Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0134 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2021-0134. Address questions about NRC dockets to Dawn Forder, telephone: 301-415-3407, email: Dawn.Forder@nrc.gov. For technical questions contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

• Attention: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies of public documents, is currently closed. You may submit your request to the PDR via email at pdr.resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2021-0134 in your comment submission. The NRC requests that you submit comments through the Federal rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

Because the NRC considers this action to be noncontroversial, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently with a direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register . The direct final rule will become effective on January 19, 2022. However, if the NRC receives any significant adverse comments by December 6, 2021, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule. If the direct final rule is withdrawn, the NRC will address the comments in a subsequent final rule. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action in the event the direct final rule is withdrawn.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule.

For a more detailed discussion of the proposed rule changes and associated analyses, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register .

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, requires that “[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act states, in part, that “[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule that added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on March 20, 2000 (65 FR 14790), that approved the TN-32 Dry Storage Cask System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214 as Certificate of Compliance No. 1021.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885). The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons, as indicated.

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2021-0134.

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0662; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00031-E” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this SNPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this SNPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this SNPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Kevin Clark, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to RRD Trent 1000-AE3, Trent 1000-CE3, Trent 1000-D3, Trent 1000-G3, Trent 1000-H3, Trent 1000-J3, Trent 1000-K3, Trent 1000-L3, Trent 1000-M3, Trent 1000-N3, Trent 1000-P3, Trent 1000-Q3, and Trent 1000-R3 model turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2021 (86 FR 44655). The NPRM was prompted by reports of high levels of wear on the seal fins on a small number of certain high-pressure turbine triple seals. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require manual deactivation of the modulated air system (MAS) control valves.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2021-0009, dated January 8, 2021 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address the unsafe condition on these products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0662.

Since the FAA issued the NPRM, the FAA determined the NPRM was inadvertently placed in incorrect Docket No. FAA-2021-0637 instead of Docket No. FAA-2021-0662. The FAA received information that the public had difficulty commenting on the NPRM.

The FAA received comments on the NPRM from two commenters. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

The Boeing Company (Boeing) requested the FAA revise paragraph (e), Unsafe Condition, of the NPRM to accurately reflect the effect of the AD on the unsafe condition. Boeing suggested revising paragraph (e) to state “This AD was prompted by reports of high levels of wear on the seal fins on a small number of certain high-pressure turbine (HPT) triple seals. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to temperature increase at the Intermediate Pressure (IP) turbine disk rim when the Modulated Air System (MAS) is active during cruise, possibly resulting in failure of the IP turbine disk, loss of engine thrust control, and loss of the airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to restore cooling airflow to the IP turbine disk rim during cruise by deactivating MAS.” Boeing reasoned that the AD action to deactivate the MAS does not prevent wear on the HPT triple seal fins. Deactivating the MAS restores cooling airflow to the intermediate-pressure turbine (IPT) disk rim during cruise.

The FAA updated paragraph (e) of this proposed AD by stating, “This AD was prompted by reports of high levels of wear on the seal fins on a small number of certain high-pressure turbine triple seals. The FAA is issuing this AD to ensure cooling airflow restoration to the intermediate-pressure turbine (IPT) disk rim during cruise by deactivating the modulated air system (MAS). The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in a temperature increase at the IPT disk rim, when the MAS is active during cruise, resulting in failure of the IPT disk, loss of engine thrust control, and loss of the airplane.”

Rolls-Royce notified the FAA that the preamble of the NPRM incorrectly identifies the HPT triple seal part number (P/N) as FW3448, whereas the correct identification is FW34485.

The FAA agrees and has revised the Background section of this proposed AD by correcting the reference to the HPT triple seal P/N from FW3448 to FW34485.

This product has been approved by EASA and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information. The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency evaluated all the relevant information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. The public had difficulty commenting on the NPRM. As a result, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

The FAA reviewed Rolls-Royce Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin Trent 1000 75-AK642, Initial Issue, dated November 30, 2020. The service information specifies procedures for deactivating the MAS control valves. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

This proposed AD would require manual deactivation of the MAS control valves. Manual deactivation of the MAS control valves changes the engine to an approved configuration that will produce engine indicating and crew alerting system (EICAS) status messages that do not indicate inoperative (failed) equipment. Consequently, when these messages are displayed, the operator's existing FAA-approved minimum equipment list (MEL) instructions and limitations, including the 120-day operation limitation, do not apply.

The FAA considers this proposed AD would be an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 4 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0949; Project Identifier AD-2021-00115-E” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Scott Stevenson, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA received a report from the manufacturer reducing the life limit for the affected left-hand rear mount link assembly. The left-hand rear mount link assembly was redesigned and certified in 1999, and the FAA subsequently issued AD 2000-12-08 (65 FR 39536, June 27, 2000), mandating the replacement of the affected left-hand rear mount link assembly with a part eligible for installation. Later, analysis from the aircraft manufacturer of stress loads in their extended service goal mission profile revealed loads during the take-off phase that were not included at certification. These additional loads result in a reduced life limit on the left-hand rear mount link assembly. This condition, if not addressed, could result in separation of the engine from the airplane, and loss of the airplane.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed GE CF6-80C2 Temporary Revision (TR) 05-0276, dated July 13, 2021 (GE TR 05-0276), and GE CF6-80C2 TR 05-0277, dated July 9, 2021 (GE TR 05-0277). GE TR 05-0276 and GE TR 05-277 provide the new life limit to be updated into the ALS, for the affected left-hand rear mount link assembly, in the GE CF6-80C2 Engine Manual, GEK92451.

This proposed AD would require revising the ALS of the GE CF6-80C Engine Manual, GEK92451, as applicable to each affected engine model, and the operator's existing approved CAMP to incorporate a reduced life limit for the affected left-hand rear mount link assembly, P/N 1846M23G01.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 220 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0958; Project Identifier 2019-CE-010-AD” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Ronald Wissing, Aviation Safety Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Gulfstream notified the FAA of bond line corrosion on Model GV and GV-SP airplanes, which causes disbonding between the horizontal stabilizer lower skin and associated bonded doublers and bonded stringers. Gulfstream determined that the existing visual inspection in the AMM does not reliably detect bond line corrosion, and they added a repetitive non-destructive testing (NDT) inspection to detect the damage. Gulfstream added the revised inspections to the ALS of the AMM. This condition, if not addressed, could compromise the structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer and lead to loss of control of the airplane.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Gulfstream G500-5000 Customer Bulletin No. 190, Revision B; Gulfstream G550 Customer Bulletin No. 190, Revision B; and Gulfstream GV Customer Bulletin No. 228, Revision B; all dated October 31, 2019. For the applicable marketing designation specified on each document, the customer bulletins specify procedures for inspecting the horizontal stabilizer lower bonded skin.

The FAA also reviewed Gulfstream V Maintenance Manual, Airworthiness Limitations, Section 05-10-10, dated February 28, 2020; Gulfstream G500-5000 Maintenance Manual, Airworthiness Limitations, Section 05-10-10, dated March 15, 2021; and Gulfstream G550 Maintenance Manual, Airworthiness Limitations, Section 05-10-10, dated March 15, 2021. For the applicable marketing designation specified on each document, the service information contains inspection intervals for nondestructive testing of the lower horizontal stabilizer skins and provides the specific reference for the inspection procedures.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

The FAA also reviewed the following service documents related to this NPRM:

• Gulfstream Service Letter Document No. GSL505510019, Revision E, dated September 3, 2021, which contains procedures for applying on-wing corrosion inhibiting compound to the horizontal stabilizer.

• Gulfstream Service Letter Document No. GSL505510020, Revision C, dated March 12, 2020, which contains procedures for applying corrosion inhibiting compound to the horizontal stabilizer.

• Gulfstream V Nondestructive Testing Procedures Manual Chapter 05-00-00, 1. Horizontal Stabilizer Lower Skin Resonance C-Scan—NDT Procedure.

This proposed AD would require inspecting the horizontal stabilizer lower skin and associated bonded doublers and bonded stringers, repairing the area susceptible to corrosion, and incorporating revisions to the ALS of the existing AMM.

The differences between Gulfstream G500-5000 Customer Bulletin No. 190, Revision B; Gulfstream G550 Customer Bulletin No. 190, Revision B; and Gulfstream V Customer Bulletin No. 228, Revision B; all dated October 31, 2019, and this proposed AD are listed below.

• The service bulletins exclude certain serial-numbered airplanes inspected by Gulfstream, but this proposed AD would apply to all Model GV and GV-SP airplanes.

• The service bulletins include an optional horizontal stabilizer lower skin resonance A-Scan NDT inspection (referred to in the Customer Bulletin as “Part I Inspection”) for critical areas of the horizontal stabilizer bonded lower skin assemblies, but this proposed AD would not require the Part I Inspection.

• The service bulletins allow the horizontal stabilizer lower skin resonance C-Scan NDT inspection (referred to in the Customer Bulletin as a “Part II Inspection”) and application of corrosion inhibiting compound to be repeated indefinitely every 48 months. This proposed AD would only allow the Part II inspection to be performed one time and, within 48 months after the inspection, would require approved repairs.

• The customer bulletins contain actions labeled “Required for Compliance” (RC), and the language in the customer bulletin and in paragraph (j)(4) of this proposed AD indicate that operators must comply with all actions labeled RC for compliance with this AD. However, this AD does not require all of the steps in the customer bulletins that are labeled as RC. Operators only need to comply with the RC steps required by paragraph (i) of this AD.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect up to 694 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The extent of corrosion found during the proposed inspection may vary significantly from airplane to airplane. The FAA has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need repair or the cost to repair each airplane.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The NLRB is an independent federal agency established in 1935 to promote workplace democracy and, in the words of former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, “to foster the development of the employee contract on a sound and equitable basis.” For more than 85 years, the NLRB has been at the forefront of the effort to promote and protect the rights and obligations of employees, unions, and employers under the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”). The NLRB achieves these objectives by carrying out two principal statutory functions: (1) Conducting representation elections among employees to determine their wishes regarding union representation (“representation cases”); and (2) investigating and prosecuting alleged unfair labor practices by employers and unions (“unfair labor practice cases”).

