Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
MSPB Issues Board Decision Involving Department of Justice Vs. John Brandon Bushkell
WASHINGTON, March 21 -- The Merit Systems Protection Board issued the following case report on a board decision involving the Department of Justice and appellant John Brandon Bushkell on March 20, 2026:
* * *
BOARD DECISIONS
Appellant: John Brandon Bushkell
Agency: Department of Justice
Decision Number: 2026 MSPB 2
Docket Numbers: AT-0752-21-0619-I-2
Issuance Date: March 18, 2026
ADVERSE ACTION CHARGES
FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
The administrative judge issued an initial decision upholding the appellant's chapter 75 removal from the agency's
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 21 -- The Merit Systems Protection Board issued the following case report on a board decision involving the Department of Justice and appellant John Brandon Bushkell on March 20, 2026:
* * *
BOARD DECISIONS
Appellant: John Brandon Bushkell
Agency: Department of Justice
Decision Number: 2026 MSPB 2
Docket Numbers: AT-0752-21-0619-I-2
Issuance Date: March 18, 2026
ADVERSE ACTION CHARGES
FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
The administrative judge issued an initial decision upholding the appellant's chapter 75 removal from the agency'sFederal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) for absence without leave (AWOL) from March 15 through May 28, 2021. The administrative judge reasoned that the agency proved its AWOL charge, the appellant did not prove his claims of disability discrimination based on his status as disabled and a denial of a reasonable accommodation, and removal was a reasonable penalty. Both parties sought review.
The Board granted the appellant's petition for review, denied the agency's cross petition for review, vacated the initial decision, and remanded the appeal for further adjudication of the appellant's claim that he was denied a reasonable accommodation.
Holding: Regardless of the form used, the appellant submitted administratively acceptable evidence covering his absence through approximately April 8, 2021.
1. The Board agreed with the administrative judge that the agency proved its AWOL charge but not all of the dates of AWOL. An agency cannot prove an AWOL charge for those portions of an absence for which the employee request to use his accrued sick leave and submits administratively acceptable evidence of his incapacity. The appellant requested to use his accrued sick leave and presented sufficient medical documentation to support his request. While the administrative judge found that the proven AWOL period began on April 2, 2021, the Board concluded that the appellant's accrued sick leave would have covered through approximately April 8, 2021. Thus, the agency proved the appellant was AWOL beginning on approximately April 9, 2021, for a period totaling over 280 hours.
2. The Board did not agree with the administrative judge to the extent that he found that the agency properly denied the appellant's request to use his accrued sick leave based on the appellant's failure to submit his supporting medical documentation, as required by the agency, on a particular agency form. An agency cannot rest an AWOL charge solely on an employee's failure to use a particular form.
Holding: The appellant's absence was not protected under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) because he did not expressly invoke the FMLA when requesting leave.
1. Because the administrative judge did not make findings on the appellant's claim that his absence was protected under the FMLA, the Board did so on review. Title II of the FMLA covers most nonPostal Federal employees, such as the appellant. The statute generally requires 30-days' advance notice of the intention to take FMLA-protected leave, and the implementing regulations issued by the Office of Personnel Management provide, at 5 C.F.R. Sec. 630.1203(b), that an employee is responsible for invoking his entitlement to FMLA leave and may not do so retroactively unless he and his personal representative are medically unable to do so.
Accordingly, the Board overruled its prior precedent that employees are not required to specifically invoke FMLA if they presented the agency with sufficient evidence to trigger consideration of their absence under FMLA. Because the appellant did not invoke FMLA when requesting his leave, the agency was not required to designate any portion of his leave as FMLA protected.
Holding: Allowing an employee to use accrued or unpaid leave is a form of reasonable accommodation.
1. In denying the appellant's claim that the agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability, the administrative judge did not consider whether the agency denied the appellant a reasonable accommodation by failing to grant his request to use sick leave through approximately April 9, 2021. The Board vacated the initial decision and remanded this claim for further adjudication. On remand, the administrative judge was advised that he could adopt the Board's determinations that the agency proved its charge and that the penalty of removal was reasonable for the appellant's more than 280 hours of AWOL, even after considering his almost 22 years of Federal service.
