Federal Regulatory Agencies
Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
SEC Commissioner Uyeda Issues Statement on Proposing Registered Offering Reform and Enhancement of Emerging Growth Company Accommodations and Simplification of Filer Status for Reporting Companies
WASHINGTON, May 20 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on May 19, 2026, by Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda on Proposing Registered Offering Reform and Enhancement of Emerging Growth Company Accommodations and Simplification of Filer Status for Reporting Companies:* * *
Today, the Commission proposes rules to update its rulebook with respect to conducting shelf offerings and to enhance and simplify the registration and reporting framework for smaller public companies. These proposals reflect a commitment to improve the core features of the SEC's registration and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 20 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on May 19, 2026, by Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda on Proposing Registered Offering Reform and Enhancement of Emerging Growth Company Accommodations and Simplification of Filer Status for Reporting Companies: * * * Today, the Commission proposes rules to update its rulebook with respect to conducting shelf offerings and to enhance and simplify the registration and reporting framework for smaller public companies. These proposals reflect a commitment to improve the core features of the SEC's registration andreporting system. They build upon--and improve--the SEC rulebook in a manner that reflects the agency's observations and awareness of contemporary market practices that have developed over the past two decades.
The First Proposal Builds Upon the Successes of the Shelf Registration Framework
With regard to Registered Offering Reform, the proposal would modernize the shelf registration framework. The state of communications and information technologies has evolved significantly since the last time that the Commission made substantial changes to the shelf registration offering process as part of the Securities Act Offering Reform rulemaking in 2005.[1]
Market practices, including how material information is distributed and consumed by investors, have changed dramatically since then. More tools are available to obtain information on financial markets, individual companies, and financial products than ever before. Disclosure is largely available in real time today, far advanced from where it was twenty years ago. For context, in 2005, Chairman Cox noted how technology was impacting financial markets with respect to the distribution of proxy materials:
With the holiday season in full swing ... it's difficult not to notice the proliferation of electronic gadgets being advertised as the perfect holiday gift. We can only guess how many Americans will get a USB key as a stocking stuffer, or a cell phone that takes pictures and surfs the Web, or even an iPod that plays not only MP3s, but video.[2]
Chairman Cox's reference to the iPod reminds us that when the Commission last examined shelf registration in a comprehensive manner, the iPhone had not even been rolled out yet.[3] Moreover, the technology available in 2005 substantially differed from the technology available in 1983, the year that the SEC adopted the original shelf registration framework.[4] Instead of carrying around that iPod back then, you might have had a cassette-playing Sony Walkman.
Communication and information technologies have continued to change. Smart phones, cloud computing, social media networks, video streaming, structured data, and third-party messaging services are common features of the investment ecosystem in 2026 and the SEC's rulebook should reflect that environment.
The Registered Offering Reform proposal would facilitate capital formation by expanding access to Form S-3 and streamline the registration and communication benefits for public companies.[5] This would provide meaningful increases in transactional flexibility to a range of smaller entities and improve their access to capital post-IPO. The proposal would also limit unnecessary regulatory duplication by preempting the need to obtain, in certain cases, registration and qualification from dozens of individual state securities regulators, where the investor protection benefits may not be commensurate with the corresponding regulatory hurdles to raising capital.
The Second Proposal Streamlines and Simplifies SEC Reporting
The Commission also proposes the Enhancement of Emerging Growth Company Accommodations and Simplification of Filer Status for Reporting Companies.[6] Among other changes, the proposal would raise the public float threshold for large accelerated filer (LAF) status from the current $700 million to $2 billion, at which threshold the category would represent approximately 19 percent of reporting companies and 93.5 percent of the current total market public float.[7] This would reduce regulatory burdens while ensuring that the vast majority of the public float remains subject to the full set of disclosure requirements. The proposal would also simplify the framework by categorizing all companies that are not LAFs as non-accelerated filers (NAFs).
Additionally, the Commission is proposing to create a subcategory of NAFs constituting the smallest filers, termed small non-accelerated filers (SNFs), with extended periodic reporting deadlines. Scaling regulatory obligations for smaller businesses may incentivize companies to go--and remain--public. It takes the SEC one step closer to making the consequences and burdens of being a public company less onerous--and less off-putting--for small issuers.
