Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Federal Regulatory Agencies
Featured Stories
USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Anode Materials for Use in Battery Cells and Batteries
WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Anode Materials for Use in Battery Cells and Batteries
The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain anode materials for use in battery cells and batteries. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission's notice of investigation.
The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of Sila Nanotechnologies, Inc. of Alameda, California, and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release: * * * USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Anode Materials for Use in Battery Cells and Batteries The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain anode materials for use in battery cells and batteries. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission's notice of investigation. The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of Sila Nanotechnologies, Inc. of Alameda, California, andGeorgia Tech Research Corporation of Atlanta, Georgia, on June 18, 2026. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States of certain anode materials for use in battery cells and batteries infringe certain claims of the patents asserted by the complainants. The complainants request that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The USITC has identified the following respondents in this investigation:
* Carbon ONE New Energy Group Co., Ltd., Quzhou City, China
* Carbon One New Energy (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd., Hangzhou City, China
* Zhejiang Lichen New Material Technology Co., Ltd., Huzhou, China
By instituting this investigation (337-TA-1513), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.
The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2026/er0721_68943.htm
* * *
USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Anode Materials for Use in Battery Cells and Batteries
The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain anode materials for use in battery cells and batteries. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission's notice of investigation.
The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of Sila Nanotechnologies, Inc. of Alameda, California, and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release: * * * USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Anode Materials for Use in Battery Cells and Batteries The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain anode materials for use in battery cells and batteries. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission's notice of investigation. The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of Sila Nanotechnologies, Inc. of Alameda, California, andGeorgia Tech Research Corporation of Atlanta, Georgia, on June 18, 2026. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States of certain anode materials for use in battery cells and batteries infringe certain claims of the patents asserted by the complainants. The complainants request that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The USITC has identified the following respondents in this investigation:
* Carbon ONE New Energy Group Co., Ltd., Quzhou City, China
* Carbon One New Energy (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd., Hangzhou City, China
* Zhejiang Lichen New Material Technology Co., Ltd., Huzhou, China
By instituting this investigation (337-TA-1513), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.
The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2026/er0721_68943.htm
SEC Commissioner Uyeda Issues to Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee
WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on July 21 2026, by Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda to the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee:
* * *
Good morning, and thank you all for being here.[1] Before turning to today's agenda, I want to welcome the five new members who joined this Committee last month: Anya Coverman, Joseph Lucosky, Andrew Prystai, Rodrigo Seira, and Erik Syvertsen. You bring perspectives from portfolio alternatives, capital markets law, early-stage venture, and fund formation. I look forward to your future contributions ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on July 21 2026, by Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda to the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee: * * * Good morning, and thank you all for being here.[1] Before turning to today's agenda, I want to welcome the five new members who joined this Committee last month: Anya Coverman, Joseph Lucosky, Andrew Prystai, Rodrigo Seira, and Erik Syvertsen. You bring perspectives from portfolio alternatives, capital markets law, early-stage venture, and fund formation. I look forward to your future contributionsand this Committee will be stronger for them.
At the last meeting in April, I raised several concerns about barriers for small companies accessing public markets: fixed compliance costs, underwriter economics that disfavored smaller companies, and a regulatory framework calibrated for large issuers.[2] Now I'd like us to spend less time on diagnosis and more time on potential solutions. Thus, I am pleased that the Committee will be briefed on the three proposals moving through the Commission right now: expanding Form S-3 eligibility and taking other steps to modernize the registered offering process, enhancing emerging growth company accommodations and simplifying filer status, and providing options for companies and their shareholders to determine their optimal periodic reporting cycles, whether that be semiannual or quarterly. Today you will hear directly from the Division of Corporation Finance on these three specific reforms.
Modernizing our rulebook is important. The Commission last took a hard look at improving the capital formation environment more than two decades ago. These proposals address concerns that our rules, forms, and guidance for public companies are outdated and disproportionately burdensome for smaller companies relative to benefits.
For example, consider Form S-3 and shelf registration. The framework we're currently operating under mostly dates to 2005--before the iPhone had even been rolled out.[3] It is also before the Commission required XBRL and structured data, which have created a very different disclosure environment. Expanding S-3 eligibility to more issuers, and streamlining the registration and communication rules that come with it, is an attempt to create a set of rules that more accurately reflects how information moves today. For a small company, that's not an abstract benefit--it's the difference between raising capital on a reasonable timeframe and watching a market window close during a lengthy registration process.
For each of these proposals, and any other potential regulatory reforms discussed today, the test I'd ask the Committee to apply is simple to state and hard to answer: is a given disclosure obligation producing information to investors that materially changes the enterprise value of a company or its stock price? Or is it a fixed cost that lands hardest on the companies with the fewest resources to absorb it?
This is a difficult question to answer in part because the costs we're talking about rarely show up as a single dramatic barrier. They accumulate--a threshold set too low, a deadline too tight, a filing requirement that made sense for a $10 billion company but gets applied to one a fraction of that size. Often a single line item does not look unreasonable in isolation. The cumulative effect is what pushes companies to stay private, or to leave the public markets. I hope that this Committee, comprised of individuals who are uniquely positioned to understand the barriers facing capital formation for small businesses, can tell us plainly if we've drawn the line in the wrong place. Or more importantly, how we should be thinking about applying principles-based rules rather than prescriptive mandates that attempt to create backdoor merit regulation.
Thank you again for your service, and I look forward to the discussion.
* * *
[1] My remarks today reflect my views as an individual Commissioner and not necessarily the views of the full Commission or my fellow Commissioners.
