Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
USITC Makes Determinations in Five-Year Reviews Concerning Wood Mouldings and Millwork Products From China
WASHINGTON, June 13 (TNSrep) -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release on June 12, 2026:
* * *
USITC Makes Determinations in Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews Concerning Wood Mouldings and Millwork Products from China
The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) today determined that revoking the existing countervailing and antidumping duty orders on wood mouldings and millwork products from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
As a result of the Commission's affirmative determinations,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 (TNSrep) -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release on June 12, 2026:
* * *
USITC Makes Determinations in Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews Concerning Wood Mouldings and Millwork Products from China
The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) today determined that revoking the existing countervailing and antidumping duty orders on wood mouldings and millwork products from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
As a result of the Commission's affirmative determinations,the existing orders on imports of this product from China will remain in place.
Chair Amy A. Karpel and Commissioners David S. Johanson and Jason E. Kearns voted in the affirmative.
Today's action comes under the five-year (sunset) review process required by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. See the attached page for background on these five-year (sunset) reviews.
The Commission's public report, Wood Mouldings and Millwork Products from China (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-636 and 731-TA-1470 (Review), USITC Publication 5755, June 2026), will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the reviews.
The report will be available on the USITC website (https://www.usitc.gov/commission_publications_library) by July 22, 2026.
BACKGROUND
The Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires the Department of Commerce to revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, or terminate a suspension agreement, after five years unless the Department of Commerce and the USITC determine that revoking the order or terminating the suspension agreement would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidies (Commerce) and of material injury (USITC) within a reasonably foreseeable time.
The Commission's institution notice in five-year reviews requests that interested parties file responses with the Commission concerning the likely effects of revoking the order under review as well as other information. Generally, within 95 days from institution, the Commission will determine whether the responses it has received reflect an adequate or inadequate level of interest in a full review. If responses to the USITC's notice of institution are adequate, or if other circumstances warrant a full review, the Commission conducts a full review, which includes a public hearing and issuance of questionnaires.
The Commission generally does not hold a hearing or conduct further investigative activities in expedited reviews. Commissioners base their injury determination in expedited reviews on the facts available, including the Commission's prior injury and review determinations, responses received to its notice of institution, data collected by staff in connection with the reviews, and information provided by the Department of Commerce.
The five-year (sunset) reviews concerning Wood Mouldings and Millwork Products from China were instituted on January 2, 2026.
On April 7, 2026, the Commission determined to conduct expedited five-year reviews. Chair Amy A. Karpel and Commissioners David S. Johanson and Jason E. Kearns concluded that the domestic interested party group responses were adequate and the respondent interested party group responses were inadequate, and voted for expedited reviews.
A record of the Commission's vote to conduct expedited reviews is available on the investigations page for Wood Mouldings and Millwork Products from China; Inv. No. 701-TA-636 and 731-TA-1470 (Review) (https://ids.usitc.gov/case/4947/investigation/8847).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2026/er0612_68728.htm
SEC Obtains Final Judgment as to Former Registered Representative Charged With Defrauding Customers
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 3:25-cv-01653; N.D. Tex. filed June 27, 2025) involving an ex-registered representative charged with defrauding customers:
* * *
On June 1, 2026, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered a final judgment as to Rajesh Markan in connection with the SEC's civil enforcement action against him.
According to the SEC's complaint, from at least 2015 through July 2024, Markan, while working as a registered representative of two dually-registered broker-dealers
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 3:25-cv-01653; N.D. Tex. filed June 27, 2025) involving an ex-registered representative charged with defrauding customers:
* * *
On June 1, 2026, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered a final judgment as to Rajesh Markan in connection with the SEC's civil enforcement action against him.
According to the SEC's complaint, from at least 2015 through July 2024, Markan, while working as a registered representative of two dually-registered broker-dealersand investment advisers, solicited approximately ten of his brokerage customers to invest, collectively, approximately $2.9 million in a purported private equity fund. The complaint alleged that Markan told investors that a well-known New York private equity firm advised the fund and that their money would be tied up for six to twelve years, but he assured them that, ultimately, they could expect to make above-market returns. As alleged, none of these representations were true: the fund was fake and never existed, there was no association with the New York private equity firm, and Markan misappropriated most of the investors' money for himself.
