Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice: No Significant Adverse Comments on Direct Final Rule
WASHINGTON, June 16 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (GN Docket No. 25-133):
* * *
By this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) confirms that no "significant adverse" comments were filed in response to the Direct Final Rule released by the Commission on September 30, 2025./1 In the Direct Final Rule, the Commission identified and repealed rules that regulate obsolete technology, are no longer used in practice by the Commission or carriers, or are otherwise outdated or unnecessary./2 Although public notice
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 16 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (GN Docket No. 25-133):
* * *
By this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) confirms that no "significant adverse" comments were filed in response to the Direct Final Rule released by the Commission on September 30, 2025./1 In the Direct Final Rule, the Commission identified and repealed rules that regulate obsolete technology, are no longer used in practice by the Commission or carriers, or are otherwise outdated or unnecessary./2 Although public noticeand comment were not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to repeal such rules, the Commission elected to provide an opportunity for input./3 The Commission explained that a rule would be repealed only if no "significant adverse comments" were filed./4 The Commission further explained that "where warranted by the record," the Bureau will issue a Public Notice "briefly explain[ing] why any comments filed were not determined to be significant adverse comments."/5 For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau confirms that none of the comments filed in response to the Direct Final Rule qualify as "significant adverse" comments.
Background. Under the APA, agencies may forgo notice and public comment for good cause when such procedures "are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest."/6 The Commission relied on this authority in the Direct Final Rule when it repealed 386 rules--including sections 43.21(d) and (f)./7
The Direct Final Rule was published in the Federal Register with a 20-day comment period and a 60-day effective date./8 Two parties filed comments in the record of the Direct Final Rule proceeding. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) recommends that the Commission retain sections 43.21(d) and (f) of its rules, stating that "[t]he reports enable the CPUC to evaluate the allocation of costs and revenues between a carrier's regulated and nonregulated operations."/9 One other party, the Center for Regulatory Analysis and Engagement, filed comments that "support[] the Commission's effort to remove outdated, dormant, and duplicative provisions that no longer appear to serve meaningful operational or public-interest functions."/10
Discussion. As the Commission explained in the Direct Final Rule, to qualify as a "significant adverse comment," the comment must explain why the direct final rule is "inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach" or "would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change."/11 The "touchstone for analysis is whether a comment materially calls into question the conclusion that prior notice and comment is unnecessary under the APA."/12 The Commission directed the Bureau to withdraw any part of the Direct Final Rule found to be subject to significant adverse comments./13
Section 43.21(d) of the Commission's rules required financial data reports of network plant investment from "[e]ach communications common carrier required by order to file a manual allocating its costs between regulated and nonregulated operations."/14 This rule applied only to a carrier that met a $100 million revenue threshold adjusted for inflation./15 Section 43.21(f) also required "[e]ach incumbent local exchange carrier with operating revenues . . . that equal or exceed the indexed revenue threshold" of $100 million adjusted for inflation to file an annual "report showing . . . its revenues, expenses, taxes, plant in service, other investment and depreciation reserves, and other such data as are required by the Commission."/16
These reports have not been filed with the Commission in nearly two decades. As the Direct Final Rule explained, the Commission previously granted forbearance from cost-assignment and related reporting requirements, including sections 43.21(d) and (f) for price cap carriers, and thus determined that the rules were no longer necessary to ensure reasonable rates, protect consumers, or further the public interest in 2008./17 Nothing in the CPUC's comments undermines or addresses this rationale.
The CPUC's comments do not qualify as "significant adverse" because they do not explain why the direct final rule would be inappropriate, ineffective, or unacceptable, nor do they materially call into question the conclusion that prior notice and comment is unnecessary under the APA. The CPUC's assertion that it relies on sections 43.21(d) and (f) and that these rules are essential for the intrastate rate regulation of small incumbent local exchange carriers is baseless./18 First, small carriers have never been subject to these rules, and even carriers that meet the revenue threshold have not filed these reports with the FCC in nearly two decades./19 Second, the Commission has previously rejected this argument./20 In granting AT&T forbearance from the cost assignment rules in 2008, the Commission explained that the cost assignment rules, which include sections 43.21(d) and (f), could not be justified for federal ratemaking purposes and were not necessary for intrastate ratemaking because states may act under their own authority to obtain data they need./21
For these reasons, the CPUC's comments do not qualify as "significant adverse." Accordingly, the repeal of these sections as set forth in the amendments to the FCC's rules in the Appendix of the Direct Final Rule item is effective on June 15, 2026 as ordered./22
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ Delete, Delete, Delete, GN Docket No. 25-133, Direct Final Rule, 40 FCC Rcd 8166 (2025) (Direct Final Rule). The Direct Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on April 16, 2026 and provided notice of the June 15, 2026 effective date. Deleting Obsolete and Duplicative Wireline Rules, 91 Fed. Reg. 20372 (Apr. 16, 2026) (Direct Final Rule FR Summary).
