Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Federal Regulatory Agencies
Featured Stories
FCC Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau Issues Public Notice: Following New National Security Determination, FCC Announces Modification of Power Inverters Entry on Covered List
WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 18-89; ET Docket No. 21-232; EA Docket No. 21-233):
* * *
The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) maintains a list of equipment and services (Covered List) that have been determined to "pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons."/1 Pursuant to Section 2 of the Secure and Trusted Communications ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 18-89; ET Docket No. 21-232; EA Docket No. 21-233): * * * The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) maintains a list of equipment and services (Covered List) that have been determined to "pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons."/1 Pursuant to Section 2 of the Secure and Trusted CommunicationsNetworks Act of 2019 (Secure Networks Act)/2 and Sections 1.50002(a) and 1.50003 of the Commission's rules,/3 PSHSB announces that the Department of War (DoW) has made the following determinations: First, DoW has determined that certain foreign-produced power inverters that are eligible for certain clean energy tax credits do not pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or to the safety and security of U.S. persons. Second, DoW has determined that the definition of "power inverters" should be revised to accurately reflect the specific power inverters that the Executive Branch interagency body and the DoW previously determined to pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or to the security and safety of U.S. persons./4 The Commission has also updated its FAQ page accordingly./5
Addition of Foreign-Produced Inverters to Covered List
On July 28, 2026, PSHSB added power inverters produced in a foreign country to the Covered List./6 This action was based on a National Security Determination from an Executive Branch interagency body, including several appropriate national security agencies, determining (among other things) that power inverters produced in a foreign country pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of U.S. persons (First Power Inverter National Security Determination). In the Public Notice, we stated, "If we receive a further specific determination from DoW or DHS that a given power inverter . . . , or class of such devices, does not pose unacceptable risks, we will further update the Covered List."/7
Second Power Inverter National Security Determination
On August 19, 2026, the Commission received another National Security Determination from DoW that contains additional determinations in follow-up to the First Power Inverter National Security Determination./8
Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit. The Second Power Inverter National Security Determination has determined that "certain foreign-produced power inverters that are eligible for certain clean energy tax credits do not pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of U.S. persons."/9 Among other things, the Second Power Inverter National Security Determination states:
"The One Big Beautiful Bill Act . . . modified and established certain conditions on access to the Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit for domestic production of certain energy-related components (codified at 26 U.S.C. Sec. 45X)(section 45X)./10 Specifically, section 45x(c)(1)(C) prevents any 'eligible component' (including certain power inverters) from including any property which includes any material assistance from a prohibited foreign entity (as defined in section 7701(a)(52)).'/11 The United States Congress and President Trump, as part of the Trump Administration's efforts to reshore and secure critical supply chains, through The One Big Beautiful Bill Act clearly determined that foreign-produced power inverters that comply with section 45X should be eligible for a tax credit for domestic production. Therefore, President Trump and the United States Congress determined that such power inverters should be considered domestically-produced."/12
As a result, DoW has "determine[d] that foreign-produced power inverters that are eligible for the section 45X tax credit do not pose the unacceptable security risks identified in the First Power Inverter National Security Determination and should be removed from the FCC's Covered List as not 'foreign-produced.'"/13
Type of Power Inverters Covered. In this Second Power Inverter National Security Determination, DoW has also determined that "pursuant to the First Power Inverter National Security Determination and the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 1601(c)(4), that the definition of 'power inverters' should be revised to accurately reflect which foreign-produced power inverters the Executive Branch interagency body and the DoW have determined to pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons."/14 The DoW notes that "[t]he First Power Inverter National Security Determination concerned foreign-produced power inverters that '[c]ontain[ed] components that enable remote communication, control, sensing, data collection, or monitoring through WiFi, cellular, Bluetooth, or other similar connection.'"/15 DoW states that "the interagency body, including DoW, interpret the term 'similar connection' to include components with wired connectivity and understand the First Power Inverter National Security Determination to have included power inverters designed, equipped, or configured to contain these connected components."/16 DoW states that, "[f]or the avoidance of doubt, DoW determines that power inverters that contain, or are designed, equipped, or configured to accept, a component that enables remote communication, control, sensing, data-collection, or monitoring through Ethernet or other similar connections pose the same unacceptable risks described in the First Power Inverter National Security Determination as power inverters with wireless connectivity."/17 The DoW states that "[t]hese unacceptable risks include: (i) facilitating a supply chain vulnerability that could disrupt U.S. economic security, including sectors critical to national security, and (ii) creating a cybersecurity risk that threatens the security of critical infrastructure and the safety of U.S. persons."/18
Additionally, in the Second Power Inverter National Security Determination, DoW also has determined that certain classes of power inverters do not pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons and should be removed from the FCC's Covered List./19 DoW states that "[t]hese classes of power inverters are those that are not electronic devices that 'change[] dc power to ac power, to include bidirectional devices, that is intended for use in parallel with an electric utility to supply common loads and sometimes deliver power to the utility, i.e. a utility-interactive inverter as that term is defined in UL 1741 [Underwriter Laboratories Standard UL 1741, Inverters, Converters, Controllers and Interconnection System Equipment for Use with Distributed Energy Resources] sections 2.1.23, 2.1.52.'"/20 DoW has determined that "power inverters described in the First Power Inverter National Security Determination, but which do not meet the definition set forth in UL 1741, do not pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States person."/21 DoW additionally states that "[p]ower inverters that are incapable of connection to the utility grid (i.e., non-utility-interactive inverters) generally do not pose risk to the public utility grid" and that "[t]he risk of such power inverter systems is thus limited to local impacts which can generally be managed on a local system level and do not threaten the interconnected power system."/22
The DoW concludes that, in light of the above determinations, that:
"the FCC should include on its Covered List only foreign-produced power inverters that are defined to be an electronic device that:
(a) Changes dc power to ac power, to include bidirectional devices, that is intended for use in parallel with an electric utility to supply common loads and sometimes deliver power to the utility, i.e., a utility-interactive inverter as that term is defined in UL 1741 sections 2.1.23, 2.1.52 and
(b) Contains, or is designed, equipped, or configured to accept, a component that enables remote communication, control, sensing, data-collection, or monitoring through Ethernet, Wi-Fi, cellular, Bluetooth, or other similar connections, whether wired or wireless."/23
As a result of all these determinations, DoW states that "the FCC should update the Covered List as it relates to foreign-produced power inverters and amend the definition of power inverter."/24
The Covered List
We find that the Second Power Inverter National Security Determination constitutes a specific determination of an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security or safety of United States persons pursuant to section 2 of the Secure Networks Act and the First Power Inverter National Security Determination./25 First, we find that the Second Power Inverter National Security Determination constitutes a specific determination that certain foreign-produced power inverters pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security or safety of United States persons pursuant to section 2 of the Secure Networks Act, i.e. those that "[c]ontain[], or [are] designed, equipped, or configured to accept, a component that enables remote communication, control, sensing, data-collection, or monitoring through Ethernet, Wi-Fi, cellular, Bluetooth, or other similar connections, whether wired or wireless."/26 Second, we find that this constitutes a specific determination that power inverters that are eligible for the Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 45X for domestic production do not pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or the security or safety of United States persons, as they should not be considered "foreign-produced."/27 Therefore, we update the Covered List as follows:
"Foreign-produced power inverters, except power inverters which have been granted a Conditional Approval by DoW or DHS."
In making this update to the Covered List, we incorporate the definitions of "power inverters" and "foreign-produced power inverters" as stated in the Second Power Inverter National Security Determination./28 Specifically, we adopt the following definitions:
* Power inverters: The term "power inverters" shall mean--
(a) Changes dc power to ac power, to include bidirectional devices, that is intended for use in parallel with an electric utility to supply common loads and sometimes deliver power to the utility, i.e., a utility-interactive inverter as that term is defined in UL 1741 sections 2.1.23, 2.1.52; and
(b) Contains, or is designed, equipped, or configured to accept, a component that enables remote communication, control, sensing, data-collection, or monitoring through Ethernet, Wi-Fi, cellular, Bluetooth, or other similar connections, whether wired or wireless.
* Foreign-produced power inverters: The term "foreign-produced power inverters" shall mean power inverters as defined above that are not either--
(a) Eligible for the Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit in 26 U.S. Code Sec. 45X for domestic production or
(b) A domestic end product as defined in 48 CFR Sec. 25.101(a) because they are manufactured in the United States and the cost of domestic components exceeds 65% of the total component cost for items delivered in calendar years 2024 through 2028 or 75% for items delivered starting in calendar year 2029.
Conditional Approvals
We reiterate that the Executive Branch interagency body has established a process in which entities producing power inverters in a foreign country can request an evaluation as to whether their devices do not pose unacceptable risks to national security and receive Conditional Approvals that would exempt the devices from the Covered List. DoW or DHS may evaluate such submissions for power inverters. Entities seeking Conditional Approvals for power inverters must provide the information requested in the Power Inverters Guidance Document.
If we receive a further specific determination from DoW or DHS that a given power inverter, or class of such devices, does not pose unacceptable risks, we will further update the Covered List and release a subsequent Public Notice.
PSHSB takes this action under its authority and obligation to publish and maintain the Covered List. Sections 1.50002(a) and 1.50003 of the Commission's rules require PSHSB to publish the Covered List on the Commission's website, to maintain and update the Covered List, and to monitor the status of determinations./29
Equipment Authorization Impacts of the Covered List. Under the Commission's existing rules in section 2.903(a), once added to the Covered List, "covered" equipment is prohibited from receiving equipment authorizations./30 Moreover, pursuant to section 2.911 of the Commission's rules, all applications seeking equipment authorization from the Commission must certify that the equipment is not prohibited from receiving an equipment authorization by virtue of being "covered equipment."/31 By so certifying, the applicant would be certifying that the equipment does not qualify as equipment listed in this Public Notice as "covered." We clarify that these updates will not implicate various rules and programs applicable to entities "identified" on the Covered List, because this newly-covered equipment is identified by place of production, not by entity./32
On July 28, 2026, the Office of Engineering and Technology issued a Public Notice waiving the applicability of the prohibitions against Class I and Class II permissive changes under 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 2.932(b) and 2.1043(b) to software and firmware updates that mitigate harm to U.S. consumers for "covered" power inverters and advanced robotic devices that received FCC authorization prior to the addition of those devices to the Covered List./33 We clarify that July 28 waiver of the FCC's permissive changes rules apply to "power inverters" and "foreign-produced power inverters" under the revised definitions in the Second Power Inverter National Security Determination.
