Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
SEC Suspends Accountant Following Fraud Judgment
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued an order to suspend George John Drazenovic, a Chartered Professional Accountant, from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant. This action follows the entry of a final judgment against Drazenovic in a separate civil action regarding his involvement in penny stock schemes.
Drazenovic, a resident of Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, previously served as Chief Financial Officer for Sun Cal Energy Inc., Oramed Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Tornado Gold International Corp. According to the Order Instituting
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued an order to suspend George John Drazenovic, a Chartered Professional Accountant, from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant. This action follows the entry of a final judgment against Drazenovic in a separate civil action regarding his involvement in penny stock schemes.
Drazenovic, a resident of Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, previously served as Chief Financial Officer for Sun Cal Energy Inc., Oramed Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Tornado Gold International Corp. According to the Order InstitutingPublic Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (3-22628), Drazenovic submitted an offer of settlement which the Commission accepted.
The Commission findings indicate that on February 24, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment against Drazenovic. This judgment permanently enjoined him from future violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act. The court ordered Drazenovic to pay $331,595 in disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, $51,050 in prejudgment interest, and a $236,451 civil money penalty.
The original complaint alleged that between April 2010 and October 2019, Drazenovic participated in pump and dump schemes involving penny stocks. He acted as a finder of mineral properties that functioned as assets for various issuers used as vehicles for fraud. In exchange for these services, Drazenovic received proceeds from stock sales during misleading promotional campaigns. These payments were made on a furtive basis while the stock prices were artificially inflated. Under Rule 102(e), the Commission maintains authority to suspend any accountant who has been permanently enjoined by a court for misconduct in an action brought by the Commission. Consequently, Drazenovic is now barred from practicing before the Commission, effective immediately, to protect the public interest and maintain the integrity of financial reporting.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2026/34-105271.pdf
SEC Commissioner Uyeda Issues Update on the SEC's Work Toward Treasury Clearing Implementation
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on April 20, 2026, by Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda:
* * *
Update on the SEC's Work Toward Treasury Clearing Implementation
The Commission has taken important steps in the ongoing work to support the orderly and successful implementation of the Treasury Clearing Rule.[1] First, the Commission published for public comment a request for exemptive relief submitted by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association ("SIFMA"), which requests targeted modifications to the inter affiliate exemption
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on April 20, 2026, by Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda:
* * *
Update on the SEC's Work Toward Treasury Clearing Implementation
The Commission has taken important steps in the ongoing work to support the orderly and successful implementation of the Treasury Clearing Rule.[1] First, the Commission published for public comment a request for exemptive relief submitted by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association ("SIFMA"), which requests targeted modifications to the inter affiliate exemptioncontained in the Treasury Clearing Rule.[2] Second, the Commission reopened the comment period on the requested exemptive relief submitted earlier this year by the Institute of International Bankers ("IIB"), which addresses the extraterritorial application of the Trade Submission Requirement.[3]
Since being asked to oversee the Commission's efforts to implement the Treasury Clearing Rule, I have emphasized the importance of transparency, collaboration, and methodical progress. The U.S. Treasury market--at nearly $29 trillion outstanding[4]--is the deepest and most liquid government securities market in the world, and the Commission must implement the clearing mandate in a way that preserves market functioning while enhancing resilience. To that end, we have engaged extensively with market participants as well as foreign and domestic regulators, and we have sought input from market participants to preemptively address questions that affect implementation. Our engagement on these exemptive requests continues that approach.
Requested Exemptive Relief for Inter-Affiliate Transactions
SIFMA's request for exemptive relief would have the effect of expanding the set of affiliates eligible to rely on the inter affiliate exemption and introduce a tailored activity based threshold for certain non U.S. affiliate transactions. As stated in SIFMA's request, many institutions depend on inter affiliate repo activity for internal liquidity, treasury, and collateral management--especially across time zones where covered clearing agencies do not operate on a 24 hour basis. These are real world challenges that firms face as they prepare for the upcoming compliance dates. At the same time, the Treasury Clearing Rule aims to ensure that inter affiliate flows do not become a backdoor to avoid clearing transactions that would otherwise be required to be submitted.