The final judgment, which follows the Court entering a bifurcated judgment as to the defendant on July 9, 2025, permanently enjoins Markan from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and permanently enjoins Markan from participating in the issuance, offer, purchase or sale of any security except for purchases or sales for his own personal accounts. In addition, the final judgment orders Markan liable for disgorgement in the amount of $2,305,025 and prejudgment interest in the amount of $132,776.15, with payment of those amounts deemed satisfied by the restitution of $2,445,000 ordered against Markan in a parallel criminal case, United States v. Rajesh Markan, Crim. No. 3:25-cr-145-N (N.D. Tex.).
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Robert Boudreau and Keith Hunter of the SEC's Fort Worth Regional Office. The SEC's litigation was led by Tyson Lies and supervised by Keefe Bernstein. The SEC appreciates the assistance of FINRA, the FBI, and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26564.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26564
SEC Obtains Default Judgment Against Santos Kidd for Role in Alleged Fraudulent Real Estate Investment Scheme
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. SA 23 CV 700 FB; W.D. Tex. filed June 6, 2023) involving Santos Kiidd:
* * *
On June 1, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas entered a final judgment by default against Santos Kidd, whom the Securities and Exchange Commission previously charged for participating in an alleged fraudulent mobile-home investment scheme.
According to the SEC's complaint, between at least June 2018 and November 2021, Chimene Van Gundy - the self-proclaimed "Queen of Mobile Homes" -
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. SA 23 CV 700 FB; W.D. Tex. filed June 6, 2023) involving Santos Kiidd:
* * *
On June 1, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas entered a final judgment by default against Santos Kidd, whom the Securities and Exchange Commission previously charged for participating in an alleged fraudulent mobile-home investment scheme.
According to the SEC's complaint, between at least June 2018 and November 2021, Chimene Van Gundy - the self-proclaimed "Queen of Mobile Homes" -and her company, Outstanding Real Estate Solutions, Inc. ("ORES"), raised approximately $18.5 million from at least 600 investors for investments in mobile homes promising guaranteed annual returns of 15% to 20%. The complaint alleged that although Van Gundy and ORES told investors that she would use their funds to purchase, refurbish, and sell mobile homes, they instead misappropriated investor funds by making Ponzi-like payments, paying millions of dollars in undisclosed sales commissions, and funding Van Gundy's personal expenses and lifestyle. As alleged, Kidd, a third-party salesperson formerly based in Honolulu, Hawaii, distributed the ORES offering materials and investor presentation to investors, specifically encouraged some investors to apply for home equity lines of credit to fund their investments in ORES, and affirmatively misrepresented to some investors that he did not receive commissions for his sales of the ORES investments, even though he received commission payments totaling $285,155.97 between April 2019 and May 2021.
The judgment, entered on the basis of default, permanently enjoins Kidd, who has now relocated to the Philippines, from violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b 5 thereunder, as well as the broker registration provisions of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. The judgment also permanently prohibits Kidd from participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any security, except for transactions in Kidd's personal account. In addition, Kidd is ordered to pay $285,155.97 in disgorgement, $37,467.18 in prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty of $285,155.97, for a total monetary judgment of $607,779.12.
The SEC's litigation is being handled by the staff of the SEC's Fort Worth Regional Office.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26565.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26565
NRC Renews Hatch Licenses in Under 12 Months, Preserving 1.8 Gigawatts on the Grid for 20 More Years
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
NRC Renews Hatch Licenses in Under 12 Months, Preserving 1.8 Gigawatts on the Grid for 20 More Years
ROCKVILLE, Md. -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has completed its second nuclear power plant license renewal in under 12 months, granting the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant in Georgia another 20 years of carbon-free electricity generation. The back-to-back rapid renewals mark a milestone for the agency under Executive Order 14300, which established the 12-month target for license renewal reviews.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
NRC Renews Hatch Licenses in Under 12 Months, Preserving 1.8 Gigawatts on the Grid for 20 More Years
ROCKVILLE, Md. -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has completed its second nuclear power plant license renewal in under 12 months, granting the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant in Georgia another 20 years of carbon-free electricity generation. The back-to-back rapid renewals mark a milestone for the agency under Executive Order 14300, which established the 12-month target for license renewal reviews.
