Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Federal Regulatory Agencies
Featured Stories
SEC Staff Statement on Affiliations Between National Securities Exchanges and Broker-Dealers
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement:
* * *
Staff Statement on Affiliations Between National Securities Exchanges and Broker-Dealers
Division of Trading and Markets
Sept. 30, 2026
The Staff of the Division of Trading and Markets ("Staff") of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") is issuing the following statement[1] regarding the affiliation between registered national securities exchanges and entities that engage in broker-dealer activities on those exchanges. This statement would also solicit public input regarding such ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement: * * * Staff Statement on Affiliations Between National Securities Exchanges and Broker-Dealers Division of Trading and Markets Sept. 30, 2026 The Staff of the Division of Trading and Markets ("Staff") of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") is issuing the following statement[1] regarding the affiliation between registered national securities exchanges and entities that engage in broker-dealer activities on those exchanges. This statement would also solicit public input regarding suchaffiliation, particularly in light of the growing market interest in listing novel products.[2]
For further information, please contact the Staff by emailing TradingAndMarkets@sec.gov.
*****
Under Section 6(b)(1) of the Exchange Act, a national securities exchange must be so organized and have the capacity to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated with its members with the provisions of the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the exchange.[3] Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act requires that the rules of a national securities exchange must not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.[4] Section 6(b)(8) of the Exchange Act requires that the rules of a national securities exchange must not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.[5] An exchange that trades securities futures products that notice-registers with the Commission under Section 6(g) of the Exchange Act is a national securities exchange and is subject to Sections 6(b)(1), (5), and (8) of the Exchange Act.[6]
In light of changing market conditions, the Staff recognizes the potential questions market participants may have about a national securities exchange, including a notice-registered exchange, operating an affiliated broker-dealer, including a broker-dealer that acts as an introducing broker providing access to the exchange for others, provides custodial services and margin, or trades in a principal capacity on the exchange.
In approving certain affiliations between a registered national securities exchange and a broker-dealer, the Commission previously stated that "the financial interests of the national securities exchange may conflict with its responsibilities as an SRO regarding the affiliated broker-dealer."[7] The Commission stated that a conflict of interest arises if the national securities exchange "provided advantages to its broker-dealer affiliate that are not available to other members or provided a feature to all members that was designed to give its broker dealer a special advantage," including "greater access to information, improved speed of execution, or enhanced operational capabilities in dealing with the exchange."[8] The Commission also stated that exchange affiliation with an introducing broker that accesses the exchange raises questions about whether the introducing broker should be considered a facility of the exchange.[9]
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning affiliations among certain CFTC-regulated entities.[10] The proposal would, among other things, address disclosure requirements regarding affiliate relationships that a futures commission merchant ("FCM") has with a designated contract market ("DCM"), and would establish requirements for DCMs, including conflicts of interest rules, to address their relationships with FCM affiliates and affiliated principal trading firms.
The Commission recently received four Form 1-Ns for notice registration as security futures product exchanges under Section 6(g) of the Exchange Act.[11] Each of these registrants discloses in its Form 1-N that it is affiliated with an FCM that will perform introducing broker functions, extend margin to customers and hold client funds and property, and is a member of the exchange for purposes of trading security futures. None of these registrants disclose an affiliation with an entity that will trade security futures in a principal capacity. Certain of these registrants have filed proposed rule changes under Sections 19(b)(2) and 19(b)(7) of the Exchange Act seeking to establish margin and listing standards for products to be listed and traded on the security futures product exchange.
In light of these developments, the Staff invites comment from market participants regarding national securities exchange affiliations, including with entities that engage in broker activity on behalf of customers on the exchange or that trade in a principal capacity on the exchange.
Members of the public who wish to provide their views on this statement may submit their comments electronically or on paper. Please submit comments using one method only. Information that is submitted will be posted on the SEC's website and all comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that personal identifying information is not redacted or edited from comment submissions, and they should only submit information that they wish to make publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number 4-936, and the file number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
Electronic Comments:
Use the SEC's online submission form or send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov with "File Number 4-936" included in the subject line.
Paper Comments:
Send paper comments to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549-1090.
* * *
[1] This statement represents the views of the Staff. It is not a rule, regulation, guidance, or statement of the Commission, and the Commission has neither approved nor disapproved its content. This statement, like all staff statements, has no legal force or effect: it does not alter or amend applicable law, and it creates no new or additional obligations for any person.
[2] See infra notes 10 and 11.
[3] See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
[4] See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
[5] See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
[6] See 15 U.S.C. 78f(g)(4)(A)(i).
[7] Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44983 (Oct. 25, 2001) 66 FR 55225, 55233 (Nov. 1, 2001).
[8] Id.
[9] See id. at 55234.
[10] See 91 FR 50926 (Aug. 6, 2026).
[11] See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 106295 (Sept. 8, 2026), 91 FR 57944 (Sept. 11, 2026) (Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notice of Registration as a National Securities Exchange Pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Coinbase Derivatives, LLC); 106296 (Sept. 8, 2026), 91 FR 57947 (Sept. 11, 2026) (Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notice of Registration as a National Securities Exchange Pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by KalshiEX LLC); 106297 (Sept. 8, 2026), 91 FR 57949 (Sept. 11, 2026) (Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notice of Registration as a National Securities Exchange Pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Bitnomial Exchange, LLC); 106396 (Sept. 16, 2026) , 91 FR 59823 (Sept. 21, 2026) (Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notice of Registration as a National Securities Exchange Pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc.).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/tm-statement-affiliations-093026
* * *
Staff Statement on Affiliations Between National Securities Exchanges and Broker-Dealers
Division of Trading and Markets
Sept. 30, 2026
The Staff of the Division of Trading and Markets ("Staff") of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") is issuing the following statement[1] regarding the affiliation between registered national securities exchanges and entities that engage in broker-dealer activities on those exchanges. This statement would also solicit public input regarding such ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement: * * * Staff Statement on Affiliations Between National Securities Exchanges and Broker-Dealers Division of Trading and Markets Sept. 30, 2026 The Staff of the Division of Trading and Markets ("Staff") of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") is issuing the following statement[1] regarding the affiliation between registered national securities exchanges and entities that engage in broker-dealer activities on those exchanges. This statement would also solicit public input regarding suchaffiliation, particularly in light of the growing market interest in listing novel products.[2]
For further information, please contact the Staff by emailing TradingAndMarkets@sec.gov.
*****
Under Section 6(b)(1) of the Exchange Act, a national securities exchange must be so organized and have the capacity to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated with its members with the provisions of the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the exchange.[3] Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act requires that the rules of a national securities exchange must not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.[4] Section 6(b)(8) of the Exchange Act requires that the rules of a national securities exchange must not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.[5] An exchange that trades securities futures products that notice-registers with the Commission under Section 6(g) of the Exchange Act is a national securities exchange and is subject to Sections 6(b)(1), (5), and (8) of the Exchange Act.[6]
In light of changing market conditions, the Staff recognizes the potential questions market participants may have about a national securities exchange, including a notice-registered exchange, operating an affiliated broker-dealer, including a broker-dealer that acts as an introducing broker providing access to the exchange for others, provides custodial services and margin, or trades in a principal capacity on the exchange.
In approving certain affiliations between a registered national securities exchange and a broker-dealer, the Commission previously stated that "the financial interests of the national securities exchange may conflict with its responsibilities as an SRO regarding the affiliated broker-dealer."[7] The Commission stated that a conflict of interest arises if the national securities exchange "provided advantages to its broker-dealer affiliate that are not available to other members or provided a feature to all members that was designed to give its broker dealer a special advantage," including "greater access to information, improved speed of execution, or enhanced operational capabilities in dealing with the exchange."[8] The Commission also stated that exchange affiliation with an introducing broker that accesses the exchange raises questions about whether the introducing broker should be considered a facility of the exchange.[9]
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning affiliations among certain CFTC-regulated entities.[10] The proposal would, among other things, address disclosure requirements regarding affiliate relationships that a futures commission merchant ("FCM") has with a designated contract market ("DCM"), and would establish requirements for DCMs, including conflicts of interest rules, to address their relationships with FCM affiliates and affiliated principal trading firms.