The updated Covered List is attached as Appendix A to this Public Notice and is published on the Bureau's website at https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist.34 The Second Power Inverters National Security Determination is attached as Appendix B.
We note the continued availability of FCC staff guidance pursuant to sections 0.191 and 0.31(i) of the Commission's rules. Commission staff will provide guidance to TCBs, test labs, and equipment authorization applicants on the impact of these updates.
* * *
Original text plus footnotes and appendix here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-870A1.pdf
* * *
The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) maintains a list of equipment and services (Covered List) that have been determined to "pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons."/1 Pursuant to Section 2 of the Secure and Trusted Communications ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 18-89; ET Docket No. 21-232; EA Docket No. 21-233): * * * The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) maintains a list of equipment and services (Covered List) that have been determined to "pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons."/1 Pursuant to Section 2 of the Secure and Trusted CommunicationsNetworks Act of 2019 (Secure Networks Act)/2 and Sections 1.50002(a) and 1.50003 of the Commission's rules,/3 PSHSB announces that the Department of War (DoW) has made the following determinations: First, DoW has determined that certain foreign-produced power inverters that are eligible for certain clean energy tax credits do not pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or to the safety and security of U.S. persons. Second, DoW has determined that the definition of "power inverters" should be revised to accurately reflect the specific power inverters that the Executive Branch interagency body and the DoW previously determined to pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or to the security and safety of U.S. persons./4 The Commission has also updated its FAQ page accordingly./5
Addition of Foreign-Produced Inverters to Covered List
On July 28, 2026, PSHSB added power inverters produced in a foreign country to the Covered List./6 This action was based on a National Security Determination from an Executive Branch interagency body, including several appropriate national security agencies, determining (among other things) that power inverters produced in a foreign country pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of U.S. persons (First Power Inverter National Security Determination). In the Public Notice, we stated, "If we receive a further specific determination from DoW or DHS that a given power inverter . . . , or class of such devices, does not pose unacceptable risks, we will further update the Covered List."/7
Second Power Inverter National Security Determination
On August 19, 2026, the Commission received another National Security Determination from DoW that contains additional determinations in follow-up to the First Power Inverter National Security Determination./8
Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit. The Second Power Inverter National Security Determination has determined that "certain foreign-produced power inverters that are eligible for certain clean energy tax credits do not pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of U.S. persons."/9 Among other things, the Second Power Inverter National Security Determination states:
"The One Big Beautiful Bill Act . . . modified and established certain conditions on access to the Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit for domestic production of certain energy-related components (codified at 26 U.S.C. Sec. 45X)(section 45X)./10 Specifically, section 45x(c)(1)(C) prevents any 'eligible component' (including certain power inverters) from including any property which includes any material assistance from a prohibited foreign entity (as defined in section 7701(a)(52)).'/11 The United States Congress and President Trump, as part of the Trump Administration's efforts to reshore and secure critical supply chains, through The One Big Beautiful Bill Act clearly determined that foreign-produced power inverters that comply with section 45X should be eligible for a tax credit for domestic production. Therefore, President Trump and the United States Congress determined that such power inverters should be considered domestically-produced."/12
As a result, DoW has "determine[d] that foreign-produced power inverters that are eligible for the section 45X tax credit do not pose the unacceptable security risks identified in the First Power Inverter National Security Determination and should be removed from the FCC's Covered List as not 'foreign-produced.'"/13
Type of Power Inverters Covered. In this Second Power Inverter National Security Determination, DoW has also determined that "pursuant to the First Power Inverter National Security Determination and the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 1601(c)(4), that the definition of 'power inverters' should be revised to accurately reflect which foreign-produced power inverters the Executive Branch interagency body and the DoW have determined to pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons."/14 The DoW notes that "[t]he First Power Inverter National Security Determination concerned foreign-produced power inverters that '[c]ontain[ed] components that enable remote communication, control, sensing, data collection, or monitoring through WiFi, cellular, Bluetooth, or other similar connection.'"/15 DoW states that "the interagency body, including DoW, interpret the term 'similar connection' to include components with wired connectivity and understand the First Power Inverter National Security Determination to have included power inverters designed, equipped, or configured to contain these connected components."/16 DoW states that, "[f]or the avoidance of doubt, DoW determines that power inverters that contain, or are designed, equipped, or configured to accept, a component that enables remote communication, control, sensing, data-collection, or monitoring through Ethernet or other similar connections pose the same unacceptable risks described in the First Power Inverter National Security Determination as power inverters with wireless connectivity."/17 The DoW states that "[t]hese unacceptable risks include: (i) facilitating a supply chain vulnerability that could disrupt U.S. economic security, including sectors critical to national security, and (ii) creating a cybersecurity risk that threatens the security of critical infrastructure and the safety of U.S. persons."/18
Additionally, in the Second Power Inverter National Security Determination, DoW also has determined that certain classes of power inverters do not pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons and should be removed from the FCC's Covered List./19 DoW states that "[t]hese classes of power inverters are those that are not electronic devices that 'change[] dc power to ac power, to include bidirectional devices, that is intended for use in parallel with an electric utility to supply common loads and sometimes deliver power to the utility, i.e. a utility-interactive inverter as that term is defined in UL 1741 [Underwriter Laboratories Standard UL 1741, Inverters, Converters, Controllers and Interconnection System Equipment for Use with Distributed Energy Resources] sections 2.1.23, 2.1.52.'"/20 DoW has determined that "power inverters described in the First Power Inverter National Security Determination, but which do not meet the definition set forth in UL 1741, do not pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States person."/21 DoW additionally states that "[p]ower inverters that are incapable of connection to the utility grid (i.e., non-utility-interactive inverters) generally do not pose risk to the public utility grid" and that "[t]he risk of such power inverter systems is thus limited to local impacts which can generally be managed on a local system level and do not threaten the interconnected power system."/22
The DoW concludes that, in light of the above determinations, that:
"the FCC should include on its Covered List only foreign-produced power inverters that are defined to be an electronic device that:
(a) Changes dc power to ac power, to include bidirectional devices, that is intended for use in parallel with an electric utility to supply common loads and sometimes deliver power to the utility, i.e., a utility-interactive inverter as that term is defined in UL 1741 sections 2.1.23, 2.1.52 and
(b) Contains, or is designed, equipped, or configured to accept, a component that enables remote communication, control, sensing, data-collection, or monitoring through Ethernet, Wi-Fi, cellular, Bluetooth, or other similar connections, whether wired or wireless."/23
As a result of all these determinations, DoW states that "the FCC should update the Covered List as it relates to foreign-produced power inverters and amend the definition of power inverter."/24
The Covered List
We find that the Second Power Inverter National Security Determination constitutes a specific determination of an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security or safety of United States persons pursuant to section 2 of the Secure Networks Act and the First Power Inverter National Security Determination./25 First, we find that the Second Power Inverter National Security Determination constitutes a specific determination that certain foreign-produced power inverters pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security or safety of United States persons pursuant to section 2 of the Secure Networks Act, i.e. those that "[c]ontain[], or [are] designed, equipped, or configured to accept, a component that enables remote communication, control, sensing, data-collection, or monitoring through Ethernet, Wi-Fi, cellular, Bluetooth, or other similar connections, whether wired or wireless."/26 Second, we find that this constitutes a specific determination that power inverters that are eligible for the Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 45X for domestic production do not pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or the security or safety of United States persons, as they should not be considered "foreign-produced."/27 Therefore, we update the Covered List as follows:
"Foreign-produced power inverters, except power inverters which have been granted a Conditional Approval by DoW or DHS."
In making this update to the Covered List, we incorporate the definitions of "power inverters" and "foreign-produced power inverters" as stated in the Second Power Inverter National Security Determination./28 Specifically, we adopt the following definitions:
* Power inverters: The term "power inverters" shall mean--
(a) Changes dc power to ac power, to include bidirectional devices, that is intended for use in parallel with an electric utility to supply common loads and sometimes deliver power to the utility, i.e., a utility-interactive inverter as that term is defined in UL 1741 sections 2.1.23, 2.1.52; and
(b) Contains, or is designed, equipped, or configured to accept, a component that enables remote communication, control, sensing, data-collection, or monitoring through Ethernet, Wi-Fi, cellular, Bluetooth, or other similar connections, whether wired or wireless.
* Foreign-produced power inverters: The term "foreign-produced power inverters" shall mean power inverters as defined above that are not either--
(a) Eligible for the Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit in 26 U.S. Code Sec. 45X for domestic production or
(b) A domestic end product as defined in 48 CFR Sec. 25.101(a) because they are manufactured in the United States and the cost of domestic components exceeds 65% of the total component cost for items delivered in calendar years 2024 through 2028 or 75% for items delivered starting in calendar year 2029.
Conditional Approvals
We reiterate that the Executive Branch interagency body has established a process in which entities producing power inverters in a foreign country can request an evaluation as to whether their devices do not pose unacceptable risks to national security and receive Conditional Approvals that would exempt the devices from the Covered List. DoW or DHS may evaluate such submissions for power inverters. Entities seeking Conditional Approvals for power inverters must provide the information requested in the Power Inverters Guidance Document.
If we receive a further specific determination from DoW or DHS that a given power inverter, or class of such devices, does not pose unacceptable risks, we will further update the Covered List and release a subsequent Public Notice.
PSHSB takes this action under its authority and obligation to publish and maintain the Covered List. Sections 1.50002(a) and 1.50003 of the Commission's rules require PSHSB to publish the Covered List on the Commission's website, to maintain and update the Covered List, and to monitor the status of determinations./29
Equipment Authorization Impacts of the Covered List. Under the Commission's existing rules in section 2.903(a), once added to the Covered List, "covered" equipment is prohibited from receiving equipment authorizations./30 Moreover, pursuant to section 2.911 of the Commission's rules, all applications seeking equipment authorization from the Commission must certify that the equipment is not prohibited from receiving an equipment authorization by virtue of being "covered equipment."/31 By so certifying, the applicant would be certifying that the equipment does not qualify as equipment listed in this Public Notice as "covered." We clarify that these updates will not implicate various rules and programs applicable to entities "identified" on the Covered List, because this newly-covered equipment is identified by place of production, not by entity./32
On July 28, 2026, the Office of Engineering and Technology issued a Public Notice waiving the applicability of the prohibitions against Class I and Class II permissive changes under 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 2.932(b) and 2.1043(b) to software and firmware updates that mitigate harm to U.S. consumers for "covered" power inverters and advanced robotic devices that received FCC authorization prior to the addition of those devices to the Covered List./33 We clarify that July 28 waiver of the FCC's permissive changes rules apply to "power inverters" and "foreign-produced power inverters" under the revised definitions in the Second Power Inverter National Security Determination.