2/ Direct Final Rule, 40 FCC Rcd at 8166-67, para. 4.
3/ Id. at 8166, para. 2.
4/ Id.
5/ Id. at 8169, paras. 8-9.
6/ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(B). Prior notice and comment are "unnecessary" when "'the administrative rule is a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the public.'" Util. Solid Waste Activities Grp. v. EPA, 236 F.3d 749, 755 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting South Carolina v. Block, 558 F. Supp. 1004, 1016 (D.S.C. 1983)).
7/ Direct Final Rule, 40 FCC Rcd at 8166-68, para. 4 & n.6.
8/ Direct Final Rule FR Summary, 91 Fed. Reg. 20372.
9/ See Comments of the People of the State of California and the California Public Utilities Commission, GN Docket 25-133, at 1 (filed May 6, 2026) (collectively, CPUC Comments). 47 CFR Sec. 43.21(d), (f).
10/ Comments by the Center for Regulatory Analysis and Engagement, GN Docket No. 25-133, at 2, 5 (filed May 5, 2026) ("CRAE supports the Commission's effort to modernize and simplify obsolete portions of the wireline regulatory framework. Many of the provisions identified in this proceeding appear tied to outdated technologies, expired transition systems, legacy tariff structures, or regulatory arrangements that no longer correspond to present communications markets."). We reference these comments for the sake of completeness but do not provide further analysis because they support the actions taken in the Direct Final Rule and thus are not "significant adverse." Direct Final Rule, 40 FCC Rcd at 8169, para. 9.
11/ Direct Final Rule, 40 FCC Rcd at 8169, para. 7 (citing Administrative Conference of the United States, Recommendation 2024-6, Public Engagement in Agency Rulemaking Under the Good Cause Exemption, 89 Fed. Reg. 106406, 106409, para. 4 (Dec. 30, 2024) (ACUS Public Engagement and Good Cause Recommendation)).
12/ Direct Final Rule, 40 FCC Rcd at 8169 n.15 (explaining "our statutory determination of 'good cause' to forgo notice and comment ultimately represents the critical issue, rather than the particular language used by ACUS").
13/ Id. at 8169, paras. 8-9.
14/ 47 CFR Sec. 43.21(d).
15/ See 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 43.21(d), 64.903 (requiring that cost allocation manuals be filed by "[e]ach incumbent local exchange carrier having annual revenues from regulated telecommunications operations that are equal to or above the indexed revenue threshold (as defined in Sec. 32.9000)"). "Indexed revenue threshold for a given year means $100 million, adjusted for inflation." 47 CFR Sec. 32.9000 (italics in original).
16/ See 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 43.21(f), 32.9000.
17/ Direct Final Rule, 40 FCC Rcd at 8167 n.6 (citing Service Quality Customer Satisfaction, Infrastructure and Operating Data Gathering, Petition of AT&T Inc. for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 160(c) from Enforcement of Certain of the Commission's ARMIS Reporting Requirements et. al., WC Docket Nos. 08-190 et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 13647, 13660-61, paras. 23, 26 (2008) (ARMIS Forbearance Order). In the ARMIS Forbearance Order, the Commission granted Qwest and Verizon the same conditional forbearance from the Cost Assignment Rules it granted to AT&T in the AT&T Cost Assignment Rules Forbearance Order. Petition of AT&T Inc. for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 160 from Enforcement of Certain of the Commission's Cost Assignment Rules, WC Docket No. 07-21 et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 7302 (2008) (AT&T Cost Assignment Rules Forbearance Order)).
18/ See CPUC Comments at 2, 4.
19/ See supra note 17. All carriers that meet a $100 million revenue threshold are also price cap carriers, such that granting forbearance from this rule for "price cap carriers" means that no carrier is subject to this rule today.