Under the Act, the Board, when necessary, must provide fair and impartial evidentiary hearings to adjudicate issues raised in unfair labor practice and representation cases. See 29 U.S.C. 160(b) (requiring a notice of hearing upon issuance of an unfair labor practice complaint); id. 159(c)(1) (requiring “an appropriate hearing” if a question concerning representation exists); accord 5 U.S.C. 554 (due process standards for administrative adjudication under the Administrative Procedure Act). Administrative law judges presiding over unfair labor practice cases, and hearing officers presiding over representation cases, have historically conducted hearings in person.

With the advent of sophisticated, accessible, and high-quality videoconference technology in the broadband era, the Agency has taken several steps to integrate videoconferencing into representation and unfair labor practice proceedings. In 2008, the Board approved a two-year pilot program to test the use of video testimony in representation cases in limited circumstances involving remote witnesses, parties, or hearing officers, and/or multiple locations. See Pilot Video Testimony Program in Representation Cases, OM Memo 08-20 (Jan. 8, 2008). Midway through the pilot program, the Associate General Counsel for Operations reported that “few offices [had] utilized video testimony to obtain evidence” in representation cases; however, “[t]hose Regions with video testimony experience state that its use can be very helpful in controlled situations,” and “offices experienced no problems when taking video testimony.” Pilot Video Testimony Program in Representation Cases Mid-Term Report, OM Memo 09-43 (CH), at 1 (Mar. 16, 2009). Moreover, the Associate General Counsel observed that the use of video technology to obtain evidence during regional investigations of unfair labor practice charges could be appropriate in limited circumstances, subject to regional personnel consulting with the Division of Operations-Management. Id.

In 2011, the Agency made the pilot program permanent. See Video Testimony in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Casehandling, OM Memo 11-42 (CH), at 1 (Mar. 30, 2011). In the same 2011 memo, the Acting General Counsel expanded the earlier pilot program by authorizing regional attorneys to use video technology to introduce witness testimony in contested unfair labor practice hearings, “where good cause is shown, compelling circumstances exist and appropriate safeguards are in place.” Id. at 2-3 & n.3 (listing factors to consider before granting a request for video testimony). Consistent with this policy, in 2015, the Board, with judicial approval, affirmed the judge's finding that the use of videoconferencing technology to obtain hearing testimony from a witness living abroad did not deny the respondent due process. EF Int'l Lang. Sch., Inc., 363 NLRB No. 20, slip op. at 1 n.1, 3-5 (2015), enforced, 673 F. App'x 1, 3-4 (DC Cir. 2017). The Board rejected arguments that videoconference technology was insufficient to allow the judge to make credibility determinations, noting that “the videoconferencing technology used enabled [the judge's] observation of the witness at all material times.” Id., slip op. at 1 n.1; see also MPE, Inc., 09-CA-084228, 2015 WL 400660, at *1 (Jan. 29, 2015) (unpublished order) (finding that judge erred in refusing to allow video testimony from otherwise unavailable witness).

In 2017, the Board amended its Rules and Regulations to set standards for the taking of a single witness's testimony in an unfair labor practice case via video transmission in an otherwise in-person hearing. The rule allows contemporaneous, remote witness testimony “[u]pon a showing of good cause based on compelling circumstances, and under appropriate safeguards.” 29 CFR 102.35(c). It delineates the process required for a party to apply to obtain testimony by videoconference, 102.35(c)(1), and offers a non-exhaustive list of appropriate safeguards to “ensure that the Administrative Law Judge has the ability to assess the witness's credibility and that the parties have a meaningful opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witness,” 102.35(c)(2). The Board's rules pertaining to representation hearings do not contain a corresponding provision, and, as of March 2020, representation hearings continue to be governed by the standards set forth in OM Memos 08-20, 09-43 (CH), and 11-42 (CH).

1. The COVID-19 pandemic, and related federal, state, and local guidance and orders, pushed the Board to quickly expand its videoconferencing capabilities and pivot to widespread use of remote hearings in both representation and unfair labor practice cases. In April 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic, Regional Directors exercised their delegated authority under Section 3(b) of the Act to schedule representation case hearings through videoconference or teleconference. See COVID-19 Operational Status Update (Apr. 17, 2020), https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/covid-19-operational-status-update. On May 11, 2020, the Board issued its decision in Morrison Healthcare, 369 NLRB No. 76 (2020), approving the use of videoconference technology to hear witness testimony at an all-remote hearing. The Board held that videoconference hearings in representation cases would be appropriate “on a showing of good cause based on compelling circumstances and under appropriate safeguards.” Id., slip op. at 1. The Board further found that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted “compelling circumstances” warranting a remote preelection hearing in the case under review. Id., slip op. at 2. As for appropriate safeguards, the Board left “it to the hearing officer in the first instance to impose appropriate safeguards, informed but not controlled by those listed in Sec[tion] 102.35(c)(2),” which, as stated, governs remote testimony in unfair labor practice proceedings. Id., slip op. at 1 n.2. In contrast, the Board held that a telephonic representation case hearing would be appropriate “only where compelling circumstances exist and no witness testimony is involved,” though the Board left open the possibility that parties could agree to a telephonic hearing. Id., slip op. at 1, 2 & n.4.

In April 2020, the Board's Division of Judges ordered that no in-person unfair labor practice hearings would be scheduled through May 31, 2020. On May 15, 2020, the Division of Judges announced that it would begin holding virtual hearings on unfair labor practice complaints effective June 1, 2020. On August 13, 2020, the Board issued its decision in William Beaumont Hospital, 370 NLRB No. 9 (2020), resolving its first challenge to a judge's decision to hold a hearing remotely in an unfair labor practice case. Guided by Morrison, the Board found “nothing in the Board's Rules, or the Act, that precludes a judge or Regional Director from ordering a videoconference hearing in an unfair labor practice case, on a showing of good cause based on compelling circumstances and under appropriate safeguards.” Id., slip op. at 1. Nor does the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause per se preclude conducting administrative hearings via videoconference. Id., slip op. at 1 n.2. The Board further found that the judge did not abuse his discretion in finding the COVID-19 pandemic was a compelling circumstance justifying a remote hearing, nor in imposing appropriate safeguards informed but not controlled by those listed in Section 102.35(c)(2). Id., slip op. at 1-2. The Board emphasized that the respondent could raise any non-speculative due process concerns with the trial judge in the first instance, or later on exceptions to the Board under Section 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Id., slip op. at 2; see also XPO Cartage, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 10 (2020) (denying respondent's special appeal from judge's order directing remote hearing); Boeing Co., 10-CA-204795, 2020 WL 5204848 (Aug. 31, 2020) (unpublished order) (same).

In a May 2021 decision, the Board acknowledged the “evolving state of the pandemic,” including more widespread vaccinations and some jurisdictions returning to in-person hearings and trials. Michael Cetta, Inc., 02-CA-142626, 2021 WL 1966555, at *2 (May 14, 2021) (unpublished order). Nevertheless, the Board did not find “that conditions have improved so much . . . as to mandate a return to in-person hearings”; thus, it found, the judge did “not abuse[ ] his discretion in relying on the ongoing pandemic as a compelling circumstance necessitating a remote hearing” in that case. Id. (original emphasis).

2. During the early months of the pandemic, the Agency built an infrastructure to ensure that hearings could continue safely. The Agency acquired additional licenses and equipment necessary to conduct hearings remotely using videoconferencing technology, adding Zoom for Government to its software inventory as its primary remote hearing platform. The General Counsel and Division of Judges trained the Agency's Regional staff and administrative law judges on using the technology in a trial setting. The Division of Judges established guidance and best practices for its remote hearings, including methods for sharing exhibits and Jencks statements, 1 managing witnesses and participants, and handling sequestration orders. To allow for public access, the Agency determined that the Regional Offices, upon request, would issue non-participant observers a link to any hearing they wished to observe.

For unfair labor practice cases, the Agency also set up its “Courtroom Deputy” program, designed to assist judges and parties in remote hearings. Under that program, at the judge's request, an Agency employee trained in the Zoom for Government platform is assigned to cases scheduled for hearing. That individual attends the pretrial conference, conducts practice sessions with the parties, admits parties, witnesses, and attendees to the hearing, troubleshoots technological issues, shares exhibits via the platform's share screen function, handles the waiting room and breakout rooms, and otherwise assists the judge in ensuring that the hearing runs as smoothly as possible. The Agency screens and recuses the Courtroom Deputy from working on the case in any other capacity than as Courtroom Deputy. In Michael Cetta, Inc., the Board rejected a challenge to the Courtroom Deputy program. 2021 WL 1966555, at *2.

Beginning with the Board's shift to remote hearings in Spring 2020 and through the end of Fiscal Year 2021, the Agency has conducted 207 unfair labor practice hearings and 487 representation case hearings via the Zoom for Government videoconferencing platform.

The NLRB is not the only federal agency that has used or is using videoconference technology in its hearings before and during the pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, some federal agencies conducted remote hearings, in whole or in part, by telephone or videoconference. 2 Since at least 2011, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) has analyzed the use of remote hearing technology in federal administrative adjudication and issued guidance and best practices for federal agencies. 3 Like the NLRB, other federal agencies transitioned to remote hearings on a wider scale in response to the pandemic and the need to comply with health and safety protocols. 4

As for the federal courts, they, like the NLRB, have long provided for remote testimony of a single witness in an otherwise in-person hearing. Rule 43(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[f]or good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, the court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location.” The comments to that rule, however, emphasize “[t]he importance of presenting live testimony in court.” Nevertheless, the pandemic also forced the federal courts to transition to remote proceedings. In March 2020, “the Judicial Conference of the United States [ ] temporarily approved the use of video and teleconferencing for certain criminal proceedings and access via teleconferencing for civil proceedings during the COVID-19 national emergency.”  5 Federal courts have even conducted remote civil jury trials. 6 The Judicial Conference has also permitted judges to authorize the use of teleconferencing to provide the public and media access to court proceedings. 7 Although some jurisdictions have returned to in-person proceedings in limited circumstances, the federal courts have not fully returned to pre-pandemic operations. 8

The Board expects that in-person hearings will again be the norm once they can be held safely. Nevertheless, given the Board's largely successful experience with remote hearings during the pandemic, the Agency is evaluating what role, if any, videoconferencing should play in its hearings going forward and is considering whether to amend its representation and unfair labor practice rules to incorporate further use of videoconference technology in the future.