We welcome comments on the notice and any data relevant to the potential effects of the requested relief on liquidity and competition, to help the Commission better understand the potential effects if such relief were to be granted.
Reopening the Comment Period on Requested Exemptive Relief for Extraterritorial Transactions
The Commission also reopened the comment period on the notice of IIB's request for relief, which concerns transactions executed entirely outside the United States between non U.S. institutions. Market participants and foreign regulators have raised significant questions about the extraterritorial scope of the clearing mandate. Many non U.S. financial institutions operate through a mix of U.S. and non U.S. branches and affiliates, and applying the Trade Submission Requirement to transactions occurring wholly overseas can pose operational challenges, create legal uncertainty regarding enforceability of netting arrangements, and raise practical issues given time zone differences and the absence of 24 hour clearing.
Because both SIFMA's and IIB's requests for relief may intersect in important ways--including competitive, operational, and structural considerations--it is appropriate to solicit further public input. We encourage commenters to address not only each request individually but also how the potential exemptions may, together, affect the overall environment for liquidity and competition in Treasury transactions and the core purposes of the Treasury Clearing Rule.
Work Completed to Date and Work Ahead
These actions build on meaningful progress achieved over the past year. For example, the Commission approved rule changes and conditional exemptive relief to support customer cross-margining of cash market positions in U.S. Treasury securities cleared by a registered clearing agency and futures positions in U.S. Treasury securities cleared by a registered derivatives clearing organization.[5] This important development may help reduce margin requirements for market participants and improve capital efficiency across related cash and futures Treasury positions. The Commission has also approved new clearing agencies for Treasury securities[6] and approved several proposed rule changes from the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation ("FICC") to broaden client access to clearing.[7]
At the same time, significant work remains. Commission staff continue to assess issues related to the treatment of failed trades and clearing agency outages as well as customer protection considerations--issues that market participants have repeatedly identified as critical to their preparations.
Public Feedback is Critical
The Commission remains committed to working collaboratively with all market participants to ensure the U.S. Treasury market remains the deepest, most liquid, and most resilient government securities market in the world.[8] The success of the Treasury Clearing Rule implementation depends not only on the Commission's actions but also on constructive engagement from market participants. I strongly encourage commenters to provide data driven, practical feedback on both exemptive requests. Any exemptive relief the Commission grants should work for all parties--addressing legitimate operational challenges while continuing to advance the purposes of the Treasury Clearing Rule.
Please see the SEC's dedicated Treasury Clearing implementation webpage, which will be updated regularly as we address additional issues and provide further guidance, for more information.
* * *
[1] This rule, among other things, mandates the clearing of certain eligible secondary market transactions in U.S. Treasury securities by direct participants in covered clearing agencies. See Standards for Covered Clearing Agencies for U.S. Treasury Securities and Application of the Broker-Dealer Customer Protection Rule with Respect to U.S. Treasury Securities, Exchange Act Release No. 99149 (Dec. 13, 2023), 89 FR 2714 (Jan. 16, 2024) (the "Treasury Clearing Rule").
[2] Notice of Request for Exemptive Relief, Pursuant to Section 36(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, from Certain Aspects of Rule 17ad-22(e)(18)(iv) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Request for Comment, Exchange Act Release No. 34-105262 (Apr. 17, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/exorders/2026/34-105262.pdf.
[3] Reopening of Comment Period; Notice of Request for Exemptive Relief, Pursuant to Section 36(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, from Certain Aspects of Rule 17ad-22(e)(18)(iv) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Request for Comment, Exchange Act Release No. 34-105261, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/exorders/2026/34-105261.pdf.
[4] Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Market Value of Marketable Treasury Debt as of March 2026, available at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MVMTD027MNFRBDAL.
