Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Federal Regulatory Agencies
Featured Stories
FCC Repeals National Television Multiple Ownership Rule
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Commissioner Anna M. Gomez:
* * *
Commission Repeals National Television Multiple Ownership Rule
Re: Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission's Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, MB Docket No. 17-318, Report and Order (August 6, 2026).
The Commission's decision to eliminate the 39 percent national audience reach cap is unlawful on its face and a profound departure from both statutory boundaries and longstanding broadcast policy. Congress set this cap in federal law, and only ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Commissioner Anna M. Gomez: * * * Commission Repeals National Television Multiple Ownership Rule Re: Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission's Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, MB Docket No. 17-318, Report and Order (August 6, 2026). The Commission's decision to eliminate the 39 percent national audience reach cap is unlawful on its face and a profound departure from both statutory boundaries and longstanding broadcast policy. Congress set this cap in federal law, and onlyCongress can change it. I cannot support an action that so plainly exceeds the Commission's authority while simultaneously overlooking the real-world consequences for the public we serve.
The national cap matters and Congress, not this Commission, controls its fate. Today's action undermines our core public interest principles of localism, viewpoint diversity, and competition while failing to consider or address the interconnected rules, market realities, and economic pressures that define today's media ecosystem.
Broadcast television remains one of the nation's most vital civic institutions precisely because it is free, universally accessible, and rooted in the communities it serves. Unlike subscription-based or algorithm-driven digital platforms, broadcasting is a public-facing technology designed from the outset to deliver content that strengthens civic infrastructure and supports democratic engagement. At its best, broadcasting is a glue that holds communities together by providing local journalism, emergency information, cultural touchstones, and live events that speak to who we are and what we value.
Local journalism sits at the center of this civic mission. It is the backbone of localism, supplying coverage of public safety issues, local government, community concerns, school board decisions, and regional sports, matters that national outlets neither cover nor understand with the nuance they require. Many national stories begin at the local level, and communities rely on reporters who know their neighborhoods, understand their residents, and can contextualize national issues through a local lens. This service cannot be replicated at a national scale. That is why the law has long afforded local broadcasters special treatment: because communities depend on them.
Broadcasting is also indispensable in emergencies. Over-the-air alerts save lives, and broadcasters' ability to reach virtually every household, even when broadband is down or mobile networks are congested, is a public-safety asset unmatched by any technology company. When a hurricane is approaching, when wildfires threaten communities, when a chemical spill forces evacuations, when seconds matter, broadcasters provide immediate, authoritative information.
Culturally, broadcasting binds the country together through shared experiences. National sporting events such as the Super Bowl, the Olympics, and the World Cup are not merely entertainment, they are common, unifying moments that cross political, geographic, and demographic lines. Regional and local sports carry similar importance, reflecting the identities of states, towns, and schools. Congress recognized the civic and cultural significance of sports broadcasting when it enacted the Sports Broadcasting Act, underscoring the public value of ensuring these shared experiences remain broadly accessible.
These public-interest benefits flow from what broadcasters do uniquely well, delivering time-sensitive live content. News, emergency alerts, and sports, all core to the public interest, depend on real-time distribution, consistency, and universal reach. And while news and emergency services are public goods, sports content serves the public interest and helps sustain the economic model that makes those public goods possible. Recent events underscore this synergy: the World Cup's unifying impact and strong ratings, the Olympics' broad national resonance, and football's extraordinary audience reach. Ninety-two of the top one hundred broadcasts in 2025 were football games. These are not just ratings milestones, they are reminders of broadcasting's unique role in our cultural fabric.
But today, the financial model that underpins broadcast journalism and emergency communications is under strain. Global digital platforms, which include some of the largest and most powerful corporations in history, are aggressively moving into sports, siphoning away a cornerstone of broadcast revenue at a moment when advertising markets are already tightening. It is difficult to overstate the significance of this shift. As Big Tech competes for sports rights, the economic viability of the broadcast model becomes more precarious. Broadcasters are being squeezed from both sides. Digital giants compete for their most valuable programming and advertising, while consolidation pressures at the national level threaten the local reporting and public-safety functions on which communities rely. But eliminating the cap does not free local broadcasters from that strain. It just changes who is doing the squeezing. A handful of station-group giants do not represent the wishes of local broadcasters. They are large national companies that own local stations and increasingly dictate what airs on them without much local input. Trading a squeeze from Big Tech for a squeeze from Big Media does nothing to protect the communities this cap was designed to serve.
Eliminating the national audience reach cap would accelerate these pressures precisely when communities need strong, independent local journalism and robust emergency communications the most. The cap has long served as a guardrail preserving localism, viewpoint diversity, and competition. Removing it now, without regard for the public policy consequences, risks undermining the very features of broadcasting that distinguish it from nationalized, centralized digital media systems. At a time when shared civic experiences are increasingly rare, weakening an institution that still produces them is not just unwise policy; it is a step in the wrong direction for our country.
Most fundamentally, however, the Commission does not have the authority to raise or waive the 39 percent national audience reach limitation. Simply put, the 39 percent national audience reach limitation was established by a statute and only Congress has the authority to raise or eliminate it. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (2004 CAA) directed the Commission to set the national audience reach limitation at 39 percent, removed this limitation from the congressionally created review process, established an ongoing divesture requirement for any entity that exceeds the 39 percent limitation, and not only failed to provide the Commission with authority to modify, waive, or raise the limitation, it affirmatively stated that the Commission was prohibited from forbearing from enforcing the statutory provision./1 These steps were deliberate, explicit, and binding.
* * *
1. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-199, Sec. 629, 118 Stat. 3 (2004) (2004 CAA).
There are few, if any, issues with more history at the Federal Communications Commission than broadcast ownership limitations. The Commission has regulated broadcast ownership since 1941 to promote localism and competition, preserve diverse viewpoints, and avoid "concentration of control."/2 At the outset, ownership was limited to one television station within a given area and three "scattered" stations. The Commission later raised the ownership limitation to five stations in 1944 and seven in 1954. In 1984, the Commission increased the limitation to twelve stations and proposed phasing it out, but in direct response to such Commission action Congress quickly intervened to block the phase-out./3 And in response to Congress stepping in and directing the Commission to reconsider its action, the Commission proceeded more cautiously by maintaining the twelve-station limitation, and, for the first time, also adopted a percentage-based limitation./4 This limitation prohibited any single entity from acquiring
2. Kannon Shanmugam and William Marks, The FCC Lacks Statutory Authority to Revise the Telecommunications Act's 39% National Ownership Cap for Television at 3 (2025), https://americantelevisionalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/NationalOwnershipCapWhitePaper_12-15-25.pdf (quoting Broadcast Services Other Than Standard Broadcast, 6 Fed. Reg. 2282, 2282 (Apr. 30, 1941)).
3. See Second Supplemental Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 98-396, Sec. 304, 98 Stat. 1369, 1423 (1984) (1984 SSAA).
4. In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.3555 [formerly Sections 73.35, 73.240 and 73.636] of the Commission's Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of AM, FM and Television Broadcast Stations, 100 F.C.C.2d 74 (1984).
ownership interests in stations reaching more than 25 percent of the national audience. These actions ultimately set the stage for Congress to revisit the Commission's ownership limitations in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act). In the 1996 Act, Congress again asserted its authority over broadcast ownership limits when it created an initial national audience reach limitation of 35 percent and simultaneously created a biennial review process that required the Commission to consider whether this congressionally created limitation, along with additional rules "adopted pursuant to [the 1996 Act]" and all of the Commission's other existing ownership rules, continued to be "necessary in the public interest."/5 In June of 2003, the Commission raised the national audience reach limitation to 45 percent as part of such required review.6 In direct response to this Commission action, in January of 2004, Congress stepped in yet again and in the 2004 CAA modified the relevant sections of the 1996 Act in several critical respects.7
5. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq.) (1996 Act).
6. 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 et al., Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 13620, 13814 para. 499 (June 3, 2003) (2002 Biennial Review).
7. 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
Specifically, Congress directed the Commission to set the national audience reach limitation to 39 percent in the Commission's rules by modifying the language in section 202(c)(1)(B) of the 1996 Act.8 It also changed the review process it had created by explicitly removing review of "the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in subsection (c)(1)(B)"9 from the required, now quadrennial, review of the Commission's rules that were "adopted pursuant to this section and all of its ownership rules."10 The 39 percent national audience reach limitation in subsection (c)(1)(B), and its precursor 35 percent rule originally adopted in 1996, are the original and subsequently congressionally modified version of a rule that was "adopted pursuant to this section."/11
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id.; 1996 Act Sec. 202(h).
11. Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 280 F.3d 1027, 1043 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (Fox I); see also Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 280 F.3d 1027, modified on reh'g, 293 F.3d 537, 540 (D.C. Cir. 2002).] (Fox II)
The changes to the text of the 1996 Act also prohibited the Commission from forbearing from the 39 percent national audience reach limitation./12 Forbearance is a term used specifically in the Communications Act to provide the Commission with the authority to not enforce statutory provisions./13 As used here, by stating forbearance authority "shall not apply" to the 39 percent national audience reach limitation, the language makes clear two things. First, that Congress believed the limitation was statutory. Forbearance only applies to statutory provisions, it is not necessary for rules established by the Commission and use of the word would make no sense if Congress believed otherwise. Second, that forbearing from it was prohibited makes clear Congress's intent that the limitation was not to be changed.
12. 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
13. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 160. Congress provided the Commission with specific forbearance authority in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in response to the Supreme Court reversing a Commission decision not to enforce a statutory tariffing requirement because the Commission lacked forbearance authority. MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 512 U.S. 218, 114 S. Ct. 2223 (1994). See also Cary Adickman, Grin and Forbear It: Suffering Statutory Forbearance Under The Telecommunications Act Of 1996 at 5-8 (2013).
This interpretation of the meaning of the forbearance provision is consistent with the related actions in the 2004 CAA that demonstrate Congress's intent to establish a limitation that the Commission did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.
14. 2002 Biennial Review at 13814 para. 499 (2003); 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
15. 2004 CAA Sec. 629 (amending 1996 Act Sec. 202(h) "by striking ''biennially'' and inserting ''quadrennially'' and by adding the following new flush sentence at the end: ''This subsection does not apply to any rules relating to the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in subsection (c)(1)(B).")
16. Fox I at 1043; see also Fox II at 540.
17. 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
Notably, Congress took further consistent actions. It also created a stand-alone ongoing divestiture obligation that made it crystal clear that the directed rule change removed the Commission's authority to change it./18 Specifically, Congress established a statutory two-year timeline for entities that exceeded the limitation to come into compliance that was independent of the effective date of the 2004 CAA. The divestiture requirement is that any entity "that exceeds the 39% national audience reach limitation . . . through grant, transfer, or assignment of an additional license for commercial broadcast television station shall have not more than two years after exceeding such limitation to come into compliance with such limitation."/19 Importantly, this language refers specifically to a numerical limitation and then refers back to that specific limitation twice. It is not referencing the Commission's rule, it is speaking to the specific limitation that Congress had created with this action.
18. Id.
19. Id. (emphasis added).
Conspicuously, the language the 2004 CAA inserts into the 1996 Act speaks in terms of the specifically enumerated "39 percent national audience reach limitation." Neither the exclusion of the limitation from quadrennial review, the divestiture requirement nor the prohibition against forbearance refer to the national audience reach limitation "in the Commission's rules." Instead in each instance the statutory language states explicitly "the 39 percent national audience reach limitation," demonstrating that Congress intended this specific limitation to be set absent further action by Congress.
Further, knowledgeable republicans with direct experience shaping, and later interpreting, the national audience reach cap agree that today's action is plainly foreclosed by law. Former FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly, who was personally involved in the negotiations that produced the 39 percent cap, has stated unequivocally that the Commission "does not have the authority to modify the national audience reach cap," explaining that Congress expressly codified the cap in statute, removed it from the Commission's periodic ownership review, and never revisited that limitation./20 Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who negotiated the final compromise with Senator Ted Stevens, has likewise emphasized that the 39 percent cap was deliberately enacted to prevent FCC revision absent a future act of Congress, underscoring that "regulatory agencies cannot defy or modify laws enacted by Congress" and reaffirming that the cap is "a statute, not a suggestion."/21 And while Senator Ted Cruz did not serve in Congress during those negotiations, his present role as Chair of the Senate Commerce
20Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission's Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, MB Docket No. 17-318, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 10785, 10808, para. 2 (2017).