Your responses to the following questions will help the Board evaluate its options and develop a more informed notice of proposed rulemaking if issued. The questions are not all-inclusive, and any supplemental information is welcome. Comments are not required to address every question, but, in responding, please identify the question you are responding to and explain the reasons for your answer.

The Board is seeking public comment on the following questions:

2. Assuming the Board retains videoconference hearings as an option, what should the standard be for ordering one? Should it be at the discretion of the judge or Regional Director, or should there be a higher standard?

3. Should the agreement of the judge or Regional Director and all parties be required? If all parties do not consent, what would be the appropriate next steps to resolve the matter? Similarly, if all parties want a videoconference hearing, but the judge or Regional Director does not agree, what should be the appropriate next steps to resolve the matter?

4. Does the Board's use of videoconferencing present any technological or other barriers to participation in Board proceedings? If so, how might the Board attempt to mitigate those potential barriers?

5. How might the Board best accommodate the needs of videoconference hearing participants who require the services of an interpreter or translator?

6. In what ways could the NLRB improve its use or conduct of videoconference hearings, including best practices derived from your experiences in the federal courts, state courts, or other federal agencies, which could inform how the Board develops a rule?

7. Please provide feedback on the Agency's “Courtroom Deputy” program that provides technical assistance to judges to allow them to focus on the legal elements of the hearing. Should the Agency retain the program? Would you have concerns about the Agency contracting with third parties, including court-reporting companies, to provide the same technical assistance? Either way, what are your suggestions for improving the services provided?

8. Did or do you feel adequately prepared to use the videoconference technology in a trial setting?

9. If further rulemaking is desirable, should the Board adopt separate rules for the use of videoconferencing in unfair labor practice and representation case hearings? If so, what are the differences between the two types of hearings that separate rules should reflect?

10. If further rulemaking is desirable, should the rule provide for a mechanism to appeal or for other Board review of a decision to hold a hearing via videoconference, or is the mechanism provided for in Sections 102.26 and 102.67(c) of the Board's Rules and Regulations adequate?

11. In your experience with NLRB videoconference hearings during the pandemic, have any technology limitations or problems in videoconference hearings interfered with the conduct of the hearings?

12. Has the use of videoconference technology affected the ability to successfully engage in mediation and/or settlement discussions?

13. Is there sufficient public access to Agency proceedings in a virtual environment?

14. Are there any privacy, confidentiality, or security concerns linked to public access to virtual Agency proceedings? If so, how should the Board address those concerns?

On October 17, 2020, § 502 of Public Law 116-171, the Commander John Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health Care Improvement Act of 2019, amended 38 United States Code (U.S.C.) by establishing new §§ 7698 through 7699B and creating a new scholarship program known as the Readjustment Counseling Service Scholarship Program (RCSSP). The RCSSP would serve as an incentive to individuals who are pursuing a graduate degree in psychology, social work, marriage and family therapy, or mental health counseling to fill existing and future vacancies in Vet Centers.

Section 1712A(h)(1) of Title 38, U.S. Code defines a Vet Center as a facility which is operated by the Department for the provision of services under this section and which is situated apart from Department general health care facilities. The purpose of the Vet Center is to assist veterans in adjusting to civilian life or to provide readjustment to servicemembers for continued military service following participation in or support of operations in a combat theater or area of hostility; to assist family members of servicemembers when coping with such member's deployment; and to assist family members of veterans and servicemembers in aiding a veteran's or member's readjustment to civilian or continued military service following their participation in or support of operations in a combat theater or area of hostility, specifically as it relates to the veteran's or member's military experience.

The RCSSP would assist VA in filling vacancies in Vet Centers that are located in areas that are designated as medically underserved populations and in States with a per capita population of more than five percent veterans according to the National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics and the Bureau of the Census (42 U.S.C. 254b(b)(3)). This proposed rule would establish the requirements for the RCSSP in proposed 38 CFR 17.545 through 17.553.

Proposed § 17.545 would state the purpose of §§ 17.545 through 17.553, which is to establish the RCSSP as part of VA's Educational Assistance Program. We would also state that for purposes of the RCSSP, the term Vet Center has the meaning given in 38 U.S.C. 1712A(h). This section would be aligned with 38 U.S.C. 7698.

Proposed § 17.547 would establish the eligibility criteria for participants of the RCSSP. These eligibility criteria are aligned with § 7699(a). We would state that an individual is eligible to participate in the RCSSP if that individual meets both of the following eligibility criteria: (1) The individual must be accepted for enrollment or be currently enrolled on a full-time basis in a program of study at an accredited educational institution, school, or training program leading to a terminal degree in psychology, social work, marriage and family therapy, or mental health counseling that would meet the education requirements for appointment to a position in one of those fields under 38 U.S.C. 7402(b) (§ 7402(b) of Title 38 U.S. Code provides the qualification requirements of appointees as VA health care professionals); and (2) the individual must enter into an agreement with the Secretary under proposed § 17.551, which is described below.

The Commander John Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health Care Improvement Act of 2019 was silent on the availability of and application procedures for the RCSSP. We would, therefore, mirror the language of similar scholarship programs in proposed § 17.548 regarding the availability of and application procedures.

Proposed paragraph (a) would describe the availability for RCSSP scholarships. We would state that VA will make awards under the RCSSP only when VA determines it is necessary to assist in alleviating shortages or anticipated shortages of psychologists, social workers, marriage and family therapists, or mental health counseling professionals in Vet Centers. Additionally, we would state that VA's determination of the number of RCSSP scholarships to be awarded in a fiscal year is subject to the availability of appropriations. This language mirrors that in § 17.628.

Proposed paragraph (b) would state that each individual who seeks a RCSSP scholarship must submit an accurate and complete application, including a signed acceptance agreement. This language mirrors that in § 17.629.

We would state in proposed paragraph (c) that VA will notify applicants prior to acceptance in the RCSSP of the following information: A fair summary of the rights and liabilities of an individual whose application is approved by VA and whose acceptance agreement is consummated by VA; and full description of the terms and conditions that apply to participation in the RCSSP and service in VA. This language also mirrors § 17.629.

We would establish the award procedures for participants of the RCSSP in proposed § 17.549, which will include priority for selection, placement considerations, and amount of funding. Proposed paragraph (a) would be in alignment with 38 U.S.C. 7699(b) by establishing the two priorities for the selection of individuals to participate in the RCSSP. We would state in proposed paragraph (a)(1) that VA would give priority to an individual who agrees to be employed at Vet Centers that are located in communities that are designated as medically underserved populations under § 330(b)(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b(b)(3)) and Vet Centers that are located in States with a per capita population of more than five percent veterans according to the National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics and the Bureau of the Census. We would state in proposed paragraph (a)(2) that priority would also be given to veterans. In proposed paragraph (b) we would add placement criteria that VA will consider when determining at which Vet Center the scholarship recipient will work to carry out their service obligation. This placement criteria would include the priority criteria in proposed paragraph (a) of this section. There would also be an additional criterion to ensure that standards for supervision required for professional licensure are met. VA would consider the size and professional makeup of the current Vet Center staff to ensure that the Vet Center staff has health care professionals that are licensed to supervise participants of the RCSSP from the same health care profession as required by VA professional qualification standards for licensure for each of the four aforementioned professions. The additional placement criterion would ensure that the participants are placed in Vet Centers where they would have direct supervision by health care providers within their same profession as required by the VA professional qualification standards.

Proposed paragraph (c) would be in alignment with 38 U.S.C. 7699(c)(1) by establishing the funds covered under the RCSSP. We would state that the funds would cover the costs of an individual obtaining a terminal doctorate degree (as defined in the qualification standards) in psychology; and a terminal master level degree in social work, marriage and family therapy, or professional mental health counseling. We would also state that VA would pay a participant of the RCSSP for a maximum of two years. We note that RCSSP payments are paid prospectively and does not cover the past costs of the participant's education and expenses accrued pre-award. Therefore, if a scholarship recipient applies and is selected to the RCSSP in the middle of their degree program, VA would only pay for the tuition payments still outstanding. VA would not reimburse the scholarship recipient for tuition payments already paid. Furthermore, if the scholarship recipient completes the degree early or is receiving a partial scholarship from a different source, VA would only pay for the actual expenses owed by the recipient. We would also state that if a participant completes their terminal degree in less than two years, the period of obligated service remains unchanged.

In proposed paragraph (c)(1), VA would state that social work, marriage and family therapy, and professional mental health counseling are master level programs that require an approximate two-year period for achieving the terminal degree. VA would fund RCSSP social work, marriage and family therapy, and professional mental health counseling participants for a maximum of two years.

In proposed paragraph (c)(2), we would state that psychology is a doctoral level program requiring approximately five years for completion of the terminal academic degree. However, to equalize the award and obligated service requirements across all four professions, VA would also state that, although psychology is a doctoral level program requiring approximately five years for completion for the terminal academic degree, VA funding for RCSSP psychology participants would only be for the last two years of their academic training for the terminal doctorate degree.

We note that psychology graduates are also required to participate in a one-year residency at either an American Psychology Association (APA) or Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) accredited program prior to qualifying for full time VA employment. The internship is under separate funding authority and VA would, therefore, not provide funding for the one-year internship. Additionally, in order to obtain an APA or CPA accredited internship, an individual must participate in the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC) process where they can match with an internship program . An individual who participates in the APPIC process is not guaranteed to match with an APA or CPA accredited internship. Should a scholarship participant not receive a match with an APA or CPA accredited internship, they would be considered in breach of their agreement because they would not be eligible to work at VA and would be unable to fulfil their period of obligated service at a Vet Center.

Proposed paragraph (d) would state what would constitute a payment for the RCSSP. We would state that participants would be exempt from Federal taxation. We would also state that payment would consist of the actual cost of tuition and required fees; other educational expenses, including books and laboratory equipment; and a monthly stipend, for the duration of the scholarship award. We would specify that the Secretary may determine the amount of the stipend paid to participants, but that amount may not exceed the maximum amount provided for in 38 U.S.C. 7613(b). This proposed paragraph is in alignment with similar scholarship programs. See § 17.606(a).

