Federal Executive Branch
Here's a look at documents from the U.S. Executive Branch
Federal Agencies
Featured Stories
SEC Director Selway Issues Remarks at Roundtable on Preparations for 24 Hour Trading
WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks by Director of the Division of Trading and Markets Jamie Selway:
* * *
Remarks at the Roundtable on Preparations for 24 Hour Trading
Washington D.C. Sept. 17, 2026
Thank you, Chairman Atkins, and Commissioners Peirce and Uyeda, for your remarks this morning and for your support of industry and Division efforts to prepare for a 24-hour marketplace. Once again, I thank Commissioner Peirce for her idea of a roundtable on a timely, relevant topic. I wish Commissioner Peirce nothing but the best as she winds ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks by Director of the Division of Trading and Markets Jamie Selway: * * * Remarks at the Roundtable on Preparations for 24 Hour Trading Washington D.C. Sept. 17, 2026 Thank you, Chairman Atkins, and Commissioners Peirce and Uyeda, for your remarks this morning and for your support of industry and Division efforts to prepare for a 24-hour marketplace. Once again, I thank Commissioner Peirce for her idea of a roundtable on a timely, relevant topic. I wish Commissioner Peirce nothing but the best as she windsdown an impressive and impactful tenure as a regulator and begins an honorable new chapter as a teacher. But I selfishly hope that she will still find time to think of compelling roundtable ideas for her old friends at the Division.
I'd like to thank our moderators and expert panelists for their meaningful contributions of time, expertise, and experience today. I also thank my Division teammates, who made this roundtable possible through diligent work, creativity and resourcefulness, and attention to detail. We are confident that today's event will provide a broad, deep treatment of a cornerstone initiative to further modernize our equity markets. Today's discussion will help better inform the Commission and the investing public we serve.
Before I say more, please understand that I speak today in my official capacity as the Commission's Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, and my remarks do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, the Commissioners, or members of the staff. This disclaimer applies as well to comments made by my Division colleagues during today's program.
In June 1968, facing a "paperwork crisis" brought on by an abundance of trading volume and an absence of technology fit to meet the challenge at hand, the NYSE began to close on Wednesdays. From the days of the Buttonwood Agreement to the wake of the Civil War, the Exchange had operated as a call market. In 1871, continuous trading began, including a Saturday session. From May 1887 to September 1952, the market opened at 10 AM and closed at 3 PM, with Saturday's trading ending at noon. The NYSE ceased Saturday trading in September 1952.
Wednesday trading returned in January 1969, but the NYSE moved its close to 2 PM. As technological advancements increased capacity, the Exchange pushed the close later by 30 minutes four times over the next five years, ultimately landing at 4 PM in October 1974. In 1985, the Exchange revised its open to 9:30 AM, where it sits today. Roughly twenty years later, fully-electronic venues led an expansion of market data infrastructure to extend coverage to 4 AM and 8 PM ET. Once again, technological innovation and investment expanded capacity and increased resiliency--and multiplied choices available to investors.
In recent years, in response to growing interest from retail and non-US investors, market participants have revisited expanded hours once more--and perhaps for the final time. Four ATSs now offer "overnight" trading in the US. In June, DTCC began to clear equities on a 23-by-5 basis. FINRA's TRF has broadened its hours. And on December 6, our market data infrastructure is set to expand to 23-by-5 - which will allow a number of approved exchanges to offer trading during these hours.
The Division supports these efforts and commends the industry for progress made throughout 2026. The coming changes are substantial and will have broad impact, and it is critical that investors and issuers are up to speed. Moreover, certain initiatives will continue to evolve after December 6, and future expansion to 24-by-7 is a possibility. Today's roundtable is designed to address these issues.
First, Dan Mathisson of the Division's Office of Analytics and Research will present highlights from a recently-published paper to support today's discussion. Available on the roundtable website, the paper analyzes overnight and cross-session trading volume, examines characteristics of stocks traded during the overnight session, and explores market-participant activity across trading sessions.
After Dan's presentation, we will have three panel discussions. Panel one, moderated by Katie Kolchin of SIFMA and Division colleague Jon Kroeper, will review preparedness for a 24-hour market. Panel two will focus on resiliency in a 24-hour market, with Jim Toes of STA and Division colleague Patrick Norton moderating. Adrian Griffiths of MEMX and Division colleague Peggy Sullivan will moderate our third and final panel, which will address expected impacts of these changes, along with potential next steps.
The meaning of resiliency is worth reflection. Last Friday, our Nation marked the 25th anniversary of one of its darkest days. The markets did not open on Tuesday, September 11, 2001--and remained closed until Monday, September 17. Our fellow citizens showed incredible resilience in the aftermath of unspeakable evil. Particularly courageous were the many working in financial services who suffered tragic loss. But the technology capable of keeping our markets open did not match the resiliency of our people.
Twenty five years later, such technology is readily available. After considerable, careful planning, the marketplace is preparing to extend operating hours to the fullest extent possible. Successful execution of this project can underscore our global preeminence, benefit investors throughout the world, and broaden capital formation possibilities for US-listed companies. I thank everyone for being part of today's event and look forward to hearing your views.
And now, I'll ask Dan to begin his presentation.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/selway-roundtable-preparations-24-hour-trading-091726
* * *
Remarks at the Roundtable on Preparations for 24 Hour Trading
Washington D.C. Sept. 17, 2026
Thank you, Chairman Atkins, and Commissioners Peirce and Uyeda, for your remarks this morning and for your support of industry and Division efforts to prepare for a 24-hour marketplace. Once again, I thank Commissioner Peirce for her idea of a roundtable on a timely, relevant topic. I wish Commissioner Peirce nothing but the best as she winds ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks by Director of the Division of Trading and Markets Jamie Selway: * * * Remarks at the Roundtable on Preparations for 24 Hour Trading Washington D.C. Sept. 17, 2026 Thank you, Chairman Atkins, and Commissioners Peirce and Uyeda, for your remarks this morning and for your support of industry and Division efforts to prepare for a 24-hour marketplace. Once again, I thank Commissioner Peirce for her idea of a roundtable on a timely, relevant topic. I wish Commissioner Peirce nothing but the best as she windsdown an impressive and impactful tenure as a regulator and begins an honorable new chapter as a teacher. But I selfishly hope that she will still find time to think of compelling roundtable ideas for her old friends at the Division.
I'd like to thank our moderators and expert panelists for their meaningful contributions of time, expertise, and experience today. I also thank my Division teammates, who made this roundtable possible through diligent work, creativity and resourcefulness, and attention to detail. We are confident that today's event will provide a broad, deep treatment of a cornerstone initiative to further modernize our equity markets. Today's discussion will help better inform the Commission and the investing public we serve.
Before I say more, please understand that I speak today in my official capacity as the Commission's Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, and my remarks do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, the Commissioners, or members of the staff. This disclaimer applies as well to comments made by my Division colleagues during today's program.
In June 1968, facing a "paperwork crisis" brought on by an abundance of trading volume and an absence of technology fit to meet the challenge at hand, the NYSE began to close on Wednesdays. From the days of the Buttonwood Agreement to the wake of the Civil War, the Exchange had operated as a call market. In 1871, continuous trading began, including a Saturday session. From May 1887 to September 1952, the market opened at 10 AM and closed at 3 PM, with Saturday's trading ending at noon. The NYSE ceased Saturday trading in September 1952.
Wednesday trading returned in January 1969, but the NYSE moved its close to 2 PM. As technological advancements increased capacity, the Exchange pushed the close later by 30 minutes four times over the next five years, ultimately landing at 4 PM in October 1974. In 1985, the Exchange revised its open to 9:30 AM, where it sits today. Roughly twenty years later, fully-electronic venues led an expansion of market data infrastructure to extend coverage to 4 AM and 8 PM ET. Once again, technological innovation and investment expanded capacity and increased resiliency--and multiplied choices available to investors.
