Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
SEC Obtains Final Judgment as to Defendants Charged in Forex Offering Fraud
WASHINGTON, April 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 4:22-cv-04365; S.D. Tex. filed Dec. 16, 2022):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. John Fernandez, et al., No. 4:22-cv-04365 (S.D. Tex. filed Dec. 16, 2022)
On April 14, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered a final judgment as to John Fernandez and two companies he controlled, Avail Progression, LLC and Elite Generators, LLC, in connection with the SEC's civil enforcement action against them.
According to the SEC's complaint, filed
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 4:22-cv-04365; S.D. Tex. filed Dec. 16, 2022):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. John Fernandez, et al., No. 4:22-cv-04365 (S.D. Tex. filed Dec. 16, 2022)
On April 14, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered a final judgment as to John Fernandez and two companies he controlled, Avail Progression, LLC and Elite Generators, LLC, in connection with the SEC's civil enforcement action against them.
According to the SEC's complaint, filedon December 16, 2022, Fernandez promised to pay investors guaranteed returns by trading their funds in the forex markets. However, the complaint alleges that instead of trading investors' money as promised, Fernandez used the majority of the investor funds to make Ponzi payments and for his own personal expenses.
The final judgment, which follows the Court entering bifurcated judgments as to the defendants on April 19, 2023 and granting the SEC's motion for monetary relief on March 30, 2026, permanently enjoins Fernandez, Avail Progression, and Elite Generators from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; permanently enjoins Fernandez from participating in the issuance, offer, purchase or sale of any security except for purchases or sales for his own personal accounts; and prohibits Fernandez from acting as an officer or director of a public company. In addition, the final judgment orders the defendants to pay disgorgement in the amount of $5,002,383.00 and prejudgment interest in the amount of $1,626,707.93, on a joint and several basis, and orders Fernandez to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $472,902.00.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Jillian Harris and Carol Hahn of the SEC's Fort Worth Regional Office. The SEC's litigation was led by Tyson M. Lies and Matthew J. Gulde and supervised by Keefe Bernstein.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26539.pdf)
* Final Judgment (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26539.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26539
SEC Commissioner Peirce Issues Remarks at the International Institute on Capital Formation
WASHINGTON, April 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on April 24, 2026, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce at the International Institute on Capital Formation:
* * *
Green Lighting Capital Formation: Remarks at the SEC International Institute on Capital Formation
Welcome to the SEC's International Institute on Capital Formation. My views are my own as a Commissioner and not necessarily those of the SEC or my fellow Commissioners.
I am delighted that during this week you are having the opportunity to hear from many of my colleagues about various aspects of
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on April 24, 2026, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce at the International Institute on Capital Formation:
* * *
Green Lighting Capital Formation: Remarks at the SEC International Institute on Capital Formation
Welcome to the SEC's International Institute on Capital Formation. My views are my own as a Commissioner and not necessarily those of the SEC or my fellow Commissioners.
I am delighted that during this week you are having the opportunity to hear from many of my colleagues about various aspects ofcapital formation. Capital formation is one of my favorite topics; if done well, it can alter the course of a nation. The prosperity of future generations requires the current investment of capital in worthwhile endeavors. Good regulation can foster healthy capital formation. A shared, sensible approach to regulating capital formation globally can help to bring the world together for the mutual benefit of people all over the world.
The best resource the world has--even in this artificial intelligence era--is the human mind. Some of your nations are overflowing with that resource as reflected in the low median age of your populations.[1] Through a combination of material (food, shelter, and clothing), emotional, and educational support, we must empower our young people to develop their minds so they can tackle humanity's many challenges. We also need to fuel their problem-solving capabilities and creativity by facilitating their access to the financial resources they need to experiment and ultimately to commercialize their ideas.