[2] Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, Remarks to the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee (Apr. 28, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/uyeda-remarks-sbcfac-042826.
[3] Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, Statement on Proposing Registered Offering Reform and Enhancement of Emerging Growth Company Accommodations and Simplification of Filer Status for Reporting Companies (May 19, 2026), available at 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#_ftn7.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/uyeda-remarks-sbcfac-072126
* * *
Good morning, and thank you all for being here.[1] Before turning to today's agenda, I want to welcome the five new members who joined this Committee last month: Anya Coverman, Joseph Lucosky, Andrew Prystai, Rodrigo Seira, and Erik Syvertsen. You bring perspectives from portfolio alternatives, capital markets law, early-stage venture, and fund formation. I look forward to your future contributions ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on July 21 2026, by Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda to the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee: * * * Good morning, and thank you all for being here.[1] Before turning to today's agenda, I want to welcome the five new members who joined this Committee last month: Anya Coverman, Joseph Lucosky, Andrew Prystai, Rodrigo Seira, and Erik Syvertsen. You bring perspectives from portfolio alternatives, capital markets law, early-stage venture, and fund formation. I look forward to your future contributionsand this Committee will be stronger for them.
At the last meeting in April, I raised several concerns about barriers for small companies accessing public markets: fixed compliance costs, underwriter economics that disfavored smaller companies, and a regulatory framework calibrated for large issuers.[2] Now I'd like us to spend less time on diagnosis and more time on potential solutions. Thus, I am pleased that the Committee will be briefed on the three proposals moving through the Commission right now: expanding Form S-3 eligibility and taking other steps to modernize the registered offering process, enhancing emerging growth company accommodations and simplifying filer status, and providing options for companies and their shareholders to determine their optimal periodic reporting cycles, whether that be semiannual or quarterly. Today you will hear directly from the Division of Corporation Finance on these three specific reforms.
Modernizing our rulebook is important. The Commission last took a hard look at improving the capital formation environment more than two decades ago. These proposals address concerns that our rules, forms, and guidance for public companies are outdated and disproportionately burdensome for smaller companies relative to benefits.
For example, consider Form S-3 and shelf registration. The framework we're currently operating under mostly dates to 2005--before the iPhone had even been rolled out.[3] It is also before the Commission required XBRL and structured data, which have created a very different disclosure environment. Expanding S-3 eligibility to more issuers, and streamlining the registration and communication rules that come with it, is an attempt to create a set of rules that more accurately reflects how information moves today. For a small company, that's not an abstract benefit--it's the difference between raising capital on a reasonable timeframe and watching a market window close during a lengthy registration process.
For each of these proposals, and any other potential regulatory reforms discussed today, the test I'd ask the Committee to apply is simple to state and hard to answer: is a given disclosure obligation producing information to investors that materially changes the enterprise value of a company or its stock price? Or is it a fixed cost that lands hardest on the companies with the fewest resources to absorb it?
This is a difficult question to answer in part because the costs we're talking about rarely show up as a single dramatic barrier. They accumulate--a threshold set too low, a deadline too tight, a filing requirement that made sense for a $10 billion company but gets applied to one a fraction of that size. Often a single line item does not look unreasonable in isolation. The cumulative effect is what pushes companies to stay private, or to leave the public markets. I hope that this Committee, comprised of individuals who are uniquely positioned to understand the barriers facing capital formation for small businesses, can tell us plainly if we've drawn the line in the wrong place. Or more importantly, how we should be thinking about applying principles-based rules rather than prescriptive mandates that attempt to create backdoor merit regulation.
Thank you again for your service, and I look forward to the discussion.
* * *
[1] My remarks today reflect my views as an individual Commissioner and not necessarily the views of the full Commission or my fellow Commissioners.
[2] Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, Remarks to the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee (Apr. 28, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/uyeda-remarks-sbcfac-042826.
[3] Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, Statement on Proposing Registered Offering Reform and Enhancement of Emerging Growth Company Accommodations and Simplification of Filer Status for Reporting Companies (May 19, 2026), available at 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#_ftn7.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/uyeda-remarks-sbcfac-072126
SEC Commissioner Peirce Issues Before Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee
WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on July 21, 2026, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce before the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee:
* * *
Seeking Public Comment on Seeking Public Capital
Good morning. I would like to welcome the Committee's new members and thank all of you for your continued work on behalf of investors and small issuers. And as always, thank you to the SEC's Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation for supporting this work and facilitating these meetings. Welcome back to former Committee ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on July 21, 2026, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce before the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee: * * * Seeking Public Comment on Seeking Public Capital Good morning. I would like to welcome the Committee's new members and thank all of you for your continued work on behalf of investors and small issuers. And as always, thank you to the SEC's Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation for supporting this work and facilitating these meetings. Welcome back to former Committeemember Sue Washer. I appreciate your and Dan Zinn's willingness to share your expertise as panelists with the Committee today.
Today's topic--Modernizing Market Access and Encouraging IPOs and Small Public Company Capital Formation--is an important one. I look forward to the continuation of last meeting's fascinating discussion on the topic. I particularly enjoyed hearing Committee members' thoughts and reactions to the panelists and look forward to recommendations that come out of these discussions.
At the Committee's February meeting, I spoke about the value of our public markets and the unique benefits they offer companies, benefits that "simply cannot be re-created privately."1 This morning, I would like to focus on the Commission's recent efforts to extend those benefits to a broader range of issuers and the process behind those efforts.