In recent years, in response to growing interest from retail and non-US investors, market participants have revisited expanded hours once more--and perhaps for the final time. Four ATSs now offer "overnight" trading in the US. In June, DTCC began to clear equities on a 23-by-5 basis. FINRA's TRF has broadened its hours. And on December 6, our market data infrastructure is set to expand to 23-by-5 - which will allow a number of approved exchanges to offer trading during these hours.
The Division supports these efforts and commends the industry for progress made throughout 2026. The coming changes are substantial and will have broad impact, and it is critical that investors and issuers are up to speed. Moreover, certain initiatives will continue to evolve after December 6, and future expansion to 24-by-7 is a possibility. Today's roundtable is designed to address these issues.
First, Dan Mathisson of the Division's Office of Analytics and Research will present highlights from a recently-published paper to support today's discussion. Available on the roundtable website, the paper analyzes overnight and cross-session trading volume, examines characteristics of stocks traded during the overnight session, and explores market-participant activity across trading sessions.
After Dan's presentation, we will have three panel discussions. Panel one, moderated by Katie Kolchin of SIFMA and Division colleague Jon Kroeper, will review preparedness for a 24-hour market. Panel two will focus on resiliency in a 24-hour market, with Jim Toes of STA and Division colleague Patrick Norton moderating. Adrian Griffiths of MEMX and Division colleague Peggy Sullivan will moderate our third and final panel, which will address expected impacts of these changes, along with potential next steps.
The meaning of resiliency is worth reflection. Last Friday, our Nation marked the 25th anniversary of one of its darkest days. The markets did not open on Tuesday, September 11, 2001--and remained closed until Monday, September 17. Our fellow citizens showed incredible resilience in the aftermath of unspeakable evil. Particularly courageous were the many working in financial services who suffered tragic loss. But the technology capable of keeping our markets open did not match the resiliency of our people.
Twenty five years later, such technology is readily available. After considerable, careful planning, the marketplace is preparing to extend operating hours to the fullest extent possible. Successful execution of this project can underscore our global preeminence, benefit investors throughout the world, and broaden capital formation possibilities for US-listed companies. I thank everyone for being part of today's event and look forward to hearing your views.
And now, I'll ask Dan to begin his presentation.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/selway-roundtable-preparations-24-hour-trading-091726
Navy Honors Ombudsmen for Strengthening Fleet and Family Readiness
PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii, Sept. 18 -- Navy Region Hawaii issued the following news:
* * *
Navy Honors Ombudsmen for Strengthening Fleet and Family Readiness
17 September 2026
From Kyler Hood, Navy Region Hawaii Public Affairs
JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, Hawaii - Every September, the Navy honors its ombudsmen, the volunteers who serve as a liaison between military families and military commands during National Ombudsman Appreciation Month, a commemoration devoted to recognizing ombudsmen for their volunteerism and for their support of military families.
In June, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam ... Show Full Article PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii, Sept. 18 -- Navy Region Hawaii issued the following news: * * * Navy Honors Ombudsmen for Strengthening Fleet and Family Readiness 17 September 2026 From Kyler Hood, Navy Region Hawaii Public Affairs JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, Hawaii - Every September, the Navy honors its ombudsmen, the volunteers who serve as a liaison between military families and military commands during National Ombudsman Appreciation Month, a commemoration devoted to recognizing ombudsmen for their volunteerism and for their support of military families. In June, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickamombudsmen logged more than 10,600 volunteer hours as they worked to improve family readiness by sharing command communications and providing information to families about fleet and family readiness programs. They also serve as an avenue for leadership to stay informed about the welfare of command families.
"The Navy ombudsman program is important Navy-wide and the reason why this program exists across the entire Navy at all installations and with all commands is because, in the absence of a service member [during a deployment], those families will look for any point of familiarity because a lot of times, they are in unfamiliar places," explained Laura Little, the Navy ombudsman program coordinator for Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam (JBPHH) and Commander Navy Region Hawaii (CNRH), who trains the volunteer ombudsmen.
Little likens an ombudsman to a "lighthouse" because when a Navy family is missing a Sailor during a deployment or when they experience a family emergency, the ombudsman acts as a beacon that can direct them to the relevant Navy resource.
The Navy Ombudsman program began on Sept. 14, 1970, under Admiral Elmo Zumwalt. Jr., former Chief of Naval Operations. In Zumwalt's 24th policy directive, he recognized the vital role Navy spouses play and created a procedure that allowed spouses the opportunity to present their complaints, viewpoints, and suggestions to the commanding officer. Zumwalt described an ombudsman as an "official representative to express their views to commanding officers and base commanders."
Zumwalt adapted this idea for the Navy from a 19th century Scandinavian custom established by the king to give ordinary private citizens an avenue to express their grievances to high government officials.
An ombudsman can be anyone who is affiliated, approved by their command, and committed to fulfilling the responsibilities of the role.
Professional Development
Ombudsmen begin their volunteer roles with Ombudsman Basic Training (OBT), a program that provides details on how to effectively execute the command ombudsman role. This training is done in a traditional face-to-face classroom setting with instruction that is coordinated by the Fleet and Family Support Center (FFSC) and the Navy Reserve Forces or can be completed online if in-person training is not available.
Each ombudsman is also required to maintain a training record including the title of training, the date of attendance, and the name of the hosting training organization to ensure that they are making progress.
Advanced Training
In addition to the initial OBT and eOBT (online training), ombudsmen must be knowledgeable about new programs and tools available to service members and families. The Navy Family Ombudsmen Program provides many virtual and face-to-face training opportunities to ensure that CNRH and JBPPH remain a vital resource for Navy families and their commands.
Little is proud to train ombudsmen for JBPHH and CNRH. These vital volunteers help strengthen the home front by maintaining confidentiality, supporting the command mission, and working within the chain of command as directed. They uphold the highest standards of professionalism and shine a light across the Hawaii community. Mahalo to our CNRH and JBPHH ombudsmen!
* * *
Original text here: https://cnrh.cnic.navy.mil/News/News-Detail/Article/4604647/navy-honors-ombudsmen-for-strengthening-fleet-and-family-readiness/
* * *
Navy Honors Ombudsmen for Strengthening Fleet and Family Readiness
17 September 2026
From Kyler Hood, Navy Region Hawaii Public Affairs
JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, Hawaii - Every September, the Navy honors its ombudsmen, the volunteers who serve as a liaison between military families and military commands during National Ombudsman Appreciation Month, a commemoration devoted to recognizing ombudsmen for their volunteerism and for their support of military families.
In June, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam ... Show Full Article PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii, Sept. 18 -- Navy Region Hawaii issued the following news: * * * Navy Honors Ombudsmen for Strengthening Fleet and Family Readiness 17 September 2026 From Kyler Hood, Navy Region Hawaii Public Affairs JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, Hawaii - Every September, the Navy honors its ombudsmen, the volunteers who serve as a liaison between military families and military commands during National Ombudsman Appreciation Month, a commemoration devoted to recognizing ombudsmen for their volunteerism and for their support of military families. In June, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickamombudsmen logged more than 10,600 volunteer hours as they worked to improve family readiness by sharing command communications and providing information to families about fleet and family readiness programs. They also serve as an avenue for leadership to stay informed about the welfare of command families.
"The Navy ombudsman program is important Navy-wide and the reason why this program exists across the entire Navy at all installations and with all commands is because, in the absence of a service member [during a deployment], those families will look for any point of familiarity because a lot of times, they are in unfamiliar places," explained Laura Little, the Navy ombudsman program coordinator for Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam (JBPHH) and Commander Navy Region Hawaii (CNRH), who trains the volunteer ombudsmen.
Little likens an ombudsman to a "lighthouse" because when a Navy family is missing a Sailor during a deployment or when they experience a family emergency, the ombudsman acts as a beacon that can direct them to the relevant Navy resource.
The Navy Ombudsman program began on Sept. 14, 1970, under Admiral Elmo Zumwalt. Jr., former Chief of Naval Operations. In Zumwalt's 24th policy directive, he recognized the vital role Navy spouses play and created a procedure that allowed spouses the opportunity to present their complaints, viewpoints, and suggestions to the commanding officer. Zumwalt described an ombudsman as an "official representative to express their views to commanding officers and base commanders."
