Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Federal Regulatory Agencies
Featured Stories
NRC Schedules Public Outreach to Discuss Grand Gulf Plant Performance
WASHINGTON, July 3 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release on July 2, 2026:
* * *
NRC Schedules Public Outreach to Discuss Grand Gulf Plant Performance
ARLINGTON, Texas -- Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will conduct informal public outreach on July 11 to share the 2025 safety performance of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station and answer questions from the public. The outreach will allow residents to speak directly with NRC inspectors who evaluate the plant throughout the year.
The NRC concluded that the Grand Gulf plant operated safely throughout 2025. All inspection ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 3 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release on July 2, 2026: * * * NRC Schedules Public Outreach to Discuss Grand Gulf Plant Performance ARLINGTON, Texas -- Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will conduct informal public outreach on July 11 to share the 2025 safety performance of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station and answer questions from the public. The outreach will allow residents to speak directly with NRC inspectors who evaluate the plant throughout the year. The NRC concluded that the Grand Gulf plant operated safely throughout 2025. All inspectionfindings and performance indicators were of very low safety significance in 2025, resulting in planned normal inspections. However, during the first quarter of 2026, the plant entered an increased level of oversight due to a finding of low safety significance, which will result in additional oversight and inspections.
Grand Gulf is a one-unit plant operated by Entergy Operations Inc. near Port Gibson, Mississippi. The public outreach will take place from 9 a.m. to noon during the Second Saturday community event at Crawford Square, 1398 Washington Street, in Vicksburg, Mississippi.
The NRC Reactor Oversight Process uses a color-coded system that tracks inspection findings and performance indicators.
The annual assessment letter for the Grand Gulf plant, including upcoming inspection plans, is available on the NRC website. Current performance information is available on the NRC website and updated quarterly.
* * *
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was created as an expert, technical agency to protect public health, safety, and security, and regulate the civilian use of nuclear materials, including enabling the deployment of nuclear power for the benefit of society. Among other responsibilities, the agency issues licenses, conducts inspections, initiates and enforces regulations, and plans for incident response. The NRC is collaborating with interagency partners to implement reforms outlined in new Executive Orders and the ADVANCE Act to streamline agency activities and enhance efficiency.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nrc.gov/sites/default/files/cdn/doc-collection-news/2026/26-012-iv.pdf
* * *
NRC Schedules Public Outreach to Discuss Grand Gulf Plant Performance
ARLINGTON, Texas -- Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will conduct informal public outreach on July 11 to share the 2025 safety performance of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station and answer questions from the public. The outreach will allow residents to speak directly with NRC inspectors who evaluate the plant throughout the year.
The NRC concluded that the Grand Gulf plant operated safely throughout 2025. All inspection ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 3 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release on July 2, 2026: * * * NRC Schedules Public Outreach to Discuss Grand Gulf Plant Performance ARLINGTON, Texas -- Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will conduct informal public outreach on July 11 to share the 2025 safety performance of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station and answer questions from the public. The outreach will allow residents to speak directly with NRC inspectors who evaluate the plant throughout the year. The NRC concluded that the Grand Gulf plant operated safely throughout 2025. All inspectionfindings and performance indicators were of very low safety significance in 2025, resulting in planned normal inspections. However, during the first quarter of 2026, the plant entered an increased level of oversight due to a finding of low safety significance, which will result in additional oversight and inspections.
Grand Gulf is a one-unit plant operated by Entergy Operations Inc. near Port Gibson, Mississippi. The public outreach will take place from 9 a.m. to noon during the Second Saturday community event at Crawford Square, 1398 Washington Street, in Vicksburg, Mississippi.
The NRC Reactor Oversight Process uses a color-coded system that tracks inspection findings and performance indicators.
The annual assessment letter for the Grand Gulf plant, including upcoming inspection plans, is available on the NRC website. Current performance information is available on the NRC website and updated quarterly.
* * *
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was created as an expert, technical agency to protect public health, safety, and security, and regulate the civilian use of nuclear materials, including enabling the deployment of nuclear power for the benefit of society. Among other responsibilities, the agency issues licenses, conducts inspections, initiates and enforces regulations, and plans for incident response. The NRC is collaborating with interagency partners to implement reforms outlined in new Executive Orders and the ADVANCE Act to streamline agency activities and enhance efficiency.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nrc.gov/sites/default/files/cdn/doc-collection-news/2026/26-012-iv.pdf
Travel App Hopper to Pay $35 Million to Settle FTC Allegations It Charged Fees Without Consent and Deceived Users About Fees and Benefits of Some Products
WASHINGTON, July 2 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
Travel App Hopper to Pay $35 Million to Settle FTC Allegations It Charged Fees Without Consent and Deceived Users About Fees and Benefits of Some Products
*
The companies that operate the Hopper travel apps have agreed to pay $35 million and will be prohibited from deceiving consumers about fees to settle the Federal Trade Commission's allegations that they unfairly charged consumers hidden fees and misrepresented the total prices consumers would pay and the benefits of the companies' VIP Support and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 2 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release: * * * Travel App Hopper to Pay $35 Million to Settle FTC Allegations It Charged Fees Without Consent and Deceived Users About Fees and Benefits of Some Products * The companies that operate the Hopper travel apps have agreed to pay $35 million and will be prohibited from deceiving consumers about fees to settle the Federal Trade Commission's allegations that they unfairly charged consumers hidden fees and misrepresented the total prices consumers would pay and the benefits of the companies' VIP Support andPrice Freeze services.
The FTC's complaint alleges that despite its "no hidden fees" promises, Canadian company Hopper Inc. and its Massachusetts-based subsidiary Hopper (USA) Inc., unfairly charged users without their consent for "Tip" and VIP Support fees that the company claimed were optional yet were hidden and pre-selected for consumers.
"Hopper deceived consumers by showing them a total price that did not include hidden, pre-selected fees," said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "The Commission will continue to use all available tools to promote price transparency and to combat unfair and deceptive pricing, billing and cancellation practices."
Hopper allows consumers to search and book airfares, lodging and rental cars primarily through its apps. Until mid-2023, when consumers were ready to purchase their booking, they saw a screen with the "total price" and a Swipe to Book button that failed to adequately disclose that the company would add charges for Tip and VIP Support fees, according to the complaint. These "optional" fees were pre-selected and hidden on an app screen that only appeared if the consumer scrolled down. Since 2023, Hopper has continued to fail to disclose that Tip fees were optional, according to the complaint.
Consumers routinely complained that they did not consent to these extra fees, which have generated millions of dollars in additional revenue for the company, the complaint alleges. For example, one consumer complained that, "I did not intend to buy the VIP support. Honestly it feels like ya'll snuck that in on the final screen at the bottom and opted me in."
Company employees also raised concerns about these tactics, according to the complaint. For example, in internal communications, numerous employees expressed concern about Hopper's fees tactics, including one who said, "To me, the problem here is that we're tricking users."
The complaint alleges that the company's own internal testing showed that the Tip and VIP Support fees were deceptively hidden and that if Hopper adequately disclosed these fees and made them unselected by default, most consumers would decline them.
In addition to charging consumers for the VIP Support fee without their express informed consent, the complaint alleges that Hopper also misrepresented the benefits consumers would receive from the VIP Support service. For example, Hopper said that VIP Support would ensure consumers could reach customer service "instantly" or within a few minutes. In reality, many consumers who purchased VIP Support were often unable to reach a customer support agent at all or had to wait substantial amounts of time, according to the complaint.
Hopper also has deceived users about the benefits they would receive by purchasing its "Price Freeze" service, also known as "Hold the Room," according to the complaint. The company has said the service would allow consumers to hold or freeze an advertised price for a travel booking for a period of time so a consumer can book the travel later for the same price and that the fee paid for Price Freeze will be applied to the total price of the booking.
The complaint alleges, however, that Hopper has failed to clearly disclose key restrictions including that Price Freeze only protects the price up to a certain amount and only if the booking is still available. In addition, the company fails to apply the Price Freeze fee toward the cost of booking as promised, the complaint alleges.
The complaint alleges that, through this conduct, Hopper violated the FTC Act and, for short-term lodging bookings since May 12, 2025, the FTC's Unfair and Deceptive Fees Rule.
Under the proposed order, Hopper must pay $35 million, which will be used for consumer redress. In addition to the monetary judgment, the company is prohibited from misrepresenting any fees and must clearly and conspicuously disclose fees and charges, as well as the total price of any goods or services and the final amount of payment for any transaction.
The Commission voted 2-0 to file the complaint and stipulated proposed order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the named defendant is violating or is about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.
The lead staff on this matter include Karen Mandel, Edwin Rodriguez and Esther Lee in the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection.
***
Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/07/travel-app-hopper-pay-35-million-settle-ftc-allegations-it-charged-fees-without-consent-deceived
* * *
Travel App Hopper to Pay $35 Million to Settle FTC Allegations It Charged Fees Without Consent and Deceived Users About Fees and Benefits of Some Products
*
The companies that operate the Hopper travel apps have agreed to pay $35 million and will be prohibited from deceiving consumers about fees to settle the Federal Trade Commission's allegations that they unfairly charged consumers hidden fees and misrepresented the total prices consumers would pay and the benefits of the companies' VIP Support and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 2 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release: * * * Travel App Hopper to Pay $35 Million to Settle FTC Allegations It Charged Fees Without Consent and Deceived Users About Fees and Benefits of Some Products * The companies that operate the Hopper travel apps have agreed to pay $35 million and will be prohibited from deceiving consumers about fees to settle the Federal Trade Commission's allegations that they unfairly charged consumers hidden fees and misrepresented the total prices consumers would pay and the benefits of the companies' VIP Support andPrice Freeze services.
The FTC's complaint alleges that despite its "no hidden fees" promises, Canadian company Hopper Inc. and its Massachusetts-based subsidiary Hopper (USA) Inc., unfairly charged users without their consent for "Tip" and VIP Support fees that the company claimed were optional yet were hidden and pre-selected for consumers.
"Hopper deceived consumers by showing them a total price that did not include hidden, pre-selected fees," said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "The Commission will continue to use all available tools to promote price transparency and to combat unfair and deceptive pricing, billing and cancellation practices."
Hopper allows consumers to search and book airfares, lodging and rental cars primarily through its apps. Until mid-2023, when consumers were ready to purchase their booking, they saw a screen with the "total price" and a Swipe to Book button that failed to adequately disclose that the company would add charges for Tip and VIP Support fees, according to the complaint. These "optional" fees were pre-selected and hidden on an app screen that only appeared if the consumer scrolled down. Since 2023, Hopper has continued to fail to disclose that Tip fees were optional, according to the complaint.