* * *
COURT DECISIONS
NONPRECEDENTIAL:
Herman v. Department of Justice, No. 2024-1502 (Fed. Cir. March 16, 2026) (MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-10-0164-B-5). The court affirmed a Board decision denying corrective action in the petitioner's individual right of action appeal. The court was unpersuaded by the petitioner's argument that the law-of-the-case doctrine prevented the Board from reaching its ultimate finding that the petitioner did not prove his prima facie case of whistleblower reprisal. The court explained that the doctrine applies to issues that "have actually been decided" and that the Board's previous determination that the petitioner made nonfrivolous allegations of protected disclosures sufficient to survive dismissal was a different issue than whether he proved his prima facie case by preponderant evidence.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/case_reports/Case_Report_March_20_2026.pdf
FEC Issues Digest for Week of March 16-20, 2026
WASHINGTON, March 21 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest:
* * *
Commission meetings and hearings
No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week.
* * *
Website Initiatives
The Commission recently launched a new rulemaking search system on the FEC's website. The new system provides fast, comprehensive access to FEC rulemaking documents and is easily accessible via mobile devices. Users can search rulemaking documents by regulation number, document type, date, and more. Advanced search capabilities include keyword and Boolean options and proximity
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 21 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest:
* * *
Commission meetings and hearings
No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week.
* * *
Website Initiatives
The Commission recently launched a new rulemaking search system on the FEC's website. The new system provides fast, comprehensive access to FEC rulemaking documents and is easily accessible via mobile devices. Users can search rulemaking documents by regulation number, document type, date, and more. Advanced search capabilities include keyword and Boolean options and proximityfilters that allow users to search for terms or phrases that appear within a set distance from one another. More information about the FEC's legal search system capabilities is available in the FEC's Legal Research Guide.
* * *
Regulations and agency procedures
FEC Form 99 Update: The Commission has recently implemented new attachment functionality for electronic filers submitting an FEC Form 99 webform (Miscellaneous Electronic Submission to the FEC), which will now allow committees to upload PDF documents as part of their submissions. As a result, committees may now file Schedule C-1s (Loans and Lines of Credit from Lending Institutions), copies of loan agreements, loan forgiveness statements, and Form 8s (Debt Settlement Plans) electronically as attachments with electronic signatures, including required third-party signatures. Prior to this new functionality, filers had to file documents with third-party signatures on paper. Filers should properly categorize the Form 99 from the list of options provided.
* * *
Public Disclosure
On March 17, the Office of the Inspector General made public a Modified Peer Review Report.
* * *
Outreach
On March 18, the Commission hosted a webinar for Nonconnected PACs.
* * *
Reports Due in 2026
The Commission has posted the 2026 Congressional Pre-Election Reporting Dates. Reporting schedules for all filers in 2026 are also available.
* * *
Election Dates
The Commission has posted a list of 2026 Congressional Primary Dates.
* * *
Employment opportunities
The Commission is accepting applications for the position of IT Specialist (INFOSEC/CUSTSPT) in the Operations Division, Office of the Chief Information Officer, through March 24, 2026.
* * *
Upcoming educational opportunities
March 25, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host a FECFile webinar for PACs and party committees.
April 1, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host a FECFile webinar for candidate committees.
April 21-22, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host a webinar for corporations and their PACs.
For more information on upcoming training opportunities, see the Commission's Trainings page.
* * *
Upcoming reporting due dates
March 20: March Monthly Reports are due. For more information, see the 2026 Monthly Reporting schedule.
The Commission has posted filing information regarding the Georgia 14th District Special Runoff Election, scheduled for April 7, 2026.
The Commission has posted filing information regarding the New Jersey 11th District Special General Election, scheduled for April 16, 2026.
