Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
SEC Reinstates Daniel Urness for Financial Statement Preparation
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an order on March 17, 2026, regarding the reinstatement of an accountant previously suspended from practicing before the regulatory body. The agency granted the application of Daniel Urness, CPA (File No. 3-21960) to resume appearing and practicing as an accountant responsible for the preparation or review of financial statements required to be filed with the Commission.
This decision follows a suspension order issued by consent on June 10, 2024. That earlier action barred Urness from Commission practice but allowed him to request
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an order on March 17, 2026, regarding the reinstatement of an accountant previously suspended from practicing before the regulatory body. The agency granted the application of Daniel Urness, CPA (File No. 3-21960) to resume appearing and practicing as an accountant responsible for the preparation or review of financial statements required to be filed with the Commission.
This decision follows a suspension order issued by consent on June 10, 2024. That earlier action barred Urness from Commission practice but allowed him to requestreinstatement after one year, provided he met specific documentation and attestation requirements. The current reinstatement allows Urness to work on financial filings in a capacity other than as a member of an audit committee.
The original suspension was rooted in a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. In that matter, the Commission alleged that Urness, acting as former Chief Financial Officer of Cavco Industries, Inc., failed to review and approve exceptions to the company investment policy. Allegations included that Urness circumvented internal policies by funding trades without ensuring proper authorization and established a system to fund those trades without informing the board of directors.
Furthermore, the Commission previously alleged that Urness provided misleading information to company auditors. This conduct reportedly prevented auditors from immediate awareness of insider trading, control violations, and an investigation by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
In reviewing the application for reinstatement, the Commission noted that Urness provided the required information. The agency stated it has not discovered any information indicating that Urness violated federal securities laws, rules, regulations, or professional conduct standards since the entry of the initial order. Finding no basis to determine that his return would harm the public interest, the Commission ordered his reinstatement for the preparation and review of financial statements.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2026/34-105022.pdf
SEC Obtains Final Judgment as to Virginia Resident in Alleged Ponzi Scheme That Targeted Chinese Americans
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 23-cv-23704-JEM; S.D. Fla. filed on Sept. 28, 2023):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bin Hao and Qidian, LLC, No. 23 cv 23704 JEM (S.D. Fla. filed on Sept. 28, 2023)
On March 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a final judgment as to defendant Bin Hao in the SEC's civil enforcement action against Hao and his company, Qidian LLC.
According to the SEC's complaint, from at least January 2017 to as late as 2021, Hao and Qidian sold promissory
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 23-cv-23704-JEM; S.D. Fla. filed on Sept. 28, 2023):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bin Hao and Qidian, LLC, No. 23 cv 23704 JEM (S.D. Fla. filed on Sept. 28, 2023)
On March 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a final judgment as to defendant Bin Hao in the SEC's civil enforcement action against Hao and his company, Qidian LLC.
According to the SEC's complaint, from at least January 2017 to as late as 2021, Hao and Qidian sold promissorynotes and membership interests in various special purpose vehicles to investors with high annual return rates of 8-25% to facilitate providing loans to a Miami-based real estate company. The complaint alleged that starting in January 2019, the Miami real estate company ceased paying nearly all interest on loans it received from Qidian. Nevertheless, Qidian and Hao allegedly continued to solicit investors after January 2019, and raised at least $10.3 million while misrepresenting that Qidian was using investor proceeds to invest in real estate ventures to generate "guaranteed" annual investment returns. The complaint further alleged that Qidian and Hao used more than $2.3 million of new investor money to pay prior investors' interest in a Ponzi-like fashion, and Hao misappropriated at least $793,267 to pay personal expenses.