21/ Tom Delay, I Helped Create The FCC's Ownership Cap. Here's How We Did It (Aug. 3, 2026) https://www.dailywire.com/news/tom-delay-i-helped-create-the-fccs-ownership-cap-heres-how-we-did-it.
Committee gives him direct oversight over this very issue. He has made clear that he is "skeptical a change can be made absent an act of Congress," signaling that Congress's intent remains unchanged today.Committee gives him direct oversight over this very issue. He has made clear that he is "skeptical a change can be made absent an act of Congress," signaling that Congress's intent remains unchanged today.Committee gives him direct oversight over this very issue. He has made clear that he is "skeptical a change can be made absent an act of Congress," signaling that Congress's intent remains unchanged today./22 Monty Tayloe, Howard Buskirk, Matt Daneman and Jimm Phillips, FCC to Vote on Eliminating National Cap at Aug. 6 Meeting (July 16, 2026), https://communicationsdaily.com/article/view?search_id=82641&id=2789159.
Today's order eliminating the 39 percent audience reach limitation ignores or summarily dismisses inconvenient facts and legal findings from its description of the relevant history. The Commission concludes that Congress's statutory action in the 2004 CAA changing the language in the 1996 Act directing the Commission to set the limitation at 39 percent was a mere temporary action in response to the Commission raising it too quickly. The Commission bases its analysis on the fact that the 2004 CAA did not change the language in the 1996 Act that directed the Commission to "modify its rules," the Commission's general rulemaking authority and language in appellate decisions predating the 2004 CAA./23 Specifically, that "had the Congress wished to insulate the [national ownership reach limitation] from review under Sec. 202(h), it need only have enshrined the 35% cap in the statute itself."/24 Upon close examination, the analysis falls apart. The order relies in large part on its analysis of the D.C. Circuit opinions in the Fox litigation./25 The order is correct that the D.C. Circuit found that Congress had directed the Commission to review the national ownership reach limitation and that the Commission was required to revisit the 35 percent limitation because it was only a starting point./26 The order fails to acknowledge, however, that the reason that the 35 percent limitation was only a starting point and the Commission was required to review it was that the statute required a biennial review of rules adopted pursuant to that section of the 1996 Act. The decision specifically noted that the rule in question, the national audience reach limitation, was a rule adopted pursuant to the 1996 Act./27 When Congress removed the 39 percent national audience reach limitation from the required, now quadrennial, review, it removed the statutory requirement on which the court relied in making its determination.
23/ Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission's Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, MB Docket No 17-318, at 45-46, paras. 84-85 (August 6, 2026) (National Television Multiple Ownership Rule).
24/ Fox II at 540.
25/ National Television Multiple Ownership Rule at 47-48, paras. 87-88.
26/ Fox I at 1043.
27/ Id.
The Commission's reliance on Fox II is equally unpersuasive. It relies on the court's statement that "had Congress wished to take away the Commission's ability to alter the cap, 'it need only have enshrined the 35% cap in the statute itself.'"28 While it is an accurate recitation of the court's decision, it completely ignores that in the 2004 CAA Congress, in fact, took action to enshrine the 39 percent national audience reach limitation by statute. As explained above, Congress (1) directed the Commission's rules be changed to reflect the 39 percent national audience reach limitation, (2) directed the removal of the 39 percent national audience reach limitation from the review process for congressionally established broadcast ownership rules that served as the basis for the decision in Fox I, (3) directed that the Commission should not forbear from the 39 percent national audience reach limitation, and (4) established an ongoing two-year deadline by which any broadcasters that exceeded the 39 percent
28 National Television Multiple Ownership Rule at 47 para. 87 (citing Fox II at 570).
national audience reach limitation had to divest stations to come into compliance.national audience reach limitation had to divest stations to come into compliance.national audience reach limitation had to divest stations to come into compliance.29 2004 CAA Sec. 629 (divesture requirement does not apply when the national audience reach limitation is exceeded through population growth). See also 47 CFR Sec. 202(c)(3).
The Commission's assertion that national ownership limitations have always been rules set by the agency with longstanding Congressional deference is contrary to history. Congress legislated on national television broadcast ownership limitations three separate times over the course of 20 years in 1984, 1996, and 2004.30 What is clear is that Congress kept the Commission on a very short leash with regard to these limitations.
30 1984 SSAA Sec. 304; 1996 Act Sec. 202; 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
The public-interest harms that will arise from this unauthorized rule change compound the statutory deficiency. This decision ignores the harms to the media ecosystem that will likely arise as a consequence of raising the national audience reach limitation. These harms include the negative impact on local journalism, consumers paying higher fees to their cable and satellite providers, known as Multichannel Video Program Distributors (MVPDs), and the MVPDs' loss of customers as increased costs result in more consumers cutting the cord. These are not speculative harms. When the Media Bureau waived the cap to clear the way for the Nexstar-TEGNA merger, a federal judge halted the transaction, finding that the states and DIRECTV are likely to succeed in proving it violates antitrust law. A court has already signaled that this kind of consolidation may harm competition and consumers, a signal that this Commission should take seriously before eliminating the cap altogether. Broadcasting does not need to look outside the world of journalism for a second warning. Over roughly the same period that the largest newspaper chains grew their share of the industry from one-third to 70 percent, the country lost more than 3,300 newspapers. Consolidation did not save that industry. It concentrated what remained of it while the industry itself collapsed.
I am cognizant of the economic challenges facing broadcasters today and I remain open to discussing solutions that address these challenges by taking actions that are within our authority and address the issues in a holistic manner. Local journalists do important work and local broadcasters are provided with valuable rights precisely because the public values local journalism. However, the Commission is not doing its job when it modifies its rules to protect the profit margins of corporate behemoths without ensuring that they will continue to provide claimed public interest benefits to consumers.
The Commission concludes that consolidation will allow economies of scale to support more local news and that the relevant market is the entire media ecosystem. The claim that media consolidation will lead to more local news is belied by history as submitted by DIRECTV.31 In short, history shows that media consolidation leads to commonly owned stations sharing "common news website[s] and content, common news leadership, and common news talent."32 These assertions are validated by academic research that studied how broadcaster consolidation impacts the rate of news duplication, where station pairs connected through a service agreement, duopoly, or common ownership with one content originating station and one non-originating member had at least 50 percent of the content of their transcripts matched exactly.33
31/ See DIRECTV Letter in MB Docket No. 17-318 at pp. 7-8, filed February 25, 2026; see also DIRECTV Reply to Opposition in MB Docket No. 25-331, at pp. 21-27, filed January 26, 2026.
32/ Id.
33/ Danilo Yanich and Benjamin E. Bagozzi, "Reusing the News: Duplication of Local Content," at 28-29, University of Delaware, (May 2025).
Further, the assertion that the relevant market is the entire media ecosystem because local broadcasters compete with national digital media platforms for advertisers and audience share is an oversimplification that ignores both the public interest and the complexity of the broadcast ecosystem. The complex and longstanding regulatory structure underlying broadcasting is designed, on the one hand, to ensure a diversity of viewpoints are represented by precluding one entity from dominating the voices available in a community and, on the other hand, to support a balance of negotiating power between large broadcasting networks that produce news and entertainment content targeting a national audience and locally licensed broadcasting stations that produce news and entertainment content that is targeted locally. Those advocating for lifting the national audience reach limitation assert it is necessary to preserve local broadcasting from the dominance of national networks. The assertion that the creation of large national ownership groups will result in more locally generated news content to serve local communities is both nonsensical and contrary to the evidence.
The structure is further complicated by the impact of consolidation on broadcasters' negotiations with MVPDs for retransmission consent payments for the distribution of the broadcasters' content. These payments are an important and significant source of support for free over-the-air programming. The MVPD community asserts that increasing or waiving the national audience reach limitation to allow consolidation into larger broadcast ownership groups will result in increased retransmission consent fees that will be paid by consumers. This assertion is supported by the public statements of Nexstar, the broadcast ownership group granted a waiver of this limitation by the Media Bureau earlier this year, which asserted such consolidation would cause Nexstar to achieve hundreds of millions of dollars in "economic synergies," which includes significantly increased retransmission consent fees.34 This is further supported by Nexstar's actions after the transaction closed, where it asserted in court filings that it was required by its contracts to raise retransmission consent rates for acquired entities./35
34/ Press Release, Nexstar Media Group, Inc., Nexstar Media Group, Inc. Enters into Definitive Agreement To Acquire TEGNA Inc. for $6.2 Billion in Accretive Transaction (Aug. 19, 2025), https://www.nexstar.tv/nexstar-media-group-inc-enters-into-definitive-agreement-to-acquire-tegna-inc-for-6-2-billion-in-accretive-transaction/.
35 Todd Spangler, Nexstar and Tegna Claim They Can't Fully Comply With Court Order Halting Merger Because Certain Actions 'Cannot Be Undone' (Apr. 1, 2026) https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/nexstar-tegna-merger-tro-court-order-reply-1236704471/.
The Commission's response in this decision to stakeholder concerns about increases in retransmission consent fees that are likely to result from eliminating the national reach limitation is jaw-dropping when considered together with its prior statements on the subject of retransmission consent fees. Specifically, in the order adopted today the Commission states that the impact of eliminating the 39 percent national audience reach limitation on retransmission consent fees is not appropriate for consideration in this proceeding and should instead be considered as part of the case-by-case reviews in individual transactions or in a separate rulemaking proceeding.36
36 National Television Multiple Ownership Rule at 34-36, paras. 67-68.
There is nothing new about case-by-case reviews. They already happen in every license transfer and the treatment of these issues is instructive as to what stakeholders can expect from this Commission. What is notable about such reviews is the studied avoidance thus far of addressing the impact of the transaction at issue on retransmission consent fees on the merits every single time it is raised.37 The Media Bureau routinely summarily dismisses such issues as outside the scope of what it should be considering. For example, in the Nexstar Tegna decision, despite evidence that the transaction would result in millions of dollars in increased fees on consumers, the Media Bureau determined that it was inappropriate to consider the issue in that "case-by-case" review because "allegations regarding retransmission consent do not raise a substantial and material question of fact as to whether grant of the
37 Letter from Michael Nilsson, Counsel to the American Television Alliance, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, MB Docket No. 17-318 (filed July 27, 2026) (citing the Media Bureau's declining to address restransmission consent issues in nine proceedings since Feb. 3, 2026, see DA 26-755; DA 26-612; DA 26-441; DA 26-427; DA 26-417; DA 26-304; DA 26-267; DA 26-177; and DA 26-108).
Applications would serve the public interest"Applications would serve the public interest"Applications would serve the public interest"Applications would serve the public interest"Applications would serve the public interest"38 Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of TEGNA Inc. to Nexstar Media Inc., MB Docket No. 25-331, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 26-267 at 31, para. 77 (Mar. 19, 2026) (Nexstar Tegna Order).
39 Nexstar Tegna Order at 32, para. 80 (2026) (". . . Petitioners' and Opposing Commenters' allegations regarding Nexstar's incentive and ability, post Transaction, to black out (or threaten to black out) its stations go to the functioning of the retransmission consent marketplace, and the Commission has not previously entertained general concerns about the retransmission consent marketplace in the context of individual transactions. Instead, the Commission has, in the past, considered issues related to retransmission consent--including leverage in retransmission consent negotiations--in rulemaking proceedings, and we believe that it is appropriate to continue that practice here.")
The order further noticeably maintains willful ignorance of other proposed changes to statutes as well as Commission rules and requirements for which broadcasters are currently advocating that will potentially impact the economics of local broadcasting. These include proposals in Congress to apply retransmission consent obligations to virtual MVPDs (e.g., DIRECTV, Hulu+ Live, Sling TV and YouTube TV) and to make changes to the Sports Broadcasting Act in response to streaming carriage of NFL games, as well as proposals at the Commission to mandate a hard cutover date for transition to the next generation TV broadcast standard and insert the Commission into negotiations between networks and their affiliates. In each of these proceedings, broadcasters are asserting preferential economic treatment is justified by the public good that local broadcasters provide in the form of public safety, local journalism, and cultural touchstones.
The Commission's decision to eliminate the national audience reach cap is not only a departure from decades of statutory and regulatory precedent, but a profound threat to the public interest. Congress has repeatedly and unequivocally asserted its authority over broadcast ownership limits, calibrating the cap to preserve localism, diversity, and competition in the media landscape. By removing this structural safeguard, the Commission disregards clear legislative intent and undermines the foundational principles that ensure communities retain access to independent local journalism, emergency information, and culturally significant programming. This action risks accelerating media consolidation, diminishing the diversity of voices available to the public, and eroding the civic infrastructure that broadcasting uniquely sustains.