Under the leadership of Chairman Atkins, the Commission is proposing and adopting rules that simplify registration and disclosure requirements and allow more companies to go public with fewer unnecessary regulatory hurdles. Done correctly, these regulatory efforts will benefit not only issuers, but also investors. Labyrinthine restrictions on access to public markets unmoored from an investor protection rationale serve nobody.
At the same time, we are exercising the utmost caution in working to streamline and update rules that may be outdated or ineffective. The goal is not to cut for the sake of cutting but to cut requirements that do not yield proportionate benefits. Central to our rulemaking process are a thoughtful understanding of our regulatory history, practical lessons derived from years of experience with existing rules, and wisdom brought to us by public comment letters.
This Committee's input is also essential as we seek to make public markets a more welcoming place for companies to turn for capital. In that spirit, I would like to pose a few questions for consideration by the Committee:
1. If the Commission's new filer status rules are adopted as proposed, what do you expect utilization to look like for smaller issuers? For instance, will companies seeking newly available Form S 3 eligibility face any unique operational or infrastructure challenges in taking advantage of it? What further reforms would smaller issuers and their investors like to see, beyond those currently proposed, that would encourage them to take advantage of the public markets?
2. As a practical matter, do Form 10 Q disclosures play a different role for smaller issuers and their investors than they do for larger companies? Would smaller issuers be more or less likely to adopt semiannual reporting if offered, and why?
3. Are specific disclosure items under Regulation S-K especially burdensome for smaller issuers?
4. A theme from the April meeting was that one of the best things we can do to make the public markets more attractive is to give companies more control and certainty over timing during the initial public offering and subsequent capital raising. Do any of our proposed rules meaningfully help to achieve that goal? What additional steps can we take?
5. Another theme from the April meeting was the need to improve research coverage and market making for smaller public companies. As Marcia Dawood said at the last meeting, "Too many small public companies become invisible after the offering."2 What can the SEC do to create an environment in which smaller public companies get the attention they deserve?
6. Chairman Atkins has suggested rethinking the gun-jumping rules,3 and one of the panelists at last week's roundtable suggested something similar.4 Would deregulating offers be helpful?
7. Committee members also noted the role that inevitable costly litigation plays in keeping companies out of the public markets. Can the Commission do anything more to address this issue than we already have done with respect to mandatory arbitration provisions?5
Thank you, and I look forward to our continued discussion of these important issues.
* * *
1/ Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, Primarily Secondaries: Remarks Before the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee (February 24, 2026), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-022426-primarily-secondaries-remarks-small-business-capital-formation-advisory-committee.
2/ Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee Meeting (April 28, 2026), transcript at p. 27, https://www.sec.gov/files/sbcfac-transcript-042826.pdf.
3/ See Chairman Paul S. Atkins, Remarks at the Stanford Rock Center for Corporate Governance (May 26, 2026), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-052626-remarks-stanford-rock-center-corporate-governance.
4/ See comments of Joshua Ford Bonnie at SEC Roundtable, Rethinking the Rulebook: Modernizing the IPO Process and Access to Public Capital (July 13, 2026), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/meetings-events/rethinking-rulebook-modernizing-ipo-process-access-public-capital (referring to publicity rules as "a constant source . . . of annoyance" and asking whether we could have an exemption that says "communications that don't refer to the IPO aren't an offer").
5/ See generally SEC Policy Statement, Acceleration of Effectiveness of Registration Statements of Issuers with Certain Mandatory Arbitration Provision, Securities Act Release No. 33-11389 (September 17, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/policy/33-11389.pdf.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-small-business-capital-formation-advisory-committee-072126
* * *
Seeking Public Comment on Seeking Public Capital
Good morning. I would like to welcome the Committee's new members and thank all of you for your continued work on behalf of investors and small issuers. And as always, thank you to the SEC's Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation for supporting this work and facilitating these meetings. Welcome back to former Committee ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on July 21, 2026, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce before the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee: * * * Seeking Public Comment on Seeking Public Capital Good morning. I would like to welcome the Committee's new members and thank all of you for your continued work on behalf of investors and small issuers. And as always, thank you to the SEC's Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation for supporting this work and facilitating these meetings. Welcome back to former Committeemember Sue Washer. I appreciate your and Dan Zinn's willingness to share your expertise as panelists with the Committee today.
Today's topic--Modernizing Market Access and Encouraging IPOs and Small Public Company Capital Formation--is an important one. I look forward to the continuation of last meeting's fascinating discussion on the topic. I particularly enjoyed hearing Committee members' thoughts and reactions to the panelists and look forward to recommendations that come out of these discussions.
At the Committee's February meeting, I spoke about the value of our public markets and the unique benefits they offer companies, benefits that "simply cannot be re-created privately."1 This morning, I would like to focus on the Commission's recent efforts to extend those benefits to a broader range of issuers and the process behind those efforts.
Under the leadership of Chairman Atkins, the Commission is proposing and adopting rules that simplify registration and disclosure requirements and allow more companies to go public with fewer unnecessary regulatory hurdles. Done correctly, these regulatory efforts will benefit not only issuers, but also investors. Labyrinthine restrictions on access to public markets unmoored from an investor protection rationale serve nobody.
At the same time, we are exercising the utmost caution in working to streamline and update rules that may be outdated or ineffective. The goal is not to cut for the sake of cutting but to cut requirements that do not yield proportionate benefits. Central to our rulemaking process are a thoughtful understanding of our regulatory history, practical lessons derived from years of experience with existing rules, and wisdom brought to us by public comment letters.