Lastly, the proposal would extend nearly all disclosure scaling and accommodations available to smaller reporting companies and emerging growth companies to NAFs, including the internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) auditor attestation exemption. These aspects of the proposal build upon the success of the JOBS Act of 2012.[8] These successes reflect an important point: management and boards of public companies exist to focus on operating and managing their businesses--and not to spend outsized amounts of time and resources on regulatory compliance obligations.
Combined, these proposals advance the Commission's mission of protecting investors and facilitating capital formation and are long overdue.[9] I thank the staff in the Division of Corporation Finance, the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, the Division of Investment Management, the Division of Trading and Markets, the EDGAR Business Office, the Office of the General Counsel, the Office of the Chief Accountant, the Office of Financial Management, and the many other offices that have contributed to this release. I look forward to hearing the views of market participants on these issues.
* * *
[1] Securities Offering Reform, Release No. 33-8591 (July 19, 2005).
[2] Chairman Christopher Cox, Opening Statement at SEC Open Meeting (Nov. 29, 2005) (consideration of a proposal to make Internet access an acceptable way for investors to get their proxy materials), available at https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch112905cc.htm.
[3] Apple would not formally introduce the iPhone until 2007. See Apple, Inc., Press Release, Apple Reinvents the Phone with iPhone (Jan. 9, 2007), available at https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/01/09Apple-Reinvents-the-Phone-with-iPhone/.
[4] Shelf Registration, Release No 33-6499 (Nov. 17, 1983), 48 FR 52889 (Nov. 23, 1983), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/48-FR-52889.
[5] Registered Offering Reform, Release No. 33-11418 (May 19, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/33-11418.pdf.
[6] Enhancement of Emerging Growth Company Accommodations and Simplification of Filer Status for Reporting Companies, Release No. 33-11419 (May 19, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/33-11419.pdf.
[7] Id. at 36.
[8] Pub. L. No. 112-106, 126 Stat. 306 (2012), sec. 103 (codified at 15 U.S.C. 7262(b)).
[9] For prior remarks on capital formation, see Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, Remarks at the "Going Public in the 2020s" Conference; Columbia Law School/Business School Program in the Law and Economics of Capital Markets (Mar. 3, 2023), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/uyeda-remarks-going-public-conference-030323-remarks-going-public-2020s-conference-columbia-law-schoolbusiness-school-program-law-economics; Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, Remarks at the Practising Law Institute's 55th Annual Institute on Securities Regulation (Nov. 7, 2023), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/uyeda-remarks-practicing-law-institute-110723; and Acting Chairman Mark T. Uyeda, Remarks at the Florida Bar's 41st Annual Federal Securities Institute and M&A Conference (Feb. 24, 2025), available https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/uyeda-remarks-florida-bar-022425.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/uyeda-statement-proposing-registered-offering-reform-and-enhancement-of-emerging-growth-company-accommodations-and-simplification-of-filer-status-for-reporting-companies-051926
SEC Chairman Atkins Issues Statement on Enhancement of Emerging Growth Company Accommodations, Registered Offering Reform
WASHINGTON, May 20 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on May 19, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins entitled "Proposing Releases for Enhancement of Emerging Growth Company Accommodations and Simplification of Filer Status for Reporting Companies, and Registered Offering Reform":* * *
Today, the Commission proposed two rulemakings that serve as the foundation for my agenda to Make IPOs Great Again. These proposals build upon the legislative and regulatory concepts that have proven successful in the past and aim to extend that success to more companies - particularly ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 20 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on May 19, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins entitled "Proposing Releases for Enhancement of Emerging Growth Company Accommodations and Simplification of Filer Status for Reporting Companies, and Registered Offering Reform": * * * Today, the Commission proposed two rulemakings that serve as the foundation for my agenda to Make IPOs Great Again. These proposals build upon the legislative and regulatory concepts that have proven successful in the past and aim to extend that success to more companies - particularlysmall and mid-sized companies - and incentivize them to go and stay public.
Public markets are the anchor of American capital formation because they combine liquidity, transparency, price discovery, and accountability in a way that private markets cannot fully replicate. Public companies are also important investment opportunities for millions of Americans. When more companies become public, especially earlier in their life cycle, all workers and savers - not just the select few with access to the private markets - can participate in the prosperity of the next generation of American entrepreneurs and business enterprises. Incentivizing more companies to go and stay public ultimately serves to protect and benefit investors.