20/ The Commission rejected a related argument made by the CPUC when it filed comments in the 2008 cost assignment rule forbearance proceeding. At that time, the CPUC opposed AT&T's forbearance petition, arguing "any changes to the FCC's cost assignment rules should be closely coordinated with state commissions." Reply Comments of the California Public Utilities Commission and of the People of the State of California on AT&T's Petition for Forbearance, WC Docket No. 07-21, at 2 (filed Apr. 13, 2007).
21/ AT&T Cost Assignment Rules Forbearance Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 7320-22, paras. 32-34 ("We conclude that we do not have authority . . . to maintain federal regulatory requirements that meet the three-prong forbearance test with regard to interstate services in order to maintain regulatory burdens that may produce information helpful to state commissions for intrastate regulatory purposes solely. . . . [W]e would expect that any states that may rely on the Cost Assignment Rules and resulting data for state regulatory purposes would assert their jurisdiction to obtain the needed information . . . ."); see also Petition of USTelecom for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 160(c) from Enforcement of Certain Legacy Telecommunications Regulations et al., WC Docket No. 12-61 et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 7627, 7654, para. 50 (2013).
22/ See Direct Final Rule, 40 FCC Rcd at 8170-71, paras. 14-16; see also Appendix, id. at 8173 (amending 47 CFR Sec. 43.21 by removing and reserving paragraphs that include (d) and (f)).
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-581A1.pdf
FCC Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau Issues Public Notice: 'Toy Drones' and 'Toy Drones That Contain Foreign-Produced Components' are Removed From the FCC Covered List
WASHINGTON, June 16 -- 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 or Bureau) maintains a list of equipment and services (Covered List) that has 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, June 16 -- 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 or Bureau) maintains a list of equipment and services (Covered List) that has 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 determined that a specific class of foreign-produced Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS), known as "Toy Drones," and "Toy Drones that contain foreign-produced components," do not pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or to the safety and security of United States persons./4 PSHSB therefore removes them from the FCC's Covered List.
Commission Actions on UAS and UAS Critical Components
On December 22, 2025, PSHSB issued a Public Notice adding all UAS and UAS critical components produced in a foreign country to the Covered List./5 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 UAS and UAS critical components 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. In that Public Notice, we stated, "[i]f we receive a further specific determination from the Department of War or the Department of Homeland Security that a given UAS, class of UAS, or UAS critical component does not pose unacceptable risks, we will further update the Covered List."/6
In January 2026, we updated the Covered List to reflect DoW's determinations that, until January 1, 2027, UAS and UAS critical components included on DoW's Blue UAS Cleared List and UAS, and UAS critical components that qualify as "domestic end products" under the Buy American Standard, do not pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of U.S. persons./7
National Security Determination
On June 12, 2026, we received a determination from DoW that a specific class of foreign-produced UAS known as "Toy Drones," as defined in the National Security Determination, and "Toy Drones that contain foreign-produced components," do not pose an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or the safety and security of U.S. persons./8 The National Security Determination states, among other things, that:
"The core of this determination rests on a clear distinction between unsophisticated, low-risk toys that are not capable of operating efficiently in U.S. airspace and more capable UAS. Toy drones lack the organic capabilities and features in range, endurance, sensing, payload, connectivity, and data collection and storage to present an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security and the safety and security of U.S. persons."/9
The National Security Determination states that "A device is considered a 'Toy Drone' only if it meets all of the below criteria:
* Maximum Take-off Weight is equal to or less than 150 grams;
* Operation is limited to line-of-sight operations equal to or less than 100 meters;
* Maximum sustained altitude must be equal to or less than 300 feet;
* No GPS/GNSS or equivalent system (e.g., no return-to-home, waypoint missions, or subject tracking);
* No connectivity or network capability (e.g., no connection to Internet, mobile apps, cellular networks, Wi-Fi), but may include a dedicated radio-frequency link between controller and drone, typically on 2.4 GHz or 5.8 GHz bands;
- Radio frequencies and WiFi Channels may not be modifiable or programmable and must conform to FCC regulatory requirements;
* No imaging or sensing capabilities (e.g., no photo/video camera, microphones, live video feed, onboard recording, or sensors capable of surveillance or data gathering on the toy);
* Flight time must be equal to or less than 10 minutes;
* Maximum horizontal speed must be equal to or less than 10 meters/second;
* Explicitly marketed as a toy for recreational use;
* No modular payload interface, such as airdrop and release mechanisms, search lights and strobes, and micro-FPV cameras and protection cages;
* Does not contain brushless motors; and
* Is not produced by an entity identified in Section 1709 of the Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act./10
The DoW concluded that such devices do not pose an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or the safety and security or U.S. persons and should be removed from the FCC's Covered List./11
The Covered List
We find that this National Security Determination constitutes a "specific determination" that such devices do not pose risks to U.S. national security or the safety and security of U.S. persons./12 Therefore, we conclude that PSHSB is required to update the Covered List to remove this equipment specifically identified by DoW in the National Security Determination. This determination shall remain in effect unless superseded by a future national security determination./13
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./14
The Covered List is attached as Appendix A to this Public Notice and it can also be found on the Bureau's website at https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist./15 The National Security Determination is attached as Appendix B to this Public Notice.