This Committee's input is also essential as we seek to make public markets a more welcoming place for companies to turn for capital. In that spirit, I would like to pose a few questions for consideration by the Committee:
1. If the Commission's new filer status rules are adopted as proposed, what do you expect utilization to look like for smaller issuers? For instance, will companies seeking newly available Form S 3 eligibility face any unique operational or infrastructure challenges in taking advantage of it? What further reforms would smaller issuers and their investors like to see, beyond those currently proposed, that would encourage them to take advantage of the public markets?
2. As a practical matter, do Form 10 Q disclosures play a different role for smaller issuers and their investors than they do for larger companies? Would smaller issuers be more or less likely to adopt semiannual reporting if offered, and why?
3. Are specific disclosure items under Regulation S-K especially burdensome for smaller issuers?
4. A theme from the April meeting was that one of the best things we can do to make the public markets more attractive is to give companies more control and certainty over timing during the initial public offering and subsequent capital raising. Do any of our proposed rules meaningfully help to achieve that goal? What additional steps can we take?
5. Another theme from the April meeting was the need to improve research coverage and market making for smaller public companies. As Marcia Dawood said at the last meeting, "Too many small public companies become invisible after the offering."2 What can the SEC do to create an environment in which smaller public companies get the attention they deserve?
6. Chairman Atkins has suggested rethinking the gun-jumping rules,3 and one of the panelists at last week's roundtable suggested something similar.4 Would deregulating offers be helpful?
7. Committee members also noted the role that inevitable costly litigation plays in keeping companies out of the public markets. Can the Commission do anything more to address this issue than we already have done with respect to mandatory arbitration provisions?5
Thank you, and I look forward to our continued discussion of these important issues.
* * *
1/ Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, Primarily Secondaries: Remarks Before the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee (February 24, 2026), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-022426-primarily-secondaries-remarks-small-business-capital-formation-advisory-committee.
2/ Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee Meeting (April 28, 2026), transcript at p. 27, https://www.sec.gov/files/sbcfac-transcript-042826.pdf.
3/ See Chairman Paul S. Atkins, Remarks at the Stanford Rock Center for Corporate Governance (May 26, 2026), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-052626-remarks-stanford-rock-center-corporate-governance.
4/ See comments of Joshua Ford Bonnie at SEC Roundtable, Rethinking the Rulebook: Modernizing the IPO Process and Access to Public Capital (July 13, 2026), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/meetings-events/rethinking-rulebook-modernizing-ipo-process-access-public-capital (referring to publicity rules as "a constant source . . . of annoyance" and asking whether we could have an exemption that says "communications that don't refer to the IPO aren't an offer").
5/ See generally SEC Policy Statement, Acceleration of Effectiveness of Registration Statements of Issuers with Certain Mandatory Arbitration Provision, Securities Act Release No. 33-11389 (September 17, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/policy/33-11389.pdf.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-small-business-capital-formation-advisory-committee-072126
SEC Chairman Atkins at Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee Meeting
WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on July 21, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins at the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee meeting:
* * *
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for being here today.
I should like to begin by extending a warm welcome to the Committee's new members--Anya Coverman, Joseph Lucosky, Andrew Prystai, Rodrigo Seira, and Erik Syvertsen. I am certain that your collective expertise and many contributions will prove invaluable as we work to widen pathways to capital for small businesses.
Today, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on July 21, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins at the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee meeting: * * * Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for being here today. I should like to begin by extending a warm welcome to the Committee's new members--Anya Coverman, Joseph Lucosky, Andrew Prystai, Rodrigo Seira, and Erik Syvertsen. I am certain that your collective expertise and many contributions will prove invaluable as we work to widen pathways to capital for small businesses. Today,we turn to that very objective, as the Committee continues its consideration of a matter that I maintain to be among the most consequential before us: how to incentivize more companies--especially those small and growing--to go and remain public.
During the decade of the 1990s, there were approximately 4,000 IPOs. In the 25 years since then, there have been only 3,200./1
At the prior meeting in April, Committee members and speakers supported several aspects of our agenda that could reverse this trend and revitalize the IPO market. Specifically, these include: re-calibrating disclosure requirements for smaller public companies, reconsidering reporting cadence, enhancing Form S-3 eligibility, revising the criteria to qualify as a well-known seasoned issuer, extending the "IPO on-ramp," and modernizing filer status categories. Today, I am pleased to report that the Commission has since proposed four rules that reflect those very ideas--and many more.
In May, the Commission proposed amendments that, if adopted, would allow public companies the option to file one semiannual report each year, in lieu of three quarterly reports. By removing the SEC's thumb from the scale, we would afford companies regulatory flexibility to align reporting practices with their industry, business model, and investor expectations.
Just weeks later, the Commission issued two additional proposals that, if adopted, would build upon legislative and regulatory concepts that have proven successful in the past, and which aim to extend that success to more companies in the future.
The first--referred to as registered offering reform--would expand access to the SEC's "shelf registration" process, which allows public companies to access the public markets quickly and when market conditions are most favorable. Currently, due to eligibility restrictions, newly public companies cannot use the flexible shelf registration process offered by Form S-3, and smaller companies have only limited access to it. Registered offering reform would expand the full availability of shelf registration to nearly all public companies--including the newest and the smallest--increasing the number of eligible companies by over 60 percent.
Furthermore, registered offering reform would expand brokers and dealers' ability to publish research reports about issuers conducting registered offerings, even if the broker or dealer is participating in the offering. Notably, a broker's or dealer's ability to publish such reports about domestic issuers would no longer depend on the issuer's size or the length of its reporting history. As a result, smaller and newly public companies would benefit from brokers or dealers having greater flexibility to initiate coverage for them more quickly after their IPO. Likewise, investors and other market participants would gain from the research and analysis resulting from increased and more immediate coverage of these companies.