The Commission recently received four Form 1-Ns for notice registration as security futures product exchanges under Section 6(g) of the Exchange Act.[11] Each of these registrants discloses in its Form 1-N that it is affiliated with an FCM that will perform introducing broker functions, extend margin to customers and hold client funds and property, and is a member of the exchange for purposes of trading security futures. None of these registrants disclose an affiliation with an entity that will trade security futures in a principal capacity. Certain of these registrants have filed proposed rule changes under Sections 19(b)(2) and 19(b)(7) of the Exchange Act seeking to establish margin and listing standards for products to be listed and traded on the security futures product exchange.
In light of these developments, the Staff invites comment from market participants regarding national securities exchange affiliations, including with entities that engage in broker activity on behalf of customers on the exchange or that trade in a principal capacity on the exchange.
Members of the public who wish to provide their views on this statement may submit their comments electronically or on paper. Please submit comments using one method only. Information that is submitted will be posted on the SEC's website and all comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that personal identifying information is not redacted or edited from comment submissions, and they should only submit information that they wish to make publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number 4-936, and the file number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
Electronic Comments:
Use the SEC's online submission form or send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov with "File Number 4-936" included in the subject line.
Paper Comments:
Send paper comments to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549-1090.
* * *
[1] This statement represents the views of the Staff. It is not a rule, regulation, guidance, or statement of the Commission, and the Commission has neither approved nor disapproved its content. This statement, like all staff statements, has no legal force or effect: it does not alter or amend applicable law, and it creates no new or additional obligations for any person.
[2] See infra notes 10 and 11.
[3] See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
[4] See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
[5] See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
[6] See 15 U.S.C. 78f(g)(4)(A)(i).
[7] Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44983 (Oct. 25, 2001) 66 FR 55225, 55233 (Nov. 1, 2001).
[8] Id.
[9] See id. at 55234.
[10] See 91 FR 50926 (Aug. 6, 2026).
[11] See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 106295 (Sept. 8, 2026), 91 FR 57944 (Sept. 11, 2026) (Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notice of Registration as a National Securities Exchange Pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Coinbase Derivatives, LLC); 106296 (Sept. 8, 2026), 91 FR 57947 (Sept. 11, 2026) (Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notice of Registration as a National Securities Exchange Pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by KalshiEX LLC); 106297 (Sept. 8, 2026), 91 FR 57949 (Sept. 11, 2026) (Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notice of Registration as a National Securities Exchange Pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Bitnomial Exchange, LLC); 106396 (Sept. 16, 2026) , 91 FR 59823 (Sept. 21, 2026) (Acknowledgement of Receipt of Notice of Registration as a National Securities Exchange Pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc.).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/tm-statement-affiliations-093026
SEC Obtains Judgments Against Three BitConnect Promoters
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Brown et al., No. 1:21-cv-04791 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 28, 2021)
On July 17, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment against Michael Noble for his involvement with BitConnect and the promotion of BitConnect's "lending program." The final judgment against Noble orders him to pay disgorgement in the amount of $731,281.00, prejudgment interest in the amount of $293,703.36, and a civil penalty ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release: * * * Securities and Exchange Commission v. Brown et al., No. 1:21-cv-04791 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 28, 2021) On July 17, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment against Michael Noble for his involvement with BitConnect and the promotion of BitConnect's "lending program." The final judgment against Noble orders him to pay disgorgement in the amount of $731,281.00, prejudgment interest in the amount of $293,703.36, and a civil penaltyin the amount of $50,000.00, for a total of $1,074,984.36. Previously, in a partial judgment on consent entered on August 12, 2021, the Court ordered permanent injunctions enjoining Noble from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and conduct-based injunctions permanently enjoining him from offering, operating, or participating in certain marketing or sales programs and from participating directly or indirectly in a digital asset securities offering.
On August 7, 2026, the Court entered a final default judgment against Craig Grant for his alleged involvement with BitConnect and the promotion of its "lending program." The final judgment against Grant permanently enjoins him from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act and Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, from offering, operating, or participating in certain marketing or sales programs, and from participating directly or indirectly in a digital asset securities offering. The judgment also orders Grant to pay disgorgement in the amount of $1,748,147.00, prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $702,105.84, and a civil penalty in the amount of $230,480.00, for a total of $2,680,732.84.
On September 9, 2026, Court entered a final judgment on consent against Trevon Brown for his alleged involvement with BitConnect and the promotion of its "lending program." The final judgment against Brown, permanently enjoins him from violating Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and orders him to pay disgorgement in the amount of $1,728,563.00, prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $182,902.15, and a civil penalty in the amount of $75,000.00 for a total of $1,986,465.15,
According to the SEC's complaint, filed on May 28, 2021, from approximately June 2017 to January 2018, Noble, Grant and Brown promoted BitConnect and marketed and sold securities in its "lending program." The SEC's complaint alleged that Noble, Grant, and Brown offered and sold the securities without registering the securities offering with the Commission, and without being registered as a broker-dealer with the Commission, as required by the federal securities laws.
The SEC's litigation is being conducted by senior trial counsel Todd D. Brody, supervised by Laura D'Allaird Chief of the Division of Enforcement's Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit and Jack Kaufman.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment - Trevon Brown (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26660-brown.pdf)
* Final Judgment - Craig Grant (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26660-grant.pdf)
* Final Judgment - Michael Noble (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26660-noble.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26660
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Brown et al., No. 1:21-cv-04791 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 28, 2021)
On July 17, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment against Michael Noble for his involvement with BitConnect and the promotion of BitConnect's "lending program." The final judgment against Noble orders him to pay disgorgement in the amount of $731,281.00, prejudgment interest in the amount of $293,703.36, and a civil penalty ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release: * * * Securities and Exchange Commission v. Brown et al., No. 1:21-cv-04791 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 28, 2021) On July 17, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment against Michael Noble for his involvement with BitConnect and the promotion of BitConnect's "lending program." The final judgment against Noble orders him to pay disgorgement in the amount of $731,281.00, prejudgment interest in the amount of $293,703.36, and a civil penaltyin the amount of $50,000.00, for a total of $1,074,984.36. Previously, in a partial judgment on consent entered on August 12, 2021, the Court ordered permanent injunctions enjoining Noble from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and conduct-based injunctions permanently enjoining him from offering, operating, or participating in certain marketing or sales programs and from participating directly or indirectly in a digital asset securities offering.
On August 7, 2026, the Court entered a final default judgment against Craig Grant for his alleged involvement with BitConnect and the promotion of its "lending program." The final judgment against Grant permanently enjoins him from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act and Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, from offering, operating, or participating in certain marketing or sales programs, and from participating directly or indirectly in a digital asset securities offering. The judgment also orders Grant to pay disgorgement in the amount of $1,748,147.00, prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $702,105.84, and a civil penalty in the amount of $230,480.00, for a total of $2,680,732.84.
On September 9, 2026, Court entered a final judgment on consent against Trevon Brown for his alleged involvement with BitConnect and the promotion of its "lending program." The final judgment against Brown, permanently enjoins him from violating Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and orders him to pay disgorgement in the amount of $1,728,563.00, prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $182,902.15, and a civil penalty in the amount of $75,000.00 for a total of $1,986,465.15,
According to the SEC's complaint, filed on May 28, 2021, from approximately June 2017 to January 2018, Noble, Grant and Brown promoted BitConnect and marketed and sold securities in its "lending program." The SEC's complaint alleged that Noble, Grant, and Brown offered and sold the securities without registering the securities offering with the Commission, and without being registered as a broker-dealer with the Commission, as required by the federal securities laws.
The SEC's litigation is being conducted by senior trial counsel Todd D. Brody, supervised by Laura D'Allaird Chief of the Division of Enforcement's Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit and Jack Kaufman.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment - Trevon Brown (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26660-brown.pdf)
* Final Judgment - Craig Grant (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26660-grant.pdf)
* Final Judgment - Michael Noble (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26660-noble.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26660
SEC Files Settled Action Against Travel + Leisure Co. in Connection With Alleged Misleading Disclosures Concerning Certain Performance Measures for Its Timeshare Loan Portfolio
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Travel + Leisure Co., No. 26-cv-62760 (S.D. Fla. filed Sept. 30, 2026)
On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled action against Travel + Leisure Co., the world's largest timeshare company, for making misstatements and misleading disclosures about two undisclosed projects affecting certain performance measures concerning its timeshare loan portfolio.
