The Emergency Reporting Act instructs the Federal Communications Commission to increase post-disaster transparency and to study improvements to how network outages—especially those affecting 9‑1‑1—are reported. It requires the FCC to convene public hearings after significant activations of its Disaster Information Reporting System and to produce written analyses that inform resilience and emergency response efforts.
Beyond hearings and reports, the bill orders a targeted investigation of outage notification practices, with a focus on whether including visual situational information would help emergency communications centers and whether existing outage thresholds miss important 9‑1‑1 interruptions. The measure stops short of expanding the FCC’s substantive regulatory reach over broadband beyond current law, but it creates periodic public review and recommendations intended to tighten operational practices and improve coordination between providers and public safety entities.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires the FCC to hold public hearings tied to Disaster Information Reporting System activations and to issue follow-up reports with findings and recommendations. Directs a separate FCC investigation into outage-notification practices—examining visual information for emergency centers and whether current reporting thresholds allow 9‑1‑1 outages to go unreported.
Who It Affects
Public safety agencies and emergency communications centers (PSAPs) that consume outage notifications, commercial mobile and VoIP providers and broadband providers that submit outage data, and state/local/tribal emergency managers who may be invited to hearings. The FCC itself must allocate staff time to run hearings, prepare reports, and publish findings.
Why It Matters
If implemented, the bill will increase public transparency about the scale and impact of communications outages and surface policy and technical changes to improve 9‑1‑1 resilience. Carriers should expect renewed scrutiny of outage data, while PSAPs may receive richer situational inputs if the FCC recommends adding visual information to notifications.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill does two related things: it creates a recurring, public review process tied to major activations of the FCC’s Disaster Information Reporting System, and it charges the agency with a one-time investigation into how outage notifications serve emergency centers and whether the Commission’s current reporting thresholds are leaving some 9‑1‑1 outages invisible.
For the post-activation process the FCC must convene public hearings that draw a cross-section of stakeholders — from state, local, and tribal officials to affected residents, communications providers, utilities, infrastructure companies, and first responders. After each hearing the agency must produce a written report drawing on information already collected (including System data and the hearing record) and post it online, while protecting any materials that fall under existing confidentiality rules.
The statute lists what topics the report should cover: outage counts and durations across key service categories, estimates of affected users and infrastructure, whether outages prevented emergency centers from receiving caller location or routing information, and targeted resilience recommendations.Separately, the FCC has one year to investigate outage-notification practices and publish its findings. That investigation focuses on two operational questions: whether adding visual situational content to notifications would materially help emergency responders, and whether the Commission’s current thresholds let meaningful 9‑1‑1 outages go unreported.
The agency must weigh the benefits to public safety against the practical burdens on originating providers and then recommend rule changes to better align notification practices with emergency operations.The bill also includes clarifying language and statutory definitions (for terms like outage, System, interconnected VoIP, commercial mobile service, and commercial mobile data service) and expressly says it does not confer new regulatory authority over broadband beyond what federal law already permits. Practically, the measure is set up to produce recurring public-facing analyses and one focused technical review that together can drive targeted rulemaking or guidance without immediately imposing new substantive regulatory duties on providers.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The FCC must hold at least one public hearing each year tied to any Disaster Information Reporting System activation that lasted seven days or more.
Within 120 days after a hearing concludes the agency must publish a report—drawing on System data and the hearing record—that covers outage counts/durations, approximate affected users/infrastructure, 9‑1‑1 impacts on caller location/routing, and resilience recommendations.
The bill requires a separate FCC investigation, to be completed within one year, into (a) the value and burden of giving emergency centers visual situational information in outage notifications and (b) whether current outage-notification thresholds allow 9‑1‑1 outages to go unreported.
Reports must be posted on the FCC website but may exclude material that is exempt from public disclosure or submitted with a proper confidential-treatment request under 47 C.F.R. §0.459 (or successor rules).
The statute defines key terms used in the measure (including outage, System, and several service categories) and contains a rule of construction preventing the bill from expanding the FCC’s authority over broadband beyond what existing law already authorizes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the measure as the "Emergency Reporting Act." This is purely nominative but signals the bill's focus on reporting and transparency rather than on immediate regulatory mandates.
Public hearings after major System activations
Directs the FCC to hold at least one public hearing annually that reviews events for which the Disaster Information Reporting System was activated for seven days or longer. The provision specifies a broad list of potential participants (state, local, tribal officials, affected residents or consumer advocates, carriers, utilities, infrastructure companies, academics, federal partners, and first responders), giving the agency latitude to invite a wide set of perspectives; the practical implication is that the hearings are intended to be multi‑stakeholder, not provider-only technical briefings.