Moreover, the Commission's rationale rests on a misreading of statutory language and a willful blindness to the historical record. Congress's repeated interventions in 1984, 1996, and 2004 demonstrate a consistent commitment to limiting national broadcast ownership and preventing excessive concentration of control. The statutory framework, including the prohibition on forbearance and the stand-alone divestiture requirement, leaves no ambiguity: only Congress has the authority to change the cap, and the Commission is expressly prohibited from doing so. By disregarding these constraints and dismissing the interconnected rules and market realities that define today's media ecosystem, the Commission abdicates its responsibility to uphold both the law and the public interest. Eliminating a statutory cap without addressing these interconnected issues is a bad strategy and an improvisation that will hasten the collapse this Commission claims it wants to prevent. I respectfully dissent.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A3.pdf
* * *
Commission Repeals National Television Multiple Ownership Rule
Re: Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission's Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, MB Docket No. 17-318, Report and Order (August 6, 2026).
The Commission's decision to eliminate the 39 percent national audience reach cap is unlawful on its face and a profound departure from both statutory boundaries and longstanding broadcast policy. Congress set this cap in federal law, and only ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Commissioner Anna M. Gomez: * * * Commission Repeals National Television Multiple Ownership Rule Re: Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission's Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, MB Docket No. 17-318, Report and Order (August 6, 2026). The Commission's decision to eliminate the 39 percent national audience reach cap is unlawful on its face and a profound departure from both statutory boundaries and longstanding broadcast policy. Congress set this cap in federal law, and onlyCongress can change it. I cannot support an action that so plainly exceeds the Commission's authority while simultaneously overlooking the real-world consequences for the public we serve.
The national cap matters and Congress, not this Commission, controls its fate. Today's action undermines our core public interest principles of localism, viewpoint diversity, and competition while failing to consider or address the interconnected rules, market realities, and economic pressures that define today's media ecosystem.
Broadcast television remains one of the nation's most vital civic institutions precisely because it is free, universally accessible, and rooted in the communities it serves. Unlike subscription-based or algorithm-driven digital platforms, broadcasting is a public-facing technology designed from the outset to deliver content that strengthens civic infrastructure and supports democratic engagement. At its best, broadcasting is a glue that holds communities together by providing local journalism, emergency information, cultural touchstones, and live events that speak to who we are and what we value.
Local journalism sits at the center of this civic mission. It is the backbone of localism, supplying coverage of public safety issues, local government, community concerns, school board decisions, and regional sports, matters that national outlets neither cover nor understand with the nuance they require. Many national stories begin at the local level, and communities rely on reporters who know their neighborhoods, understand their residents, and can contextualize national issues through a local lens. This service cannot be replicated at a national scale. That is why the law has long afforded local broadcasters special treatment: because communities depend on them.
Broadcasting is also indispensable in emergencies. Over-the-air alerts save lives, and broadcasters' ability to reach virtually every household, even when broadband is down or mobile networks are congested, is a public-safety asset unmatched by any technology company. When a hurricane is approaching, when wildfires threaten communities, when a chemical spill forces evacuations, when seconds matter, broadcasters provide immediate, authoritative information.
Culturally, broadcasting binds the country together through shared experiences. National sporting events such as the Super Bowl, the Olympics, and the World Cup are not merely entertainment, they are common, unifying moments that cross political, geographic, and demographic lines. Regional and local sports carry similar importance, reflecting the identities of states, towns, and schools. Congress recognized the civic and cultural significance of sports broadcasting when it enacted the Sports Broadcasting Act, underscoring the public value of ensuring these shared experiences remain broadly accessible.
These public-interest benefits flow from what broadcasters do uniquely well, delivering time-sensitive live content. News, emergency alerts, and sports, all core to the public interest, depend on real-time distribution, consistency, and universal reach. And while news and emergency services are public goods, sports content serves the public interest and helps sustain the economic model that makes those public goods possible. Recent events underscore this synergy: the World Cup's unifying impact and strong ratings, the Olympics' broad national resonance, and football's extraordinary audience reach. Ninety-two of the top one hundred broadcasts in 2025 were football games. These are not just ratings milestones, they are reminders of broadcasting's unique role in our cultural fabric.
But today, the financial model that underpins broadcast journalism and emergency communications is under strain. Global digital platforms, which include some of the largest and most powerful corporations in history, are aggressively moving into sports, siphoning away a cornerstone of broadcast revenue at a moment when advertising markets are already tightening. It is difficult to overstate the significance of this shift. As Big Tech competes for sports rights, the economic viability of the broadcast model becomes more precarious. Broadcasters are being squeezed from both sides. Digital giants compete for their most valuable programming and advertising, while consolidation pressures at the national level threaten the local reporting and public-safety functions on which communities rely. But eliminating the cap does not free local broadcasters from that strain. It just changes who is doing the squeezing. A handful of station-group giants do not represent the wishes of local broadcasters. They are large national companies that own local stations and increasingly dictate what airs on them without much local input. Trading a squeeze from Big Tech for a squeeze from Big Media does nothing to protect the communities this cap was designed to serve.
Eliminating the national audience reach cap would accelerate these pressures precisely when communities need strong, independent local journalism and robust emergency communications the most. The cap has long served as a guardrail preserving localism, viewpoint diversity, and competition. Removing it now, without regard for the public policy consequences, risks undermining the very features of broadcasting that distinguish it from nationalized, centralized digital media systems. At a time when shared civic experiences are increasingly rare, weakening an institution that still produces them is not just unwise policy; it is a step in the wrong direction for our country.
Most fundamentally, however, the Commission does not have the authority to raise or waive the 39 percent national audience reach limitation. Simply put, the 39 percent national audience reach limitation was established by a statute and only Congress has the authority to raise or eliminate it. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (2004 CAA) directed the Commission to set the national audience reach limitation at 39 percent, removed this limitation from the congressionally created review process, established an ongoing divesture requirement for any entity that exceeds the 39 percent limitation, and not only failed to provide the Commission with authority to modify, waive, or raise the limitation, it affirmatively stated that the Commission was prohibited from forbearing from enforcing the statutory provision./1 These steps were deliberate, explicit, and binding.
* * *
1. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-199, Sec. 629, 118 Stat. 3 (2004) (2004 CAA).
There are few, if any, issues with more history at the Federal Communications Commission than broadcast ownership limitations. The Commission has regulated broadcast ownership since 1941 to promote localism and competition, preserve diverse viewpoints, and avoid "concentration of control."/2 At the outset, ownership was limited to one television station within a given area and three "scattered" stations. The Commission later raised the ownership limitation to five stations in 1944 and seven in 1954. In 1984, the Commission increased the limitation to twelve stations and proposed phasing it out, but in direct response to such Commission action Congress quickly intervened to block the phase-out./3 And in response to Congress stepping in and directing the Commission to reconsider its action, the Commission proceeded more cautiously by maintaining the twelve-station limitation, and, for the first time, also adopted a percentage-based limitation./4 This limitation prohibited any single entity from acquiring
2. Kannon Shanmugam and William Marks, The FCC Lacks Statutory Authority to Revise the Telecommunications Act's 39% National Ownership Cap for Television at 3 (2025), https://americantelevisionalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/NationalOwnershipCapWhitePaper_12-15-25.pdf (quoting Broadcast Services Other Than Standard Broadcast, 6 Fed. Reg. 2282, 2282 (Apr. 30, 1941)).
3. See Second Supplemental Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 98-396, Sec. 304, 98 Stat. 1369, 1423 (1984) (1984 SSAA).
4. In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.3555 [formerly Sections 73.35, 73.240 and 73.636] of the Commission's Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of AM, FM and Television Broadcast Stations, 100 F.C.C.2d 74 (1984).
ownership interests in stations reaching more than 25 percent of the national audience. These actions ultimately set the stage for Congress to revisit the Commission's ownership limitations in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act). In the 1996 Act, Congress again asserted its authority over broadcast ownership limits when it created an initial national audience reach limitation of 35 percent and simultaneously created a biennial review process that required the Commission to consider whether this congressionally created limitation, along with additional rules "adopted pursuant to [the 1996 Act]" and all of the Commission's other existing ownership rules, continued to be "necessary in the public interest."/5 In June of 2003, the Commission raised the national audience reach limitation to 45 percent as part of such required review.6 In direct response to this Commission action, in January of 2004, Congress stepped in yet again and in the 2004 CAA modified the relevant sections of the 1996 Act in several critical respects.7
5. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq.) (1996 Act).
6. 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 et al., Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 13620, 13814 para. 499 (June 3, 2003) (2002 Biennial Review).
7. 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
Specifically, Congress directed the Commission to set the national audience reach limitation to 39 percent in the Commission's rules by modifying the language in section 202(c)(1)(B) of the 1996 Act.8 It also changed the review process it had created by explicitly removing review of "the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in subsection (c)(1)(B)"9 from the required, now quadrennial, review of the Commission's rules that were "adopted pursuant to this section and all of its ownership rules."10 The 39 percent national audience reach limitation in subsection (c)(1)(B), and its precursor 35 percent rule originally adopted in 1996, are the original and subsequently congressionally modified version of a rule that was "adopted pursuant to this section."/11
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id.; 1996 Act Sec. 202(h).
11. Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 280 F.3d 1027, 1043 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (Fox I); see also Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 280 F.3d 1027, modified on reh'g, 293 F.3d 537, 540 (D.C. Cir. 2002).] (Fox II)
The changes to the text of the 1996 Act also prohibited the Commission from forbearing from the 39 percent national audience reach limitation./12 Forbearance is a term used specifically in the Communications Act to provide the Commission with the authority to not enforce statutory provisions./13 As used here, by stating forbearance authority "shall not apply" to the 39 percent national audience reach limitation, the language makes clear two things. First, that Congress believed the limitation was statutory. Forbearance only applies to statutory provisions, it is not necessary for rules established by the Commission and use of the word would make no sense if Congress believed otherwise. Second, that forbearing from it was prohibited makes clear Congress's intent that the limitation was not to be changed.
12. 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
13. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 160. Congress provided the Commission with specific forbearance authority in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in response to the Supreme Court reversing a Commission decision not to enforce a statutory tariffing requirement because the Commission lacked forbearance authority. MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 512 U.S. 218, 114 S. Ct. 2223 (1994). See also Cary Adickman, Grin and Forbear It: Suffering Statutory Forbearance Under The Telecommunications Act Of 1996 at 5-8 (2013).
This interpretation of the meaning of the forbearance provision is consistent with the related actions in the 2004 CAA that demonstrate Congress's intent to establish a limitation that the Commission did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.
14. 2002 Biennial Review at 13814 para. 499 (2003); 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
15. 2004 CAA Sec. 629 (amending 1996 Act Sec. 202(h) "by striking ''biennially'' and inserting ''quadrennially'' and by adding the following new flush sentence at the end: ''This subsection does not apply to any rules relating to the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in subsection (c)(1)(B).")
16. Fox I at 1043; see also Fox II at 540.
17. 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
Notably, Congress took further consistent actions. It also created a stand-alone ongoing divestiture obligation that made it crystal clear that the directed rule change removed the Commission's authority to change it./18 Specifically, Congress established a statutory two-year timeline for entities that exceeded the limitation to come into compliance that was independent of the effective date of the 2004 CAA. The divestiture requirement is that any entity "that exceeds the 39% national audience reach limitation . . . through grant, transfer, or assignment of an additional license for commercial broadcast television station shall have not more than two years after exceeding such limitation to come into compliance with such limitation."/19 Importantly, this language refers specifically to a numerical limitation and then refers back to that specific limitation twice. It is not referencing the Commission's rule, it is speaking to the specific limitation that Congress had created with this action.
18. Id.
19. Id. (emphasis added).
Conspicuously, the language the 2004 CAA inserts into the 1996 Act speaks in terms of the specifically enumerated "39 percent national audience reach limitation." Neither the exclusion of the limitation from quadrennial review, the divestiture requirement nor the prohibition against forbearance refer to the national audience reach limitation "in the Commission's rules." Instead in each instance the statutory language states explicitly "the 39 percent national audience reach limitation," demonstrating that Congress intended this specific limitation to be set absent further action by Congress.