According to the SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release: * * * Securities and Exchange Commission v. Travel + Leisure Co., No. 26-cv-62760 (S.D. Fla. filed Sept. 30, 2026) On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled action against Travel + Leisure Co., the world's largest timeshare company, for making misstatements and misleading disclosures about two undisclosed projects affecting certain performance measures concerning its timeshare loan portfolio. According to the SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Courtfor the Southern District of Florida, from October 2019 to February 2021, Travel + Leisure made misstatements and omissions about two projects under which it removed thousands of customer timeshare loans that were already seriously past due or in default from its loan portfolio through the process of rescission. As alleged, Travel + Leisure fully released customers who requested rescissions from their loans, removed from its loan portfolio over 2,900 delinquent or defaulted loans totaling approximately $77 million in loan balances, including roughly $34 million of defaulted loans, and reversed them in its accounting system as if the loans had never been made. By doing so, the complaint alleges, Travel + Leisure materially improved its publicly disclosed loan loss provision and its loan loss provision percentage--both important measures to investors because they reflected how well Travel + Leisure's loan portfolio was performing and how much of that portfolio was estimated to be collectible. The complaint further alleges Travel + Leisure set internal targets for the number of delinquent and defaulted loans it needed to rescind to meet its publicly disclosed guidance for the loan loss provision percentage, and never disclosed the projects or that trends in its loan loss provision had been meaningfully improved by the projects. As a result, the complaint alleges, Travel + Leisure presented a materially misleading picture of the performance of its loan portfolio.
Without admitting the allegations in the SEC's complaint, Travel + Leisure consented to the entry of a final judgment, subject to court approval, that would permanently enjoin it from violating Sections 17(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13 thereunder; and order it to pay a civil penalty of $975,000.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26657.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26657
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Travel + Leisure Co., No. 26-cv-62760 (S.D. Fla. filed Sept. 30, 2026)
On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled action against Travel + Leisure Co., the world's largest timeshare company, for making misstatements and misleading disclosures about two undisclosed projects affecting certain performance measures concerning its timeshare loan portfolio.
According to the SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release: * * * Securities and Exchange Commission v. Travel + Leisure Co., No. 26-cv-62760 (S.D. Fla. filed Sept. 30, 2026) On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled action against Travel + Leisure Co., the world's largest timeshare company, for making misstatements and misleading disclosures about two undisclosed projects affecting certain performance measures concerning its timeshare loan portfolio. According to the SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Courtfor the Southern District of Florida, from October 2019 to February 2021, Travel + Leisure made misstatements and omissions about two projects under which it removed thousands of customer timeshare loans that were already seriously past due or in default from its loan portfolio through the process of rescission. As alleged, Travel + Leisure fully released customers who requested rescissions from their loans, removed from its loan portfolio over 2,900 delinquent or defaulted loans totaling approximately $77 million in loan balances, including roughly $34 million of defaulted loans, and reversed them in its accounting system as if the loans had never been made. By doing so, the complaint alleges, Travel + Leisure materially improved its publicly disclosed loan loss provision and its loan loss provision percentage--both important measures to investors because they reflected how well Travel + Leisure's loan portfolio was performing and how much of that portfolio was estimated to be collectible. The complaint further alleges Travel + Leisure set internal targets for the number of delinquent and defaulted loans it needed to rescind to meet its publicly disclosed guidance for the loan loss provision percentage, and never disclosed the projects or that trends in its loan loss provision had been meaningfully improved by the projects. As a result, the complaint alleges, Travel + Leisure presented a materially misleading picture of the performance of its loan portfolio.
Without admitting the allegations in the SEC's complaint, Travel + Leisure consented to the entry of a final judgment, subject to court approval, that would permanently enjoin it from violating Sections 17(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13 thereunder; and order it to pay a civil penalty of $975,000.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26657.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26657
SEC Commissioner Peirce Issues Remarks on Proposals to Facilitate Retail Investor Access to Private Investments
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce:
* * *
Performance Interval: Statement on Proposals to Facilitate Retail Investor Access to Private Investments
Sept. 30, 2026
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you also Brian [Daly] and Josh [White]. I happily support today's two proposals to increase main street investors' opportunities to access private investments through professionally managed, diversified funds. With the decline in the breadth of the public markets, retail investor access to private markets is important ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce: * * * Performance Interval: Statement on Proposals to Facilitate Retail Investor Access to Private Investments Sept. 30, 2026 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you also Brian [Daly] and Josh [White]. I happily support today's two proposals to increase main street investors' opportunities to access private investments through professionally managed, diversified funds. With the decline in the breadth of the public markets, retail investor access to private markets is importantfor the sake of portfolio diversification and investor choice.[1] These proposals would enhance retail investors' ability to decide for themselves how to meet their financial goals.
The Commission historically has not looked kindly on retail investor exposure to private markets even when it comes through professionally managed registered investment companies. Because most retail investors do not meet the definition of an accredited investor in Regulation D,[2] they cannot directly invest in privately offered securities. By rule, open-end funds, because they offer investors easy redeemability, generally cannot invest more than fifteen percent of their net assets in illiquid investments.[3] Unlike open-end fund shareholders, shareholders in closed-end funds and business development companies ("BDCs") cannot redeem their shares anytime they wish. As a result, closed-end funds and BDCs align better with investments in less liquid private securities. Nevertheless, until last year, according to a decades old informal regulatory practice that sprouted within one of the SEC's many secret gardens,[4] closed-end funds and BDCs either had to restrict themselves to accredited investors and have high investment minimums or limit private fund investments to 15 percent of their assets.[5] Last year's change recognized that neither the Investment Company Act nor Commission rules required such limitations.
Today's proposals build on this change by inviting professional investment managers operating under the protective constraints of fiduciary duty to serve retail investors seeking access to the private markets. The proposed amendments, which expand the ability of advisers to closed-end funds and BDCs to charge performance fees,[6] could make these funds more attractive for investors and advisers by better aligning incentives. Performance fees are common in the private fund industry, where assets have more than tripled over the last decade.[7]
A second set of changes similarly could make interval funds, which offer periodic liquidity through share repurchases,[8] a more attractive way for investors to access the private markets. Among other things, the proposed amendments would permit extended deferral of initial fund repurchase offers, allow for monthly repurchase offers,[9] and provide less prescriptive portfolio liquidity requirements. Lengthening the time before a fund must make its first repurchase offer would enable an adviser to ramp up the fund's investments as the adviser would not have to hold back capital to finance an early first repurchase offer. The proposed amendments also would provide interval funds with increased investment flexibility during the period between the repurchase notification and the repurchase pricing time. The proposal would replace current prescriptive rules, under which funds may hold a greater portion of liquid assets than necessary, with a principles-based liquidity management provision.[10]
The public's input will help the Commission refine these proposals, but I hope the spirit that inspired them will motivate future work by the Commission. That spirit seeks to foster innovation not for the sake of change, but for the sake of serving the investing public. Great innovations in the investment management space, including mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, have given countless Americans financial security. Our regulations can either encourage incumbents to sit on their laurels or challenge existing firms and new entrants to offer better products at lower prices to more investors so that they can live more financially secure lives. I want to thank staff in the Divisions of Investment Management and Economic and Risk Analysis and Office of General Counsel for their work on these proposals and their commitment to maintaining a ruleset that fosters the competition necessary to provide retail investors with an excellent selection of diversified investment funds. These funds may lack the flash of many of the financial products that dominate today's headlines, but they are the stuff of which dreams of homes, education, and retirement are made.
I have two questions for the staff.
1. Will these proposals do anything to address the persistent gaps between net asset value and the prices at which closed-end fund shares trade? If not, can the Commission do anything else to address this problem?