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 Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs), test labs, and equipment authorization applicants on the impact of these updates.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019, Pub. L. No. 116-124, 133 Stat. 158 (2020) (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 1601-1609) (Secure Networks Act); 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 1.50002, 1.50003. For the current version of the Covered List, see Federal Communications Commission, List of Equipment and Services Covered By Section 2 of The Secure Networks Act, https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist.
2/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 1601.
3/ 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 1.50002(a), 1.50003; see also Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs, WC Docket No. 18-89, Second Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 14284 (2020) (Supply Chain Second Report and Order).
4/ The National Security Determination is attached in Appendix B to this Public Notice.
5/ Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Addition of Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) and UAS Critical Components Produced Abroad, and Equipment and Services Listed in Section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA, to FCC Covered List, WC Docket 18-89, Public Notice, DA 25-1086 (Dec 22, 2025) (UAS Public Notice).
6/ UAS Public Notice at 3.
7/ Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Exemption of Certain Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) and UAS Critical Components from FCC Covered List, WC Docket No. 18-89, Public Notice, DA 26-22 (Jan. 7, 2026) (Second UAS Public Notice).
8/ National Security Determination at 1.
9/ Id.
10/ National Security Determination at 2.
11/ National Security Determination at 1.
12/ See Second UAS Public Notice, Appx. B.
13/ See National Security Determination at 1.
14/ 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 1.50002(a), 1.50003. See Supply Chain Second Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 14319, 14325, paras. 72, 77, 92.
15/ The FCC website also contains a list of certain affiliates and subsidiaries of entities identified on the Covered List. The list of affiliates and subsidiaries does not constitute a comprehensive list of all entities that the Commission may find, upon further examination, to qualify as relevant subsidiaries or affiliates of entities on the Covered List. Those entities, whether or not they currently provide covered communications equipment or services, are subject to the Commission's prohibitions, such as the prohibition against obtaining authorizations for covered equipment. See Reminder: Communications Equipment And Services On The Covered List Pose An Unacceptable Risk To National Security, National Security Advisory No. 2025-01, DA 25-927, n.3 (PSHSB Oct. 14, 2025).
* * *
Original text and attachments here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-588A1.pdf
FCC Approves High-Cost Support Waiver for Wisper ISP in Arkansas to Prevent Duplicative Funding
WASHINGTON, June 16 -- The Federal Communications Commission Wireline Competition Bureau has granted a limited waiver to Wisper ISP LLC, Mascoutah, Illinois, relieving the provider of its deployment obligations under the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund program in Arkansas. The decision arrives after federal data confirmed that alternative broadband providers have already expanded network coverage to every location within the designated service territory.
The action was finalized in an official order released by Joseph S. Calascione, Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau. The regulatory relief
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 16 -- The Federal Communications Commission Wireline Competition Bureau has granted a limited waiver to Wisper ISP LLC, Mascoutah, Illinois, relieving the provider of its deployment obligations under the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund program in Arkansas. The decision arrives after federal data confirmed that alternative broadband providers have already expanded network coverage to every location within the designated service territory.
The action was finalized in an official order released by Joseph S. Calascione, Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau. The regulatory reliefdirectly impacts obligations established under Connect America Fund (WC Docket No. 10-90), The Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Auction (AU Docket No. 20-34), and the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (WC Docket No. 19-126).
Under the provisions of the agreement, the company must fully repay the federal high-cost universal service funding it has collected for the affected census blocks. By executing this clawback mechanism, the agency intends to optimize public resources and prevent the subsidization of overlapping telecommunications infrastructure, while ensuring consumer access to high-speed data networks remains secure.