The Commission has posted filing information regarding the California 1st District Special General Election, scheduled for June 2, 2026, and Special Runoff Election (if necessary), scheduled for August 4, 2026.
* * *
Additional research materials
Contribution Limits: In addition to the current limits, the Commission has posted an archive of contribution limits that were in effect going back to the 1975-1976 election cycles.
Federal election results are available. The data was compiled from the official vote totals published by state election offices.
FEC Notify: Want to be notified by email when campaign finance reports are received by the agency? Sign up here.
The Combined Federal State Disclosure and Election Directory is available. This publication identifies the federal and state agencies responsible for the disclosure of campaign finances, lobbying, personal finances, public financing, candidates on the ballot, election results, spending on state initiatives, and other financial filings.
The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Tax Checkoff Chart provides information on balance of the Fund, monthly deposits into the Fund reported by the Department of the Treasury, payments from the Fund as certified by the FEC, and participation rates of taxpayers as reported by the Internal Revenue Service. For more information on the Presidential Public Funding Program, see the Public Funding of Presidential Elections page.
The FEC Record is available as a continuously updated online news source.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fec.gov/updates/week-of-march-16-20-2026/
SEC Chairman Atkins Issues Prepared Remarks Before 'The SEC Speaks in 2026'
WASHINGTON, March 20 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on March 19, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins at an event entitled "The SEC Speaks in 2026":
* * *
Thank you, Laura [Unger], for your introduction, and for the fine job that you have done spearheading this year's program alongside our hosts at the Practising Law Institute. I should also like to acknowledge our many participants for being here today, including those of you who are tuning in virtually. Of course, I must not neglect to thank my fellow speakers from across the Commission for contributing their
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 20 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on March 19, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins at an event entitled "The SEC Speaks in 2026":
* * *
Thank you, Laura [Unger], for your introduction, and for the fine job that you have done spearheading this year's program alongside our hosts at the Practising Law Institute. I should also like to acknowledge our many participants for being here today, including those of you who are tuning in virtually. Of course, I must not neglect to thank my fellow speakers from across the Commission for contributing theirtime and expertise. The strength of this institution has always rested on the dedication of its public servants. And this annual opportunity for SEC staff to speak publicly about their work is an occasion for all of us to recognize the rigor and high purpose that animates it. Finally, before I share a few reflections, I must note--as you will no doubt hear countless times today--that the views I express here are my own as Chairman and do not necessarily reflect those of the SEC as an institution or of the other Commissioners.
Now, despite some fits and starts in recent years, SEC Speaks has long occupied a unique place on the Commission's calendar. Over my three tours at the SEC--first working for two chairmen, then as a commissioner in the aughts--I noticed that this audience tends to hang on a speaker's every word. But I would do well to remember the counsel of Bill Casey, who, at the very first SEC Speaks program some fifty-four years ago, encouraged future Chairmen to realize that the crowd is there to pay a tribute "not to you, nor to your colleagues, nor to the SEC in general" but, as he put it, "to the SEC in particular."
And so it is today. Over the course of this program, Commission staff will explain in considerable detail the direction of our policy initiatives across every division and several offices.
My aim this morning is a bit different. In lieu of previewing each of those efforts individually, I want to step back and offer a framework of how they fit together as a cohesive whole, so that as you hear from our speakers, you understand not only the substance of the SEC's priorities, but the shared principles behind them.
***
Now, with a robust pipeline of rulemaking set for the year ahead, I think that it is instructive to first contextualize them in the years that they follow. A period in which our regulatory framework too often struggled to keep up with the market that it oversees. As just one example of the gulf between regulation and reality, our rules still default to paper delivery for shareholder communications. In an age of algorithmic trading and artificial intelligence, I believe that requirement ought to be a relic, not a standard.
In fact, not long after the first SEC Speaks in the seventies, the late SEC Commissioner Roberta Karmel observed that "data analyzing technology has progressed to a point of magnitude superior to that available just brief years ago." Commissioner Karmel added--around the advent of the word processor, mind you--that "although these developments have augmented the complexity and efficiency of the private financial sector, the SEC has not enjoyed all the benefits of this improved technology." Her words were at once a warning and an enduring appeal for financial regulators to do a better job at keeping pace. We are resolved to answer that call by refusing to remain tethered to the tools or the temperament of a bygone era.