Section 7699(c) of 38 U.S.C. establishes the agreement criteria for participants of the RCSSP. We would state these criteria in proposed § 17.551(a) as follows: (1) Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would state that the participant of the RCSSP must agree to maintain enrollment, attendance, and acceptable level of academic standing as defined by the school. (2) Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would state that the participant must obtain a terminal degree in psychology, social work, marriage and family therapy, or professional mental health counseling. For psychology, a terminal degree means a doctorate degree and for social work, marriage and family therapy, and professional mental health counseling a terminal degree means a masters level degree. (3) Proposed paragraph (a)(3) would state that the participant must be employed as a full-time VA employee at a Vet Center for a period of six-years as a psychologist, social worker, marriage and family therapist, or professional mental health counselor following the completion of such program of study. (4) Lastly, proposed paragraph (a)(4) would state psychologists must complete a one-year internship at either an APA or CPA accredited program. We would add that obtaining an APA or CPA accredited internship requires that an individual participate in the APPIC process. If a scholarship participant does not participate in an APA or CPA accredited internship, they are in breach of their agreement. We note that participation in an APA or CPA accredited internship is a requirement for VA employment. Section 7699A of 38 U.S.C. establishes the period of obligated service for a participant of the RCSSP. We would restate § 7699A(b)(1) in proposed § 17.551(b)(1) by stating that VA will notify the participant of the commencement date of the period of obligated service no later than 60 days before such date.

Section 7699A(a) establishes the obligated service for the RCSSP. However, the statute is silent as how soon after the participant completes their terminal degree the period of obligated service should commence. We would, therefore, state in proposed § 17.551(b)(2)(i) that the participant's period of obligated service will begin on the date the participant begins full-time permanent employment at a Vet Center as a psychologist, social worker, marriage and family therapist, or professional mental health counselor, but no later than 180 days after the date that the participant completes a terminal degree in one of the identified disciplines.

We would also state that all RCSSP psychology participants would assume their period of obligated service within 180 days following completion of their one-year APA or CPA internship, which requires completion of all academic requirements to obtain a terminal doctorate degree. This includes completion of all academic requirements and the dissertation required for graduation with a terminal doctorate degree. A participant's failure to meet these requirements, would be considered a breach of their acceptance agreement. VA has used similar language in other VA scholarship programs. See § 17.607(b)(1).

We would also describe in proposed § 17.551(b)(2)(i)(ii) the period of clinical supervision by a licensed health care professional of the same discipline. This period of clinical supervision is aligned with State licensure requirements for each of the health care professions covered under the RCSSP and a requirement for maintaining VA employment. We would state in proposed § 17.551(b)(2)(ii) that, upon receipt of the terminal degree, participants will enter VA employment at the entry level until full licensure at the independent practice level has been attained. We would add that independent practice licensure is a requirement for all scholarship participants. Also, non-licensed psychologists, social workers, marriage and family therapists, and professional mental health counselors are required to serve under the supervision of a licensed health care professional of their profession and must be independently licensed by a State within the time frame specified in VA qualification standards.

VA understands that obtaining a terminal degree and the required license for each health care profession can be challenging. As such, VA will actively monitor all RCSSP participants to make certain that the participant abides by the requirements of the acceptance agreement. We would state in proposed § 17.551(b)(2)(iii) that VA will actively assist and monitor participants to ensure State licenses are obtained in a minimal amount of time following graduation and required supervision. We would add that if a participant fails to obtain their terminal degree or fails to obtain licensure in a State at the independent practice level no later than 180 days after the required period of supervision for their profession, the participant is considered to be in breach of the acceptance agreement. This language is similar to that of other VA scholarship programs. See § 17.607(b)(1).

In alignment with similar scholarship programs, we would state that VA reserves the right to make final decisions on the location and position of the obligated service. See 38 CFR 17.607(d). VA believes that is necessary to reserve the right to make final decisions on the location to achieve the intent of the Commander John Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health Care Improvement Act of 2019. VA must be able to have control over where it places the individuals to ensure VA beneficiaries' health care needs are met in locations that are within a reasonable proximity to the beneficiaries' residence. We would also state that a participant who receives an RCSSP must be willing to relocate to another geographic location to carry out their service obligation in accordance with the participant's mobility agreement. Because participants must be supervised by a licensed health care profession, we would add that there is a VA requirement for participants to receive supervision from a licensed staff within their respective professions.

Section 7699B provides for the repayment of RCSS funds should the participant be in breach of their agreement. Proposed § 17.553 would mirror § 7699B(a) with minor changes. Proposed § 17.553(a) would state the liquidated damages payable to the United States. We would state that except as provided in § 17.553(b), a participant of the RCSSP who fails to accept payment, or instructs the educational institution in which the participant is enrolled not to accept payment, in whole or in part, of a scholarship under the agreement entered into under § 17.551 will be liable to the United States for liquidated damages in the amount of $1,500. Section 7669B(a)(2) states that liability under paragraph (1) is in addition to any period of obligated service or other obligation or liability under such agreement. However, in alignment with other scholarship programs, VA does not seek/impose liquidation damages in addition to any other service obligation or financial liability. We do not think it prudent to add an additional financial burden to a participant for failure to accept RCSSP funds. We would, therefore, not include this provision as part of the liquidated damages provision in § 17.553(a).

Proposed § 17.553(b) provides for the liability payable to the United States if the participant breaches their agreement during the period of program study and would mirror § 7699B(b) with minor stylistic changes. We would state that except as provided in § 17.553(d), a participant of the RCSSP will be liable to the United States for the amount that has been paid to or on behalf of the participant under the agreement if the participant fails to maintain an acceptable level of academic standing in the educational institution in which the participant is enrolled, as determined by the educational institution; the participant is dismissed from the educational institution for disciplinary reasons; or the participant voluntarily terminates the program of study in the educational institution before the completion of the program of study for which the RCSSP was awarded. We would add that liability under § 17.553(b) is in lieu of any service obligation arising under the agreement.

Proposed § 17.553(c) provides for the liability payable to the United States if the participant breaches their agreement during the period of obligated service and would mirror § 7699B(c) with minor stylistic changes. We would state that except as provided in § 17.553(d), if a participant of the RCSSP does not complete their period of obligated service, the United States will be entitled to recover from the participant an amount determined in accordance with the following formula: A = 3Φ(t−s/t), where `A' is the amount the United States is entitled to recover; `Φ' is the sum of: The amounts paid under this subchapter to or on behalf of the participant; and the interest on such amounts, which would be payable if, at the time the amounts were paid, they were loans bearing interest at the maximum legal prevailing rate, as determined by the Treasurer of the United States; `t' is the total number of months in the period of obligated service of the participant; and `s' is the number of months of such period served by the participant.

Proposed § 17.553(d) provides for the limitation on liability payable to the United States due to reductions in force and would mirror § 7699B(d) with minor stylistic changes. We would state that liability will not arise under § 17.553(c) if the participant fails to maintain employment as a VA employee due to a staffing adjustment.

Proposed § 17.553(e) provides for the repayment period on damages owed to the United States and would mirror § 7699B(e) with minor stylistic changes. We would state that the participant will pay the amount of damages that the United States is entitled to recover under § 17.553 in full to the United States no later than one year after the date of the breach of the agreement.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).

Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. The Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with this rulemaking can be found as a supporting document at www.regulations.gov.

The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The RCSSP will solely be operated and administered within VA. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

This proposed rule includes provisions constituting a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Accordingly, under 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), VA has submitted a copy of this rulemaking action to OMB for review.

OMB assigns control numbers to collections of information it approves. VA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Proposed §§ 17.548 and 17.551 contain a new collection of information. If OMB does not approve the collection of information as requested, VA will immediately remove the provisions containing a collection of information or take such other action as is directed by OMB.

Comments on the new collection of information contained in this rulemaking should be submitted through www.regulations.gov. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AR31- Readjustment Counseling Service Scholarship Program” and should be sent within 60 days of publication of this rulemaking. The collection of information associated with this rulemaking can be viewed at: www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in this rulemaking 60 days after publication of this rulemaking in the Federal Register (FR). Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the deadline for the public to comment on the provisions of this rulemaking.

The Department considers comments by the public on new collections of information in:

• Evaluating whether the new collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the new collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimizing the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

The collection of information contained in 38 CFR 17.548 and 17.551 is described immediately following this paragraph, under its respective title.

Title: Readjustment Counseling Service Scholarship Program (RCSSP).

OMB Control No: 2900-xxxx (New/TBD).

CFR Provision: 38 CFR 17.548 and 17.551.

• Summary of collection of information: The RCSSP would provide educational assistance to individuals who pursue a graduate degree in psychology, social work, marriage and family therapy, or mental health counseling that would meet the education requirements for appointment as a health care professional in VA Vet Centers.

• Description of need for information and proposed use of information: This information would be collected for applicants who wish to participate in the RCSSP. The information would also be collected for those individuals who are selected to participate in the RCSSP and who must sign an agreement between VA and the eligible individual. This agreement would hold the eligible individual accountable for upholding the terms and conditions of the agreement and alert the eligible individual of the consequences of a breach in the agreement.

• Description of likely respondents: Eligible individuals who apply for the RCSSP and those individuals who are ultimately accepted for participation in the RCSSP.

• Estimated number of respondents: 50 Applicants, 5 Selected Participants from the 50 Applicants.

• Estimated frequency of responses: Applicants and Selected Participants: 1 time.

• Estimated average burden per response:

Applicants: 3 hours.

Selected Participants: 1.6 hours.

• Estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden: 158 hours.

Applicants: 150 hours.

Selected Participants: 8 hours.

• Estimated cost to respondents per year: VA estimates the annual cost to all respondents will be $4,277 per year (158 burden hours × $27.07 per hour). VA used the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) median hourly wage for hourly wage for “all occupations” of $27.07 per hour. This information is available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#13-0000.

There are no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for this proposed rule.

Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on October 26, 2021, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 17 as set forth below:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and submitted to the EPA.

On August 13, 2020, the submittal from CARB was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

There are no previous versions of the submitted rules in the California SIP.