Without admitting or denying the allegations made in the complaint, Hao and Qidian consented to bifurcated judgments, entered by the Court on March 6, 2025, in which they agreed to be permanently enjoined from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and to pay disgorgement with prejudgment interest and/or a civil payment in amounts determined by the Court upon motion by the Commission. In addition, Hao agreed to an officer-and-director bar. The final judgment as to Hao, which concludes the SEC's litigation on this matter, ordered Hao to pay disgorgement of $1,526,484, prejudgment interest of $475,201, and a civil penalty of $236,451, for a total of $2,238,136.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Paul Hopker and supervised by Jason R. Berkowitz of the SEC's Miami Regional Office. The litigation was led by Alice Sum with assistance from Michael J. Gonzalez, under the supervision of Russell Koonin and Stephanie N. Moot.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment - Bin Hao (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26500-hao.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26500
SEC Obtains Final Consent Judgment as to Alleged Ex-Executive of Cannabis Company Charged in Fraudulent Offering
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 2:23-cv-05379; C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 16, 2023) involving ex-executive of a cannabis company charged in fraudulent offering:
* * *
On March 13, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a final judgment by consent as to J. Bernard Rice, an alleged former executive of American Patriot Brands, Inc., a cannabis company, in connection with previously-filed fraud charges.
The judgment permanently enjoins Rice from further violations of the antifraud provisions
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 2:23-cv-05379; C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 16, 2023) involving ex-executive of a cannabis company charged in fraudulent offering:
* * *
On March 13, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a final judgment by consent as to J. Bernard Rice, an alleged former executive of American Patriot Brands, Inc., a cannabis company, in connection with previously-filed fraud charges.
The judgment permanently enjoins Rice from further violations of the antifraud provisionsof 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; permanently enjoins Rice from participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of securities, except for purchases or sales for his personal accounts; prohibits Rice for a period of five years from acting as an officer or director of a public company; orders Rice to pay disgorgement in the amount of $581,000 plus prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $271,877; and orders Rice to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $236,451. The judgment follows the Court's June 16, 2025 order granting the SEC's motion for partial summary judgment.
The SEC's ongoing litigation is led by Eugene Hansen and Samantha Williams, substantially assisted by Senior Accountant Jamie Wohlert, and supervised by James Carlson.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26502.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26502
SEC Files Settled Action as to Ex-Chief Revenue Officer Charged With Insider Trading
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:26-cv-02115; S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 16, 2026) involving ex-chief revenue officer charged with insider trading:
* * *
On March 16, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed settled insider trading charges against Paul W. Jorgensen, the former Chief Revenue Officer of Doximity, Inc., a digital platform provider for U.S. medical professionals.
According to the SEC's complaint, in August 2022, Jorgensen, while Chief Revenue Officer of Doximity, sold 61,162 shares of Doximity stock
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:26-cv-02115; S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 16, 2026) involving ex-chief revenue officer charged with insider trading:
* * *
On March 16, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed settled insider trading charges against Paul W. Jorgensen, the former Chief Revenue Officer of Doximity, Inc., a digital platform provider for U.S. medical professionals.
According to the SEC's complaint, in August 2022, Jorgensen, while Chief Revenue Officer of Doximity, sold 61,162 shares of Doximity stockahead of a quarterly earnings call, based on material nonpublic information concerning Doximity's lower-than-expected sales. The complaint further alleges that Jorgensen failed to file required reports with the Commission publicly disclosing these sales of Doximity stock. Approximately one year later, days after being terminated from Doximity and before the company's upcoming earnings call, Jorgensen is alleged to have again traded Doximity securities based on material nonpublic information concerning the company's lower-than-expected sales, the underperformance of the sales team, and a planned reduction in force. The complaint further alleges that Jorgensen's unlawful trading resulted in aggregate profits and losses avoided of approximately $2,532,775.
The SEC's complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges Jorgensen with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 16a-3 thereunder. Jorgensen consented to the entry of a judgment, subject to court approval, in which he agreed to be permanently enjoined from violating the charged provisions of federal securities law and permanently barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company. Under the terms of the bifurcated settlement, disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and/or a civil penalty will be determined by the court upon motion by the Commission.