Zumwalt adapted this idea for the Navy from a 19th century Scandinavian custom established by the king to give ordinary private citizens an avenue to express their grievances to high government officials.
An ombudsman can be anyone who is affiliated, approved by their command, and committed to fulfilling the responsibilities of the role.
Professional Development
Ombudsmen begin their volunteer roles with Ombudsman Basic Training (OBT), a program that provides details on how to effectively execute the command ombudsman role. This training is done in a traditional face-to-face classroom setting with instruction that is coordinated by the Fleet and Family Support Center (FFSC) and the Navy Reserve Forces or can be completed online if in-person training is not available.
Each ombudsman is also required to maintain a training record including the title of training, the date of attendance, and the name of the hosting training organization to ensure that they are making progress.
Advanced Training
In addition to the initial OBT and eOBT (online training), ombudsmen must be knowledgeable about new programs and tools available to service members and families. The Navy Family Ombudsmen Program provides many virtual and face-to-face training opportunities to ensure that CNRH and JBPPH remain a vital resource for Navy families and their commands.
Little is proud to train ombudsmen for JBPHH and CNRH. These vital volunteers help strengthen the home front by maintaining confidentiality, supporting the command mission, and working within the chain of command as directed. They uphold the highest standards of professionalism and shine a light across the Hawaii community. Mahalo to our CNRH and JBPHH ombudsmen!
* * *
Original text here: https://cnrh.cnic.navy.mil/News/News-Detail/Article/4604647/navy-honors-ombudsmen-for-strengthening-fleet-and-family-readiness/
FDIC: Statement by Chairman Hill on the Proposed Rule Regarding Bank Merger Transactions
WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following statement by Chairman Travis Hill:
* * *
Statement by Chairman Travis Hill on the Proposed Rule Regarding Bank Merger Transactions
September 17, 2026
Today's proposal is motivated by two fundamental concerns with the FDIC's historical approach to processing bank merger applications.
First, the merger review process has often taken far too long. On one end of the spectrum, a routine application to acquire, for example, a small wholly owned subsidiary that is certain to be approved can get bogged down for ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following statement by Chairman Travis Hill: * * * Statement by Chairman Travis Hill on the Proposed Rule Regarding Bank Merger Transactions September 17, 2026 Today's proposal is motivated by two fundamental concerns with the FDIC's historical approach to processing bank merger applications. First, the merger review process has often taken far too long. On one end of the spectrum, a routine application to acquire, for example, a small wholly owned subsidiary that is certain to be approved can get bogged down formonths. Perhaps more problematically, on the other end of the spectrum, merger applications by small and midsize banks can languish for months on end. For example, on three different occasions between 2022 and 2024, the FDIC took more than a year to approve mergers resulting in institutions with between $10 billion and approximately $50 billion in assets, which I strongly criticized at the time.1 A long process is damaging in many ways - it creates uncertainty for employees and customers, it constrains long-term planning and investment, it makes post-merger integration more challenging and costly, and it potentially leaves the merging entities (particularly the seller) in a vulnerable position if the merger is not approved, among other downsides.
Since I became Chairman, the FDIC has taken a number of steps internally to substantially improve the timeliness of applications. The agency averaged 107 days from receipt to final action in 2023 and 2024; this number was reduced to 80 in 2025 and stands at 64 year-to-date in 2026. The proposal would take the additional step of codifying a series of timelines for processing different types of merger applications. This would include a "rapid processing" framework for de minimis transactions, which are acquisitions of extremely small targets or certain types of operating subsidiaries and which would be processed in as little as five days.
Second, the analytical framework underlying the bank merger process2 is in need of reform. This is particularly true of our analysis of the competition factor. The Bank Merger Act, and the Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Bank Merger Act, were written decades ago in a very different era, when banking was truly a local business.3 Banks were subject to heavy legal restrictions regarding their ability to operate across the country (or even across counties),4 and technology limited banks' ability to offer products outside of their branch network.
Today, the banking landscape is dramatically different. Every American with a computer or mobile phone can access countless offers for loan and deposit products from banks and nonbanks. As I've said in the past, not all banks operate nationwide, but all banks compete with banks (and nonbanks) who do.5 The proposal would modify the FDIC's approach to the competition factor by, among other things, fully incorporating into the analysis credit unions, thrifts, and a proxy for centrally booked deposits, which are deposits not attributed to branches based on the location of the depositor.6 The proposal also seeks comments on various additional ideas, such as (1) establishing a separate HHI threshold for rural areas and (2) focusing the analysis specifically on retail and small business deposits.
The proposal would also reform the FDIC's analysis of the other statutory factors. For example, for purposes of the financial stability factor, in addition to considering the systemic footprint of the resulting institution, the proposal would also involve a before-and-after comparison of the applicant and consideration of the extent to which a transaction could improve financial stability.7
More broadly, placing artificial constraints on merger activity is the wrong answer to address industry consolidation. Instead, we should continue our efforts to (1) reinvigorate the pipeline for new bank entrants and (2) streamline excess regulation and supervision so that small banks can remain competitive in today's environment.
Thank you to the staff for their work on this proposal. I look forward to comments.
* * *
1/ See Travis Hill, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Memorandum and Resolution Regarding Merger and Deposit Insurance Application Review Process (June 20, 2024).
2/ The FDIC's analytical framework revolves around the statutory factors the FDIC is required to consider under the Bank Merger Act. See 12 U.S.C. 1828(c). The statutory factors are: (1) the competitive effects of the merger transaction; (2) the financial and managerial resources of the institutions involved in the transaction; (3) the convenience and needs of the community to be served; (4) the risk to the stability of the U.S. banking or financial system; and (6) the effectiveness of any insured depository institution involved in the transaction in combatting anti-money laundering activities.
3/ See, e.g., U.S. v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 358 (1963) ("In banking, as in most service industries, convenience of location is essential to effective competition. Individuals and corporations typically confer the bulk of their patronage on banks in their local community; they find it impractical to conduct their banking business at a distance.").
4/ For example, until the enactment of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-328, 103 Stat. 2338), national banks were subject to home state law restrictions on branching, which generally restricted branch locations to the home city or state of a bank's main office, and interstate branching was prohibited.
5/ See Travis Hill, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Insights on the FDIC's Agenda (September 21, 2023) ("While not all banks compete nationwide, all banks in effect compete with those who do.").
6/ This would generally include, for example, deposits placed at banks fintech companies and various other third parties.
7/ This could include an acquisition of a distressed bank with an elevated risk of failure.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fdic.gov/news/speeches/2026/statement-chairman-travis-hill-proposed-rule-regarding-bank-merger-transactions
* * *
Statement by Chairman Travis Hill on the Proposed Rule Regarding Bank Merger Transactions
September 17, 2026
Today's proposal is motivated by two fundamental concerns with the FDIC's historical approach to processing bank merger applications.
First, the merger review process has often taken far too long. On one end of the spectrum, a routine application to acquire, for example, a small wholly owned subsidiary that is certain to be approved can get bogged down for ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following statement by Chairman Travis Hill: * * * Statement by Chairman Travis Hill on the Proposed Rule Regarding Bank Merger Transactions September 17, 2026 Today's proposal is motivated by two fundamental concerns with the FDIC's historical approach to processing bank merger applications. First, the merger review process has often taken far too long. On one end of the spectrum, a routine application to acquire, for example, a small wholly owned subsidiary that is certain to be approved can get bogged down formonths. Perhaps more problematically, on the other end of the spectrum, merger applications by small and midsize banks can languish for months on end. For example, on three different occasions between 2022 and 2024, the FDIC took more than a year to approve mergers resulting in institutions with between $10 billion and approximately $50 billion in assets, which I strongly criticized at the time.1 A long process is damaging in many ways - it creates uncertainty for employees and customers, it constrains long-term planning and investment, it makes post-merger integration more challenging and costly, and it potentially leaves the merging entities (particularly the seller) in a vulnerable position if the merger is not approved, among other downsides.