2. The release notes that "we anticipate that the uptake of performance fees on capital gains in existing open-end funds would be limited." In what limited circumstances do we anticipate that open-end funds, even though they can provide only limited access to private markets, might use performance fees?
* * *
[1] The number of public companies listed on exchanges has fallen from 9,656 in 2004 to 7,750 in 2025. See SEC Division of Economic Risk and Analysis, Number of Reporting Issuers by Calendar Year (2004-2025), https://www.sec.gov/data-research/statistics-data-visualizations/reporting-issuers/number-reporting-issuers-calendar-year-2004-2025.
[2] See rule 501(a) under the Securities Act of 1933 (17 CFR 230.501(a)).
[3] Rule 22e-4(b)(1)(iv) under the Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.22e-4(b)(1)(iv)).
[4] Hester M. Peirce, SECret Garden: Remarks at SEC Speaks (Apr. 8, 2019), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-secret-garden-sec-speaks-040819
[5] See SEC Div. of Inv. Mgmt., Accounting and Disclosure Information ADI 2025-16: Registered Closed-End Funds of Private Funds (Aug. 15, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/division-investment-management/fund-disclosure-glance/accounting-disclosure-information/adi-2025-16-registered-closed-end-funds-private-funds#_ftn4.
[6] Current rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 states that an adviser to a registered investment company or BDC can only charge and receive a performance fee if each equity owner of such company is a qualified client. A qualified client is a natural person (or company) that meets either an assets-under-management threshold with the adviser or together with spouse meets a net worth threshold. As of June 29, 2026, the dollar amount threshold of the assets-under-management test is $1,400,000, and the dollar amount threshold for the net worth test is $2,700,000. A qualified client also includes a qualified purchaser as defined in section 2(a)(51)(A) of the Investment Company Act.
Currently, under section 205(b)(3) of the Advisers Act, advisers to BDCs can receive compensation based on a share of capital gains, not to exceed 20% of realized capital gains upon the funds of the BDC over a specified period or as of definite dates (computed net of all realized capital losses and unrealized capital deprecation). The proposed amendments to rule 205-3 would allow an adviser to a BDC to receive performance-based compensation that does not exceed 20 percent of the fund's net capital gains or net capital appreciation over a specified period or as of definite dates. See proposed rule 205-3(c)(1)(iv)(A). The proposed rule amendments would allow an investment adviser to calculate performance fees on net realized and net unrealized capital appreciation.
[7] See Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Modernization, Investment Advisers Act Rel. No. 7022 (Sept. 30, 2026) at n.67, https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/33-11443.pdf.
[8] The current interval fund rule allows registered closed-end funds and BDCs to make repurchase offers to shareholders at net asset value at periodic intervals pursuant to a fundamental policy. The interval fund rule also allows any closed-end fund and BDC (including a fund that is not an interval fund) to repurchase its common stock pursuant to a repurchase offer.
[9] Under current rule 23c-3, the periodic interval for repurchase offers can be three, six, or twelve months. See rule 23c-3(a)(1).
[10] See proposed rule 23c-3(b)(10).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-performance-interval-statement-on-proposals-to-facilitate-retail-investor-access-to-private-investments-093026
* * *
Performance Interval: Statement on Proposals to Facilitate Retail Investor Access to Private Investments
Sept. 30, 2026
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you also Brian [Daly] and Josh [White]. I happily support today's two proposals to increase main street investors' opportunities to access private investments through professionally managed, diversified funds. With the decline in the breadth of the public markets, retail investor access to private markets is important ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce: * * * Performance Interval: Statement on Proposals to Facilitate Retail Investor Access to Private Investments Sept. 30, 2026 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you also Brian [Daly] and Josh [White]. I happily support today's two proposals to increase main street investors' opportunities to access private investments through professionally managed, diversified funds. With the decline in the breadth of the public markets, retail investor access to private markets is importantfor the sake of portfolio diversification and investor choice.[1] These proposals would enhance retail investors' ability to decide for themselves how to meet their financial goals.
The Commission historically has not looked kindly on retail investor exposure to private markets even when it comes through professionally managed registered investment companies. Because most retail investors do not meet the definition of an accredited investor in Regulation D,[2] they cannot directly invest in privately offered securities. By rule, open-end funds, because they offer investors easy redeemability, generally cannot invest more than fifteen percent of their net assets in illiquid investments.[3] Unlike open-end fund shareholders, shareholders in closed-end funds and business development companies ("BDCs") cannot redeem their shares anytime they wish. As a result, closed-end funds and BDCs align better with investments in less liquid private securities. Nevertheless, until last year, according to a decades old informal regulatory practice that sprouted within one of the SEC's many secret gardens,[4] closed-end funds and BDCs either had to restrict themselves to accredited investors and have high investment minimums or limit private fund investments to 15 percent of their assets.[5] Last year's change recognized that neither the Investment Company Act nor Commission rules required such limitations.
Today's proposals build on this change by inviting professional investment managers operating under the protective constraints of fiduciary duty to serve retail investors seeking access to the private markets. The proposed amendments, which expand the ability of advisers to closed-end funds and BDCs to charge performance fees,[6] could make these funds more attractive for investors and advisers by better aligning incentives. Performance fees are common in the private fund industry, where assets have more than tripled over the last decade.[7]
A second set of changes similarly could make interval funds, which offer periodic liquidity through share repurchases,[8] a more attractive way for investors to access the private markets. Among other things, the proposed amendments would permit extended deferral of initial fund repurchase offers, allow for monthly repurchase offers,[9] and provide less prescriptive portfolio liquidity requirements. Lengthening the time before a fund must make its first repurchase offer would enable an adviser to ramp up the fund's investments as the adviser would not have to hold back capital to finance an early first repurchase offer. The proposed amendments also would provide interval funds with increased investment flexibility during the period between the repurchase notification and the repurchase pricing time. The proposal would replace current prescriptive rules, under which funds may hold a greater portion of liquid assets than necessary, with a principles-based liquidity management provision.[10]
The public's input will help the Commission refine these proposals, but I hope the spirit that inspired them will motivate future work by the Commission. That spirit seeks to foster innovation not for the sake of change, but for the sake of serving the investing public. Great innovations in the investment management space, including mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, have given countless Americans financial security. Our regulations can either encourage incumbents to sit on their laurels or challenge existing firms and new entrants to offer better products at lower prices to more investors so that they can live more financially secure lives. I want to thank staff in the Divisions of Investment Management and Economic and Risk Analysis and Office of General Counsel for their work on these proposals and their commitment to maintaining a ruleset that fosters the competition necessary to provide retail investors with an excellent selection of diversified investment funds. These funds may lack the flash of many of the financial products that dominate today's headlines, but they are the stuff of which dreams of homes, education, and retirement are made.
I have two questions for the staff.
1. Will these proposals do anything to address the persistent gaps between net asset value and the prices at which closed-end fund shares trade? If not, can the Commission do anything else to address this problem?
2. The release notes that "we anticipate that the uptake of performance fees on capital gains in existing open-end funds would be limited." In what limited circumstances do we anticipate that open-end funds, even though they can provide only limited access to private markets, might use performance fees?
* * *
[1] The number of public companies listed on exchanges has fallen from 9,656 in 2004 to 7,750 in 2025. See SEC Division of Economic Risk and Analysis, Number of Reporting Issuers by Calendar Year (2004-2025), https://www.sec.gov/data-research/statistics-data-visualizations/reporting-issuers/number-reporting-issuers-calendar-year-2004-2025.
[2] See rule 501(a) under the Securities Act of 1933 (17 CFR 230.501(a)).
[3] Rule 22e-4(b)(1)(iv) under the Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.22e-4(b)(1)(iv)).
[4] Hester M. Peirce, SECret Garden: Remarks at SEC Speaks (Apr. 8, 2019), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-secret-garden-sec-speaks-040819
[5] See SEC Div. of Inv. Mgmt., Accounting and Disclosure Information ADI 2025-16: Registered Closed-End Funds of Private Funds (Aug. 15, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/division-investment-management/fund-disclosure-glance/accounting-disclosure-information/adi-2025-16-registered-closed-end-funds-private-funds#_ftn4.