The second reform that we proposed in tandem--referred to as filer status reform--would re-calibrate disclosure and other requirements based on a company's size and maturity. As a result, more companies would receive relief from some of the most arduous SEC requirements, including auditor attestation of internal control over financial reporting. The proposal would also build on the "IPO on-ramp" by extending the length of time that companies can potentially remain on the on-ramp and be exempt from the auditor attestation requirement--and others like it.
Finally, we proposed rescinding the prior Commission's climate disclosure rules--which, I believe, exceeded the Commission's statutory authority and abandoned the foundational principle that our disclosure rules should be rooted in materiality. In practice, the climate rules would impose unnecessary burdens on companies--a deterrent for those wishing to go public and a difficulty for those already listed. I have said it many times before, and I will say it again: the SEC is a disclosure regulator, not a merit regulator.
Of course, as with any rulemaking proposed by the Commission, I look forward to receiving public comment and feedback on these proposals, including that of this Committee and today's speakers.
So, in closing, know that we hold your insights in high regard, and that--as is their most fundamental purpose--they provide the input that sound policymaking requires. As we further pursue the efforts mentioned, today's discussion will be essential to effectuating them. To that end, as always, I implore you all to be honest in your evaluations and innovative in your advice. Our path forward certainly depends on it.
I am grateful, once again, for your service on this Committee. Enjoy the rest of your meeting, and I look forward to reviewing the perspectives that are sure to arise as a result. Thank you.
* * *
1/ See Jay R. Ritter, Initial Public Offerings: Updated Statistics (July 7, 2026) at Table 1, available at https://site.warrington.ufl.edu/ritter/files/IPO-Statistics.pdf.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-remarks-small-business-capital-formation-advisory-meeting-07-21-2026-remarks-small-business-capital-formation-advisory-committee-meeting
* * *
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for being here today.
I should like to begin by extending a warm welcome to the Committee's new members--Anya Coverman, Joseph Lucosky, Andrew Prystai, Rodrigo Seira, and Erik Syvertsen. I am certain that your collective expertise and many contributions will prove invaluable as we work to widen pathways to capital for small businesses.
Today, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on July 21, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins at the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee meeting: * * * Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for being here today. I should like to begin by extending a warm welcome to the Committee's new members--Anya Coverman, Joseph Lucosky, Andrew Prystai, Rodrigo Seira, and Erik Syvertsen. I am certain that your collective expertise and many contributions will prove invaluable as we work to widen pathways to capital for small businesses. Today,we turn to that very objective, as the Committee continues its consideration of a matter that I maintain to be among the most consequential before us: how to incentivize more companies--especially those small and growing--to go and remain public.
During the decade of the 1990s, there were approximately 4,000 IPOs. In the 25 years since then, there have been only 3,200./1
At the prior meeting in April, Committee members and speakers supported several aspects of our agenda that could reverse this trend and revitalize the IPO market. Specifically, these include: re-calibrating disclosure requirements for smaller public companies, reconsidering reporting cadence, enhancing Form S-3 eligibility, revising the criteria to qualify as a well-known seasoned issuer, extending the "IPO on-ramp," and modernizing filer status categories. Today, I am pleased to report that the Commission has since proposed four rules that reflect those very ideas--and many more.
In May, the Commission proposed amendments that, if adopted, would allow public companies the option to file one semiannual report each year, in lieu of three quarterly reports. By removing the SEC's thumb from the scale, we would afford companies regulatory flexibility to align reporting practices with their industry, business model, and investor expectations.
Just weeks later, the Commission issued two additional proposals that, if adopted, would build upon legislative and regulatory concepts that have proven successful in the past, and which aim to extend that success to more companies in the future.
The first--referred to as registered offering reform--would expand access to the SEC's "shelf registration" process, which allows public companies to access the public markets quickly and when market conditions are most favorable. Currently, due to eligibility restrictions, newly public companies cannot use the flexible shelf registration process offered by Form S-3, and smaller companies have only limited access to it. Registered offering reform would expand the full availability of shelf registration to nearly all public companies--including the newest and the smallest--increasing the number of eligible companies by over 60 percent.
Furthermore, registered offering reform would expand brokers and dealers' ability to publish research reports about issuers conducting registered offerings, even if the broker or dealer is participating in the offering. Notably, a broker's or dealer's ability to publish such reports about domestic issuers would no longer depend on the issuer's size or the length of its reporting history. As a result, smaller and newly public companies would benefit from brokers or dealers having greater flexibility to initiate coverage for them more quickly after their IPO. Likewise, investors and other market participants would gain from the research and analysis resulting from increased and more immediate coverage of these companies.
The second reform that we proposed in tandem--referred to as filer status reform--would re-calibrate disclosure and other requirements based on a company's size and maturity. As a result, more companies would receive relief from some of the most arduous SEC requirements, including auditor attestation of internal control over financial reporting. The proposal would also build on the "IPO on-ramp" by extending the length of time that companies can potentially remain on the on-ramp and be exempt from the auditor attestation requirement--and others like it.
Finally, we proposed rescinding the prior Commission's climate disclosure rules--which, I believe, exceeded the Commission's statutory authority and abandoned the foundational principle that our disclosure rules should be rooted in materiality. In practice, the climate rules would impose unnecessary burdens on companies--a deterrent for those wishing to go public and a difficulty for those already listed. I have said it many times before, and I will say it again: the SEC is a disclosure regulator, not a merit regulator.
