Industry Brief, September 7, 2026: FCC survey split, humanoid failure modes, OT safety
This is a retrospective edition. The brief did not run on September 7, 2026; we wrote it on September 23, 2026 using only reporting that was published on or shortly before September 7, 2026, and it makes no forecasts.
This is a retrospective edition covering September 7, 2026 (Labor Day in the US), using only reporting published on or up to two days before that date. A shorter holiday edition with three items: a robotics cluster’s survey showing that where a company builds decides how it feels about the FCC robot rules, a robot maker’s CTO asking what a humanoid does when a part breaks, and a practical argument that plant cybersecurity now belongs in electrical maintenance. Our own words, links to the original outlet, vendor numbers labelled as vendor numbers.
MassRobotics survey: robotics firms split evenly on the FCC ban, along manufacturing lines
The Robot Report reports on a MassRobotics survey of 14 companies about the FCC’s July ban on new foreign-made “advanced robotic devices”. 43% called the ruling beneficial or very beneficial, the same share called it detrimental or very detrimental, and 14% expected no impact. With 14 respondents, those shares work out to six, six and two companies (6 ÷ 14 = 43%; 2 ÷ 14 = 14%). 29% (four companies) have onshoring plans they have not yet started. MassRobotics’ summary: sentiment tracks manufacturing footprint, with domestic producers seeing an advantage and firms with foreign-dependent supply chains seeing a costly disruption.
The article restates the rule’s scope: connected ground robots over 4.4 lb (1.9 kg) with environmental sensors such as lidar or cameras, at least 200 kbps of connectivity, and navigation and perception software. To count as US-produced, 65% of component cost must be domestic, rising to 75% in 2029. Respondents said motors, sensors, power supplies, DC/DC converters and robot arms come largely from East Asia, noted that conditional approval can take four to eight weeks, and asked above all for vetted onshoring supply networks.
Why it matters: Fourteen companies is a small sample, so read the split as a signal, not a measure. The useful part for buyers is the component list: even a robot assembled in the US may depend on East Asian motors and sensors, which is where the 65% threshold bites. If mobile robots are in your plan, ask suppliers how their products qualify today and what changes at 75%, and allow for the approval lead time. Both belong in your integrator questions and your hidden-cost list.
Source: The Robot Report, September 7, 2026.
Teradyne’s CTO: ask what a humanoid does when a part fails
In Drives & Controls, Dr. David Brandt, vice-president of R&D and CTO at Teradyne Robotics, welcomes NVIDIA’s Halos for Robotics safety system but argues that most humanoid safety work focuses on perception: spotting a person and avoiding a collision. Functional safety, he writes, asks the opposite question, what the machine does when something breaks. A legged humanoid is dynamically unstable; if a leg actuator fails mid-stride, it can fall, perhaps onto someone nearby, however good its perception is. He cites a colleague’s point that a battery fault can disable every actuator at once.
Industrial robots are usually designed so that no single component failure creates a hazard, the principle behind ISO 10218-1. Brandt says that standard does not cover the risks of a humanoid’s own mobility, and the first standard for dynamically stable mobile robots, ISO/CD 25785-1, is still a committee draft. A wheeled mobile cobot, by contrast, is statically stable: cut power and brake.
Why it matters: This is a robot-industry executive making the case for purpose-built machines over humanoids, so weigh it accordingly, but the question he poses is the right one for any buyer. Before a humanoid pilot, ask the vendor for stability and reliability data, which standards the system is certified against, and which parts of its operation those standards actually cover. For most tasks, the comparison in cobot vs industrial robot and a look at what a cobot is will get you further than a humanoid demo.
Source: Drives & Controls, September 7, 2026.
When plant cybersecurity becomes an electrical safety issue
An Automation World article by Benjamin Langton, tagged to the Control System Integrators Association (CSIA), argues that maintenance teams now rely on digital systems for device settings, inspection records, condition data and remote access. If those are wrong, missing or changed without authorisation, the electrical safety programme is weaker than it looks. It notes that the 2026 edition of NFPA 70B, the electrical maintenance standard, includes an OT cybersecurity risk assessment among its programme elements where control systems are networked, and that NFPA 72 has required cybersecurity for fire alarm and signalling systems since its 2022 edition.
The suggested starting point is not a new tool: map the digital dependencies behind maintenance and safety, rank them by criticality, put relay settings, PLC logic, HMI screens, firmware and remote access under change control with backups, and build security and maintainability into new projects from the start.
Why it matters: Every robot cell you add brings a controller, firmware and often a remote-access path for the integrator. Agree up front who owns those, how changes are approved and backed up, and how vendor access is granted and removed; retrofitting that after go-live is harder. It is a cheap item to add to your integrator checklist, and worth reading alongside our notes on why automation projects fail.
Source: Automation World, September 7, 2026.
Sources
- MassRobotics shares member survey results around FCC restrictions (The Robot Report, 2026-09-07)
- The safety question that humanoid robots need to answer (Drives & Controls, 2026-09-07)
- When Cybersecurity Becomes An Electrical Safety Issue (Automation World, 2026-09-07)