[6] Current rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 states that an adviser to a registered investment company or BDC can only charge and receive a performance fee if each equity owner of such company is a qualified client. A qualified client is a natural person (or company) that meets either an assets-under-management threshold with the adviser or together with spouse meets a net worth threshold. As of June 29, 2026, the dollar amount threshold of the assets-under-management test is $1,400,000, and the dollar amount threshold for the net worth test is $2,700,000. A qualified client also includes a qualified purchaser as defined in section 2(a)(51)(A) of the Investment Company Act.
Currently, under section 205(b)(3) of the Advisers Act, advisers to BDCs can receive compensation based on a share of capital gains, not to exceed 20% of realized capital gains upon the funds of the BDC over a specified period or as of definite dates (computed net of all realized capital losses and unrealized capital deprecation). The proposed amendments to rule 205-3 would allow an adviser to a BDC to receive performance-based compensation that does not exceed 20 percent of the fund's net capital gains or net capital appreciation over a specified period or as of definite dates. See proposed rule 205-3(c)(1)(iv)(A). The proposed rule amendments would allow an investment adviser to calculate performance fees on net realized and net unrealized capital appreciation.
[7] See Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Modernization, Investment Advisers Act Rel. No. 7022 (Sept. 30, 2026) at n.67, https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/33-11443.pdf.
[8] The current interval fund rule allows registered closed-end funds and BDCs to make repurchase offers to shareholders at net asset value at periodic intervals pursuant to a fundamental policy. The interval fund rule also allows any closed-end fund and BDC (including a fund that is not an interval fund) to repurchase its common stock pursuant to a repurchase offer.
[9] Under current rule 23c-3, the periodic interval for repurchase offers can be three, six, or twelve months. See rule 23c-3(a)(1).
[10] See proposed rule 23c-3(b)(10).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-performance-interval-statement-on-proposals-to-facilitate-retail-investor-access-to-private-investments-093026
FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Issues Public Notice: Bureau Seeks Comment on Preliminary Cost Catalog for Upper C-Band Incumbent Transition
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued the following public notice (GN Docket No. 25-59):
* * *
With this Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) invites interested parties to comment on the Upper C-band Transition Preliminary Cost Catalog (Cost Catalog) contained in Attachment A./1 In the Upper C-band R&O, the Commission adopted rules to make 160 megahertz of mid-band spectrum available for flexible use throughout the contiguous United States by transitioning incumbent Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) operations ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued the following public notice (GN Docket No. 25-59): * * * With this Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) invites interested parties to comment on the Upper C-band Transition Preliminary Cost Catalog (Cost Catalog) contained in Attachment A./1 In the Upper C-band R&O, the Commission adopted rules to make 160 megahertz of mid-band spectrum available for flexible use throughout the contiguous United States by transitioning incumbent Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) operationsout of 4.0-4.16 GHz./2 The Upper C-band R&O established that new Upper C-band wireless licensees will reimburse the reasonable and necessary transition costs of eligible space station operators and incumbent earth station operators (collectively, incumbents) to transition out of the reconfigured portion of the band./3 The Upper C-band R&O further gives incumbent earth station operators the option to elect--on a per-site basis--a lump sum payment in lieu of actual cost reimbursement./4 The lump sum election is irrevocable, and any incumbent earth station operators opting for the lump sum will have opted out of the formal transition process, be responsible for their own transition work for the relevant sites from that point forward, and must comply with the relevant Transition Deadline for the partial economic area (PEA) where they are located./5 To provide guidance as to a range of presumptively reasonable and necessary actual transition costs, as well as the lump sum election categories and amounts, the Commission in the Upper C-band R&O directed the Bureau to formulate a Cost Catalog./6
Actual Cost Reimbursement. To provide additional guidance on compensable costs in connection with actual cost reimbursements, the Commission directed the Bureau to develop a Cost Catalog, and instructed the Upper C-band Clearinghouse, which will administer the financial aspects of the transition,/7 to presume as reasonable all reimbursement claims that fall within the estimated range of costs that the Cost Catalog identifies./8 To this end, the Commission engaged a contractor, Teltrium, Inc. (Teltrium), to assist with developing the Preliminary Cost Catalog in Attachment A, which contains draft categories for the most common anticipated transition tasks and related ranges of presumptively reasonable expenses that incumbents may incur as they clear FSS operations out of 4.0-4.16 GHz. This Preliminary Cost Catalog is based in part upon the Final Cost Catalog that was developed in 2020 for the Lower C-band transition,/9 with adjustments for inflation since that time,/10 but it also includes proposed new categories tailored to the different anticipated transition steps implicated by the Upper C-band transition. To compile the information needed for the Preliminary Cost Catalog, Teltrium considered comments and filings in the underlying record in GN Docket No. 25-59,/11 publicly available pricing and technical information, and information obtained from confidential interviews with vendors and other targeted stakeholders, including satellite operators and earth station operators, about their anticipated transition work.
We seek comment on the Preliminary Cost Catalog, including whether the draft categories and estimated range of expenses for each category are reasonable. As mentioned above, this Preliminary Cost Catalog is based in part upon the Lower C-band Final Cost Catalog, and we seek comment on whether additional updates are necessary to better suit the specific circumstances of the Upper C-band transition. If so, what additional transition tasks and categories should we include? In this context, we note that the Cost Catalog is only intended to cover the most common anticipated transition tasks and is not a comprehensive list of every possible relocation action whose costs may ultimately be deemed reimbursable. Claimants may still submit claims for items not included in the final Cost Catalog, and those claims will be subject to review and disposition by the Upper C-band Clearinghouse as part of its remit to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. Further, in formulating this list as a guidance resource, we do not intend for it to constrain the Upper C-band Clearinghouse from exercising its independent judgment on what claims or elements thereof constitute optional upgrades or non-compensable costs as it assesses the specific merits of individual claims. For the initial categories set forth in the Preliminary Cost Catalog, and for any additions that commenters may suggest, commenters seeking adjustments are encouraged to provide specific pricing information for individual items, as well as more general information on the costs that incumbents expect to incur.
Incumbent Earth Station Lump Sum Payments. The Preliminary Cost Catalog sets forth specific lump sum categories and amounts for incumbent earth station operators seeking to opt out of the formal transition process led by the eligible space station operators./12 This mechanism will afford lump sum electees the option to: (1) perform their own transition work to maintain FSS service; (2) migrate to an alternative distribution technology such as an IP-delivered service; or (3) discontinue service altogether./13 While the decision to opt for the lump sum payment in lieu of actual cost reimbursement is irrevocable, incumbent earth station operators may elect lump sum payments on a per-site basis to enable operators with a mix of facilities in urban and rural areas to opt for the type of transition that best meets their long term needs./14 We reiterate that any incumbent earth station operators electing the lump sum will be responsible for their own transition work for the relevant sites from that point forward and must comply with the relevant Transition Deadline for the PEA where they are located./15
We seek comment on the preliminary lump sum categories and amounts provided in Appendix A, which, as directed by the Commission in the Upper C-band R&O, are based upon the average estimated, reasonable costs of transitioning those facilities out of 4.0-4.16 GHz, including costs related to the potential migration of service or links to the Ku-band./16 We also seek comment on the proposed lump sum amount for each category and the methodology used to arrive at those amounts. Does the methodology described in Appendix A--and do these amounts--reflect the appropriate lump sum inputs for each class of earth station? Should we make any adjustments to account for other factors? We also seek comment on the specific filing and certification procedures used in connection with the Lower Cband transition/17 and whether to repurpose them here or adjust them in any way given the shift to a persite lump sum approach in the instant transition.
Procedural Matters
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the date indicated on the first page of this document and must reference GN Docket No. 25-59. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
* Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
* Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.
- Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
- Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
- Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
- Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (e.g., braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./18 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Additional Information. For further information regarding this Public Notice, please contact Andrew McArdell, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at Andrew.McArdell@fcc.gov.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ See Upper C-band (3.98-4.2 GHz), Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket Nos. 25-59 and 18-122, Report and Order, Order of Proposed Modification, and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 26-46, at 60, para. 121 (July 24, 2026) (Upper C-band R&O).