[5] See "SEC Approves Exemptive Order and Proposed Rule Change to Permit Customer Cross-Margining in the U.S. Treasury Market" (Apr. 15, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-36-sec-approves-exemptive-order-proposed-rule-change-permit-customer-cross-margining-us-treasury-market.
[6] See CME Securities Clearing, Inc.; Order Granting an Application for Registration as a Clearing Agency under Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange Act Release No. 34-104281 (Dec. 1, 2025), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/other/2025/34-104281.pdf; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Granting an Application for Registration as a Clearing Agency under Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange Act Release No. 34-104762 (Jan. 30, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/other/2026/34-104762.pdf.
[7] These include development of the FICC collateral-in-lieu model and the expansion of the FICC agent clearing service to triparty repos. See Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, to Establish a New Collateral-in-Lieu Offering Within the Sponsored GC Service, and Expand the Sponsored GC Service to Allow a Sponsoring Member to Submit for Clearing a "Done-Away" Sponsored GC Trade, Exchange Act Release No. 34-104374 (Dec. 12, 2025), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/sro/ficc/2025/34-104374.pdf. See also Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to Modify the GSD Rulebook Relating to a New Service Offering Called the ACS Triparty Service, Exchange Act Release No. 34-104492 (Dec. 22, 2025), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/sro/ficc/2025/34-104492.pdf.
[8] The Commission extended the original compliance dates for the Treasury Clearing Rule by one year to Dec. 31, 2026, for eligible cash market transactions and June 30, 2027, for eligible repo market transactions. See Extension of Compliance Dates for Standards for Covered Clearing Agencies for U.S. Treasury Securities and Application of the Broker-Dealer Customer Protection Rule With Respect to U.S. Treasury Securities, Exchange Act Release No. 34-102487 (Feb. 25, 2025), 90 FR 11134 (Mar. 4, 2025).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/uyeda-update-sec-work-toward-treasury-clearing-implementation-042026
SEC Commissioner Uyeda Issues Statement on the Amendments to Form PF
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on April 20, 2026, by Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda:
* * *
I am pleased to support the proposal to amend Form PF,[1] which represents a thoughtful recalibration of our regulatory approach to private fund reporting. Congress made a deliberate choice to exempt private funds from the Investment Company Act.[2] However, over the past several years, the Commission has sought to impose regulatory obligations on private funds that exceed the obligations imposed on mutual funds through the financial stability authority
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on April 20, 2026, by Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda:
* * *
I am pleased to support the proposal to amend Form PF,[1] which represents a thoughtful recalibration of our regulatory approach to private fund reporting. Congress made a deliberate choice to exempt private funds from the Investment Company Act.[2] However, over the past several years, the Commission has sought to impose regulatory obligations on private funds that exceed the obligations imposed on mutual funds through the financial stability authorityin the Investment Advisers Act.[3] Fortunately, the judicial system has served as a check on this unbounded reading of authority under the federal securities laws.[4]
The Commission's authority is best exercised when read in context of the broader statutory framework. The proposed amendments reflect a careful consideration of the regulatory obligations imposed on private funds and their advisers with the objective that the Commission and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) receive the data necessary to monitor systemic risk and protect investors -- and not to use Form PF as a backdoor attempt to more broadly regulate private funds.
The 2024 amendments to Form PF significantly expanded reporting requirements without adequate justification for additional data collection. It imposed disproportionate compliance burdens on smaller advisers and collected information that was neither actionable nor aligned with statutory authority. The amendments proposed today directly address these issues by, among other things, raising the reporting thresholds for all filers and large hedge fund advisers.[5] Importantly, the proposal includes a requirement that the Commission review the Form PF filing and reporting thresholds at least every five years to help ensure that these thresholds remain appropriately calibrated.[6]
Good regulation demands a careful evaluation of the benefits of information collection and the burdens imposed on those who must comply. The Commission's willingness to revisit and revise Form PF in light of the extensive criticism of the 2024 amendments demonstrates a commitment to regulatory humility and effectiveness. By focusing reporting obligations on the largest and most systemically significant advisers, while relieving smaller entities of unnecessary costs, these amendments better align with the statutory mandate and promote a more resilient and competitive marketplace.
