Featured Stories
SEC Obtains Final Judgments Against California-Based Company, 2 Individuals, and Relief Defendant for Their Roles in Alleged Offering Fraud Schemes
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 25-cv-00492; C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 13, 2025):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Gauntlet Holdings, LLC, et al., No. 25-cv-00492 (C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 13, 2025)
On July 15, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a final judgment as to defendants Gauntlet Holdings, LLC and Gauntlet's managing member Darrell W. Rideaux in a previously-filed action alleging the defendants engaged in a securities offering fraud. The Court previously entered a final
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 25-cv-00492; C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 13, 2025):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Gauntlet Holdings, LLC, et al., No. 25-cv-00492 (C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 13, 2025)
On July 15, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a final judgment as to defendants Gauntlet Holdings, LLC and Gauntlet's managing member Darrell W. Rideaux in a previously-filed action alleging the defendants engaged in a securities offering fraud. The Court previously entered a finaljudgment by default as to defendant Ali Derakhshanfar on November 4, 2025 and a final consent judgment as to relief defendant Sal N. Ortiz on July 14, 2025.
The SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleged two fraudulent schemes. In the first scheme, the SEC alleged that Gauntlet, Rideaux, and Derakhshanfar engaged in a scheme to defraud a company by selling it promissory notes the defendants falsely claimed were backed by $7.98 billion held at a bank in Doha by the royal family of Qatar. In the second scheme, Gauntlet and Rideaux allegedly defrauded an individual investor out of $1 million by offering an investment opportunity that promised high returns, but that ultimately failed to pay the victim any profit or provide the victim with a return of the money he invested. As alleged, Rideaux made numerous misrepresentations to the investor, including by sending the investor a misleading video purporting to show Gauntlet's online bank account, when, in fact, the account did not belong to Gauntlet.
The final judgments against Gauntlet, Rideaux, and Derakhshanfar permanently enjoin them from violating the anti-fraud 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. In addition, Gauntlet and Rideaux were ordered to pay, on a joint and several basis, disgorgement of $842,500 plus prejudgment interest of $165,809 and a civil penalty of $842,500, and Derakhshanfar was ordered to pay disgorgement of $500,000 plus prejudgment interest of $143,837 and a civil penalty of $500,000. The final consent judgment as to relief defendant Ortiz ordered him to pay disgorgement of $142,500.
The SEC's case was handled by Jonathan T. Menitove, Rua M. Kelly, Colin D. Forbes, Patrick J. Noone, Mark Albers, and Celia D. Moore of the SEC's Boston Regional Office.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26594.pdf)
* Final Judgment - Gauntlet Holdings, LLC and Darrell W. Rideaux (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26594-gauntlet-rideaux.pdf)
* Final Judgment - Ali Derakhshanfar (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26594-derakhshanfar.pdf)
* Final Judgment - Sal N. Ortiz (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26594-ortiz.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26594
SEC Obtains Final Judgment Against Mexico-Based Company, Its CEO, 4 Individuals in Alleged Ponzi Scheme Targeting Spanish-Speaking U.S. Investors
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 3:23-cv-00353; W.D. Tex. filed Sept. 21, 2023):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Aras Investment Business Group S.A.P.I. de C.V. et. al, No. 3:23-cv-00353 (W.D. Tex. filed Sept. 21, 2023)
On July 13, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas entered a final judgment as to Aras Investment Business Group S.A.P.I. de C.V., its CEO Armando Gutierrez Rosas, and four individuals in connection with an alleged fraudulent scheme that raised millions from retail investors
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 3:23-cv-00353; W.D. Tex. filed Sept. 21, 2023):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Aras Investment Business Group S.A.P.I. de C.V. et. al, No. 3:23-cv-00353 (W.D. Tex. filed Sept. 21, 2023)
On July 13, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas entered a final judgment as to Aras Investment Business Group S.A.P.I. de C.V., its CEO Armando Gutierrez Rosas, and four individuals in connection with an alleged fraudulent scheme that raised millions from retail investorsin the U.S., most of whom were members of the Mexican American community.