Further, knowledgeable republicans with direct experience shaping, and later interpreting, the national audience reach cap agree that today's action is plainly foreclosed by law. Former FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly, who was personally involved in the negotiations that produced the 39 percent cap, has stated unequivocally that the Commission "does not have the authority to modify the national audience reach cap," explaining that Congress expressly codified the cap in statute, removed it from the Commission's periodic ownership review, and never revisited that limitation./20 Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who negotiated the final compromise with Senator Ted Stevens, has likewise emphasized that the 39 percent cap was deliberately enacted to prevent FCC revision absent a future act of Congress, underscoring that "regulatory agencies cannot defy or modify laws enacted by Congress" and reaffirming that the cap is "a statute, not a suggestion."/21 And while Senator Ted Cruz did not serve in Congress during those negotiations, his present role as Chair of the Senate Commerce
20Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission's Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, MB Docket No. 17-318, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 10785, 10808, para. 2 (2017).
21/ Tom Delay, I Helped Create The FCC's Ownership Cap. Here's How We Did It (Aug. 3, 2026) https://www.dailywire.com/news/tom-delay-i-helped-create-the-fccs-ownership-cap-heres-how-we-did-it.
Committee gives him direct oversight over this very issue. He has made clear that he is "skeptical a change can be made absent an act of Congress," signaling that Congress's intent remains unchanged today.Committee gives him direct oversight over this very issue. He has made clear that he is "skeptical a change can be made absent an act of Congress," signaling that Congress's intent remains unchanged today.Committee gives him direct oversight over this very issue. He has made clear that he is "skeptical a change can be made absent an act of Congress," signaling that Congress's intent remains unchanged today./22 Monty Tayloe, Howard Buskirk, Matt Daneman and Jimm Phillips, FCC to Vote on Eliminating National Cap at Aug. 6 Meeting (July 16, 2026), https://communicationsdaily.com/article/view?search_id=82641&id=2789159.
Today's order eliminating the 39 percent audience reach limitation ignores or summarily dismisses inconvenient facts and legal findings from its description of the relevant history. The Commission concludes that Congress's statutory action in the 2004 CAA changing the language in the 1996 Act directing the Commission to set the limitation at 39 percent was a mere temporary action in response to the Commission raising it too quickly. The Commission bases its analysis on the fact that the 2004 CAA did not change the language in the 1996 Act that directed the Commission to "modify its rules," the Commission's general rulemaking authority and language in appellate decisions predating the 2004 CAA./23 Specifically, that "had the Congress wished to insulate the [national ownership reach limitation] from review under Sec. 202(h), it need only have enshrined the 35% cap in the statute itself."/24 Upon close examination, the analysis falls apart. The order relies in large part on its analysis of the D.C. Circuit opinions in the Fox litigation./25 The order is correct that the D.C. Circuit found that Congress had directed the Commission to review the national ownership reach limitation and that the Commission was required to revisit the 35 percent limitation because it was only a starting point./26 The order fails to acknowledge, however, that the reason that the 35 percent limitation was only a starting point and the Commission was required to review it was that the statute required a biennial review of rules adopted pursuant to that section of the 1996 Act. The decision specifically noted that the rule in question, the national audience reach limitation, was a rule adopted pursuant to the 1996 Act./27 When Congress removed the 39 percent national audience reach limitation from the required, now quadrennial, review, it removed the statutory requirement on which the court relied in making its determination.
23/ Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission's Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, MB Docket No 17-318, at 45-46, paras. 84-85 (August 6, 2026) (National Television Multiple Ownership Rule).
24/ Fox II at 540.
25/ National Television Multiple Ownership Rule at 47-48, paras. 87-88.
26/ Fox I at 1043.
27/ Id.
The Commission's reliance on Fox II is equally unpersuasive. It relies on the court's statement that "had Congress wished to take away the Commission's ability to alter the cap, 'it need only have enshrined the 35% cap in the statute itself.'"28 While it is an accurate recitation of the court's decision, it completely ignores that in the 2004 CAA Congress, in fact, took action to enshrine the 39 percent national audience reach limitation by statute. As explained above, Congress (1) directed the Commission's rules be changed to reflect the 39 percent national audience reach limitation, (2) directed the removal of the 39 percent national audience reach limitation from the review process for congressionally established broadcast ownership rules that served as the basis for the decision in Fox I, (3) directed that the Commission should not forbear from the 39 percent national audience reach limitation, and (4) established an ongoing two-year deadline by which any broadcasters that exceeded the 39 percent
28 National Television Multiple Ownership Rule at 47 para. 87 (citing Fox II at 570).
national audience reach limitation had to divest stations to come into compliance.national audience reach limitation had to divest stations to come into compliance.national audience reach limitation had to divest stations to come into compliance.29 2004 CAA Sec. 629 (divesture requirement does not apply when the national audience reach limitation is exceeded through population growth). See also 47 CFR Sec. 202(c)(3).
The Commission's assertion that national ownership limitations have always been rules set by the agency with longstanding Congressional deference is contrary to history. Congress legislated on national television broadcast ownership limitations three separate times over the course of 20 years in 1984, 1996, and 2004.30 What is clear is that Congress kept the Commission on a very short leash with regard to these limitations.
30 1984 SSAA Sec. 304; 1996 Act Sec. 202; 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
The public-interest harms that will arise from this unauthorized rule change compound the statutory deficiency. This decision ignores the harms to the media ecosystem that will likely arise as a consequence of raising the national audience reach limitation. These harms include the negative impact on local journalism, consumers paying higher fees to their cable and satellite providers, known as Multichannel Video Program Distributors (MVPDs), and the MVPDs' loss of customers as increased costs result in more consumers cutting the cord. These are not speculative harms. When the Media Bureau waived the cap to clear the way for the Nexstar-TEGNA merger, a federal judge halted the transaction, finding that the states and DIRECTV are likely to succeed in proving it violates antitrust law. A court has already signaled that this kind of consolidation may harm competition and consumers, a signal that this Commission should take seriously before eliminating the cap altogether. Broadcasting does not need to look outside the world of journalism for a second warning. Over roughly the same period that the largest newspaper chains grew their share of the industry from one-third to 70 percent, the country lost more than 3,300 newspapers. Consolidation did not save that industry. It concentrated what remained of it while the industry itself collapsed.
I am cognizant of the economic challenges facing broadcasters today and I remain open to discussing solutions that address these challenges by taking actions that are within our authority and address the issues in a holistic manner. Local journalists do important work and local broadcasters are provided with valuable rights precisely because the public values local journalism. However, the Commission is not doing its job when it modifies its rules to protect the profit margins of corporate behemoths without ensuring that they will continue to provide claimed public interest benefits to consumers.
The Commission concludes that consolidation will allow economies of scale to support more local news and that the relevant market is the entire media ecosystem. The claim that media consolidation will lead to more local news is belied by history as submitted by DIRECTV.31 In short, history shows that media consolidation leads to commonly owned stations sharing "common news website[s] and content, common news leadership, and common news talent."32 These assertions are validated by academic research that studied how broadcaster consolidation impacts the rate of news duplication, where station pairs connected through a service agreement, duopoly, or common ownership with one content originating station and one non-originating member had at least 50 percent of the content of their transcripts matched exactly.33
31/ See DIRECTV Letter in MB Docket No. 17-318 at pp. 7-8, filed February 25, 2026; see also DIRECTV Reply to Opposition in MB Docket No. 25-331, at pp. 21-27, filed January 26, 2026.
32/ Id.
33/ Danilo Yanich and Benjamin E. Bagozzi, "Reusing the News: Duplication of Local Content," at 28-29, University of Delaware, (May 2025).
Further, the assertion that the relevant market is the entire media ecosystem because local broadcasters compete with national digital media platforms for advertisers and audience share is an oversimplification that ignores both the public interest and the complexity of the broadcast ecosystem. The complex and longstanding regulatory structure underlying broadcasting is designed, on the one hand, to ensure a diversity of viewpoints are represented by precluding one entity from dominating the voices available in a community and, on the other hand, to support a balance of negotiating power between large broadcasting networks that produce news and entertainment content targeting a national audience and locally licensed broadcasting stations that produce news and entertainment content that is targeted locally. Those advocating for lifting the national audience reach limitation assert it is necessary to preserve local broadcasting from the dominance of national networks. The assertion that the creation of large national ownership groups will result in more locally generated news content to serve local communities is both nonsensical and contrary to the evidence.
The structure is further complicated by the impact of consolidation on broadcasters' negotiations with MVPDs for retransmission consent payments for the distribution of the broadcasters' content. These payments are an important and significant source of support for free over-the-air programming. The MVPD community asserts that increasing or waiving the national audience reach limitation to allow consolidation into larger broadcast ownership groups will result in increased retransmission consent fees that will be paid by consumers. This assertion is supported by the public statements of Nexstar, the broadcast ownership group granted a waiver of this limitation by the Media Bureau earlier this year, which asserted such consolidation would cause Nexstar to achieve hundreds of millions of dollars in "economic synergies," which includes significantly increased retransmission consent fees.34 This is further supported by Nexstar's actions after the transaction closed, where it asserted in court filings that it was required by its contracts to raise retransmission consent rates for acquired entities./35
34/ Press Release, Nexstar Media Group, Inc., Nexstar Media Group, Inc. Enters into Definitive Agreement To Acquire TEGNA Inc. for $6.2 Billion in Accretive Transaction (Aug. 19, 2025), https://www.nexstar.tv/nexstar-media-group-inc-enters-into-definitive-agreement-to-acquire-tegna-inc-for-6-2-billion-in-accretive-transaction/.
35 Todd Spangler, Nexstar and Tegna Claim They Can't Fully Comply With Court Order Halting Merger Because Certain Actions 'Cannot Be Undone' (Apr. 1, 2026) https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/nexstar-tegna-merger-tro-court-order-reply-1236704471/.
The Commission's response in this decision to stakeholder concerns about increases in retransmission consent fees that are likely to result from eliminating the national reach limitation is jaw-dropping when considered together with its prior statements on the subject of retransmission consent fees. Specifically, in the order adopted today the Commission states that the impact of eliminating the 39 percent national audience reach limitation on retransmission consent fees is not appropriate for consideration in this proceeding and should instead be considered as part of the case-by-case reviews in individual transactions or in a separate rulemaking proceeding.36
36 National Television Multiple Ownership Rule at 34-36, paras. 67-68.
There is nothing new about case-by-case reviews. They already happen in every license transfer and the treatment of these issues is instructive as to what stakeholders can expect from this Commission. What is notable about such reviews is the studied avoidance thus far of addressing the impact of the transaction at issue on retransmission consent fees on the merits every single time it is raised.37 The Media Bureau routinely summarily dismisses such issues as outside the scope of what it should be considering. For example, in the Nexstar Tegna decision, despite evidence that the transaction would result in millions of dollars in increased fees on consumers, the Media Bureau determined that it was inappropriate to consider the issue in that "case-by-case" review because "allegations regarding retransmission consent do not raise a substantial and material question of fact as to whether grant of the
37 Letter from Michael Nilsson, Counsel to the American Television Alliance, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, MB Docket No. 17-318 (filed July 27, 2026) (citing the Media Bureau's declining to address restransmission consent issues in nine proceedings since Feb. 3, 2026, see DA 26-755; DA 26-612; DA 26-441; DA 26-427; DA 26-417; DA 26-304; DA 26-267; DA 26-177; and DA 26-108).
Applications would serve the public interest"Applications would serve the public interest"Applications would serve the public interest"Applications would serve the public interest"Applications would serve the public interest"38 Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of TEGNA Inc. to Nexstar Media Inc., MB Docket No. 25-331, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 26-267 at 31, para. 77 (Mar. 19, 2026) (Nexstar Tegna Order).
39 Nexstar Tegna Order at 32, para. 80 (2026) (". . . Petitioners' and Opposing Commenters' allegations regarding Nexstar's incentive and ability, post Transaction, to black out (or threaten to black out) its stations go to the functioning of the retransmission consent marketplace, and the Commission has not previously entertained general concerns about the retransmission consent marketplace in the context of individual transactions. Instead, the Commission has, in the past, considered issues related to retransmission consent--including leverage in retransmission consent negotiations--in rulemaking proceedings, and we believe that it is appropriate to continue that practice here.")
The order further noticeably maintains willful ignorance of other proposed changes to statutes as well as Commission rules and requirements for which broadcasters are currently advocating that will potentially impact the economics of local broadcasting. These include proposals in Congress to apply retransmission consent obligations to virtual MVPDs (e.g., DIRECTV, Hulu+ Live, Sling TV and YouTube TV) and to make changes to the Sports Broadcasting Act in response to streaming carriage of NFL games, as well as proposals at the Commission to mandate a hard cutover date for transition to the next generation TV broadcast standard and insert the Commission into negotiations between networks and their affiliates. In each of these proceedings, broadcasters are asserting preferential economic treatment is justified by the public good that local broadcasters provide in the form of public safety, local journalism, and cultural touchstones.