Yet, the current public company regulatory framework is in dire need of a comprehensive overhaul. Over the past twenty-five years, layers upon layers of legislative changes and SEC rules have created many different categories of public companies with complex, overlapping requirements and benefits. For example, the public float threshold to be considered a "large" company subject to the most extensive SEC disclosure requirements has not been updated since it was established in 2005. Similarly, many of the current SEC rules governing public offerings have not been updated in over twenty years, unnecessarily constraining public companies' ability to raise crucial capital in the public markets quickly.
Today's proposed rulemakings - the Filer Status Proposal[1] and the Registered Offering Reform Proposal[2] - are among the first important steps toward transforming the SEC's regulatory framework for public companies.
The Filer Status Proposal would harmonize and simplify the requirements for the myriad of public company categories and rationalize the benefits afforded to each category. Specifically, the proposed amendments extend disclosure scaling and other accommodations, which are currently available only to newly public companies and smaller companies, to seasoned companies and mid-sized public companies. These amendments are part of my renewed focus on rightsizing the SEC's disclosure requirements through the lenses of materiality.
Today, approximately 52 percent of companies benefit from some form of disclosure scaling and other accommodations. The proposed amendments extend all of those benefits to 81 percent of companies. However, the remaining companies subject to the most extensive disclosure requirements account for approximately 93.5 percent of total public market float. Accordingly, the Filer Status Proposal considers the proposed amendments' effects with respect to both the percentage of public companies and the percentage of total float. This approach reflects a rational balancing of our mandates to facilitate capital formation and protect investors.
The Filer Status Proposal also builds on the success of the IPO on-ramp that Congress created through the JOBS Act in 2012. Congress's IPO on-ramp provides for disclosure scaling and other accommodations for a maximum of five years following a company's IPO. Through its more harmonized public company categories, the proposed amendments create an expanded IPO on-ramp that lasts a minimum of five years.
Moreover, the opportunity to become a public company should not be reserved for "unicorns." In striving for this ideal, the Filer Status Proposal specifically focuses on incentivizing smaller companies to go and stay public. The proposed amendments offer extended filing deadlines for annual and other periodic reports to public companies with $35 million or less in assets.
By expanding existing benefits to more companies, simplifying the analysis required for a company to avail itself of those benefits, and enhancing certainty of how long a company receives them, the Filer Status Proposal would make public company status more attractive.
Meanwhile, the Registered Offering Reform Proposal would address impediments, which result from outdated SEC rules, to public companies' ability to conduct registered offerings quickly. A company's capital needs do not cease after its IPO. That is why the Commission created the "shelf registration" process decades ago to allow public companies to access the public markets quickly and when market conditions are ideal. The shelf registration process has been a great success for seasoned, larger public companies. Newly public companies and smaller companies, however, have not been able to fully use the shelf registration process due to the current eligibility requirements regarding the length of time a company has been public and its public float.
Today's Registered Offering Reform Proposal would expand the availability of shelf registration by eliminating the eligibility requirements related to seasoning and public float. Both requirements have their origins in the days when companies filed their SEC reports in paper format and the disclosures in those filings were not as readily accessible as today. The approach under the proposed amendments recognizes that investors can now easily access SEC filings for all public companies, including the newest and smallest, with a few taps on their phone. Accordingly, the proposed eligibility criteria for shelf registration depend mostly on the existing requirement that a company has filed its SEC reports on time. To promote investor protection, the revised requirements incorporate aspects of the existing "ineligible issuer" concept to prohibit certain categories of companies, where there is a greater potential for non-compliance with the securities laws, from using shelf registration.
Further, as part of the last significant reform to registered offerings in 2005, the Commission provided significant benefits to seasoned, larger companies, referred to as "well-known seasoned issuers" or "WKSIs." Similar to shelf registration, these benefits afford meaningful flexibility to public companies seeking to access the public markets for additional capital. These flexibilities have proven to be successful, and it is time to provide them to more public companies. The proposed amendments would extend nearly all of the current WKSI benefits to domestic companies with a class of common equity listed on a securities exchange, regardless of their maturity or size as a public company.
Today's Filer Status Proposal and Registered Offering Reform Proposal are just the beginning and will work in tandem to lay the groundwork for the remainder of my Make IPOs Great Again agenda. Future proposals to transform the public company regulatory framework, including reforming the Regulation S-K disclosure requirements with materiality as its north star, will build on the foundation laid by today's proposals.
I look forward to receiving and reviewing the public's feedback on both of today's proposals.
Thank you to the following members of the Commission staff for their work on the Filer Status Proposal.