Emissions of PM, including PM equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5 ) and PM equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ), contribute to effects that are harmful to human health and the environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control PM emissions. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about these rules.

Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).

Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate enforceability, revisions, relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

These rules meet CAA requirements and are consistent with relevant guidance regarding enforceability and SIP revisions. The standards set forth in the rules listed above (referred to as the “heavy-duty vehicle inspection program” (HDVIP) and the “periodic smoke inspection program” (PSIP)) are more stringent than the opacity standards set forth in the EPA's guidance to states. 3 Further, while EPA's 1999 guidance establishes recommendations for states to uniformly establish opacity standards, states have authority under CAA section 209(d) to establish their own in-use standards for motor vehicles. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

The TSD includes recommendations for the next time CARB modifies the rules.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rules because they fulfill all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until December 6, 2021. If we take final action to approve the submitted rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the California rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Publ. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

On September 8, 2021, the EPA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting information and requesting comments to assist in the potential development of regulations for pyrolysis and gasification units that are used to convert solid or semi-solid feedstocks to useful products such as energy, fuels, and chemical commodities (86 FR 50296). In accordance with that Notice, the comment period to respond to the ANPRM currently closes on November 8, 2021. The EPA has received a request to extend the comment period. After considering the request to extend the public comment period, the EPA has decided to extend the public comment period until December 23, 2021. This extension will provide the additional time requested by the public to review the request and gather information to respond.

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ), in PS Docket Nos. 21-346 and 15-80; ET Docket No. 04-35; FCC 21-99, adopted on September 30, 2021 and released on October 1, 2021. The full text of this document is available by downloading the text from the Commission's website at: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-99A1.pdf. When the FCC Headquarters reopens to the public, the full text of this document will also be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

1. With this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ), we propose steps to improve the reliability and resiliency of communications networks during emergencies. We address these matters against the backdrop of Hurricane Ida, which hit the United States as a Category 4 hurricane and caused significant flooding and damage in several states along the Gulf Coast and the northeastern corridor of the United States. Hurricane Ida demonstrated that, while service providers' ability to restore communications in the aftermath of a devastating storm has improved, more can be done to help ensure that communications networks are sufficiently survivable to provide some continuity of service during major emergencies and to enhance the ability of service providers to restore communications when they fail.

2. Specifically, we consolidate several lines of prior inquiry to initiate this rulemaking regarding the reliability, resiliency, and continuity of communications networks. Hurricane Ida is only the most recent disaster that resulted in failures precisely when Americans most need to communicate. Recent hurricane and wildfire seasons, earthquakes in Puerto Rico, and severe winter storms in Texas demonstrate that America's communications infrastructure remains susceptible to disruption during disasters. These disruptions can prevent or delay the transmission of 911 calls, first responder communications, Emergency Alert System (EAS) and Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) messages, and other potentially life-saving information. They also can have cascading detrimental effects on the economy and other critical infrastructures due to interdependencies among sectors, including the transportation, medical, and financial sectors. These disruptions may involve many or all communications networks—including wireline, wireless, cable, satellite, or broadcast facilities.

3. Accordingly, in this NPRM, we seek comment on measures to help ensure that communications services remain operational when disasters strike. We consider whether elements of the Wireless Network Resiliency Cooperative Framework (Framework)—a voluntary agreement developed by the wireless industry in 2016 to provide mutual aid in the event of a disaster—could be improved to enhance the reliability of communication networks. 31 FCC Rcd 13745 (2016) ( Framework Order ). We also ask whether the public would benefit from codifying some or all of the Framework into our rules. Next, we seek comment on how the Commission can better promote situational awareness during disasters through its Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS) and Network Outage Reporting System (NORS). Finally, we explore communications resilience strategies to address one of the primary reasons for service disruptions: Electric power outages.

4. Resilient communications networks are critical to economic growth, national security, emergency response, and nearly every facet of modern life. The Commission has long been concerned with enhancing the reliability and resiliency of the Nation's communications infrastructure. In 2004, the Commission adopted rules that require certain communications providers to supply the Commission with outage reports to address “the critical need for rapid, complete, and accurate information on service disruptions that could affect homeland security, public health or safety, and the economic well-being of our Nation, especially in view of the increasing importance of non-wireline communications in the Nation's communications networks and critical infrastructure.” 69 FR 68859 (Nov. 26, 2004) ( 2004 Part 4 Report and Order ). Under these rules, service providers must submit outage reports to the Commission through NORS for outages that exceed specified duration and magnitude thresholds. 47 CFR 4.9. The Commission analyzes NORS outage reports to, in the short term, assess the magnitude of major outages, and in the long-term, identify network reliability trends and determine whether the outages likely could have been prevented or mitigated had the service providers followed certain network reliability best practices.

5. In 2007, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Commission established DIRS as a web-based means for service providers, including wireless, wireline, broadcast, and cable providers, to voluntarily report to the Commission their communications infrastructure status, restoration information, and situational awareness information specifically during times of crisis. The Commission recently required a subset of service providers that receive Stage 2 funding from the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund or the Connect USVI Fund to report in DIRS when it is activated in their respective territories. 34 FCC Rcd 9109, 9174, 9176-77, paras. 133, 138-140 (2019) ( Puerto Rico & USVI USF Fund Report and Order ). The Commission typically activates DIRS for affected counties in the event of major emergencies. These announcements often note that the Commission is suspending its rules on network outage reporting for DIRS participants during the activation period.

6. DIRS data have provided critical situational awareness during communications outages, even when information is shared only on an aggregated or limited basis. The Commission's analysis informs restoration efforts by federal partners and the agency's own assessments of communications reliability during disasters. For example, the Commission prepares and provides aggregated DIRS information, without company-identifying information, to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which then distributes the information to a DHS-led group of federal agencies tasked with coordinating disaster response efforts, including other units in DHS, during incidents. This DHS-led group is the Emergency Support Function #2 (ESF-2), which is composed of other participants including the Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, General Services Administration, Department of Interior, and the Federal Communications Commission. Agencies use the analyses for their situational awareness and for determining restoration priorities for communications services and infrastructure in affected areas. The Commission also provides aggregated data, without company-identifying information, to the public during disasters. Recently, the Commission established a framework to provide additional federal, state, Tribal, and territorial partners with access to the critical NORS and DIRS information they need to ensure the public's safety while preserving the presumptive confidentiality of the information.

7. Also following Hurricane Katrina in 2007, the Commission adopted backup power obligations in limited contexts. In 2007, the Commission adopted a rule requiring Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers and local exchange carriers to maintain emergency backup power for a minimum of 24 hours for assets inside central offices and eight hours for cell sites, remote switches, and digital loop carrier system remote terminals. After observing the severe impact on 911 networks across the Midwest caused by the 2012 derecho storm, the Commission took steps to promote 911 network reliability and resiliency by requiring covered 911 service providers to take reasonable measures to provide reliable 911 service, including through providing for central office backup power. 47 CFR 9.19(a)(4) (defining a “covered 911 service provider” as an entity that provides 911, E911, or [Next Generation 911 (NG911)] capabilities such as call routing, automatic location information (ALI), automatic number identification (ANI), or the functional equivalent of those capabilities, directly to a [Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)], statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority, or an entity that operates one or more central offices that directly serve a PSAP). Covered 911 service providers must annually certify to the Commission that they have taken “reasonable measures to provide reliable 911 service with respect to 911 circuit diversity, availability of central office backup power, and diverse network monitoring,” or they must certify to taking alternative measures that “are reasonably sufficient to mitigate the risk of failure or that one or more certification elements are not applicable to its network.” 47 CFR 9.19(b). Covered 911 service providers must certify their compliance with backup power standards of 24 hours for central offices that provide administrative lines for Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and 72 hours for central offices that have a selective router that directs 911 calls. 47 CFR 9.19. Further, the Commission has adopted rules requiring that providers of facilities-based, fixed voice service offered as a residential service provide their subscribers the options to purchase, at the point of sale, solutions that provide 8 and 24 hours of backup power for the service. 47 CFR 9.20.

8. In 2013, in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, the Commission again took up the issue of communications infrastructure resiliency, particularly that of wireless resiliency; specifically, the Commission proposed to require facilities-based Commercial Mobile Radio Service providers to submit to the Commission for public disclosure, on a daily basis during and immediately after major disasters, the percentage of cell sites within their networks that are providing service. On December 14, 2016, in lieu of adopting this proposal, the Commission adopted an Order supporting the voluntary Framework, intended to promote resilient communications and situational awareness during disasters. Framework Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 13745-46, paras. 1-2. The Framework commits its participants to five prongs: providing for reasonable roaming arrangements during disasters when technically feasible; fostering mutual aid during emergencies; enhancing municipal preparedness and restoration; increasing consumer readiness and preparation; and improving public awareness and stakeholder communications on service and restoration status. An emergency or disaster activates the Framework where the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) activates ESF-2 and the Commission activates DIRS. ESFs provide the structure for coordinating Federal interagency support for a Federal response to an incident. ESF-2 coordinates Federal actions to assist industry in restoring the public communications infrastructure and to assist State, tribal, and local governments with emergency communications and restoration of public safety communications systems and first responder networks.

9. In 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), in conjunction with its review of federal efforts to improve the resiliency of wireless networks during natural disasters and other physical incidents, released a report recommending that the Commission should improve its monitoring of industry efforts to strengthen wireless network resiliency. The GAO found that the number of wireless outages attributed to a physical incident—a natural disaster, accident, or other manmade event, such as vandalism—increased from 189 in 2009 to 1,079 in 2016. The GAO concluded that more robust measures and a better plan to monitor the Framework would help the FCC collect information on the Framework and evaluate its effectiveness, and that such steps could help the FCC decide if further action is needed. In light of prolonged outages during several emergency events in 2017 and 2018, and in parallel with the GAO recommendations, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) conducted several inquiries and investigations to better understand and track the output and effectiveness of the Framework and other voluntary coordination efforts that promote wireless network resiliency and situational awareness during and after these hurricanes and other emergencies. In February 2020, following a series of PSHSB staff coordination meetings with wireless, backhaul and electric service providers to discuss the gaps identified in the above record, CTIA and the Edison Electric Institute formed the Cross-Sector Resiliency Forum on February 27, 2020 and released a 12-step action plan to improving wireless resiliency.