Of course, as with any rulemaking proposed by the Commission, I look forward to receiving public comment and feedback on these proposals, including that of this Committee and today's speakers.
So, in closing, know that we hold your insights in high regard, and that--as is their most fundamental purpose--they provide the input that sound policymaking requires. As we further pursue the efforts mentioned, today's discussion will be essential to effectuating them. To that end, as always, I implore you all to be honest in your evaluations and innovative in your advice. Our path forward certainly depends on it.
I am grateful, once again, for your service on this Committee. Enjoy the rest of your meeting, and I look forward to reviewing the perspectives that are sure to arise as a result. Thank you.
* * *
1/ See Jay R. Ritter, Initial Public Offerings: Updated Statistics (July 7, 2026) at Table 1, available at https://site.warrington.ufl.edu/ritter/files/IPO-Statistics.pdf.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-remarks-small-business-capital-formation-advisory-meeting-07-21-2026-remarks-small-business-capital-formation-advisory-committee-meeting
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice: Comments Invited on Verizon's Section 214 Application to Discontinue Domestic Legacy Voice Service as Part of Technology Transition
WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-170):
* * *
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, July 22 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-170): * * * 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 August 21, 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 August 5, 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-26-763A1.pdf
* * *
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, July 22 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-170): * * * 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 August 21, 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 August 5, 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-26-763A1.pdf
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice: Comments Invited on Section 214 Application to Discontinue Domestic Non-Dominant Carrier Telecommunications Services
WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-171):
* * *
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, July 22 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-171): * * * 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 August 21, 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 August 5, 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./5
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./6 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding(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/ Please note that Commission staff may share filed comments with the applicant(s), along with the commenter's contact information, in order to allow applicant(s) to identify affected customers and fully respond.
6/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-764A1.pdf
* * *
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, July 22 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-171): * * * 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 August 21, 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 August 5, 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./5
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./6 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding(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/ Please note that Commission staff may share filed comments with the applicant(s), along with the commenter's contact information, in order to allow applicant(s) to identify affected customers and fully respond.
6/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-764A1.pdf
FCC Chairman Carr Announces National Security Enforcement Actions
WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release on July 21, 2026:
* * *
Chairman Carr Announces National Security Enforcement Actions
FCC Brings Enforcement Against Drone Company Falsely Claiming to Produce in America and Targets Test Lab Discovered to Have Submitted Copied-and-Pasted Test Results
-
Today, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced two enforcement actions to further protect Americans from dangerous devices and untrustworthy labs.
First, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) and the Office of Engineering and Technology ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release on July 21, 2026: * * * Chairman Carr Announces National Security Enforcement Actions FCC Brings Enforcement Against Drone Company Falsely Claiming to Produce in America and Targets Test Lab Discovered to Have Submitted Copied-and-Pasted Test Results - Today, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced two enforcement actions to further protect Americans from dangerous devices and untrustworthy labs. First, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) and the Office of Engineering and Technology(OET) began proceedings to revoke two equipment authorizations recently granted to Odyssey Robot for falsely claiming to produce its drone in the U.S. Late last year, following an Executive Branch determination that foreign-made drones pose unacceptable national security risks, the FCC added such drones to the Covered List--banning them from new authorizations. Today's action marks the first revocation proceeding against a drone company trying to evade our rules.
Second, OET instituted proceedings to withdraw recognition from a test lab that repeatedly falsified test results in equipment authorization applications. Before any electronic device can be marketed or sold in the U.S., it must be tested at a lab recognized by the FCC. Since last year, the FCC has been expelling from its equipment authorization system "bad labs" that pose national security risks and/or are untrustworthy. Today's proceeding against Shenzhen STS Test Services, based in Shenzhen, China, outlines how the lab relied on copied-and-pasted duplicate test results for 40 separate products, from smartphones to tablets to car diagnostic tools. This follows OET's instituting proceedings last month against another lab SLG-CPC Test Laboratory Co., Ltd. based in Dongguan, China.
Chairman Carr issued the following statement:
"The FCC's national security enforcement is firing on all cylinders, as today's actions make clear. Our drone revocation proceeding sends a message that the FCC will not allow companies that produce abroad to evade the FCC's prohibition. And our device testing withdrawal proceeding is a reminder why our 'Bad Labs' work is so critical. I want to thank the FCC's Council on National Security for its excellent work on these actions, including the Public Safety and Enforcement Bureaus, alongside the Office of Engineering and Technology."
Additional Background on Odyssey Robot:
Last December, the FCC received an Executive Branch national security determination that drones and drone components produced in foreign countries pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the U.S. or the security and safety of U.S. persons. The FCC then updated the Covered List to include foreign-produced drones--subject to some exceptions. Equipment on the FCC's Covered List cannot be authorized for importation, marketing, or sale in the U.S., so the FCC's action functionally banned new models of foreign-made drones from entering the U.S. market. Since then, the FCC has seen over $4 billion dollars in investment in U.S. drone manufacturing, tens of billions of dollars in capital raised by U.S. drone companies, and thousands of manufacturing jobs created.
Earlier this year, Odyssey Robot received an equipment authorization for its drone and drone remote controller, claiming these devices were not "covered" and listing a Texas-based company as the assembler, eTak Worldwide Corp. eTak, however, is an electronics recycling company, not a drone manufacturer and has no record of any dealings with Odyssey at all. PSHSB and OET today used their authority under Commission rules to bring a streamlined revocation proceeding for equipment authorizations granted on the basis of a false statement that the equipment is not covered equipment.