Since I became Chairman, the FDIC has taken a number of steps internally to substantially improve the timeliness of applications. The agency averaged 107 days from receipt to final action in 2023 and 2024; this number was reduced to 80 in 2025 and stands at 64 year-to-date in 2026. The proposal would take the additional step of codifying a series of timelines for processing different types of merger applications. This would include a "rapid processing" framework for de minimis transactions, which are acquisitions of extremely small targets or certain types of operating subsidiaries and which would be processed in as little as five days.
Second, the analytical framework underlying the bank merger process2 is in need of reform. This is particularly true of our analysis of the competition factor. The Bank Merger Act, and the Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Bank Merger Act, were written decades ago in a very different era, when banking was truly a local business.3 Banks were subject to heavy legal restrictions regarding their ability to operate across the country (or even across counties),4 and technology limited banks' ability to offer products outside of their branch network.
Today, the banking landscape is dramatically different. Every American with a computer or mobile phone can access countless offers for loan and deposit products from banks and nonbanks. As I've said in the past, not all banks operate nationwide, but all banks compete with banks (and nonbanks) who do.5 The proposal would modify the FDIC's approach to the competition factor by, among other things, fully incorporating into the analysis credit unions, thrifts, and a proxy for centrally booked deposits, which are deposits not attributed to branches based on the location of the depositor.6 The proposal also seeks comments on various additional ideas, such as (1) establishing a separate HHI threshold for rural areas and (2) focusing the analysis specifically on retail and small business deposits.
The proposal would also reform the FDIC's analysis of the other statutory factors. For example, for purposes of the financial stability factor, in addition to considering the systemic footprint of the resulting institution, the proposal would also involve a before-and-after comparison of the applicant and consideration of the extent to which a transaction could improve financial stability.7
More broadly, placing artificial constraints on merger activity is the wrong answer to address industry consolidation. Instead, we should continue our efforts to (1) reinvigorate the pipeline for new bank entrants and (2) streamline excess regulation and supervision so that small banks can remain competitive in today's environment.
Thank you to the staff for their work on this proposal. I look forward to comments.
* * *
1/ See Travis Hill, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Memorandum and Resolution Regarding Merger and Deposit Insurance Application Review Process (June 20, 2024).
2/ The FDIC's analytical framework revolves around the statutory factors the FDIC is required to consider under the Bank Merger Act. See 12 U.S.C. 1828(c). The statutory factors are: (1) the competitive effects of the merger transaction; (2) the financial and managerial resources of the institutions involved in the transaction; (3) the convenience and needs of the community to be served; (4) the risk to the stability of the U.S. banking or financial system; and (6) the effectiveness of any insured depository institution involved in the transaction in combatting anti-money laundering activities.
3/ See, e.g., U.S. v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 358 (1963) ("In banking, as in most service industries, convenience of location is essential to effective competition. Individuals and corporations typically confer the bulk of their patronage on banks in their local community; they find it impractical to conduct their banking business at a distance.").
4/ For example, until the enactment of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-328, 103 Stat. 2338), national banks were subject to home state law restrictions on branching, which generally restricted branch locations to the home city or state of a bank's main office, and interstate branching was prohibited.
5/ See Travis Hill, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Insights on the FDIC's Agenda (September 21, 2023) ("While not all banks compete nationwide, all banks in effect compete with those who do.").
6/ This would generally include, for example, deposits placed at banks fintech companies and various other third parties.
7/ This could include an acquisition of a distressed bank with an elevated risk of failure.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fdic.gov/news/speeches/2026/statement-chairman-travis-hill-proposed-rule-regarding-bank-merger-transactions
FCC Issues Public Notice: Comment on RF Exposure Issues Subject to D.C. Circuit Remand in Environmental Health Trust Vs. FCC
WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following public notice (ET Docket No. 13-84):
* * *
Since the birth of the American wireless industry, the Federal Communications Commission has been entrusted to develop spectrum policies that bring economic prosperity, unleash innovation and investment, and promote national security as well as safety of life. Spectrum-based connectivity enabled by Commission policies has brought billions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury, created millions of jobs, served as an essential platform for U.S. tech innovation, bolstered America's ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following public notice (ET Docket No. 13-84): * * * Since the birth of the American wireless industry, the Federal Communications Commission has been entrusted to develop spectrum policies that bring economic prosperity, unleash innovation and investment, and promote national security as well as safety of life. Spectrum-based connectivity enabled by Commission policies has brought billions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury, created millions of jobs, served as an essential platform for U.S. tech innovation, bolstered America'sgeopolitical leadership, and driven down prices for consumers. Looking ahead, the U.S. government has determined that leading the world in 5G and 6G will require the Commission to auction large amounts of licensed spectrum and enable large swaths of unlicensed and satellite spectrum for next-generation services.
The Communications Act establishes the Commission's primacy over commercial spectrum policymaking, and the Working Families and Tax Cut Act, signed by President Trump in July 2025, directed the Commission to repurpose and auction 800 megahertz of spectrum, including 500 megahertz of federal spectrum for "full-power commercial licensed use cases[.]"/1 Along the way, courts have repeatedly affirmed that when the Commission "foster[s] innovative methods of exploiting the spectrum" in its role "as a policymaker," it is "accorded the greatest deference by a reviewing court."/2
As an essential component of this policymaking function, Congress entrusted the Commission in 1996 to adopt rules regarding human exposure to RF energy emitted by Commission-regulated transmitters and facilities./3 The Commission's RF exposure rules/4 are continuously evaluated and based on gold-standard research from entities with specialized expertise in health and safety issues, including the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), a congressionally chartered organization, as well as guidelines promulgated by the American National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), internationally recognized standard-setting organizations./5 Courts have consistently upheld the reasonableness of the Commission's RF humansafety requirements when challenged in 2000,/6 2004,/7 and 2021./8
Most recently, the Commission terminated a nearly six-year inquiry in December 2019, which had sought comment on whether the agency's RF safety rules should be reevaluated./9 Upon consideration of nearly 1,000 submissions, the Commission "conclude[d] that the best available evidence . . . supports maintaining [its] current RF exposure standards."/10 The D.C. Circuit's 2021 decision in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC upheld the majority of the Commission's findings, including its determination that RF exposure at levels below the current limits does not cause cancer./11 The panel also rejected arguments that the Commission had violated the Administrative Procedure Act by "fail[ing] to respond to various 'additional legal considerations'" and that it had violated NEPA by failing to conduct an environmental review regarding its decision to terminate the Notice of Inquiry./12
The panel maintained the legal force of the Commission's RF safety rules, which remain effective today and have allowed Americans to benefit from world-leading networks. At the same time, the panel remanded for the Commission "to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer."/13 The panel specifically directed the Commission to address three targeted issues: (1) "its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with its guidelines"; (2) "the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines"; and (3) "the impacts of RF radiation on the environment."/14 Importantly, the panel did not vacate the 2019 decision--it merely directed the Commission to provide further explanation to justify its findings as to these specific issues.
By this Public Notice, we seek to refresh the record on these targeted issues to discharge the Commission's obligations in response to the Court's remand in Environmental Health Trust. In all cases, the Commission found in 2019 that the nearly six-year record failed to justify a change to the Commission's rules. We seek comment on that finding. We emphasize that, in light of the limited scope of the court's remand, we do not seek comment here on any other aspects of the 2019 decision that were upheld in Environmental Health Trust or portions of the record that were not properly before the court./15
* * *
The panel's opinion in Environmental Health Trust took "no position in the scientific debate regarding the health and environmental effects of RF radiation."/16 Rather, it pointed to submissions and studies in the record that the Commission did not address in consideration of the specific issues identified above./17 The panel did not endorse those submissions, whereas the dissent specifically determined that many of them were insufficient to warrant the Commission's explicit analysis. The panel did, however, acknowledge "that there may be good reasons" why those submissions "do not warrant changes to the Commission's guidelines."/18 The panel further noted that "if those six sources fairly represented the credible record evidence seeking a change in Commission policy," then the criticisms of those sources in the dissenting opinion "would have sufficed" as reasoned decision-making./19 We seek comment on the submissions specifically cited and discussed in the Environmental Health Trust opinion. Are they representative of record evidence seeking a change in the Commission's rules? Do they demonstrate sufficient indicia of quality, reliability, or rigor to justify a change in the Commission's rules?