Second, and on that note, a refusal to update the SEC's rules, paired with a misguided regulation-by-enforcement campaign, has killed many would-be products or driven them offshore. When innovators cannot discern fit-for-purpose rules--or when they face the prospect of a subpoena as the response to good faith attempts to comply--the rational response is to build elsewhere. And they did. An entire generation of digital asset innovation developed outside of the United States, not because American entrepreneurs lacked the ambition or American investors lacked the appetite, but because American regulators lacked the will.
Third, decades of accretive rulemaking have compounded into a compliance labyrinth so elaborate that it sustains entire industries whose sole function is to help public companies to navigate the SEC's regulatory framework. When the cost of accessing America's capital markets includes retaining specialists to decode the SEC's regulatory regime to produce disclosure that only an academic would appreciate, then something is very clearly, and deeply, amiss. Our goal should be to increase the cost of fraud and manipulation, not the cost of compliance itself.
So, against that backdrop, every initiative toward which the SEC is working--every rule that we propose, every interpretation that we release, and every institutional reform that we undertake--largely falls into one of three categories: Those that advance our rules to align with how markets operate today. Those that clarify our regulatory regime to streamline oversight and unlock innovation. And those that transform our requirements by eliminating both the burdensome and the impractical. Together, the three pillars of advance - A, clarify - C, transform - T, form one integrated policy agenda that I am calling our "A-C-T" strategy. Let me begin with the first.
Advance
To advance our regulatory posture is to bring it into honest alignment with the world as it is, rather than as it was when many of our rules were first written. It is to recognize that a rulebook crafted for one era does not automatically serve investors well in another, and that the costs of pretending otherwise are borne not by the agency, but by our markets and the investors who participate in them.
Of course, advancing new regulatory frameworks does not mean deviating from the SEC's core mission. On the contrary, it means fulfilling it with tools that are equal to the task. Indeed, the application of our enduring principles must reflect how markets function today, and how we anticipate that they will function in the future.
Perhaps nowhere has the cost of failing to do so been more apparent than in our treatment of crypto assets. For years, the SEC dealt with these markets not through the issuance of rules but through the might of our enforcement apparatus. Instead of articulating workable pathways for compliance, our message to the marketplace often amounted to a directive to adapt to us--or else. We bothered not to adapt inapposite forms and disclosure requirements to innovative products, but demanded that the innovators adapt their products to our antiquated approach, or else face the consequences.
The problem, of course, is that innovation rarely pauses for regulation. It will either occur within a regulatory framework or around it. And in the case of digital assets, the SEC's regulation by enforcement campaign precipitated the migration of an entire asset class toward offshore jurisdictions. Only compounding the Commission's subversion of American entrepreneurs, that posture completely failed in its effectiveness.
Advancing new regulatory frameworks means choosing a different approach. It means crafting rules that are clear enough to guide markets, flexible enough to accommodate innovation, and firm enough to protect investors. It is long past time that we do so.
Clarify
Of course, as we modernize legacy rules for the twenty-first century, we must recognize that markets also depend on clear and coherent regulatory scoping. This brings me to the second pillar of our A-C-T strategy, which is to clarify.
Having been around the SEC and CFTC now for three decades, I have seen firsthand how jurisdictional ambiguity can stifle innovation just as surely as ill-devised regulation. Quite often, the relationship between these agencies has resembled two fortresses facing one another across a regulatory no man's land--and in that space lay the wreckage of would-be financial products. Entrepreneurs approached new frontiers with ambition, only to retreat when the answer to a fairly basic question remained elusive: whose rules apply?