The Commission's decision to eliminate the national audience reach cap is not only a departure from decades of statutory and regulatory precedent, but a profound threat to the public interest. Congress has repeatedly and unequivocally asserted its authority over broadcast ownership limits, calibrating the cap to preserve localism, diversity, and competition in the media landscape. By removing this structural safeguard, the Commission disregards clear legislative intent and undermines the foundational principles that ensure communities retain access to independent local journalism, emergency information, and culturally significant programming. This action risks accelerating media consolidation, diminishing the diversity of voices available to the public, and eroding the civic infrastructure that broadcasting uniquely sustains.
Moreover, the Commission's rationale rests on a misreading of statutory language and a willful blindness to the historical record. Congress's repeated interventions in 1984, 1996, and 2004 demonstrate a consistent commitment to limiting national broadcast ownership and preventing excessive concentration of control. The statutory framework, including the prohibition on forbearance and the stand-alone divestiture requirement, leaves no ambiguity: only Congress has the authority to change the cap, and the Commission is expressly prohibited from doing so. By disregarding these constraints and dismissing the interconnected rules and market realities that define today's media ecosystem, the Commission abdicates its responsibility to uphold both the law and the public interest. Eliminating a statutory cap without addressing these interconnected issues is a bad strategy and an improvisation that will hasten the collapse this Commission claims it wants to prevent. I respectfully dissent.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A3.pdf
FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty Remarks
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following speech by Commissioner Olivia Trusty:
* * *
FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty Remarks
DOW Reception during the ITSO Assembly
National Air and Space Museum
October 1st, 2026
Good evening, everyone.
It is a pleasure to welcome you to Washington and to one of the most inspiring places in our nation's capital.
First, thank you to Vernita Harris for the kind introduction and thank you to my USG colleagues for hosting this wonderful reception and bringing us together in such a fitting setting.
I also want to thank ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following speech by Commissioner Olivia Trusty: * * * FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty Remarks DOW Reception during the ITSO Assembly National Air and Space Museum October 1st, 2026 Good evening, everyone. It is a pleasure to welcome you to Washington and to one of the most inspiring places in our nation's capital. First, thank you to Vernita Harris for the kind introduction and thank you to my USG colleagues for hosting this wonderful reception and bringing us together in such a fitting setting. I also want to thankDirector General Brazil-David, as well as the entire ITSO team, and all of you who have traveled from around the world to participate in the Forty-Second Assembly of Parties. I am "over the moon" to be here; but at a gathering of satellite experts, I realize that is a modest distance.
I know you have had a full day of meetings, so I'll spare you my jokes, and I promise not to stand for too long between you and the rest of the reception.
I want to take a quick moment to recognize the National Air and Space Museum. It is a museum that tells an extraordinary story. A story of people who looked at what seemed impossible and decided to attempt it anyway.
From the Wright brothers' first flight, to Charles Lindbergh's crossing of the Atlantic, to the Apollo missions that carried human beings to the Moon, the achievements represented here changed our understanding of distance, possibility, and even our place in the universe.
They are proud American accomplishments, yes. But their impact has never belonged to the United States alone.
The knowledge gained, the technologies developed, and the possibilities opened by those achievements have benefitted people around the world.
And none of that progress happened simply because someone built a better aircraft or a more powerful rocket. It also required communications.
Every mission depended upon the ability to transmit information reliably across great distances. Every astronaut depended upon a communications link back to Earth. And every breakthrough ultimately depended upon people, institutions, industries, and governments working together.
Those same principles guide our work today.
Satellites now connect communities separated by oceans and mountains. They bring broadband to places that terrestrial networks cannot easily reach. They support navigation, weather forecasting, agriculture, disaster response, national security, and the global economy.
Today, satellite and terrestrial networks are no longer operating in separate dimensions. They are becoming parts of one interconnected communications ecosystem.
For regulators, that creates an exciting responsibility: which is to develop policy that makes room for innovation, manages spectrum wisely, encourages investment and competition, and makes allowances for new services. This responsibility also includes developing policies that are compatible across borders, because neither radio waves nor satellites stop at national boundaries.
This does not mean that international cooperation requires every country to make precisely the same policy choices. But it does require us to listen to one another, to respect our shared obligations, and to build frameworks that allow new technologies to serve people in every part of the world.
As we look ahead to the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in Doha, the international community will make decisions that will shape the future of global communications for years to come. Delegates will elect the ITU's leadership, members of its Radio Regulations Board, and the Member States that will serve on the ITU Council. The United States is seeking re-election to the ITU Council, continuing its longstanding participation in the work of the Union.
The United States is proud to support the re-election of Doreen Bogdan-Martin as Secretary-General of the ITU.
Doreen has devoted her career to the mission of global connectivity. As the first woman to lead the ITU, she has brought energy, openness, and a strong focus on delivering meaningful results.
She understands that connectivity is not an end in itself. It is a pathway to education, health care, economic opportunity, public safety, and fuller participation in modern life.
Under her leadership, the ITU has worked to build partnerships across governments, industry, civil society, and the technical community and to turn ambitious goals into practical action.
The United States is also proud to nominate Jennifer Warren for one of the Americas region seats on the ITU Radio Regulations Board.
Jennifer brings more than thirty-five years of experience spanning government, the private sector, and academia. She understands the technical, regulatory, and commercial dimensions of spectrum policy. Just as significantly, she understands the importance of listening carefully, applying the Radio Regulations fairly, and building confidence among administrations.
Those qualities are essential at a moment when demand for spectrum is growing, new satellite systems are being deployed, and the radio-frequency environment is becoming more complex.
Doreen and Jennifer are exceptionally well qualified. But this is about more than two American candidates.
It is about supporting leaders who believe international institutions must be effective, transparent, and responsive to the needs of their members.
It is about protecting a global communications environment in which countries can cooperate, innovators can invest, and new technologies can reach the people who need them.
And so, as friends and partners, we respectfully ask for your support for Doreen Bogdan-Martin and Jennifer Warren at the Plenipotentiary Conference in Doha.
The history surrounding us tonight reminds us that progress is rarely the achievement of one person, one organization, or even one nation.
For the United States, we planted our flag on the Moon, but doing so required thousands of people, decades of accumulated knowledge, and communications systems that allowed an entire world to share in the moment.
The technologies before us today are different. But the responsibility is the same: to work together, to think boldly, and to ensure that the next great communications breakthrough expands opportunity for people everywhere. Thank you for your partnership. Thank you for joining us tonight. And welcome to Washington.
It is now my pleasure to introduce someone whose expertise and judgment will serve the international community well: The United States' candidate for the ITU Radio Regulations Board, Ms. Jennifer Warren. Jennifer, the floor is yours.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425560A1.pdf
* * *
FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty Remarks
DOW Reception during the ITSO Assembly
National Air and Space Museum
October 1st, 2026
Good evening, everyone.
It is a pleasure to welcome you to Washington and to one of the most inspiring places in our nation's capital.
First, thank you to Vernita Harris for the kind introduction and thank you to my USG colleagues for hosting this wonderful reception and bringing us together in such a fitting setting.
I also want to thank ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following speech by Commissioner Olivia Trusty: * * * FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty Remarks DOW Reception during the ITSO Assembly National Air and Space Museum October 1st, 2026 Good evening, everyone. It is a pleasure to welcome you to Washington and to one of the most inspiring places in our nation's capital. First, thank you to Vernita Harris for the kind introduction and thank you to my USG colleagues for hosting this wonderful reception and bringing us together in such a fitting setting. I also want to thankDirector General Brazil-David, as well as the entire ITSO team, and all of you who have traveled from around the world to participate in the Forty-Second Assembly of Parties. I am "over the moon" to be here; but at a gathering of satellite experts, I realize that is a modest distance.
I know you have had a full day of meetings, so I'll spare you my jokes, and I promise not to stand for too long between you and the rest of the reception.
I want to take a quick moment to recognize the National Air and Space Museum. It is a museum that tells an extraordinary story. A story of people who looked at what seemed impossible and decided to attempt it anyway.
From the Wright brothers' first flight, to Charles Lindbergh's crossing of the Atlantic, to the Apollo missions that carried human beings to the Moon, the achievements represented here changed our understanding of distance, possibility, and even our place in the universe.
They are proud American accomplishments, yes. But their impact has never belonged to the United States alone.
The knowledge gained, the technologies developed, and the possibilities opened by those achievements have benefitted people around the world.
And none of that progress happened simply because someone built a better aircraft or a more powerful rocket. It also required communications.
Every mission depended upon the ability to transmit information reliably across great distances. Every astronaut depended upon a communications link back to Earth. And every breakthrough ultimately depended upon people, institutions, industries, and governments working together.
Those same principles guide our work today.
Satellites now connect communities separated by oceans and mountains. They bring broadband to places that terrestrial networks cannot easily reach. They support navigation, weather forecasting, agriculture, disaster response, national security, and the global economy.
Today, satellite and terrestrial networks are no longer operating in separate dimensions. They are becoming parts of one interconnected communications ecosystem.
For regulators, that creates an exciting responsibility: which is to develop policy that makes room for innovation, manages spectrum wisely, encourages investment and competition, and makes allowances for new services. This responsibility also includes developing policies that are compatible across borders, because neither radio waves nor satellites stop at national boundaries.
This does not mean that international cooperation requires every country to make precisely the same policy choices. But it does require us to listen to one another, to respect our shared obligations, and to build frameworks that allow new technologies to serve people in every part of the world.
As we look ahead to the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in Doha, the international community will make decisions that will shape the future of global communications for years to come. Delegates will elect the ITU's leadership, members of its Radio Regulations Board, and the Member States that will serve on the ITU Council. The United States is seeking re-election to the ITU Council, continuing its longstanding participation in the work of the Union.
The United States is proud to support the re-election of Doreen Bogdan-Martin as Secretary-General of the ITU.
Doreen has devoted her career to the mission of global connectivity. As the first woman to lead the ITU, she has brought energy, openness, and a strong focus on delivering meaningful results.
She understands that connectivity is not an end in itself. It is a pathway to education, health care, economic opportunity, public safety, and fuller participation in modern life.
Under her leadership, the ITU has worked to build partnerships across governments, industry, civil society, and the technical community and to turn ambitious goals into practical action.
The United States is also proud to nominate Jennifer Warren for one of the Americas region seats on the ITU Radio Regulations Board.
Jennifer brings more than thirty-five years of experience spanning government, the private sector, and academia. She understands the technical, regulatory, and commercial dimensions of spectrum policy. Just as significantly, she understands the importance of listening carefully, applying the Radio Regulations fairly, and building confidence among administrations.
Those qualities are essential at a moment when demand for spectrum is growing, new satellite systems are being deployed, and the radio-frequency environment is becoming more complex.
Doreen and Jennifer are exceptionally well qualified. But this is about more than two American candidates.
It is about supporting leaders who believe international institutions must be effective, transparent, and responsive to the needs of their members.
It is about protecting a global communications environment in which countries can cooperate, innovators can invest, and new technologies can reach the people who need them.
And so, as friends and partners, we respectfully ask for your support for Doreen Bogdan-Martin and Jennifer Warren at the Plenipotentiary Conference in Doha.
The history surrounding us tonight reminds us that progress is rarely the achievement of one person, one organization, or even one nation.
For the United States, we planted our flag on the Moon, but doing so required thousands of people, decades of accumulated knowledge, and communications systems that allowed an entire world to share in the moment.
The technologies before us today are different. But the responsibility is the same: to work together, to think boldly, and to ensure that the next great communications breakthrough expands opportunity for people everywhere. Thank you for your partnership. Thank you for joining us tonight. And welcome to Washington.
It is now my pleasure to introduce someone whose expertise and judgment will serve the international community well: The United States' candidate for the ITU Radio Regulations Board, Ms. Jennifer Warren. Jennifer, the floor is yours.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425560A1.pdf
SEC Charges Ex-Chairman, CEO of Public Company in Alleged Scheme to Defraud Investors
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. David Reichman et al., No. 26-cv-08713 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 2, 2026)
On October 2, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against David Reichman, the former Chairman and CEO of Global Tech Industries Group, Inc. for allegedly orchestrating a multi-year scheme to defraud Global Tech's investors. The complaint also names David Reichman's daughter, Justine Reichman, both in her individual capacity and as trustee of Justine Reichman ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release: * * * Securities and Exchange Commission v. David Reichman et al., No. 26-cv-08713 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 2, 2026) On October 2, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against David Reichman, the former Chairman and CEO of Global Tech Industries Group, Inc. for allegedly orchestrating a multi-year scheme to defraud Global Tech's investors. The complaint also names David Reichman's daughter, Justine Reichman, both in her individual capacity and as trustee of Justine Reichman2021 Trust, as relief defendants.