The updated Covered List is attached as Appendix A to this Public Notice and is published on the Bureau's website at https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist.34 The Second Power Inverters National Security Determination is attached as Appendix B.
We note the continued availability of FCC staff guidance pursuant to sections 0.191 and 0.31(i) of the Commission's rules. Commission staff will provide guidance to TCBs, test labs, and equipment authorization applicants on the impact of these updates.
* * *
Original text plus footnotes and appendix here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-870A1.pdf
FCC Issues Daily Digest for Aug. 20
WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following Daily Digest (Vol. 45, No. 160) on Aug. 20, 2026:
* * *
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE DATED AND RELEASED TODAY:
PUBLIC NOTICES
Released: 2026-08-20. EX PARTE PRESENTATIONS AND POST-REPLY COMMENT PERIOD FILING IN PERMIT-BUT-DISCLOSURE PROCEEDINGS RECEIVED ON 8-19-26. OMD. Contact: Kenneth Hill, 202-418-7521. DOC-424274A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424274A1.pdf) DOC-424274A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424274A1.txt)
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-2-260820-01. Released: 2026-08-20. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following Daily Digest (Vol. 45, No. 160) on Aug. 20, 2026: * * * THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE DATED AND RELEASED TODAY: PUBLIC NOTICES Released: 2026-08-20. EX PARTE PRESENTATIONS AND POST-REPLY COMMENT PERIOD FILING IN PERMIT-BUT-DISCLOSURE PROCEEDINGS RECEIVED ON 8-19-26. OMD. Contact: Kenneth Hill, 202-418-7521. DOC-424274A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424274A1.pdf) DOC-424274A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424274A1.txt) Report No: REPORT NO. PN-2-260820-01. Released: 2026-08-20.ACTIONS. MB. DOC-424276A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424276A1.pdf) DOC-424276A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424276A1.txt)
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-3-260820-01. Released: 2026-08-20. PLEADINGS. MB. DOC-424277A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424277A1.pdf) DOC-424277A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424277A1.txt)
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-1-260820-01. Released: 2026-08-20. APPLICATIONS. MB. DOC-424275A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424275A1.pdf) DOC-424275A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424275A1.txt)
Released: 2026-08-20. FOLLOWING NEW NATIONAL SECURITY DETERMINATION, FCC ANNOUNCES MODIFICATION OF POWER INVERTERS ENTRY ON THE COVERED LIST. (DA No. 26-870). (Dkt No 18-89 21-232 21-233). PSHSB. Contact: Matthew Chai (202-418-1112) matthew.chai@fcc.gov. Action by: Chief, PSHSB. DA-26-870A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-870A1.docx) DA-26-870A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-870A1.pdf) DA-26-870A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-870A1.txt)
Report No: TEL-02676. Released: 2026-08-20. INTERNATIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS GRANTED - ITC. (DA No. 26-871). OIA. Contact: ICFSinfo@fcc.gov. DA-26-871A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-871A1.pdf) DA-26-871A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-871A1.txt)
* * * * *
ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED AUGUST 19, 2026, DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO. 159:
PUBLIC NOTICES
Released: 2026-08-19. DOMESTIC SECTION 214 APPLICATION GRANTED FOR THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF VAN BUREN TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. TO CITIZENS MUTUAL TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE. (DA No. 26-869). (Dkt No 26-108). WCB. Contact: Gregory Kwan, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at gregory.kwan@fcc.gov; Audra Hale-Maddox, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at audra.hale-maddox@fcc.gov; Christopher Koves, Pricing and Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at christopher.koves@fcc.gov. DA-26-869A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-869A1.docx) DA-26-869A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-869A1.pdf) DA-26-869A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-869A1.txt)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fcc.gov/edocs/daily-digest/2026/08/20
* * *
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE DATED AND RELEASED TODAY:
PUBLIC NOTICES
Released: 2026-08-20. EX PARTE PRESENTATIONS AND POST-REPLY COMMENT PERIOD FILING IN PERMIT-BUT-DISCLOSURE PROCEEDINGS RECEIVED ON 8-19-26. OMD. Contact: Kenneth Hill, 202-418-7521. DOC-424274A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424274A1.pdf) DOC-424274A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424274A1.txt)
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-2-260820-01. Released: 2026-08-20. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following Daily Digest (Vol. 45, No. 160) on Aug. 20, 2026: * * * THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE DATED AND RELEASED TODAY: PUBLIC NOTICES Released: 2026-08-20. EX PARTE PRESENTATIONS AND POST-REPLY COMMENT PERIOD FILING IN PERMIT-BUT-DISCLOSURE PROCEEDINGS RECEIVED ON 8-19-26. OMD. Contact: Kenneth Hill, 202-418-7521. DOC-424274A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424274A1.pdf) DOC-424274A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424274A1.txt) Report No: REPORT NO. PN-2-260820-01. Released: 2026-08-20.ACTIONS. MB. DOC-424276A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424276A1.pdf) DOC-424276A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424276A1.txt)
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-3-260820-01. Released: 2026-08-20. PLEADINGS. MB. DOC-424277A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424277A1.pdf) DOC-424277A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424277A1.txt)
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-1-260820-01. Released: 2026-08-20. APPLICATIONS. MB. DOC-424275A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424275A1.pdf) DOC-424275A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424275A1.txt)
Released: 2026-08-20. FOLLOWING NEW NATIONAL SECURITY DETERMINATION, FCC ANNOUNCES MODIFICATION OF POWER INVERTERS ENTRY ON THE COVERED LIST. (DA No. 26-870). (Dkt No 18-89 21-232 21-233). PSHSB. Contact: Matthew Chai (202-418-1112) matthew.chai@fcc.gov. Action by: Chief, PSHSB. DA-26-870A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-870A1.docx) DA-26-870A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-870A1.pdf) DA-26-870A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-870A1.txt)
Report No: TEL-02676. Released: 2026-08-20. INTERNATIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS GRANTED - ITC. (DA No. 26-871). OIA. Contact: ICFSinfo@fcc.gov. DA-26-871A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-871A1.pdf) DA-26-871A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-871A1.txt)
* * * * *
ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED AUGUST 19, 2026, DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO. 159:
PUBLIC NOTICES
Released: 2026-08-19. DOMESTIC SECTION 214 APPLICATION GRANTED FOR THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF VAN BUREN TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. TO CITIZENS MUTUAL TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE. (DA No. 26-869). (Dkt No 26-108). WCB. Contact: Gregory Kwan, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at gregory.kwan@fcc.gov; Audra Hale-Maddox, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at audra.hale-maddox@fcc.gov; Christopher Koves, Pricing and Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at christopher.koves@fcc.gov. DA-26-869A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-869A1.docx) DA-26-869A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-869A1.pdf) DA-26-869A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-869A1.txt)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fcc.gov/edocs/daily-digest/2026/08/20
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving Ventilation Fans in ClassMate DX Cooling & Air Source Heat Pumps, SchoolMate Water/Ground Source Heat Pumps
WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Ventilation Fans in ClassMate(R) DX Cooling and Air Source Heat Pumps and SchoolMate(R) Water/Ground Source Heat Pumps
Hazard: The ventilation fan motor in the heat pumps can short circuit if water gets on the circuit board, causing the units to overheat and posing a fire hazard.
Remedy: Repair
Recall Date: August 20, 2026
Units: About 6,061 (In addition, about 735 were sold in Canada)
Consumer Contact: Modine Manufacturing Company toll-free at 888-636-8627 from 8 a.m. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert: * * * Name of Product: Ventilation Fans in ClassMate(R) DX Cooling and Air Source Heat Pumps and SchoolMate(R) Water/Ground Source Heat Pumps Hazard: The ventilation fan motor in the heat pumps can short circuit if water gets on the circuit board, causing the units to overheat and posing a fire hazard. Remedy: Repair Recall Date: August 20, 2026 Units: About 6,061 (In addition, about 735 were sold in Canada) Consumer Contact: Modine Manufacturing Company toll-free at 888-636-8627 from 8 a.m.to 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, email at ProductSafety@modine.com or online at https://www.modine.com/recall and click on "Recalls" at the bottom of the page for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves ventilation fans in ClassMate cooling and air source heat pumps and SchoolMate water/ground source heat pumps that supply heating, cooling and high indoor air quality in classrooms and schools in the following models:
* * *
Model ... Ventilation Configuration (Digit 9)
CMD ... C, D, or E
CMP ... C, D, or E
SMG ... H, J, K, N, or P
SMW ... H, J, K, N, or P
CMS ... H, J, K, N, or P
* * *
The brand name Airedale is located on a sticker on the front of the unit. The model name and serial number are found on the serial plate on the underside of the control unit.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled heat pumps immediately and contact Modine Manufacturing Company for written instructions to unplug the recalled ventilation fan or to switch the internal disconnect in the fan to the "off" position. Consumers should contact their Modine distributor to arrange for their free inspection and service. Service technicians will inspect and repair or replace the recalled heating and cooling OA/EA ventilation fans in all units.
Incidents/Injuries: Modine has received 11 reports of incidents that resulted in fires, totaling at least $2.7 million in property damage. No injuries have been reported.
Sold At: Independent dealers nationwide from August 2013 through January 2026 for between $15,000 and $25,000. The ventilation fans are also sold separately through independent dealers for between $250 and $450.
Manufacturer(s): Modine Manufacturing Company, of Racine, Wisconsin
Manufactured In: United States
Recall number: 26-711
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Modine-Manufacturing-Company-Recalls-Airedale-Heating-and-Cooling-Ventilation-Fans-Due-to-Fire-Hazard
* * *
Name of Product: Ventilation Fans in ClassMate(R) DX Cooling and Air Source Heat Pumps and SchoolMate(R) Water/Ground Source Heat Pumps
Hazard: The ventilation fan motor in the heat pumps can short circuit if water gets on the circuit board, causing the units to overheat and posing a fire hazard.