The SEC's complaint, filed on September 21, 2023, alleged that, from about March 2020 through November 2021, Gutierrez raised money from investors for the purported purpose of investing in U.S. real estate and mining operations in Mexico, promising investors monthly returns as high as 10 percent. According to the complaint, no investor funds were used for investment purposes; instead, Gutierrez was operating a Ponzi scheme and affinity fraud and used investor funds to pay for his personal expenses including a $2.5 million mansion in Texas.
The SEC charged Aras and Gutierrez with violating Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. It also charged Gutierrez with control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and charged the four individuals with various violations of the federal securities laws, including aiding and abetting Aras's and Gutierrez's violations of the antifraud provisions.
On September 25, 2023, the Court entered consent judgments as to the four individuals, which enjoined them from future violations of the charged provisions. On November 5, 2025, the Court entered a default judgment as to liability against Aras and Gutierrez.
The final judgment ordered the defendants liable for disgorgement with prejudgment interest in the following amounts: $448,746 and $129,614 against Aras and Gutierrez, respectively, on a joint and several basis; $1,256,372 against Maria de Lourdes Tolentino Roque; $242,080 against Diayanira Rendon Trejo; $313,985 against Efren Quiroz Gardea; and $139,542 against Luis Quiroz Gardea. The Court also ordered Gutierrez to pay a civil penalty of $448,746.
The SEC's litigation was led by Kristen Warden and was supervised by Melissa Armstrong and Tim England.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26595.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26595
MSPB Issues Board Decision Involving Office of Personnel Management Vs. Gerald Griffith
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Merit Systems Protection Board issued the following case report on a board decision involving the Office of Personnel Management and appellant Gerald Griffith on July 24, 2026:
* * *
BOARD DECISIONS
Appellant: Gerald Griffith
Agency: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
Decision Number: 2026 MSPB 7
Docket Number: DA-831M-23-0284-A-1
Issuance Date: July 17, 2026
ATTORNEY FEES, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CLEARLY WITHOUT MERIT, KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, REASONABLENESS
In the underlying appeal, the Board found that the appellant was entitled to a waiver of OPM's $102,239.00
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Merit Systems Protection Board issued the following case report on a board decision involving the Office of Personnel Management and appellant Gerald Griffith on July 24, 2026:
* * *
BOARD DECISIONS
Appellant: Gerald Griffith
Agency: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
Decision Number: 2026 MSPB 7
Docket Number: DA-831M-23-0284-A-1
Issuance Date: July 17, 2026
ATTORNEY FEES, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CLEARLY WITHOUT MERIT, KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, REASONABLENESS
In the underlying appeal, the Board found that the appellant was entitled to a waiver of OPM's $102,239.00overpayment of his retirement annuity. It found that OPM's 22-year delay in recognizing its miscalculation, combined with the age of the appellant and considerable amount of the overpayment was sufficient to find that waiver of the overpayment was appropriate. Subsequently, the appellant filed a fee petition, seeking $16,230.00 in attorney fees. The administrative judge issued an addendum initial decision denying the fee petition on the basis that an award of attorney fees was not warranted in the interest of justice.
Holding: The appellant was entitled to attorney's fees in the interest of justice.
1. Attorney fees in retirement appeals generally are warranted in the interest of justice if OPM's action was clearly without merit or OPM knew or should have known when it issued its reconsideration decision that it would not prevail on appeal. The Board found that the appellant was entitled to fees on both of these bases.
2. In finding that the appellant was entitled to waiver of the overpayment, the Board relied on Estate of Konschak v. Office of Personnel Management, 84 M.S.P.R. 555, Sects. 11-14 (1999), in which the Board found that waiver of a $101,702.23 overpayment was warranted due to the appellant's advanced age, the 22-year period before OPM recognized its obvious error, and the fact that the appellant was without fault in the creation of the overpayment. Because this longstanding precedent involved nearly identical circumstances, reasonable minds could not differ as to the appellant's entitlement to waiver, and OPM's attempt to recover the overpayment was clearly without merit. Alternatively, the appellant is entitled to fees in light of the Konschak decision because OPM knew or should have known that it could not prevail on the merits.