On January 9, 2026, Jorgensen pled guilty to committing securities fraud in a parallel criminal action brought by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Jorgensen is awaiting sentencing in the parallel criminal action.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Randall Friedland, Ann Rosenfield, Patrick McCluskey, and Kevin Gershfeld and was supervised by Brian Quinn and Michael Brennan. The litigation will be led by Christopher Carney under the supervision of James Carlson. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26501.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26501
SEC Director James Moloney Issues Last Chapter in the Book of Howey
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement by director of the Division of Corporation Finance James Moloney:
* * *
The Last Chapter in the Book of Howey
Once upon a time, William John Howey arrived in the not-too-distant picturesque central Florida region and established a verdant orange grove. Little did Howey know at the time that more legal ink would be spilled over his business model than orange juice flowing from his orange groves in the 1930s and 1940s.[1]
Not long after Howey cleared tracts of land and planted lines of orange trees in
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement by director of the Division of Corporation Finance James Moloney:
* * *
The Last Chapter in the Book of Howey
Once upon a time, William John Howey arrived in the not-too-distant picturesque central Florida region and established a verdant orange grove. Little did Howey know at the time that more legal ink would be spilled over his business model than orange juice flowing from his orange groves in the 1930s and 1940s.[1]
Not long after Howey cleared tracts of land and planted lines of orange trees inFlorida, he opened up a hotel called "Howey-in-the-Hills." As snowbirds from the North arrived in their DeSotos, Packards, Plymouths and Cords, the sunseekers were welcomed to the resort and given a tour of the orange groves. Over breakfast, while sipping some of his finest orange juice, Howey explained to his guests how much money could be made in the orange business.
Once hooked on the concept of earning a profit, Howey explained to his guests how they could purchase an interest in a row or two of orange trees. Guests were quickly attracted to the prospects of earning a healthy return, but they also recognized their limitations - they had neither the time nor the ability to manage rows of citrus trees in Florida when they lived up North most of the year.
Howey - the seasoned entrepreneur - did not want to miss an opportunity to close the deal with his out-of-town guests, so he offered them a tree maintenance services contract. While some guests opted to purchase a row of orange trees without the maintenance contract, many were enticed by the convenience and expertise offered by Howey's team who could manage the orange groves for maximum profitability. With the funds raised by selling interests in the grove, Howey was able to purchase additional tracts of land for further development that could be offered to future visitors to Howey-in-the-Hills. Regardless, it was clear that the success of the business opportunity came down to the essential managerial efforts offered by Howey's specialized team.
Unfortunately for Howey, the sun suddenly set on this orange grove sales model when the Supreme Court held in its 1946 decision, SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., that the unique land and maintenance services contracts scheme represented the offer and sale of "investment contracts" and, therefore, "securities" under section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").[2] Unbeknownst to Howey, his business model would give rise to the "Howey test" which to this day defines an "investment contract" as a contract, transaction, or scheme involving (1) an investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, (3) with an expectation of profits, (4) derived from the efforts of others. When this test is satisfied, the offer and sale of the securities must be registered under Section 5 of the Securities Act or fall under a valid exemption from registration.
For 80 years, the Howey test has served as the law of the land, providing a consistent standard for investment contracts. Of course, with the passage of time, innovation in the markets has moved far beyond orange groves and today is epitomized by the advent of crypto assets. The new technology has unleashed opportunity for many entrepreneurs (present-day Howeys) and investors (akin to the guests who invested funds seeking a profit through the efforts of Howey's team). Alas, this new paradigm has raised questions as to how the Howey test applies to such business ventures today.
Instead of frolicking in a bright citrus grove, it seems we've been wandering in a shadowy forest with no clear guidance on when crypto assets are or are no longer subject to an investment contract (one of the enumerated instruments in the definition of a "security"). Today, the Commission brings us back into the sunlight for some regulatory clarity. The Commission's Interpretive Release[3] provides a taxonomy that classifies which crypto assets are not securities versus those that are securities. Beyond that, it gets right to the heart of clarifying when, in the Commission's view, a crypto asset is subject to an investment contract and, importantly, when it ceases to be subject to an investment contract. A crypto asset that is not itself a security is considered subject to an investment contract when it is accompanied by representations or promises to undertake essential managerial efforts that satisfy the Howey test. The Interpretive Release also provides guidance on the nature of those representations or promises that may help form an investment contract, including the source of the representations or promises, the medium by which they are communicated and their level of detail.