Remedy: Repair
Recall Date: August 20, 2026
Units: About 6,061 (In addition, about 735 were sold in Canada)
Consumer Contact: Modine Manufacturing Company toll-free at 888-636-8627 from 8 a.m. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert: * * * Name of Product: Ventilation Fans in ClassMate(R) DX Cooling and Air Source Heat Pumps and SchoolMate(R) Water/Ground Source Heat Pumps Hazard: The ventilation fan motor in the heat pumps can short circuit if water gets on the circuit board, causing the units to overheat and posing a fire hazard. Remedy: Repair Recall Date: August 20, 2026 Units: About 6,061 (In addition, about 735 were sold in Canada) Consumer Contact: Modine Manufacturing Company toll-free at 888-636-8627 from 8 a.m.to 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, email at ProductSafety@modine.com or online at https://www.modine.com/recall and click on "Recalls" at the bottom of the page for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves ventilation fans in ClassMate cooling and air source heat pumps and SchoolMate water/ground source heat pumps that supply heating, cooling and high indoor air quality in classrooms and schools in the following models:
* * *
Model ... Ventilation Configuration (Digit 9)
CMD ... C, D, or E
CMP ... C, D, or E
SMG ... H, J, K, N, or P
SMW ... H, J, K, N, or P
CMS ... H, J, K, N, or P
* * *
The brand name Airedale is located on a sticker on the front of the unit. The model name and serial number are found on the serial plate on the underside of the control unit.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled heat pumps immediately and contact Modine Manufacturing Company for written instructions to unplug the recalled ventilation fan or to switch the internal disconnect in the fan to the "off" position. Consumers should contact their Modine distributor to arrange for their free inspection and service. Service technicians will inspect and repair or replace the recalled heating and cooling OA/EA ventilation fans in all units.
Incidents/Injuries: Modine has received 11 reports of incidents that resulted in fires, totaling at least $2.7 million in property damage. No injuries have been reported.
Sold At: Independent dealers nationwide from August 2013 through January 2026 for between $15,000 and $25,000. The ventilation fans are also sold separately through independent dealers for between $250 and $450.
Manufacturer(s): Modine Manufacturing Company, of Racine, Wisconsin
Manufactured In: United States
Recall number: 26-711
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Modine-Manufacturing-Company-Recalls-Airedale-Heating-and-Cooling-Ventilation-Fans-Due-to-Fire-Hazard
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving Koorlian Mattresses
WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Koorlian Mattresses
Hazard: The recalled mattresses violate the mandatory flammability standard for mattresses, posing a risk of serious injury or death from fire.
Remedy: Repair
Recall Date: August 20, 2026
Units: About 251
Consumer Contact: Dreams Bedding Technology toll-free at 833-224-9277 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, email at Koorlian@outlook.com or online at https://koorlian.com/pages/customer-recall or https://koorlian.com/ and click "Recall" at ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert: * * * Name of Product: Koorlian Mattresses Hazard: The recalled mattresses violate the mandatory flammability standard for mattresses, posing a risk of serious injury or death from fire. Remedy: Repair Recall Date: August 20, 2026 Units: About 251 Consumer Contact: Dreams Bedding Technology toll-free at 833-224-9277 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, email at Koorlian@outlook.com or online at https://koorlian.com/pages/customer-recall or https://koorlian.com/ and click "Recall" atthe top of the page for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves Koorlian branded mattresses. The mattresses are 10 inches thick and were sold in a Twin XL size. They have a white top and blue sides and were sold compressed in a box. "Dreams Bedding Technology PTE LTD" the manufacture date and prototype ID "KY15Q290" are printed on a sewn-in white label located on one side of the mattress.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled mattress immediately and contact Dreams Bedding Technology to receive a free cover to put over their mattress to bring it into compliance with the mandatory flammability standards.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported
Sold Online At: Amazon.com from November 2025 through March 2026 for between $110 and $170.
Manufacturer(s): Dreams Bedding Technology PTE. Ltd., of Singapore
Manufactured In: Singapore
Recall number: 26-714
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Koorlian-Mattresses-Recalled-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-or-Death-from-Fire-Hazard-Violate-Mandatory-Standard-for-Mattress-Flammability-Sold-on-Amazon-by-Dream-Bedding-Technology
* * *
Name of Product: Koorlian Mattresses
Hazard: The recalled mattresses violate the mandatory flammability standard for mattresses, posing a risk of serious injury or death from fire.
Remedy: Repair
Recall Date: August 20, 2026
Units: About 251
Consumer Contact: Dreams Bedding Technology toll-free at 833-224-9277 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, email at Koorlian@outlook.com or online at https://koorlian.com/pages/customer-recall or https://koorlian.com/ and click "Recall" at ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert: * * * Name of Product: Koorlian Mattresses Hazard: The recalled mattresses violate the mandatory flammability standard for mattresses, posing a risk of serious injury or death from fire. Remedy: Repair Recall Date: August 20, 2026 Units: About 251 Consumer Contact: Dreams Bedding Technology toll-free at 833-224-9277 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, email at Koorlian@outlook.com or online at https://koorlian.com/pages/customer-recall or https://koorlian.com/ and click "Recall" atthe top of the page for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves Koorlian branded mattresses. The mattresses are 10 inches thick and were sold in a Twin XL size. They have a white top and blue sides and were sold compressed in a box. "Dreams Bedding Technology PTE LTD" the manufacture date and prototype ID "KY15Q290" are printed on a sewn-in white label located on one side of the mattress.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled mattress immediately and contact Dreams Bedding Technology to receive a free cover to put over their mattress to bring it into compliance with the mandatory flammability standards.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported
Sold Online At: Amazon.com from November 2025 through March 2026 for between $110 and $170.
Manufacturer(s): Dreams Bedding Technology PTE. Ltd., of Singapore
Manufactured In: Singapore
Recall number: 26-714
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Koorlian-Mattresses-Recalled-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-or-Death-from-Fire-Hazard-Violate-Mandatory-Standard-for-Mattress-Flammability-Sold-on-Amazon-by-Dream-Bedding-Technology
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving JINHEZO Mini Waterproof LED Tea Lights
WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: JINHEZO Mini Waterproof LED Tea Lights
Hazard: The LED Tea Lights violate the mandatory safety standard for consumer products with button cell and coin batteries because the button batteries can be accessed easily by children, posing an ingestion hazard. Additionally, the packaging and product do not have the warnings required under Reese's Law. When button cell or coin batteries are swallowed, the ingested batteries can cause serious injuries, internal chemical burns and death.
Remedy: ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert: * * * Name of Product: JINHEZO Mini Waterproof LED Tea Lights Hazard: The LED Tea Lights violate the mandatory safety standard for consumer products with button cell and coin batteries because the button batteries can be accessed easily by children, posing an ingestion hazard. Additionally, the packaging and product do not have the warnings required under Reese's Law. When button cell or coin batteries are swallowed, the ingested batteries can cause serious injuries, internal chemical burns and death. Remedy:Refund
Recall Date: August 20, 2026
Units: About 2,798
Consumer Contact: Mystic Zo by email at jinhemaoyi2016@sina.com for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves JINHEZO Mini Waterproof LED Tea Lights. The circular tea lights are clear with a white base and are about 1" in diameter and 1.14" tall. They come in a pack of 24 lights with 48 coin-cell batteries (two per light).
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled LED Tea Lights immediately and contact Mystic Zo for a full refund. To receive a refund, consumers will be asked to email their order number or bar code number, if available, along with a photo of the tea lights disposed of in the trash to jinhemaoyi2016@sina.com.
Note: Button cell batteries are hazardous. Batteries should be disposed of or recycled by following local hazardous waste procedures.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported
Sold Online At: Amazon.com from March 2024 through July 2026 for between $16 to $20 per pack.
Importer(s): Shenzhen Jinhe Trade Co., Ltd., dba Mystic ZO, of China
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-713
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/JINHEZO-Mini-Waterproof-LED-Tea-Lights-Recalled-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-or-Death-from-Battery-Ingestion-Violate-Mandatory-Standard-for-Consumer-Products-with-Button-Cell-Batteries-Imported-by-Mystic-ZO
* * *
Name of Product: JINHEZO Mini Waterproof LED Tea Lights
Hazard: The LED Tea Lights violate the mandatory safety standard for consumer products with button cell and coin batteries because the button batteries can be accessed easily by children, posing an ingestion hazard. Additionally, the packaging and product do not have the warnings required under Reese's Law. When button cell or coin batteries are swallowed, the ingested batteries can cause serious injuries, internal chemical burns and death.
Remedy: ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert: * * * Name of Product: JINHEZO Mini Waterproof LED Tea Lights Hazard: The LED Tea Lights violate the mandatory safety standard for consumer products with button cell and coin batteries because the button batteries can be accessed easily by children, posing an ingestion hazard. Additionally, the packaging and product do not have the warnings required under Reese's Law. When button cell or coin batteries are swallowed, the ingested batteries can cause serious injuries, internal chemical burns and death. Remedy:Refund
Recall Date: August 20, 2026
Units: About 2,798
Consumer Contact: Mystic Zo by email at jinhemaoyi2016@sina.com for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves JINHEZO Mini Waterproof LED Tea Lights. The circular tea lights are clear with a white base and are about 1" in diameter and 1.14" tall. They come in a pack of 24 lights with 48 coin-cell batteries (two per light).
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled LED Tea Lights immediately and contact Mystic Zo for a full refund. To receive a refund, consumers will be asked to email their order number or bar code number, if available, along with a photo of the tea lights disposed of in the trash to jinhemaoyi2016@sina.com.
Note: Button cell batteries are hazardous. Batteries should be disposed of or recycled by following local hazardous waste procedures.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported
Sold Online At: Amazon.com from March 2024 through July 2026 for between $16 to $20 per pack.
Importer(s): Shenzhen Jinhe Trade Co., Ltd., dba Mystic ZO, of China
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-713
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/JINHEZO-Mini-Waterproof-LED-Tea-Lights-Recalled-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-or-Death-from-Battery-Ingestion-Violate-Mandatory-Standard-for-Consumer-Products-with-Button-Cell-Batteries-Imported-by-Mystic-ZO
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving FMHVR Hybrid Visors, ACCHVR Replacement Visor Accessories
WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: FMHVR Hybrid Visors and ACCHVR Replacement Visor Accessories
Hazard: The recalled hockey visors and replacement visor accessories can crack upon impact, posing a risk of injury due to laceration or impact hazards.
