[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 131 (Friday, July 10, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42699-42705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-13999]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 9
[PS Docket Nos. 21-479 and 13-75, FCC 26-39; FR ID 355739]
Facilitating Implementation of Next Generation 911 Services
(NG911); Improving 911 Reliability
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (the
FCC or Commission) proposes rules to enhance Next Generation 911
(NG911) interoperability and improve NG911 accessibility. Specifically,
the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes requiring NG911
service providers to conduct multi-party interstate interoperability
testing of 911 traffic. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking also
seeks comment about
[[Page 42700]]
how 911 Authorities can integrate advanced technology such as Direct
Video Calling into NG911 networks to improve accessibility.
DATES: Comments are due on or before August 10, 2026, and reply
comments are due on or before September 8, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments identified by PS Docket Nos. 21-479 and 13-75 by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Waxman, Deputy Division Chief,
Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau, at (202) 418-1138 or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM), in PS Docket Nos.
21-479 and 13-75, FCC 26-39, adopted on June 25, 2026, and released on
June 26, 2026. The full text of this document is available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-modernizes-next-generation-911-reliability-and-interoperability-0.
Ex Parte Presentations--Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding this
Second FNPRM initiates shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 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.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-
9, a summary of this Second FNPRM will be available on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
Synopsis
Introduction
We adopt this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second
FNPRM) to seek comment on more detailed interoperability requirements
based on commenters' proposals in the record, as well as on the
implementation of video technologies to improve accessibility for 911
in NG911 jurisdictions.
NG911 Interoperability
In today's companion Second Report and Order, we adopt a definition
of interoperability and reporting requirements to support the ongoing
work of 911 Authorities and their industry partners as they strive
toward implementing seamlessly interoperable NG911 systems. We require
NG911 Core Service (NGCS) providers and Emergency Services IP Network
(ESInet) providers to report on a one-time basis the steps they have
taken or plan to take to facilitate interoperability on their networks.
Given the mixed nature of comments we received, we defer for future
consideration the issues of interoperability standards, certifications,
testing requirements, and annual reporting. Nevertheless, we continue
to regard NG911 interoperability as a foundational and essential
element to full completion of the NG911 transition nationwide.
Therefore, in this Second FNPRM, we seek comment on proposals to
promote and accelerate the implementation of interoperability across
the NG911 ecosystem.
Specifically, we propose requiring NGCS and ESInet providers,
within three years of the effective date of any interoperability
requirements adopted in the future, to test the transfer of 911 traffic
(including voice, video, data, and text) with necessary metadata to
facilities in at least two other states and with three similar but
different NGCS and ESInet providers. We propose this testing
requirement because, as noted above, although the record does not
reflect consensus amongst the various stakeholders, the disagreements
concern the details of a testing regime as opposed to the concept of
testing itself. We propose to develop testing criteria reflecting
comments in the record that advocate for objective interoperability
criteria \1\ as well as a requirement that covered 911 providers test
the ability to interoperate with multiple entities across different
jurisdictions.\2\ We propose to define a ``successful transfer'' as one
which, at a minimum, uses: SIP-based call handoff capability;
[[Page 42701]]
preservation of caller location and media metadata; compliance with
commonly accepted standards (such as i3); operational testing; and
cross-jurisdictional validation. We seek comment on the estimated costs
and benefits of this approach. We also seek comment on the role of
``connectivity testing,'' ``NG911 production testing,'' ``NG911
interoperability testing,'' conformance with commonly accepted
standards, and 911 Authorities' preferences in the development of
successful interoperability between ESInets.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA)
Comments at 8 (advocating for clarity).
\2\ Sam Gaither Comments on behalf of the South Carolina Coastal
Area Cooperative (SCCAC) at 2; Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials, International (APCO) Comments at 4.