Dually registered firms have long been forced to navigate two agencies, two regulatory regimes, two or more examination cycles, two reporting pipelines, and often two supervisory cultures, even where the underlying risks are substantially similar. Of course, for registered firms owned by banks, we must recognize that other regulators also play a role. By acknowledging this crazy quilt of supervisory authorities, we should recognize that the principle that ought to guide us instead is straightforward: where one agency's framework achieves comparable regulatory outcomes, then the regulator should accept the overlapping requirements of the other. Closely collaborating regulators ought to be cognizant of these issues and work them out collaboratively.
In short, our goal is to draw clear and abiding regulatory lines--lines that give innovators the confidence to build without fear of being caught in a crossfire of their own government's making and therefore lay a foundation for a super-app safety net.
As one example, earlier this month, the SEC and CFTC entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, under which both agencies will usher in a new era of harmonization. By aligning regulatory definitions; coordinating oversight; and facilitating seamless, secure data sharing between agencies, we will ensure that our rules and regulations deliver the clarity that market participants deserve. Among the first outputs of this new era of harmonization, focused on clarifying rules and regulatory jurisdiction, is the token taxonomy and crypto interpretive guidance that the SEC recently published--and the CFTC joined. And as I said earlier this week, while the interpretation provides long-needed clarity, I should like to assure this audience that it amounts to a beginning, not an end.
Transform
Finally, the third pillar of my program for this year and next is to transform our rulebook by trimming immaterial requirements that burden the market without a corresponding benefit to investors.
Many SEC disclosure requirements that began as a framework to inform have steadily become instruments to obscure, to insulate, and to sustain a highly specialized cottage industry of advisors and consultants. Along the way, we have drifted from the immutable objective standard of materiality, as enunciated by no less than the U.S. Supreme Court--that is, what a reasonable investor would consider important in deciding whether to buy, sell, or hold a security. Unfortunately, this standard seems to have devolved in the past few years into a subjective standard of what any particular investor may be curious to know. One can also see this drift manifest as a dragnet in places like Rule 17a-4, particularly in the so-called off-channel communications matters, through which the Commission allowed the extension of recordkeeping requirements for broker-dealers to a point that strains any common-sense understanding of the vague "business as such" standard. Similarly, the Commission has permitted this same result in a crazy quilt of similar, but differing standards for document retention with respect to other registered entities.
So, we very clearly need a spring cleaning to enable reasonable investors to separate the wheat from the chaff when reviewing offering documents, periodic reports, and proxy statements. The attic, the basement, and the garage have all accumulated their share of clutter, and they make it difficult to find the load-bearing beams. Accordingly, our Division of Corporation Finance is actively engaged in a first-principles review of our disclosure requirements with materiality as its north star.
But corporate disclosure is scarcely the only area where the Commission's focus has drifted from Congress's intent. The Division of Enforcement is also undergoing a course correction by prioritizing cases that provide meaningful investor protection and strengthen market integrity rather than technical rule violations in situations where investors have not been harmed. To those ends, we have directed the division staff to investigate the types of misconduct that inflict the greatest harm, such as fraud, market manipulation, and abuses of trust--and away from approaches that measure success by volume over real investor protection.
Lastly, following a court's remand of two rulemakings related to securities lending and short sales, we have an opportunity to holistically reevaluate these rules, and I have directed the staff to make recommendations regarding a reporting regime that balances the policy goals with the burdens of reporting. This ruling also serves as a useful reminder that cost-benefit analyses are essential in ensuring that our policies are sound and able to withstand the test of time.
***
With that, let me close where I began--with a reflection, in fact a request, from Chairman Bill Casey in his remarks at the inaugural SEC Speaks program. As Chairman Casey concluded that day, "in these and in other endeavors the Commission needs your ideas... Don't be passive receptacles for the views of those of us who will be addressing you [at SEC Speaks]. Challenge us. Make us do some hard thinking. It will be good for us, good for you, good for the Commission, and good for the law."
The strategy that I have described today--advancing, clarifying, and transforming our rulebook and regulatory frameworks--is not work that this agency can accomplish alone, nor is it work that we should seek to accomplish alone. Our success depends on the ideas that you offer and the scrutiny that you apply.