The Interpretive Release represents the last chapter in the tale of Howey that brought us the landmark Supreme Court decision clarifying when an opportunity to earn a profit represents the offer of a security. Perhaps this guidance serves as a perfect storybook ending for the "investment contract" made famous by Howey and his orange groves some 80 years ago. In the Interpretive Release, the Commission clarifies when, in its view, a non-security crypto asset would no longer be subject to an investment contract. In short, the investment contract terminates either upon: (1) the fulfillment of the representations or promises of essential managerial efforts, or (2) the failure to satisfy those representations or promises. In both of those situations, the investor is no longer expecting to profit based on the essential managerial efforts of others, a key element of Howey.[4] I highly recommend that those who want to know more read the Interpretive Release in full to appreciate the examples and understand the Commission's views of the considerations that go into a determination of whether and when either of these two situations may occur in the crypto asset context.
While the Interpretive Release is published in the context of modern-day crypto assets, the framework for assessing when an investment contract terminates can easily apply to that flourishing Floridian orange grove or other non-crypto assets. Howey could have fulfilled his representations and promises as indicated at the outset. For example, the maintenance contract could have been limited to watering and caring for the orange trees for so long as they were fruit-bearing. Alternatively, the investment contract could have terminated when Howey failed to satisfy his promises. For example, if a disastrous hurricane or disease completely destroyed the groves, Howey could have publicly and unequivocally told his investors that he was abandoning his intention to water and care for the trees, ending the investment contract. Beyond the orange grove example, more creative storytellers than I will no doubt start to imagine how this guidance could apply in other contexts.
The Interpretive Release provides much-needed guidance on the application of the Howey test to crypto assets and will provide clarity to the markets even as work proceeds both inside and outside the Commission. And as modern-day William John Howeys continue to innovate and market their new ventures to prospective investors, we will continue to keep a close eye on whether additional guidance or rules may be needed to facilitate capital formation and accommodate innovation - whether it be in the orange groves or on the blockchain and beyond - without sacrificing investor protection.
For now, this closes the final chapter in the book of Howey.
* * *
[1] This statement is provided in the author's official capacity as the Commission's Director of the Division of Corporation Finance but does not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, Commissioners, or other members of the staff. This statement is not a rule, regulation, or statement of the Commission. The Commission has neither approved nor disapproved its content. This statement, like all staff statements, has no legal force or effect: it does not alter or amend applicable law, and it creates no new or additional obligations for any person.
[2] See SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946) ("Howey").
[3] See Application of the Federal Securities Laws to Certain Types of Crypto Assets and Certain Transactions Involving Crypto Assets, Release No. 33-11412 (March 17, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/interp/2026/33-11412.pdf (the "Interpretive Release").
[4] Parties to an investment contract can agree to specific termination provisions in that contract. That is in fact what the Howey contracts did. The Commission's interpretation would not supersede those contractual provisions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/moloney-statement-book-of-howey-031726
SEC Chairman Issues Regulation Crypto Assets: Token Safe Harbor
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on March 17, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins at the Digital Chamber Blockchain Summit:
* * *
Regulation Crypto Assets: A Token Safe Harbor
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you, Chairman Selig, for your insightful remarks.
It is a pleasure to join you today to discuss a subject that sits at the center of American innovation, capital formation, and the enduring principles of our securities laws. Before I go any further, let me offer the customary disclaimer that the views I express here
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on March 17, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins at the Digital Chamber Blockchain Summit:
* * *
Regulation Crypto Assets: A Token Safe Harbor
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you, Chairman Selig, for your insightful remarks.