The company originally secured its service commitments as part of the Wisper-CABO 904 Consortium during the multi-billion-dollar RDOF Phase I Auction. In June 2022, the federal agency authorized the company to receive $68,032.50 over a ten-year disbursement cycle. In exchange for the financial backing, the company committed to deploying voice and broadband infrastructure capable of delivering data transmission speeds of at least 100 Megabits per second downstream and 20 Megabits per second upstream to 564 model-estimated locations across Arkansas.
The company submitted a formal petition for waiver to the federal regulator on March 25, 2026, requesting total relief from its buildout mandates. To support its legal and operational justification, the provider pointed to data sets published on the National Broadband Map. The database revealed that all but two physical properties within the assigned service territory already possessed access to wireline infrastructure meeting or exceeding the federal download and upload speed requirements through alternative cable or fiber networks.
To address the final two unserved properties, the petitioner submitted documented confirmation from a neighboring fiber-to-the-home provider. The adjacent operator certified its physical capacity to extend symmetrical 300 Megabits per second broadband connectivity to those remaining locations without relying on federal subsidies. Furthermore, the Arkansas State Broadband Office, operating under the structural designation ARConnect, reviewed the coverage figures and submitted a declaration stating it would not mount a challenge against the petition.
The regulatory agency determined that the emergence of independent, privately funded networks constituted a valid change in market conditions, establishing the necessary good cause to waive standard buildout rules. Agency officials noted that enforcing rigid deployment requirements in an area that secured commercial access would run counter to the core purpose of the high-cost program.
The policy shift protects the public interest by redirecting scarce capital away from overbuilt markets. Federal guidelines require RDOF participants authorized in 2022 to demonstrate progressive buildout metrics, starting with a 40 percent location coverage threshold by December 31, 2025, and advancing by 20 percent annual increments until achieving 100 percent completion by the conclusion of 2028. Failure to hit these milestones normally triggers severe administrative penalties, including capital withholding, mandatory reporting structures, and scaled financial recovery.
Because the company proactively coordinated its market analysis with federal staff prior to experiencing any deployment defaults or operational non-compliance, the bureau waived the standard punitive penalties. The order emphasizes that this scenario represents a good-faith effort to conserve public funds rather than an intentional operational abandonment.
The bureau noted that leaving unnecessary buildout mandates active could inadvertently disrupt local funding decisions. Under the guidelines of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program, geographic markets burdened with outstanding federal service commitments are automatically disqualified from receiving further infrastructure grants. Removing the company's legacy RDOF designation clarifies the regulatory landscape for state-level broadband planners.
The federal order maintains administrative consistency by applying the policy exception strictly at the census block group tier, which served as the baseline geographic unit during the auction bidding process. This comprehensive boundary requirement eliminates the administrative complexity of adjusting funding allocations on a house-by-house basis and ensures that no isolated pockets of consumers are left without operational network access.
The Universal Service Administrative Company has been instructed to immediately cease all monthly funding disbursements to the company for the state of Arkansas. The administrative body will issue a formal invoice to reclaim all previously distributed funds. The company has a strict six-month window from the invoice issuance date to return the capital.
Upon receipt of the full payment, the provider will be officially released from its RDOF deployment liabilities and permitted to terminate its outstanding letter of credit. If the company fails to return the funds within the designated timeframe, its buildout mandates will be reinstated, leaving the firm subject to standard non-compliance penalties and potential debt collection actions under federal law. The firm remains bound to all eligible telecommunications carrier requirements and cannot terminate voice service without undergoing standard regulatory reviews.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
URL: Wisper ISP LLC
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-587A1.pdf
NCUA Board Approves Final Rule on Vital Records Preservation
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, June 15 -- The National Credit Union Administration issued the following news release:
* * *
NCUA Board Approves Final Rule on Vital Records Preservation
*
Alexandria, VA (June 15, 2026) -The National Credit Union Administration today issued a This is an external link to a website belonging to another federal agency, private organization, or commercial entity. final rule (Opens new window) revising record preservation requirements for credit unions in the event of a catastrophic act. This rule is codified at 12 CFR 749.
"Maintaining vital records is essential to the
... Show Full Article
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, June 15 -- The National Credit Union Administration issued the following news release:
* * *
NCUA Board Approves Final Rule on Vital Records Preservation
*
Alexandria, VA (June 15, 2026) -The National Credit Union Administration today issued a This is an external link to a website belonging to another federal agency, private organization, or commercial entity. final rule (Opens new window) revising record preservation requirements for credit unions in the event of a catastrophic act. This rule is codified at 12 CFR 749.