Division of Corporation Finance: Jim Moloney, Sebastian Gomez Abero, Luna Bloom, Steven Hearne, Nabeel Cheema, Joshua Gorsky, Mark Saltzburg, Mark Green, Jessica Ansart, Anna Abramson, Adam Turk, Michael Reedich, Heather Rosenberger, Stephanie Sullivan, Donial Dastgir, Kayla Roberts, Komul Chaudhry, Arthur Sandel, Michael Stehlik, Robert Errett, Todd Canali, Michael Coco, Sameer Gupta, and Cristian Gonzalez.
Division of Economic and Risk Analysis: Joshua White, Oliver Richard, Lyndon Orton, Olga Itenberg, Albert Sheen, Angela Huang, Michael Pessin, Charles Woodworth, Samantha Croffie, and Matt Pacino.
Office of the General Counsel: J. Russell McGranahan, Bryant Morris, Dorothy McCuaig, Johanna Losert, David Russo, and Rebecca Orban.
Office of the Chief Accountant: Kurt Hohl, Shaz Niazi, Michal Dusza, Sheri York, Gaurav Hiranandani, Erin Nelson, Taylor Pross, Ella Karafiat, and Andrea Willette.
Division of Investment Management: Brian Daly, Sarah ten Siethoff, Brian Johnson, Angela Mokodean, Meghan Ryan, Elena Stojic, and Christina DiAngelo Fettig.
Division of Trading and Markets: Lauren Yates.
EDGAR Business Office: Jed Hickman, Rosemary Filou, and Laurita Finch.
Thank you to the following members of the Commission staff for their work on the Registered Offering Reform Proposal.
Division of Corporation Finance: Jim Moloney, Sebastian Gomez Abero, Ted Yu, Valian Afshar, Matt McNair, Mark Green, Isabel Rivera, Luna Bloom, Steve Hearne, Dennis Hermreck, Anna Abramson, Jessica Ansart, Kayla Roberts, Arthur Sandel, Donial Dastgir, Michael Coco, Robert Errett, Todd Canali, Michael Seaman, Adam Turk, Hughes Bates, Heather Rosenberger, Ryan Milne, Jessica Barberich, Jessica Kane, Duc Dang, Gabriel Eckstein, Mary Beth Breslin, Pamela Long, Jeff Gabor, and Dorrie Yale.
Division of Investment Management: Brian Daly, Sarah ten Siethoff, Brian Johnson, Blair Burnett, Bradley Gude, and Pamela Ellis.
Division of Economic and Risk Analysis: Joshua White, Oliver Richard, Lyndon Orton, Wei Liu, Lauren Moore, Charles Woodworth, Timothy Dodd, Ruoke Yang, Dan Deli, Michael Pessin, Ralph Bien-Aime', and Joseph Luckett.
Office of the General Counsel: J. Russell McGranahan, Bryant Morris, Dorothy McCuaig, Eduardo Aleman, Evan Jacobson, Rebecca Orban, Cynthia Bien, Natalie Shioji, Robert Bagnall, and Monica Lilly.
Division of Trading and Markets: Jamie Selway, Carol McGee, Tyler Raimo, Josephine Tao, Lauren Yates, Laura Weber, and David Garcia.
Office of the Chief Accountant: Richard Correa, Jonathan Duersch, Mark Jacoby, Andrew Morrison, and Jeanne Riggs.
EDGAR Business Office: Jed Hickman, Rosemary Filou, and Laurita Finch.
Office of Financial Management: Caryn Kauffman, Luba Dinits, and Chris Stauffer.
* * *
[1] Enhancement of Emerging Growth Company Accommodations and Simplification of Filer Status for Reporting Companies, Release No. 33-11419 (May 19, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/33-11419.pdf.
[2] Registered Offering Reform, Release No. 33-11418 (May 19, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/33-11418.pdf.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-statement-on-proposing-releases-for-enhancement-of-emerging-growth-company-accommodations-and-simplification-of-filer-status-for-reporting-companies-and-registered-offering-reform-051926
NCUA Chairman Kyle S. Hauptman Statement on Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's Proposed Revisions to CAMELS Rating System
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, May 20 -- The National Credit Union Administration issued the following statement on May 19, 2026, by Chairman Kyle Hauptman on Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's Proposed Revisions to CAMELS Rating System:* * *
Today, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) This is an external link to a website belonging to another federal agency, private organization, or commercial entity. proposed important revisions to the CAMELS rating system(Opens new window), the framework used by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) and other federal ... Show Full Article ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, May 20 -- The National Credit Union Administration issued the following statement on May 19, 2026, by Chairman Kyle Hauptman on Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's Proposed Revisions to CAMELS Rating System: * * * Today, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) This is an external link to a website belonging to another federal agency, private organization, or commercial entity. proposed important revisions to the CAMELS rating system(Opens new window), the framework used by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) and other federalregulators to assess the safety and soundness of financial institutions.