\3\ See Letter from Susan C. Ornstein, Senior Director, Legal &
Regulatory Affairs, Comtech, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
PS Docket No. 21-479 at 4-14 (filed May 29, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose allowing 911 Authorities to play a significant role in
the design and evaluation of the interoperability testing regime. This
is advocated by commenters who argue that the most efficient way to
achieve interoperability is to allow providers and the local
jurisdictions they serve to collaborate in identifying what
interoperability solutions works best for those jurisdictions. We
propose that the governing 911 Authority for a given jurisdiction would
designate the two states and three facilities with which it wishes its
ESInet and NGCS providers to interoperate. We seek comment on whether
this is the appropriate number of states and providers and on
alternative numbers of states and providers. We also seek comment on
allowing 911 Authorities discretion to impose additional
interoperability requirements, including additional requirements for a
``successful transfer'' certification, provided these requirements are
mutually agreed upon after negotiations with the providers. We also
seek comment on requiring such interoperability only if requested by a
911 Authority.
We propose a three-year timetable for testing to allow time for
NG911 stakeholders to develop a comprehensive interoperability
certification regime that meets the above criteria.\4\ At the end of
the three-year period, NGCS and ESInet providers would certify that
they have successfully completed the required testing. We seek comment
on whether three years is an appropriate time period to allow for
developing the testing regime while also ensuring that testing occurs
in a timely manner. We seek comment on whether additional
interoperability reporting is needed beyond the one-time
interoperability report we adopt in the Order. Should covered 911
service providers periodically report on their progress to implement
interoperability on an annual basis, semi-annual basis, or some other
period of time? Should covered 911 service providers update their
interoperability reports any time there is a material change, as with
reliability certifications? What are examples of material changes
pertaining to interoperability?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NENA: The 9-1-1 Association (NENA) Comments at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Video Calling Framework
In the 2024 NG911 Transition Order, the Commission adopted a
definition of Next Generation 911 that references the ability for
Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) to receive, process, and analyze
``all types'' of 911 requests for emergency assistance.\5\ The
Commission emphasized that this language incorporates an accessibility
component into the NG911 definition and reflects a belief that NG911
must support accessible technologies.\6\ Several commenters in the
proceeding urged the Commission to consider additional measures to
enhance NG911 accessibility. The Commission declined to address those
proposals at the time because they were outside the scope of that
proceeding, but resolved to ``continue to monitor the development of
NG911 systems and technologies'' and ``to take steps as necessary to
ensure that NG911 is fully accessible to all,'' consistent with our
authority under the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act (CVAA).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 47 CFR 9.28.
\6\ Facilitating Implementation of Next Generation 911 Services
(NG911), PS Docket No. 21-479, PS Docket No. 18-64, Report and
Order, 39 FCC Rcd 8137, 8161, para. 43 (2024) (2024 NG911 Transition
Order).
\7\ Id. at 8218-19, para. 179.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NG911 Reliability FNPRM, the Commission sought more detailed
comment on measures to promote interoperability between ESInets for
people with disabilities as well as the feasibility of Direct Video
Calling (DVC) or three-way video 911 calling that includes video relay
service (VRS).\8\ The Commission also sought comment on the status of
current IP-based relay services providers' capabilities and how to
expand them.\9\ The comment record reflects strong consumer support for
expanding access to 911 via DVC as 911 Authorities transition to
NG911.\10\ At this time, however, we are not aware of any 911
Authorities that are using DVC to answer calls, although DVC is
available for 988 calls to the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.\11\ We
believe further information is needed in the record to develop a clear
path forward before deciding whether to include DVC capabilities in the
NG911 ecosystem, and therefore seek comment in this Second FNPRM to
develop such a record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Facilitating Implementation of Next Generation 911 Services
(NG911), PS Docket Nos. 21-479 and 13-75, Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 40 FCC Rcd 2668, 2700-01, para. 85 (2025) (NG911
Reliability FNPRM).
\9\ Id. at 2702, para. 87.