Consumers routinely complained that they did not consent to these extra fees, which have generated millions of dollars in additional revenue for the company, the complaint alleges. For example, one consumer complained that, "I did not intend to buy the VIP support. Honestly it feels like ya'll snuck that in on the final screen at the bottom and opted me in."
Company employees also raised concerns about these tactics, according to the complaint. For example, in internal communications, numerous employees expressed concern about Hopper's fees tactics, including one who said, "To me, the problem here is that we're tricking users."
The complaint alleges that the company's own internal testing showed that the Tip and VIP Support fees were deceptively hidden and that if Hopper adequately disclosed these fees and made them unselected by default, most consumers would decline them.
In addition to charging consumers for the VIP Support fee without their express informed consent, the complaint alleges that Hopper also misrepresented the benefits consumers would receive from the VIP Support service. For example, Hopper said that VIP Support would ensure consumers could reach customer service "instantly" or within a few minutes. In reality, many consumers who purchased VIP Support were often unable to reach a customer support agent at all or had to wait substantial amounts of time, according to the complaint.
Hopper also has deceived users about the benefits they would receive by purchasing its "Price Freeze" service, also known as "Hold the Room," according to the complaint. The company has said the service would allow consumers to hold or freeze an advertised price for a travel booking for a period of time so a consumer can book the travel later for the same price and that the fee paid for Price Freeze will be applied to the total price of the booking.
The complaint alleges, however, that Hopper has failed to clearly disclose key restrictions including that Price Freeze only protects the price up to a certain amount and only if the booking is still available. In addition, the company fails to apply the Price Freeze fee toward the cost of booking as promised, the complaint alleges.
The complaint alleges that, through this conduct, Hopper violated the FTC Act and, for short-term lodging bookings since May 12, 2025, the FTC's Unfair and Deceptive Fees Rule.
Under the proposed order, Hopper must pay $35 million, which will be used for consumer redress. In addition to the monetary judgment, the company is prohibited from misrepresenting any fees and must clearly and conspicuously disclose fees and charges, as well as the total price of any goods or services and the final amount of payment for any transaction.
The Commission voted 2-0 to file the complaint and stipulated proposed order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the named defendant is violating or is about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.
The lead staff on this matter include Karen Mandel, Edwin Rodriguez and Esther Lee in the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection.
***
Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/07/travel-app-hopper-pay-35-million-settle-ftc-allegations-it-charged-fees-without-consent-deceived
SEC Files Proposed Partial Judgments in Connection With Fraud Charges Against Advisory Firm, Its Owner
WASHINGTON, July 2 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 24-cv-8900 (LGS); S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 21, 2024):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. David Kushner & La Mancha Funding Corp., No. 24-cv-8900 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 21, 2024)
On July 1, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed proposed partial judgments as to Defendants David Kushner, a resident of Boca Raton, Florida, and his company La Mancha Funding Corp., whom the SEC charged with allegedly defrauding nearly two dozen investors out of approximately $2.1 million ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 2 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 24-cv-8900 (LGS); S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 21, 2024): * * * Securities and Exchange Commission v. David Kushner & La Mancha Funding Corp., No. 24-cv-8900 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 21, 2024) On July 1, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed proposed partial judgments as to Defendants David Kushner, a resident of Boca Raton, Florida, and his company La Mancha Funding Corp., whom the SEC charged with allegedly defrauding nearly two dozen investors out of approximately $2.1 millionin a series of private securities offerings. Kushner is La Mancha's president and sole owner.
The SEC's complaint, filed on November 21, 2024, alleges that Kushner and La Mancha raised approximately $10.49 million from investors by selling membership interests in a series of limited liability companies for the purpose of investing in short-term loans made to, among others, sports agents and professional athletes. The complaint alleges that Kushner and La Mancha made material misrepresentations to the investors about the use of their funds, including by taking undisclosed "origination" and "broker" fees for themselves out of those funds. The complaint further alleges that the defendants misappropriated at least $2.14 million from investors, including the principal that certain borrowers repaid on the loans, which defendants represented would be distributed to the LLCs and the LLC investors. According to the complaint, Kushner used those and other misappropriated funds, including the undisclosed fees, to pay for personal expenses, such as credit card bills, his child's college tuition, country club dues, a Mercedes Benz, and a rental home in the Hamptons.
Kushner and La Mancha consented to the entry of the judgments, subject to court approval, that would permanently enjoin Kushner and La Mancha from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1), (2), and (4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder, by committing or engaging in specified actions or activities relevant to such violations. The judgment as to Kushner would also impose a conduct-based injunction and an officer-and-director bar. Both judgments reserve the issue of monetary relief for later determination by the Court upon motion by the Commission.
Kushner previously pled guilty to a seven-count indictment in a parallel criminal action brought by the Office of the District Attorney for New York County, which charged Kushner with five counts of grand larceny in the second degree, one count of grand larceny in the third degree, and one count of scheme to defraud in the first degree.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Cynthia A. Matthews, James Flynn, Rusty Feldman, and George N. Stepaniuk. The SEC's litigation is being led by Mr. Feldman, Ms. Matthews, and Mr. Stepaniuk, and is being supervised by Jack Kaufman. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Office of the District Attorney for New York County.
* * *
Resources
* Judgment - Kushner (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26579-kushner.pdf)
* Judgment - La Mancha (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26579-lamancha.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26579
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. David Kushner & La Mancha Funding Corp., No. 24-cv-8900 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 21, 2024)
On July 1, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed proposed partial judgments as to Defendants David Kushner, a resident of Boca Raton, Florida, and his company La Mancha Funding Corp., whom the SEC charged with allegedly defrauding nearly two dozen investors out of approximately $2.1 million ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 2 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 24-cv-8900 (LGS); S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 21, 2024): * * * Securities and Exchange Commission v. David Kushner & La Mancha Funding Corp., No. 24-cv-8900 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 21, 2024) On July 1, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed proposed partial judgments as to Defendants David Kushner, a resident of Boca Raton, Florida, and his company La Mancha Funding Corp., whom the SEC charged with allegedly defrauding nearly two dozen investors out of approximately $2.1 millionin a series of private securities offerings. Kushner is La Mancha's president and sole owner.
The SEC's complaint, filed on November 21, 2024, alleges that Kushner and La Mancha raised approximately $10.49 million from investors by selling membership interests in a series of limited liability companies for the purpose of investing in short-term loans made to, among others, sports agents and professional athletes. The complaint alleges that Kushner and La Mancha made material misrepresentations to the investors about the use of their funds, including by taking undisclosed "origination" and "broker" fees for themselves out of those funds. The complaint further alleges that the defendants misappropriated at least $2.14 million from investors, including the principal that certain borrowers repaid on the loans, which defendants represented would be distributed to the LLCs and the LLC investors. According to the complaint, Kushner used those and other misappropriated funds, including the undisclosed fees, to pay for personal expenses, such as credit card bills, his child's college tuition, country club dues, a Mercedes Benz, and a rental home in the Hamptons.
Kushner and La Mancha consented to the entry of the judgments, subject to court approval, that would permanently enjoin Kushner and La Mancha from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1), (2), and (4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder, by committing or engaging in specified actions or activities relevant to such violations. The judgment as to Kushner would also impose a conduct-based injunction and an officer-and-director bar. Both judgments reserve the issue of monetary relief for later determination by the Court upon motion by the Commission.
Kushner previously pled guilty to a seven-count indictment in a parallel criminal action brought by the Office of the District Attorney for New York County, which charged Kushner with five counts of grand larceny in the second degree, one count of grand larceny in the third degree, and one count of scheme to defraud in the first degree.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Cynthia A. Matthews, James Flynn, Rusty Feldman, and George N. Stepaniuk. The SEC's litigation is being led by Mr. Feldman, Ms. Matthews, and Mr. Stepaniuk, and is being supervised by Jack Kaufman. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Office of the District Attorney for New York County.
* * *
Resources
* Judgment - Kushner (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26579-kushner.pdf)
* Judgment - La Mancha (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26579-lamancha.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26579
NRC Proposes Modernization of Radiation Protection Rules, Reaffirms Current Safety Standards
WASHINGTON, July 2 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release on July 1, 2026:
* * *
NRC Proposes Modernization of Radiation Protection Rules, Reaffirms Current Safety Standards
ROCKVILLE, Md. -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today proposed an update to its radiation protection regulations that would maintain existing public and worker dose limits while reducing unnecessary regulatory burden and modernizing requirements to reflect current science and decades of operating experience.
The proposal would replace the longstanding "as low as reasonably achievable" ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 2 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release on July 1, 2026: * * * NRC Proposes Modernization of Radiation Protection Rules, Reaffirms Current Safety Standards ROCKVILLE, Md. -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today proposed an update to its radiation protection regulations that would maintain existing public and worker dose limits while reducing unnecessary regulatory burden and modernizing requirements to reflect current science and decades of operating experience. The proposal would replace the longstanding "as low as reasonably achievable"(ALARA) principle with clearer, more objective requirements focused on compliance with regulatory precautions and established dose limits, which themselves are set well below levels associated with known health effects. The agency concluded that retaining ALARA as a separate regulatory expectation can lead to additional costs and complexity without a measurable safety benefit.
"We're raising the standard for regulatory clarity, not lowering the standard for safety," Chairman Ho K. Nieh said. "Our radiation dose limits remain unchanged--what we're eliminating is unnecessary ambiguity."
The proposed rule would establish a more risk-informed and performance-based framework for radiation protection by:
* Adopting a graded approach to dose management based on risk and operational circumstances.
* Providing licensees greater flexibility to use modern methods for evaluating radiation doses to workers and the public.
* Expanding options for managing occupational radiation exposure.
* Allowing caregivers of patients receiving treatments involving radioactive materials to voluntarily receive higher doses, improving patient care while maintaining appropriate protections.
The proposal is part of the NRC's broader effort to modernize regulations, reduce unnecessary burden, and ensure requirements remain aligned with current science and operational experience while maintaining the agency's commitment to protecting public health and safety.
The NRC will accept public comments for 45 days following publication in the Federal Register and plans to hold a public meeting during the comment period.
* * *
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was created as an expert, technical agency to protect public health, safety, and security, and regulate the civilian use of nuclear materials, including enabling the deployment of nuclear power for the benefit of society. Among other responsibilities, the agency issues licenses, conducts inspections, initiates and enforces regulations, and plans for incident response. The NRC is collaborating with interagency partners to implement reforms outlined in new Executive Orders and the ADVANCE Act to streamline agency activities and enhance efficiency.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nrc.gov/sites/default/files/cdn/doc-collection-news/2026/26-070.pdf
* * *
NRC Proposes Modernization of Radiation Protection Rules, Reaffirms Current Safety Standards
ROCKVILLE, Md. -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today proposed an update to its radiation protection regulations that would maintain existing public and worker dose limits while reducing unnecessary regulatory burden and modernizing requirements to reflect current science and decades of operating experience.