The panel's remand--both as to the Commission's decision to maintain its existing testing procedures, and the Commission's determination that its RF exposure limits did not pose adverse health effects to children--flowed from the Commission's purported failure to provide sufficient justification for its finding that "exposure to RF radiation at levels below its current limits does not cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer."/20 In so finding, the panel pointed largely to five articles that the Commission did not discuss regarding the putative non-cancerous effects of RF exposure below the prescribed levels./21
We seek comment on whether "the five articles on which the majority opinion relie[d] ... do not challenge a fundamental premise of the Commission's order" and we ask the same question as to any record information that the panel identified in arriving at its holding./22
* One such article, the dissenting opinion noted, purported to present evidence of non-cancerous "oxidative effects" but conceded that it "[did] not provide conclusive evidence of causal effects and should be interpreted with caution until confirmed in other population."/23
* Another meta-analysis, the dissent observed, summarized the results of human studies on the behavioral effects of RF radiation and identified "31 studies that showed no significant behavioral effects compared to 20 studies that showed behavioral effects," including "four [that] found behavioral improvements, not negative health effects."/24
* Yet another, according to the dissent, failed to "address the critical issue--whether RF radiation below the Commission's current limits can cause negative health effects" because it examined the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection's (ICNIRP) recommended RF exposure limit, which "is significantly higher than the Commission's current limit--0.08 W/kg averaged over the whole body and a peak spatial-average of 1.6 W/kg over any 1 gram of tissue."/25
* And yet another, the dissent noted, acknowledged that "the health effects of [exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs)] are still unknown ... [and] to date studies addressing this topic have produced inconsistent results."/26
* Still another, according to the dissent, "found decreases in figural memory" but acknowledged that "some experimental and epidemiological studies on RF-EMF found improvements in working memory performance."/27
* And a final study, the dissenting opinion remarked, was "hardly worth discussing because the self-published report has been widely discredited as a biased review of the science."/28
We seek comment on the foregoing discussion regarding the credibility and probative value of these studies.
With respect to environmental considerations, the panel faulted the Commission for not discussing a 2014 letter from the Department of Interior on the impact of communications towers to migratory birds./29 As the dissent noted, the Department of Interior's letter found that "no independent, third-party field studies have been conducted in North America on impacts of tower electromagnetic radiation on migratory birds."/30 We seek comment on the probative value of the Department of Interior's letter.
* * *
Beyond the submissions discussed in Environmental Health Trust, we seek comment on whether other record evidence properly before the court--namely, submissions filed after our 2013 Notice of Inquiry and before our 2019 decision to terminate the Notice of Inquiry--warrants the Commission revisiting its RF exposure rules on the specific issues subject to remand identified above. We also seek comment on whether record evidence affirmatively supports our rules or casts doubt on the reliability of submissions to the contrary.
As with our prior efforts, we intend to give particular weight to submissions that reflect specialized experience in health and safety issues on RF exposure. In prioritizing the quality of submissions over their quantity,/31 we do not anticipate affording such scientific weight to meta-analyses that simply compile studies marked by wide ranges in scientific rigor and differing and sometimes contradictory conclusions. Nor do we anticipate affording such weight to unverifiable or repetitive testimonial submissions that purport to assert the existence or absence of adverse health effects. Probative value will be accorded to parties who have demonstrated a capacity to interpret the biological research necessary to assess the health impact of RF emissions and determine what exposure levels are considered safe for humans, and who can do so with sufficient detail and persuasiveness to overcome the failings that the court identified when the Commission last attempted to rely on the expertise of expert agencies.
For instance, on potential environmental impact from RF, we encourage input from science-based standard-setting organizations and other interested parties and request that commenters describe their relevant qualifications and subject-matter expertise, and provide sufficient supporting information so that we may evaluate the methodological rigor underpinning their views and claims. We note the work of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), who "finds good quality studies show no effect from radio waves on plants and animals,"/32 and the ongoing work of the ICNIRP Project Group on Environmental EMF Protection tasked to "draft a statement on environmental effects of EMFs on the basis of qualitatively reliable scientific papers."/33 We also invite comment on our testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with our guidelines. As stated in Commission rules, guidance regarding applicable measurement techniques for the evaluation of compliance for portable devices can be found in the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Laboratory Division Knowledge Database (KDB)./34
In particular, we ask that parties addressing the Commission's past findings that "[t]he weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems," that "the current safety limits for cell phones are acceptable for protecting the public health," that the "totality of the available scientific evidence continues to not support adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits," and that "no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,"/35 clearly articulate the factual bases for their positions. Commenters who choose to address the body of scientific studies regarding the issues on remand, including the alleged existence of adverse effects to humans from low-level RF exposure, potential impacts on children, and potential health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines, should clearly describe their specialized experience and subject-matter expertise that makes them well qualified to address such matters.
As we consider how much weight to give to submissions or studies that purport to cast doubt on our RF exposure rules on the issues encompassed by the court's remand, we seek comment on their methodological rigor. What is the scope of such studies, do they properly bear on the remanded issues, and do they come with any acknowledged caveats? Does the record provide evidence that such studies have been replicated? Do such studies provide longitudinal evidence of non-cancerous adverse health effects or environmental harms? Does the record contain epidemiologic evidence that considers the ubiquitous saturation of cell phones in the American population over time? Do any such studies establish a demonstrated biological mechanism or marker through which such adverse effects are known to occur? If they purport to establish proxies such as oxidative effects, to what extent do those proxies establish adverse health effects? If they purport to show adverse health effects on humans, do they properly distinguish correlation from causation? If they purport to be based on literature review, are the reviews based on weight of scientific evidence? Are they based on self-reported data? Do they measure RF exposure through properly calibrated instruments and accepted scientific methods? Is dosimetry properly controlled, evaluated and documented? Are multiple exposure levels studied to establish a dose-response relationship, and do they substantiate an adverse health effect in humans at exposure levels below Commission limits? Do they control for confounding factors? Are proper controls and blinding procedures implemented in the study design? Are they based on representative sample sets? Are statistical analyses properly performed and sample sets of sufficient size to support conclusions? If they are based on experiments or testing in controlled environments, do those environments credibly resemble realistic deployment scenarios in the United States? If such studies are based on animal-based experiments, to what extent do they properly establish adverse health effects on humans?
While the scope of issues the Commission invites comment on is narrowly confined to record evidence that was properly before the court in Environmental Health Trust, we invite the broadest range of commenters to participate, including local, state, federal, and international health and safety agencies, science-based standard-setting organizations that are active in this area, and other interested parties./36 These include, but are not limited to, NCRP, IEEE, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and parties directly engaged with other competent bodies that are involved in this area./37 These entities have published standards, articles, or information related to RF exposure that may assist in responding to the court's remand./38
* * *
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. 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.
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.
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.
Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules.39 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., .docx, .xml, .pptx, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Further Information. Questions regarding this Public Notice may be directed to the FCC's RF Safety Program at rfsafety@fcc.gov. Comments and reply comments to this Public Notice must be filed in ET Docket 13-84 using the procedures described above and should not be sent to this mailbox.
* * *
Original text plus footnotes here: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/DA-26-997A1.pdf
* * *
Since the birth of the American wireless industry, the Federal Communications Commission has been entrusted to develop spectrum policies that bring economic prosperity, unleash innovation and investment, and promote national security as well as safety of life. Spectrum-based connectivity enabled by Commission policies has brought billions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury, created millions of jobs, served as an essential platform for U.S. tech innovation, bolstered America's ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following public notice (ET Docket No. 13-84): * * * Since the birth of the American wireless industry, the Federal Communications Commission has been entrusted to develop spectrum policies that bring economic prosperity, unleash innovation and investment, and promote national security as well as safety of life. Spectrum-based connectivity enabled by Commission policies has brought billions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury, created millions of jobs, served as an essential platform for U.S. tech innovation, bolstered America'sgeopolitical leadership, and driven down prices for consumers. Looking ahead, the U.S. government has determined that leading the world in 5G and 6G will require the Commission to auction large amounts of licensed spectrum and enable large swaths of unlicensed and satellite spectrum for next-generation services.