2/ The full Upper C-band includes 3.98-4.2 GHz, and new licensees in the 3.7 GHz Service will operate from 3.98- 4.14 GHz, with a guard band from 4.14-4.16 GHz. Upper C-band R&O at 3-4, 13, paras. 3, 27. The instant Public Notice only addresses cost related issues associated with the transition of eligible space station operators and incumbent earth station operators out of 4.0-4.16 GHz. Id. at 57-65, 77, paras. 114-129, 154. As directed in the Upper C-band R&O, a separate public notice will be issued by the Bureau seeking comment on issues relating to adjacent band radio altimeter rebates. Id. at 87-91, paras. 177-183.
3/ See id. at 44, 57, paras. 91, 114; see also id. at Appx. A, Final Rules, 47 CFR Sec. 27.1416(a)-(b), (d) (establishing procedures for processing actual cost reimbursement claims and lump sum claims and for payment of approved claims). The Upper C-band R&O defines the eligible space station operators and incumbent earth station operators that may be reimbursed for their reasonable and necessary transition costs. See id. at 45, para. 93 ("[F]or transition cost reimbursement purposes, . . . an 'eligible space station operator' [i]s an incumbent space station operator that has demonstrated as of February 1, 2020, that it has an existing relationship to provide service via C-band satellite transmission to one or more incumbent earth stations in the contiguous United States."); id. at 45-47, paras. 94-96 (defining incumbent earth stations to "include fixed and temporary fixed earth stations that were operational as of April 19, 2018, and that: (1) continue to be operational; (2) were licensed or registered in the IBFS (now ICFS) database on November 7, 2018; and (3) timely certified the accuracy of the information on file with the Commission by May 28, 2019"); id. at Appx. A, Final Rules, 47 CFR Sec. 27.1411(b)(2)-(3) (defining "eligible space station operator" and "incumbent earth station").
4/ See id. at 63, para. 125.
5/ See id.
6/ See id. at 60, 77, paras. 121, 154.
7/ The Upper C-band Clearinghouse's responsibilities include claims processing, cost apportionment, dispute resolution, and reporting obligations. Id. at 70-71, paras. 142-43. The process by which costs will be determined to be reimbursable is set forth in section 27.1416. Id. at Appx. A, Final Rules, 47 CFR Sec. 27.1416.
8/ Id. at 77, para. 154.
9/ See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Releases Final Cost Category Schedule for 3.7-4.2 GHz Band Relocation Expenses and Announces Process and Deadline for Lump Sum Elections, GN Docket No. 18-122, IB Docket No. 20-205, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 7967, Attach. (WTB 2020) (Lower C-band Cost Catalog PN). Certain portions of the Lower C-band Cost Catalog PN that have no relevance to the Upper C-band transition, such as TT&C site consolidation and Fixed Service relocation costs, have not been carried forward to the Preliminary Cost Catalog in Appendix A.
10/ The Producer Prices Indexes by Industry used to make some of these adjustments include: Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing; Communications Equipment Manufacturing; a composite of Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing and New Nonresidential Building Construction by Region; General Freight Trucking; Passenger Car Rental; Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV Rental and Leasing: Rental of Trucks, Truck Trailers, RVs; and Wired Telecommunications Carriers. See Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, FRED, https://fred.stlouisfed.org. The Employment Cost Indexes used for other adjustments include the total compensation for private industry workers in: Construction; Management, Business, and Financial; Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; and ServiceProviding, Natural Resources, Construction, and Maintenance. Id.
11/ See, e.g., Upper C-band R&O at 64, para. 127 & n.461.
12/ Id. at 63-64, paras. 125-26.
13/ Id. at 63, para. 125. But see id. at 63, para. 125 & n.454 (noting that "incumbent earth station owners may not elect a lump sum payment for earth stations outside of the contiguous United States").
14/ Id. at 63, para. 125.
15/ Id.
16/ Id. at 63-64, para. 126.
17/ See Lower C-band Cost Catalog PN, 35 FCC Rcd at 7991-93, paras. 39-42.
18/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1049A1.pdf
* * *
With this Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) invites interested parties to comment on the Upper C-band Transition Preliminary Cost Catalog (Cost Catalog) contained in Attachment A./1 In the Upper C-band R&O, the Commission adopted rules to make 160 megahertz of mid-band spectrum available for flexible use throughout the contiguous United States by transitioning incumbent Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) operations ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued the following public notice (GN Docket No. 25-59): * * * With this Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) invites interested parties to comment on the Upper C-band Transition Preliminary Cost Catalog (Cost Catalog) contained in Attachment A./1 In the Upper C-band R&O, the Commission adopted rules to make 160 megahertz of mid-band spectrum available for flexible use throughout the contiguous United States by transitioning incumbent Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) operationsout of 4.0-4.16 GHz./2 The Upper C-band R&O established that new Upper C-band wireless licensees will reimburse the reasonable and necessary transition costs of eligible space station operators and incumbent earth station operators (collectively, incumbents) to transition out of the reconfigured portion of the band./3 The Upper C-band R&O further gives incumbent earth station operators the option to elect--on a per-site basis--a lump sum payment in lieu of actual cost reimbursement./4 The lump sum election is irrevocable, and any incumbent earth station operators opting for the lump sum will have opted out of the formal transition process, be responsible for their own transition work for the relevant sites from that point forward, and must comply with the relevant Transition Deadline for the partial economic area (PEA) where they are located./5 To provide guidance as to a range of presumptively reasonable and necessary actual transition costs, as well as the lump sum election categories and amounts, the Commission in the Upper C-band R&O directed the Bureau to formulate a Cost Catalog./6
Actual Cost Reimbursement. To provide additional guidance on compensable costs in connection with actual cost reimbursements, the Commission directed the Bureau to develop a Cost Catalog, and instructed the Upper C-band Clearinghouse, which will administer the financial aspects of the transition,/7 to presume as reasonable all reimbursement claims that fall within the estimated range of costs that the Cost Catalog identifies./8 To this end, the Commission engaged a contractor, Teltrium, Inc. (Teltrium), to assist with developing the Preliminary Cost Catalog in Attachment A, which contains draft categories for the most common anticipated transition tasks and related ranges of presumptively reasonable expenses that incumbents may incur as they clear FSS operations out of 4.0-4.16 GHz. This Preliminary Cost Catalog is based in part upon the Final Cost Catalog that was developed in 2020 for the Lower C-band transition,/9 with adjustments for inflation since that time,/10 but it also includes proposed new categories tailored to the different anticipated transition steps implicated by the Upper C-band transition. To compile the information needed for the Preliminary Cost Catalog, Teltrium considered comments and filings in the underlying record in GN Docket No. 25-59,/11 publicly available pricing and technical information, and information obtained from confidential interviews with vendors and other targeted stakeholders, including satellite operators and earth station operators, about their anticipated transition work.
We seek comment on the Preliminary Cost Catalog, including whether the draft categories and estimated range of expenses for each category are reasonable. As mentioned above, this Preliminary Cost Catalog is based in part upon the Lower C-band Final Cost Catalog, and we seek comment on whether additional updates are necessary to better suit the specific circumstances of the Upper C-band transition. If so, what additional transition tasks and categories should we include? In this context, we note that the Cost Catalog is only intended to cover the most common anticipated transition tasks and is not a comprehensive list of every possible relocation action whose costs may ultimately be deemed reimbursable. Claimants may still submit claims for items not included in the final Cost Catalog, and those claims will be subject to review and disposition by the Upper C-band Clearinghouse as part of its remit to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. Further, in formulating this list as a guidance resource, we do not intend for it to constrain the Upper C-band Clearinghouse from exercising its independent judgment on what claims or elements thereof constitute optional upgrades or non-compensable costs as it assesses the specific merits of individual claims. For the initial categories set forth in the Preliminary Cost Catalog, and for any additions that commenters may suggest, commenters seeking adjustments are encouraged to provide specific pricing information for individual items, as well as more general information on the costs that incumbents expect to incur.