It is a pleasure to join you today to discuss a subject that sits at the center of American innovation, capital formation, and the enduring principles of our securities laws. Before I go any further, let me offer the customary disclaimer that the views I express hereare my own as Chairman and not necessarily those of the SEC as an institution or of the other Commissioners.
For over a decade, market participants have operated without clear guidance on a fundamental question: when does a crypto asset implicate the federal securities laws?
Today, I am pleased to announce that the SEC's persistent failure to provide clarity on this question is over. As we speak, the Commission is implementing a token taxonomy and investment contract interpretation.
Our interpretation--grounded in existing law and informed by extensive public input--establishes four asset categories that are not deemed securities: digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, and payment stablecoins under the GENIUS Act.
With these categories in place, the interpretation then clarifies that only one crypto asset class remains subject to the securities laws: digital securities, namely traditional securities that are tokenized. This distinction returns the Commission to its core mission--and statutory authority--of protecting investors involved in securities transactions.
Of course, even a crypto asset that is not a security may become subject to the Federal securities laws if it is offered and sold as part of an investment contract. Which is why, more importantly, our interpretation addresses how the investment contract ends, freeing the subject crypto asset from the SEC's statutes. A key tenet of our interpretation is that the project team clearly discloses the representations or promises that they make, so investors understand the bundle of rights they are purchasing.
We clarify that the representations or promises that generate reliance under Howey must be explicit and unambiguous as to the essential managerial efforts that the project team intends to undertake.
While this interpretation provides long-needed clarity, I should like to assure this audience that today's announcement amounts to a beginning, not an end. In just a few moments, I look forward to discussing how the SEC and CFTC plan to work together to implement this interpretation.
But first, allow me to take some time to preview the broader framework that we are building. Of course, I would also like to recognize someone whose fingerprints are all over what I will describe today--my colleague, Commissioner Hester Peirce.
For years, Commissioner Peirce has been a principled, and sometimes solitary, voice calling for clarity in the crypto asset markets. In fact, the proposal that I will discuss today, my vision for Regulation Crypto Assets, traces its lineage directly to the framework that she first introduced in February 2020 as the Token Safe Harbor.[1]
So, to Commissioner Peirce, thank you for your inspired leadership on these issues. We would not be here today but for your efforts, and I am confident that the Commission will continue to make strides toward your vision in the coming years.
Future-Proofing Against Rogue Regulation
Before proceeding further, let me also emphasize one important point. Only Congress can ensure that regulation in this area is future-proofed through comprehensive market structure legislation.
I strongly support the ongoing bipartisan efforts on Capitol Hill to establish a durable framework for these markets. Regulation Crypto Assets is a framework that would draw heavily from Congressional work over recent years, particularly the CLARITY Act. Any exemptive rulemaking that the Commission considers, as described below, would give us a head start implementing historic bipartisan market structure legislation that will soon reach President Trump's desk.
A Compliant Path Forward: Regulation Crypto Assets
Now, I suspect that many in this audience are tired of hearing about the perils of uncertainty. Quite frankly, so am I. It is past time for us to stop diagnosing the problem and start delivering the solution.
On that note, I would like to walk you through my thoughts for what a safe harbor proposal could consist of. Such a safe harbor would provide crypto innovators bespoke pathways to raise capital in the U.S., while providing appropriate investor protections.
Startup Exemption
First, I believe that the Commission should consider a fit-for-purpose "startup exemption," which would be a time-limited registration exemption for offerings of investment contracts involving certain crypto assets.
Such an exemption could last (say up to four years) and provide developers with a regulatory runway during which they could work to reach maturity. Importantly, this exemption could be non-exclusive, meaning that all other exemptions to raise capital under the Federal securities laws could remain available.
The exemption could also allow entrepreneurs to raise up to a defined amount (say $5 million) during the four-year period, with notices to the Commission when relying on the exemption and when exiting.