I commend the staff of the Division of Investment Management, the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, and the Office of the General Counsel for their diligent work, as well as the constructive engagement of market participants. The adoption of these amendments is a positive step toward a regulatory framework that is both robust and appropriately tailored, and I look forward to continued dialogue as we monitor the effectiveness of these reforms.
* * *
[1] Form PF; Reporting Requirements for All Filers, proposed Apr. 20, 2026, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/ia-6959.pdf.
[2] See, e.g., Investment Company Act of 1940 Sections 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 80a-3(c)(1), (7).
[3] See Private Fund Advisers; Documentation of Registered Investment Adviser Compliance Reviews, 88 Fed. Reg. 63206 (Aug. 23, 2023) [17 CFR 275 (Nov. 19, 2024)], available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/2024/ia-6773.pdf.
[4] National Association of Private Fund Managers v. SEC, No. 23-60471 (5th Cir. 2024), available at https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60471CV0.pdf.
[5] See supra note 1.
[6] Id.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/uyeda-statement-re-admendments-04-20-2026-statement-amendments-form-pf
SEC Commissioner Peirce Issues Statement on the Proposed Amendments to Form PF
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on April 20, 2026, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce:
* * *
"PF" Stands for Please Fix: Statement on the Proposed Amendments to Form PF
Today, the Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") (collectively, "Commissions") proposed amendments to eliminate certain Form PF filing and reporting obligations and to streamline others. My thanks to the hardworking staff in the Division of Investment Management, Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, and Office of the General Counsel and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on April 20, 2026, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce:
* * *
"PF" Stands for Please Fix: Statement on the Proposed Amendments to Form PF
Today, the Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") (collectively, "Commissions") proposed amendments to eliminate certain Form PF filing and reporting obligations and to streamline others. My thanks to the hardworking staff in the Division of Investment Management, Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, and Office of the General Counsel andto the CFTC for their work on this proposal. I support this proposal and hope to receive robust feedback from investors, investment advisers, private funds, and other interested parties.
I have been hearing calls to fix Form PF since I started as a commissioner. Form PF generates a lot of data at great expense that does not present a useful window into private fund activity. To date, the Commissions' response to these pleas has been to make the form more--rather than less--onerous. The granular data required by the 2024 amendments, for example, made an already problematic form worse, as commenters warned would happen.[1] The fundamental problem with Form PF is that it has wandered from its core purpose: generating information to assist FSOC in identifying and monitoring risks to the financial stability of the United States.[2]
Many of today's proposed amendments acknowledge and address the concerns we have heard. If adopted, these amendments should help to restore Form PF to its intended purpose. I urge commenters to look closely at both the proposed changes and what is not changing so that you can tell us whether additional or alternative changes would better restore the form to its intended role. I would welcome feedback on, among other questions, the following:
* The filing threshold for private fund advisers and the reporting threshold for large private fund advisers have not changed since the thresholds were adopted in 2011. Yet, as noted in the proposing release, the aggregated private fund gross asset value has more than tripled since 2013.[3] In addition, when we adopted the large private fund adviser reporting thresholds we noted that they were designed so that the group of large private fund advisers (including large hedge fund advisers) filing Form PF would be relatively small in number but represent a substantial portion of the assets of their respective industries.[4] The number of overall private fund adviser filers and the number of large private fund advisers have grown because the thresholds have not changed since they were adopted. The proposed amendments include an increase to the filing threshold for Form PF filers and the reporting threshold for large hedge fund advisers. Should we update other Form PF thresholds as well? Should we adopt amendments to require that these thresholds be updated periodically to account for inflation and industry changes?
* The Commissions are proposing to pare back some of the 2024 amendments and other information currently required by Form PF. Do these changes align Form PF with its systemic risk purpose? Are other changes necessary? Should we, for example, eliminate questions 42 and 43 rather than slimming them down?
* What information required by Form PF is useful in monitoring systemic risk and, conversely, what information is not?