Indeed, you, as aficionados of the SEC (I will refrain from saying groupies), have a unique role in helping to oversee our initiatives and holding us accountable for them. Few understand this institution as well as you do, from its history to its habits. You can see our warts, and our successes, more clearly than most. That perspective is indispensable to us.
So, I hope that you will take Chairman Casey's counsel to heart and challenge us. Push us. Make us think more critically about the rules that we write and the decisions that we make.
America's investors, innovators, and entrepreneurs are counting on us to get this right. I look forward to working with you to ensure that we do.
Thank you for your time, and please enjoy the remainder of SEC Speaks.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-remarks-sec-speaks-031926-prepared-remarks-sec-speaks
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice: Comments Invited on CenturyLink Section 214 Application to Discontinue Domestic Legacy Voice Service as Part of Technology Transition
WASHINGTON, March 20 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-66) on March 19, 2026:
* * *
Unless otherwise specified, the following procedures and dates apply to the application(s) (the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s)) listed in the Appendix.
The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau), upon initial review, has found the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s) listed herein to be acceptable for filing and subject to the procedures set forth in Section 63.71 of the Commission's rules./1 The application(s)
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 20 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-66) on March 19, 2026:
* * *
Unless otherwise specified, the following procedures and dates apply to the application(s) (the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s)) listed in the Appendix.
The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau), upon initial review, has found the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s) listed herein to be acceptable for filing and subject to the procedures set forth in Section 63.71 of the Commission's rules./1 The application(s)request authority, under section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,/2 and section 63.71 of the Commission's rules,/3 to discontinue, reduce, or impair certain domestic telecommunications service(s) (Affected Service(s)) in specified geographic areas (Service Area(s)) as applicable and as fully described in each application.
In accordance with section 63.71(f) of the Commission's rules, the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s) listed in the Appendix will be deemed granted automatically on April 19, 2026, the 31st day after the release date of this public notice, unless the Commission notifies any applicant(s) that their grant will not be automatically effective./4 We note that the date on which an application for Commission authorization is deemed granted may be different from the date on which applicants are authorized to discontinue service ("Authorized Date"). Any applicant whose application has been deemed granted may discontinue their Affected Service(s) in their Service Area(s) on or after the authorized discontinuance date(s) specified in the Appendix, in accordance with their filed representations. Accordingly, pursuant to section 63.71(f), and the terms outlined in each application, absent further Commission action, each applicant may discontinue the Affected Service(s) in the Service Area(s) described in their application on or after the authorized discontinuance date(s) listed in the Appendix for that application. For purposes of computation of time when filing a petition for reconsideration, application for review, or petition for judicial review of the Commission's decision(s), the date of "public notice" shall be the later of the auto grant date stated above in this Public Notice, or the release date(s) of any further public notice(s) or order(s) announcing final Commission action, as applicable. Should no petitions for reconsideration, applications for review, or petitions for judicial review be timely filed, the proceeding(s) listed in this Public Notice shall be terminated, and the docket(s) will be closed.
Comments objecting to the application listed in the Appendix must be filed with the Commission on or before April 3, 2026. Comments should refer to the specific WC Docket No. and Comp. Pol. File No. listed in the Appendix for the Section 214 Discontinuance Application. Comments should include specific information about the impact of the proposed discontinuance on the commenter, including any inability to acquire reasonable substitute service. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
This proceeding shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./5 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
For further information, please see the contact(s) for the specific discontinuance proceeding you are interested in as listed in the Appendix. For further information on procedures regarding section 214 please visit https://www.fcc.gov/general/domestic-section-214-discontinuance-service.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ 47 CFR Sec. 63.71.
2/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 214.
3/ 47 CFR Sec. 63.71.