The SEC's complaint alleges that David Reichman caused Global Tech to issue tens of millions of shares to his family members, friends, and associates in a fraudulent scheme to enrich himself and his daughter, Justine Reichman. As alleged, David Reichman signed annual filings Global Tech made with the SEC that represented that these share issuances were in exchange "for services," when in fact, Reichman knew that the share recipients had not provided any services to the company. According to the complaint, Reichman furthered the scheme by concealing that Justine Reichman was a significant shareholder of Global Tech stock. Reichman also allegedly failed to timely file required reports publicly disclosing his sales of Global Tech stock.
The SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges David Reichman with 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 and the securities reporting requirements of Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 16a-3 thereunder, as well as with aiding and abetting Global Tech's violation of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13a-1 thereunder. The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief, civil penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and an officer-and-director bar against David Reichman. The complaint also seeks disgorgement with prejudgment interest against the relief defendants.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Yitzchok Klug, Alexander M. Levine, and Christopher Mele, and was supervised by Alison Conn and Sheldon L. Pollock, all of the SEC's New York Regional Office. The litigation will be led by Travis Hill, Mr. Klug, and Mr. Levine, under the supervision of Alexander Vasilescu.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26664.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26664
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. David Reichman et al., No. 26-cv-08713 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 2, 2026)
On October 2, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against David Reichman, the former Chairman and CEO of Global Tech Industries Group, Inc. for allegedly orchestrating a multi-year scheme to defraud Global Tech's investors. The complaint also names David Reichman's daughter, Justine Reichman, both in her individual capacity and as trustee of Justine Reichman ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release: * * * Securities and Exchange Commission v. David Reichman et al., No. 26-cv-08713 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 2, 2026) On October 2, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against David Reichman, the former Chairman and CEO of Global Tech Industries Group, Inc. for allegedly orchestrating a multi-year scheme to defraud Global Tech's investors. The complaint also names David Reichman's daughter, Justine Reichman, both in her individual capacity and as trustee of Justine Reichman2021 Trust, as relief defendants.
The SEC's complaint alleges that David Reichman caused Global Tech to issue tens of millions of shares to his family members, friends, and associates in a fraudulent scheme to enrich himself and his daughter, Justine Reichman. As alleged, David Reichman signed annual filings Global Tech made with the SEC that represented that these share issuances were in exchange "for services," when in fact, Reichman knew that the share recipients had not provided any services to the company. According to the complaint, Reichman furthered the scheme by concealing that Justine Reichman was a significant shareholder of Global Tech stock. Reichman also allegedly failed to timely file required reports publicly disclosing his sales of Global Tech stock.
The SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges David Reichman with 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 and the securities reporting requirements of Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 16a-3 thereunder, as well as with aiding and abetting Global Tech's violation of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13a-1 thereunder. The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief, civil penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and an officer-and-director bar against David Reichman. The complaint also seeks disgorgement with prejudgment interest against the relief defendants.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Yitzchok Klug, Alexander M. Levine, and Christopher Mele, and was supervised by Alison Conn and Sheldon L. Pollock, all of the SEC's New York Regional Office. The litigation will be led by Travis Hill, Mr. Klug, and Mr. Levine, under the supervision of Alexander Vasilescu.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26664.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26664
Federal Maritime Commission Orders COSCO Shipping Lines to Show Cause Over Overdue Reparations Payment
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- The Federal Maritime Commission has issued an Order to Show Cause targeting COSCO Shipping Lines Co. Ltd. regarding compliance with an order to pay reparations in FMC Docket No. 2022(I) (Docket No. 26-13). Served on Oct. 2, 2026, the order directs the state-controlled ocean carrier of the People's Republic of China to explain why civil penalties should not be assessed for failing to make a required payment on time.
The case stems from an informal complaint filed in July 2025 by Agribusiness Holdings Limited Partnership, doing business as Bridgewell Agribusiness, LLC. Bridgewell ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- The Federal Maritime Commission has issued an Order to Show Cause targeting COSCO Shipping Lines Co. Ltd. regarding compliance with an order to pay reparations in FMC Docket No. 2022(I) (Docket No. 26-13). Served on Oct. 2, 2026, the order directs the state-controlled ocean carrier of the People's Republic of China to explain why civil penalties should not be assessed for failing to make a required payment on time. The case stems from an informal complaint filed in July 2025 by Agribusiness Holdings Limited Partnership, doing business as Bridgewell Agribusiness, LLC. Bridgewellalleged Shipping Act violations related to demurrage and detention invoices. On September 29, 2025, a presiding officer ruled that COSCO violated federal shipping laws and awarded $24,328.80 in reparations plus interest. Following a delay caused by a federal government shutdown, the commission issued a Notice Not to Review on January 5, 2026, establishing a firm payment deadline of January 20, 2026.
According to agency records, COSCO did not deliver the required funds until August 31, 2026--223 days past the deadline. The payment occurred only after multiple inquiries from Bridgewell and direct communications from federal regulators.
The agency is investigating whether COSCO violated 46 U.S.C. Sec. 41107(a) by failing to obey a binding regulatory order, as well as 46 U.S.C. Sec. 41102(d)(2), which bars common carriers from engaging in unfair actions or retaliation against shippers who file complaints.
Statutory rules stipulate that each day of a continuing violation constitutes a separate offense. Penalty rates, adjusted annually for inflation, range up to $14,988 per day for standard violations and up to $74,943 per day for knowing and willful noncompliance. Given the 223-day delay, potential monetary assessments against the carrier could be substantial.
Under the procedural guidelines established in Docket No. 26-13, COSCO must submit its legal brief, factual evidence, and all written communications with Bridgewell concerning the overdue payment by December 1, 2026. The brief cannot exceed 50 pages. Motions to file amicus briefs are due by December 15, 2026, and COSCO will have until January 14, 2027, to submit any replies. If COSCO seeks additional evidence submissions or oral argument, it must file a request by November 2, 2026.
The commission expects to issue a final decision in this matter by April 30, 2027.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
COSCO Shipping Lines Co. Ltd. is based in Shanghai, China.
* * *
URL: COSCO Shipping Lines Co. Ltd.
* * *
Original text here: https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/docs/26-13/(01)%2026-13%20Order%20to%20Show%20Cause%20(public).pdf/
The case stems from an informal complaint filed in July 2025 by Agribusiness Holdings Limited Partnership, doing business as Bridgewell Agribusiness, LLC. Bridgewell ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- The Federal Maritime Commission has issued an Order to Show Cause targeting COSCO Shipping Lines Co. Ltd. regarding compliance with an order to pay reparations in FMC Docket No. 2022(I) (Docket No. 26-13). Served on Oct. 2, 2026, the order directs the state-controlled ocean carrier of the People's Republic of China to explain why civil penalties should not be assessed for failing to make a required payment on time. The case stems from an informal complaint filed in July 2025 by Agribusiness Holdings Limited Partnership, doing business as Bridgewell Agribusiness, LLC. Bridgewellalleged Shipping Act violations related to demurrage and detention invoices. On September 29, 2025, a presiding officer ruled that COSCO violated federal shipping laws and awarded $24,328.80 in reparations plus interest. Following a delay caused by a federal government shutdown, the commission issued a Notice Not to Review on January 5, 2026, establishing a firm payment deadline of January 20, 2026.
According to agency records, COSCO did not deliver the required funds until August 31, 2026--223 days past the deadline. The payment occurred only after multiple inquiries from Bridgewell and direct communications from federal regulators.
The agency is investigating whether COSCO violated 46 U.S.C. Sec. 41107(a) by failing to obey a binding regulatory order, as well as 46 U.S.C. Sec. 41102(d)(2), which bars common carriers from engaging in unfair actions or retaliation against shippers who file complaints.
Statutory rules stipulate that each day of a continuing violation constitutes a separate offense. Penalty rates, adjusted annually for inflation, range up to $14,988 per day for standard violations and up to $74,943 per day for knowing and willful noncompliance. Given the 223-day delay, potential monetary assessments against the carrier could be substantial.
Under the procedural guidelines established in Docket No. 26-13, COSCO must submit its legal brief, factual evidence, and all written communications with Bridgewell concerning the overdue payment by December 1, 2026. The brief cannot exceed 50 pages. Motions to file amicus briefs are due by December 15, 2026, and COSCO will have until January 14, 2027, to submit any replies. If COSCO seeks additional evidence submissions or oral argument, it must file a request by November 2, 2026.
The commission expects to issue a final decision in this matter by April 30, 2027.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
COSCO Shipping Lines Co. Ltd. is based in Shanghai, China.
* * *
URL: COSCO Shipping Lines Co. Ltd.
* * *
Original text here: https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/docs/26-13/(01)%2026-13%20Order%20to%20Show%20Cause%20(public).pdf/
FEC Issues Digest for Week of Sept. 28 - Oct. 2, 2026
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest:
* * *
Commission meetings and hearings
No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week.
* * *
Advisory Opinions
Request Received and Extension of Time
Advisory Opinion Request 2026-03 (https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2026-03/) (Montana Libertarian Party) On October 2, the Commission made public an advisory opinion request from the Montana Libertarian Party. The requestor asks the Commission to confirm their status as a state committee of a political party under the Federal ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest: * * * Commission meetings and hearings No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week. * * * Advisory Opinions Request Received and Extension of Time Advisory Opinion Request 2026-03 (https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2026-03/) (Montana Libertarian Party) On October 2, the Commission made public an advisory opinion request from the Montana Libertarian Party. The requestor asks the Commission to confirm their status as a state committee of a political party under the FederalElection Campaign Act and Commission regulations. The Commission will accept written comments on the request during the 10-day period following publication of the request (no later than October 13). The Commission also received an extension of time to respond to the advisory opinion request until after the restoration of quorum.
* * *
Litigation
Campbell v. FEC (Case No. 26-10849) On September 29, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and on September 30, the district court issued an Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice.
Lewicki v. FEC (Case No. 24-2505) On September 30, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the Commission's partial motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment.
* * *
Outreach
On September 30, Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum discussed campaign finance disclosure rules and the role of the Commission with a delegation from Latin America visiting the United States as part of the State Department's International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP).
On September 30, the Commission hosted FECFile and reporting webinars for candidate committees.
On October 1, the Commission issued the Statistical Summary of 18-Month Campaign Activity of the 2025-2026 Election Cycle.
* * *
Upcoming educational opportunities
October 7, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host FECFile and reporting webinars for PACs and party committees.
For more information on upcoming training opportunities, see the Commission's Trainings page.
* * *
Upcoming reporting due dates
October 15: October Quarterly Reports are due. For more information, see the 2026 Quarterly Reporting schedule.
October 20: October Monthly Reports are due. For more information, see the 2026 Monthly Reporting schedule.
October 22: 12-Day Pre-General Election Reports are due. For more information, see the 2026 Pre- and Post-General Reporting schedule.
* * *
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-september-28-october-2-2026/
* * *
Commission meetings and hearings
No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week.
* * *
Advisory Opinions
Request Received and Extension of Time
Advisory Opinion Request 2026-03 (https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2026-03/) (Montana Libertarian Party) On October 2, the Commission made public an advisory opinion request from the Montana Libertarian Party. The requestor asks the Commission to confirm their status as a state committee of a political party under the Federal ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest: * * * Commission meetings and hearings No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week. * * * Advisory Opinions Request Received and Extension of Time Advisory Opinion Request 2026-03 (https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2026-03/) (Montana Libertarian Party) On October 2, the Commission made public an advisory opinion request from the Montana Libertarian Party. The requestor asks the Commission to confirm their status as a state committee of a political party under the FederalElection Campaign Act and Commission regulations. The Commission will accept written comments on the request during the 10-day period following publication of the request (no later than October 13). The Commission also received an extension of time to respond to the advisory opinion request until after the restoration of quorum.
* * *
Litigation
Campbell v. FEC (Case No. 26-10849) On September 29, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and on September 30, the district court issued an Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice.