Additional Background Information on Shenzhen STS Testing Services:
To import, market, or sell electronic devices in the United States, device makers generally must get their devices tested and certified in FCC-recognized test labs and telecommunications certification bodies. These entities play a vital role in ensuring that devices operate at safe power levels, on appropriate spectrum bands that do not create harmful interference and adhere to U.S. government national security rules. Through its investigation, OET discovered that 40 separate FCC IDs (see list below) had apparently relied on identical test reports prepared by Shenzhen STS Test Services, often for wholly different products, such as a PC and wireless earbuds. When confronted, Shenzhen STS Test Services conceded that it had submitted falsified reports, which it blamed on, among other factors, "engineers' negligence...as well as the negligence of the relevant report editors/reviewers."
Today's action follows a series of Commission actions against "bad labs" in our equipment authorization program. Last May, the FCC adopted rules to prohibit the recognition of test labs owned by, or subject to the direction or control of, a foreign adversary country. Since these rules went into effect, the Commission has denied recognition to, or withdrawn recognition from, 23 such test labs. In April of this year, the FCC proposed to restore reciprocity to lab testing by withdrawing recognition from any test lab based in a country that lacks a reciprocal agreement with the U.S. Finally, last month, OET began proceedings against SLG-CPC, another test lab that OET discovered had submitted false, copied-and-pasted test results.
40 FCC IDs:
(a) FCC ID 2BSW8-WAVE10 (4G smartphone), FCC ID 2A8T7ELINK (Bluetooth vehicle diagnostic tool), and FCC ID 2ANWFET9150 (automotive diagnostic system);
(b) FCC ID 2BTXF-WT1PRO (tablet), FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR627 (wireless headset), and FCC ID 2BU9HAW101ANRISLEEP (sleep monitor);
(c) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR640 (wireless earbuds) and FCC ID 2AXUD-G3S (mini PC);
(d) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR621 (wireless headset), FCC ID 2ANMU-G7 (smartphone), and FCC ID 2BOHY-851P2-C (Bluetooth module);
(e) FCC ID 2BOHY-621U1 and FCC ID 2BSW8-FORT200 (smartphone);
(f) FCC ID 2A33N-L61A (smartphone) and FCC ID 2BOHY-851P2-M (Bluetooth module);
(g) FCC ID 2A2P5-1-OHR554 (wireless headset) and FCC ID 2BSW8-FORT5 (smartphone);
(h) FCC ID 2A58W-MP10 (wireless earbuds) and FCC ID 2BSW8-ZENO5 (tablet);
(i) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR621 (wireless headset), FCC ID 2ANMU-G6 (smartphone), and FCC ID 2BTTZORATOR (visel glasses);
(j) FCC ID 2AQRE-SR800 (smart POS terminal) and FCC ID 2BVA8-H1503BQ (LTE module);
(k) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR804 (wireless earbuds) and FCC ID 2BSW8-ROCK5 (smartphone);
(l) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR718 (wireless headset) and FCC ID WWE-2IHSK1016 (4-in-1 home speaker);
(m) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR626 (wireless headset) and FCC ID 2BDS8-X7S (car media player);
(n) FCC ID 2ATH7-U987Q (Bluetooth adapter) and FCC ID 2BUN4-ACT2631 (wireless headphones);
(o) FCC ID 2A33N-L61B (smartphone) and FCC ID 2BSW8-MEGA5 (tablet);
(p) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR810 (wireless neckband earphones) and FCC ID 2BU85-T20 (tablet);
(q) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR811 (wireless neckband earphones) and FCC ID 2BU85-T90 (tablet);
(r) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR626 (wireless headset) and FCC ID 2BSW8-ROCK3 (smartphone);
(s) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR718 (Bluetooth headset) and FCC ID WWE-2IHSK1016 (4-in-1 home speaker); and
(t) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR626 (wireless headset) and FCC ID 2BDS8-X7S (car media player).
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-423255A1.pdf
* * *
Chairman Carr Announces National Security Enforcement Actions
FCC Brings Enforcement Against Drone Company Falsely Claiming to Produce in America and Targets Test Lab Discovered to Have Submitted Copied-and-Pasted Test Results
-
Today, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced two enforcement actions to further protect Americans from dangerous devices and untrustworthy labs.
First, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) and the Office of Engineering and Technology ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release on July 21, 2026: * * * Chairman Carr Announces National Security Enforcement Actions FCC Brings Enforcement Against Drone Company Falsely Claiming to Produce in America and Targets Test Lab Discovered to Have Submitted Copied-and-Pasted Test Results - Today, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced two enforcement actions to further protect Americans from dangerous devices and untrustworthy labs. First, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) and the Office of Engineering and Technology(OET) began proceedings to revoke two equipment authorizations recently granted to Odyssey Robot for falsely claiming to produce its drone in the U.S. Late last year, following an Executive Branch determination that foreign-made drones pose unacceptable national security risks, the FCC added such drones to the Covered List--banning them from new authorizations. Today's action marks the first revocation proceeding against a drone company trying to evade our rules.
Second, OET instituted proceedings to withdraw recognition from a test lab that repeatedly falsified test results in equipment authorization applications. Before any electronic device can be marketed or sold in the U.S., it must be tested at a lab recognized by the FCC. Since last year, the FCC has been expelling from its equipment authorization system "bad labs" that pose national security risks and/or are untrustworthy. Today's proceeding against Shenzhen STS Test Services, based in Shenzhen, China, outlines how the lab relied on copied-and-pasted duplicate test results for 40 separate products, from smartphones to tablets to car diagnostic tools. This follows OET's instituting proceedings last month against another lab SLG-CPC Test Laboratory Co., Ltd. based in Dongguan, China.