10. In the days leading up to landfall of Hurricane Ida on August 29, 2021, the FCC had begun coordinating response activities with the State of Louisiana, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and members of the Communications Information Sharing and Analysis Center (Comm-ISAC) and to determine potential impacts, challenges, and mutual aid resources. The Commission had already deployed agents to support the Louisiana Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and to conduct baseline surveys of communications as well as to provide coordination and spectrum management support. Communications companies had also begun pre-positioning mobile communications assets in safe zones just outside the potential impact areas in order to rapidly deploy much-needed services, post landfall. Ida had significant physical impacts on both power and communications infrastructure, which had cascading consequences on interdependent public safety communications infrastructure and services such as PSAPs and Louisiana's land mobile radio public safety communications network.

11. Following Hurricane Ida's departure, the Commission began supporting recovery work in earnest. The Commission reminded communications industry of its commitments in the Framework and encouraged wireless providers, specifically, to activate roaming in areas where cellular communications were hardest hit. Even after roaming had been activated in limited areas, communications remained diminished as communications companies were working to repair, replace, and restore communications infrastructure. Immediately after the storm, 28.1 percent of cell sites were down across the affected counties. Louisiana was hardest hit in this respect, with more than 50 percent of sites down in the affected counties on August 30. At its peak, Louisiana had three PSAPs offline due to damaged power and communications infrastructure, and other PSAPs were impacted and rerouted calls as generators began to fail. Commission personnel communicated with the Louisiana Association of Broadcasters to determine unmet fuel, communications, and power needs of state broadcasters and to facilitate the provision of much needed resources and services.

12. Commission staff also conducted on-the-ground assessments of communications infrastructure to provide emergency management officials intelligence and to assist with the identification of critical communications infrastructure, including responding to additional unintentional damage occurring during repairs to the communications and power infrastructure. The Commission also issued special temporary authorizations (STAs) and, sua sponte, numerous orders to provide regulatory relief in support of providers' restoration efforts, including waivers of deadlines and technical requirements, as well as providing relief to impacted consumers. This work remains ongoing as recovery continues.

13. The voluntary Framework plays a central role in how wireless providers prepare for and respond to emergencies. Over the years, the Commission has examined and re-examined the efficacy of the Framework for purposes of restoring communications during and following disasters. These inquiries suggest that providers take a multifaceted approach to disaster readiness and response, with the aim of improving the public's safety during natural disasters. Wireless provider efforts have included investments in network resiliency, reinforcing network coverage and capacity, conducting site-based preparatory work, and making plans to mitigate commercial power failures, as well as utilizing commercial roaming agreements, working with government partners, and educating consumers on preparedness. These initiatives have helped to keep more Americans connected and informed even during major disasters.

14. However, these inquiries also show that there are both gaps in the Framework's coverage and, during some recent disasters, delays in its implementation, including technical challenges associated with roaming implementation among signatory companies. Further, as explained below, there are some disaster situations where the Framework, by its owns terms, would not go into effect. These findings from our prior inquiries suggest there may be targeted opportunities to improve the voluntary Framework and network resiliency—not just of wireless networks, but of communications networks as a whole. We seek comment on those opportunities below. We also seek comment on whether the Commission should revisit the voluntary nature of the Framework.

15. Framework Activation. Currently, the Framework only applies when both ESF-2 and DIRS are activated. As a result, there may be circumstances where the Framework is not activated but where mutual aid or other support obligations are warranted. For example, the Framework has not been operational during the California power shutoffs and wildfires because ESF-2 was not activated. To address this gap, should we work with carriers to revisit the prerequisites, e.g., the types of emergencies or other declarations (ESF-2 and DIRS activation) that trigger the Framework or that govern the duration of its obligations? If so, what should those triggers and durations be?

16. Scope of Framework Participants. We seek comment on whether expanding the scope of the Framework participants could enhance its effectiveness. Currently, signatories to the Framework include only AT&T Mobility, CTIA, GCI, Southern Linc, T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular, and Verizon Wireless. Additionally, the Competitive Carriers Association filed a letter supporting the Framework. As the list of signatories demonstrates, there are a number of wireless providers who are not signatories to the Framework. Further, the Framework signatories only include wireless providers. Would greater participation in the Framework enhance its effectiveness? Are there steps the Commission can take to encourage voluntary participation beyond the scope of the existing signatories, such as to include smaller wireless providers, or entities beyond the mobile-wireless industry, such as facilities-based backhaul providers, covered 911 service providers, cable, wireline, broadcast, satellite, or interconnected VoIP providers? Should the Framework or portions of the Framework be expanded to include any other stakeholders or organizations?

17. Improving Wireless Roaming. The Framework commits its signatories to provide reasonable roaming in situations where: “(i) A requesting carrier's network has become inoperable and the requesting carrier has taken all appropriate steps to attempt to restore its own network, and (ii) the home carrier has determined that roaming is technically feasible and will not adversely affect service to the home carrier's own subscribers,” with such roaming arrangements “limited in duration and contingent on the requesting carrier taking all possible steps to restore service on its own network as quickly as possible.” Framework Order, 31 FCC at 13752-53, para 19.

18. Recent events suggest that roaming during disaster contexts can be improved. As the Hurricane Michael Report found, “at least some wireless providers did not take advantage of the types of disaster-related roaming agreements envisioned in the Framework, allowing their customers to remain in the dark rather than roam on a competitor's network.” FCC, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, October 2018 Hurricane Michael's Impact on Communications: Preparation, Effect, and Recovery, PS Docket No. 18-339, Report and Recommendations at 6 (PSHSB 2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357387A1.pdf ( Hurricane Michael Report ). During Hurricane Ida, there was limited transparency, and therefore understanding, regarding the status of roaming, including where it was available and where it was not, and which network technologies were utilized. We seek comment on how best to address these issues through the voluntary Framework. Are the current Framework pre-requisites to triggering disaster roaming too restrictive, to the detriment of consumers? In particular, we seek comment on improvements to the Framework to ensure roaming is operational prior to an event and seamless during emergencies—addressing both resiliency and restoration—such as annual testing of roaming capabilities and coordination processes. Are there other improvements that can be made to ensure that roaming is made available in a timely manner and for the benefit of the maximum population possible? For example, should there be minimum timeframes by which a provider must respond to a disaster roaming request? Are there conditions or other criteria that could be incorporated into the Framework to determine that, once met, roaming should be available automatically in qualifying disaster areas? If a roaming request is deemed technically infeasible, how should that determination be conveyed? What criteria should be used to determine whether roaming is technically feasible? Have there been instances where roaming requests have been unreasonably denied or responses to such requests have been unreasonably delayed, or where the roaming-related provisions of the Framework did not work as intended? During Hurricane Ida, we understand that initial requests for roaming under the Framework focused on access to 3G networks. Are there benefits to encouraging roaming access to newer generations of network technology and, if so, how can the Commission best support such arrangements? To what extent do capacity challenges or network configuration issues also hinder effective roaming, and how should any improvements to the Framework account for this concern? Should there be any improvement in the standards or their implementations to ensure the emergency roaming is automatically and seamlessly accessible to user devices without requiring any action from the user? Can providers' readiness to execute such disaster-triggered roaming be verified and tested? What are the public safety benefits and costs associated with these improvements in wireless roaming?

19. Fostering Mutual Aid. The Framework commits its signatories to foster mutual aid during disasters. Nevertheless, we observed prolonged outages during Hurricane Ida. We seek comment on how signatories fostered mutual aid, such as through sharing physical assets, during Hurricane Ida and other recent disasters, and how effective this mutual aid has been in ensuring continuity of communications. Are there instances in which reasonable requests for mutual aid were denied by wireless providers? Should the Framework do more to strengthen the effectiveness of mutual aid? What benefits would accrue if other segments of the communications industry—such as cable, wireline, and broadcast—agreed to foster mutual aid during disasters?

20. Enhancing Municipal Preparedness and Restoration. Framework signatories convened with local government representatives' public safety subject matter experts and developed best practices to facilitate coordination before, during, and after emergencies and disasters in order to maintain and restore wireless service continuity. Were these best practices utilized in Hurricane Ida and other disasters, and how effective were these best practices in real-world conditions? Should they be updated in light of lessons learned from these disasters? Are there additional actions that wireless providers and other stakeholders ( e.g., backhaul service, wireline service providers) can take to ensure appropriate and effective coordination with local agencies to mitigate the impact of service disruptions? What are the respective costs and benefits? For example, should providers establish processes for sharing real-time restoration efforts? Should the Framework include coordination obligations and particular coordination activities or best practices? Are there are other steps that the Commission can take to improve coordination? The Commission also seeks comment on the recommendations of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee's Disaster Response and Recovery Working Group pertaining to coordination with local governments and building and maintaining formal relationships across industry and government stakeholders, and coordination and information sharing between stakeholders during the disaster planning and recovery phases.

21. Increasing Local Preparedness and Consumer Readiness. The Framework commits signatories to increase consumer readiness and preparation through the development and dissemination with consumer groups of a Consumer Readiness Checklist. Is there evidence that the public is aware of this checklist? How is it promoted? Are there other steps that wireless providers should take to foster local preparedness and consumer readiness in the face of natural disasters, such as public service announcements? What are the benefits and costs associated with those steps? Should the Commission explore additional consumer awareness and preparedness activities?

22. What measures are in place to ensure that information is accessible to all Americans? Consumer groups note that the deaf and hard-of-hearing communities often rely on multiple forms of communications before and during emergencies, and recommend that signatories work with these communities to ensure information is accessible. Should the Framework require signatories to conduct outreach through multiple forms of communication, such as public service announcements on television, radio, and social media that is accessible to both hard-of-hearing and non-English speaking communities? Verizon suggests providers can maintain a dedicated website for a specific disaster event. Should the Framework require signatories to meet with groups representing persons with disabilities to provide information on emergency planning and resources? Are there other steps the Commission should take to improve communications with these and other communities?

