
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-2-260929-01. Released: 2026-09-29.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following Daily Digest (Vol. 45, No. 187) on Sept. 29, 2026:
* * *
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE DATED AND RELEASED TODAY:
PUBLIC NOTICES
Released: 2026-09-29. EX PARTE PRESENTATIONS AND POST-REPLY COMMENT PERIOD FILING IN PERMIT-BUT-DISCLOSURE PROCEEDINGS RECEIVED ON 9-28-26. OMD. Contact: Kenneth Hill, 202-418-7521. DOC-425423A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425423A1.pdf) DOC-425423A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425423A1.txt)
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-2-260929-01. Released: 2026-09-29.ACTIONS. MB. DOC-425421A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425421A1.pdf) DOC-425421A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425421A1.txt)
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-3-260929-01. Released: 2026-09-29. PLEADINGS. MB. DOC-425422A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425422A1.pdf) DOC-425422A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425422A1.txt)
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-1-260929-01. Released: 2026-09-29. APPLICATIONS. MB. DOC-425420A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425420A1.pdf) DOC-425420A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425420A1.txt)
* * *
ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED SEPTEMBER 25, 2026, DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO. 185:
TEXTS
ERRATUM - IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 3 OF THE CABLE TELEVISION CONSUMER PROTECTION AND COMPETITION ACT OF 1992 ET AL. Issued an Erratum correcting an Order, DA 26-303, released on March 30, 2026. (Dkt No 26-267). Action by: the Deputy Chief, Office of Economics and Analytics. by ERRATUM. (DA No. 26-1036). OMD. DA-26-1036A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1036A1.docx) DA-26-1036A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1036A1.pdf) DA-26-1036A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1036A1.txt)
* * *
ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED SEPTEMBER 28, 2026, DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO. 186:
PUBLIC NOTICES
Released: 2026-09-28. WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU ANNOUNCES FILING WINDOW FOR REVISED A-CAM I AND A-CAM II CARRIERS TO SUBMIT CERTIFICATIONS REQUESTING DOWNWARD LOCATION ADJUSTMENTS. (DA No. 26-1044). (Dkt No 10-90). WCB announces a filing window for Revised A-CAM I and A-CAM II carriers to submit certifications to have their required location totals and support adjusted downward based on the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric.. WCB. Contact: Heidi Lankau of the Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Heidi.Lankau@fcc.gov or (202) 418-2876. DA-26-1044A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1044A1.docx) DA-26-1044A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1044A1.pdf) DA-26-1044A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1044A1.txt)
Released: 2026-09-28. PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU RECOGNIZES ACCREDITATION BODIES FOR THE U.S. CYBER TRUST MARK PROGRAM. (DA No. 26-1029). (Dkt No 24-714 23-239). PSHSB. News Media Contact: MediaRelations@fcc.gov. Action by: Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. DA-26-1029A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1029A1.docx) DA-26-1029A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1029A1.pdf) DA-26-1029A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1029A1.txt)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fcc.gov/edocs/daily-digest/2026/09/29