The proposal would replace the longstanding "as low as reasonably achievable" ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 2 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release on July 1, 2026: * * * NRC Proposes Modernization of Radiation Protection Rules, Reaffirms Current Safety Standards ROCKVILLE, Md. -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today proposed an update to its radiation protection regulations that would maintain existing public and worker dose limits while reducing unnecessary regulatory burden and modernizing requirements to reflect current science and decades of operating experience. The proposal would replace the longstanding "as low as reasonably achievable"(ALARA) principle with clearer, more objective requirements focused on compliance with regulatory precautions and established dose limits, which themselves are set well below levels associated with known health effects. The agency concluded that retaining ALARA as a separate regulatory expectation can lead to additional costs and complexity without a measurable safety benefit.
"We're raising the standard for regulatory clarity, not lowering the standard for safety," Chairman Ho K. Nieh said. "Our radiation dose limits remain unchanged--what we're eliminating is unnecessary ambiguity."
The proposed rule would establish a more risk-informed and performance-based framework for radiation protection by:
* Adopting a graded approach to dose management based on risk and operational circumstances.
* Providing licensees greater flexibility to use modern methods for evaluating radiation doses to workers and the public.
* Expanding options for managing occupational radiation exposure.
* Allowing caregivers of patients receiving treatments involving radioactive materials to voluntarily receive higher doses, improving patient care while maintaining appropriate protections.
The proposal is part of the NRC's broader effort to modernize regulations, reduce unnecessary burden, and ensure requirements remain aligned with current science and operational experience while maintaining the agency's commitment to protecting public health and safety.
The NRC will accept public comments for 45 days following publication in the Federal Register and plans to hold a public meeting during the comment period.
* * *
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was created as an expert, technical agency to protect public health, safety, and security, and regulate the civilian use of nuclear materials, including enabling the deployment of nuclear power for the benefit of society. Among other responsibilities, the agency issues licenses, conducts inspections, initiates and enforces regulations, and plans for incident response. The NRC is collaborating with interagency partners to implement reforms outlined in new Executive Orders and the ADVANCE Act to streamline agency activities and enhance efficiency.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nrc.gov/sites/default/files/cdn/doc-collection-news/2026/26-070.pdf
FCC Pauses Lifeline Voice Support Phase-Out and Service Standard Changes For One More Full Year
WASHINGTON, July 2 -- The Federal Communications Commission Wireline Competition Bureau issued an order granting a one-year waiver extension that halts planned adjustments to the Lifeline program. This directive effectively pauses both the scheduled elimination of financial support for standalone voice-only services and any scheduled updates to minimum service broadband standards until December 1, 2027.
The official administrative decision directly affects ongoing matters regarding Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization (WC Docket No. 11-42), Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 2 -- The Federal Communications Commission Wireline Competition Bureau issued an order granting a one-year waiver extension that halts planned adjustments to the Lifeline program. This directive effectively pauses both the scheduled elimination of financial support for standalone voice-only services and any scheduled updates to minimum service broadband standards until December 1, 2027. The official administrative decision directly affects ongoing matters regarding Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization (WC Docket No. 11-42), Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for UniversalService Support (WC Docket No. 09-197), and the Connect America Fund (WC Docket No. 10-90).
Bureau officials determined that strict compliance with current schedules would contradict the public interest while the commission conducts an active rulemaking proceeding. The ongoing review, initiated through a notice of proposed rulemaking earlier this year, explores whether to alter long-term program structures, including whether to maintain voice support at the current monthly rate of $5.25 or implement alternative methodologies.
Under a framework established a decade ago, the commission intended to transition the subsidy program from voice-centric offerings to broadband services. That original plan included a multi-stage reduction of voice-only subsidies, culminating in a complete termination of support in most geographic areas. However, regulatory authorities have repeatedly extended temporary waivers due to widespread consumer reliance on standalone voice options for public safety, emergency communications, and essential societal participation.
The federal regulatory agency also paused automatic annual increases to broadband data capacity and speed metrics. Officials noted that allowing automatic upgrades to take effect right now could inadvertently burden service providers or trigger sharp price increases for low-income consumers, potentially pricing vulnerable households out of the market entirely.
By freezing the regulations in their current state, the bureau aims to prevent service disruptions, subscriber confusion, and unintended administrative burdens while the agency builds a complete regulatory record. The waiver became operational immediately upon its release by Joseph S. Calascione, the current chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau. This temporary freeze ensures that phone and internet subsidies for qualifying low-income households will remain stable through next autumn, giving federal commissioners additional time to carefully analyze diverse public comments and establish permanent, balanced updates for the low-income support mechanism across the nation.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-651A1.pdf
The official administrative decision directly affects ongoing matters regarding Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization (WC Docket No. 11-42), Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 2 -- The Federal Communications Commission Wireline Competition Bureau issued an order granting a one-year waiver extension that halts planned adjustments to the Lifeline program. This directive effectively pauses both the scheduled elimination of financial support for standalone voice-only services and any scheduled updates to minimum service broadband standards until December 1, 2027. The official administrative decision directly affects ongoing matters regarding Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization (WC Docket No. 11-42), Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for UniversalService Support (WC Docket No. 09-197), and the Connect America Fund (WC Docket No. 10-90).
Bureau officials determined that strict compliance with current schedules would contradict the public interest while the commission conducts an active rulemaking proceeding. The ongoing review, initiated through a notice of proposed rulemaking earlier this year, explores whether to alter long-term program structures, including whether to maintain voice support at the current monthly rate of $5.25 or implement alternative methodologies.
Under a framework established a decade ago, the commission intended to transition the subsidy program from voice-centric offerings to broadband services. That original plan included a multi-stage reduction of voice-only subsidies, culminating in a complete termination of support in most geographic areas. However, regulatory authorities have repeatedly extended temporary waivers due to widespread consumer reliance on standalone voice options for public safety, emergency communications, and essential societal participation.
The federal regulatory agency also paused automatic annual increases to broadband data capacity and speed metrics. Officials noted that allowing automatic upgrades to take effect right now could inadvertently burden service providers or trigger sharp price increases for low-income consumers, potentially pricing vulnerable households out of the market entirely.
By freezing the regulations in their current state, the bureau aims to prevent service disruptions, subscriber confusion, and unintended administrative burdens while the agency builds a complete regulatory record. The waiver became operational immediately upon its release by Joseph S. Calascione, the current chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau. This temporary freeze ensures that phone and internet subsidies for qualifying low-income households will remain stable through next autumn, giving federal commissioners additional time to carefully analyze diverse public comments and establish permanent, balanced updates for the low-income support mechanism across the nation.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-651A1.pdf
FCC Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Issues Public Notice Seeking Comment on Tentative Findings for 2026 Twenty-First Century Communications & Video Accessibility Act Biennial Report
WASHINGTON, July 2 -- The Federal Communications Commission Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau issued the following public notice (CG Docket No. 10-213):
* * *
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) seeks comment on tentative findings on the accessibility and usability of telecommunications and advanced communications services (ACS) and equipment in connection with the Biennial Report to Congress (Biennial Report) required by section 717(b)(1) of the Twenty-First Century ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 2 -- The Federal Communications Commission Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau issued the following public notice (CG Docket No. 10-213): * * * I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) seeks comment on tentative findings on the accessibility and usability of telecommunications and advanced communications services (ACS) and equipment in connection with the Biennial Report to Congress (Biennial Report) required by section 717(b)(1) of the Twenty-First CenturyCommunications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA)./1 The FCC must submit final findings to Congress in its Biennial Report by October 8, 2026./2
2. The 2026 CVAA Biennial Report will provide an assessment of industry compliance with sections 255, 716, and 718 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), which require that telecommunications and advanced communications services and equipment be accessible and usable by people with disabilities, and that mobile phone browsers be accessible and usable by people who are blind or visually impaired./3 The Biennial Report will also address the extent to which accessibility barriers still exist with respect to new communications technologies,/4 and the effect of the accessibility-related recordkeeping and enforcement provisions of section 717 on the development and deployment of such new technologies./5 The Biennial Report will provide information about the number of, nature of, and actions taken to resolve complaints alleging violations of sections 255, 716, or 718 for the period January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2025 -- including the length of time that the Commission took to resolve such complaints, and the number, status, nature, and outcome of any actions for mandamus filed, and of any appeals filed pertaining to such complaints./6
3. On February 26, 2026, the Bureau issued a Public Notice inviting comment on these matters./7 Comments were received from Accessibility Advocacy Organizations (AAO),/8 the American Council of the Blind (ACB), the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB), the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), CTIA - The Wireless Association (CTIA), Disability Belongs, Wired Broadband, Inc. (WBI), and one individual commenter./9
4. In this Public Notice, we provide our tentative findings on the accessibility of services and equipment under sections 255, 716, and 718 based on those comments filed in response to the 2026 CVAA Assessment Public Notice./10 We also present our tentative findings regarding any accessibility barriers to new communications technologies,/11 complaints received pursuant to section 717,/12 and the effect of the accessibility-related recordkeeping and enforcement provisions of section 717 on the development and deployment of such new technologies./13 In preparation for the 2026 CVAA Biennial Report to Congress, we invite further comment on whether these tentative findings accurately represent the current state of accessibility and usability of telecommunications and advanced communications services and equipment, and the accessibility and usability of Internet browsers on mobile phones for people who are blind or low vision.
II. APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
5. The purpose of the CVAA is "to help ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to fully utilize communications services and equipment and better access video programming."/14 To that end, the CVAA requires that the Commission report on industry compliance with the following accessibility-related provisions of the Act./15
6. Section 255. Section 255 requires providers of telecommunications services and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment (CPE) to ensure that their services and equipment are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable./16 When these requirements are not readily achievable, covered entities must ensure that their services and equipment are compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized CPE commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, if readily achievable./17 Pursuant to the Commission's rules, section 255's accessibility obligations extend to interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers and equipment manufacturers./18
7. Section 716. Section 716 requires providers of ACS and manufacturers of equipment used for ACS to ensure that their services and equipment are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, unless doing so is not achievable (defined as "with reasonable effort or expense")./19 "Advanced communications services" include: (1) interconnected VoIP service; (2) non-interconnected VoIP service; (3) electronic messaging service; (4) interoperable video conferencing service; and (5) any audio or video communications services used by inmates for the purposes of communicating with individuals outside the correctional institution where the inmate is held./20 In contrast to interconnected VoIP services, which enable people to make and receive calls to and from the public switched telephone network (PSTN), non-interconnected VoIP includes services that enable real-time voice communications either to or from the PSTN (but not both) or which neither begin nor end on the PSTN./21 Electronic messaging services include services such as e-mail, short message service (SMS) text messaging, and instant messaging, which enable real-time or near real-time text messages between individuals over communications networks./22 Interoperable video conferencing services provide real-time video communications, including audio, to enable users to share information./23
8. The accessibility requirements for section 716 may be satisfied by: (1) building accessibility into the service or equipment/24 or (2) using third-party applications, peripheral devices, software, hardware, or CPE that is available to consumers at nominal cost and that individuals with disabilities can access./25 When ensuring accessibility through either of those options is not achievable, covered entities must ensure that their services and equipment are compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized CPE commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, unless that is not achievable./26
9. Section 718. Section 718 requires mobile phone service providers and manufacturers to make Internet browsers built into mobile phones accessible to and usable by people who are blind or have a visual impairment, unless doing so is not achievable./27 This requirement may be satisfied with or without the use of third-party applications, peripheral devices, software, hardware, or CPE that is available to consumers at nominal cost and that individuals with disabilities can access./28
III. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 255, 716, AND 718
A. Accessibility
10. During the two years since the Commission's last Biennial Report, we tentatively find that accessibility of telecommunications and advanced communications services and equipment continues to improve;/29 however, some accessibility gaps persist due in part to technological and market barriers./30 The Commission remains committed to ensuring that relevant technologies are accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, and that people with disabilities are "able to fully utilize communications services and equipment and better access video programming."/31 We discuss below the current state of accessibility of telecommunications and advanced communications services and equipment as presented by parties responding to the 2026 CVAA Assessment Public Notice./32
11. The comments received continue to reflect the proliferation of new and enhanced features that make more devices and features accessible to a wider community of people with disabilities, while affordability and innovation continue to advance. Indeed, CTA underscores that "the overall trajectory of accessibility innovation remains strong."/33
12. CTIA highlights advances in voice commands, AI-driven assistive technologies, visual capabilities, and other accessibility features built into smartphones, as well as initiatives like "bring your own device" programs, which enable a consumer with disabilities to choose a device that best meets their accessibility needs./34 Overall, CTIA states that "the flexible directives in the CVAA have helped make advanced communications services and products more inclusive and accessible to people with disabilities."/35
13. Still, some comments highlight continuing challenges to accessibility. For example, Disability Belongs, a consumer organization, notes that, "[w]hile many communications technologies include accessibility features, individuals with disabilities continue to encounter barriers when using these tools in everyday settings."/36 They further elaborate about remaining challenges, including "messaging and communications platforms that do not consistently integrate with screen readers or other assistive technologies"; "video conferencing tools where accessibility features such as captioning, keyboard navigation, or screen reader compatibility are inconsistent across platforms or devices"; and "communication features embedded within multi-purpose devices that are technically accessible but difficult for users to locate or activate."/37 Below, we highlight some areas of significant improvements in the accessibility of covered products and services, and discuss some remaining accessibility gaps.
14. Mobile Phones. A wide range of accessibility improvements have become available for mobile phone operating systems since the last Biennial Report,/38 although not all consumers with disabilities may benefit from those accessibility improvements. For example, CTIA notes improvements to keyboard, braille, and other text-input methods and a braille notetaking system; one operating system's updated "dark theme," which produces a more comfortable viewing experience, particularly for people with low vision or light sensitivity; a particular feature that allows users with limited mobility and an external mouse device to specify an amount of time before a cursor automatically performs a click; a captioning feature that "go[es] beyond communicating what someone say[s], to communicate things like tone, volume, environmental cues, and human noises"; a separate captioning feature with braille display integration; better natural language voice control for smartphone-vehicle integration systems and improved voice control options; features enabling wearable devices to display real-time transcriptions and enabling smartphones to function as microphones sending audio to hearing aids; functionality notifying deaf and hard of hearing users to be notified when their name is called; new accessibility options designed for users with dyslexia or low vision; and a feature allowing users to temporarily share accessibility settings when using a different device./39 However, while recognizing the growth of accessibility features on some smartphones in the last two years, including new functionalities for braille displays,/40 AFB emphasizes that phone accessibility varies depending on the price range of the smartphones./41 Higherend smartphones tend to be the most accessible, while at the other end of the spectrum, feature phones and landline telephones typically lack the same accessibility./42
15. Videoconferencing. Regarding videoconferencing, the use of interoperable video conferencing services (IVCS) has proliferated in recent years. The Commission affirmed in 2023 that IVCS are advanced communication services covered under the CVAA./43 The FCC has established that IVCS is "a modern communications tool that is critical in connecting for work, education, health, and other fundamental life activities," and continues to take steps to ensure that "people with disabilities are able to access and use video conferencing."/44
16. Commenters identified a number of ongoing challenges to accessibility of videoconferencing platforms, while acknowledging that it has offered a "new and exciting form of communication technology."/45 In its comments, AAO identifies a number of remaining challenges to accessible videoconferencing, including the lack of voice recognition functionality that can generate understandable speech when used by people with speech disabilities, and the need for a simplified user interface./46 AAO further highlights a need for visual interpretation services (using human assistance or automation to generate real-time descriptions of visual information, including images and text), and screen-reader capability for all user interface elements and visual information, including presentations, videos, and interactive documents shared during interoperable video conferencing calls for people who are blind and low vision./47 Moreover, ACB reports, the content presented using the screen-sharing function is often inaccessible for those who use screen-reading software./48 Likewise, AFB explains that, while the basic screen reader accessibility of many video conferencing services is quickly improving, "[p]eople who are blind still lack access to many features of video conferencing" and that "[i]t is difficult or impossible to access information that is shared visually even though a few platforms have demonstrated that providing such access is feasible."/49 AFB also notes problems with text on a shared screen being "not perceivable by the screen reader, and platforms may or may not offer a way to magnify the text for users with low vision."/50 Finally, AFB suggests that there is a need for the capability to use side channels via other applications to access visual interpretation services, to provide descriptions of visual content that are not otherwise accessible, as well as "the option to easily use refreshable braille displays across platforms," which "would greatly assist people who are deafblind as well as people who are hearing and blind."/51
17. AAO echoes the need for refreshable braille displays and other devices used for the tactile conveyance of interface elements and visual information to be fully compatible with presentations, videos, and interactive documents shared during interoperable video conferencing calls, to improve accessibility for some people who are blind or low vision./52 Disability Belongs similarly notes that there are accessibility limitations within video conferencing platforms that affect navigation, caption placement, or compatibility with assistive technologies./53 AAO also identifies an ongoing need to incorporate hands-free technologies./54 Another commenter recommends the FCC should "[e]nsure all video conferencing platforms have a built-in feature to allow a user to bring in an interpreter for meetings as a native feature./55
18. Communication in Video Games. With respect to accessibility of video game communications, and building on a Disability Advisory Committee October 2024 report on the accessibility of communications in video games,/56 AFB comments that progress continues to be made, especially for low vision users./57 However, "many games still lack functional accessibility for blind and low vision gamers who want to use the communications features, and those that have accessibility features may not implement the full suite of accessibility that would make the user interface more usable to all blind and low vision gamers."/58 AFB further notes that "[a]ccessible user interfaces for communication should be expected even if game developers do not build fully accessible gameplay."/59
19. Emergency Services. Accessible communication products and services have made it easier for people with disabilities to contact emergency services and receive critical alerts,/60 though specific improvements are recommended by consumer organizations./61 AAO notes the need to increase public safety answering points capable of receiving real-time-text (RTT)-to-911, and also highlights that more work is needed to achieve full and equal 911 access for individuals whose primary language is American Sign Language (ASL)./62 AAO emphasizes the need for direct video calling (DVC), i.e., video teleconferencing that allows conversations to occur between two callers using ASL without the need for translation services, as the best means of achieving effective and direct communication for calls made to first responders in 911 dispatch centers, firefighters, law enforcement officers, self-help and crisis hotlines that offer services such as mental health counseling and suicide prevention, and other municipally supported services that address urgent and emergency situations./63 AAO suggests that for communities with high densities of deaf ASL users, it may work best to enable ASL users to communicate directly with DVC call handlers stationed in their local PSAPs, and for less ASL-dense communities, regional or national DVC centers might provide the best solution for DVC-to-911 calls./64
20. One Number Solution. Consumer organizations continue to highlight the importance of the "one number solution," particularly for individuals who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities./65 Consumer organization commenters explain that these users often have many different telephone numbers to receive direct voice calls, texts, and relay calls, which can create many challenges for providing the best contact number./66 Further, consumer organizations comment that "[b]y developing and implementing a one number solution, the FCC would reduce fragmentation, streamline communications, and advance more equitable and effective access to these services."/67
21. Other Technologies. Consumer organization commenters also identify additional accessibility barriers, including, for example, communication features embedded within social media platforms that present challenges for screen reader users, and remaining accessibility barriers in some customer service systems that rely on automated chat interfaces or phone systems, which may not be fully accessible./68
B. Usability
22. Sections 255, 716 and 718 also require that covered services and equipment are "usable" by people with disabilities./69 A product or service is "usable" if companies provide people with disabilities with information on how to use services, such as documentation for the product or service, including instructions, product or service information (including accessible feature information), customer support, and technical support./70 We tentatively find that, while usability continues to improve for some covered services and equipment, there is still room for improvement.