3. The Board found that the requested attorney's fees were reasonable after reviewing the employment contract between the appellant and his attorneys, the attorneys' billing records, and declarations from the attorneys who worked on the underlying appeal.
* * *
COURT DECISIONS
NONPRECEDENTIAL:
Quillet v. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 2025-1195 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2026) (Arbitrator Decision No. 241026-00647). The court dismissed the petition to review an arbitrator's decision, which sustained the petitioner's removal from Federal service. The court found that, although 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7121(f) provides the court with jurisdiction to review certain arbitrator decisions, that jurisdictional grant did not extend to Veterans Affairs healthcare professionals appointed under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7401(1).
Weed v. Social Security Administration, No. 2024-2006 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2026) (MSPB Docket No. DE-1221-09-0320-C-2). The court affirmed the Board's order that dismissed the petitioner's request for enforcement of a 2016 damages award as moot because he had received all relief that the petition could have yielded had it been adjudicated and he had prevailed. The court found that the petitioner had already received all back pay ordered by the Board in 2016, and the court lacked authority to modify the 2016 order to increase the rate of pay in light of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission back pay order that awarded back pay at a higher rate.
Dowling v. Department of the Air Force, No. 2025-1703 (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2026) (MSPB Docket No. DE-4324-22-0298-I-1). The court dismissed the petitioner's appeal after finding that he had no statutory right to seek judicial review. Specifically, the court found that, because the petitioner was a nonparty witness in the underlying appeal, he was neither an employee nor an applicant for employment under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703(a)(1), and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction over his appeal.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/case_reports/Case_Report_July_24_2026.pdf
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice: Interconnected VoIP Numbering Authorizations Granted
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-35):
* * *
The Wireline Competition Bureau has granted the application listed in this notice pursuant to the Commission's streamlined procedures for interconnected VoIP numbering authorization applications./1
Interconnected VoIP Numbering Authorization Application filed by Sent, Inc. Pursuant to Section 52.15(g)(3) of the Commission's Rules, WC Docket No. 26-35 (Feb. 4, 2026), Public Notice, DA 26-618 (Jun. 23, 2026).
Effective Grant Date: July 24,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-35):
* * *
The Wireline Competition Bureau has granted the application listed in this notice pursuant to the Commission's streamlined procedures for interconnected VoIP numbering authorization applications./1
Interconnected VoIP Numbering Authorization Application filed by Sent, Inc. Pursuant to Section 52.15(g)(3) of the Commission's Rules, WC Docket No. 26-35 (Feb. 4, 2026), Public Notice, DA 26-618 (Jun. 23, 2026).
Effective Grant Date: July 24,2026
* * *
Footnote:
1/ See 47 CFR Sec. 52.15(g)(3).
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-772A1.pdf
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice: Interconnected VoIP Numbering Authorization Application Filed by ActionVox Pursuant to Sec. 52.15(g)(3) of Commission's Rules
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 25-203):
* * *
By this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment from interested parties on a Numbering Authorization Application (Application) filed by ActionVox, Inc. (ActionVox or Applicant), an interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) provider, pursuant to section 52.15(g)(3) of the Federal Communications Commission's rules, seeking authorization to obtain North American Numbering Plan telephone numbers directly from the
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 25-203):
* * *
By this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment from interested parties on a Numbering Authorization Application (Application) filed by ActionVox, Inc. (ActionVox or Applicant), an interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) provider, pursuant to section 52.15(g)(3) of the Federal Communications Commission's rules, seeking authorization to obtain North American Numbering Plan telephone numbers directly from theNumbering Administrator./2 In its Application, ActionVox seeks authority to access numbering resources throughout the United States and intends to initially request numbers in Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Michigan, Illinois, and New York./3
ActionVox includes the contact information and acknowledgments required by section 52.15(g)(3)(i) of the Commission's rules. ActionVox provides evidence that it will be capable of providing service within 60 days of the numbering resources activation date. ActionVox also certifies that it complies with the contribution, regulatory fee, and 911 obligations. In addition, ActionVox certifies that it has the financial, managerial, and technical expertise to provide reliable service. ActionVox further certifies that none of its key management and technical personnel are being or have been investigated by the Federal Communications Commission, or any law enforcement or regulatory agency, for failure to comply with any law, rule, or order.