* For information that is or might be useful, do the benefits to FSOC and the Commissions of having that information outweigh the costs incurred by funds and advisers in compiling and reporting that information?
Now is the time to tell the Commissions what we got right and where we have gone astray.
* * *
[1] See, e.g., Comment Letter of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Oct. 11, 2022) at 4 ("The amendments under consideration represent a significant rewrite of Form PF and would require funds to provide extensive new streams of data unrelated to systemic risk."), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-22-22/s72222-20145434-310656.pdf.
[2] See Title IV of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 was amended to require that an adviser must maintain records and reports for each private fund it advises, that include a description of the following: (1) the amount of assets under management and use of leverage, including off-balance-sheet leverage; (2) counterparty credit risk exposure; (3) trading and investment positions; (4) valuation policies and practices of the fund; (5) types of assets held; (6) side arrangements or side letters, whereby certain investors in a fund obtain more favorable rights or entitlements than other investors; (7) trading practices. The statute also allows the Commissions to require the disclosure of other information, including for investor protection purposes, but the statute's primary objective is to inform the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which--as its name suggests--has a systemic risk monitoring and mitigation mandate.
[3] Form PF; Reporting Requirements for All Filers, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 6959 (Apr. 20, 2026) at 15, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/ia-6959.pdf.
[4] Id. at 22.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-statement-form-pf-042026
SEC Charges Day Trader in Alleged Market Manipulation Scheme
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:26-cv-03203; S.D.N.Y. filed April 20, 2026) involving a day trader in alleged market manipulation scheme:
* * *
On April 20, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against Harsh V. Patel, for allegedly perpetrating a scheme from San Juan, Puerto Rico to manipulate stock prices that generated more than $5 million in ill-gotten gains.
According to the SEC's complaint, Patel conducted his manipulative trading scheme on more than a thousand occasions, trading in hundreds
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:26-cv-03203; S.D.N.Y. filed April 20, 2026) involving a day trader in alleged market manipulation scheme:
* * *
On April 20, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against Harsh V. Patel, for allegedly perpetrating a scheme from San Juan, Puerto Rico to manipulate stock prices that generated more than $5 million in ill-gotten gains.
According to the SEC's complaint, Patel conducted his manipulative trading scheme on more than a thousand occasions, trading in hundredsof different stocks from at least May 2021 to January 2024. The complaint alleges that to carry out his scheme, Patel placed a large number of small lot market orders to purchase a security, which increased the price of the security in a matter of minutes. The complaint further alleges Patel then placed non-bona fide limit orders to buy that same security to falsely indicate to the market that there was additional buying interest in the security and to buoy the security's price. According to the complaint, Patel then sold the same security that he had just acquired in a few large-lot market orders in order to sell the security at the now-inflated price. Finally, as alleged in the complaint, Patel then quickly cancelled the buy limit orders that he had placed. The SEC's complaint also alleges that as broker-dealers discovered Patel's manipulative trading and restricted and closed his accounts, Patel opened new brokerage accounts in the name of another individual to continue his scheme.
The SEC's complaint, filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, charges Patel with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 9(a)(2) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC seeks against Patel permanent injunctions, a conduct-based injunction, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Matthew Koop and Julia C. Green, with assistance of Han Nguyen, all of the Division of Enforcement's Market Abuse Unit, under the supervision of Joseph G. Sansone, Chief of the Market Abuse Unit. The litigation will be handled by Karen M. Klotz and supervised by Gregory R. Bockin and Scott A. Thompson, Associate Director of the SEC's Philadelphia Regional Office. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26532.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26532
FCC: GOMEZ APPLAUDS COURT RULING HALTING UNLAWFUL NEXSTAR-TEGNA MERGER
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement on April 20, 2026:
* * *
GOMEZ APPLAUDS COURT RULING HALTING UNLAWFUL NEXSTAR-TEGNA MERGER
FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez issued the following statement today after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a preliminary injunction halting the unlawful Nexstar-TEGNA merger:
"I welcome the court's decision to pause this transaction and bring much-needed scrutiny to a deeply flawed approval process. What we saw here was a coordinated, multi-agency effort to avoid accountability
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement on April 20, 2026:
* * *
GOMEZ APPLAUDS COURT RULING HALTING UNLAWFUL NEXSTAR-TEGNA MERGER
FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez issued the following statement today after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a preliminary injunction halting the unlawful Nexstar-TEGNA merger:
"I welcome the court's decision to pause this transaction and bring much-needed scrutiny to a deeply flawed approval process. What we saw here was a coordinated, multi-agency effort to avoid accountabilityand judicial review, culminating in a same-day clearance, approval, and closing designed to shield the public from the real harms of this unprecedented merger.