"Maintaining vital records is essential to thesafety and soundness of any federally insured credit union's operations and its ability to best serve members," said NCUA Chairman Kyle Hauptman. "But NCUA, unlike other regulators, didn't have a limit on how long records had to be kept. This led to unnecessary cost, hassle and uncertainty. This final rule will ease unnecessary and overly prescriptive preservation requirements, while ensuring that credit unions retain the critical documents needed in instances of disaster"
The vital records preservation program rule was first created in 1972 to ensure that federally insured credit unions keep duplicate records that can be used for reconstruction purposes in the event of a catastrophic act. However, parts of this rule have not been updated in decades and the NCUA Board has received feedback over the years that requirements in the rule are unnecessarily burdensome for credit unions, especially given the previous requirement to keep physical copies of vital records.
The final rule will clarify the purpose of the regulation, remove Appendices A and B, and update certain definitions used in the rule. The final rule was adopted largely as proposed but with two changes based on the feedback received from commenters. First, the Board agreed that credit unions should have more flexibility in determining the content of the vital records preservation log rather than adhere to a prescriptive list of factors. Second, the Board determined not to include any reference to consulting with legal counsel on record retention periods in response to commenter feedback.
The final rule is effective 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register and takes into consideration public comments received from the proposed rule that was published on March 11, 2026.
For more information on preservation requirements for credit unions, please see Catastrophic Act Preparedness FAQs.
***
Original text here: https://ncua.gov/newsroom/press-release/2026/ncua-board-approves-final-rule-vital-records-preservation
FTC Data Show People Reported Losing $3.5 Billion to Imposter Scams in 2025
WASHINGTON, June 15 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Data Show People Reported Losing $3.5 Billion to Imposter Scams in 2025
*
New data from the Federal Trade Commission reveal that people reported losing a staggering $3.5 billion to imposter scams in 2025, with reported losses increasing nearly three times since 2020.
FTC data also show that people reported imposter scams more than any other fraud category in 2025-nearly one in three fraud reports were about imposter scams. These scams lured consumers through text, phone, email, social media, search
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 15 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Data Show People Reported Losing $3.5 Billion to Imposter Scams in 2025
*
New data from the Federal Trade Commission reveal that people reported losing a staggering $3.5 billion to imposter scams in 2025, with reported losses increasing nearly three times since 2020.
FTC data also show that people reported imposter scams more than any other fraud category in 2025-nearly one in three fraud reports were about imposter scams. These scams lured consumers through text, phone, email, social media, searchengine results and other means. Some of the costliest impersonation scams start with a fake security alert, often from a bank. People are convinced to move money to "protect" it, with their losses often limited only by their available funds.
Last year, people reported losing nearly $1 billion to business impersonators with the highest reported losses to bank impersonators-and about $920 million to government impersonators, up from $866 million and $789 million respectively in 2024.
The FTC has seen a striking increase in reported fraud losses to all types of fraud-about $16 billion was reported lost in 2025, the highest on record and an increase of about 25% compared to the 2024 figure.
"Consumers derive enormous benefits from competitive markets built on truthful information. But fraud undermines that foundation, impeding the market process and preventing markets from operating efficiently," said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. "The FTC will use every tool available to combat one of the most pernicious forms of fraud-government and business impersonation-and to protect the integrity of the digital economy."
The data underscore the importance of the FTC's work with the Elder Justice Coordinating Council (EJCC), which is working to help raise awareness of imposter scams and other scams impacting older adults as well as other consumers. This year, the FTC, along with the Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services and members of the EJCC, is leading the Never Ever campaign, a public-private coordinated consumer education effort to raise awareness of government and business imposter scams.
In addition to the federal agency members of the EJCC, the campaign also includes private sector representatives such as the American Bankers Association, USTelecom, Google and Microsoft.
To help the public spot imposter scams, EJCC members launched the Never Ever campaign, which is aimed at promoting messaging on the key actions that government and businesses will Never Ever take. The Never Ever campaign will run from June 15 to June 26, in conjunction with World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. This first-of-its-kind public-private partnership includes participants from a wide range of organizations and is aimed at directing consumers to a website that includes information and resources to help them avoid imposter scams and what to do if they spot one.