Lewicki v. FEC (Case No. 24-2505) On September 30, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the Commission's partial motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment.
* * *
Outreach
On September 30, Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum discussed campaign finance disclosure rules and the role of the Commission with a delegation from Latin America visiting the United States as part of the State Department's International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP).
On September 30, the Commission hosted FECFile and reporting webinars for candidate committees.
On October 1, the Commission issued the Statistical Summary of 18-Month Campaign Activity of the 2025-2026 Election Cycle.
* * *
Upcoming educational opportunities
October 7, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host FECFile and reporting webinars for PACs and party committees.
For more information on upcoming training opportunities, see the Commission's Trainings page.
* * *
Upcoming reporting due dates
October 15: October Quarterly Reports are due. For more information, see the 2026 Quarterly Reporting schedule.
October 20: October Monthly Reports are due. For more information, see the 2026 Monthly Reporting schedule.
October 22: 12-Day Pre-General Election Reports are due. For more information, see the 2026 Pre- and Post-General Reporting schedule.
* * *
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-september-28-october-2-2026/
FCC Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau Issues Public Notice: Conditional Approval, Exemption of Certain Uncrewed Aircraft Systems, Routers, Advanced Robotic Devices From FCC Covered List
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- 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, Oct. 3 -- 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 Approval for certain uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS), routers, and advanced robotic devices. Therefore, such devices are exempt from the Covered List.
Addition of UAS and UAS Critical Components, Routers, and Advanced Robotic Devices 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 Additionally, on June 15, 2026, based on a National Security Determination from DoW, PSHSB updated the Covered List to exempt "Toy Drones" as defined in the National Security Determination and "Toy Drones that contain foreign-produced components."/8
On July 21, 2026, we updated the Covered List to reflect DoW's determination that extended timelines for the exemption of 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 to January 1, 2028./9 We also updated the Covered List to reflect DoW's determination that Conditional Approvals for foreign-produced UAS and UAS critical components will not terminate on December 31, 2026, so long as the applicant complies with its approved onshoring plan and updated vetting of the products./10 Additionally, under DoW's determination, a Conditional Approval will terminate--and the device will be restored to the Covered List--if the applicant fails to adhere to the onshoring plan or if the U.S. Government discovers any false statements or misrepresentations in the application./11
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."/12 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./13
Advanced robotic devices. On July 28, 2026, the Commission added to the Covered List "foreign-produced advanced robotic devices, except advanced robotic devices which have been granted a Conditional Approval by DoW."/14 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 advanced robotic devices 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./15
Conditional Approvals
The Executive Branch interagency body established a process by which entities producing certain covered equipment in foreign countries can request DoW 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 previously updated the Covered List to reflect the Conditional Approvals that we have received from DoW exempting certain UAS and UAS critical components, routers, and advanced robotic devices from the Covered List./16
DoW has reviewed submissions and granted Conditional Approvals for the following devices:
- Dronus S.p.A.'s K500L Uncrewed Aircraft Systems and its associated K500L docking station (Nest V2)
- Vivid-Hosting, LLC's entire product class of routers, including its VH-109 (V1) and VH-109 (V2) robot radio routers (terminating March 28, 2028)
- Matic Robots, Inc.'s Robotic Floor Cleaner Model 4MA0001 and Charging Dock Model
4DK0008
Consistent with the National Security Determinations, these exemptions from the FCC's Covered List are subject to the companies' continuing "compliance with the onshoring plan[s] outlined in [their] conditional approval application[s]" and, for Dronus and Matic Robots, "pursuant to updated vetting of [their] products."/17
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./18 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./19
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./20
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 Oct. 2, 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 that "Toy Drones" and "Toy Drones that Contain Foreign-Produced Components" are Removed from the FCC Covered List, WC Docket 18-89, Public Notice, DA 26-588 (Jun. 15, 2026).
9/ FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Extension of Conditional Approvals and Exemption of Certain Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) and UAS Critical Components from FCC Covered List, WC Docket 18-89, Public Notice, DA 26-761 (Jul. 21, 2026) (UAS Extension Public Notice).
10/ UAS Extension Public Notice at 2.
11/ Id.
12/ 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).
13/ Routers Public Notice at 2.
14/ FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Addition of Foreign-Produced Power Inverters and Advanced Robotic Devices to FCC Covered List, WC Docket No. 18-89, Public Notice, DA 26-786 (July 28, 2026) (Robotics Public Notice).
15/ Robotics Public Notice at 2.
16/ 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.
17/ Additionally, failure to comply with the onshoring plan or the discovery of a false statement or misrepresentation in the Conditional Approval application could result in termination of the Conditional Approval and return of the equipment to the FCC's Covered List. Further, consistent with the National Security Determinations, Conditional Approvals related to UAS or advanced robotic devices that do not reflect termination dates will remain effective indefinitely, so long as the entity that received Conditional Approval abides by the onshoring plan outlined in its Conditional Approval application and pursuant to updated vetting of the products.
18/ See Routers Public Notice, Appx. C; Second UAS Public Notice, Appx. B.
19/ 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.
20/ 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 here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1063A1.pdf
* * *
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, Oct. 3 -- 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 Approval for certain uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS), routers, and advanced robotic devices. Therefore, such devices are exempt from the Covered List.
Addition of UAS and UAS Critical Components, Routers, and Advanced Robotic Devices 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 Additionally, on June 15, 2026, based on a National Security Determination from DoW, PSHSB updated the Covered List to exempt "Toy Drones" as defined in the National Security Determination and "Toy Drones that contain foreign-produced components."/8
On July 21, 2026, we updated the Covered List to reflect DoW's determination that extended timelines for the exemption of 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 to January 1, 2028./9 We also updated the Covered List to reflect DoW's determination that Conditional Approvals for foreign-produced UAS and UAS critical components will not terminate on December 31, 2026, so long as the applicant complies with its approved onshoring plan and updated vetting of the products./10 Additionally, under DoW's determination, a Conditional Approval will terminate--and the device will be restored to the Covered List--if the applicant fails to adhere to the onshoring plan or if the U.S. Government discovers any false statements or misrepresentations in the application./11
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."/12 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./13
Advanced robotic devices. On July 28, 2026, the Commission added to the Covered List "foreign-produced advanced robotic devices, except advanced robotic devices which have been granted a Conditional Approval by DoW."/14 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 advanced robotic devices 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./15
Conditional Approvals
The Executive Branch interagency body established a process by which entities producing certain covered equipment in foreign countries can request DoW 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 previously updated the Covered List to reflect the Conditional Approvals that we have received from DoW exempting certain UAS and UAS critical components, routers, and advanced robotic devices from the Covered List./16
DoW has reviewed submissions and granted Conditional Approvals for the following devices:
- Dronus S.p.A.'s K500L Uncrewed Aircraft Systems and its associated K500L docking station (Nest V2)
- Vivid-Hosting, LLC's entire product class of routers, including its VH-109 (V1) and VH-109 (V2) robot radio routers (terminating March 28, 2028)
- Matic Robots, Inc.'s Robotic Floor Cleaner Model 4MA0001 and Charging Dock Model
4DK0008
Consistent with the National Security Determinations, these exemptions from the FCC's Covered List are subject to the companies' continuing "compliance with the onshoring plan[s] outlined in [their] conditional approval application[s]" and, for Dronus and Matic Robots, "pursuant to updated vetting of [their] products."/17
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./18 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./19
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./20
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 Oct. 2, 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 that "Toy Drones" and "Toy Drones that Contain Foreign-Produced Components" are Removed from the FCC Covered List, WC Docket 18-89, Public Notice, DA 26-588 (Jun. 15, 2026).
9/ FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Extension of Conditional Approvals and Exemption of Certain Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) and UAS Critical Components from FCC Covered List, WC Docket 18-89, Public Notice, DA 26-761 (Jul. 21, 2026) (UAS Extension Public Notice).
10/ UAS Extension Public Notice at 2.
11/ Id.
12/ 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).
13/ Routers Public Notice at 2.
14/ FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Addition of Foreign-Produced Power Inverters and Advanced Robotic Devices to FCC Covered List, WC Docket No. 18-89, Public Notice, DA 26-786 (July 28, 2026) (Robotics Public Notice).
15/ Robotics Public Notice at 2.
16/ 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.
17/ Additionally, failure to comply with the onshoring plan or the discovery of a false statement or misrepresentation in the Conditional Approval application could result in termination of the Conditional Approval and return of the equipment to the FCC's Covered List. Further, consistent with the National Security Determinations, Conditional Approvals related to UAS or advanced robotic devices that do not reflect termination dates will remain effective indefinitely, so long as the entity that received Conditional Approval abides by the onshoring plan outlined in its Conditional Approval application and pursuant to updated vetting of the products.
18/ See Routers Public Notice, Appx. C; Second UAS Public Notice, Appx. B.
19/ 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.