"The FCC and other government agencies have used what is now recognized as the Billionaire Buddy Bypass to grant expedited, closed-door approval to powerful friends of this administration. Today's ruling is an important step toward restoring accountability and ensuring that decisions of this magnitude are made with consumers in mind, not billion-dollar companies cutting backroom deals out of public view."
Background: The Nexstar-TEGNA merger is the largest local broadcast television transaction in American history, combining the country's two largest station groups into a single company that would reach more than 80 percent of U.S. television households. The combined company would far exceed the FCC's 39 percent national ownership cap, a limit written into law to protect media diversity and local competition, and one the FCC had no legal authority to waive. Critics warn the deal would accelerate harmful consolidation at a time when local journalism is already under extraordinary strain, concentrating broadcast power in fewer corporate hands and shrinking independent editorial voices in communities across the country. The merger would also dramatically increase Nexstar's leverage in retransmission consent negotiations, driving up the fees providers must pay to carry local stations, costs that are ultimately passed on to consumers through higher monthly bills.
The FCC approved the transaction through a bureau-level process that bypassed a full commission vote, a move that drew bipartisan criticism. Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz and Ranking Member Maria Cantwell formally challenged the FCC over that approval, calling on the agency to answer for a process they said ignored questions about existing law, and lacked transparency and proper oversight.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-420884A1.pdf
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice Reminding Rip-and-Replace Program Recipients of Necessary Steps to Complete Program Participation
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 18-89) on April 20, 2026:
* * *
The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) reminds recipients in the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program (Rip-and-Replace Program, Reimbursement Program, or Program) of their obligations and deadlines during the final stages of their participation in the Reimbursement Program.
I. BACKGROUND
The Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (Secure Networks Act) directed the Commission
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 18-89) on April 20, 2026:
* * *
The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) reminds recipients in the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program (Rip-and-Replace Program, Reimbursement Program, or Program) of their obligations and deadlines during the final stages of their participation in the Reimbursement Program.
I. BACKGROUND
The Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (Secure Networks Act) directed the Commissionto establish the Rip-and-Replace Program./1 The Program reimburses eligible providers for reasonable costs incurred in the removal, replacement, and disposal of communications equipment and services produced or provided by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation./2 Pursuant to the Secure Networks Act, recipients must complete their removal, replacement, and disposal (RRD) work "within one year of receiving the initial draw down disbursement from their funding allocation."/3
When the Bureau approved applications to participate in the Program in 2022 demand exceeded available funding, which resulted in recipients receiving 39.5% of their approved allocation amounts./4 After Congress authorized additional funding to support the goal of removing, replacing, and disposing of covered equipment and services,/5 the Commission made a further allocation of funding to all active Priority 1 recipients/6 to fully fund their projects./7 The Bureau issued the initial draw down disbursement from this funding allocation to all active Priority 1 recipients on May 8, 2025./8 As the Bureau recently reminded active Priority 1 recipients, this action established a deadline of May 8, 2026 for these recipients to complete the work to permanently remove, replace, and dispose of the covered communications equipment and services listed in their application to the Reimbursement Program (RRD Deadline)./9
II. DISCUSSION
A. Overview
The following table gives an overview of the final steps and deadlines for a recipient to complete its participation in the Program, beginning with the RRD Deadline:
* * *
Table: Summary of Final Steps in Rip-and-Replace Program and Current Deadlines for Priority 1 Recipients
* * *
B. Specific Requirements
RRD deadline: The RRD deadline is the date by which a recipient must complete its removal, replacement, and disposal work./10 The deadline for all Priority 1 recipients is May 8, 2026. Costs related to RRD work incurred after the RRD deadline are not eligible for reimbursement./11