Enforcement Actions
To help combat impersonation scams, the FTC in 2024 finalized the Impersonation Rule. The Rule gives the agency stronger tools to combat and deter scammers who impersonate government agencies and businesses, enabling the FTC to file federal court cases seeking to get money back to injured consumers and civil penalties against rule violators. Since then, the FTC has vigorously enforced the rule and brought a dozen enforcement actions that have resulted in halting imposter schemes and obtained over $70 million in redress for consumers.
In 2025, the FTC brought law enforcement actions under the Impersonation Rule against: American Tax Service (IRS imposter scheme); MediaAlpha (government imposter scheme to sell health insurance); Click Profit (business imposter money making scam); Blackstone Legal (phantom debt business imposter scheme) and Accelerated Debt Settlement (government and business imposter scheme that targeted older adults for debt relief).
More recently, the FTC filed a complaint against Innovative Partners in April 2026, alleging the operators impersonate the government and large insurance carriers to deceive consumers seeking health insurance into buying supposedly comprehensive PPO plans that do not offer the coverage they seek.
Consumers who are targeted by a government impersonation scam should report it to the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. More data about government impersonation scams are available on the FTC's data dashboards.
***
Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-data-show-people-reported-losing-3-point-5-billion-imposter-scams-2025
CFTC Chairman Selig Announces Senior Staff Appointments
WASHINGTON, June 15 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
CFTC Chairman Selig Announces Senior Staff Appointments
*
WASHINGTON -Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Michael S. Selig today announced two senior staff appointments.
Donald Battle as Chief Data Innovation Officer
Don Battle joins the CFTC as chief data innovation officer, serving in the Division of Data and as a member of the Innovation Task Force.
"I am thrilled to welcome Don Battle to the CFTC," Chairman Selig said. "Don brings a wealth of expertise in data science,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 15 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
CFTC Chairman Selig Announces Senior Staff Appointments
*
WASHINGTON -Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Michael S. Selig today announced two senior staff appointments.
Donald Battle as Chief Data Innovation Officer
Don Battle joins the CFTC as chief data innovation officer, serving in the Division of Data and as a member of the Innovation Task Force.
"I am thrilled to welcome Don Battle to the CFTC," Chairman Selig said. "Don brings a wealth of expertise in data science,blockchain forensics, programming interfaces, and cutting-edge AI solutions. His contributions will be instrumental in driving the agency forward in fostering innovation and ensuring we continue to adapt to the evolving technological landscape."
"I was lucky enough to work for Chairman Selig on the SEC's Crypto Task Force, and to be asked to follow him to the CFTC is a true honor," Battle said. "We are living in the age of data, and I could not be more driven to help the Chairman and talented CFTC staff to be a force multiplier for integrity and innovation in the United States."
Battle joins the CFTC from the Securities and Exchange Commission, where he most recently served as a senior advisor to Commissioner Hester Peirce on the agency's Crypto Task Force and on detail from his role as assistant director in the Enforcement Division's Data Science Group. At the SEC, he helped develop various programming and data science solutions to analyze large datasets, leading complex investigations involving novel technologies. He has led teams that have won the SEC Chair's award for Investor Protection, the Paul R. Carey Award, and the Arthur F. Mathews Award.
Prior to the SEC, Battle served as a virtual currency enforcement officer at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) at the U.S. Department of Treasury. He brings expertise heavy in data science, blockchain forensics, programming interfaces, emerging integrated AI solutions, and the statutory obligations around anti-money laundering and counterterrorism under the Bank Secrecy Act.
Battle received his B.A. from George Mason University, graduating cum laude.
J Matthew Haws as Senior Advisor and Chicago Regional Administrator
J Matthew Haws joins the CFTC as senior advisor in the Office of the Chairman and as the Chicago Regional Administrator.
"I'm pleased Matt Haws is joining the Commission," Chairman Selig said. "Matt will be a vital addition to our Chicago office as the agency continues to staff up throughout the country. His extensive background in derivatives markets will help drive forward the agency's mission to protect our markets and market participants from fraud, manipulation, and other abuses."
"I am honored to join the CFTC at this exciting time in its history," Haws said. "At this critical moment for innovation in American financial markets, I look forward to contributing to the Commission's efforts to support responsible innovation and ensure market integrity."