Remedy: Replace
Recall Date: August 20, 2026
Units: About 12,957
Consumer Contact: CCM Hockey toll-free at 800-451-4600 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, email at customerservice@ccmhockey.com or online at https://us.ccmhockey.com/recallform or https://us.ccmhockey.com/ ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert: * * * Name of Product: FMHVR Hybrid Visors and ACCHVR Replacement Visor Accessories Hazard: The recalled hockey visors and replacement visor accessories can crack upon impact, posing a risk of injury due to laceration or impact hazards. Remedy: Replace Recall Date: August 20, 2026 Units: About 12,957 Consumer Contact: CCM Hockey toll-free at 800-451-4600 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, email at customerservice@ccmhockey.com or online at https://us.ccmhockey.com/recallform or https://us.ccmhockey.com/and click on "Product Recall" at the bottom of the page for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves the CCM Hybrid Hockey Visors, style FMHVR and replacement visor accessories, style ACCHVR. The recalled FMHVR Hybrid Visors are marked "HVR" at the top of the metal plate (above "CCM" in red). Recalled FMHVR visors have serial numbers beginning with "M/L" or "S/M." The recalled ACCHVR Replacement Visor accessory has serial numbers beginning with "SR". The serial number is printed at the top corner on the right- hand-side metal plate where HVR - CCM are written, inside of the visors, engraved into the polycarbonate. The following visor and visor accessories are included in the recall:
* * *
Table: Recalled Visors and Visor Accessories
* * *
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled visors and visor accessories immediately and return the products to the nearest participating retailer for a free replacement. Consumers can choose from the FV1 full visor, FM780 combo cage, or FM580 combo cage. To find your nearest participating retailer, go to https://us.ccmhockey.com/product/storelocator. Consumers without access to a participating retailer should contact CCM directly and CCM will send a return prepaid envelope for the return of the recalled product. CCM will ship a replacement upon receipt of the returned recalled product.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported
Sold At: Monkey Sports, Play It Again Sports, Pure Hockey and independent sporting goods and online at https://us.ccmhockey.com/ from May 2024 through April 2026 for about $120 for the Hybrid Visor and about $55 for the Replacement Visor accessories.
Importer(s): CCM Hockey U.S., Inc., of Maple Grove, Illinois
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-716
Fast Track Recall
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/CCM-Hockey-US-Recalls-FMHVR-Hybrid-Visors-and-ACCHVR-Replacement-Visor-Accessories-Due-to-Risk-of-Injury-from-Laceration-or-Impact-Hazards
* * *
Name of Product: FMHVR Hybrid Visors and ACCHVR Replacement Visor Accessories
Hazard: The recalled hockey visors and replacement visor accessories can crack upon impact, posing a risk of injury due to laceration or impact hazards.
Remedy: Replace
Recall Date: August 20, 2026
Units: About 12,957
Consumer Contact: CCM Hockey toll-free at 800-451-4600 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, email at customerservice@ccmhockey.com or online at https://us.ccmhockey.com/recallform or https://us.ccmhockey.com/ ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert: * * * Name of Product: FMHVR Hybrid Visors and ACCHVR Replacement Visor Accessories Hazard: The recalled hockey visors and replacement visor accessories can crack upon impact, posing a risk of injury due to laceration or impact hazards. Remedy: Replace Recall Date: August 20, 2026 Units: About 12,957 Consumer Contact: CCM Hockey toll-free at 800-451-4600 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, email at customerservice@ccmhockey.com or online at https://us.ccmhockey.com/recallform or https://us.ccmhockey.com/and click on "Product Recall" at the bottom of the page for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves the CCM Hybrid Hockey Visors, style FMHVR and replacement visor accessories, style ACCHVR. The recalled FMHVR Hybrid Visors are marked "HVR" at the top of the metal plate (above "CCM" in red). Recalled FMHVR visors have serial numbers beginning with "M/L" or "S/M." The recalled ACCHVR Replacement Visor accessory has serial numbers beginning with "SR". The serial number is printed at the top corner on the right- hand-side metal plate where HVR - CCM are written, inside of the visors, engraved into the polycarbonate. The following visor and visor accessories are included in the recall:
* * *
Table: Recalled Visors and Visor Accessories
* * *
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled visors and visor accessories immediately and return the products to the nearest participating retailer for a free replacement. Consumers can choose from the FV1 full visor, FM780 combo cage, or FM580 combo cage. To find your nearest participating retailer, go to https://us.ccmhockey.com/product/storelocator. Consumers without access to a participating retailer should contact CCM directly and CCM will send a return prepaid envelope for the return of the recalled product. CCM will ship a replacement upon receipt of the returned recalled product.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported
Sold At: Monkey Sports, Play It Again Sports, Pure Hockey and independent sporting goods and online at https://us.ccmhockey.com/ from May 2024 through April 2026 for about $120 for the Hybrid Visor and about $55 for the Replacement Visor accessories.
Importer(s): CCM Hockey U.S., Inc., of Maple Grove, Illinois
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-716
Fast Track Recall
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/CCM-Hockey-US-Recalls-FMHVR-Hybrid-Visors-and-ACCHVR-Replacement-Visor-Accessories-Due-to-Risk-of-Injury-from-Laceration-or-Impact-Hazards
CFTC Chairman Selig Issues Remarks at Innovation Advisory Committee Conference
WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following remarks on Aug. 20, 2026, by Chairman Michael S. Selig at the Innovation Advisory Committee conference:
* * *
Thank you. Good afternoon and welcome to the Innovation Advisory Committee's inaugural meeting.
We've assembled some of America's greatest builders, thinkers, and entrepreneurs here in our nation's capital to engage in a series of conversations about where our financial markets are headed, and what role America, and, in particular, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC"), will play in shaping ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following remarks on Aug. 20, 2026, by Chairman Michael S. Selig at the Innovation Advisory Committee conference: * * * Thank you. Good afternoon and welcome to the Innovation Advisory Committee's inaugural meeting. We've assembled some of America's greatest builders, thinkers, and entrepreneurs here in our nation's capital to engage in a series of conversations about where our financial markets are headed, and what role America, and, in particular, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC"), will play in shapingthat future.
Before we get started, I'd like to take a step back and discuss why American leadership on this new frontier of finance matters. But, before I do, I must provide the standard disclaimer that the views I express here today are my own as Chairman and don't necessarily reflect those of the Commission.
Built for the Frontier
For more than half a century, the CFTC has stood at the center of innovation in America's financial markets, helping ensure that innovation can flourish while markets remain fair and resilient.
When President Gerald Ford signed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act into law in 1974, America's derivatives markets were being transformed by an explosion of interest in a wide range of novel instruments - from contracts on currencies, to petroleum allocations, to Ginnie Mae certificates.[1]
Despite federally regulated commodity exchanges having existed since the 1920s, prior law only covered contracts in an enumerated list of agricultural commodities, like wheat, corn, cotton, and rice. The balance of contracts was subject to the same patchwork of state laws that had prompted Congress to institute federal commodity laws in the first place. As a result, America was falling behind.
The history of America's earliest commodity exchange, the Chicago Board of Trade, has been described as a saga of "fending off countless politicians on both the state and national level, all of which seemed intent on shutting the Board down."[2] In 1848, a group of merchants established the Board above a flour store to enforce a set of codes and rules for buying, weighing, and grading commodities and to arbitrate disputes among traders.[3]
By 1859, a convention emerged whereby parties who had committed to buy or to sell a commodity could make or receive a payment to or from the other party based on the change in price of the commodity instead of making or taking physical delivery.[4] They standardized a promise - a measure of grain, a price, a date - so that a farmer hundreds of miles away could lock in her season before the first frost, and so that a miller could plan his year without relying solely on hope to make ends meet. These arrangements came to be known as futures contracts.
The response to this innovation in the markets was remarkably similar to what we have seen with some of the technologies we're here to discuss today. As these early markets began to take shape, state lawmakers across the country moved to subject these exchanges to a wide range of state "anti-gaming" and "anti-bucket shop" laws.[5] One lawmaker urged federal action, exclaiming that "[t]he grain gamblers have made the exchange building in Chicago the world's greatest gambling house."[6] Karl Marx called exchanges "gambling" parlors "where little fish are swallowed by the sharks."[7]
The same rhetoric has been used to delegitimize and undermine our markets for more than a century.
But when lawmakers considered legislation to amend the Commodity Exchange Act (the "CEA") and codify, once and for all, a comprehensive federal regulatory framework for commodity exchanges, they recognized then what we know to be true today: regulation and innovation must go hand in hand. Without clear rules of the road, builders, visionaries, and entrepreneurs always leave for brighter shores.
So, Congress established a federal system of market regulation designed to be future-proof. It created a new federal agency - the CFTC - and provided it with "exclusive jurisdiction"[8] over commodity derivatives markets. Lawmakers also included a statutory mandate that the agency "promote responsible innovation."[9]
Recognizing that virtually anything,[10] tangible or intangible, might serve as the underlying for a derivative contract, lawmakers defined the term "commodity" to include "all goods and articles, . . . and services, rights, and interests" that may be the subject of a derivative contract.[11] This included events, contingencies, and incidents that take place which are beyond the control of the contracting parties.[12] With an "essentially unbounded field of potential commodities,"[13] exchanges were free to innovate and offer a wide range of novel financial instruments under a single federal regulatory framework.
The breadth of this definition makes clear that lawmakers intentionally chose not to fragment regulatory authority over commodity derivatives markets based upon the underlying commodity. They reasoned that "[t]he nature of the underlying commodity is not an adequate basis to divide regulatory authority."[14] Instead, lawmakers opted for simplicity and ease of administration, explaining that "the fact that a futures contract market does not fit into the traditional mold where there are both hedging and price-discovery functions should not be the determining factor in whether the contract is regulated by the CFTC."[15]
These contracts were now required to trade on CFTC-registered exchanges, known as designated contract markets (or "DCMs"). DCMs would be overseen by the CFTC but also operate as self-regulatory organizations that would serve as the first line of defense in policing rules to protect market integrity. The patchwork of state laws that once undermined the ability of exchanges to operate across the country would no longer apply to these federally regulated exchanges.
With clear rules of the road, pioneering exchange operators set out onto the vast frontier of finance and designed many of the contracts that are popularly traded today, like weather, interest rate, and equity derivatives.
After observing the evolution of these markets under CFTC supervision for some decades, Congress made additional modifications to the CEA to further future-proof the framework with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (the "CFMA"). We're pleased to have with us today former CFTC Acting Chairman, Walt Lukken, who was heavily involved in the development of the legislation as an advisor to the then Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman, Richard Lugar.