23. Full Functionality and Documentation for Covered Products. Overall, industry commenters share that individuals with disabilities have access to the full functionality and documentation for covered products as required,/71 though some consumer organizations express that information and technical support are inconsistent./72 CTIA, for example, states that its members provide "information about accessible features and products to consumers in a variety of formats," as well as "dedicated support lines" for consumers that live with disabilities, and notes its members' "extensive user guides" that, among other features, "continue to make smartphones accessible and usable for individuals with disabilities."/73 Consumer organization commenters, however, state that individuals with disabilities may encounter challenges such as user manuals or documentation that are not available in accessible formats; customer service channels that are not compatible with assistive technologies; and limited training among customer support staff regarding accessibility features./74 Consumer organization commenters also cite other barriers that continue to affect the usability of communications technologies; for example, automated captioning systems may produce inaccurate captions, particularly for individuals with speech disabilities or speakers with accents./75
24. Videoconferencing. With respect to usability and videoconferencing, AAO identifies an ongoing need for instructional materials for activating IVCS in plain and simple language and iconography. Consumer organization commenters also highlight that, even where captions are available, some users struggle to locate and activate captioning, and recommend "consistent and clear information" about how to activate them and control display features./76 ACB also notes that for users who are blind or have low vision, "accessing the different functions within a platform using keyboard-only navigation can be limiting."/77
25. Direct Video Calling. Regarding DVC, AAO states that adoption of DVC is critical to usability for ASL users, in both emergency call centers and other contexts./78 AAO explains that "[t]he best way to achieve usability for ASL users is through DVC, IP-based telephone customer support using one-on-one video communication that enables a real-time conversation to occur directly between an ASL user and a call center representative who is also fluent in sign language and trained in the subject at issue."/79 AAO recommends the adoption of DVC "to improve usability for telecommunications and advanced communication services."/80
26. Internet Browsers Built in Mobile Phones. Accessibility features for web browsers built into mobile phones continue to improve for users who are blind or low vision,/81 though greater standardization across devices and operating systems may be beneficial for consumers./82 CTIA highlights the accessibility features built into common web browsers, and notes that "manufacturers also provide comprehensive user guides detailing how to access accessibility features that work in the built-in browsers./83 Still, other commenters explain that some devices and internet browsers are accessible and usable for blind and low vision consumers, while others are not./84 In particular, commenters describe barriers like inconsistent compatibility between mobile browsers and screen readers; variations in accessibility across different devices, operating systems, and price points; and difficulty identifying devices that provide robust accessibility features when purchasing mobile phones./85 Ultimately, these commenters recommend greater transparency for accessibility features and more consistent accessibility across devices./86
C. Inclusion of People with Disabilities in Product and Service Design and
Development
27. We tentatively find that covered entities have continued to include people with disabilities in product and service design and development. CTIA describes the ongoing work of the wireless industry to "conduct outreach and regularly collaborate with the accessibility community."/87 CTA and CTIA explain that industry has engaged consumers in product development and testing,/88 advisory groups,/89 conferences,/90 and product design and demonstrations./91 ACB confirms that major telecommunication companies "continue to do a good job seeking input from the blind and low vision community while seeking to make their products fully accessible."/92 At the same time, ACB recommends having more individuals who are blind and low vision "working internally with developers and manufacturers to ensure accessibility is a core design principle."/93 With respect to AI and the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in product and service design and development, AFB recommends "more concerted efforts by developers to hire and employ accessibility teams that include people with disabilities at the startup stage."/94
28. Commenters assert that the involvement of individuals with disabilities in product design and testing can play an important role in improving accessibility outcomes; testing should be conducted in the way users with disabilities use the interfaces and products, or barriers may not be identified./95 Commenters recommend engaging individuals with disabilities throughout the design and development process, including consultation with disability-led organizations and user testing involving people with diverse disabilities, access needs, and experience with technology, to strengthen accessibility across communications technologies./96
IV. ACCESSIBILITY BARRIERS TO NEW COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
29. We tentatively find that accessibility barriers persist with respect to new communications technologies, even as "innovation is expanding both the functionality and usability of accessible communications tools for people with disabilities."/97 CTA identifies a number of new or enhanced, accessibility-focused features for users who are blind or have low vision,/98 with mobility disabilities,/99 cognitive disabilities,/100 speech-related disabilities,/101 and users who are deaf or heard of hearing,/102 while consumer organizations comment that "[e]merging communications technologies present new opportunities as well as potential accessibility challenges."/103
30. Voice assistants powered by AI continue to improve, offering enhanced personalization and automation for users./104 CTIA, for example, emphasizes how these "features promote accessibility for individuals without or with limited vision, hearing, speech, color perception, manual dexterity, reach and strength, or with prosthetic devices."/105 However, as consumer organizations note, AI-enabled communications tools and automated captioning systems may not "consistently produce accurate results," and automated speech recognition systems may not work reliably for people with speech disabilities or other disabilities./106
31. Moreover, new communication platforms that integrate messaging, video, and voice functions may not consistently incorporate accessibility features./107 Commenters thus emphasize that incorporating accessibility considerations during the earliest stages of design and development and integrated throughout the process can help ensure that innovation advances accessibility rather than creating new barriers./108 For example, AAO states that "the Commission should work with industry to explore solutions to ensure these evolving technologies are accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, as well as compatible with peripheral devices and specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by people with disabilities."/109 AAO further encourages exploration of "how advanced technologies, including evolving AI technologies, may create accessibility barriers or may improve communications access for people with disabilities including individuals who are blind or low vision, deaf or hard of hearing, DeafBlind, have an auditory processing disorder, a cortical or cerebral visual impairment, or have both communication and mobility disabilities."/110
V. COMPLAINTS RECEIVED PURSUANT TO SECTION 717
32. Under Section 717, a person may file a formal or informal complaint alleging a violation of section 255, 716, or 718./111 Before a consumer may file an informal complaint, the consumer must first submit a Request for Dispute Assistance (RDA) to the Commission's Disability Rights Office (DRO) for help in resolving the accessibility problem between the consumer and the covered entity./112 If the consumer and the covered entity do not reach a settlement within 30 days after an RDA is filed, the parties may agree to extend the time for resolution in 30-day increments, or the consumer may then, pursuant to Section 717, file an informal complaint with the Enforcement Bureau./113
33. The Commission must forward the informal complaint to the named service provider or equipment manufacturer./114 The service provider or manufacturer then must serve an answer responsive to the complaint and any Commission inquiries and serve the complainant and the Commission with a non-confidential summary of that answer within 20 days of service of the complaint./115 Within 180 days after receipt of the complaint, the Commission must conclude an investigation into the merits of the complaint and issue an order determining whether a violation has occurred./116 It may, in such order, or in a subsequent order, direct the service provider to bring the service or, in the case of a manufacturer, the next generation of the equipment, into compliance with the requirements of section 255, 716, or 718 within a reasonable period of time and take other authorized and appropriate enforcement action./117
A. Number and Nature of Complaints Received
34. From January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2025, consumers filed 40 RDAs alleging violations of section 255, 716, or 718./118 During this two-year period, DRO resolved 39 RDAs through facilitated dialogue and negotiation. One consumer exercised their right to file an informal complaint because the RDA was not resolved.
B. Discussion of RDAs
35. In their RDAs, some consumers stated that their devices and services were inaccessible. Other consumers claimed accessibility barriers to reaching customer service or that customer service was unable to help them locate accessible devices or to fix accessibility problems. These RDAs were brought by people with a wide range of disabilities. For example, we received RDAs from consumers who are blind; consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing, including ASL users; consumers with physical disabilities and limited mobility or manual dexterity, including people with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and Cerebral Palsy; consumers with mental health issues; consumers with cognitive disabilities, including memory, language, and learning skills issues; and consumers with multiple disabilities./119 Consumers self-described themselves as veterans, emergency response providers, older adults, or caretakers of relatives or others with disabilities that impacts covered communications access. Several RDAs successfully addressed complex accessibility barriers for individuals. While some resolutions required extensive negotiations to resolve the dispute, the resulting improvements reached a broad audience. These RDA resolutions included covered entities updating communication software used by a variety of health care organizations, creating new accessibility features, creating new device interfaces, altering equipment, finding and testing new equipment to ensure compatibility with networks, and creating disability-related training.
36. Across the RDAs received, many involved inaccessible multi-factor authentication (MFA) processes that prevented blind, low-vision, aging, people with cognitive issues, or people with limited manual dexterity from accessing their accounts, making necessary changes, paying their bills, or participating in promotional opportunities. Additional barriers included inaccessible devices (e.g., touchscreens that were not usable by blind users or users with limited mobility or dexterity, screen readers that were not accessible or usable by consumers who relied on that technology to access a covered product or service, phones requiring a physical SIM card that the user was not able to successfully install on the basis of their disability). Some consumers stated that they did not have access to visual voicemail. RDAs were also filed based on unreadable billing formats, and customer service or retail staff behaviors that created discriminatory and inaccessible interactions. The RDAs addressed recurrent problems where carriers refused to accept Video Relay Service (VRS) relay calls from deaf users or other legitimate communications from Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) users, alongside call forwarding failures that blocked access to captioning or accessible communication. Other resolved issues involved technical limitations, such as time-dependent controls that created accessibility barriers, and the removal of essential accessibility features.
37. RDAs were also received concerning inaccessible or unusable videoconferencing platforms. The issues included a number of features, including barriers to effective screen sharing and pinning sign language users, a lack of interoperability with VRS, the lack of user-activated captions, and limitations to multi-pinning functionality, particularly the capability to enable that feature without needing host action and approval.
C. Actions Taken to Resolve RDAs
38. Through collaboration between the DRO, consumers, and service providers, nearly all RDAs were successfully resolved. Manufacturers and service providers implemented various accessibility improvements in response to consumer concerns and needs. Examples included providing accessible phones with preinstalled SIM cards, or devices with certain voice dialing or call notes functionalities. Several companies added or restored alternative identity and security verification methods. Multiple carriers affirmed their commitment to accept VRS calls and other TRS calls and ensure quality staff training. Some carriers worked to restore visual voicemail or provide accessible alternatives. Some companies found workarounds such as processing device exchanges by mail. Many companies committed to continued development of longer-term systemic accessibility improvements.
D. Actions Taken to Resolve Informal Complaints
39. One RDA did not reach a resolution. In that RDA, a consumer who is legally blind alleged that the mobile phone provider failed to provide accessible and usable wireless service, by failing to provide bills in the requested large font format. After the consumer was unable to reach a resolution with the company, the consumer filed an informal complaint with the Commission's Enforcement Bureau (EB).
E. Time Used to Resolve RDAs and the Informal Complaints
40. Of the RDAs that were filed during the reporting period, seven (18%) were completed within thirty days, ten (25%) were completed between thirty one and sixty days, three (8%) were completed within sixty one and ninety days, nine (23%) were completed within ninety one and 180 days, and eleven (28%) were completed after one hundred and eighty days. One informal complaint was filed.
F. Actions for Mandamus and Appeals Filed
41. There were no actions for mandamus or appeals filed with respect to complaints during the period covered by this Report.
VI. EFFECT OF SECTION 717'S RECORDKEEPING AND ENFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
42. Section 717(b)(1)(G) requires the Commission to provide an assessment of the effect of the requirements of section 717 on the development and deployment of new communications technologies./120 We tentatively find that there has been no effect on the development and deployment of new communications technologies./121
VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
43. Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a "permit-butdisclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./122 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.
44. Filing Requirements. Interested parties may file comments on or before the date indicated on the first page of this document./123 Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS)./124 All comments should refer to CG Docket No. 10-213. Please title comments responsive to this Notice as "Public Notice Comments - 2026 CVAA Biennial Report Tentative Findings."
* 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.
45. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 202-418-0530 (voice), or 844-432-2275 (videophone).