As a member of the FFIEC, I approved the proposal and encourage credit unions to provide feedback on the proposal. I'd like to thank FFIEC Chair Michelle Bowman for her leadership, and my fellow FFIEC members for the thoughtful consideration of such an important topic.
Importantly, the FFIEC proposal would maintain the foundational CAMELS structure while updating component and composite rating definitions and evaluation factors to reflect today's financial landscape. Two major objectives of the proposal are to improve transparency by clarifying how ratings are assessed and to provide institutions with a more predictable and risk-focused evaluation process. The revisions emphasize the factors that materially affect an institution's financial condition and risk profile over concerns with documentation, policies, or procedural matters when those issues do not pose a meaningful risk to safety and soundness.
This revised framework aligns with many of NCUA's other efforts to integrate risk-based supervision principles into the examination program, including the elimination of reputation risk and NCUA's Deregulation Project.
By reducing ambiguity in the CAMELS rating framework, improving transparency, and clearly focusing examinations on material financial risks, these proposed revisions will allow credit unions to dedicate more of their energy to what matters most, serving their members and supporting the communities they operate in.
* * *
The NCUA is the federal agency created by the U.S. Congress to regulate, charter and supervise federal credit unions. With the backing of the full faith and credit of the United States, the NCUA operates and manages the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund.
* * *
Original text here: https://ncua.gov/newsroom/speech/2026/chairman-kyle-hauptmans-statement-ffiecs-proposed-revisions-camels-rating-system
FDIC Chairman Hill Issues Statement on Proposal to Revise the CAMELS Rating System
WASHINGTON, May 20 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following statement on May 19, 2026, by Chairman Travis Hill on the Proposal to Revise the CAMELS Rating System:* * *
Today's proposal represents an important step in the FDIC's ongoing efforts to reform bank supervision to focus on factors that materially affect an institution's financial condition and risk profile.
The FFIEC first developed the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System, commonly referred to as CAMELS, in 1979 to establish a uniform framework to evaluate an institution's "financial condition, compliance ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 20 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following statement on May 19, 2026, by Chairman Travis Hill on the Proposal to Revise the CAMELS Rating System: * * * Today's proposal represents an important step in the FDIC's ongoing efforts to reform bank supervision to focus on factors that materially affect an institution's financial condition and risk profile. The FFIEC first developed the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System, commonly referred to as CAMELS, in 1979 to establish a uniform framework to evaluate an institution's "financial condition, compliancewith laws and regulations, and overall operating soundness."/1 The CAMELS framework has not been modified since 1996, while the banking industry has undergone significant changes.
The proposal is intended to modify how the overall composite and individual component ratings are described to shift the emphasis away from a bank's process for managing risks and towards factors and risks that materially impact a bank's financial condition. Under the proposal, a bank's internal controls and risk management would remain relevant in the overall evaluation, but the primary focus of the ratings system would be on fundamental financial risks most pertinent to safety and soundness.
Key changes would include reducing the influence of the Management component rating on the overall composite rating;/2 limiting the impact of specialty exam considerations to those that pose material financial risk; and focusing the ratings definitions and evaluation factors on the areas most impactful to an institution's financial condition.
I thank the staffs of the FFIEC and its member entities for their work on the proposal. I encourage robust feedback and look forward to reviewing comments.
* * *
1/ Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Uniform Rating System (PDF), (Nov. 13, 1979) p. 1.
2/ Under the proposal, among other changes, the Management rating would no longer be given "special consideration" when assigning the composite rating, and the composite rating definitions would deemphasize consideration of management compared to the existing definitions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fdic.gov/news/speeches/2026/statement-chairman-travis-hill-proposal-revise-camels-rating-system
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice: Comments Invited on Section 214 Application to Discontinue Domestic Non-Dominant Carrier Telecommunications Services
WASHINGTON, May 20 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-107):* * *
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(s) request authority, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 20 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-107): * * * 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(s) request 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 June 19, 2026, 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(s) listed in the Appendix must be filed with the Commission on or before June 3, 2026. 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(s) shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding(s) in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./5 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(s) 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 a non-dominant carrier "shall be automatically granted on the 31st day... unless the Commission has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective.").