23. Improving Public Awareness. Finally, the Framework commits signatories to improve public awareness and stakeholder communications on service and restoration status, through sharing DIRS data on cell site outages on an aggregated, county-by-county basis in the relevant geographic area. Since the Framework was released, signatories have agreed to share additional data with the public, including more granular data on the cause of cell site outages and the number of in-service cell sites operating on backup power. The Commission has also requested comment on whether other outage data, e.g., whether the service disruption extends to 911 service, should be disclosed to the public. See Amendments to Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications, et al., Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 21-45, 2021 WL 1603461, at *13-16, paras. 36-46 (Apr. 22, 2021). Would public disclosure of additional information regarding service disruptions promote public safety? If so, what additional information should be disclosed? What are the benefits and costs associated with releasing this information directly to the public? What mechanisms are in place in communities to impart awareness about recovery planning and long term-term resiliency, and are those mechanisms accessible to persons with disabilities? How might those mechanisms differ across communities or geographic areas, and how can those differences be accommodated by Framework signatories?

24. Scope of Framework Obligations. We seek comment on the scope of the Framework's obligations. Should we expand the scope of what is expected in the event of a disaster? What additional or revised measures are warranted to address gaps in promoting resiliency and what are their costs and benefits? For example, should the voluntary Framework include provisions regarding the placement of back-up systems, such as Cells on Light Trucks, so that they are ready to deploy for vulnerable infrastructure to improve service restoration time? Should the Framework include requirements for restoration or prioritization of text-to-911 capability in areas where the PSAP is text-capable, as text-to-911 can be an important communications solution in emergencies, particularly for individuals with disabilities? Should the Framework include provisions that address backhaul redundancy and resiliency? For example, could the Framework address a limit on the number of cell sites operating on a single backhaul fiber link? What other steps would promote backhaul resiliency during disasters?

25. Framework-Related Reporting. We seek comment on whether we should require wireless providers to submit reports to the Commission detailing implementation of the voluntary Framework in real time or in the aftermath of a disaster. What are the benefits and costs associated with such a reporting requirement? We seek comment on what information these reports should include, such as specific information related to the way the provider adhered to any roaming, mutual aid, consumer outreach, or related provisions of the Framework suggested above. For example, should the Commission be notified when roaming has been activated or refused, including information on which generational technologies it has been activated, and as to which providers are roaming on which networks? Should the Commission be notified when resources or services are shared through mutual aid? How soon after wireless provider action should such notifications be made and how should they be made?

26. Codifying the Framework. In response to our prior inquiries, some commenters have urged the Commission to reexamine the voluntary nature of the Framework. Some of these commenters highlight the Commission's Hurricane Michael Report to suggest that existing voluntary coordination efforts, including the Framework, may not be sufficient to promote wireless network resiliency and situational awareness during and immediately after emergencies. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether some or all of the existing or a modified Framework should be mandatory, and for whom. What are the costs and benefits of doing so? We also seek comment on our legal authority to mandate disaster-based obligations in line with the existing or an expanded Framework. Would the aggregate of these solutions address the failures highlighted by the Hurricane Michael Report or should additional measures be considered? Finally, we seek comment on how the Commission should enforce any mandatory obligations that are not met.

27. Over the years, our experience has shown that DIRS and NORS are vital public safety tools that equip the Commission and its federal and local partners with actionable situational awareness information for identifying and resolving threats to 911 and other emergency service communications. DIRS focuses on infrastructure status information rather than service outage information, as in NORS. NORS thus draws a distinction between service outages that affect just 911 and other types of service outages. Currently, there is limited visibility on how disasters impact 911 service specifically. Requiring DIRS reporting in the event of disaster-related outages would help to close this information gap. Amendments to Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications, PS Docket No. 15-80, Second Report and Order, 36 FCC Rcd 6136, 6139, paras. 8, 9 (2021). DIRS broadly collects infrastructure status information about the nation's communications networks, but participation is voluntary for the nation's service providers. While DIRS is voluntary, the Commission recently required a subset of service providers that choose to accept Stage 2 funding from the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund or the Connect USVI Fund to report in DIRS when it is activated in their respective territories. Puerto Rico & USVI USF Fund Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 9174, 9176-77, paras. 133, 138-140.

28. The Commission initially grounded its voluntary approach on observations that a voluntary paradigm worked well during Hurricane Katrina and that a mandatory reporting process would likely not be adaptable to unique aspects of each particular crisis. Recommendations of the Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks, EB Docket No. 06-119 et al., Order, 22 FCC Rcd 10541, 10549, para. 22 (2007). Since that time, the Commission has observed that, while the nation's large providers typically elect to voluntarily report in DIRS, smaller providers often do not. This not only reduces the total number of DIRS filings available to inform the Commission's analysis of network reliability, but also reduces the Commission's situational awareness, including awareness of the state of 911 and other emergency services, in locations served by smaller providers, which are often vulnerable rural or other hard to access areas. This also creates ambiguity about whether a provider's lack of DIRS filings means that its network infrastructure actually remains undamaged, it is choosing not to voluntarily participate in DIRS, or it is unable to file, e.g., because it cannot access DIRS due to disruption of its internet access.

29. Meanwhile, NORS participation is mandatory, but it is centered on disruptions to voice telephony. Under our rules, certain service providers—wireline, cable, satellite, wireless, interconnected VoIP, and Signaling System 7 providers—must submit outage reports to NORS for voice and other outages that exceed specified duration and magnitude thresholds. 47 CFR 4.9. Service providers are required to submit a preliminary notification within two hours after determining that an outage is reportable, followed by an initial outage report within three calendar days, and a final report no later than 30 days after discovering the outage. 47 CFR 4.9. These reports are intended to address “the critical need for rapid, complete, and accurate information on service disruptions that could affect homeland security, public health or safety, and the economic well-being of our Nation . . . .” 2004 Part 4 Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 16833, para. 1. The Bureau analyzes NORS data to assess the magnitude of major outages, identify trends, and promote network reliability. However, these outage reporting requirements do not collect information about disruptions specifically to broadband service. This means the Commission has limited situational awareness about outages involving broadband service.

30. We seek comment on steps the Commission can take to address these issues and encourage better situational awareness through DIRS and NORS. Starting with DIRS, are there steps the Commission can take to encourage broader voluntary participation during disasters, including from smaller providers? Alternatively, should the Commission consider requiring the nation's service providers, i.e., cable providers, Direct Broadcast Satellite providers, Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service, TV and radio broadcasters, Commercial Mobile Radio Service and other wireless service providers, wireline providers, and VoIP providers, to report their infrastructure status information in DIRS when the Commission activates DIRS in geographic areas in which they broadcast or otherwise provide service? We recognize that a proposed requirement to file in DIRS must be balanced against additional burdens on service providers, particularly as DIRS reports are filed in the midst of disasters and other emergencies. If we were to explore requiring DIRS filing, we seek comment on our legal authority to do so, the costs and benefits associated with mandatory reporting, and how the Commission should enforce any failure to file DIRS information.

31. With respect to NORS, we seek comment on the public interest benefits and the costs of reporting of broadband service outages. Would such reporting likewise improve emergency managers' situational awareness during disasters? Or do public safety officials and others currently have access to broadband service outage data through other means? Could this data be leveraged to help identify broadband outage trends, and if so, how could this knowledge support first response and network reliability efforts?

32. We seek comment on suspension of NORS reporting requirements during disasters. Under our current voluntary DIRS reporting approach, the Bureau suspends NORS reporting obligations, via public notice, for providers who elect to report in DIRS for the duration of its activation period. Formally codifying this practice in our rules may give providers more clarity on their obligations and streamline and formalize existing practices. We therefore seek comment on whether to codify in our part 4 rules the Commission's typical practice of granting to providers a waiver of their NORS reporting requirements when they report the outage in DIRS. Are there needs of public safety officials or others that are not being met by the current reporting practices? If so, will such gaps remain when our NORS and DIRS information sharing rules become effective? Amendments to Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications, PS Docket No. 15-80, Second Report and Order, 36 FCC Rcd 6136 (2021).

33. We note that there may be instances in which DIRS is deactivated but some providers have not yet fully restored service, resulting in limited continuing outages. In these instances, the Commission no longer has situational awareness as to the status of those providers' services, because updates are no longer being filed in DIRS and the outage was never filed in NORS. We seek comment on how to best address this gap and ensure that the Commission maintains situational awareness of outages. Should providers with ongoing outages at the time of DIRS deactivation be required to report those outages in NORS?

34. In light of the concerns noted above, we also seek comment on steps the Commission can take to increase its situational awareness of the state of 911 and other emergency services.

35. The recent devastation wrought by Hurricane Ida, which left hundreds of thousands of Louisianans without power, water, and other basic utilities, also extended to the region's communications infrastructure. Data compiled by the Commission shows that approximately half of all cellular sites in New Orleans and the surrounding disaster area remained out of service nearly two days after the worst effects of Ida had passed, with no clear timetable for the restoration of these networks. NORS and DIRS data collected by the Commission in the aftermath of Hurricane Ida and other recent disaster events reveal that a lack of commercial power at key equipment and facilities is the single biggest reason why communications networks transmitting 911 service and related emergency information fail in the aftermath of disaster events. For example, the Commission's DIRS data show that the majority of cell site outages in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Ida's central disaster region were due to a lack of commercial power availability. Communications Status Report for Areas Impacted by Hurricane Ida at 5-6 (August 31, 2021), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-375367A1.pdf.

36. More generally, Commission analysis of DIRS data shows that over 50% of cell site outages that occurred during major 2020 earthquakes, hurricanes, and storms were due to power failures. The Commission's NORS outage data similarly reveal that the number of outages caused by power failures has been steadily increasing for the past several years and that power failures are currently driving a nationwide trend in the increase of outages. The Commission received 9,158 outage reports in 2020 alone for communications disruptions caused by power failures, potentially affecting 63,097,389 customers. Of those customers, 4.3 million potentially experienced service disruptions on a single day.

37. Without power to support providers' network operations in the aftermath of disasters, the public is unable to place potentially life-saving 911 calls, local emergency management officials are unable to transmit EAS and WEA messages, evacuation orders, and other public safety-related information, and first responders are unable to coordinate effectively to save lives and property. Conversely, with backup power in place, providers are able to bring their networks online and, if necessary, immediately begin diagnosing and addressing damage that their networks may have sustained.