The Communications Act establishes the Commission's primacy over commercial spectrum policymaking, and the Working Families and Tax Cut Act, signed by President Trump in July 2025, directed the Commission to repurpose and auction 800 megahertz of spectrum, including 500 megahertz of federal spectrum for "full-power commercial licensed use cases[.]"/1 Along the way, courts have repeatedly affirmed that when the Commission "foster[s] innovative methods of exploiting the spectrum" in its role "as a policymaker," it is "accorded the greatest deference by a reviewing court."/2
As an essential component of this policymaking function, Congress entrusted the Commission in 1996 to adopt rules regarding human exposure to RF energy emitted by Commission-regulated transmitters and facilities./3 The Commission's RF exposure rules/4 are continuously evaluated and based on gold-standard research from entities with specialized expertise in health and safety issues, including the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), a congressionally chartered organization, as well as guidelines promulgated by the American National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), internationally recognized standard-setting organizations./5 Courts have consistently upheld the reasonableness of the Commission's RF humansafety requirements when challenged in 2000,/6 2004,/7 and 2021./8
Most recently, the Commission terminated a nearly six-year inquiry in December 2019, which had sought comment on whether the agency's RF safety rules should be reevaluated./9 Upon consideration of nearly 1,000 submissions, the Commission "conclude[d] that the best available evidence . . . supports maintaining [its] current RF exposure standards."/10 The D.C. Circuit's 2021 decision in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC upheld the majority of the Commission's findings, including its determination that RF exposure at levels below the current limits does not cause cancer./11 The panel also rejected arguments that the Commission had violated the Administrative Procedure Act by "fail[ing] to respond to various 'additional legal considerations'" and that it had violated NEPA by failing to conduct an environmental review regarding its decision to terminate the Notice of Inquiry./12
The panel maintained the legal force of the Commission's RF safety rules, which remain effective today and have allowed Americans to benefit from world-leading networks. At the same time, the panel remanded for the Commission "to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer."/13 The panel specifically directed the Commission to address three targeted issues: (1) "its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with its guidelines"; (2) "the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines"; and (3) "the impacts of RF radiation on the environment."/14 Importantly, the panel did not vacate the 2019 decision--it merely directed the Commission to provide further explanation to justify its findings as to these specific issues.
By this Public Notice, we seek to refresh the record on these targeted issues to discharge the Commission's obligations in response to the Court's remand in Environmental Health Trust. In all cases, the Commission found in 2019 that the nearly six-year record failed to justify a change to the Commission's rules. We seek comment on that finding. We emphasize that, in light of the limited scope of the court's remand, we do not seek comment here on any other aspects of the 2019 decision that were upheld in Environmental Health Trust or portions of the record that were not properly before the court./15
* * *
The panel's opinion in Environmental Health Trust took "no position in the scientific debate regarding the health and environmental effects of RF radiation."/16 Rather, it pointed to submissions and studies in the record that the Commission did not address in consideration of the specific issues identified above./17 The panel did not endorse those submissions, whereas the dissent specifically determined that many of them were insufficient to warrant the Commission's explicit analysis. The panel did, however, acknowledge "that there may be good reasons" why those submissions "do not warrant changes to the Commission's guidelines."/18 The panel further noted that "if those six sources fairly represented the credible record evidence seeking a change in Commission policy," then the criticisms of those sources in the dissenting opinion "would have sufficed" as reasoned decision-making./19 We seek comment on the submissions specifically cited and discussed in the Environmental Health Trust opinion. Are they representative of record evidence seeking a change in the Commission's rules? Do they demonstrate sufficient indicia of quality, reliability, or rigor to justify a change in the Commission's rules?
The panel's remand--both as to the Commission's decision to maintain its existing testing procedures, and the Commission's determination that its RF exposure limits did not pose adverse health effects to children--flowed from the Commission's purported failure to provide sufficient justification for its finding that "exposure to RF radiation at levels below its current limits does not cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer."/20 In so finding, the panel pointed largely to five articles that the Commission did not discuss regarding the putative non-cancerous effects of RF exposure below the prescribed levels./21
We seek comment on whether "the five articles on which the majority opinion relie[d] ... do not challenge a fundamental premise of the Commission's order" and we ask the same question as to any record information that the panel identified in arriving at its holding./22
* One such article, the dissenting opinion noted, purported to present evidence of non-cancerous "oxidative effects" but conceded that it "[did] not provide conclusive evidence of causal effects and should be interpreted with caution until confirmed in other population."/23
* Another meta-analysis, the dissent observed, summarized the results of human studies on the behavioral effects of RF radiation and identified "31 studies that showed no significant behavioral effects compared to 20 studies that showed behavioral effects," including "four [that] found behavioral improvements, not negative health effects."/24
* Yet another, according to the dissent, failed to "address the critical issue--whether RF radiation below the Commission's current limits can cause negative health effects" because it examined the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection's (ICNIRP) recommended RF exposure limit, which "is significantly higher than the Commission's current limit--0.08 W/kg averaged over the whole body and a peak spatial-average of 1.6 W/kg over any 1 gram of tissue."/25
* And yet another, the dissent noted, acknowledged that "the health effects of [exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs)] are still unknown ... [and] to date studies addressing this topic have produced inconsistent results."/26
* Still another, according to the dissent, "found decreases in figural memory" but acknowledged that "some experimental and epidemiological studies on RF-EMF found improvements in working memory performance."/27
* And a final study, the dissenting opinion remarked, was "hardly worth discussing because the self-published report has been widely discredited as a biased review of the science."/28
We seek comment on the foregoing discussion regarding the credibility and probative value of these studies.
With respect to environmental considerations, the panel faulted the Commission for not discussing a 2014 letter from the Department of Interior on the impact of communications towers to migratory birds./29 As the dissent noted, the Department of Interior's letter found that "no independent, third-party field studies have been conducted in North America on impacts of tower electromagnetic radiation on migratory birds."/30 We seek comment on the probative value of the Department of Interior's letter.
* * *
Beyond the submissions discussed in Environmental Health Trust, we seek comment on whether other record evidence properly before the court--namely, submissions filed after our 2013 Notice of Inquiry and before our 2019 decision to terminate the Notice of Inquiry--warrants the Commission revisiting its RF exposure rules on the specific issues subject to remand identified above. We also seek comment on whether record evidence affirmatively supports our rules or casts doubt on the reliability of submissions to the contrary.
As with our prior efforts, we intend to give particular weight to submissions that reflect specialized experience in health and safety issues on RF exposure. In prioritizing the quality of submissions over their quantity,/31 we do not anticipate affording such scientific weight to meta-analyses that simply compile studies marked by wide ranges in scientific rigor and differing and sometimes contradictory conclusions. Nor do we anticipate affording such weight to unverifiable or repetitive testimonial submissions that purport to assert the existence or absence of adverse health effects. Probative value will be accorded to parties who have demonstrated a capacity to interpret the biological research necessary to assess the health impact of RF emissions and determine what exposure levels are considered safe for humans, and who can do so with sufficient detail and persuasiveness to overcome the failings that the court identified when the Commission last attempted to rely on the expertise of expert agencies.