ActionVox also certifies that it will not use the numbers obtained pursuant to the authorization for illegal robocalling, illegal spoofing, or otherwise fraudulent purposes. ActionVox certifies that it has fully complied with all applicable STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication and robocall mitigation program requirements. ActionVox certifies that it complies with the Commission's Access Stimulation rules and asserts it is compliant with FCC Form 499 and FCC Form 477 filing requirements. ActionVox makes the necessary ownership disclosures and certifications as required under 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 63.18(h) and (i). Finally, ActionVox makes a declaration under penalty of perjury that all statements in the application and any appendices are true and accurate.
Pursuant to 47 CFR Sec. 52.15(g)(3)(v)(E), the Bureau finds that ActionVox's application for authorization for direct access to telephone numbers requires further analysis to determine whether granting the Application will serve the public interest, and hereby notifies ActionVox that the Application is being accepted on a non-streamlined basis and will not be granted automatically./4
The Bureau makes this finding based on evidence suggesting that ActionVox has, or has had, ties to companies that have been linked by the Commission to illegal robocalling campaigns./5 In particular, ActionVox's public filings in Nevada show that in 2023, its president was Aashay Khandelwal, who was also the owner of One Owl Telecom Inc.,/6 a company subject to an Initial Determination Order in 2023 finding that it had originated and transmitted apparently illegal traffic, including scam calls./7 The Initial Determination Order also found that One Owl was itself linked to other bad actors that the Commission had previously shut down for originating illegal traffic, and that the company had been created to "deflect the FCC's scrutiny."/8 In addition, Allan Noorda, identified as the "President/Owner" of ActionVox in its most recent February 2026 Robocall Mitigation Plan, was hired as a consultant to One Owl in August 2023./9 Given ActionVox's links to companies that have apparently engaged in illegal robocalling and deceptive business practices, the Bureau finds that greater scrutiny of ActionVox's application is warranted.
GENERAL INFORMATION
The Application identified herein has been found, upon initial review, to be acceptable for filing as a non-streamlined application. The Commission reserves the right to return any application if, upon further examination, it is determined to be defective and not in conformance with the Commission's rules and policies.
Filing Requirements. Interested parties may file comments on or before the date indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). Commenters must serve a copy of comments on the Applicant no later than the above comment filing date.
* Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically by accessing ECFS at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
* Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.
* Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of 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 not sent by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
* Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
* People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
In addition, e-mail one copy of each pleading to each of the following:
1. DAA@fcc.gov;
2. Margoux Newman, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Margoux.Newman@fcc.gov;
3. Jordan Reth, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Jordan.Reth@fcc.gov;
4. Zach Ross, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Zachary.Ross@fcc.gov.
Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./10 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.
To allow the Commission to consider fully all substantive issues regarding the application in as timely and efficient a manner as possible, petitioners and commenters should raise all issues in their initial filings. New issues may not be raised in responses or replies./11 A party or interested person seeking to raise a new issue after the pleading cycle has closed must show good cause why it was not possible for it to have raised the issue previously. Submissions after the pleading cycle has closed that seek to raise new issues based on new facts or newly discovered facts should be filed within 15 days after such facts are discovered. Absent such a showing of good cause, any issues not timely raised may be disregarded by the Commission.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ We assign WC Docket No. 25-203 for this application and all related filings by the Applicant and interested parties. See Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Commencement Date and Process for Interconnected VoIP Providers to File Applications for Authorization to Obtain Telephone Numbers, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 949, 950 (WCB 2016); see Numbering Policies for Modern Communications et al., WC Docket No. 13-97 et al., Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 38 FCC Rcd 8951 (2023) (updating the authorization process).