38. Hurricane Ida thus continues an unfortunate (though potentially addressable) trend, demonstrating that the nation's communications infrastructure remains highly prone to failure due to disruptions to commercial power in the face of disasters. This reinforces observations that we have made during recent hurricane and wildfire seasons, earthquakes in Puerto Rico, and this year's severe winter storms in Texas. If the current trend continues without corrective action, the frequency of outages will worsen in coming years as the nation experiences disaster events of increasing severity, duration, and impact, including hurricanes, flooding, and wildfires.

This figure depicts the number of monthly final outage reports in NORS with power failure as a reported cause over time. The red dots represent the numbers of outage reports in 2Q21 months and blue dots represent months prior to 2Q21. The green line shows the expected number of outages in each month without taking seasonality effects into account; as such, it represents the general overall trend in the three-year window immediately preceding 2Q21 (April 2018 through March 2021). The shaded gray area indicates a 99% confidence interval for each month. This confidence interval is defined by the expected number of outages in each month based on the trend and seasonality effects. These data do not include outages caused by power failures that were reported in DIRS. They also do not include outages that are not service affecting ( e.g., outages of transport facilities with diverse routes) or special facility outages (outages of single circuits with Telecommunications Service Priority Level 1 or 2).

39. In view of this context, we now seek to explore communications resilience strategies for power outages. As part of this review, we seek to identify actions the Commission, communications providers, and power companies can cooperatively take to encourage and increase coordination in the power and communications sectors before, during, and after an emergency or disaster. We also seek to better understand how changing circumstances since the Commission's last broad consideration of backup power (including trends showing increasingly severe storms, wildfires, and other disasters, and advances in power technology) may bear on whether and how backup power or alternative measures may help promote continuity of power, including for PSAPs and emergency services. We seek comment on this issue.

40. As an initial matter, we seek comment on communications service provider coordination with power companies before, during, and after disasters, including efforts of the Cross-Sector Resiliency Forum. Are existing coordination efforts effective at minimizing communications service outages that are caused by power outages? Are there coordination activities that communications service provider and power companies could potentially take that have not yet been formalized or operationalized? If so, what steps could the Commission take to encourage this coordination? For example, should the Commission convene stakeholders from the electric industry, telecommunications sector, and public safety agencies to take part in regional coordination events to encourage greater cross-sector coordination in preparing for and in response to disasters? Should the Commission coordinate with gubernatorial offices and state emergency management agencies to encourage integrating communications providers and power companies into response planning, execution, and exercises?

41. Next, we seek comment on how backup power or alternative measures may help promote the continuity of service during or after disasters. We seek comment on the current state of providers' backup power implementations. For example, how many hours of backup power do providers typically maintain, what technologies do they use to meet their requirements, and how readily deployable are those technologies when needed? Does the amount or type of backup power solution differ depending upon the facility or type of infrastructure? What are the benefits and challenges of maintaining backup power on-site? If not maintained on-site, how could providers ensure that they can move backup power resources on-site with minimal delay when disaster strikes? What steps do providers take to adequately mitigate the risk that a disaster event that disrupts primary power would also knock out any on-site backup power resources ( e.g., fuel generators)? What types of backup power solutions are available for the various elements of infrastructure that may require it?

42. We seek comment on what steps service providers would need to take with respect to backup power deployment to significantly reduce the number of communications disruptions caused by power outages. How many hours of on-site backup power would be appropriate at their facilities to significantly reduce the frequency of power-related service disruptions? Are there events or geographic areas in which more hours of backup power are needed than others? To maximize the effectiveness of backup power solutions, should backup power be provisioned at certain critical points in communications infrastructure, and if so, at which points? In general, how should the Commission define or otherwise identify facilities and equipment that are critical to ensuring that emergency communications can be transmitted in the aftermath of a disaster? Are there differences across different types of communications networks or geographies where they are located that are relevant to deployment of backup power solutions or performance during power outages more generally? Is the deployment of on-site backup power sufficient to keep networks online in view of other potentially independent factors that may cause a network to fail during a disaster, e.g., lack of hardened and resilient network equipment? If it is not sufficient, what other steps should service providers take to avoid service disruptions? What are the associated costs and benefits?

43. As we explore the potential for wider backup power implementation, we seek comment on service providers' experiences with any state-specific backup power requirements as well as the potential cost of implementation.

44. We also seek comment on any alternatives to on-site backup power that have also proven successful or have the potential to reduce the frequency, duration, or severity of disruptions to communications services caused by power outages. Are there other technical solutions for preventing service disruptions caused by power outages or other efforts to reduce the number of service disruptions that we have not raised here?

45. We also seek comment on the Commission's existing requirements for covered 911 service providers to implement reasonable central-office backup power measures to ensure 911 reliability. 47 CFR 9.19(b). The Commission adopted these and other requirements for covered 911 service providers to promote 911 network resiliency. 47 CFR 9.19. As noted above, Louisiana had three PSAPs offline due to damaged power and communications infrastructure in the aftermath of Hurricane Ida. Other PSAPs were also impacted as generators began to fail. Are there steps the Commission can take, such as revisions to our resiliency rules ( see, e.g., 47 CFR parts 4, 9) or encouraging of voluntary measures, to make it more likely that PSAPs will have the necessary resources to continue service during and after disasters? Are there other considerations pertaining to 911 outages and access to emergency services in the wake of a disaster?

46. Digital Equity and Inclusion. Finally, the Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority.

47. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document contains proposed new and modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the OMB to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

48. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding shall be treated as “permit-but-disclose” proceedings in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200-1.1216. 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.

49. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice and comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 605(b). Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning potential rule and policy changes contained in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

50. Authority for the actions proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may be found in sections 1, 4(i) through (j), 4(n) through (o), 201, 202, 214, 218, 251(e)(3), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332 and 403, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) through (j), 154(n) through (o), 201, 202, 214, 218, 251(e)(3), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403; sections 2, 3(b), and 6 and 7 of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, 47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a-1, 615b, section 106 of the Twenty First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, 47 U.S.C. 615c, and section 506(a) of the Repack Airways Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018 (RAY BAUM's Act).

51. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA, including comments on any alternatives. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments as specified in the NPRM.

52. The NPRM proposes steps to safeguard and improve transmission of life-saving 911, Emergency Alert System (EAS), Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) messages and other life-saving information during emergencies by improving the reliability, resiliency, and continuity of associated communications networks. More specifically, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

• Considers whether elements of the Wireless Network Resiliency Cooperative Framework (Framework)—a voluntary agreement developed by the wireless industry in 2016 to provide mutual aid in the event of a disaster—could be improved to enhance the reliability of communication networks, including by inquiring into whether the public would benefit from codifying some or all of the Framework into the Commission's rules.

• Seeks comment on how the Commission can better promote situational awareness during disasters through its Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS) and Network Outage Reporting System (NORS). (Henceforth, the term “nation's service providers” will refer collectively to this group of entities.).

• Explores communications resilience strategies to address one of the primary reasons for service disruptions: Electric power outages, including through an exploration of backup power implementations.

53. These proposals are made against the backdrop of Hurricane Ida, which hit the United States as a Category 4 hurricane in August 2021 and caused significant flooding and damage in several states along the southern and northeastern corridors of the United States. Hurricane Ida, as well as recent hurricane and wildfire seasons, earthquakes in Puerto Rico, and severe winter storms in Texas demonstrate that America's communications infrastructure remains susceptible to disruption during disasters. These disruptions can prevent the transmission of 911 calls, first responder communications, EAS and WEA messages, and other potentially life-saving information. They also can have cascading detrimental effects on the economy and other critical infrastructures due to interdependencies among sectors, including the transportation, medical, and financial sectors, among others. Importantly, these disruptions may involve any or all communications networks—including wireline, wireless, cable, satellite, or broadcast facilities.

54. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, and estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Below is a list of such entities.

• Interconnected VoIP services;

• Wireline Providers;

• Wireless Providers—Fixed and Mobile;

• Satellite Service Providers; and

• Cable Service Providers.

55. We expect the potential rules in the NPRM will impose new or additional reporting or recordkeeping and/or other compliance obligations on service providers in the following ways:

• Wireless Resiliency Framework. Any providers that are required to participate in elements of the Framework who do not already do so, potentially including smaller wireless providers and entities beyond the mobile-wireless industry, such as facilities-based backhaul providers, covered 911 service providers, cable, wireline, broadcast, satellite, or interconnected VoIP providers would potentially need to keep records related to roaming agreements, mutual aid agreements, preparedness and restoration plans, improving consumer readiness and preparation and improving public awareness and stakeholder communications on service and restoration status. These providers would potentially have to submit reports to the Commission detailing implementation of the Framework in real time or in the aftermath of a disaster.

• NORS and DIRS. Any providers subject to DIRS reporting and new requirements related to NORS reporting, potentially including cable providers, Direct Broadcast Satellite providers, Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service, TV and radio broadcasters, Commercial Mobile Radio Service and other wireless service providers, wireline providers, VoIP providers, and broadband service providers, would report their communications outage information in NORS when their outages exceed thresholds specified in the Commission's Part 4 rules and infrastructure status information in DIRS when the Commission activates DIRS in geographic areas in which they broadcast or otherwise provide service.

• Backup Power. To the extent that the Commission were to adopt backup power requirements, any Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) or providers subject to them, potentially including cable providers, Direct Broadcast Satellite providers, Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service, TV and radio broadcasters, Commercial Mobile Radio Service and other wireless service providers, wireline providers, and VoIP providers, could potentially be required to take steps to make their networks more resilient to power outages, as discussed in the NPRM.

56. The NPRM seeks comment on a number of aspects of these proposals, including which providers should be subject to them, the public safety benefits and costs associated with a provider's implementation of the Framework, DIRS and NORS reporting, and backup power resiliency improvements. Given that these elements are currently unknown pending comment, the Commission is presently unable to quantify the costs of compliance with rules associated with these proposals, and whether small entities will need to hire professionals to comply. However, given that each proposal would make more reliable the transmission of 911 calls, first responder communications, EAS and WEA messages, and other potentially life-saving information, we tentatively conclude that the benefits exceed the costs of implementing any of these proposals. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and urge commenters to provide detailed information in support of their comments.

57. None.