Follow-up reports: scope, development, and publication
Requires the Commission to issue a written report within 120 days after a hearing concludes. The statute sets an explicit scope for those reports (number and duration of outages across several service categories, rough counts of affected users and infrastructure, instances where emergency centers lost caller location or call-routing, and resilience recommendations) and ties the report content to information already collected by the FCC and the hearing record—meaning the agency is not asked to launch expansive new data-collection exercises. It also commands online publication while preserving the FCC’s existing procedures for withholding confidential or otherwise protected information.
Investigation into outage-notification practices
Mandates a separate FCC investigation, to be completed within one year, into (1) whether including visual situational information in outage notifications benefits public safety (and at what cost to originating providers), (2) the scale and types of 9‑1‑1 outages that current notification thresholds might miss, and (3) recommended rule changes. This is expressly scoped as an information-gathering, analytical exercise that can lead to rule proposals, focusing on operational trade-offs rather than immediate new mandates.
Rule of construction and definitions
Contains a non-expansion clause preventing the statute from being read as granting additional regulatory authority over broadband providers beyond existing law, and enumerates definitions for terms such as 'outage', 'System', 'interconnected VoIP', and 'commercial mobile service/data service.' These mechanics ensure clarity about the measure’s reach and the specific data categories the FCC will rely on in its reports and investigation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Technology across all five countries.
Explore Technology in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Emergency communications centers and PSAPs — the bill is designed to surface operational data and, through the investigation, could lead to richer, more actionable notifications (including potential visual situational inputs) to support call routing and incident response.
- State, local, and tribal emergency managers — public hearings and published reports create a formal venue to highlight local outage impacts, seek fixes, and influence federal recommendations that can improve coordination and planning.
- Consumers and affected residents — greater transparency about outage scale, duration, and impacts can improve public situational awareness and help communities hold providers and responders accountable.
- Public safety agencies — if the FCC recommends and later implements changes to notification content or thresholds, first responders could get more timely and detailed information that improves situational awareness during disasters.
- Policymakers and researchers — the reports and investigation will create a repeatable, public evidence base on outage patterns and notification effectiveness, useful for future legislation or standards.
Who Bears the Cost
- Communications providers (commercial mobile, VoIP, broadband ISPs) — may face increased scrutiny, a possible future obligation to include richer (potentially visual) data in outage notifications, and the operational burden of responding to hearings or supplying granular historical outage data.
- The FCC — must allocate staff and resources to convene hearings, analyze records, run the one‑year investigation, and publish reports; recurring obligations create ongoing administrative load without new funding in the statute.
- Emergency communications centers/PSAPs — while potential recipients of improved data, PSAPs could incur costs to ingest, parse, and act on new visual or high-volume notification data if recommendations are adopted without aligned funding or technical standards.
- Communications infrastructure companies and utilities — may be drawn into hearings and data requests and could face reputational and operational consequences if reports identify recurring vulnerabilities in their networks.
- State and local governments — participation in hearings and follow-up coordination to implement recommendations could require staff time and local investment, especially where infrastructure upgrades are recommended.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing the public-safety and transparency gains from more granular, public outage reporting (and potentially richer, visual notifications to 9‑1‑1 centers) against the practical, business, and confidentiality costs providers and infrastructure operators would incur; improving situational awareness may require exposing operational details and increasing reporting burdens, yet withholding information risks leaving critical 9‑1‑1 outages invisible to responders.
The statute aims to improve transparency and operational alignment between providers and public safety, but it accomplishes that primarily through public hearings, reporting, and an analytical investigation rather than by imposing new compliance mandates. That design reduces immediate legal risk for providers but creates recurring scrutiny: public reports identifying vulnerabilities can trigger commercial and political pressure, and the FCC’s investigative recommendations could lead to later rulemaking with binding obligations.
Operationally, the measure leaves several implementation questions open. What format should "visual situational information" take to be useful and interoperable across disparate PSAP technologies?
How will the FCC reconcile provider concerns about exposing sensitive infrastructure details with the public interest in transparency? The statute ties reports to existing System data and hearing records, which limits new data collection but also risks undercounting outages if the System’s current inputs and thresholds are inadequate.
Finally, the bill’s non-expansion clause preserves legal limits on FCC authority over broadband, but it does not prevent the agency from proposing rule changes based on its investigation—so the real regulatory effect may depend on future rulemaking choices and the administrative record built through the hearings and report.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.