Incumbent Earth Station Lump Sum Payments. The Preliminary Cost Catalog sets forth specific lump sum categories and amounts for incumbent earth station operators seeking to opt out of the formal transition process led by the eligible space station operators./12 This mechanism will afford lump sum electees the option to: (1) perform their own transition work to maintain FSS service; (2) migrate to an alternative distribution technology such as an IP-delivered service; or (3) discontinue service altogether./13 While the decision to opt for the lump sum payment in lieu of actual cost reimbursement is irrevocable, incumbent earth station operators may elect lump sum payments on a per-site basis to enable operators with a mix of facilities in urban and rural areas to opt for the type of transition that best meets their long term needs./14 We reiterate that any incumbent earth station operators electing the lump sum will be responsible for their own transition work for the relevant sites from that point forward and must comply with the relevant Transition Deadline for the PEA where they are located./15
We seek comment on the preliminary lump sum categories and amounts provided in Appendix A, which, as directed by the Commission in the Upper C-band R&O, are based upon the average estimated, reasonable costs of transitioning those facilities out of 4.0-4.16 GHz, including costs related to the potential migration of service or links to the Ku-band./16 We also seek comment on the proposed lump sum amount for each category and the methodology used to arrive at those amounts. Does the methodology described in Appendix A--and do these amounts--reflect the appropriate lump sum inputs for each class of earth station? Should we make any adjustments to account for other factors? We also seek comment on the specific filing and certification procedures used in connection with the Lower Cband transition/17 and whether to repurpose them here or adjust them in any way given the shift to a persite lump sum approach in the instant transition.
Procedural Matters
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the date indicated on the first page of this document and must reference GN Docket No. 25-59. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
* Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
* Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.
- Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
- Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
- Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
- Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (e.g., braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./18 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Additional Information. For further information regarding this Public Notice, please contact Andrew McArdell, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at Andrew.McArdell@fcc.gov.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ See Upper C-band (3.98-4.2 GHz), Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket Nos. 25-59 and 18-122, Report and Order, Order of Proposed Modification, and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 26-46, at 60, para. 121 (July 24, 2026) (Upper C-band R&O).
2/ The full Upper C-band includes 3.98-4.2 GHz, and new licensees in the 3.7 GHz Service will operate from 3.98- 4.14 GHz, with a guard band from 4.14-4.16 GHz. Upper C-band R&O at 3-4, 13, paras. 3, 27. The instant Public Notice only addresses cost related issues associated with the transition of eligible space station operators and incumbent earth station operators out of 4.0-4.16 GHz. Id. at 57-65, 77, paras. 114-129, 154. As directed in the Upper C-band R&O, a separate public notice will be issued by the Bureau seeking comment on issues relating to adjacent band radio altimeter rebates. Id. at 87-91, paras. 177-183.
3/ See id. at 44, 57, paras. 91, 114; see also id. at Appx. A, Final Rules, 47 CFR Sec. 27.1416(a)-(b), (d) (establishing procedures for processing actual cost reimbursement claims and lump sum claims and for payment of approved claims). The Upper C-band R&O defines the eligible space station operators and incumbent earth station operators that may be reimbursed for their reasonable and necessary transition costs. See id. at 45, para. 93 ("[F]or transition cost reimbursement purposes, . . . an 'eligible space station operator' [i]s an incumbent space station operator that has demonstrated as of February 1, 2020, that it has an existing relationship to provide service via C-band satellite transmission to one or more incumbent earth stations in the contiguous United States."); id. at 45-47, paras. 94-96 (defining incumbent earth stations to "include fixed and temporary fixed earth stations that were operational as of April 19, 2018, and that: (1) continue to be operational; (2) were licensed or registered in the IBFS (now ICFS) database on November 7, 2018; and (3) timely certified the accuracy of the information on file with the Commission by May 28, 2019"); id. at Appx. A, Final Rules, 47 CFR Sec. 27.1411(b)(2)-(3) (defining "eligible space station operator" and "incumbent earth station").
4/ See id. at 63, para. 125.
5/ See id.
6/ See id. at 60, 77, paras. 121, 154.
7/ The Upper C-band Clearinghouse's responsibilities include claims processing, cost apportionment, dispute resolution, and reporting obligations. Id. at 70-71, paras. 142-43. The process by which costs will be determined to be reimbursable is set forth in section 27.1416. Id. at Appx. A, Final Rules, 47 CFR Sec. 27.1416.
8/ Id. at 77, para. 154.
9/ See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Releases Final Cost Category Schedule for 3.7-4.2 GHz Band Relocation Expenses and Announces Process and Deadline for Lump Sum Elections, GN Docket No. 18-122, IB Docket No. 20-205, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 7967, Attach. (WTB 2020) (Lower C-band Cost Catalog PN). Certain portions of the Lower C-band Cost Catalog PN that have no relevance to the Upper C-band transition, such as TT&C site consolidation and Fixed Service relocation costs, have not been carried forward to the Preliminary Cost Catalog in Appendix A.
10/ The Producer Prices Indexes by Industry used to make some of these adjustments include: Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing; Communications Equipment Manufacturing; a composite of Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing and New Nonresidential Building Construction by Region; General Freight Trucking; Passenger Car Rental; Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV Rental and Leasing: Rental of Trucks, Truck Trailers, RVs; and Wired Telecommunications Carriers. See Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, FRED, https://fred.stlouisfed.org. The Employment Cost Indexes used for other adjustments include the total compensation for private industry workers in: Construction; Management, Business, and Financial; Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; and ServiceProviding, Natural Resources, Construction, and Maintenance. Id.
11/ See, e.g., Upper C-band R&O at 64, para. 127 & n.461.
12/ Id. at 63-64, paras. 125-26.
13/ Id. at 63, para. 125. But see id. at 63, para. 125 & n.454 (noting that "incumbent earth station owners may not elect a lump sum payment for earth stations outside of the contiguous United States").
14/ Id. at 63, para. 125.
15/ Id.
16/ Id. at 63-64, para. 126.
17/ See Lower C-band Cost Catalog PN, 35 FCC Rcd at 7991-93, paras. 39-42.
18/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1049A1.pdf
FCC Seeks to Advance Next Generation 911 Framework
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FCC Seeks to Advance Next Generation 911 Framework
Seeks Stakeholders' Input on How New Technologies and Services Could Reshape 911
-
WASHINGTON, September 30, 2026--Today, the Federal Communications Commission announced another step in the right direction as the FCC works to ensure calls to 911 always go through, no matter what technology a consumer is using to connect. The Commission approved a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to seek comment on ways the agency can best adapt its approach to the changing ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release: * * * FCC Seeks to Advance Next Generation 911 Framework Seeks Stakeholders' Input on How New Technologies and Services Could Reshape 911 - WASHINGTON, September 30, 2026--Today, the Federal Communications Commission announced another step in the right direction as the FCC works to ensure calls to 911 always go through, no matter what technology a consumer is using to connect. The Commission approved a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to seek comment on ways the agency can best adapt its approach to the changingcommunications landscape and apply these objectives to the next generation of communications technologies and platforms.
Consumers expect reliable, fast connectivity to 911 services. Our nation's 911 system plays a vital role every day in saving lives, protecting property, and connecting people with needed emergency assistance. As new communications technologies, services, and platforms emerge, they allow the public to reach 911 in more ways than ever before, but they also raise questions about the continued effectiveness of traditional approaches to 911 regulation.
Through this NOI, the Commission applies its first principles approach and initiates a comprehensive examination of its 911 framework in an era of rapid technological change. The Commission invites stakeholders to look beyond the 911 system of today, consider how new technologies and services could reshape 911, and provide input on how the Commission can best adapt its approach to meet public safety needs and consumer expectations in the years ahead. Specifically, the Commission asks stakeholders to examine the core objectives of the 911 framework and how to apply these objectives to the next generation of communications technologies and platforms. The Notice aims to explore modernizing the Commission's decades-old "911 scope" analysis used to determine whether new technologies and services should be subject to the Commission's 911 framework. The Notice also seeks comment on possible approaches to harmonizing 911 requirements across traditionally separate service categories and inquires how the Commission's legal authority to regulate 911 applies in the evolving modern communications ecosystem.