Some nations entrust to the government the important task of finding and funding ingenuity. After all, if getting capital into the right hands to empower bright minds is so important for human prosperity, shouldn't the government manage the process? Certainly not! Governmental efforts to allocate capital tend to inhibit, rather than encourage, human flourishing. First, governments are too slow and ponderous to be able to shift capital flows in response to changing technology and societal needs. Second, when the government controls the funding spigot, political and bureaucratic connections tend to overshadow merit in driving capital. Third and relatedly, companies and entrepreneurs start to pay more attention to what government--which will determine their funding fate--wants than to what their actual and potential customers might want. Government ends up driving decisions about what problems to work on and which solutions to pursue. Fourth, government decision-makers--generally isolated from innovators and insulated from the consequences of bad decisions--tend not to be good at predicting what problems will need to be solved and how they should be solved. For all these reasons, capital allocated directly by government or indirectly by government nudges often does not go to the highest and best use. Misallocated capital prevents the economy from growing as rapidly as it otherwise would and prevents societal problems from being solved as quickly as they should be.
The task of allocating capital is simply too important for government or any other single entity to manage. Here is where private capital markets of the sort the SEC regulates come in. By bringing together a huge, dispersed, heterogeneous, self-motivated set of capital providers and an ever-changing set of companies in need of capital, private capital markets facilitate testing by many independent minds of different proposals for using capital. Does the system work perfectly? No, but the more participants and the wider the diversity of perspectives offering and competing for capital in the private markets, the more effective the markets will be at finding and funding solutions to human problems. The multiplicity of voices and viewpoints in the private markets means that capital allocation decisions are constantly being tested. The ability of anyone--regardless of her familial, political, or social connections--to come to those markets and make a pitch for funding is another strength of a market-driven economy. Good regulation encourages broad participation by funders and by companies seeking funding. So rather than making decisions about how capital should be allocated, governments should create an environment conducive to optimal private decision-making.
My hope is that this Institute will prompt robust thought and discussion about how to regulate well. What types of rules give investors the confidence to put their money into enterprises run by talented strangers? What types of rules ensure that a person who has a good plan for putting capital to work can find that capital even if she does not have wealthy or politically connected friends? How can a regulator administer and enforce rules in a manner that is not arbitrary or overbearing but ensures that rules are taken seriously?
The goal is a ruleset that works for both investors with capital and entrepreneurs and growing companies in need of capital. In the infancy of the Securities Act of 1933, which governs the issuance of securities, an official of the predecessor entity to the SEC explained:
The Securities Act is not predicated upon the theory that the interests of investors are in conflict with the interests of the issuers. On the contrary, it embodies a recognition of the fact that the investor and the corporation are mutually dependent. Neither can continue to prosper at the expense of the other.[2]
Well-functioning capital markets enable entrepreneurs to focus on finding solutions to society's problems and enable investors to share in the successful entrepreneur's returns.
I was originally scheduled to address this conference on November 20th of last year, but we had a government shutdown--another reason that markets, which stay open, are better capital allocators than governments. November 20th was meaningful because on the same date in 1923 one of my favorite entrepreneurs, Garrett Morgan, who lived and worked in Cleveland, Ohio, patented a new traffic light.[3] The invention was Morgan's solution to preventing collisions like one that he had witnessed. In contrast to the old lights that switched from stop to go with no transition period, Morgan's "T-shaped pole unit . . . featured three positions: Stop, Go, and an all-directional stop position."[4] Morgan installed the first of those traffic lights a few miles from where I attended high school.[5] Another of his inventions--the Morgan National Safety Hood--protected people battling fires from breathing noxious fumes.[6] He was able to use the hood himself in a harrowing rescue effort during a tunnel fire under Lake Erie in 1916.[7] Morgan--even in the face of obstacles including prejudice from the very people whom he sought to help--was a serial inventor: someone who, in the words of his granddaughter, "couldn't help himself when he saw a problem. He had a humanitarian spirit that needed to help."[8]