\10\ See AccesSOS Comments at 1; Accessibility and Research
Organizations Comments at 2; Intrado Life & Safety, Inc. (Intrado)
Comments at 27; City of Coconut Creek, FL April 28, 2025 Comments at
1. In addition, 80 individuals filed express comments supporting
Direct Video Calling with American Sign Language (ASL) and/or
enhanced NG911 multi-modal emergency services for the deaf/hard of
hearing. See, e.g., Express Comment of Greg Pollock, ASL Now (filed
Apr. 1, 2025); Express Comment of Sonny Wasilowski (filed Apr. 9,
2025).
\11\ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA), ``988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline Adds American Sign
Language Services for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Callers,'' Press
Announcement (Sept. 8, 2023). At a FCC Public Forum, a
representative stated that in the first 10 months after DVC became
available, the 988 line served about 30,000 DVC callers,
demonstrating the practicability and benefits of offering DVC as a
means of accessing emergency services. DVC Public Notice, 39 FCC Rcd
at 13630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we seek comment on a framework that would allow 911
Authorities to signal their readiness to accept DVC-to-911 calls in
their jurisdictions and on the network routing information necessary to
identify such calls. DVC allows sign language users to engage in
direct, rather than interpreted communication (including unfiltered
communication of visual cues, which are particularly important to
persons with hearing and speech disabilities), where each call
participant has native fluency in American Sign Language (ASL).\12\
This is another step in our long-running endeavor to enable and support
the deployment and use of DVC by enterprises and governmental
entities.\13\ We seek information that will help us to better
understand how 911 Authorities and their partners would integrate DVC
into their NG911 transition. In seeking this information in this public
forum, we hope to generate
[[Page 42702]]
discussions between the stakeholders that will identify lessons
learned, best practices, potential roadblocks, and avoid duplication of
effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See FCC, Direct Video Calling (DVC) (Dec. 17, 2025),
www.fcc.gov/DVC (providing information about DVC technology). See
also Intrado Comments at 27.
\13\ DVC, an internet-based communication service, enables
direct video conversations between two or more callers using ASL
without the need for an interpreter. See Direct Video Calling Can
Enhance Accessibility of Consumer Call Centers, CG Docket Nos. 03-
123 and 10-51, Public Notice, 39 FCC Rcd 13628, 13631 (CGB 2024)
(DVC Public Notice). We currently are seeking comment on the use of
DVC in modernizing the Telecommunications Relay Services. See
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Speech-to-Speech
and internet Protocol (IP) Speech-to-Speech Telecommunications Relay
Services, CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 08-15, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, FCC 25-79, at 14, para. 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits and costs of DVC. We seek comment on the benefits and
costs of DVC implementation specific to 911.\14\ Additionally, while
the record reflects support from individual deaf consumers for DVC, we
specifically ask the deaf community and organizations representing this
community to provide a more holistic picture of the preferences and
opinions of the deaf community on the various technologies that can
currently be used to contact 911, including TTY, text-to-911 (which
includes RTT), VRS, IP Relay, and IP CTS. Would a significant portion
of the deaf community who use ASL across various age ranges and
socioeconomic groups prefer to speak with an individual trained in both
ASL and 911 call dispatch? What are the costs associated with
facilities, training, and operation of DVC to 911 Authorities, covered
911 service providers (CSPs), and originating service providers (OSPs)?
Should we convene a new DVC Technical Working Group to create
recommendations on issues around the deployment of DVC-to-911, or can
this be addressed through the CSRIC X working group on 911
accessibility? \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See FCC, Direct Video Calling (DVC) (Dec. 17, 2025),
https://www.fcc.gov/direct-video-calling-dvc (discussing that the
general implementation of DVC provides improved communications,
career opportunities, security, and cost savings and shows a
commitment to accessibility).