2/ See Application of ActionVox, Inc. for Authorization to Obtain Numbering Resources, WC Docket No. 25-203 (filed June 17, 2025), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/1061778725136 (Application); Supplement to the Application of ActionVox, Inc for Authorization to Obtain Numbering Resources, WC Docket No. 25-203 (filed Oct. 1, 2025), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/100197069923 (Supplement 1); Supplement to the Application of ActionVox, Inc for Authorization to Obtain Numbering Resources, WC Docket No. 25-203 (filed Jan. 7, 2026), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/10107016097100 (Supplement 2); Supplement to the Application of ActionVox, Inc for Authorization to Obtain Numbering Resources, WC Docket No. 25-203 (filed Mar. 26, 2026), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/10326161411434 (Supplement 3); Supplement to the Application of ActionVox, Inc for Authorization to Obtain Numbering Resources, WC Docket No. 25-203 (filed Apr. 20, 2026), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/searchfilings/filing/10420035553934 (Supplement 4); see also 47 CFR Sec. 52.15(g)(3).
3/ See Application at 1; see also Numbering Policies for Modern Communications et al., Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 6839, 6850, para. 24 & n.74 (2015).
4/ See 47 CFR Sec. 52.15(g)(3)(v) (providing that an application may receive non-streamlined processing if, (1) an applicant fails to respond promptly to Commission inquiries; (2) an application is associated with a non-routine request for waiver of the Commission's rules; (3) an applicant would, on its face, violate a Commission rule; (4) timely filed comments on the application raise public interest concerns that require further Commission review; or (5) the Bureau determines that the application requires further analysis to determine whether granting the application serves the public interest); see also 47 CFR Sec. 52.15(g)(3)(vii)(D).
5/ Response to Subpoena, from One Owl Telecom Inc., to Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Dec. 13, 2023) (Subpoena Response) (on file in EB-TCD-23-00035574).
6/ This filing can be found by searching ActionVox's entity number (E33383142023-4) on Nevada's business portal, SilverFlume, and is kept on file in EB-TCD-23-00035574. See also Subpoena Response at 1.
7/ See One Owl Telecom Inc., EB Docket No. 22-174, Order, 38 FCC Rcd 8454 (EB 2023) (Initial Determination Order).
8/ Id. at 8457, para 7.
9/ See Subpoena Response at 1.
10/ 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
11/ See 47 CFR Sec. 1.45(c) (providing, inter alia, that a party filing a pleading "may reply to oppositions within 5 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired").
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-771A1.pdf
FCC Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau Issues Public Notice: Conditional Approval, Exemption of Certain Uncrewed Aircraft System, Routers From FCC Covered List
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- 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, July 25 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 18-89, ET Docket No. 21-232, EA Docket No. 21-233):
* * *
The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB or Bureau) maintains a list of equipment and services (Covered List) that have been determined to "pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons."/1 Pursuant to section 2 of the Secure and Trusted CommunicationsNetworks Act of 2019 (Secure Networks Act)/2 and sections 1.50002(a) and 1.50003 of the Commission's rules,/3 PSHSB announces that the Department of War (DoW) has granted Conditional Approvals for a certain uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) and routers. Therefore, such devices are exempt from the Covered List.