A century later, another Cleveland entrepreneur, Gary Wnek, is carrying on the Morgan tradition of serial innovation. He has developed a material to absorb shocks when people fall and, like Morgan, a fire-protective technology--Wnek's invention is a flame-retardant coating for metals and plastics.[9] As Wnek puts it, "It's a life skill to think about a need . . . [and] to evaluate how well it is being met and propose a solution."[10]
Identifying needs and solutions is the innovator's spontaneous response to life's challenges. Consider Jim Moylan, who developed the now ubiquitous dashboard arrow pointing to the side of the car with the gas tank after an uncomfortable wrong guess on a borrowed car at a gas station during a rain storm.[11] Marie Van Brittan Brown, troubled by increasing crime rates in her neighborhood, patented with her husband an early and sophisticated forerunner of the modern home security system in the 1960s.[12] Author Lorraine Marchand identified Brown's "innovation mindset": "She observed a significant need--in her case, that basic need of personal safety for herself and her family--and was motivated to find a solution."[13] More recently, Dr. Elizabeth Clayborne, developed a device to stop nosebleeds after seeing so many patients coming into the emergency room suffering from them and, in her words, she "couldn't stop thinking about it."[14] To raise money to bring her patented device to market, she used a whole range of funding mechanisms: a business accelerator, angel investors, friends, family, venture capital funds, and crowdfunding.[15] Andrew Smith Hallidie, who died on this date in 1900, iterated on the metal wire his father had developed to improve mining operations, build suspension bridges, and replace overtaxed horses in San Francisco with the cable cars that still climb the city's hills.[16] In addition to facing many engineering challenges of building a cable car, Hallidie struggled to find financial backers; in the words of one author, "A less determined man would have given up in despair."[17]
Innovators like Morgan, Wnek, Moylan, Brown, Clayborne, and Hallidie should inspire capital markets regulators to facilitate effective capital formation. Private citizens observing problems around them and setting about to solve them without any grand government plan improve our societies and our economies. Human ingenuity matters, but so does the money, and the way we regulate the capital markets affects whether funding is available. If we do our jobs well, private markets will support these innovators as they identify problems, solve them, and bring their solutions to market. Regulating to facilitate the flow of capital to people who cannot stop themselves from helping others is a noble pursuit. It requires great care and considerable restraint: our job is not to do the matchmaking, but to create a regulatory environment conducive to money and ideas meeting. I look forward to working with all of you in this room in that delicate and important effort. Let us collaborate to ensure that our capital markets serve as a mechanism for empowering our citizens to develop their talents and to use them to serve humanity.
* * *
[1] See, e.g., Median Age by Country 2026, WORLD POPULATION REVIEW, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-age (last visited Apr. 1, 2026).
[2] Baldwin B. Baine, Chief, Sec. Div. of the Fed. Trade Comm'n, Address on the Securities Act of 1933, at 4 (Sep. 12, 1933), https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/1933/091233bane.pdf.
[3] See Safer Stop and Go: Garret Morgan's Traffic Signal Legacy Inventor, Invention, and Patent, U.S. DEP'T OF TRANSP. FED. HIGHWAY ADMIN., https://highways.dot.gov/highway-history/general-highway-history/safer-stop-and-go-garrett-morgans-traffic-signal-legacy (last visited Apr. 3, 2026).
[4] The Morgan Traffic Signal Question, FORT WORTH MODELA FORD CLUB, https://fortworthmodela.org/the-morgan-traffic-signal/ (last visited Apr. 3, 2026).
[5] See Frank W. Lewis, Cleveland inventor Garret Morgan and his most famous innovation to be celebrated this weekend, SIGNAL CLEVELAND (Nov. 15, 2023), https://signalcleveland.org/willoughby-to-celebrate-cleveland-inventor-garrett-morgan-and-his-most-famous-innovation/.
[6] See Breathing Device, U.S. Patent No. 1,113,675 (filed Aug. 19, 1912) (issued Oct. 13, 1914), 1499081601852437232-01113675; see also Improvement in Breathing Device, U.S. Patent No. 1,090,936 (filed Sep. 21, 1912) (issued Mar. 24, 1914), 1499089161234980325-01090936.