5/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-503A1.pdf
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice: Comments Invited on AT&T's Section 214 Application to Discontinue Domestic Legacy Voice Service as Part of Technology Transition
WASHINGTON, May 20 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-106):* * *
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(s) request authority, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 20 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-106): * * * 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(s) request 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 June 19, 2026, 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 June 3, 2026. 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./5 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 a non-dominant carrier "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)(i) (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... if: The applicant provides affected customers with the notice required under paragraph (a)(6) of this section, and the application contains the showing or certification described in Sec. 63.602(b)"); Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84, Order, DA 25248, para. 6 (WCB Mar. 20, 2025) (waiving the Adequate Replacement Test's "single replacement service" 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 all three prongs of the Adequate Replacement Test with a bundled service); Technology Transitions, GN Docket No. 13-5, Order on Clarification, DA 25-250, para. 6 (WCB Mar. 20, 2025) (clarifying the applicability of the testing methodology and parameters required for meeting the streamlining criteria when a carrier submits a technology transition discontinuance application relying on the "totality of the circumstances" under the Adequate Replacement Test)).
5/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-502A1.pdf
FCC Media Bureau Announces Application Procesing Guidelines
WASHINGTON, May 20 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau issued the following public notice (GN Docket No. 25-149):* * *
By this Public Notice, the Media Bureau (Bureau) announces guidance on how the Bureau expects to process broadcast applications filed, or already pending, while a licensee also has pending at the Commission a remedial foreign ownership petition for declaratory ruling seeking to remedy noncompliance with the Commission's foreign ownership rules pursuant to section 1.5004(f)./1
Background. Section 310(b) of the Act imposes restrictions on who may hold various ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 20 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau issued the following public notice (GN Docket No. 25-149): * * * By this Public Notice, the Media Bureau (Bureau) announces guidance on how the Bureau expects to process broadcast applications filed, or already pending, while a licensee also has pending at the Commission a remedial foreign ownership petition for declaratory ruling seeking to remedy noncompliance with the Commission's foreign ownership rules pursuant to section 1.5004(f)./1 Background. Section 310(b) of the Act imposes restrictions on who may hold varioustypes of Commission authorizations and requires the Commission to review foreign investment in broadcast and various other licensees./2 A broadcast licensee or applicant proposing foreign ownership in its controlling U.S. parent that exceeds the benchmarks established by section 310(b)(4) of the Act may seek a declaratory ruling from the Commission authorizing such ownership by filing a petition for declaratory ruling./3
In situations where a broadcast licensee determines that, due to circumstances beyond its control, it is out of compliance with an existing foreign ownership declaratory ruling or with the Rules relating to foreign ownership, the Rules provide a remedial mechanism by which the licensee can notify the Commission of the infraction and either remediate the violation or seek approval for the change in indirect foreign ownership of the licensee's controlling U.S. parent./4 Generally, in such situations the Commission would not expect to take enforcement action due to the licensee's inadvertent non-compliance with the foreign ownership rules, provided the licensee satisfies the specified requirements./5
On January 29, 2026, the Commission adopted the 2026 Foreign Ownership Report and Order modifying the Commission's foreign ownership rules and streamlining its foreign ownership review process./6 Among other things, the 2026 Foreign Ownership Report and Order revised the Rules to permit privately held entities to avail themselves of the Remedial Petition process, and, by extension, the safe harbor it affords./7 Previously, the Remedial Petition process and safe harbor had been available to broadcast licensees only if the licensee's controlling U.S. parent was an eligible U.S. public company./8
In addition, the 2026 Foreign Ownership Report and Order directed the Bureau to specify processing guidelines for the treatment of applications filed by a broadcast licensee during the pendency of a foreign ownership Remedial Petition./9 In order to permit individualized approaches to specific cases, the Commission concluded that guidelines issued by the Bureau were preferable to rules for this purpose./10 Accordingly, to provide clarity to the broadcast industry and licensees, we provide the following guidance on the processing of broadcast applications during the pendency of a Remedial Petition.