The CFMA replaced the CEA's legacy system of prescriptive regulation with a principles-based regulatory framework. The regime afforded market participants the flexibility to operate within core principles so that their ability to innovate is not constrained by hard rules.[16]
More recently, Congress again amended the CEA under the Dodd-Frank Act to expand the agency's authority to more comprehensively cover the universe of swaps. Lawmakers also chose to include within the CFTC's jurisdiction offerings of commodity transactions on a margined, leveraged, or financed basis to retail participants, which must trade on a DCM as futures.
The results of these developments are reflected by the sheer size and depth of our derivatives markets. At the time that the Commodity Futures Trading Act was enacted in 1974, the U.S. derivatives market was valued in the low hundreds of billions of dollars notional. Today, the CFTC regulates approximately half of the $1.2 quadrillion notional global derivatives market.[17] This is not an accident. It is the result of American regulation keeping pace with American innovation.
But unfortunately, our history reflects that, at times, we've lost our way. Commodity options were prohibited in the U.S. until 1974 due to concerns that the contracts were instruments of manipulation and destabilizing speculation.[18] And there's been a lot of debate about Congress' decision to ban onion contracts in the Onion Futures Act of 1958,[19] as well as the movie box office revenue contract prohibition that found its way into the 2008 financial crisis reforms.[20]
* * *
Today, we're once again at an inflection point. Another moment when the choices we make will shape the markets and opportunities of the decades ahead.
We've crossed the Rubicon and are standing at a new frontier of finance. It's not a question of whether innovations like blockchain, artificial intelligence, and prediction markets will transform our markets. It's a question of where this innovation will take place and who will write the rules.
America can either accelerate and continue the regulatory tradition that made our markets the greatest on Earth, or it can decelerate and let other countries take the lead. We can be optimistic about the future. Or we can fear it.
In this administration, we are choosing to lead. Under President Trump's leadership, America will not simply participate in this new frontier of finance. We will shape it.
Today, I'll preview our innovation agenda, or what I refer to as the "Roadmap for the New Frontier of Finance" (or "Roadmap").
Setting the Standard: Roadmap for the Crypto Capital of the World
During the prior administration, the American crypto industry weathered a perfect storm of anti-crypto armies, de-banking, regulation by enforcement, and offshore exchange failures. After taking the oath of office on January 20, 2025, President Trump quickly followed through on his commitment to "fire Gary Gensler" and make the United States the "crypto capital" of the world.[21]
Under the prior regime of regulation by enforcement, businesses could not know in advance whether their actions were legal or illegal, whether they were guilty or innocent, because there were no clear rules on the books.
Many of you in this room today were victims of this wayward approach to regulation. You built companies, created jobs, invested capital, and tried to comply with the law, only to find yourselves navigating a regulatory system where the rules could change after the fact. This is the type of persecution we see in banana republics. It's unacceptable in the United States.
That's why I partnered with Chairman Atkins at the Securities and Exchange Commission on Project Crypto to codify a clear taxonomy for crypto assets that provides certainty to the marketplace as to which types of crypto assets are securities, and which are not.
I remain hopeful that Congress will deliver to the President's desk bipartisan crypto asset market structure legislation that codifies this jurisdictional line and establishes statutory core principles for crypto asset spot markets. While we have other tools in the box if the bill doesn't pass, I want to be crystal clear: the most important step towards future-proofing this industry is passing this bipartisan bill.
Passing CLARITY is the surest way that we can prevent another Gary Gensler from running a rogue campaign of lawfare against the individuals and companies in this room. I'd urge you all to continue engaging with Capitol Hill to ensure that this bill gets across the finish line. We stand ready to begin immediately implementing the bill if passed.
If CLARITY continues to stall because of Democratic obstruction, the CFTC will utilize its existing authorities to begin establishing a regime for crypto asset markets. We owe it to the American people to do so.
President Trump promised to deliver a crypto asset market structure, and we will help him deliver if Congress will not.
We will heed President Trump's call to "codify a future-proof digital asset market structure that cannot be undone by the crypto haters."[22]
To achieve this, I've directed the CFTC staff to begin exploring rules to codify a CFTC market structure for crypto assets using the agency's existing authorities. This could enable current registrants as well as non-registrant crypto exchanges to be designated by the CFTC as a type of DCM known as a crypto asset market and offer crypto asset trading on a leveraged or margined basis subject to purpose-fit rules under the CFTC's regulatory oversight.
I've also directed staff to engage with developers of onchain finance protocols to establish ways in which developers can offer their protocols in a legal and compliant manner in the United States. Future-proofing developer protections once and for all.
We're going to give CLARITY its breathing room for a vote, but if the Democrats cannot support a bipartisan work product, which reflects compromises from both sides of the aisle, and ultimately send a fair version of the bill to the President's desk, then rest assured, I will direct CFTC staff to move swiftly to propose these new rules for the industry.
Winning the AI Race: Roadmap for Compute Market Dominance
Now, as President Trump said, "America is the country that started the AI race. And . . . America is going to win it."[23]
Access to advanced GPU clusters and compute capacity increasingly determines who can compete, who can innovate, and ultimately, who can lead. As demand for compute grows, so too does the need for markets capable of efficiently allocating scarce resources and managing risk.
If the lessons of history are any guide, well-functioning spot, forward, and derivatives markets emerge in conjunction with demand for scarce and economically significant commodities. Compute is proving to be no different. Transparent markets can transform compute from a costly and unpredictable input into a commodity with reliable price discovery and effective hedging, which will strengthen America's capacity to lead the AI revolution.
America's AI Action Plan calls upon the federal agencies to ensure access to large-scale compute for startups and academics by improving the financial market for this ever-critical digital commodity.[24]
And we're partnering with the Department of Commerce to get this done. Our first step was to issue a request for comment on compute markets, which was released earlier this week. From there, we'll take stakeholder feedback into consideration and develop a gold standard regulatory framework for these new commodity markets.
Just as American markets helped establish the gold standard for trading the commodities that powered the industrial economy, we will do the same for the commodity that will power the intelligence economy.
Forecasting the Future: Roadmap for American Prediction Markets
Today, prediction markets find themselves enduring the same type of assault from state and national politicians that plagued the Chicago Board of Trade for much of its early existence. Although Congress gave the CFTC the exclusive authority to regulate DCMs that offer trading in derivatives, many states seek to nullify federal law and apply state anti-gaming laws to DCMs.
These state actors are sadly suffering from what the late CFTC Chairman Philip McBride Johnson called NFS, or Name Fixation Syndrome. NFS, he explained, "is an intellectual malady that causes the listener to hear only the first part of a phrase, such as TREASURY BOND futures, SOYBEAN futures, OIL futures, [SPORTS futures,] etc. Without treatment, this can lead the patient to think that the futures should be regulated by the same agency that supervises the NAME. The consequences, of course, are preposterous."[25]
I'm happy to report that we are not afflicted with NFS here at the CFTC. That's why we'll continue to promote responsible innovation in lawful derivatives and defend our exclusive jurisdiction in court. As President Trump said, "[o]ther countries are after this new form of financial market, and we want to remain at the top."[26]
But we'll not only defend our jurisdiction, we'll also exercise it by establishing clear rules of the road for these markets.
Despite what some diagnosed with NFS may have you believe, prediction markets aren't new. Our statute expressly classifies as commodities events, contingencies, or incidents that take place which are beyond the control of the contracting parties.[27] Derivatives on these commodities are known as "event contracts" and they have traded in our markets for decades.
Yet, the CFTC never instituted a comprehensive regulatory framework to address the unique policy considerations associated with these products. Instead, prior administrations put their heads in the sand, thinking that the markets would go away, and, when that failed, tried to outlaw the products entirely. We witnessed the same story that we did with commodity options and crypto assets unfold with event contracts - regulators tried to ban them and drove the innovators offshore to places like the Bahamas. We all know how this story ends.
We're not going to take this approach anymore at the CFTC. Here's our Roadmap for prediction markets:
First, we recently proposed amendments to CFTC Rule 40.11. While every event contract must satisfy the core principles and not be readily susceptible to manipulation, Congress recognized that certain types of event contracts, specifically those involving war, terrorism, assassination, gaming, and illegal activities, raise additional public policy considerations. The CFTC has the discretion to prohibit any such contract when doing so is in the public interest.[28]
However, our statute does not define key terms like "gaming" or "involve" or establish public interest criteria for us to consider. As a result, contracts are at risk of rejection based upon arbitrary whims or political biases, and DCMs have been left operating in the dark.
The prior administration attempted to prohibit event contracts on politics, sports, and cultural events in the name of the public interest - without ever defining what is in the "public interest." Under this approach, the public is not the judge of its interest but instead whoever is in control of the Commission.
Our proposed amendments to CFTC Rule 40.11 are intended to address these issues by defining key terms and enumerating public interest criteria for Commission consideration.
Second, we proposed a rule to modernize the reporting framework for fully collateralized event contracts. The proposal would establish a durable regulatory framework that provides the Commission with the information it needs to oversee these markets while eliminating unnecessary complexity and regulatory burden.
Finally, I expect the Commission will soon propose a series of amendments to Parts 38 and 40 of the CFTC's regulations to modernize the core principles and listing rules governing DCMs that list event contracts and institute consumer protection requirements. We've heard the concerns of public commenters about inadequate consumer protections for retail loud and clear. These amendments would also establish clear expectations for product governance, market design, and incentive programs.
* * *
We have a lot of work ahead of us at the CFTC. But we're energized by the innovation happening in our markets. Due, in large part, to the ingenuity of you all in the room today.
You've withstood anti-crypto armies, doomerism, and a lot of subpoenas. But you continued to build and innovate here in the United States.
That's why we asked you all to be a part of the very first Innovation Advisory Committee. To bring together the people building and innovating in the United States and ensure that the new frontier of finance remains on American soil.
Thank you all for your service. I look forward to today's discussions.
* * *
[1] Philip McBride Johnson, Thomas Lee Hazen, Susan C. Ervin, Charles R. Mills & Kathryn M. Trkla, Derivatives Regulation Sec.2.03 (Second Edition 2004).
[2] oh H. Stassen, The Commodity Exchange Act In Perspective: A Short and Not So-Reverent History of Futures Trading in the United States, 39 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 825 (1982).
[3] Id.
[4] Johnson and Hazen, supra note 1, at Sec.2.02.
[5] Id.
[6] 61 Cong. Rec. 4761, 4763 (Aug. 9, 1921) (remarks of Sen. Capper).
[7] 3 Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy 440 (Friedrich Engels ed., Progress Publishers 1959) (1894).
[8] 7 U.S.C. Sec. 2(a)(1)(A).
[9] 7 U.S.C. Sec. 5(b).