4/ See 47 CFR Sec. 63.71(f)(1) (stating, in relevant part, that an application filed by a non-dominant carrier "shall be automatically granted on the 31st day... unless the Commission has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective"); see also 47 CFR Sec. 63.71(f)(2)(i) (stating that "[a]n application to discontinue, reduce, or impair an existing retail service as part of a technology transition, as defined in Sec. 63.60(i), may be automatically granted... if: The applicant provides affected customers with the notice required under paragraph (a)(6) of this section, and the application contains the showing or certification described in Sec. 63.602(b)"); Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84, Order, DA 25248, para. 6 (WCB Mar. 20, 2025) (waiving the Adequate Replacement Test's "single replacement service" requirement for a period of two years when a carrier seeks to discontinue a legacy voice service pursuant to section 214(a), thereby allowing carriers to satisfy all three prongs of the Adequate Replacement Test with a bundled service); Technology Transitions, GN Docket No. 13-5, Order on Clarification, DA 25-250, para. 6 (WCB Mar. 20, 2025) (clarifying the applicability of the testing methodology and parameters required for meeting the streamlining criteria when a carrier submits a technology transition discontinuance application relying on the "totality of the circumstances" under the Adequate Replacement Test)).
5/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-270A1.pdf
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving Goregent Infant Walkers
WASHINGTON, March 20 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert on March 19, 2026:
* * *
Name of Product: Goregent Infant Walkers
Hazard: The recalled infant walkers violate the mandatory standard for infant walkers because they can fit through a standard doorway and fail to stop at the edge of a step, posing a risk of serious injury or death due to a fall hazard.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: March 19, 2026
Units: About 90
Consumer Contact: Goregent Official Store by email at GoregentInfantWalkersRecall@outlook.com.
Recall Details
Description: This recall
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 20 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert on March 19, 2026:
* * *
Name of Product: Goregent Infant Walkers
Hazard: The recalled infant walkers violate the mandatory standard for infant walkers because they can fit through a standard doorway and fail to stop at the edge of a step, posing a risk of serious injury or death due to a fall hazard.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: March 19, 2026
Units: About 90
Consumer Contact: Goregent Official Store by email at GoregentInfantWalkersRecall@outlook.com.
Recall Details
Description: This recallinvolves Goregent-branded infant walkers. The walkers are green and have a fabric seat with animal print, a rotating activity tray with toys, lights and music, a round base and six wheels. The walkers are collapsible with three adjustable height settings. "Model No: 901," "SKU: GEBA030AGXP" and "Date of Production: November 2025" are printed on a yellow label located on the walker's base.
Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled infant walkers and contact Goregent Official Store for a full refund. Consumers will be asked to disassemble the walker, remove the fabric seat, write "Recalled" on the top of the tray in permanent marker and send a photo of the recalled infant walker to GoregentInfantWalkersRecall@outlook.com.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported
Sold Online At: Amazon.com in January 2026 for about $90.
Retailer: Dongguanshi Aokaolan Trading Co., Ltd., dba Goregent Official Store, of China
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-332
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Infant-Walkers-Recalled-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-or-Death-from-Fall-Hazard-Violate-Mandatory-Standard-for-Infant-Walkers-Sold-on-Amazon-by-Goregent-Official-Store
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving Frigidaire Gas Ranges
WASHINGTON, March 20 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert on March 19, 2026:
* * *
Name of Product: Frigidaire Gas Ranges
Hazard: The ovens in the ranges can experience a delayed ignition of the oven's bake burner, posing a risk of burn hazards to users.
Remedy: Repair
Recall Date: March 19, 2026
Units: About 174,800 (In addition, about 5,300 were sold in Canada)
Consumer Contact: Electrolux Group toll-free at 866-291-7633 from 8:30 am to 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, email at gasovenburnerrecall@electrolux.com, online at www.GasOvenBurnerRecall.com
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 20 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert on March 19, 2026:
* * *
Name of Product: Frigidaire Gas Ranges
Hazard: The ovens in the ranges can experience a delayed ignition of the oven's bake burner, posing a risk of burn hazards to users.