\15\ Accessibility and Research Organizations Comments at 2, 15-
17 (recommending the FCC to convene a DVC Technical Working Group);
FCC Announces Intent to Re-Charter the Communications Security,
Reliability, and Interoperability Council, and Seeks Nominations for
Membership, DA 26-134 (Feb. 9, 2026) (including topic on Expanding
NG911's Multimedia Availability and Increasing 911 Accessibility).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some parties have suggested that the Commission should sponsor a
pilot program to obtain data on the feasibility of DVC-to-911.\16\ What
would be the parameters of such a pilot, including length of time and
costs? How would the Commission identify the communities and PSAPs that
would participate? The record indicates that 911 Authorities in various
jurisdictions are trialing advanced forms of communication for 911
calls.\17\ Do such trials include DVC-to-911? How would the results of
such a pilot program be used by the Commission or 911 Authorities?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Accessibility and Research Organizations Comments at
18; Intrado Comments at 27.
\17\ See Accessibility and Research Organizations Comments at
16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many individual commenters note that one shortcoming of VRS is that
interpreters, or communications assistants (CAs), are often not trained
to respond and communicate in emergency situations. Lack of training
for VRS interpreters may result in miscommunications and delays in
receiving aid.\18\ Advocates argue that DVC will address this
shortcoming by allowing ``Deaf callers to skip the VRS queue and be
connected directly to 911 call takers fluent in ASL.'' \19\ We ask
whether improved training for VRS interpreters would be more cost-
effective to address callers' needs, as opposed to the implementation
of DVC. On the other hand, what would such training for VRS
interpreters entail? The Commission has analogized TRS as the conduit
through which communication can happen and explained that CAs have a
limited role in ensuring a conversation can happen by providing an
interpretation service from one format of communication (e.g., sign
language) to another format (e.g., spoken English).\20\ Is any
shortcoming in access to 911 overcome only by ASL users reaching a
trained 911 telecommunicator who also knows ASL?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Letter from Karen Peltz Strauss, Esq. to Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, PS Docket 21-475 and CG Docket 03-123 at 2 (filed
Apr. 1, 2026) (Peltz Strauss Ex Parte); Accessibility and Research
Organizations Comments at 8-12; Express Comment of Sonny Wasilowski.
\19\ Peltz Strauss Ex Parte at 2; see also Accessibility and
Research Organizations Comments at 12-13.
\20\ See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG
Docket No. 03-123, 19 FCC Rcd 12475, 12534-35, paras. 154-55 (2004)
(describing limited role of TRS CA as a ``transparent conduit
between two people communicating through disparate modes'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical considerations. Comments indicate that the next version
of NENA's i3 standard will support DVC-to-911, including transfer of
DVC calls to non-DVC PSAPs with VRS.\21\ We seek comment on the
lifecycle and availability of this standard. What other current or
future technical standards could support the implementation of DVC-to-
911? What types of consumer devices can initiate DVC calls, and what
location capabilities do these devices have for 911? To what extent
would these devices rely on user-entered registered locations for 911?
From a technical perspective, how do DVC calls differ from calls to 911
over mobile-native video applications like FaceTime, or from other
types of video technologies like VRS? Do these calls proceed over
specialized platforms, browsers, or native video capabilities on
devices? What types of OSP data connections (VoIP, LTE, etc.) do these
calls use? Can CSPs and OSPs currently identify a DVC-to-911 call as
such? If not, what is the anticipated timeline for such a network
feature and what are the estimated development and implementation
costs? What technical capabilities and facilities must an OSP or CSP
put in place to originate, route, and transmit a DVC call to 911? \22\
Can OSPs and CSPs transmit location and callback information from the
originating device with the 911 call to ensure proper routing and
emergency response? What are routing considerations for OSPs and CSPs
in processing these calls? What differences in information and routing
arise from the originating device or application used by the person
initiating a video call to 911? What technical capabilities and
facilities must a PSAP or 911 Authority put in place to accept a DVC
call to 911? \23\ How are these technical capabilities and facilities
similar to or different from the implementation of DVC for ten-digit
telephone numbers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Brian Rosen Reply at 9-10.