Discussion. Consistent with the discussion outlined in the 2026 Foreign Ownership Report and Order,/11 the Bureau will typically proceed with the normal processing of routine types of applications, such as applications related to the continued operations of currently authorized broadcast facilities, and either grant with conditions or hold the processing of non-routine applications, such as applications seeking authorization for new facilities, the renewal of licenses, or the assignment or transfer of control of licenses./12 Accordingly, as detailed further below, for purposes of processing applications during the pendency of a Remedial Petition, we will generally divide broadcast applications into three categories: (1) applications related to the continued operation of existing broadcast facilities, including requests for special temporary authority (STA) and minor modification of existing facilities;/13 (2) applications for transfer of control or assignment of license, including pro forma changes in ownership;/14 and (3) applications for new authorizations, including construction permits for new facilities, construction permits for major modification of existing facilities, licenses to cover construction of either new facilities or major modification of existing facilities, and renewals of license./15
With regard to the first category involving applications related to the continued operation of an existing broadcast facility, provided that the Remedial Petition is complete and there are no unresolved questions about whether the licensee/permittee is otherwise in compliance with the Rules and Commission policies, we will typically proceed with the processing of such applications despite the pendency of a Remedial Petition and without the need for additional conditions on the grant of any subsequent authorization./16
With regard to the second category of applications involving the transfer of control or assignment of license, including pro forma ownership changes, and provided that the Remedial Petition is complete and there are no unresolved questions about whether the parties to the application are otherwise in compliance with the Rules and Commission policies, we will typically proceed with the processing of such applications during the pendency of a Remedial Petition; however, the grant of any such ensuing authorization will typically be subject to the imposition of conditions designed to minimize the involvement of the as-yet-unapproved foreign interest holder(s)./17 Further, the grant of authorizations will typically be conditioned on the ultimate approval of the Remedial Petition or, alternatively, remediation of the noncompliant foreign ownership, as well as subject to any enforcement action that may be warranted, such as if the Commission determines that the Remedial Petition was improper under section 1.5004(f)(3). The Bureau may choose not to impose such conditions depending on the particular facts presented, such as in situations where the licensee/permittee with the pending Remedial Petition is the party assigning or transferring control of an authorization, as opposed to the party acquiring a new authorization.
Finally, with regard to the third category of applications involving authorizations for the construction of new facilities or for the major modification of existing facilities, licenses to cover construction of the same, or license renewals, generally we will hold processing of such applications during the pendency of a Remedial Petition. Applications for new authorizations, construction permits for new facilities, and licenses to cover construction of new facilities involve the grant of a new license or approval of a new facility, rather than the continued, routine operation of an existing station, and we believe are best treated like applications for major modification of facilities, renewals of licenses, and acquisitions of new licenses, which similarly involve requests for new facilities or authorizations./18
Regardless of the categories outlined above, the Bureau may determine in a particular case that grant of a new authorization, even with conditions, is not advisable during the pendency of the Remedial Petition. Therefore, the Bureau may decide to defer action on a pending application until the Remedial Petition is resolved or the non-compliant foreign ownership interest is otherwise remedied. In determining whether to proceed with or suspend the processing of applications and/or whether to impose conditions, the Bureau will carefully consider the number and type of authorization(s) sought by the particular application, as well as the scope and significance of the non-compliant foreign ownership interest for which the pending Remedial Petition seeks consent, national security concerns, and any other relevant factors.
Further, while we provide this general guidance for purposes of processing the various categories of applications set forth above, the Bureau retains the flexibility to address future situations individually depending on the particular facts and circumstances of a situation, which may require a different approach than the guidelines outlined above. Furthermore, the Bureau retains the authority to tailor the processing of future applications as necessary, either on an individual basis or through the issuance of a subsequent public notice.
This action is taken by the Acting Chief, Media Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated by 47 CFR Sec. 0.283 of the Commission's Rules and contained in section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(A).
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.5004(f). In this Public Notice we will refer to such a petition for declaratory ruling filed pursuant to section 1.5004(f) of the Commission's rules (Rules) seeking to rectify noncompliance with the foreign ownership rules as a "Remedial Petition." We note further that the guidance we provide herein applies only to situations involving foreign ownership in the controlling U.S. parent of a broadcast licensee under section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act or 1934, as amended (Act). 47 U.S.C. Sec. 310(b)(4). The ability to file a Remedial Petition does not apply to situations governed by section 310(b)(3) of the Act, involving direct foreign ownership of a broadcast licensee, or indirect foreign ownership of a broadcast licensee through an entity other than a controlling U.S. parent. With respect to direct foreign ownership in the controlling U.S. parent of a broadcast licensee, the Commission's rules specify a different remedial process, which generally involves remediation of the offending foreign ownership interest within 30 days of the date the licensee or permittee learned of the non-compliant foreign interest(s). See Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Broadcast, Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees Under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 11272, 11310-11, paras. 82-83 (2016) (2016 Foreign Ownership Report and Order).