46. Additional Information. For further information regarding this Notice, please contact Molly Burgdorf, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 4182173 or Molly.Burgdorf@fcc.gov or Stephen Wang, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-1634 or by e-mail at Stephen.Wang@fcc.gov. Individuals who use videophones and are fluent in American Sign Language may call the FCC's ASL Consumer Support Line at 844-432-2275 (videophone).
* * *
Original text plus footnotes here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-650A1.pdf
* * *
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) seeks comment on tentative findings on the accessibility and usability of telecommunications and advanced communications services (ACS) and equipment in connection with the Biennial Report to Congress (Biennial Report) required by section 717(b)(1) of the Twenty-First Century ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 2 -- The Federal Communications Commission Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau issued the following public notice (CG Docket No. 10-213): * * * I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) seeks comment on tentative findings on the accessibility and usability of telecommunications and advanced communications services (ACS) and equipment in connection with the Biennial Report to Congress (Biennial Report) required by section 717(b)(1) of the Twenty-First CenturyCommunications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA)./1 The FCC must submit final findings to Congress in its Biennial Report by October 8, 2026./2
2. The 2026 CVAA Biennial Report will provide an assessment of industry compliance with sections 255, 716, and 718 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), which require that telecommunications and advanced communications services and equipment be accessible and usable by people with disabilities, and that mobile phone browsers be accessible and usable by people who are blind or visually impaired./3 The Biennial Report will also address the extent to which accessibility barriers still exist with respect to new communications technologies,/4 and the effect of the accessibility-related recordkeeping and enforcement provisions of section 717 on the development and deployment of such new technologies./5 The Biennial Report will provide information about the number of, nature of, and actions taken to resolve complaints alleging violations of sections 255, 716, or 718 for the period January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2025 -- including the length of time that the Commission took to resolve such complaints, and the number, status, nature, and outcome of any actions for mandamus filed, and of any appeals filed pertaining to such complaints./6
3. On February 26, 2026, the Bureau issued a Public Notice inviting comment on these matters./7 Comments were received from Accessibility Advocacy Organizations (AAO),/8 the American Council of the Blind (ACB), the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB), the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), CTIA - The Wireless Association (CTIA), Disability Belongs, Wired Broadband, Inc. (WBI), and one individual commenter./9
4. In this Public Notice, we provide our tentative findings on the accessibility of services and equipment under sections 255, 716, and 718 based on those comments filed in response to the 2026 CVAA Assessment Public Notice./10 We also present our tentative findings regarding any accessibility barriers to new communications technologies,/11 complaints received pursuant to section 717,/12 and the effect of the accessibility-related recordkeeping and enforcement provisions of section 717 on the development and deployment of such new technologies./13 In preparation for the 2026 CVAA Biennial Report to Congress, we invite further comment on whether these tentative findings accurately represent the current state of accessibility and usability of telecommunications and advanced communications services and equipment, and the accessibility and usability of Internet browsers on mobile phones for people who are blind or low vision.
II. APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
5. The purpose of the CVAA is "to help ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to fully utilize communications services and equipment and better access video programming."/14 To that end, the CVAA requires that the Commission report on industry compliance with the following accessibility-related provisions of the Act./15
6. Section 255. Section 255 requires providers of telecommunications services and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment (CPE) to ensure that their services and equipment are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable./16 When these requirements are not readily achievable, covered entities must ensure that their services and equipment are compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized CPE commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, if readily achievable./17 Pursuant to the Commission's rules, section 255's accessibility obligations extend to interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers and equipment manufacturers./18
7. Section 716. Section 716 requires providers of ACS and manufacturers of equipment used for ACS to ensure that their services and equipment are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, unless doing so is not achievable (defined as "with reasonable effort or expense")./19 "Advanced communications services" include: (1) interconnected VoIP service; (2) non-interconnected VoIP service; (3) electronic messaging service; (4) interoperable video conferencing service; and (5) any audio or video communications services used by inmates for the purposes of communicating with individuals outside the correctional institution where the inmate is held./20 In contrast to interconnected VoIP services, which enable people to make and receive calls to and from the public switched telephone network (PSTN), non-interconnected VoIP includes services that enable real-time voice communications either to or from the PSTN (but not both) or which neither begin nor end on the PSTN./21 Electronic messaging services include services such as e-mail, short message service (SMS) text messaging, and instant messaging, which enable real-time or near real-time text messages between individuals over communications networks./22 Interoperable video conferencing services provide real-time video communications, including audio, to enable users to share information./23
8. The accessibility requirements for section 716 may be satisfied by: (1) building accessibility into the service or equipment/24 or (2) using third-party applications, peripheral devices, software, hardware, or CPE that is available to consumers at nominal cost and that individuals with disabilities can access./25 When ensuring accessibility through either of those options is not achievable, covered entities must ensure that their services and equipment are compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized CPE commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, unless that is not achievable./26
9. Section 718. Section 718 requires mobile phone service providers and manufacturers to make Internet browsers built into mobile phones accessible to and usable by people who are blind or have a visual impairment, unless doing so is not achievable./27 This requirement may be satisfied with or without the use of third-party applications, peripheral devices, software, hardware, or CPE that is available to consumers at nominal cost and that individuals with disabilities can access./28
III. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 255, 716, AND 718
A. Accessibility
10. During the two years since the Commission's last Biennial Report, we tentatively find that accessibility of telecommunications and advanced communications services and equipment continues to improve;/29 however, some accessibility gaps persist due in part to technological and market barriers./30 The Commission remains committed to ensuring that relevant technologies are accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, and that people with disabilities are "able to fully utilize communications services and equipment and better access video programming."/31 We discuss below the current state of accessibility of telecommunications and advanced communications services and equipment as presented by parties responding to the 2026 CVAA Assessment Public Notice./32
11. The comments received continue to reflect the proliferation of new and enhanced features that make more devices and features accessible to a wider community of people with disabilities, while affordability and innovation continue to advance. Indeed, CTA underscores that "the overall trajectory of accessibility innovation remains strong."/33
12. CTIA highlights advances in voice commands, AI-driven assistive technologies, visual capabilities, and other accessibility features built into smartphones, as well as initiatives like "bring your own device" programs, which enable a consumer with disabilities to choose a device that best meets their accessibility needs./34 Overall, CTIA states that "the flexible directives in the CVAA have helped make advanced communications services and products more inclusive and accessible to people with disabilities."/35
13. Still, some comments highlight continuing challenges to accessibility. For example, Disability Belongs, a consumer organization, notes that, "[w]hile many communications technologies include accessibility features, individuals with disabilities continue to encounter barriers when using these tools in everyday settings."/36 They further elaborate about remaining challenges, including "messaging and communications platforms that do not consistently integrate with screen readers or other assistive technologies"; "video conferencing tools where accessibility features such as captioning, keyboard navigation, or screen reader compatibility are inconsistent across platforms or devices"; and "communication features embedded within multi-purpose devices that are technically accessible but difficult for users to locate or activate."/37 Below, we highlight some areas of significant improvements in the accessibility of covered products and services, and discuss some remaining accessibility gaps.
14. Mobile Phones. A wide range of accessibility improvements have become available for mobile phone operating systems since the last Biennial Report,/38 although not all consumers with disabilities may benefit from those accessibility improvements. For example, CTIA notes improvements to keyboard, braille, and other text-input methods and a braille notetaking system; one operating system's updated "dark theme," which produces a more comfortable viewing experience, particularly for people with low vision or light sensitivity; a particular feature that allows users with limited mobility and an external mouse device to specify an amount of time before a cursor automatically performs a click; a captioning feature that "go[es] beyond communicating what someone say[s], to communicate things like tone, volume, environmental cues, and human noises"; a separate captioning feature with braille display integration; better natural language voice control for smartphone-vehicle integration systems and improved voice control options; features enabling wearable devices to display real-time transcriptions and enabling smartphones to function as microphones sending audio to hearing aids; functionality notifying deaf and hard of hearing users to be notified when their name is called; new accessibility options designed for users with dyslexia or low vision; and a feature allowing users to temporarily share accessibility settings when using a different device./39 However, while recognizing the growth of accessibility features on some smartphones in the last two years, including new functionalities for braille displays,/40 AFB emphasizes that phone accessibility varies depending on the price range of the smartphones./41 Higherend smartphones tend to be the most accessible, while at the other end of the spectrum, feature phones and landline telephones typically lack the same accessibility./42
15. Videoconferencing. Regarding videoconferencing, the use of interoperable video conferencing services (IVCS) has proliferated in recent years. The Commission affirmed in 2023 that IVCS are advanced communication services covered under the CVAA./43 The FCC has established that IVCS is "a modern communications tool that is critical in connecting for work, education, health, and other fundamental life activities," and continues to take steps to ensure that "people with disabilities are able to access and use video conferencing."/44
16. Commenters identified a number of ongoing challenges to accessibility of videoconferencing platforms, while acknowledging that it has offered a "new and exciting form of communication technology."/45 In its comments, AAO identifies a number of remaining challenges to accessible videoconferencing, including the lack of voice recognition functionality that can generate understandable speech when used by people with speech disabilities, and the need for a simplified user interface./46 AAO further highlights a need for visual interpretation services (using human assistance or automation to generate real-time descriptions of visual information, including images and text), and screen-reader capability for all user interface elements and visual information, including presentations, videos, and interactive documents shared during interoperable video conferencing calls for people who are blind and low vision./47 Moreover, ACB reports, the content presented using the screen-sharing function is often inaccessible for those who use screen-reading software./48 Likewise, AFB explains that, while the basic screen reader accessibility of many video conferencing services is quickly improving, "[p]eople who are blind still lack access to many features of video conferencing" and that "[i]t is difficult or impossible to access information that is shared visually even though a few platforms have demonstrated that providing such access is feasible."/49 AFB also notes problems with text on a shared screen being "not perceivable by the screen reader, and platforms may or may not offer a way to magnify the text for users with low vision."/50 Finally, AFB suggests that there is a need for the capability to use side channels via other applications to access visual interpretation services, to provide descriptions of visual content that are not otherwise accessible, as well as "the option to easily use refreshable braille displays across platforms," which "would greatly assist people who are deafblind as well as people who are hearing and blind."/51
17. AAO echoes the need for refreshable braille displays and other devices used for the tactile conveyance of interface elements and visual information to be fully compatible with presentations, videos, and interactive documents shared during interoperable video conferencing calls, to improve accessibility for some people who are blind or low vision./52 Disability Belongs similarly notes that there are accessibility limitations within video conferencing platforms that affect navigation, caption placement, or compatibility with assistive technologies./53 AAO also identifies an ongoing need to incorporate hands-free technologies./54 Another commenter recommends the FCC should "[e]nsure all video conferencing platforms have a built-in feature to allow a user to bring in an interpreter for meetings as a native feature./55
18. Communication in Video Games. With respect to accessibility of video game communications, and building on a Disability Advisory Committee October 2024 report on the accessibility of communications in video games,/56 AFB comments that progress continues to be made, especially for low vision users./57 However, "many games still lack functional accessibility for blind and low vision gamers who want to use the communications features, and those that have accessibility features may not implement the full suite of accessibility that would make the user interface more usable to all blind and low vision gamers."/58 AFB further notes that "[a]ccessible user interfaces for communication should be expected even if game developers do not build fully accessible gameplay."/59
19. Emergency Services. Accessible communication products and services have made it easier for people with disabilities to contact emergency services and receive critical alerts,/60 though specific improvements are recommended by consumer organizations./61 AAO notes the need to increase public safety answering points capable of receiving real-time-text (RTT)-to-911, and also highlights that more work is needed to achieve full and equal 911 access for individuals whose primary language is American Sign Language (ASL)./62 AAO emphasizes the need for direct video calling (DVC), i.e., video teleconferencing that allows conversations to occur between two callers using ASL without the need for translation services, as the best means of achieving effective and direct communication for calls made to first responders in 911 dispatch centers, firefighters, law enforcement officers, self-help and crisis hotlines that offer services such as mental health counseling and suicide prevention, and other municipally supported services that address urgent and emergency situations./63 AAO suggests that for communities with high densities of deaf ASL users, it may work best to enable ASL users to communicate directly with DVC call handlers stationed in their local PSAPs, and for less ASL-dense communities, regional or national DVC centers might provide the best solution for DVC-to-911 calls./64
20. One Number Solution. Consumer organizations continue to highlight the importance of the "one number solution," particularly for individuals who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities./65 Consumer organization commenters explain that these users often have many different telephone numbers to receive direct voice calls, texts, and relay calls, which can create many challenges for providing the best contact number./66 Further, consumer organizations comment that "[b]y developing and implementing a one number solution, the FCC would reduce fragmentation, streamline communications, and advance more equitable and effective access to these services."/67
21. Other Technologies. Consumer organization commenters also identify additional accessibility barriers, including, for example, communication features embedded within social media platforms that present challenges for screen reader users, and remaining accessibility barriers in some customer service systems that rely on automated chat interfaces or phone systems, which may not be fully accessible./68
B. Usability
22. Sections 255, 716 and 718 also require that covered services and equipment are "usable" by people with disabilities./69 A product or service is "usable" if companies provide people with disabilities with information on how to use services, such as documentation for the product or service, including instructions, product or service information (including accessible feature information), customer support, and technical support./70 We tentatively find that, while usability continues to improve for some covered services and equipment, there is still room for improvement.