[10] "Even the SEC envied the CFTC--or soon envied it. Congress buried among the 1974 amendments to the Commodity Exchange Act an expanded definition of the term 'commodity' to include literally anything, with one exception [for onions], which was or might In the future be the subject of futures trading." Stassen, supra, note 2, at 833-34.
[11] See Johnson and Hazen, supra note 1, at Sec.2.03.
[12] See 7 U.S. Code Sec. 1a(19)(iv) (defining "excluded commodity" to include "an occurrence, extent of an occurrence, or contingency (other than a change in the price, rate, value, or level of a commodity").
[13] See Johnson and Hazen, supra note 1, at Sec.2.03.
[14] Report on S. 2391 of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, S. Rep. No. 95-850, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 22-23 (May 15, 1978).
[15] Id.
[16] See Heath P. Tarbert, Rules for Principles and Principles for Rules: Tools for Crafting Sound Financial Regulation, Harvard Business Law Review, Vol. 10 (2019-2020), Harvard Business School, 2020.
[17] See Michael S. Selig, The New Era of Finance Needs Innovation More Than Consensus, The Economist (Aug. 6, 2026), available at https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2026/08/06/the-new-era-of-finance-needs-innovation-more-than-consensus.
[18] See Jerry W. Markham, The History of Commodity Futures Trading and its Regulation (1987).
[19] See, e.g., Roger W. Gray, Onions Revisited, 45 J. Farm Econ. 273 (1963).
[20] See, e.g., Paul G. Anderson, Note, Back to the Future(s): A Critical Look at the Film Futures Ban, 29 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 179 (2011).
[21] Donald J. Trump, Keynote Address at the Bitcoin 2024 Conference, Nashville, Tenn. (July 27, 2024).
[22] Donald J. Trump, @RealDonaldTrump on Truth Social (May 27, 2026).
[23] Donald J. Trump, President Trump Speaks at Artificial Intelligence Summit, Washington, D.C. (July 23, 2025).
[24] See The White House, Winning the Race: America's AI Action Plan (Jul. 23, 2025), available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Americas-AI-Action-Plan.pdf.
[25] Johnson and Hazen, supra note 1, at Sec.4.05.
[26] Donald J. Trump, @RealDonaldTrump on Truth Social (May 26, 2026).
[27] See 7 U.S.C. Sec. 1a(19)(iv) (defining "excluded commodity" to include "an occurrence, extent of an occurrence, or contingency (other than a change in the price, rate, value, or level of a commodity").
[28] See 7 U.S.C. Sec. 7a-2(c)(5)(C).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opaselig10
* * *
Thank you. Good afternoon and welcome to the Innovation Advisory Committee's inaugural meeting.
We've assembled some of America's greatest builders, thinkers, and entrepreneurs here in our nation's capital to engage in a series of conversations about where our financial markets are headed, and what role America, and, in particular, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC"), will play in shaping ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following remarks on Aug. 20, 2026, by Chairman Michael S. Selig at the Innovation Advisory Committee conference: * * * Thank you. Good afternoon and welcome to the Innovation Advisory Committee's inaugural meeting. We've assembled some of America's greatest builders, thinkers, and entrepreneurs here in our nation's capital to engage in a series of conversations about where our financial markets are headed, and what role America, and, in particular, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC"), will play in shapingthat future.
Before we get started, I'd like to take a step back and discuss why American leadership on this new frontier of finance matters. But, before I do, I must provide the standard disclaimer that the views I express here today are my own as Chairman and don't necessarily reflect those of the Commission.
Built for the Frontier
For more than half a century, the CFTC has stood at the center of innovation in America's financial markets, helping ensure that innovation can flourish while markets remain fair and resilient.
When President Gerald Ford signed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act into law in 1974, America's derivatives markets were being transformed by an explosion of interest in a wide range of novel instruments - from contracts on currencies, to petroleum allocations, to Ginnie Mae certificates.[1]
Despite federally regulated commodity exchanges having existed since the 1920s, prior law only covered contracts in an enumerated list of agricultural commodities, like wheat, corn, cotton, and rice. The balance of contracts was subject to the same patchwork of state laws that had prompted Congress to institute federal commodity laws in the first place. As a result, America was falling behind.
The history of America's earliest commodity exchange, the Chicago Board of Trade, has been described as a saga of "fending off countless politicians on both the state and national level, all of which seemed intent on shutting the Board down."[2] In 1848, a group of merchants established the Board above a flour store to enforce a set of codes and rules for buying, weighing, and grading commodities and to arbitrate disputes among traders.[3]
By 1859, a convention emerged whereby parties who had committed to buy or to sell a commodity could make or receive a payment to or from the other party based on the change in price of the commodity instead of making or taking physical delivery.[4] They standardized a promise - a measure of grain, a price, a date - so that a farmer hundreds of miles away could lock in her season before the first frost, and so that a miller could plan his year without relying solely on hope to make ends meet. These arrangements came to be known as futures contracts.
The response to this innovation in the markets was remarkably similar to what we have seen with some of the technologies we're here to discuss today. As these early markets began to take shape, state lawmakers across the country moved to subject these exchanges to a wide range of state "anti-gaming" and "anti-bucket shop" laws.[5] One lawmaker urged federal action, exclaiming that "[t]he grain gamblers have made the exchange building in Chicago the world's greatest gambling house."[6] Karl Marx called exchanges "gambling" parlors "where little fish are swallowed by the sharks."[7]
The same rhetoric has been used to delegitimize and undermine our markets for more than a century.
But when lawmakers considered legislation to amend the Commodity Exchange Act (the "CEA") and codify, once and for all, a comprehensive federal regulatory framework for commodity exchanges, they recognized then what we know to be true today: regulation and innovation must go hand in hand. Without clear rules of the road, builders, visionaries, and entrepreneurs always leave for brighter shores.
So, Congress established a federal system of market regulation designed to be future-proof. It created a new federal agency - the CFTC - and provided it with "exclusive jurisdiction"[8] over commodity derivatives markets. Lawmakers also included a statutory mandate that the agency "promote responsible innovation."[9]
Recognizing that virtually anything,[10] tangible or intangible, might serve as the underlying for a derivative contract, lawmakers defined the term "commodity" to include "all goods and articles, . . . and services, rights, and interests" that may be the subject of a derivative contract.[11] This included events, contingencies, and incidents that take place which are beyond the control of the contracting parties.[12] With an "essentially unbounded field of potential commodities,"[13] exchanges were free to innovate and offer a wide range of novel financial instruments under a single federal regulatory framework.
The breadth of this definition makes clear that lawmakers intentionally chose not to fragment regulatory authority over commodity derivatives markets based upon the underlying commodity. They reasoned that "[t]he nature of the underlying commodity is not an adequate basis to divide regulatory authority."[14] Instead, lawmakers opted for simplicity and ease of administration, explaining that "the fact that a futures contract market does not fit into the traditional mold where there are both hedging and price-discovery functions should not be the determining factor in whether the contract is regulated by the CFTC."[15]
These contracts were now required to trade on CFTC-registered exchanges, known as designated contract markets (or "DCMs"). DCMs would be overseen by the CFTC but also operate as self-regulatory organizations that would serve as the first line of defense in policing rules to protect market integrity. The patchwork of state laws that once undermined the ability of exchanges to operate across the country would no longer apply to these federally regulated exchanges.
With clear rules of the road, pioneering exchange operators set out onto the vast frontier of finance and designed many of the contracts that are popularly traded today, like weather, interest rate, and equity derivatives.
After observing the evolution of these markets under CFTC supervision for some decades, Congress made additional modifications to the CEA to further future-proof the framework with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (the "CFMA"). We're pleased to have with us today former CFTC Acting Chairman, Walt Lukken, who was heavily involved in the development of the legislation as an advisor to the then Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman, Richard Lugar.
The CFMA replaced the CEA's legacy system of prescriptive regulation with a principles-based regulatory framework. The regime afforded market participants the flexibility to operate within core principles so that their ability to innovate is not constrained by hard rules.[16]
More recently, Congress again amended the CEA under the Dodd-Frank Act to expand the agency's authority to more comprehensively cover the universe of swaps. Lawmakers also chose to include within the CFTC's jurisdiction offerings of commodity transactions on a margined, leveraged, or financed basis to retail participants, which must trade on a DCM as futures.
The results of these developments are reflected by the sheer size and depth of our derivatives markets. At the time that the Commodity Futures Trading Act was enacted in 1974, the U.S. derivatives market was valued in the low hundreds of billions of dollars notional. Today, the CFTC regulates approximately half of the $1.2 quadrillion notional global derivatives market.[17] This is not an accident. It is the result of American regulation keeping pace with American innovation.
But unfortunately, our history reflects that, at times, we've lost our way. Commodity options were prohibited in the U.S. until 1974 due to concerns that the contracts were instruments of manipulation and destabilizing speculation.[18] And there's been a lot of debate about Congress' decision to ban onion contracts in the Onion Futures Act of 1958,[19] as well as the movie box office revenue contract prohibition that found its way into the 2008 financial crisis reforms.[20]
* * *
Today, we're once again at an inflection point. Another moment when the choices we make will shape the markets and opportunities of the decades ahead.
We've crossed the Rubicon and are standing at a new frontier of finance. It's not a question of whether innovations like blockchain, artificial intelligence, and prediction markets will transform our markets. It's a question of where this innovation will take place and who will write the rules.
America can either accelerate and continue the regulatory tradition that made our markets the greatest on Earth, or it can decelerate and let other countries take the lead. We can be optimistic about the future. Or we can fear it.
In this administration, we are choosing to lead. Under President Trump's leadership, America will not simply participate in this new frontier of finance. We will shape it.
Today, I'll preview our innovation agenda, or what I refer to as the "Roadmap for the New Frontier of Finance" (or "Roadmap").
Setting the Standard: Roadmap for the Crypto Capital of the World
During the prior administration, the American crypto industry weathered a perfect storm of anti-crypto armies, de-banking, regulation by enforcement, and offshore exchange failures. After taking the oath of office on January 20, 2025, President Trump quickly followed through on his commitment to "fire Gary Gensler" and make the United States the "crypto capital" of the world.[21]
Under the prior regime of regulation by enforcement, businesses could not know in advance whether their actions were legal or illegal, whether they were guilty or innocent, because there were no clear rules on the books.
Many of you in this room today were victims of this wayward approach to regulation. You built companies, created jobs, invested capital, and tried to comply with the law, only to find yourselves navigating a regulatory system where the rules could change after the fact. This is the type of persecution we see in banana republics. It's unacceptable in the United States.