2/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 310(b) ("No broadcast or common carrier or aeronautical en route or aeronautical fixed radio station license shall be granted to or held by--(1) any alien or the representative of any alien; (2) any corporation organized under the laws of any foreign government; (3) any corporation of which more than one-fifth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens or their representatives or by a foreign government or representative thereof or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country; (4) any corporation directly or indirectly controlled by any other corporation of which more than one-fourth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens, their representatives, or by a foreign government or representative thereof, or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country, if the Commission finds that the public interest will be served by the refusal or revocation of such license.").
3/ Section 1.5000 et seq. of the Rules establish the framework for seeking such Commission approval. 47 CFR Sec. 1.5000 et seq.
4/ See 47 CFR Sec. 1.5004(f)(3).
5/ Id. The expectation that a licensee that complies with the remediation processes set forth in section 1.5004(f) will generally not be subject to enforcement action for an inadvertent lapse in foreign ownership compliance is generally referred to as a "safe harbor." See 2016 Foreign Ownership Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 11309-10, para. 80; Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Broadcast, Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, GN Docket 25-149, Report and Order, at para. 16 (rel. Jan. 30, 2026) (2026 Foreign Ownership Report and Order).
6/ 2026 Foreign Ownership Report and Order. The 2026 Foreign Ownership Report and Order addressed issues raised in the underlying Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Broadcast, Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 40 FCC Rcd 3516 (2025) (Section 310 NPRM).
7/ 2026 Foreign Ownership Report and Order at paras. 15-17.
8/ Id. at para. 15.
9/ Id. at paras. 26-29 (stating that processing guidelines would provide "guidance on the topics discussed in the Section 310 NPRM, including: (1) routine types of applications that should continue to be processed in the normal course during the pendency of the remedial process, such as applications related to the continued operations of currently authorized broadcast facilities (e.g., applications for special temporary authority or minor modifications); and (2) non-routine applications such as major modifications, license renewals, and assignments/transfers of control, that would require heightened scrutiny during the pendency of a remedial petition.").
10/ Id. at para. 29.
11/ 2026 Foreign Ownership Report and Order at paras. 26-29; see also Section 310 NPRM, 40 FCC Rcd at 3536-38, paras. 42-47 (seeking comment on how the Commission should handle the processing of new or pending broadcast applications during the pendency of a Remedial Petition).
12/ 2026 Foreign Ownership Report and Order at para. 29.
13/ Id.
14/ Id.
15/ Id.
16/ Id. (stating that the processing guidelines will provide guidance on topics to include "routine types of applications that should continue to be processed in the normal course during the pendency of the remedial process, such as applications related to the continued operations of currently authorized broadcast facilities (e.g., applications for special temporary authority or minor modifications)").
17/ The Commission considered that grant of some authorizations should be explicitly conditioned on the grant of the pending remedial petition. See 2026 Foreign Ownership Report and Order at para. 29. In addition, imposing conditions will preserve the Bureau's ability to give the necessary "heightened scrutiny" to "non-routine applications" involving "assignments/transfers of control" (among others), as the Commission envisioned. See id. at para. 29. The imposition of conditions is also consistent with past agency practice. Specifically, in such instances, the Bureau has concluded that the public interest would be served by granting certain applications with conditions that are designed to insulate, to the extent possible, certain foreign interests while a remedial petition for declaratory ruling is pending. See, e.g., Cumulus Licensing LLC (Assignor) and Cumulus Licensing Holding Company II LLC (Assignee), et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 39 FCC Rcd 4108 (MB 2024) (granting applications for pro forma assignment of license to Cumulus Licensing Holding Company II LLC, with conditions designed to insulate new foreign interests in Cumulus Media, Inc., while a remedial petition for declaratory ruling seeking specific approval of such interests was pending); Applications of Mortenson Broadcasting Co. of Texas, Inc., et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 36 FCC Rcd 5935, 5939-42, paras. 9-12 (MB 2021) (granting applications for assignment of licenses to iHM Licenses, LLC, with conditions designed to insulate new foreign interests in iHeart Media, Inc., while a remedial petition for declaratory seeking specific approval of such interests was pending).
18/ See 2026 Foreign Ownership Report and Order at para. 29.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-501A1.pdf