[7] See Garrett Morgan Saves the Day, OHIO MEMORY (July 20, 2021), https://ohiomemory.ohiohistory.org/archives/5458.
[8] Of courage and caution, U.S. PAT. AND TRADE OFF., https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/journeys-innovation/historical-stories/courage-and-caution (last visited Apr. 3, 2026).
[9] See Diana Steele, Gary Wnek's curiosity sends him in wide-ranging directions, CASE W. RSRV. UNIV., https://case.edu/think/spring2025/material-solutions.html (last visited Apr. 3, 2026).
[10] Id.
[11] See Ben Cohen, The Genius Whose Simple Invention Saved Us from Shame at the Gas Station, WALL ST. J. (Jan. 2, 2026, at 18:00 ET), https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/ford-gas-arrow-inventor-jim-moylan-6b2ef066?msockid=367293e5bbeb6faa3e938511ba1b6e6e.
[12] See Home Security System Utilizing Television Surveillance, U.S. Patent No. 3,482,037 (filed Aug. 1, 1966) (issued Dec. 2, 1969), https://patents.google.com/patent/US3482037A/en ("A video and audio security system for a house under control of an occupant thereof. The system includes a video scanning device at the entrance door of the house to scan a visitor outside the door, and includes audio intercommunication equipment inside and outside the door for conversing with the vis[i]tor outside the door. A lock is provided for the door with releasing means for the lock manually controlled by the occupant of the house."); see also Laura Hilgers, A Brief History of the Invention of the Home Security Alarm, SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE (Mar. 2021), https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/history-home-security-alarm-180977002/.
[13] Lorraine H. Marchand, The Innovative Mindset of Marie Van Brittan Brown, COLUMBIA UNIV. PRESS BLOG (Feb. 12, 2022), https://cupblog.org/2022/02/21/the-innovative-mindset-of-marie-van-brittan-brown-lorraine-marchand/.
[14] Patty Zamora, Turning an idea into a viable company, CASE W. RSRV. UNIV. (Oct. 21, 2025), https://case.edu/news/turning-idea-viable-company.
[15] Id.
[16] See U.S. DEP'T OF TRANSP., HIST. CONTEXT REP. FOR TRANSIT RAIL SYS. DEV. 1, 88 (Jun. 2017), transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/regulations-and-guidance/environmental-programs/63526/ftahistoriccontextreport508compliant.pdf; Edgar Myron Kahn, Andrew Smith Hallidie, Museum of the City of San Francisco, http://www.sfmuseum.org/bio/hallidie.html (last visited April 22, 2026). Hallidie explained: "I was largely induced to think over the matter from seeing the difficulty and pain the horses experienced in hauling the cars up Jackson Street, from Kearny to Stockton Street, on which street four or five horses were needed for the purpose-the driving being accompanied by the free use of the whip and voice, and occasionally by the horses falling and being dragged down the hill on their sides, by the car loaded with passengers sliding on its track....." Id.
[17] Id.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-sec-international-institute-capital-formation-042426
SEC Charges Private Equity Fund Adviser & Co-Founder in Alleged Fraud
WASHINGTON, April 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:26-cv-03408; S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 24, 2026):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jay S. Lucas and Lucas Brand Equity, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-03408 (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 24, 2026)
On April 24, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed fraud charges against Jay S. Lucas and Lucas Brand Equity, LLC ("LBE"), an unregistered investment adviser Lucas controlled, for allegedly making fraudulent misrepresentations to investors and misappropriating investor money.
According to the SEC's
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:26-cv-03408; S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 24, 2026):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jay S. Lucas and Lucas Brand Equity, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-03408 (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 24, 2026)
On April 24, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed fraud charges against Jay S. Lucas and Lucas Brand Equity, LLC ("LBE"), an unregistered investment adviser Lucas controlled, for allegedly making fraudulent misrepresentations to investors and misappropriating investor money.