Unit 1 is now licensed to operate through August 2054, and Unit 2 through June 2058, for up to 80 years of operation for each of the Southern Nuclear-operated boiling-water reactors.
"The NRC continues to demonstrate we can reach timely decisions while maintaining our strict safety oversight," said Anna Bradford, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. "The staff's ability to focus on key factors necessary for long-term plant performance and to implement continuous learning enabled us to efficiently secure another 1.8 gigawatts of power on the grid for 20 more years."
NRC staff completed safety and environmental reviews using a streamlined process for license renewals, applying lessons learned from earlier reviews to work more efficiently without compromising safety standards.
The NRC safety evaluation, environmental review findings, and renewed licenses are available on the NRC website. Additional information about this license renewal can also be found online.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nrc.gov/sites/default/files/cdn/doc-collection-news/2026/26-064.pdf
MSPB Issues Board Decision Involving DOD Vs. Appellant Denise Davis
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Merit Systems Protection Board issued the following case report on a board decision involving the Department of Defense and appellant Denise Davis on June 12, 2026:
* * *
BOARD DECISIONS
Appellant: Denise Davis
Agency: Department of Defense
Decision Number: 2026 MSPB 5
Docket Number: DC-0752-25-0273-I-1
Issuance Date: June 9, 2026
PROBATIONERS/5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1)(A), "EMPLOYEE," NOTICE OF TIME LIMIT/APPEALABLE MATTER, ELECTION OF REMEDIES
The Department of Defense appointed the appellant, a preference eligible, to a Cybersecurity Specialist position in the
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Merit Systems Protection Board issued the following case report on a board decision involving the Department of Defense and appellant Denise Davis on June 12, 2026:
* * *
BOARD DECISIONS
Appellant: Denise Davis
Agency: Department of Defense
Decision Number: 2026 MSPB 5
Docket Number: DC-0752-25-0273-I-1
Issuance Date: June 9, 2026
PROBATIONERS/5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1)(A), "EMPLOYEE," NOTICE OF TIME LIMIT/APPEALABLE MATTER, ELECTION OF REMEDIES
The Department of Defense appointed the appellant, a preference eligible, to a Cybersecurity Specialist position in theexcepted service pursuant to 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1599f, subject to a 3-year probationary period. Approximately 34 months into the probationary period, the agency terminated her employment without affording her an opportunity to respond to the termination notice. The appellant filed a Board appeal, alleging that, despite her 3-year probationary period, she was an employee pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1)(B) and the agency failed to provide her with the required procedures.
The administrative judge agreed that the appellant was an employee pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1)(B) and ordered the agency to cancel her termination because it did not provide the procedural protections afforded by 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7513. The Board affirmed the administrative judge's initial decision.
Holding: Preference eligibles appointed under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1599f who have completed 1-year of current continuous service are employees with Board appeal rights because such individuals meet the definition at 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1)(B) and are not specifically excluded in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(b).
1. The Board analogized this appeal to Lal v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 821 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016), wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) found that a consultant appointed to the excepted service pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 209(f) "without regard to the civil service laws," nevertheless was an employee with Board appeal rights. In Lal, the Federal Circuit found that the relevant language of section 209(f) spoke only of appointment authority, not removal authority, and Congress did not otherwise exclude the employment from the definition of employee under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(b).
2. Congress knows how to exempt a civil service position from the protections found in chapters 75 and 77 of Title 5 if it so desires. See King v. Briggs, 83 F.3d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1996). When Congress enacted neighboring section 1599e to extend certain probationary periods from 1-year to 2 years as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (NDAA of 2016), Pub. L. No. 114-92, Sec. 1107, 129 Stat. 726, 1024-27 (2015), it also amended the definition of employee to exclude these probationers from the Board's jurisdiction. However, when enacting section 1599f, Congress took no such action.
3. The Board found that because the appellant met the definition of employee at 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1)(B) and because Congress did not specifically modify that definition to exclude individuals appointed to lengthy probationary periods under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1599f, the appellant was an employee with appeal rights to the Board, and the agency erred by not affording her the procedural protections of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7513 prior to her removal.