For instance, on potential environmental impact from RF, we encourage input from science-based standard-setting organizations and other interested parties and request that commenters describe their relevant qualifications and subject-matter expertise, and provide sufficient supporting information so that we may evaluate the methodological rigor underpinning their views and claims. We note the work of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), who "finds good quality studies show no effect from radio waves on plants and animals,"/32 and the ongoing work of the ICNIRP Project Group on Environmental EMF Protection tasked to "draft a statement on environmental effects of EMFs on the basis of qualitatively reliable scientific papers."/33 We also invite comment on our testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with our guidelines. As stated in Commission rules, guidance regarding applicable measurement techniques for the evaluation of compliance for portable devices can be found in the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Laboratory Division Knowledge Database (KDB)./34
In particular, we ask that parties addressing the Commission's past findings that "[t]he weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems," that "the current safety limits for cell phones are acceptable for protecting the public health," that the "totality of the available scientific evidence continues to not support adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits," and that "no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,"/35 clearly articulate the factual bases for their positions. Commenters who choose to address the body of scientific studies regarding the issues on remand, including the alleged existence of adverse effects to humans from low-level RF exposure, potential impacts on children, and potential health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines, should clearly describe their specialized experience and subject-matter expertise that makes them well qualified to address such matters.
As we consider how much weight to give to submissions or studies that purport to cast doubt on our RF exposure rules on the issues encompassed by the court's remand, we seek comment on their methodological rigor. What is the scope of such studies, do they properly bear on the remanded issues, and do they come with any acknowledged caveats? Does the record provide evidence that such studies have been replicated? Do such studies provide longitudinal evidence of non-cancerous adverse health effects or environmental harms? Does the record contain epidemiologic evidence that considers the ubiquitous saturation of cell phones in the American population over time? Do any such studies establish a demonstrated biological mechanism or marker through which such adverse effects are known to occur? If they purport to establish proxies such as oxidative effects, to what extent do those proxies establish adverse health effects? If they purport to show adverse health effects on humans, do they properly distinguish correlation from causation? If they purport to be based on literature review, are the reviews based on weight of scientific evidence? Are they based on self-reported data? Do they measure RF exposure through properly calibrated instruments and accepted scientific methods? Is dosimetry properly controlled, evaluated and documented? Are multiple exposure levels studied to establish a dose-response relationship, and do they substantiate an adverse health effect in humans at exposure levels below Commission limits? Do they control for confounding factors? Are proper controls and blinding procedures implemented in the study design? Are they based on representative sample sets? Are statistical analyses properly performed and sample sets of sufficient size to support conclusions? If they are based on experiments or testing in controlled environments, do those environments credibly resemble realistic deployment scenarios in the United States? If such studies are based on animal-based experiments, to what extent do they properly establish adverse health effects on humans?
While the scope of issues the Commission invites comment on is narrowly confined to record evidence that was properly before the court in Environmental Health Trust, we invite the broadest range of commenters to participate, including local, state, federal, and international health and safety agencies, science-based standard-setting organizations that are active in this area, and other interested parties./36 These include, but are not limited to, NCRP, IEEE, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and parties directly engaged with other competent bodies that are involved in this area./37 These entities have published standards, articles, or information related to RF exposure that may assist in responding to the court's remand./38
* * *
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. 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.
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.
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.
Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules.39 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., .docx, .xml, .pptx, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Further Information. Questions regarding this Public Notice may be directed to the FCC's RF Safety Program at rfsafety@fcc.gov. Comments and reply comments to this Public Notice must be filed in ET Docket 13-84 using the procedures described above and should not be sent to this mailbox.
* * *
Original text plus footnotes here: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/DA-26-997A1.pdf
Energy Secretary Secures Mid-Atlantic Grid Due to Anticipated Stressed System Conditions
WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- The U.S. Department of Energy issued the following news release:
* * *
Energy Secretary Secures Mid-Atlantic Grid Due to Anticipated Stressed System Conditions
Secretary Wright issues an emergency order to stabilize the Mid-Atlantic grid and mitigate the risk of blackouts.
September 17, 2026
WASHINGTON--The U.S. Department of Energy today issued an emergency order to mitigate blackout risks in the Mid-Atlantic ahead of the forecasted hot weather conditions and planned transmission outages. The order directs PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) to dispatch specified resources ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- The U.S. Department of Energy issued the following news release: * * * Energy Secretary Secures Mid-Atlantic Grid Due to Anticipated Stressed System Conditions Secretary Wright issues an emergency order to stabilize the Mid-Atlantic grid and mitigate the risk of blackouts. September 17, 2026 WASHINGTON--The U.S. Department of Energy today issued an emergency order to mitigate blackout risks in the Mid-Atlantic ahead of the forecasted hot weather conditions and planned transmission outages. The order directs PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) to dispatch specified resourcesand to order their operation as needed to maintain reliability.
The order also authorizes PJM to direct backup generation resources to operate as a last resort before declaring an Energy Emergency Alert (EEA) 3 or during an EEA 3. PJM is authorized to call upon its Transmission Owners and Electric Distribution Companies to implement the order as needed. The order was issued pursuant to an application from PJM submitted on September 16, 2026.
"Today's order will help secure reliable electricity access for millions of American families and businesses across the Mid-Atlantic by making additional power generation, including back-up power, available to use as needed," said U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright. "It should come as no surprise that during the end of summer and early fall, there are fewer hours of daylight--and therefore, less power generation from solar power. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation and others have warned of the potential dangers late summer temperature spikes can pose to the grid when leaders prematurely retire reliable power sources. While past leaders' energy subtraction policies have made the grid more vulnerable to blackouts when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, this administration remains committed to using every available tool to prevent blackouts."
DOE estimates more than 35 GW of unused backup generation remains available nationwide.
The order is in effect upon issuance on September 17, 2026, through September 18, 2026.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.energy.gov/articles/energy-secretary-secures-mid-atlantic-grid-due-anticipated-stressed-system-conditions
* * *
Energy Secretary Secures Mid-Atlantic Grid Due to Anticipated Stressed System Conditions
Secretary Wright issues an emergency order to stabilize the Mid-Atlantic grid and mitigate the risk of blackouts.
September 17, 2026
WASHINGTON--The U.S. Department of Energy today issued an emergency order to mitigate blackout risks in the Mid-Atlantic ahead of the forecasted hot weather conditions and planned transmission outages. The order directs PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) to dispatch specified resources ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- The U.S. Department of Energy issued the following news release: * * * Energy Secretary Secures Mid-Atlantic Grid Due to Anticipated Stressed System Conditions Secretary Wright issues an emergency order to stabilize the Mid-Atlantic grid and mitigate the risk of blackouts. September 17, 2026 WASHINGTON--The U.S. Department of Energy today issued an emergency order to mitigate blackout risks in the Mid-Atlantic ahead of the forecasted hot weather conditions and planned transmission outages. The order directs PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) to dispatch specified resourcesand to order their operation as needed to maintain reliability.
The order also authorizes PJM to direct backup generation resources to operate as a last resort before declaring an Energy Emergency Alert (EEA) 3 or during an EEA 3. PJM is authorized to call upon its Transmission Owners and Electric Distribution Companies to implement the order as needed. The order was issued pursuant to an application from PJM submitted on September 16, 2026.
"Today's order will help secure reliable electricity access for millions of American families and businesses across the Mid-Atlantic by making additional power generation, including back-up power, available to use as needed," said U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright. "It should come as no surprise that during the end of summer and early fall, there are fewer hours of daylight--and therefore, less power generation from solar power. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation and others have warned of the potential dangers late summer temperature spikes can pose to the grid when leaders prematurely retire reliable power sources. While past leaders' energy subtraction policies have made the grid more vulnerable to blackouts when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, this administration remains committed to using every available tool to prevent blackouts."
DOE estimates more than 35 GW of unused backup generation remains available nationwide.