To avail themselves of this exemption, entrepreneurs could provide certain principles-based disclosures about the investment contract and the underlying crypto asset, similar to what we see in white papers today, which could be made available on a public website.
Fundraising Exemption
Second, what I have in mind is that the Commission could consider a "fundraising exemption," which could be a new offering exemption for investment contracts involving certain crypto assets. Entrepreneurs could raise up to a defined amount (say $75 million) during any 12-month period while retaining the ability to rely on other exemptions from registration under the Federal securities laws.
Issuers relying on the exemption could file a disclosure document with the Commission that could include (1) the same principles-based disclosure, as in the "startup exemption"; (2) a discussion of the issuer's financial condition; and (3) the issuer's financial statements.
Investment Contract Safe Harbor
Third, I would like for the Commission to consider an "investment contract safe harbor" from the definition of "security" for certain crypto assets. This safe harbor could apply once the issuer has completed or otherwise permanently ceased all essential managerial efforts that the issuer represented or promised that it would engage in under the investment contract.
What I have in mind here is a safe harbor that could provide a rule-based standard to give issuers and other market participants greater certainty about when a crypto asset is not subject to the Federal securities laws.
The safe harbor could align with the principles articulated in the Commission's interpretative release. Of course, the proposal would not require issuers to rely on this framework.
A New Chapter for American Innovation
In the coming weeks, I expect the Commission to consider releasing such a proposed rule for public comment.
I look forward to hearing from investors, developers, academics, and market participants across the ecosystem.
As we look toward the next chapter of our nation's economic history, it behooves us to remember what has always made America exceptional. It is not merely the size of our markets or the sophistication of our financial institutions, but our willingness to trust individuals with the freedom to innovate. To take risks. To build new systems that expand opportunities for others.
Our securities laws were designed to amplify that energy, not to suppress it. As regulators, we must ensure that our rules remain faithful to the principles that inspired them.
If we succeed, then the next generation of entrepreneurs will not need to ask whether innovation is possible in America.
They will know that it is possible. And they will build the future here.
Thank you very much. I look forward to the work ahead--and to discussing these ideas further in the discussion to follow. Thank you.
* * *
[1] http://sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-blockress-2020-02-06
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-remarks-regulation-crypto-assets-031726
FCC Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Issues Public Notice: Comment Dates for Internet-Based Telecommunications Relay Services Modernization Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Federal Communications Commission Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau issued the following public notice (CG Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51, 12-38) on March 17, 2026:
* * *
In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) adopted on January 29, 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) proposed measures to secure the viability and enhance the effectiveness and functional equivalency of Internet-based Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, or have speech disabilities./1 The Notice stated that
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Federal Communications Commission Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau issued the following public notice (CG Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51, 12-38) on March 17, 2026:
* * *
In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) adopted on January 29, 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) proposed measures to secure the viability and enhance the effectiveness and functional equivalency of Internet-based Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, or have speech disabilities./1 The Notice stated thatcomments and reply comments would be due 30 days and 60 days, respectively, after a summary of the Notice was published in the Federal Register./2
On March 17, 2026, the summary was published in the Federal Register./3 Accordingly, comments are due April 16, 2026, and reply comments are due May 18, 2026. Complete comment filing instructions and ex parte rules are set forth in the Notice and the Federal Register.
Accessible Materials. 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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).
Additional Information. For general information about TRS, visit https://www.fcc.gov/trs. For further information about this item, please contact Joshua Mendelsohn, CGB, Disability Rights Office, (202) 559-7304 (voice and videophone), e-mail Joshua.Mendelsohn@fcc.gov.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Speech-to-Speech and Internet Protocol (IP) Speech-to-Speech Telecommunications Relay Services, CG Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51, and 12-38, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 26-4 (Jan. 30, 2026) (InternetBased TRS Modernization Notice).
2/ Internet-Based TRS Modernization Notice at 35-36, para. 108.
3/ FCC, Internet-Based Telecommunications Relay Service Modernization, 91 FR 12736 (Mar. 17, 2026).
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-251A1.pdf