Holding: Although the appellant filed her appeal 4 months after the deadline to do so, she demonstrated good cause for the untimely filing of her appeal.
1. An agency's failure to apprise an employee of her Board appeal rights after effectuating an adverse action, as here, will generally justify a waiver of the filing deadline.
2. Taking into account the appellant's pro se status, the lack of notice she received from the agency, and an ambiguous email from the Board, the Board found that she exercised due diligence and ordinary prudence that established good cause for her filing delay.
Holding: The appellant's complaint to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) does not bar consideration of her later-in-time Board appeal, because she did not knowingly elect a remedy by filing the OSC complaint.
1. The agency's notice informing the appellant of her right to file an OSC complaint did not also include language advising her of its binding and preclusive effect on any future Board appeal. As such, the Board found that the appellant did not make a knowing election to proceed at OSC.
* * *
COURT DECISIONS
NONPRECEDENTIAL:
Coleman v. Merit Systems Protection Board, No. 2025-2031 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2026) (MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-22-0109-W-1). The court affirmed the Board's finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner's individual right of action (IRA) appeal when all of the petitioner's purported protected disclosures occurred after the sole personnel action at issue--the agency's 2015 discontinuation of his hazardous duty pay. The court also rejected the petitioner's claim that the agency's refusal to reinstate his hazardous duty pay was a continuing act of reprisal because subsequent consequences of a discrete act of reprisal do not render the original violation a continuing one under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.
Sanicola v. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 2026-1232 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2026) (MSPB Docket No. CH-1221-24-0252-W-1). The court affirmed the Board administrative judge's findings that, although the petitioner made protected disclosures that were a contributing factor to the termination of her employment, the agency proved by clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated her employment for repeated instances of speeding in an agency vehicle in the absence of her protected disclosures. Specifically, the court rejected the petitioner's argument that the administrative judge and the agency erred by relying on the vehicle's speed data rather than her State driving record to determine whether she violated agency speeding rules.
Hays v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 2024-2359 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2026) (MSPB Docket No. DE-0752-23-0078-I-1). The court affirmed the Board's finding that the agency did not commit harmful procedural error by mailing its notice of proposed removal to the petitioner's mailing address when the petitioner never informed the agency that he resided at an address different from his mailing address. The court further agreed with the Board that a rebuttable presumption existed that the notice reached the petitioner because the agency submitted evidence that it sent a copy of the notice in a sealed envelope that was properly addressed to the petitioner's mailing address.
Reynolds v. Department of Justice, No. 2025-1773 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2026) (MSPB Docket No. CH-0752-23-0078-I-2). The court affirmed the Board's finding that the agency had reasonable cause to indefinitely suspend the petitioner for allegedly sexually assaulting two other employees until his criminal case regarding the same allegations was resolved. The court also found that the petitioner was restored to paid status 15 days after a diversion order was entered in his criminal case, which eventually resulted in the dismissal of the case, and the petitioner did not demonstrate that the agency should have restored him sooner.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/case_reports/Case_Report_June_12_2026.pdf
FEC Issues Digest for Week of June 8-12, 2026
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest:
* * *
Commission meetings and hearings
No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week.
* * *
Litigation
Bernegger v. FEC (Case No. 25-4563) On June 7, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a Minute Order directing the Clerk of Court to enter Default against the Commission.
Bernegger v. FEC (Case No. 26-213) On June 10, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a Minute Order denying without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest:
* * *
Commission meetings and hearings
No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week.
* * *
Litigation
Bernegger v. FEC (Case No. 25-4563) On June 7, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a Minute Order directing the Clerk of Court to enter Default against the Commission.
Bernegger v. FEC (Case No. 26-213) On June 10, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a Minute Order denying without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default andMotion for Default Judgment as premature for failure to effectuate proper service.
* * *
Reports Due in 2026
The Commission has posted the 2026 Congressional Pre-Election Reporting Dates. Reporting schedules for all filers in 2026 are also available.
* * *
Election Dates
The Commission has posted a list of 2026 Congressional Primary Dates.
* * *
Upcoming educational opportunities
June 17, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host an Advanced FECFile for Candidate Committees webinar.
June 24, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host reporting and FECFile webinars for candidate committees.