23. Full Functionality and Documentation for Covered Products. Overall, industry commenters share that individuals with disabilities have access to the full functionality and documentation for covered products as required,/71 though some consumer organizations express that information and technical support are inconsistent./72 CTIA, for example, states that its members provide "information about accessible features and products to consumers in a variety of formats," as well as "dedicated support lines" for consumers that live with disabilities, and notes its members' "extensive user guides" that, among other features, "continue to make smartphones accessible and usable for individuals with disabilities."/73 Consumer organization commenters, however, state that individuals with disabilities may encounter challenges such as user manuals or documentation that are not available in accessible formats; customer service channels that are not compatible with assistive technologies; and limited training among customer support staff regarding accessibility features./74 Consumer organization commenters also cite other barriers that continue to affect the usability of communications technologies; for example, automated captioning systems may produce inaccurate captions, particularly for individuals with speech disabilities or speakers with accents./75
24. Videoconferencing. With respect to usability and videoconferencing, AAO identifies an ongoing need for instructional materials for activating IVCS in plain and simple language and iconography. Consumer organization commenters also highlight that, even where captions are available, some users struggle to locate and activate captioning, and recommend "consistent and clear information" about how to activate them and control display features./76 ACB also notes that for users who are blind or have low vision, "accessing the different functions within a platform using keyboard-only navigation can be limiting."/77
25. Direct Video Calling. Regarding DVC, AAO states that adoption of DVC is critical to usability for ASL users, in both emergency call centers and other contexts./78 AAO explains that "[t]he best way to achieve usability for ASL users is through DVC, IP-based telephone customer support using one-on-one video communication that enables a real-time conversation to occur directly between an ASL user and a call center representative who is also fluent in sign language and trained in the subject at issue."/79 AAO recommends the adoption of DVC "to improve usability for telecommunications and advanced communication services."/80
26. Internet Browsers Built in Mobile Phones. Accessibility features for web browsers built into mobile phones continue to improve for users who are blind or low vision,/81 though greater standardization across devices and operating systems may be beneficial for consumers./82 CTIA highlights the accessibility features built into common web browsers, and notes that "manufacturers also provide comprehensive user guides detailing how to access accessibility features that work in the built-in browsers./83 Still, other commenters explain that some devices and internet browsers are accessible and usable for blind and low vision consumers, while others are not./84 In particular, commenters describe barriers like inconsistent compatibility between mobile browsers and screen readers; variations in accessibility across different devices, operating systems, and price points; and difficulty identifying devices that provide robust accessibility features when purchasing mobile phones./85 Ultimately, these commenters recommend greater transparency for accessibility features and more consistent accessibility across devices./86
C. Inclusion of People with Disabilities in Product and Service Design and
Development
27. We tentatively find that covered entities have continued to include people with disabilities in product and service design and development. CTIA describes the ongoing work of the wireless industry to "conduct outreach and regularly collaborate with the accessibility community."/87 CTA and CTIA explain that industry has engaged consumers in product development and testing,/88 advisory groups,/89 conferences,/90 and product design and demonstrations./91 ACB confirms that major telecommunication companies "continue to do a good job seeking input from the blind and low vision community while seeking to make their products fully accessible."/92 At the same time, ACB recommends having more individuals who are blind and low vision "working internally with developers and manufacturers to ensure accessibility is a core design principle."/93 With respect to AI and the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in product and service design and development, AFB recommends "more concerted efforts by developers to hire and employ accessibility teams that include people with disabilities at the startup stage."/94
28. Commenters assert that the involvement of individuals with disabilities in product design and testing can play an important role in improving accessibility outcomes; testing should be conducted in the way users with disabilities use the interfaces and products, or barriers may not be identified./95 Commenters recommend engaging individuals with disabilities throughout the design and development process, including consultation with disability-led organizations and user testing involving people with diverse disabilities, access needs, and experience with technology, to strengthen accessibility across communications technologies./96
IV. ACCESSIBILITY BARRIERS TO NEW COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
29. We tentatively find that accessibility barriers persist with respect to new communications technologies, even as "innovation is expanding both the functionality and usability of accessible communications tools for people with disabilities."/97 CTA identifies a number of new or enhanced, accessibility-focused features for users who are blind or have low vision,/98 with mobility disabilities,/99 cognitive disabilities,/100 speech-related disabilities,/101 and users who are deaf or heard of hearing,/102 while consumer organizations comment that "[e]merging communications technologies present new opportunities as well as potential accessibility challenges."/103
30. Voice assistants powered by AI continue to improve, offering enhanced personalization and automation for users./104 CTIA, for example, emphasizes how these "features promote accessibility for individuals without or with limited vision, hearing, speech, color perception, manual dexterity, reach and strength, or with prosthetic devices."/105 However, as consumer organizations note, AI-enabled communications tools and automated captioning systems may not "consistently produce accurate results," and automated speech recognition systems may not work reliably for people with speech disabilities or other disabilities./106
31. Moreover, new communication platforms that integrate messaging, video, and voice functions may not consistently incorporate accessibility features./107 Commenters thus emphasize that incorporating accessibility considerations during the earliest stages of design and development and integrated throughout the process can help ensure that innovation advances accessibility rather than creating new barriers./108 For example, AAO states that "the Commission should work with industry to explore solutions to ensure these evolving technologies are accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, as well as compatible with peripheral devices and specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by people with disabilities."/109 AAO further encourages exploration of "how advanced technologies, including evolving AI technologies, may create accessibility barriers or may improve communications access for people with disabilities including individuals who are blind or low vision, deaf or hard of hearing, DeafBlind, have an auditory processing disorder, a cortical or cerebral visual impairment, or have both communication and mobility disabilities."/110
V. COMPLAINTS RECEIVED PURSUANT TO SECTION 717
32. Under Section 717, a person may file a formal or informal complaint alleging a violation of section 255, 716, or 718./111 Before a consumer may file an informal complaint, the consumer must first submit a Request for Dispute Assistance (RDA) to the Commission's Disability Rights Office (DRO) for help in resolving the accessibility problem between the consumer and the covered entity./112 If the consumer and the covered entity do not reach a settlement within 30 days after an RDA is filed, the parties may agree to extend the time for resolution in 30-day increments, or the consumer may then, pursuant to Section 717, file an informal complaint with the Enforcement Bureau./113
33. The Commission must forward the informal complaint to the named service provider or equipment manufacturer./114 The service provider or manufacturer then must serve an answer responsive to the complaint and any Commission inquiries and serve the complainant and the Commission with a non-confidential summary of that answer within 20 days of service of the complaint./115 Within 180 days after receipt of the complaint, the Commission must conclude an investigation into the merits of the complaint and issue an order determining whether a violation has occurred./116 It may, in such order, or in a subsequent order, direct the service provider to bring the service or, in the case of a manufacturer, the next generation of the equipment, into compliance with the requirements of section 255, 716, or 718 within a reasonable period of time and take other authorized and appropriate enforcement action./117
A. Number and Nature of Complaints Received
34. From January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2025, consumers filed 40 RDAs alleging violations of section 255, 716, or 718./118 During this two-year period, DRO resolved 39 RDAs through facilitated dialogue and negotiation. One consumer exercised their right to file an informal complaint because the RDA was not resolved.
B. Discussion of RDAs
35. In their RDAs, some consumers stated that their devices and services were inaccessible. Other consumers claimed accessibility barriers to reaching customer service or that customer service was unable to help them locate accessible devices or to fix accessibility problems. These RDAs were brought by people with a wide range of disabilities. For example, we received RDAs from consumers who are blind; consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing, including ASL users; consumers with physical disabilities and limited mobility or manual dexterity, including people with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and Cerebral Palsy; consumers with mental health issues; consumers with cognitive disabilities, including memory, language, and learning skills issues; and consumers with multiple disabilities./119 Consumers self-described themselves as veterans, emergency response providers, older adults, or caretakers of relatives or others with disabilities that impacts covered communications access. Several RDAs successfully addressed complex accessibility barriers for individuals. While some resolutions required extensive negotiations to resolve the dispute, the resulting improvements reached a broad audience. These RDA resolutions included covered entities updating communication software used by a variety of health care organizations, creating new accessibility features, creating new device interfaces, altering equipment, finding and testing new equipment to ensure compatibility with networks, and creating disability-related training.