According to the SEC'scomplaint, between 2013 and 2025 Lucas and LBE fraudulently induced hundreds of individuals to invest more than $50 million in three private equity funds they advised, Lucas Brand Equity LP, Lucas Brand Equity Emerging Growth LP, and Lucas Brand Equity Wellness Growth LP. The SEC alleges that Lucas and LBE told investors that their money would be used to invest in early stage or startup companies in the wellness, beauty, and skincare sectors, but instead Lucas and LBE misappropriated millions of dollars to fund Lucas's personal expenses and other business interests, and used investor money for rent on residences, alimony payments, wedding expenses, personal real estate investments, payments to a political consultant, and funding a New Hampshire newspaper Lucas owned. The SEC further alleges that Lucas and LBE made other material misrepresentations to investors about the use of investor funds, management expenses, audits, and the nature of fund assets, and failed to disclose a financial conflict of interest regarding a fund portfolio company that received the largest amount of investor funds. In addition, the SEC alleges that Lucas misappropriated investor money from an investment vehicle he created to invest in Flags of Valor, LLC, a Virginia-based company that produces flags and other patriotic decorations.
The SEC's complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges Lucas and LBE with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investments Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.
On December 18, 2025, in a parallel criminal action, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York announced an indictment charging Lucas with securities fraud, investment adviser fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by David Frisof, Brian Vann, Ann Rosenfield, and Margaret Vizzi and was supervised by Brian Quinn and Michael Brennan. The team was assisted by Daniel Faigus of the Division of Examinations. The litigation will be led by Anna Area under the supervision of James Carlson. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26538.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26538
NRC Proposes a New Licensing Framework to Accelerate Safe, High-Volume Deployment of Microreactors
WASHINGTON, April 25 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release on April 24, 2026:
* * *
NRC Proposes a New Licensing Framework to Accelerate Safe, High-Volume Deployment of Microreactors
ROCKVILLE, Md. -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today announced a groundbreaking proposed rule that enables the safe, rapid deployment of microreactors and other reactors with comparable risk profiles. The proposed regulatory framework, Part 57, is a streamlined, risk-informed, and flexible licensing pathway that maintains strong protection of public health, safety, and security.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 25 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release on April 24, 2026:
* * *
NRC Proposes a New Licensing Framework to Accelerate Safe, High-Volume Deployment of Microreactors
ROCKVILLE, Md. -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today announced a groundbreaking proposed rule that enables the safe, rapid deployment of microreactors and other reactors with comparable risk profiles. The proposed regulatory framework, Part 57, is a streamlined, risk-informed, and flexible licensing pathway that maintains strong protection of public health, safety, and security.Developed to implement Executive Order 14300 and the ADVANCE Act, the proposal responds to the growing demand for innovative, smaller-scale reactors and is designed to support safe and efficient high-volume licensing. It recognizes the distinct safety profiles of microreactors compared to traditional nuclear plants.
"This regulatory framework for microreactors marks a major step toward modernizing the licensing process for advanced nuclear reactors," Chairman Ho K. Nieh said. "Part 57 is designed to deploy microreactors with safety, scale, and speed."
The NRC and industry expect to save $3.76-$11.84 billion (depending on discount rate), mainly by reducing exemption requests and streamlining reviews. The NRC projects accelerated licensing and deployment timelines of potentially 6-12 months for construction permits and operating licenses. A few key features of the proposed Part 57 rule include:
* Requesting approval of fleets of identical reactors,
* Allowing appropriate use of alternative design standards and programs for novel reactor operation,
* Streamlining environmental reviews for projects with demonstrated minimal impacts, and
* Providing a pathway for limited construction prior to receiving an NRC permit.
The Federal Register notice is slated for May 6; however, that is subject to change. The NRC intends to hold a public meeting on the proposed rule soon.