July 8, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host Basic and Advanced FECFile webinars for PACs and party committees.
For more information on upcoming training opportunities, see the Commission's Trainings page.
* * *
Upcoming reporting due dates
June 20: June Monthly Reports are due. For more information, see the 2026 Monthly Reporting schedule.
The Commission has posted information regarding reporting deadlines as some states reschedule congressional primary elections to account for redistricting.
The Commission has posted filing information regarding the California 14th District Special General Election, scheduled for June 16, 2026, and Special Runoff Election (if necessary), scheduled for August 18, 2026.
The Commission has posted filing information regarding the Georgia 13th District Special General Election, scheduled for July 28, 2026, and Special Runoff Election (if necessary), scheduled for August 25, 2026.
* * *
Additional research materials
Contribution Limits: In addition to the current limits, the Commission has posted an archive of contribution limits that were in effect going back to the 1975-1976 election cycles.
Federal election results are available. The data was compiled from the official vote totals published by state election offices.
FEC Notify: Want to be notified by email when campaign finance reports are received by the agency? Sign up here.
The Combined Federal State Disclosure and Election Directory is available. This publication identifies the federal and state agencies responsible for the disclosure of campaign finances, lobbying, personal finances, public financing, candidates on the ballot, election results, spending on state initiatives, and other financial filings.
The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Tax Checkoff Chart provides information on balance of the Fund, monthly deposits into the Fund reported by the Department of the Treasury, payments from the Fund as certified by the FEC, and participation rates of taxpayers as reported by the Internal Revenue Service. For more information on the Presidential Public Funding Program, see the Public Funding of Presidential Elections page.
The FEC Record is available as a continuously updated online news source.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fec.gov/updates/week-of-june-8-12-2026/
FCC Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau Issues Public Notice: Conditional Approval, Exemption of Certain Uncrewed Aircraft Systems & Routers From FCC Covered List
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 18-89; ET Docket No. 21-232; EA Docket No. 21-233):
* * *
The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB or Bureau) maintains a list of equipment and services (Covered List) that have been determined to "pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons."/1 Pursuant to section 2 of the Secure and Trusted Communications
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 18-89; ET Docket No. 21-232; EA Docket No. 21-233):
* * *
The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB or Bureau) maintains a list of equipment and services (Covered List) that have been determined to "pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons."/1 Pursuant to section 2 of the Secure and Trusted CommunicationsNetworks Act of 2019 (Secure Networks Act)/2 and sections 1.50002(a) and 1.50003 of the Commission's rules,/3 PSHSB announces that the Department of War (DoW) has granted Conditional Approvals for certain uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) and routers. Therefore, such devices are exempt from the Covered List.
Additions of UAS and UAS Critical Components, and Routers to the Covered List:
UAS and UAS Critical Components. On December 22, 2025, PSHSB issued a Public Notice adding all UAS and UAS critical components produced in a foreign country to the Covered List./4 This action was based on a National Security Determination from an Executive Branch interagency body, including several appropriate national security agencies, determining (among other things) that UAS and UAS critical components produced in a foreign country pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of U.S. persons. In that Public Notice, we stated, "[i]f we receive a further specific determination from the Department of War or the Department of Homeland Security that a given UAS, class of UAS, or UAS critical component does not pose unacceptable risks, we will further update the Covered List."/5
In January 2026, we updated the Covered List to reflect DoW's determinations that, until January 1, 2027, UAS and UAS critical components included on DoW's Blue UAS Cleared List and UAS and UAS critical components that qualify as "domestic end products" under the Buy American Standard do not pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of U.S. persons./6 In March 2026, we updated the Covered List to reflect the first Conditional Approvals that the FCC received from the DoW, exempting specific UAS and UAS critical components "which have been granted a Conditional Approval by DoW or DHS" from the Covered List./7
Routers. On March 23, 2026, the Commission added to the Covered List "routers produced in a foreign country, except routers which have been granted a Conditional Approval by DoW or DHS."/8 This addition was based on a National Security Determination from an Executive Branch interagency body, including several appropriate national security agencies, determining (among other things) that routers produced in a foreign country pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of U.S. persons./9
Conditional Approvals:
The Executive Branch interagency body established a process by which entities producing UAS and UAS critical components and routers in foreign countries can request DoW or the Department of Homeland Security to evaluate whether such devices do not pose unacceptable risks to national security and receive Conditional Approvals that would exempt such devices from the Covered List. The Commission has updated the Covered List to reflect the Conditional Approvals that we have received from the DoW exempting certain UAS and UAS critical components and routers from the Covered List./10
DoW has reviewed submissions and granted Conditional Approvals for the following devices:
* Flock Group, Inc. (doing business as Flock Safety) Flock Alpha Uncrewed Aircraft System (terminating December 31, 2026)
* Miri Technologies, Inc.'s Miri X10 Travel router (terminating December 12, 2027)
The Covered List:
We find that each of the Conditional Approvals constitutes "a specific determination" by DoW that such devices do not pose risks to U.S. national security./11 Therefore, we conclude that PSHSB is required to update the Covered List to exclude the equipment identified in these Conditional Approvals.