Additions of UAS and UAS Critical Components, and Routers to the Covered List:
UAS and UAS Critical Components. On December 22, 2025, PSHSB issued a Public Notice adding all UAS and UAS critical components produced in a foreign country to the Covered List./4 This action was based on a National Security Determination from an Executive Branch interagency body, including several appropriate national security agencies, determining (among other things) that UAS and UAS critical components produced in a foreign country pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of U.S. persons. In that Public Notice, we stated, "[i]f we receive a further specific determination from the Department of War or the Department of Homeland Security that a given UAS, class of UAS, or UAS critical component does not pose unacceptable risks, we will further update the Covered List."/5
In January 2026, we updated the Covered List to reflect DoW's determinations that, until January 1, 2027, UAS and UAS critical components included on DoW's Blue UAS Cleared List and UAS and UAS critical components that qualify as "domestic end products" under the Buy American Standard do not pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of U.S. persons./6 In March 2026, we updated the Covered List to reflect the first Conditional Approvals that the FCC received from the DoW, exempting specific UAS and UAS critical components "which have been granted a Conditional Approval by DoW or DHS" from the Covered List./7 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
Conditional Approvals:
The Executive Branch interagency body established a process by which entities producing UAS and UAS critical components and routers in foreign countries can request DoW or the Department of Homeland Security to evaluate whether such devices do not pose unacceptable risks to national security and receive Conditional Approvals that would exempt such devices from the Covered List. The Commission has updated the Covered List to reflect the Conditional Approvals that we have received from the DoW exempting certain UAS and routers from the Covered List./14
DoW has reviewed submissions and granted Conditional Approvals for the following devices, which are the subject of this Public Notice:
* Exedy Globalparts Corporation's Ayre CX uncrewed aircraft system
* Parallel Flight Technologies, Inc.'s Firefly uncrewed aircraft system
* Calix, Inc.'s (Calix) GigaSpire class routers (including 7u6m.2, 7u4txg, 7u4, 7u6.2) and Giga Pro (7p6) (terminating November 22, 2027)
- PSHSB previously updated the Covered List to reflect that specific Calix routers received Conditional Approvals and were therefore exempted from the Covered List./15 The present Conditional Approval addresses the entire product class, including the previous models that received Conditional Approval.
* Sagemcom USA, LLC's (Sagemcom) "FAST" Broadband Class of Gateways and Routers (including FAST3994, FAST3897, FAST5698, FAST5699, FAST5999) (terminating December 5, 2027)
- PSHSB previously updated the Covered List to reflect that specific Sagemcom routers received Conditional Approvals and were therefore exempted from the Covered List./16 The present Conditional Approval addresses the entire "FAST" Broadband Class of Gateways and Routers, including the previous models that received Conditional Approval.
* Humax Networks USA, Inc.'s HNR2306 and HNRM30 routers (terminating January 17, 2028)
* Askey Computer Corp.'s ASK-NCM300 and ASK-NCQ8000 (Wi-Fi 8 Gateways) (terminating January 17, 2028)
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./17 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./18
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./19
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.
For further information, please contact Matthew Chai, Attorney Advisor, at (202) 418-1112 or Matthew.chai@fcc.gov or Rebecca Clinton, Deputy Chief, Legal, at 202-418-7815 or Rebecca.Clinton@fcc.gov, Operations and Emergency Management Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019, Pub. L. No. 116-124, 133 Stat. 158 (2020) (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 1601-1609) (Secure Networks Act); 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 1.50002, 1.50003. For the current version of the Covered List, see Federal Communications Commission, List of Equipment and Services Covered By Section 2 of The Secure Networks Act, https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist (last updated Apr. 14, 2026).
2/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 1601.
3/ 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 1.50002(a), 1.50003; see also Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs, WC Docket No. 18-89, Second Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 14284 (2020) (Supply Chain Second Report and Order).
4/ Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Addition of Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) and UAS Critical Components Produced Abroad, and Equipment and Services Listed in Section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA, to FCC Covered List, WC Docket 18-89, Public Notice, DA 25-1086 (Dec 22, 2025) (UAS Public Notice).
5/ UAS Public Notice at 3.