* * *
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was created as an expert, technical agency to protect public health, safety, and security, and regulate the civilian use of nuclear materials, including enabling the deployment of nuclear power for the benefit of society. Among other responsibilities, the agency issues licenses, conducts inspections, initiates and enforces regulations, and plans for incident response. The NRC is collaborating with interagency partners to implement reforms outlined in new Executive Orders and the ADVANCE Act to streamline agency activities and enhance efficiency.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nrc.gov/sites/default/files/cdn/doc-collection-news/2026/26-047.pdf
FEC Issues Digest for Week of April 20-24, 2026
WASHINGTON, April 25 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest on April 24, 2026:
* * *
Commission meetings and hearings
No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week.
* * *
Website Initiatives
On April 23, the Commission retired the Searchable Electronic Rulemaking System (SERS). As its replacement, the Commission has deployed a new rulemaking search system on the agency's website. The new system provides fast, comprehensive access to FEC rulemaking documents and is easily accessible via mobile devices. Users can search rulemaking documents by
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 25 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest on April 24, 2026:
* * *
Commission meetings and hearings
No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week.
* * *
Website Initiatives
On April 23, the Commission retired the Searchable Electronic Rulemaking System (SERS). As its replacement, the Commission has deployed a new rulemaking search system on the agency's website. The new system provides fast, comprehensive access to FEC rulemaking documents and is easily accessible via mobile devices. Users can search rulemaking documents byregulation number, document type, date, and more. Advanced search capabilities include keyword and Boolean options and proximity filters that allow users to search for terms or phrases that appear within a set distance from one another. More information about the FEC's legal search system capabilities is available in the FEC's Legal Research Guide.
* * *
Litigation
Bernegger v. FEC (Case No. 25-4559) On April 20, Plaintiff filed a Declaration in Support of Request for Clerk's Entry of Default Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Campbell v. FEC (Case No. 26-10849) On March 12, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Giffords v. FEC (Case No. 25-5188) On April 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral argument in the case.
Llop v. FEC (Case No. 26-51) On January 7, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
McDonald v. FEC (Case No. 25-10830) On April 23, Amicus Curiae People United for Privacy Foundation filed a Motion for Leave to File Brief in Support of Appellant's Petition for Rehearing En Banc and a Proposed Brief in Support of Appellant's Petition for Rehearing En Banc in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
* * *
Outreach
On April 21-22, the Commission hosted a webinar for corporations and their PACs.
* * *
Press releases
FEC retires legacy Searchable Electronic Rulemaking System (SERS) (issued April 23)
* * *
Reports Due in 2026
The Commission has posted the 2026 Congressional Pre-Election Reporting Dates. Reporting schedules for all filers in 2026 are also available.
* * *
Election Dates
The Commission has posted a list of 2026 Congressional Primary Dates.
* * *
Upcoming educational opportunities
May 12-13, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host a webinar for membership and labor organizations and their PACs.
June 2-3, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host a webinar for trade associations and their PACs.
For more information on upcoming training opportunities, see the Commission's Trainings page.
* * *
Upcoming reporting due dates
May 20: May Monthly Reports are due. For more information, see the 2026 Monthly Reporting schedule.
The Commission has posted filing information regarding the California 1st District Special General Election, scheduled for June 2, 2026, and Special Runoff Election (if necessary), scheduled for August 4, 2026.
The Commission has posted filing information regarding the California 14th District Special General Election, scheduled for June 16, 2026, and Special Runoff Election (if necessary), scheduled for August 18, 2026.
* * *
Additional research materials
Contribution Limits: In addition to the current limits, the Commission has posted an archive of contribution limits that were in effect going back to the 1975-1976 election cycles.
Federal election results are available. The data was compiled from the official vote totals published by state election offices.
FEC Notify: Want to be notified by email when campaign finance reports are received by the agency? Sign up here.