PSHSB takes this action under its authority and obligation to publish and maintain the Covered List. Sections 1.50002(a) and 1.50003 of the Commission's rules require PSHSB to publish the Covered List on the Commission's website, to maintain and update the Covered List, and to monitor the status of determinations./12
The Covered List and the list of devices that have received Conditional Approvals are attached as Appendices A and B to this Public Notice and can also be found on the Bureau's website at https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist./13
We note the continued availability of FCC staff guidance pursuant to sections 0.191 and 0.31(i) of the Commission's rules. Commission staff will provide guidance to TCBs, test labs, and equipment authorization applicants on the impact of these updates.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019, Pub. L. No. 116-124, 133 Stat. 158 (2020) (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 1601-1609) (Secure Networks Act); 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 1.50002, 1.50003. For the current version of the Covered List, see Federal Communications Commission, List of Equipment and Services Covered By Section 2 of The Secure Networks Act, https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist (last updated Apr. 14, 2026).
2/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 1601.
3/ 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 1.50002(a), 1.50003; see also Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs, WC Docket No. 18-89, Second Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 14284 (2020) (Supply Chain Second Report and Order).
4/ Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Addition of Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) and UAS Critical Components Produced Abroad, and Equipment and Services Listed in Section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA, to FCC Covered List, WC Docket 18-89, Public Notice, DA 25-1086 (Dec 22, 2025) (UAS Public Notice).
5/ UAS Public Notice at 3.
6/ Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Exemption of Certain Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) and UAS Critical Components from FCC Covered List, WC Docket No. 18-89, Public Notice, DA 26-22 (Jan. 7, 2026) (Second UAS Public Notice).
7/ Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Conditional Approval of Certain Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) and UAS Critical Components and Exemption from FCC Covered List, WC Docket No. 18-89, Public Notice, DA 26-253 (Mar. 18, 2026).
8/ FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Addition of Routers Produced in Foreign Countries to FCC Covered List, WC Docket No. 18-89, Public Notice, DA 26-278 (Mar. 23, 2026) (Routers Public Notice).
9/ Routers Public Notice at 2.
10/ See, e.g., FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Conditional Approval of Certain Routers and Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Exemption from FCC Covered List, WC Docket No. 18-89, Public Notice, DA-26-351 (April 14, 2026). The list of devices that have received Conditional Approvals can be found on the Bureau's website at https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist.
11/ See Routers Public Notice, Appx. C; Second UAS Public Notice, Appx. B.
12/ 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 1.50002(a), 1.50003. See Supply Chain Second Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 14319, 14325, paras. 72, 77, 92.
13/ The FCC website also contains a list of certain affiliates and subsidiaries of entities identified on the Covered List. The list of affiliates and subsidiaries does not constitute a comprehensive list of all entities that the Commission may find, upon further examination, to qualify as relevant subsidiaries or affiliates of entities on the Covered List. Those entities, whether or not they currently provide covered communications equipment or services, are subject to the Commission's prohibitions, such as the prohibition against obtaining authorizations for covered equipment. See Reminder: Communications Equipment And Services On The Covered List Pose An Unacceptable Risk To National Security, National Security Advisory No. 2025-01, DA 25-927, n.3 (PSHSB Oct. 14, 2025).
* * *
Original text and attachments here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-584A1.pdf