Action by the Commission September 30, 2026 by Notice of Inquiry (FCC 26-63). Chairman Carr, Commissioners Gomez and Trusty approving. Chairman Carr and Commissioner Trusty issuing separate statements.
PS Docket No. 26-197
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425496A1.pdf
* * *
FCC Seeks to Advance Next Generation 911 Framework
Seeks Stakeholders' Input on How New Technologies and Services Could Reshape 911
-
WASHINGTON, September 30, 2026--Today, the Federal Communications Commission announced another step in the right direction as the FCC works to ensure calls to 911 always go through, no matter what technology a consumer is using to connect. The Commission approved a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to seek comment on ways the agency can best adapt its approach to the changing ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release: * * * FCC Seeks to Advance Next Generation 911 Framework Seeks Stakeholders' Input on How New Technologies and Services Could Reshape 911 - WASHINGTON, September 30, 2026--Today, the Federal Communications Commission announced another step in the right direction as the FCC works to ensure calls to 911 always go through, no matter what technology a consumer is using to connect. The Commission approved a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to seek comment on ways the agency can best adapt its approach to the changingcommunications landscape and apply these objectives to the next generation of communications technologies and platforms.
Consumers expect reliable, fast connectivity to 911 services. Our nation's 911 system plays a vital role every day in saving lives, protecting property, and connecting people with needed emergency assistance. As new communications technologies, services, and platforms emerge, they allow the public to reach 911 in more ways than ever before, but they also raise questions about the continued effectiveness of traditional approaches to 911 regulation.
Through this NOI, the Commission applies its first principles approach and initiates a comprehensive examination of its 911 framework in an era of rapid technological change. The Commission invites stakeholders to look beyond the 911 system of today, consider how new technologies and services could reshape 911, and provide input on how the Commission can best adapt its approach to meet public safety needs and consumer expectations in the years ahead. Specifically, the Commission asks stakeholders to examine the core objectives of the 911 framework and how to apply these objectives to the next generation of communications technologies and platforms. The Notice aims to explore modernizing the Commission's decades-old "911 scope" analysis used to determine whether new technologies and services should be subject to the Commission's 911 framework. The Notice also seeks comment on possible approaches to harmonizing 911 requirements across traditionally separate service categories and inquires how the Commission's legal authority to regulate 911 applies in the evolving modern communications ecosystem.
Action by the Commission September 30, 2026 by Notice of Inquiry (FCC 26-63). Chairman Carr, Commissioners Gomez and Trusty approving. Chairman Carr and Commissioner Trusty issuing separate statements.
PS Docket No. 26-197
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425496A1.pdf
FCC Proposes Modernization of Ultra-Wideband Technology Rules
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Chairman Brendan Carr:
* * *
FCC Proposes Modernization of Ultra-Wideband Technology Rules
Re: Unleashing the Power of Unlicensed Ultra-Wideband Devices, ET Docket No. 26-245, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (September 30, 2026).
Since launching our Delete, Delete, Delete initiative, the Commission has been constantly reviewing our regulations and asking the same questions: have those rules kept pace with changes in the marketplace, and, if not, how can we update our rules to remove barriers to innovation ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Chairman Brendan Carr: * * * FCC Proposes Modernization of Ultra-Wideband Technology Rules Re: Unleashing the Power of Unlicensed Ultra-Wideband Devices, ET Docket No. 26-245, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (September 30, 2026). Since launching our Delete, Delete, Delete initiative, the Commission has been constantly reviewing our regulations and asking the same questions: have those rules kept pace with changes in the marketplace, and, if not, how can we update our rules to remove barriers to innovationand investment?
The Commission's rules for ultra-wideband technologies offer a textbook example of how we can unleash progress through modernization.
Ultra-wideband technologies are an unsung contributor to our connectivity economy. They operate over unlicensed airwaves and are embedded in virtually every smartphone. If you've ever lost your ear buds and had to use a Find My app, then you've benefited from ultra-wideband technology. Other supported activities include vehicular radars for collision avoidance, medical imaging for non-invasive diagnostics, and precision tracking and location systems for inventory control and package tracking.
One key aspect of ultra-wideband technology that has enabled its expansion is that its power requirements are extremely low. As a result, it can co-exist with other wireless technologies without creating interference. In fact, there has never been a complaint against UWB operations for harmful interference.
Here's the problem. The Commission's rules for UWB were written in 2002. Fast forward to today, and too many companies that want to bring new and innovative UWB technologies into the market can't navigate through those now 20 year-old rules and get quick enough approval from the Commission to roll out a new product. Instead, they need to get a waiver, which can take months to obtain and takes up agency resources. Door-unlocking devices are a popular UWB offering, but multiple providers had to wait an average of six months to get FCC approval before releasing their product.
With this item, we are launching a comprehensive review of our ultra-wideband rules and looking at the UWB needs of the future. In particular, we propose creating a new UWB device category to enable emerging applications such as super intelligence enabled sensing, advanced ranging systems, and modern access control systems.
It's been nearly a quarter-century since the Commission wrote our rules for ultra-wideband technologies. Today, we take an important step toward reshaping those rules to meet today's needs and to unlock a future of continuing innovation.
For their work on today's item, I thank Syed Hasan, Jamison Prime, Michael Ha, Tom Struble, Ira Keltz, and Andy Hendrickson at the Office of Engineering and Technology.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425494A2.pdf
* * *
FCC Proposes Modernization of Ultra-Wideband Technology Rules
Re: Unleashing the Power of Unlicensed Ultra-Wideband Devices, ET Docket No. 26-245, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (September 30, 2026).
Since launching our Delete, Delete, Delete initiative, the Commission has been constantly reviewing our regulations and asking the same questions: have those rules kept pace with changes in the marketplace, and, if not, how can we update our rules to remove barriers to innovation ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Chairman Brendan Carr: * * * FCC Proposes Modernization of Ultra-Wideband Technology Rules Re: Unleashing the Power of Unlicensed Ultra-Wideband Devices, ET Docket No. 26-245, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (September 30, 2026). Since launching our Delete, Delete, Delete initiative, the Commission has been constantly reviewing our regulations and asking the same questions: have those rules kept pace with changes in the marketplace, and, if not, how can we update our rules to remove barriers to innovationand investment?
The Commission's rules for ultra-wideband technologies offer a textbook example of how we can unleash progress through modernization.
Ultra-wideband technologies are an unsung contributor to our connectivity economy. They operate over unlicensed airwaves and are embedded in virtually every smartphone. If you've ever lost your ear buds and had to use a Find My app, then you've benefited from ultra-wideband technology. Other supported activities include vehicular radars for collision avoidance, medical imaging for non-invasive diagnostics, and precision tracking and location systems for inventory control and package tracking.
One key aspect of ultra-wideband technology that has enabled its expansion is that its power requirements are extremely low. As a result, it can co-exist with other wireless technologies without creating interference. In fact, there has never been a complaint against UWB operations for harmful interference.
Here's the problem. The Commission's rules for UWB were written in 2002. Fast forward to today, and too many companies that want to bring new and innovative UWB technologies into the market can't navigate through those now 20 year-old rules and get quick enough approval from the Commission to roll out a new product. Instead, they need to get a waiver, which can take months to obtain and takes up agency resources. Door-unlocking devices are a popular UWB offering, but multiple providers had to wait an average of six months to get FCC approval before releasing their product.
With this item, we are launching a comprehensive review of our ultra-wideband rules and looking at the UWB needs of the future. In particular, we propose creating a new UWB device category to enable emerging applications such as super intelligence enabled sensing, advanced ranging systems, and modern access control systems.
It's been nearly a quarter-century since the Commission wrote our rules for ultra-wideband technologies. Today, we take an important step toward reshaping those rules to meet today's needs and to unlock a future of continuing innovation.
For their work on today's item, I thank Syed Hasan, Jamison Prime, Michael Ha, Tom Struble, Ira Keltz, and Andy Hendrickson at the Office of Engineering and Technology.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425494A2.pdf