\22\ See FCC, Direct Video Calling (DVC) (Dec. 17, 2025),
https://www.fcc.gov/direct-video-calling-dvc (``To establish DVC,
businesses, government agencies, and other organizations can install
a DVC call center platform and have their customer service telephone
numbers entered into the TRS Numbering Directory by Qualified Direct
Video Entities. The DVC call center platform will automatically
direct video calls to a videophone and voice calls to a standard
telephone in the call center.'').
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational considerations. A key operational issue in expanding
DVC access is connecting DVC to 911 callers with trained 911
telecommunicators that are (1) fluent in ASL, and (2) familiar with and
able to dispatch 911 resources local to the caller.\24\ What current or
planned future operational standards relate to the implementation of
DVC-to-911? What are the minimum operational requirements necessary for
a PSAP to accept DVC-to-911 calls? What is the estimated cost of
implementing these changes? How many (or what percentage) of the
current telecommunicator community are ASL-fluent? What plans exist to
increase this percentage? Are there existing mechanisms that can
augment or enhance the ASL ability of a non-ASL fluent
telecommunicator? Given the size of the ASL-fluent telecommunicator
pool and its non-uniform distribution, what is the most efficient
deployment strategy, i.e., do 911 Authorities envision initially
handling DVC-to-911 calls at a local, regional, state (or national)
level? If ASL-fluent telecommunicators are only available at the
regional, state, or national levels,
[[Page 42703]]
how would those telecommunicators coordinate dispatch with the local
PSAP or first responders? How do we ensure that such calls are answered
if, due to staffing shortages or other temporary operational
challenges, no ASL-fluent telecommunicator is available? If a PSAP is
not fully capable of handling a DVC-to-911 call, is using a three-way
call via VRS operator who can interpret a sufficient method of
resolving the call? \25\ What accredited training exists such that DVC
interpreters would be specifically trained in accepting emergency calls
and dispatching aid? Should VRS providers also pursue implementing this
training for their interpreters?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Brian Rosen Reply at 9-10; Accessibility and Research
Organizations Comments at 12.
\25\ See Accessibility and Research Organizations Comments at
19-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How should 911 Authorities signal their readiness to accept DVC-to-
911 calls? Should it be via an approach similar to how we handle NG911
valid requests and Text-to-911/Real-Time-Text readiness certifications?
\26\ Can it be solely a communication to the relevant CSP or OSP? What
technical and operational showings or commitments should a 911
Authority need to make to signal readiness to accept DVC-to-911 calls?
How should a 911 Authority specify which (if any) of its facilities are
DVC-to-911 call capable and provide CSPs with a roadmap that details
how to ensure that DVC-to-911 calls are routed to facilities (or
jurisdictions) that can handle such calls and dispatching aid?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See 47 CFR 9.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations for communication
between the public and 911 Authorities only explicitly mention the use
of TTYs for the purpose of ``direct access'' for emergency calls.\27\
However, DOJ explanations of its Title II regulations also indicate
that text-capable 911 Authorities can comply with the requirement to
provide ``effective communication'' with the public with the
availability of text-to-911.\28\ Would the availability of DVC comply
with the ``effective communication'' requirement? Is meeting that
requirement a prerequisite for advancement of DVC in 911 call centers?
If so, what steps can the Commission take to have DOJ recognize that,
where and when available, DVC can provide ``effective communication''
between ASL users and 911 Authorities? \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See 28 CFR 35.162 (``Telephone emergency services,
including 911 services, shall provide direct access to individuals
who use TDD's and computer modems.'').
\28\ See U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, PS
Docket Nos. 11-153 and 10-255, Comments, at 2-3 (filed Mar. 8,
2013); 28 CFR 35.161(a).