20/ 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 here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1063A1.pdf
FCC Issues Daily Digest for Oct. 2
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following Daily Digest (Vol. 45, No. 190) on Oct. 2, 2026:
* * *
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE DATED AND RELEASED TODAY:
PUBLIC NOTICES
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-1-261002-01. Released: 2026-10-02. APPLICATIONS. MB. DOC-425551A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425551A1.pdf) DOC-425551A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425551A1.txt)
Report No: SAT-02042. Released: 2026-10-02. SATELLITE LICENSING DIVISION AND SATELLITE PROGRAMS AND POLICY DIVISION INFORMATION - SAT - ACCEPTED FOR FILING. SB. Contact: ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following Daily Digest (Vol. 45, No. 190) on Oct. 2, 2026: * * * THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE DATED AND RELEASED TODAY: PUBLIC NOTICES Report No: REPORT NO. PN-1-261002-01. Released: 2026-10-02. APPLICATIONS. MB. DOC-425551A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425551A1.pdf) DOC-425551A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425551A1.txt) Report No: SAT-02042. Released: 2026-10-02. SATELLITE LICENSING DIVISION AND SATELLITE PROGRAMS AND POLICY DIVISION INFORMATION - SAT - ACCEPTED FOR FILING. SB. Contact:ICFSinfo@fcc.gov. DOC-425555A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425555A1.pdf) DOC-425555A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425555A1.txt)
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-2-261002-01. Released: 2026-10-02. ACTIONS. MB. DOC-425552A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425552A1.pdf) DOC-425552A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425552A1.txt)
Released: 2026-10-02. EX PARTE PRESENTATIONS AND POST-REPLY COMMENT PERIOD FILING IN PERMIT-BUT-DISCLOSURE PROCEEDINGS RECEIVED ON 10-1-26. OMD. Contact: Kenneth Hill, 202-418-7521. DOC-425554A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425554A1.pdf) DOC-425554A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425554A1.txt)
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-3-261002-01. Released: 2026-10-02. PLEADINGS. MB. DOC-425553A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425553A1.pdf) DOC-425553A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425553A1.txt)
Report No: SAT-02043. Released: 2026-10-02. SATELLITE LICENSING DIVISION AND SATELLITE PROGRAMS AND POLICY DIVISION INFORMATION - SAT - ACTIONS TAKEN. (DA No. 26-1062). SB. Contact: ICFSinfo@fcc.gov. DA-26-1062A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1062A1.pdf) DA-26-1062A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1062A1.txt)
* * *
SPEECHES
TRUSTY ITSO ASSEMBLY REMARKS. OMR OCOT. Trusty ITSO Assembly Remarks. DOC-425560A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425560A1.docx) DOC-425560A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425560A1.pdf) DOC-425560A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425560A1.txt)
* * *
ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED OCTOBER 1, 2026, DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO. 189:
PUBLIC NOTICES
Released: 2026-10-01. STREAMLINED RESOLUTION OF REQUEST TO ACTIONS BY THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE. (DA No. 26-1025). (Dkt No 02-6 09-197 21-450 06-122 18-213 02-60). WCB. Contact: James Bachtell, 418-2694. DA-26-1025A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1025A1.docx) DA-26-1025A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1025A1.pdf) DA-26-1025A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1025A1.txt)
Released: 2026-10-01. WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU ANNOUNCES EFFECTIVE DATE OF NETWORK AND SERVICES MODERNIZATION RULES AND ISSUES GUIDANCE ON CONTENTS OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSITIONS DISCONTINUANCE NOTICES . (DA No. 26-1061). (Dkt No 25-208 25-209 26-214). WCB. DA-26-1061A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1061A1.docx) DA-26-1061A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1061A1.pdf) DA-26-1061A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1061A1.txt)
* * *
TEXTS
AMENDMENT OF SECTION 73.3555(E) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES, NATIONAL TELEVISION MULTIPLE OWNERSHIP RULE, REPORT AND ORDER. The Commission voted to repeal its 39% national television multiple ownership rule and replace it with a granular, case-by-case review. . (Dkt No 17-318). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 2026-08-06 by R&O. (FCC No. 26-53). MB. FCC-26-53A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A1.docx) FCC-26-53A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A1.pdf) FCC-26-53A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A1.txt) FCC-26-53A2.docx FCC-26-53A2.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A2.pdf) FCC-26-53A2.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A2.txt) FCC-26-53A3.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A3.docx) FCC-26-53A3.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A3.pdf) FCC-26-53A3.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A3.txt) FCC-26-53A4.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A4.docx) FCC-26-53A4.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A4.pdf) FCC-26-53A4.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A4.txt)
MODERNIZING THE 911 FRAMEWORK. The FCC adopts a Notice of Inquiry exploring modernization of the 911 framework to ensure the public can continue to effectively and reliably access emergency services in this era of rapid technological change.. (Dkt No 26-197). Action by: the Commission. Comments Due: 2026-11-16. Reply Comments Due: 2026-12-15. Adopted: 2026-09-30 by NOI. (FCC No. 26-63). PSHSB. Contact: Daniel Spurlock. FCC-26-63A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-63A1.docx) FCC-26-63A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-63A1.pdf) FCC-26-63A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-63A1.txt) FCC-26-63A2.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-63A2.docx) FCC-26-63A2.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-63A2.pdf) FCC-26-63A2.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-63A2.txt) FCC-26-63A3.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-63A3.docx) FCC-26-63A3.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-63A3.pdf) FCC-26-63A3.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-63A3.txt)
MODERNIZING THE COMMISSION'S NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT RULES, REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING. In this R&O, the Commission adopts a series of permitting reforms that will modernize the agency's approach to National Environmental Policy Act regulations. The FNPRM seeks additional comment on the agency's National Historic Preservation Act framework.. (Dkt No 25-217). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 2026-09-30 by R&O. (FCC No. 26-64). WTB. FCC-26-64A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A1.docx) FCC-26-64A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A1.pdf) FCC-26-64A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A1.txt) FCC-26-64A2.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A2.docx) FCC-26-64A2.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A2.pdf) FCC-26-64A2.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A2.txt) FCC-26-64A3.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A3.docx) FCC-26-64A3.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A3.pdf) FCC-26-64A3.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A3.txt) FCC-26-64A4.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A4.docx) FCC-26-64A4.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A4.pdf) FCC-26-64A4.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A4.txt)
SATELLITE SPECTRUM ABUNDANCE; SPECTRUM ABUNDANCE FOR WEIRD SPACE STUFF; EXPANDING USE OF THE 12.7-13.25 GHZ BAND FOR MOBILE BROADBAND OR OTHER EXPANDED USE; SHARED USE OF THE 42-42.5 GHZ BAND; USE OF SPECTRUM BANDS ABOVE 24 GHZ FOR MOBILE RADIO SERVICES . Order Will Unleash Spectrum Abundance for New and Untapped Uses.\r\n \r\n. (Dkt No 25-180 26-54 22-352 23-158 14-177). Action by: the Commission . Adopted: 2026-09-30 by R&O/NPRM. (FCC No. 26-65). SB. FCC-26-65A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-65A1.docx) FCC-26-65A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-65A1.pdf) FCC-26-65A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-65A1.txt) FCC-26-65A2.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-65A2.docx) FCC-26-65A2.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-65A2.pdf) FCC-26-65A2.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-65A2.txt) FCC-26-65A3.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-65A3.docx) FCC-26-65A3.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-65A3.pdf) FCC-26-65A3.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-65A3.txt)
RULES AND REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1991. Modernizes TCPA rules to empower consumers to stop specific categories of robocalls without inadvertently stopping the important informational calls they do want. Seeks comment on further improvements suggested by consumer groups and industry stakeholders.. (Dkt No 02-278). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 2026-09-30 by ORDER. (FCC No. 26-67). CGB. FCC-26-67A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A1.docx) FCC-26-67A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A1.pdf) FCC-26-67A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A1.txt) FCC-26-67A2.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A2.docx) FCC-26-67A2.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A2.pdf) FCC-26-67A2.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A2.txt) FCC-26-67A3.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A3.docx) FCC-26-67A3.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A3.pdf) FCC-26-67A3.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A3.txt)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fcc.gov/edocs/daily-digest/2026/10/02
* * *
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE DATED AND RELEASED TODAY:
PUBLIC NOTICES
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-1-261002-01. Released: 2026-10-02. APPLICATIONS. MB. DOC-425551A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425551A1.pdf) DOC-425551A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425551A1.txt)
Report No: SAT-02042. Released: 2026-10-02. SATELLITE LICENSING DIVISION AND SATELLITE PROGRAMS AND POLICY DIVISION INFORMATION - SAT - ACCEPTED FOR FILING. SB. Contact: ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following Daily Digest (Vol. 45, No. 190) on Oct. 2, 2026: * * * THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE DATED AND RELEASED TODAY: PUBLIC NOTICES Report No: REPORT NO. PN-1-261002-01. Released: 2026-10-02. APPLICATIONS. MB. DOC-425551A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425551A1.pdf) DOC-425551A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425551A1.txt) Report No: SAT-02042. Released: 2026-10-02. SATELLITE LICENSING DIVISION AND SATELLITE PROGRAMS AND POLICY DIVISION INFORMATION - SAT - ACCEPTED FOR FILING. SB. Contact:ICFSinfo@fcc.gov. DOC-425555A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425555A1.pdf) DOC-425555A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425555A1.txt)
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-2-261002-01. Released: 2026-10-02. ACTIONS. MB. DOC-425552A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425552A1.pdf) DOC-425552A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425552A1.txt)
Released: 2026-10-02. EX PARTE PRESENTATIONS AND POST-REPLY COMMENT PERIOD FILING IN PERMIT-BUT-DISCLOSURE PROCEEDINGS RECEIVED ON 10-1-26. OMD. Contact: Kenneth Hill, 202-418-7521. DOC-425554A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425554A1.pdf) DOC-425554A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425554A1.txt)
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-3-261002-01. Released: 2026-10-02. PLEADINGS. MB. DOC-425553A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425553A1.pdf) DOC-425553A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425553A1.txt)
Report No: SAT-02043. Released: 2026-10-02. SATELLITE LICENSING DIVISION AND SATELLITE PROGRAMS AND POLICY DIVISION INFORMATION - SAT - ACTIONS TAKEN. (DA No. 26-1062). SB. Contact: ICFSinfo@fcc.gov. DA-26-1062A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1062A1.pdf) DA-26-1062A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1062A1.txt)
* * *
SPEECHES
TRUSTY ITSO ASSEMBLY REMARKS. OMR OCOT. Trusty ITSO Assembly Remarks. DOC-425560A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425560A1.docx) DOC-425560A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425560A1.pdf) DOC-425560A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425560A1.txt)
* * *
ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED OCTOBER 1, 2026, DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO. 189:
PUBLIC NOTICES
Released: 2026-10-01. STREAMLINED RESOLUTION OF REQUEST TO ACTIONS BY THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE. (DA No. 26-1025). (Dkt No 02-6 09-197 21-450 06-122 18-213 02-60). WCB. Contact: James Bachtell, 418-2694. DA-26-1025A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1025A1.docx) DA-26-1025A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1025A1.pdf) DA-26-1025A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1025A1.txt)
Released: 2026-10-01. WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU ANNOUNCES EFFECTIVE DATE OF NETWORK AND SERVICES MODERNIZATION RULES AND ISSUES GUIDANCE ON CONTENTS OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSITIONS DISCONTINUANCE NOTICES . (DA No. 26-1061). (Dkt No 25-208 25-209 26-214). WCB. DA-26-1061A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1061A1.docx) DA-26-1061A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1061A1.pdf) DA-26-1061A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-1061A1.txt)
* * *
TEXTS
AMENDMENT OF SECTION 73.3555(E) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES, NATIONAL TELEVISION MULTIPLE OWNERSHIP RULE, REPORT AND ORDER. The Commission voted to repeal its 39% national television multiple ownership rule and replace it with a granular, case-by-case review. . (Dkt No 17-318). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 2026-08-06 by R&O. (FCC No. 26-53). MB. FCC-26-53A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A1.docx) FCC-26-53A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A1.pdf) FCC-26-53A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A1.txt) FCC-26-53A2.docx FCC-26-53A2.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A2.pdf) FCC-26-53A2.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A2.txt) FCC-26-53A3.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A3.docx) FCC-26-53A3.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A3.pdf) FCC-26-53A3.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A3.txt) FCC-26-53A4.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A4.docx) FCC-26-53A4.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A4.pdf) FCC-26-53A4.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A4.txt)
MODERNIZING THE 911 FRAMEWORK. The FCC adopts a Notice of Inquiry exploring modernization of the 911 framework to ensure the public can continue to effectively and reliably access emergency services in this era of rapid technological change.. (Dkt No 26-197). Action by: the Commission. Comments Due: 2026-11-16. Reply Comments Due: 2026-12-15. Adopted: 2026-09-30 by NOI. (FCC No. 26-63). PSHSB. Contact: Daniel Spurlock. FCC-26-63A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-63A1.docx) FCC-26-63A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-63A1.pdf) FCC-26-63A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-63A1.txt) FCC-26-63A2.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-63A2.docx) FCC-26-63A2.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-63A2.pdf) FCC-26-63A2.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-63A2.txt) FCC-26-63A3.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-63A3.docx) FCC-26-63A3.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-63A3.pdf) FCC-26-63A3.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-63A3.txt)
MODERNIZING THE COMMISSION'S NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT RULES, REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING. In this R&O, the Commission adopts a series of permitting reforms that will modernize the agency's approach to National Environmental Policy Act regulations. The FNPRM seeks additional comment on the agency's National Historic Preservation Act framework.. (Dkt No 25-217). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 2026-09-30 by R&O. (FCC No. 26-64). WTB. FCC-26-64A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A1.docx) FCC-26-64A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A1.pdf) FCC-26-64A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A1.txt) FCC-26-64A2.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A2.docx) FCC-26-64A2.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A2.pdf) FCC-26-64A2.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A2.txt) FCC-26-64A3.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A3.docx) FCC-26-64A3.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A3.pdf) FCC-26-64A3.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A3.txt) FCC-26-64A4.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A4.docx) FCC-26-64A4.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A4.pdf) FCC-26-64A4.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-64A4.txt)
SATELLITE SPECTRUM ABUNDANCE; SPECTRUM ABUNDANCE FOR WEIRD SPACE STUFF; EXPANDING USE OF THE 12.7-13.25 GHZ BAND FOR MOBILE BROADBAND OR OTHER EXPANDED USE; SHARED USE OF THE 42-42.5 GHZ BAND; USE OF SPECTRUM BANDS ABOVE 24 GHZ FOR MOBILE RADIO SERVICES . Order Will Unleash Spectrum Abundance for New and Untapped Uses.\r\n \r\n. (Dkt No 25-180 26-54 22-352 23-158 14-177). Action by: the Commission . Adopted: 2026-09-30 by R&O/NPRM. (FCC No. 26-65). SB. FCC-26-65A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-65A1.docx) FCC-26-65A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-65A1.pdf) FCC-26-65A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-65A1.txt) FCC-26-65A2.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-65A2.docx) FCC-26-65A2.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-65A2.pdf) FCC-26-65A2.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-65A2.txt) FCC-26-65A3.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-65A3.docx) FCC-26-65A3.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-65A3.pdf) FCC-26-65A3.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-65A3.txt)
RULES AND REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1991. Modernizes TCPA rules to empower consumers to stop specific categories of robocalls without inadvertently stopping the important informational calls they do want. Seeks comment on further improvements suggested by consumer groups and industry stakeholders.. (Dkt No 02-278). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 2026-09-30 by ORDER. (FCC No. 26-67). CGB. FCC-26-67A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A1.docx) FCC-26-67A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A1.pdf) FCC-26-67A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A1.txt) FCC-26-67A2.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A2.docx) FCC-26-67A2.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A2.pdf) FCC-26-67A2.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A2.txt) FCC-26-67A3.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A3.docx) FCC-26-67A3.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A3.pdf) FCC-26-67A3.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A3.txt)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fcc.gov/edocs/daily-digest/2026/10/02