The order is in effect upon issuance on September 17, 2026, through September 18, 2026.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.energy.gov/articles/energy-secretary-secures-mid-atlantic-grid-due-anticipated-stressed-system-conditions
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving Rainbow Mystery Squishy Bun Toys
WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Rainbow Mystery Squishy Bun Toys
Hazard: The squishy bun toys violate the mandatory safety standard for toys because the water beads inside the dumplings expand larger than permitted, posing a deadly ingestion hazard. If a water bead is ingested, it can pose ingestion, choking and intestinal obstruction hazards inside a child's body, resulting in severe discomfort, vomiting, dehydration and a risk of death to a child.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: September 17, 2026
Units: ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert: * * * Name of Product: Rainbow Mystery Squishy Bun Toys Hazard: The squishy bun toys violate the mandatory safety standard for toys because the water beads inside the dumplings expand larger than permitted, posing a deadly ingestion hazard. If a water bead is ingested, it can pose ingestion, choking and intestinal obstruction hazards inside a child's body, resulting in severe discomfort, vomiting, dehydration and a risk of death to a child. Remedy: Refund Recall Date: September 17, 2026 Units:About 276
Consumer Contact: By email at Toyworld168 at toyworld16850@gmail.com.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves Rainbow Mystery Squishy Bun Toys. The squishy bun toys are a translucent green color, containing glitter and water beads. The toys have a cartoon face and are packaged in a tan plastic container shaped like a bamboo steamer. "Rainbow MYSTERY" and "SUGAR EDITION" are printed on the front of the removable package labeling. There are no markings on the product, other than the cartoon face.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the squishy dumpling toys immediately and contact Toyworld168 for a full refund. Consumers will be asked to write "RECALLED" in permanent marker on the squeezy dumpling and its tan plastic container, throw the toy away and email a photo of the disposed toy to toyworld16850@gmail.com.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported.
Sold At: Various third-party stores nationwide from June 2026 through July 2026 for about $3.
Importer(s): Toyworld168 Inc., of Orlando, Florida
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-786
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Toyworld168-Recalls-Rainbow-Mystery-Squishy-Bun-Toys-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-or-Death-from-Water-Bead-Ingestion-Violate-Mandatory-Standard-for-Toys
* * *
Name of Product: Rainbow Mystery Squishy Bun Toys
Hazard: The squishy bun toys violate the mandatory safety standard for toys because the water beads inside the dumplings expand larger than permitted, posing a deadly ingestion hazard. If a water bead is ingested, it can pose ingestion, choking and intestinal obstruction hazards inside a child's body, resulting in severe discomfort, vomiting, dehydration and a risk of death to a child.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: September 17, 2026
Units: ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert: * * * Name of Product: Rainbow Mystery Squishy Bun Toys Hazard: The squishy bun toys violate the mandatory safety standard for toys because the water beads inside the dumplings expand larger than permitted, posing a deadly ingestion hazard. If a water bead is ingested, it can pose ingestion, choking and intestinal obstruction hazards inside a child's body, resulting in severe discomfort, vomiting, dehydration and a risk of death to a child. Remedy: Refund Recall Date: September 17, 2026 Units:About 276
Consumer Contact: By email at Toyworld168 at toyworld16850@gmail.com.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves Rainbow Mystery Squishy Bun Toys. The squishy bun toys are a translucent green color, containing glitter and water beads. The toys have a cartoon face and are packaged in a tan plastic container shaped like a bamboo steamer. "Rainbow MYSTERY" and "SUGAR EDITION" are printed on the front of the removable package labeling. There are no markings on the product, other than the cartoon face.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the squishy dumpling toys immediately and contact Toyworld168 for a full refund. Consumers will be asked to write "RECALLED" in permanent marker on the squeezy dumpling and its tan plastic container, throw the toy away and email a photo of the disposed toy to toyworld16850@gmail.com.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported.
Sold At: Various third-party stores nationwide from June 2026 through July 2026 for about $3.
Importer(s): Toyworld168 Inc., of Orlando, Florida
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-786
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Toyworld168-Recalls-Rainbow-Mystery-Squishy-Bun-Toys-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-or-Death-from-Water-Bead-Ingestion-Violate-Mandatory-Standard-for-Toys
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving LANCHEZ Pressure Washers
WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: LANCHEZ Pressure Washers
Hazard: The recalled pressure washers lack an integral ground-fault circuit-interrupter (GFCI) and an adequate-length power cord, which may encourage use of an extension cord, posing serious risks of injury or death from shock and electrocution hazards.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: September 17, 2026
Units: 329
Consumer Contact: LANCHEZ by email at service@lanchezpumps.com or online at https://www.amazon.com/lanchez and click on "Product Recalls" ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert: * * * Name of Product: LANCHEZ Pressure Washers Hazard: The recalled pressure washers lack an integral ground-fault circuit-interrupter (GFCI) and an adequate-length power cord, which may encourage use of an extension cord, posing serious risks of injury or death from shock and electrocution hazards. Remedy: Refund Recall Date: September 17, 2026 Units: 329 Consumer Contact: LANCHEZ by email at service@lanchezpumps.com or online at https://www.amazon.com/lanchez and click on "Product Recalls"at the top of the page for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves LANCHEZ-branded pressure washers. The recalled, 3.2 GPM electric pressure washers were sold in blue-and-black or red-and-black, and measure about 12.2 inches deep, 16.9 inches wide and 16.5 inches high. The pressure washers came with a 500 ml soap tank, four quick disconnect nozzles and a 23-foot hose. Only power washers without a GFCI or adequate-length power cord are included in this recall. "LANCHEZ" is printed on the front of the power washer and model number "KLC-BULL135C" is printed on a label on top of the unit near the handle.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled pressure washers immediately and contact LANCHEZ for a full refund. Consumers will be asked to unplug the pressure washer, destroy it by cutting the power cord in half and send a photo of the destroyed power washer, showing the model number, to service@lanchezpumps.com. Consumers should then dispose of the destroyed recalled product.
Incidents/Injuries: CPSC is aware of one report of a missing GFCI. No injuries have been reported.
Sold Online At: Amazon.com, Walmart.com and Temu.com from February 2026 through June 2026 for between $88 and $266.
Importer(s): Ningbo Lanchez E-Commerce Co., Ltd. of China
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-779
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/LANCHEZ-Pressure-Washers-Recalled-Due-to-Serious-Risk-of-Injury-or-Death-from-Shock-and-Electrocution-Hazards
* * *
Name of Product: LANCHEZ Pressure Washers
Hazard: The recalled pressure washers lack an integral ground-fault circuit-interrupter (GFCI) and an adequate-length power cord, which may encourage use of an extension cord, posing serious risks of injury or death from shock and electrocution hazards.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: September 17, 2026
Units: 329
Consumer Contact: LANCHEZ by email at service@lanchezpumps.com or online at https://www.amazon.com/lanchez and click on "Product Recalls" ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert: * * * Name of Product: LANCHEZ Pressure Washers Hazard: The recalled pressure washers lack an integral ground-fault circuit-interrupter (GFCI) and an adequate-length power cord, which may encourage use of an extension cord, posing serious risks of injury or death from shock and electrocution hazards. Remedy: Refund Recall Date: September 17, 2026 Units: 329 Consumer Contact: LANCHEZ by email at service@lanchezpumps.com or online at https://www.amazon.com/lanchez and click on "Product Recalls"at the top of the page for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves LANCHEZ-branded pressure washers. The recalled, 3.2 GPM electric pressure washers were sold in blue-and-black or red-and-black, and measure about 12.2 inches deep, 16.9 inches wide and 16.5 inches high. The pressure washers came with a 500 ml soap tank, four quick disconnect nozzles and a 23-foot hose. Only power washers without a GFCI or adequate-length power cord are included in this recall. "LANCHEZ" is printed on the front of the power washer and model number "KLC-BULL135C" is printed on a label on top of the unit near the handle.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled pressure washers immediately and contact LANCHEZ for a full refund. Consumers will be asked to unplug the pressure washer, destroy it by cutting the power cord in half and send a photo of the destroyed power washer, showing the model number, to service@lanchezpumps.com. Consumers should then dispose of the destroyed recalled product.
Incidents/Injuries: CPSC is aware of one report of a missing GFCI. No injuries have been reported.
Sold Online At: Amazon.com, Walmart.com and Temu.com from February 2026 through June 2026 for between $88 and $266.
Importer(s): Ningbo Lanchez E-Commerce Co., Ltd. of China
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-779
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/LANCHEZ-Pressure-Washers-Recalled-Due-to-Serious-Risk-of-Injury-or-Death-from-Shock-and-Electrocution-Hazards