6/ Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Exemption of Certain Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) and UAS Critical Components from FCC Covered List, WC Docket No. 18-89, Public Notice, DA 26-22 (Jan. 7, 2026) (Second UAS Public Notice).
7/ Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Conditional Approval of Certain Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) and UAS Critical Components and Exemption from FCC Covered List, WC Docket No. 18-89, Public Notice, DA 26-253 (Mar. 18, 2026).
8/ FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces 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/ UAS Extension Public Notice at 2.
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/ 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.
15/ See FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Conditional Approval and Exemption of Certain Routers from FCC Covered List, WC Docket No. 18-89, Public Notice, DA 26-542 (Jun. 1, 2026); FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Conditional Approval and Exemption of Certain Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Routers from FCC Covered List, WC Docket No. 18-89, Public Notice, DA 26-437 (May. 6, 2026).
16/ See FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Conditional Approval and Exemption of Certain Uncrewed Aircraft Systems and Routers from FCC Covered List, WC Docket No. 18-89, Public Notice, DA 26-548 (Jun. 4, 2026).
17/ See Routers Public Notice, Appx. C; Second UAS Public Notice, Appx. B.
18/ 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.
19/ 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 plus appendix here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-768A1.pdf
FCC Approves 160 MHz of Upper C-Band Spectrum for 5G Auction
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Federal Communications Commission adopted an order expanding flexible use of the Upper C-band spectrum, titled Upper C-band (3.98-4.2 GHz); Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band (GN Docket No. 25-59; GN Docket No. 18-122), on July 22, 2026, clearing the way for a spectrum auction that could reshape mobile broadband capacity across the country.
The order directs the Commission to auction licenses covering 160 megahertz of spectrum in the 3.98-4.14 GHz range, exceeding the 100-megahertz floor set by Congress in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That law restored
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Federal Communications Commission adopted an order expanding flexible use of the Upper C-band spectrum, titled Upper C-band (3.98-4.2 GHz); Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band (GN Docket No. 25-59; GN Docket No. 18-122), on July 22, 2026, clearing the way for a spectrum auction that could reshape mobile broadband capacity across the country.
The order directs the Commission to auction licenses covering 160 megahertz of spectrum in the 3.98-4.14 GHz range, exceeding the 100-megahertz floor set by Congress in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That law restoredthe agency's general auction authority and required licenses in the band to be granted through competitive bidding no later than July 4, 2027.
Once completed, the auctioned spectrum will merge with the Lower C-band (3.7-3.98 GHz) to create a single, unified 3.7 GHz Service spanning 440 contiguous megahertz of mid-band spectrum, according to the order. Commissioners cited billions of dollars in prior wireless investment tied to the Lower C-band rollout and projected that further mid-band spectrum could generate as much as $264 billion in gross domestic product growth, 1.5 million jobs, and $388 billion in consumer surplus.
To free the band, the agency will require incoming licensees to reimburse eligible satellite operators for relocation costs tied to clearing Fixed Satellite Service operations out of the reconfigured spectrum, mirroring the framework used in the earlier Lower C-band transition. A 20-megahertz guard band will separate wireless operations from remaining satellite downlink activity, and the agency is establishing rebates to help aircraft owners retrofit radio altimeters, ensuring continued coexistence with aviation safety systems operating in the adjacent 4.2-4.4 GHz band.
The order sets an unpaired 20-megahertz block structure, geographic licensing by Partial Economic Area, and bidding credits of 15% for qualifying small businesses and rural service providers, and 25% for very small businesses, aligning bidding rules with those already applied to the Lower C-band. The Commission declined to expand the auction outside the contiguous United States and rejected proposals for a Tribal licensing window or a separate rural spectrum reserve, citing timing constraints tied to the statutory deadline.
Chairman Brendan Carr and Commissioner Olivia Trusty issued separate statements, while Commissioner Anna Gomez dissented in part.
The auction must conclude by July 4, 2027, under the statutory deadline established by Congress.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-46A1.pdf