The Combined Federal State Disclosure and Election Directory is available. This publication identifies the federal and state agencies responsible for the disclosure of campaign finances, lobbying, personal finances, public financing, candidates on the ballot, election results, spending on state initiatives, and other financial filings.
The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Tax Checkoff Chart provides information on balance of the Fund, monthly deposits into the Fund reported by the Department of the Treasury, payments from the Fund as certified by the FEC, and participation rates of taxpayers as reported by the Internal Revenue Service. For more information on the Presidential Public Funding Program, see the Public Funding of Presidential Elections page.
The FEC Record is available as a continuously updated online news source.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fec.gov/updates/week-of-april-20-24-2026/
FCC Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau Issues Public Notice Seeking Comment on Verizon Petition For Waiver of Next Generation 911 Phase 1 Deadlines
WASHINGTON, April 25 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (PS Docket Nos. 21-479, 25-143) on April 24, 2026:
* * *
The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) seeks comment on a Petition for Waiver filed by Verizon on April 17, 2026./1 Verizon requests to extend the deadlines for complying with Next Generation 911 (NG911) Phase 1 requirements in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and additional jurisdictions./2 Specifically, Verizon seeks an extension of deadlines for it to implement Phase 1 for its wireline
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 25 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (PS Docket Nos. 21-479, 25-143) on April 24, 2026:
* * *
The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) seeks comment on a Petition for Waiver filed by Verizon on April 17, 2026./1 Verizon requests to extend the deadlines for complying with Next Generation 911 (NG911) Phase 1 requirements in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and additional jurisdictions./2 Specifically, Verizon seeks an extension of deadlines for it to implement Phase 1 for its wirelineservices as follows:
* Through June 30, 2026, for Verizon's wireline services in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts3 and in other jurisdictions that filed Phase 1 requests prior to November 1, 2025.4
* Through July 31, 2026 for Verizon's wireline services in jurisdictions that filed Phase 1 requests between November 1, 2025 and January 31, 2026.5
In addition, Verizon requests a retroactive waiver through March 31, 2026 of the Phase 1 deadline for its wireless services in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts./6
Verizon states that its wireline Phase 1 implementation was largely complete in Massachusetts and other jurisdictions late in the first quarter of 2026, but that additional time through mid-2026 will facilitate more seamless support for certain multi-line telephone system (MLTS) users' caller location functions./7 Verizon asserts that a waiver is warranted because "the complications of IP connectivity described [in the Petition] are precisely the extraordinary or special circumstances warranting the limited extension requested."/8 Alternatively, if the Petition is not granted, Verizon requests that the Commission "waive or forbear from enforcing relevant Part 9 requirements for affected MLTS managers and operators" through the time frames requested in the Petition./9
Filing Requirements. Interested parties may file comments on or before the dates shown on the first page of this document./10 All comments must reference PS Docket No. 21-479 and should be filed only in that docket. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS)./11
* Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings.
* Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.
o Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
o 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.
o Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
o Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express may be addressed to 45 L Street, NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding this Public Notice initiates shall be treated as a "permit-butdisclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./12 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 section 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by section 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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ Verizon, Petition for Waiver, PS Docket No. 21-479 (filed April 17, 2026), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/10417519901088 (Verizon Petition).
2/ Certain originating service providers, including non-rural wireline providers and nationwide Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers, are required to comply with NG911 Phase 1 implementation requirements within six months after receiving a valid request from a 911 Authority. 47 CFR Sec. 9.30(a)(1); see also 47 CFR Sec. 9.29(a). Alternatively, originating service providers and 911 Authorities may establish different terms by mutual consent. 47 CFR Sec. 9.34.
3/ See Massachusetts State 911 Department, 911 Authority Next Generation 911 (NG911) Valid Request Form, PS Docket No. 25-143 (rec. April 4, 2025), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10404491711173 (Massachusetts Phase 1 Request).