\29\ See, e.g., Letter from Zainab Alkebsi, Deaf Equality, et
al., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CG Docket Nos. 03-123, et
al., PS Docket Nos. 13-75 and 21-479, at 1-2 (filed April 9, 2026)
(asking FCC to coordinate with DOJ to modernize 911 communication
requirements for PSAPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedural Matters
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,
as amended (RFA),\30\ requires that an agency prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' \31\ Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact
of rule and policy change proposals on small entities in the Second
FNPRM. The Commission invites the general public, in particular small
businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the
deadlines for comments on the Second FNPRM indicated on the first page
of this document and must have a separate and distinct heading
designating them as responses to the IRFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The RFA has been amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA),
Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
\31\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This Second FNPRM may contain
potential new or revised information collection requirements subject to
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\32\ All such new or modified
information collection requirements will be submitted to OMB for review
under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other
federal agencies are invited to comment on any new or modified
information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 109
Stat. 163 (1995) (codified at 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and
rules proposed in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Second FNPRM) assessing the possible significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Commission requests written
public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses
to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified
on the first page of the Second FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy
of the Second FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for the
Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy. In addition,
the Second FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
In the Second FNPRM, the Commission builds on the interoperability
reporting requirements established in the Second Report and Order. With
these proposed rules, the Commission is taking steps to ensure that
NG911 networks have the requisite reliability and interoperability to
seamlessly transfer NG911 calls and data. It also continues its efforts
to ensure that NG911 is fully accessible to all Americans, including
911 users with disabilities.
Interoperability Certification and Testing Requirement. In the
Second FNPRM, the Commission proposes rules that will take effect
within three years. These proposed rules would require NGCS and ESInet
providers to begin certifying that they have successfully tested the
transfer of multimedia NG911 traffic with necessary metadata to
facilities in at least two other states and with three similar
providers. The Commission also proposes a definition of what a
``successful transfer'' would be. Further, the Commission is proposing
that a governing 911 Authority for any particular jurisdiction would
designate the two states and three facilities that the ESInet and NGCS
providers would interoperate with as well as allow the 911 Authority to
impose additional interoperability requirements provided they are
mutually agreed upon by the providers. The Commission proposes this
certification requirement with the objective of ensuring that the NG911
stakeholder community remains focused on improving interoperability.
The Commission also proposes that the governing 911 Authority in any
given jurisdiction play a significant role in the development and
evaluation of the interoperability testing regime in
[[Page 42704]]
collaboration with the providers to ensure that the 911 Authority can
help design an interoperability solution that works best for its
locality. Finally, the Commission proposes to defer application of the
rules for a period of three years to allow the NG911 community time to
develop a meaningful interoperability certification program.
Direct Video Calling. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission seeks
comment on a framework that would allow 911 Authorities to signal
readiness to accept DVC-to-911 calls in their jurisdictions and on the
network routing information necessary to identify such calls. The
Commission is seeking more information regarding all aspects of this
framework and DVC in general. The information sought includes benefits,
costs of implementation, technical considerations, and operational
considerations. The Second FNPRM explores whether and how to enable and
support the deployment and use of DVC by enterprises and governmental
entities. However, the Commission is not proposing rules for DVC
implementation at this time.
B. Legal Basis
The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i),
201, 214, 222, 225, 251(e), 301, 303, 316, and 332 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
201, 214, 222, 225, 251(e), 301, 303, 316, 332; the Wireless
Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106-81, 47
U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a, 615a-1, 615b; and section 106 of the
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of
2010, Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the adopted rules. 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 which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The SBA
establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to
use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses;
agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such
programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing
so.
Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups
of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In
general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than
500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all
businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million
businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are not-for-profit
enterprises that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their field. While we do not have data regarding the number
of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits
have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental
jurisdictions'' are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of
less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments
data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
The rules proposed in the Second FNPRM will apply to small entities
in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and
corresponding SBA size standard. Where available, we also provide
additional information regarding the number of potentially affected
entities in the identified industries below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated industry (footnotes specify
potentially affected entities within Total Total Percent
a regulated industry where NAICS code SBA size standard firms small small
applicable) firms firms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radio and Television Broadcasting and 334220 1,250 employees...... 155 136 87.74
Wireless Communications Equip
Manufacturing.