Chairman Carr issued the following statement:
"The FCC's national security enforcement is firing on all cylinders, as today's actions make clear. Our drone revocation proceeding sends a message that the FCC will not allow companies that produce abroad to evade the FCC's prohibition. And our device testing withdrawal proceeding is a reminder why our 'Bad Labs' work is so critical. I want to thank the FCC's Council on National Security for its excellent work on these actions, including the Public Safety and Enforcement Bureaus, alongside the Office of Engineering and Technology."
Additional Background on Odyssey Robot:
Last December, the FCC received an Executive Branch national security determination that drones and drone components produced in foreign countries pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the U.S. or the security and safety of U.S. persons. The FCC then updated the Covered List to include foreign-produced drones--subject to some exceptions. Equipment on the FCC's Covered List cannot be authorized for importation, marketing, or sale in the U.S., so the FCC's action functionally banned new models of foreign-made drones from entering the U.S. market. Since then, the FCC has seen over $4 billion dollars in investment in U.S. drone manufacturing, tens of billions of dollars in capital raised by U.S. drone companies, and thousands of manufacturing jobs created.
Earlier this year, Odyssey Robot received an equipment authorization for its drone and drone remote controller, claiming these devices were not "covered" and listing a Texas-based company as the assembler, eTak Worldwide Corp. eTak, however, is an electronics recycling company, not a drone manufacturer and has no record of any dealings with Odyssey at all. PSHSB and OET today used their authority under Commission rules to bring a streamlined revocation proceeding for equipment authorizations granted on the basis of a false statement that the equipment is not covered equipment.
Additional Background Information on Shenzhen STS Testing Services:
To import, market, or sell electronic devices in the United States, device makers generally must get their devices tested and certified in FCC-recognized test labs and telecommunications certification bodies. These entities play a vital role in ensuring that devices operate at safe power levels, on appropriate spectrum bands that do not create harmful interference and adhere to U.S. government national security rules. Through its investigation, OET discovered that 40 separate FCC IDs (see list below) had apparently relied on identical test reports prepared by Shenzhen STS Test Services, often for wholly different products, such as a PC and wireless earbuds. When confronted, Shenzhen STS Test Services conceded that it had submitted falsified reports, which it blamed on, among other factors, "engineers' negligence...as well as the negligence of the relevant report editors/reviewers."
Today's action follows a series of Commission actions against "bad labs" in our equipment authorization program. Last May, the FCC adopted rules to prohibit the recognition of test labs owned by, or subject to the direction or control of, a foreign adversary country. Since these rules went into effect, the Commission has denied recognition to, or withdrawn recognition from, 23 such test labs. In April of this year, the FCC proposed to restore reciprocity to lab testing by withdrawing recognition from any test lab based in a country that lacks a reciprocal agreement with the U.S. Finally, last month, OET began proceedings against SLG-CPC, another test lab that OET discovered had submitted false, copied-and-pasted test results.
40 FCC IDs:
(a) FCC ID 2BSW8-WAVE10 (4G smartphone), FCC ID 2A8T7ELINK (Bluetooth vehicle diagnostic tool), and FCC ID 2ANWFET9150 (automotive diagnostic system);
(b) FCC ID 2BTXF-WT1PRO (tablet), FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR627 (wireless headset), and FCC ID 2BU9HAW101ANRISLEEP (sleep monitor);
(c) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR640 (wireless earbuds) and FCC ID 2AXUD-G3S (mini PC);
(d) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR621 (wireless headset), FCC ID 2ANMU-G7 (smartphone), and FCC ID 2BOHY-851P2-C (Bluetooth module);
(e) FCC ID 2BOHY-621U1 and FCC ID 2BSW8-FORT200 (smartphone);
(f) FCC ID 2A33N-L61A (smartphone) and FCC ID 2BOHY-851P2-M (Bluetooth module);
(g) FCC ID 2A2P5-1-OHR554 (wireless headset) and FCC ID 2BSW8-FORT5 (smartphone);
(h) FCC ID 2A58W-MP10 (wireless earbuds) and FCC ID 2BSW8-ZENO5 (tablet);
(i) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR621 (wireless headset), FCC ID 2ANMU-G6 (smartphone), and FCC ID 2BTTZORATOR (visel glasses);
(j) FCC ID 2AQRE-SR800 (smart POS terminal) and FCC ID 2BVA8-H1503BQ (LTE module);
(k) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR804 (wireless earbuds) and FCC ID 2BSW8-ROCK5 (smartphone);
(l) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR718 (wireless headset) and FCC ID WWE-2IHSK1016 (4-in-1 home speaker);
(m) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR626 (wireless headset) and FCC ID 2BDS8-X7S (car media player);
(n) FCC ID 2ATH7-U987Q (Bluetooth adapter) and FCC ID 2BUN4-ACT2631 (wireless headphones);
(o) FCC ID 2A33N-L61B (smartphone) and FCC ID 2BSW8-MEGA5 (tablet);
(p) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR810 (wireless neckband earphones) and FCC ID 2BU85-T20 (tablet);
(q) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR811 (wireless neckband earphones) and FCC ID 2BU85-T90 (tablet);
(r) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR626 (wireless headset) and FCC ID 2BSW8-ROCK3 (smartphone);
(s) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR718 (Bluetooth headset) and FCC ID WWE-2IHSK1016 (4-in-1 home speaker); and
(t) FCC ID 2A2P5-OHR626 (wireless headset) and FCC ID 2BDS8-X7S (car media player).
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-423255A1.pdf