Final certification deadline: Each recipient must file FCC Form 5640 Part M (i.e., their Final Certification) within 10 calendar days after its RRD deadline./12 Recipients must indicate in their certifications whether they have fully complied with all terms and conditions of the Program, the commitments made in their applications, and the timeline submitted with their application./13 Recipients must also indicate whether they have permanently removed all covered communications equipment and services that were in their network as of the date of application submission./14 Recipients that have not fully complied with all terms of Program participation may file a Final Certification stating that they are "in the process of" meeting those requirements, after which they have 60 days to file an updated Final Certification stating that they fully complied with and completed the requirements./15 Failure to submit a timely Final Certification or updated Final Certification may result in forfeitures or other penalties./16
Reimbursement claim deadline: Recipients must file all claims for reimbursement within 120 days following the RRD Deadline./17 Recipients may request a single a single extension of the reimbursement claim deadline./18 Any requests for extension must be filed by the reimbursement claim deadline./19 The Bureau shall grant any timely filed extension request of the reimbursement claim filing deadline for no more than 120 days./20 As a result, Priority 1 recipients that request and receive an extension of the reimbursement claim deadline will have until January 3, 2027, at the latest, to file all claims for reimbursement.
Final spending report deadline: Recipients must file a final spending report no later than 60 days following the expiration of the recipient's reimbursement claim deadline./21 The final spending report must show the expenditure of all funds received as compared to estimated costs identified in the recipient's application for funding./22
Site visit: At some point during its participation in the Program, every recipient will undergo a site visit by the Fund Administrator to verify compliance with Program requirements./23 The Fund Administrator sends a letter to provide advance notice of such site visits. In most cases the Fund Administrator will initiate the site visit process for a recipient after the recipient has submitted all reimbursement claim requests and initiated the close-out process, although the Fund Administrator may conduct a site visit at any point during the Program.
Close-out: After a recipient has (i) filed a final certification stating that it has completed all Program obligations, (ii) submitted all its invoices for reimbursement, and (iii) submitted its final spending report, it must initiate the close-out process on the SCRP Online Portal. The Bureau uses the close-out process to, among other things, verify the recipient has used the reimbursements provided by the Program for the intended purposes./24 Once the recipient completes the close-out process it will receive a final close-out letter to complete its participation in the Program, subject to the obligations described below.
C. Ongoing Obligations
Retention of documents: Recipients must retain all relevant documents, including invoices and receipts, pertaining to all costs eligible for reimbursement actually incurred for the removal, replacement, and disposal of covered communications equipment or services for a period ending not less than 10 years after the date on which the recipient receives its final disbursement./25 Failure to produce required documentation in a review, audit, or investigation could lead to monetary recoveries and enforcement action.
Audits and investigations: Recipients continue to be subject to audits and other investigations to evaluate their compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements for the Program./26 Recipients must provide consent to allow vendors or contractors used by the recipient in connection with the Program to release confidential information related to the recipient's Program participation to the auditor, reviewer, or other representative./27 Recipients shall permit any representative (including any auditor) appointed by the Commission to enter their premises to conduct compliance inspections./28
Additional Information and Resources. Recipients with questions may contact the Fund Administrator Help Desk by email at SCRPFundAdmin@fcc.gov or by calling (202) 418-7540 from 9:00 AM ET to 5:00 PM ET, Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. General information and Commission documents regarding the Reimbursement Program are available on the Reimbursement Program webpage, https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/reimbursement.
* * *
Original text plus footnotes here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-386A1.pdf