4/ Verizon Petition at 9-10. The Commission's NG911 valid request registry posted 95 filings prior to November 1, 2025. Several requests that posted during this period subsequently were amended or withdrawn. Accordingly, Bureau staff estimates that 72 Phase 1 valid requests were posted during this period, including Massachusetts. Interested parties may retrieve requests at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings by using search terms Proceedings: 25-143, Date Posted Range: 03/25/2025 - 10/31/2025. We note that other 911 Authorities may have provided written notice of valid Phase 1 requests directly to relevant originating service providers under 47 CFR Sec. 9.31(a)(5).
5/ Verizon Petition at 10. The Commission's NG911 valid request registry posted 81 filings between November 1, 2025 and January 31, 2026. As with the earlier period, several requests subsequently were amended or withdrawn. Additionally, two requests for Phase 2 service posted to the registry during this period, which we do not consider as covered by Verizon's waiver request. Accordingly, Bureau staff estimates that 58 Phase 1 valid requests were posted during this period. Interested parties may retrieve requests at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings by using search terms Proceedings: 25-143, Date Posted Range: 11/01/2025 - 01/31/2026.
6/ Id. at 9. Verizon states that it has collaborated with the State 911 Department in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and "after resolving unforeseen technical issues" was Phase 1 compliant for wireless service by March 31, 2026. Id. at 2.
7/ Id. at 5-7.
8/ Id. at 12.
9/ Id. at 9; see also 47 CFR part 9, subpart F.
10/ See 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 1.1, 1.3, 1.45.
11/ See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998).
12/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-407A1.pdf
FCC Issues Revocation Warning to Southwest Montana Media Over Unpaid Fees
WASHINGTON, April 25 -- The Federal Communications Commission Media Bureau has issued an order to pay or show cause to Southwest Montana Media LLC (No. DA 26-399). The regulatory body is initiating a proceeding to revoke the license for KBOQ(FM) in Lima, Montana, citing a failure to pay delinquent regulatory fees, interest, and penalties.
According to Commission records, Southwest Montana Media, LLC owes a total of $6,754.80 in unpaid debt. This balance includes overdue fees for KBOQ(FM) and costs associated with former holdings, including DKANA(AM) in Anaconda and a construction permit for DK264CZ
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 25 -- The Federal Communications Commission Media Bureau has issued an order to pay or show cause to Southwest Montana Media LLC (No. DA 26-399). The regulatory body is initiating a proceeding to revoke the license for KBOQ(FM) in Lima, Montana, citing a failure to pay delinquent regulatory fees, interest, and penalties.
According to Commission records, Southwest Montana Media, LLC owes a total of $6,754.80 in unpaid debt. This balance includes overdue fees for KBOQ(FM) and costs associated with former holdings, including DKANA(AM) in Anaconda and a construction permit for DK264CZin Butte. The debt spans multiple fiscal years, including 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023.
Under section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934 and section 1.1151 of Commission rules, the agency is required to collect these fees to recover costs associated with its functions. Statutory mandates require the assessment of a 25 percent penalty on late or incomplete payments. The FCC previously transferred these debts to the United States Department of Treasury for collection. However, at the request of the Commission, the debts were returned to the agency for further action. Interest and administrative costs continue to accrue on the outstanding balance.
The Order requires Southwest Montana Media, LLC to provide documented evidence of full payment within 60 calendar days. Alternatively, the licensee may show cause as to why the payment is inapplicable or why it should be waived or deferred. Failure to respond within the specified timeframe may result in the revocation of the license for KBOQ(FM). The Commission noted that an adjudicatory hearing will only be granted if the licensee presents a substantial question of fact. In such a hearing, the licensee would bear the burden of proof through written evidence.
Payments must be made through the Commission's Registration System or via wire transfer. Any response must be filed with the Office of the Secretary and include a factual statement supported by affidavits. Documentation must be directed to the Chief of the Audio Division within the Media Bureau. The Commission sent copies of this order via registered mail to the licensee in Saint Anthony, Idaho, and its counsel in Lilburn, Georgia.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-399A1.pdf