Remedy: Repair
Recall Date: March 19, 2026
Units: About 174,800 (In addition, about 5,300 were sold in Canada)
Consumer Contact: Electrolux Group toll-free at 866-291-7633 from 8:30 am to 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, email at gasovenburnerrecall@electrolux.com, online at www.GasOvenBurnerRecall.comor www.frigidaire.com and click on Recall Information for more information.
Recall Details
In Conjunction With:
Description: This recall involves Frigidaire, Frigidaire Gallery, and Frigidaire Professional Gas Ranges Models FCFG3083AS, FCRG3083AD, FCRG3083AS, GCFG3060BD, GCFG3060BF, GCFG3070BF, GCRG3060BD, GCRG3060BF, PCFG3080AF, FCFG3062AB, FCFG3062AS, FCFG3062AW, FCRG3051BB, FCRG3051BS, FCRG3051BW, FCRG3052BB, FCRG3052BS, FCRG3052BW, FCRG3062AB, FCRG3062AS, FCRG3062AW, FCRG306LAF, and GCFG3059BF, within the serial number range of VF52200000 through VF54399999.The model and serial numbers are printed on a nameplate located in the drawer beneath the oven.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using ovens in the recalled ranges immediately and contact Electrolux Group for a free repair. Electrolux Group will provide professional in-home installation of a new bake burner at no cost to consumers. Consumers can continue to use the cooktop burners on the range.
Incidents/Injuries: Electrolux Group and the CPSC are aware of 62 reports of the oven's bake burner delayed ignition, including 30 reports of burn injuries.
Sold At: Lowe's, The Home Depot, and other retail stores nationwide and online at Frigidaire.com from June 2025 through January 2026 for between $630 and $2,700.
Manufacturer(s): Electrolux Consumer Products, Inc., of Charlotte, North Carolina
Manufactured In: United States
Recall number: 26-333
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Electrolux-Group-Recalls-Frigidaire-Gas-Ranges-Due-to-Burn-Hazard
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving Aisstxoer Adult Bike Helmets
WASHINGTON, March 20 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert on March 19, 2026:
* * *
Name of Product: Aisstxoer Adult Bike Helmets
Hazard: The recalled helmets violate the mandatory safety standard for bicycle helmets because the helmets do not comply with the impact attenuation, positional stability, and certification requirements. The helmets can fail to protect the user in the event of a crash, posing a serious risk of injury or death due to head injury.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: March 19, 2026
Units: About 200
Consumer Contact: YXTDZ Store by email
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 20 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert on March 19, 2026:
* * *
Name of Product: Aisstxoer Adult Bike Helmets
Hazard: The recalled helmets violate the mandatory safety standard for bicycle helmets because the helmets do not comply with the impact attenuation, positional stability, and certification requirements. The helmets can fail to protect the user in the event of a crash, posing a serious risk of injury or death due to head injury.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: March 19, 2026
Units: About 200
Consumer Contact: YXTDZ Store by emailat yxtdzamz@126.com.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves Aisstxoer bike helmets. The recalled helmets were sold in size large, fitting a head circumference of about 22.8 to 24.4 inches, and in the color pink. The recalled helmets have black padding, black straps, a black buckle and a black plastic knob at the back for adjusting the fit. "Aisstxoer" and the size are printed on a white label on the packaging and the model "GH018L" is printed on a label located inside of the helmet.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled adult helmets immediately and contact YXTDZ Store for a full refund. Consumers will be asked to destroy the recalled helmet by cutting the straps and email a photo of the destroyed helmet to yxtdzamz@126.com.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported
Sold Online At: Amazon.com from October 2025 through November 2025 for about $25.
Retailer: Shenzhenshiyongxintaidianziyouxiangongsi (Shenzhen Yongxintai Electronics Co., Ltd.), dba, Yxtdz Store, of China
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-335
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Aisstxoer-Adult-Bicycle-Helmets-Recalled-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-or-Death-from-Head-Injury-Violates-Mandatory-Standard-for-Bicycle-Helmets-Sold-on-Amazon-by-YXTDZ-Store