That's why I partnered with Chairman Atkins at the Securities and Exchange Commission on Project Crypto to codify a clear taxonomy for crypto assets that provides certainty to the marketplace as to which types of crypto assets are securities, and which are not.
I remain hopeful that Congress will deliver to the President's desk bipartisan crypto asset market structure legislation that codifies this jurisdictional line and establishes statutory core principles for crypto asset spot markets. While we have other tools in the box if the bill doesn't pass, I want to be crystal clear: the most important step towards future-proofing this industry is passing this bipartisan bill.
Passing CLARITY is the surest way that we can prevent another Gary Gensler from running a rogue campaign of lawfare against the individuals and companies in this room. I'd urge you all to continue engaging with Capitol Hill to ensure that this bill gets across the finish line. We stand ready to begin immediately implementing the bill if passed.
If CLARITY continues to stall because of Democratic obstruction, the CFTC will utilize its existing authorities to begin establishing a regime for crypto asset markets. We owe it to the American people to do so.
President Trump promised to deliver a crypto asset market structure, and we will help him deliver if Congress will not.
We will heed President Trump's call to "codify a future-proof digital asset market structure that cannot be undone by the crypto haters."[22]
To achieve this, I've directed the CFTC staff to begin exploring rules to codify a CFTC market structure for crypto assets using the agency's existing authorities. This could enable current registrants as well as non-registrant crypto exchanges to be designated by the CFTC as a type of DCM known as a crypto asset market and offer crypto asset trading on a leveraged or margined basis subject to purpose-fit rules under the CFTC's regulatory oversight.
I've also directed staff to engage with developers of onchain finance protocols to establish ways in which developers can offer their protocols in a legal and compliant manner in the United States. Future-proofing developer protections once and for all.
We're going to give CLARITY its breathing room for a vote, but if the Democrats cannot support a bipartisan work product, which reflects compromises from both sides of the aisle, and ultimately send a fair version of the bill to the President's desk, then rest assured, I will direct CFTC staff to move swiftly to propose these new rules for the industry.
Winning the AI Race: Roadmap for Compute Market Dominance
Now, as President Trump said, "America is the country that started the AI race. And . . . America is going to win it."[23]
Access to advanced GPU clusters and compute capacity increasingly determines who can compete, who can innovate, and ultimately, who can lead. As demand for compute grows, so too does the need for markets capable of efficiently allocating scarce resources and managing risk.
If the lessons of history are any guide, well-functioning spot, forward, and derivatives markets emerge in conjunction with demand for scarce and economically significant commodities. Compute is proving to be no different. Transparent markets can transform compute from a costly and unpredictable input into a commodity with reliable price discovery and effective hedging, which will strengthen America's capacity to lead the AI revolution.
America's AI Action Plan calls upon the federal agencies to ensure access to large-scale compute for startups and academics by improving the financial market for this ever-critical digital commodity.[24]
And we're partnering with the Department of Commerce to get this done. Our first step was to issue a request for comment on compute markets, which was released earlier this week. From there, we'll take stakeholder feedback into consideration and develop a gold standard regulatory framework for these new commodity markets.
Just as American markets helped establish the gold standard for trading the commodities that powered the industrial economy, we will do the same for the commodity that will power the intelligence economy.
Forecasting the Future: Roadmap for American Prediction Markets
Today, prediction markets find themselves enduring the same type of assault from state and national politicians that plagued the Chicago Board of Trade for much of its early existence. Although Congress gave the CFTC the exclusive authority to regulate DCMs that offer trading in derivatives, many states seek to nullify federal law and apply state anti-gaming laws to DCMs.
These state actors are sadly suffering from what the late CFTC Chairman Philip McBride Johnson called NFS, or Name Fixation Syndrome. NFS, he explained, "is an intellectual malady that causes the listener to hear only the first part of a phrase, such as TREASURY BOND futures, SOYBEAN futures, OIL futures, [SPORTS futures,] etc. Without treatment, this can lead the patient to think that the futures should be regulated by the same agency that supervises the NAME. The consequences, of course, are preposterous."[25]
I'm happy to report that we are not afflicted with NFS here at the CFTC. That's why we'll continue to promote responsible innovation in lawful derivatives and defend our exclusive jurisdiction in court. As President Trump said, "[o]ther countries are after this new form of financial market, and we want to remain at the top."[26]
But we'll not only defend our jurisdiction, we'll also exercise it by establishing clear rules of the road for these markets.
Despite what some diagnosed with NFS may have you believe, prediction markets aren't new. Our statute expressly classifies as commodities events, contingencies, or incidents that take place which are beyond the control of the contracting parties.[27] Derivatives on these commodities are known as "event contracts" and they have traded in our markets for decades.
Yet, the CFTC never instituted a comprehensive regulatory framework to address the unique policy considerations associated with these products. Instead, prior administrations put their heads in the sand, thinking that the markets would go away, and, when that failed, tried to outlaw the products entirely. We witnessed the same story that we did with commodity options and crypto assets unfold with event contracts - regulators tried to ban them and drove the innovators offshore to places like the Bahamas. We all know how this story ends.
We're not going to take this approach anymore at the CFTC. Here's our Roadmap for prediction markets:
First, we recently proposed amendments to CFTC Rule 40.11. While every event contract must satisfy the core principles and not be readily susceptible to manipulation, Congress recognized that certain types of event contracts, specifically those involving war, terrorism, assassination, gaming, and illegal activities, raise additional public policy considerations. The CFTC has the discretion to prohibit any such contract when doing so is in the public interest.[28]
However, our statute does not define key terms like "gaming" or "involve" or establish public interest criteria for us to consider. As a result, contracts are at risk of rejection based upon arbitrary whims or political biases, and DCMs have been left operating in the dark.
The prior administration attempted to prohibit event contracts on politics, sports, and cultural events in the name of the public interest - without ever defining what is in the "public interest." Under this approach, the public is not the judge of its interest but instead whoever is in control of the Commission.
Our proposed amendments to CFTC Rule 40.11 are intended to address these issues by defining key terms and enumerating public interest criteria for Commission consideration.
Second, we proposed a rule to modernize the reporting framework for fully collateralized event contracts. The proposal would establish a durable regulatory framework that provides the Commission with the information it needs to oversee these markets while eliminating unnecessary complexity and regulatory burden.
Finally, I expect the Commission will soon propose a series of amendments to Parts 38 and 40 of the CFTC's regulations to modernize the core principles and listing rules governing DCMs that list event contracts and institute consumer protection requirements. We've heard the concerns of public commenters about inadequate consumer protections for retail loud and clear. These amendments would also establish clear expectations for product governance, market design, and incentive programs.
* * *
We have a lot of work ahead of us at the CFTC. But we're energized by the innovation happening in our markets. Due, in large part, to the ingenuity of you all in the room today.
You've withstood anti-crypto armies, doomerism, and a lot of subpoenas. But you continued to build and innovate here in the United States.
That's why we asked you all to be a part of the very first Innovation Advisory Committee. To bring together the people building and innovating in the United States and ensure that the new frontier of finance remains on American soil.
Thank you all for your service. I look forward to today's discussions.
* * *
[1] Philip McBride Johnson, Thomas Lee Hazen, Susan C. Ervin, Charles R. Mills & Kathryn M. Trkla, Derivatives Regulation Sec.2.03 (Second Edition 2004).
[2] oh H. Stassen, The Commodity Exchange Act In Perspective: A Short and Not So-Reverent History of Futures Trading in the United States, 39 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 825 (1982).
[3] Id.
[4] Johnson and Hazen, supra note 1, at Sec.2.02.
[5] Id.
[6] 61 Cong. Rec. 4761, 4763 (Aug. 9, 1921) (remarks of Sen. Capper).
[7] 3 Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy 440 (Friedrich Engels ed., Progress Publishers 1959) (1894).
[8] 7 U.S.C. Sec. 2(a)(1)(A).
[9] 7 U.S.C. Sec. 5(b).
[10] "Even the SEC envied the CFTC--or soon envied it. Congress buried among the 1974 amendments to the Commodity Exchange Act an expanded definition of the term 'commodity' to include literally anything, with one exception [for onions], which was or might In the future be the subject of futures trading." Stassen, supra, note 2, at 833-34.
[11] See Johnson and Hazen, supra note 1, at Sec.2.03.
[12] See 7 U.S. Code Sec. 1a(19)(iv) (defining "excluded commodity" to include "an occurrence, extent of an occurrence, or contingency (other than a change in the price, rate, value, or level of a commodity").
[13] See Johnson and Hazen, supra note 1, at Sec.2.03.
[14] Report on S. 2391 of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, S. Rep. No. 95-850, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 22-23 (May 15, 1978).
[15] Id.
[16] See Heath P. Tarbert, Rules for Principles and Principles for Rules: Tools for Crafting Sound Financial Regulation, Harvard Business Law Review, Vol. 10 (2019-2020), Harvard Business School, 2020.
[17] See Michael S. Selig, The New Era of Finance Needs Innovation More Than Consensus, The Economist (Aug. 6, 2026), available at https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2026/08/06/the-new-era-of-finance-needs-innovation-more-than-consensus.
[18] See Jerry W. Markham, The History of Commodity Futures Trading and its Regulation (1987).
[19] See, e.g., Roger W. Gray, Onions Revisited, 45 J. Farm Econ. 273 (1963).
[20] See, e.g., Paul G. Anderson, Note, Back to the Future(s): A Critical Look at the Film Futures Ban, 29 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 179 (2011).
[21] Donald J. Trump, Keynote Address at the Bitcoin 2024 Conference, Nashville, Tenn. (July 27, 2024).
[22] Donald J. Trump, @RealDonaldTrump on Truth Social (May 27, 2026).
[23] Donald J. Trump, President Trump Speaks at Artificial Intelligence Summit, Washington, D.C. (July 23, 2025).
[24] See The White House, Winning the Race: America's AI Action Plan (Jul. 23, 2025), available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Americas-AI-Action-Plan.pdf.
[25] Johnson and Hazen, supra note 1, at Sec.4.05.
[26] Donald J. Trump, @RealDonaldTrump on Truth Social (May 26, 2026).
[27] See 7 U.S.C. Sec. 1a(19)(iv) (defining "excluded commodity" to include "an occurrence, extent of an occurrence, or contingency (other than a change in the price, rate, value, or level of a commodity").
[28] See 7 U.S.C. Sec. 7a-2(c)(5)(C).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opaselig10