Haws brings more than 13 years of experience advising global financial institutions. He most recently served as senior legal counsel at Marex, advising the firm's U.S. derivatives and capital markets businesses on critical regulatory risks, governance, and compliance frameworks. He previously was a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, where he represented Futures Commission Merchants, broker-dealers, and swap dealers, among others, in complex regulatory enforcement and litigation matters.
Haws earned his J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of Illinois College of Law and his B.S. from Boise State University. He is admitted to practice in Illinois.
-CFTC-
***
Original text here: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9253-26
As CPSC's First Federal Neck Floats Safety Standard Takes Effect, Agency Renews "Do Not Use" Warnings for Otteroo LUMI and MINI Infant Neck Floats
WASHINGTON, June 15 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
As CPSC's First Federal Neck Floats Safety Standard Takes Effect, Agency Renews "Do Not Use" Warnings for Otteroo LUMI and MINI Infant Neck Floats
*
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced today that the federal safety standard for infant neck floats is now in effect. The rule establishes the first mandatory federal safety requirements for these products after years of reported drowning incidents, repeated CPSC safety warnings, and enforcement actions involving hazardous neck
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 15 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
As CPSC's First Federal Neck Floats Safety Standard Takes Effect, Agency Renews "Do Not Use" Warnings for Otteroo LUMI and MINI Infant Neck Floats
*
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced today that the federal safety standard for infant neck floats is now in effect. The rule establishes the first mandatory federal safety requirements for these products after years of reported drowning incidents, repeated CPSC safety warnings, and enforcement actions involving hazardous neckfloats.
The standard applies to neck floats manufactured after June 15, 2026. It is intended to reduce the risk of drowning associated with infants slipping through or becoming submerged while using these products by addressing the following hazards:
* Children slipping through the product for reasons associated with inflation, which includes deflation and underinflation;
* Children slipping through the product for reasons not associated with inflation;
* Children slipping through the product due to a restraint system failure; and
* Children becoming submerged in water without slipping through the product.
A neck float is an aquatic toy intended for use by children up to and including four years of age.
Life-saving flotation devices regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard, including those that attach to the neck of a user, are excluded from this rule.
Between January 2019 and January 2024, CPSC received reports of 115 incidents involving infant neck floats, including two reported infant fatalities and two injuries requiring hospitalization. Many incidents involved caregivers rescuing infants after the child slipped through or became submerged, preventing what otherwise could have become a fatal drowning. Victims whose ages were reported ranged from just 17 days old to 12 months old. Many of these incidents occurred despite a caregiver being nearby, underscoring how quickly a child can slip through a neck float or become submerged.
Today's rule follows years of CPSC warnings and enforcement actions addressing the serious drowning hazards associated with infant neck floats. Most notably, in 2022 the Commission issued a public warning urging consumers to immediately stop using Otteroo LUMI, MINI, and earlier versions of Otteroo infant flotation rings after determining that infants could slip through the products if they deflated. That warning followed one reported infant drowning, one serious injury, and dozens of incidents in which caregivers had to rescue infants who slipped through the products. That warning remains in effect, and CPSC continues to urge consumers not to buy, use, resell, or donate Otteroo LUMI, MINI, or earlier versions of Otteroo infant flotation rings.
More broadly, CPSC has consistently cautioned caregivers that neck floats are not safety devices and that drowning can occur quickly and silently, even when an infant appears to be supported by a flotation product.
"Infant neck floats have long been among the most concerning product categories in the aquatic marketplace," said Acting Chairman Peter A. Feldman. "These mandatory standards reduce some of the known risks associated with this product category, but they do not eliminate them. Accordingly, the Commission reiterates its longstanding warnings to families about the unique drowning hazards these products present. No flotation product can substitute for constant adult supervision."
Even partial slip-throughs can be fatal, and drowning can be quick and silent, often occurring in seconds. While using neck floats, CPSC advises caregivers to:
* Always stay within arm's reach of the child to keep their mouth above the water.
* Follow the age and weight limits stated on the product.
* For products with inflatable components, follow the manufacturer's guidance to properly inflate the product and verify that there are no leaks every time it is used.
Visit CPSC's Pool Safely website for more information to keep your family safe in and around water.
***
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2026/As-CPSCs-First-Federal-Neck-Floats-Safety-Standard-Takes-Effect-Agency-Renews-Do-Not-Use-Warnings-for-Otteroo-LUMI-and-MINI-nfant-Neck-Floats