Semiconductor and Related Device 334413 1,250 employees...... 675 610 90.37
Manufacturing.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.... 517111 1,500 employees...... 3,403 3,027 88.95
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 517112 1,500 employees...... 1,184 1,081 91.30
(except Satellite).
Satellite Telecommunications......... 517410 $44 million.......... 332 195 58.73
All Other Telecommunications......... 517810 $40 million.......... 1,673 1,007 60.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Telecommunications Service Provider Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 universal service monitoring report telecommunications SBA size standard (1,500 employees)
service provider data (data as of December 2023) -----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------- Total number
FCC Form 499A Small firms Percent small
Affected entity filers entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs)..................... 3,729 3,576 95.90
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs).............. 1,175 917 78.04
Interexchange Carriers (IXCs)................................... 113 95 84.07
Wired Telecommunications Carriers............................... 4,682 4,276 91.33
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)......... 585 498 85.13
Wireless Telephony.............................................. 326 247 75.77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 42705]]
Table 3--Cable Entities Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent small
Cable entities Size standard Total firms Small firms firms in
industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Serves fewer than 530 524 98.87
Standard); Small Cable Operator. 498,000 subscribers,
either directly or
through affiliates.
Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Serves 400,000 or fewer 530 523 98.51
Regulation); Small Cable Company. subscribers nationwide.
Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Serves 15,000 or fewer 4,545 3,965 87.24
Regulation); Small Cable System subscribers.
(headends).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of
proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
911 Interoperability Requirements. In the Second FNPRM, the
Commission proposes giving NGCS and ESInet providers three years to
test the transfer of 911 traffic to facilities in at least two other
states and with three similar but different NGCS and ESInet providers.
At the end of the three year period, NGCS and ESInet providers would
certify that they have successfully completed the required testing.
This proposal is an expansion of the existing 911 reliability report
requirement.
The Second FNPRM also seeks specific comment on developing a
framework that will allow jurisdictions to signal readiness to deploy
DVC-to-911 calling. This will not create any reporting, recordkeeping
or other compliance requirements.
E. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any
significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish
the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any
significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is
required to include alternatives such as: ``(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
The Commission believes that the limited measures proposed in the
Second FNPRM will ultimately protect public safety and national
security objectives in a way that is tailored to avoid any significant
burdens on small entities. The rule changes proposed in the Second
FNPRM were carefully considered to impose little cost on state and
local governments or industry, including small entities. The Commission
recognizes that developing the interoperability report will impose some
research and legal costs on 911 Authorities; however, the Commission
anticipates that these proposed changes will be modest and will not
disproportionately affect small entities. Similarly, the Commission
believes the costs to NGCS and ESInet providers would be limited,
because these providers would be required to test and report on their
interoperability with only three similar providers in two states and
because the costs would be spread over three or more years. The
Commission does not anticipate any disproportionate impact on small
entities. We seek comment on the impacts of these proposals on small
entities, and we will consider any alternatives raised in comments
before taking final action.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
None.
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201,
214, 225, 251(e), 301, 303, 316, and 332 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201, 214, 225, 251(e),
301, 303, 316, 332; the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act
of 1999, Public Law 106-81, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a,
615a-1, 615b; and section 106 of the Twenty-First Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260,
47 U.S.C. 615c, that this Second FNPRM is adopted.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Pursuant to Executive Order 14215, 90 FR 10447 (Feb. 24,
2025), this regulatory action has been determined to be not
significant under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary
shall send a copy of this Second FNPRM, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for the Small
Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy.
Federal Communications Commission
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-13999 Filed 7-9-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P