36. Across the RDAs received, many involved inaccessible multi-factor authentication (MFA) processes that prevented blind, low-vision, aging, people with cognitive issues, or people with limited manual dexterity from accessing their accounts, making necessary changes, paying their bills, or participating in promotional opportunities. Additional barriers included inaccessible devices (e.g., touchscreens that were not usable by blind users or users with limited mobility or dexterity, screen readers that were not accessible or usable by consumers who relied on that technology to access a covered product or service, phones requiring a physical SIM card that the user was not able to successfully install on the basis of their disability). Some consumers stated that they did not have access to visual voicemail. RDAs were also filed based on unreadable billing formats, and customer service or retail staff behaviors that created discriminatory and inaccessible interactions. The RDAs addressed recurrent problems where carriers refused to accept Video Relay Service (VRS) relay calls from deaf users or other legitimate communications from Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) users, alongside call forwarding failures that blocked access to captioning or accessible communication. Other resolved issues involved technical limitations, such as time-dependent controls that created accessibility barriers, and the removal of essential accessibility features.
37. RDAs were also received concerning inaccessible or unusable videoconferencing platforms. The issues included a number of features, including barriers to effective screen sharing and pinning sign language users, a lack of interoperability with VRS, the lack of user-activated captions, and limitations to multi-pinning functionality, particularly the capability to enable that feature without needing host action and approval.
C. Actions Taken to Resolve RDAs
38. Through collaboration between the DRO, consumers, and service providers, nearly all RDAs were successfully resolved. Manufacturers and service providers implemented various accessibility improvements in response to consumer concerns and needs. Examples included providing accessible phones with preinstalled SIM cards, or devices with certain voice dialing or call notes functionalities. Several companies added or restored alternative identity and security verification methods. Multiple carriers affirmed their commitment to accept VRS calls and other TRS calls and ensure quality staff training. Some carriers worked to restore visual voicemail or provide accessible alternatives. Some companies found workarounds such as processing device exchanges by mail. Many companies committed to continued development of longer-term systemic accessibility improvements.
D. Actions Taken to Resolve Informal Complaints
39. One RDA did not reach a resolution. In that RDA, a consumer who is legally blind alleged that the mobile phone provider failed to provide accessible and usable wireless service, by failing to provide bills in the requested large font format. After the consumer was unable to reach a resolution with the company, the consumer filed an informal complaint with the Commission's Enforcement Bureau (EB).
E. Time Used to Resolve RDAs and the Informal Complaints
40. Of the RDAs that were filed during the reporting period, seven (18%) were completed within thirty days, ten (25%) were completed between thirty one and sixty days, three (8%) were completed within sixty one and ninety days, nine (23%) were completed within ninety one and 180 days, and eleven (28%) were completed after one hundred and eighty days. One informal complaint was filed.
F. Actions for Mandamus and Appeals Filed
41. There were no actions for mandamus or appeals filed with respect to complaints during the period covered by this Report.
VI. EFFECT OF SECTION 717'S RECORDKEEPING AND ENFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
42. Section 717(b)(1)(G) requires the Commission to provide an assessment of the effect of the requirements of section 717 on the development and deployment of new communications technologies./120 We tentatively find that there has been no effect on the development and deployment of new communications technologies./121
VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
43. Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a "permit-butdisclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./122 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.
44. Filing Requirements. Interested parties may file comments on or before the date indicated on the first page of this document./123 Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS)./124 All comments should refer to CG Docket No. 10-213. Please title comments responsive to this Notice as "Public Notice Comments - 2026 CVAA Biennial Report Tentative Findings."
* 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.
45. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 202-418-0530 (voice), or 844-432-2275 (videophone).
46. Additional Information. For further information regarding this Notice, please contact Molly Burgdorf, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 4182173 or Molly.Burgdorf@fcc.gov or Stephen Wang, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-1634 or by e-mail at Stephen.Wang@fcc.gov. Individuals who use videophones and are fluent in American Sign Language may call the FCC's ASL Consumer Support Line at 844-432-2275 (videophone).
* * *
Original text plus footnotes here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-650A1.pdf
FCC Chairman Carr Proposes to Strengthen Rules Governing Dangerous Gear
WASHINGTON, July 2 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release on July 1, 2026:
* * *
Chairman Carr Proposes to Strengthen Rules Governing Dangerous Gear
Rules Seek to Close Covered List Loopholes and Modernize FCC Equipment Authorization
-
Today, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr proposed new rules that would strengthen the FCC's oversight of electronic devices and protect Americans against insecure gear. While the FCC's Covered List has long prohibited finished products produced by entities that pose a national security risk, this new decision would extend those ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 2 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release on July 1, 2026: * * * Chairman Carr Proposes to Strengthen Rules Governing Dangerous Gear Rules Seek to Close Covered List Loopholes and Modernize FCC Equipment Authorization - Today, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr proposed new rules that would strengthen the FCC's oversight of electronic devices and protect Americans against insecure gear. While the FCC's Covered List has long prohibited finished products produced by entities that pose a national security risk, this new decision would extend thoseprohibitions to component parts. The decision would also require e-commerce platforms to display FCC IDs when marketing or selling FCC-certified devices. In an accompanying Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), proposed rules would seek comment on modernizing the FCC's equipment authorization rules, particularly in light of recent developments involving the Covered List.
Chairman Carr issued the following statement:
"The FCC is always working to safeguard our country's national security interest. The FCC's implementation of the Covered List--a product of congressional and executive branch national security expertise--plays a vital role in protecting Americans from insecure devices that could threaten national security and Americans' safety. This new decision represents an important step for the FCC to continue its efforts to protect America against dangerous equipment."
Additional Background Information:
The Order circulated to the FCC Commissioners yesterday closes the component part loophole for covered equipment. Currently, even if a device produced by a Covered List entity is prohibited from being authorized for the U.S. market, the same device produced by someone else but incorporating a Covered List entity-produced component part faces no restrictions. This is true even if the device incorporates components that are technically capable of compromising the whole device. The Commission first proposed closing this loophole in 2021, and we took an initial step last October when we addressed devices containing modular transmitters produced by Covered List entities. Today, we close that loophole for all logic-bearing hardware components, omitting only "dumb" components like screws and nails.
The decision also bolsters oversight of the e-commerce platforms. Last year, the Commission--working in close partnership with leading e-commerce platforms--launched Operation Clean Carts, an effort to rid these sites of unauthorized, potentially dangerous equipment. This has resulted in over 4 million devices removed from platforms. Today, Chairman Carr announced rules that would build on this effort. The Order, if adopted by the full Commission at the July 22 Open Meeting, would clarify that e-commerce platforms must comply with FCC rules even if marketing or selling third party products and require e-commerce platforms to list FCC IDs for FCC-certified devices to permit greater consumer awareness of the devices they are purchasing and FCC oversight.
The FNPRM proposes a wide range of measures to modernize FCC equipment authorization rules. Recognizing that the Covered List has recently evolved to include equipment categorized by place-of-production, the proposed rules would bifurcate the Covered List into producer/provider-based entries and production location-based entries--notably Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS), UAS critical components, and consumer routers. Among other proposals, the FNPRM would seek to expand supply chain disclosures for such equipment at the application stage, while also permitting certain modifications to ensure installed equipment continues to get software and hardware updates. The FNPRM also proposes strengthening oversight of the self-attestation Supplier's Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) process and closing loopholes in our importation and marketing rules.
The public draft of the proposed Third Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be available this afternoon at: https://www.fcc.gov/July2026.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-422722A1.pdf
* * *
Chairman Carr Proposes to Strengthen Rules Governing Dangerous Gear
Rules Seek to Close Covered List Loopholes and Modernize FCC Equipment Authorization
-
Today, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr proposed new rules that would strengthen the FCC's oversight of electronic devices and protect Americans against insecure gear. While the FCC's Covered List has long prohibited finished products produced by entities that pose a national security risk, this new decision would extend those ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 2 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release on July 1, 2026: * * * Chairman Carr Proposes to Strengthen Rules Governing Dangerous Gear Rules Seek to Close Covered List Loopholes and Modernize FCC Equipment Authorization - Today, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr proposed new rules that would strengthen the FCC's oversight of electronic devices and protect Americans against insecure gear. While the FCC's Covered List has long prohibited finished products produced by entities that pose a national security risk, this new decision would extend thoseprohibitions to component parts. The decision would also require e-commerce platforms to display FCC IDs when marketing or selling FCC-certified devices. In an accompanying Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), proposed rules would seek comment on modernizing the FCC's equipment authorization rules, particularly in light of recent developments involving the Covered List.
Chairman Carr issued the following statement:
"The FCC is always working to safeguard our country's national security interest. The FCC's implementation of the Covered List--a product of congressional and executive branch national security expertise--plays a vital role in protecting Americans from insecure devices that could threaten national security and Americans' safety. This new decision represents an important step for the FCC to continue its efforts to protect America against dangerous equipment."
Additional Background Information:
The Order circulated to the FCC Commissioners yesterday closes the component part loophole for covered equipment. Currently, even if a device produced by a Covered List entity is prohibited from being authorized for the U.S. market, the same device produced by someone else but incorporating a Covered List entity-produced component part faces no restrictions. This is true even if the device incorporates components that are technically capable of compromising the whole device. The Commission first proposed closing this loophole in 2021, and we took an initial step last October when we addressed devices containing modular transmitters produced by Covered List entities. Today, we close that loophole for all logic-bearing hardware components, omitting only "dumb" components like screws and nails.
The decision also bolsters oversight of the e-commerce platforms. Last year, the Commission--working in close partnership with leading e-commerce platforms--launched Operation Clean Carts, an effort to rid these sites of unauthorized, potentially dangerous equipment. This has resulted in over 4 million devices removed from platforms. Today, Chairman Carr announced rules that would build on this effort. The Order, if adopted by the full Commission at the July 22 Open Meeting, would clarify that e-commerce platforms must comply with FCC rules even if marketing or selling third party products and require e-commerce platforms to list FCC IDs for FCC-certified devices to permit greater consumer awareness of the devices they are purchasing and FCC oversight.
The FNPRM proposes a wide range of measures to modernize FCC equipment authorization rules. Recognizing that the Covered List has recently evolved to include equipment categorized by place-of-production, the proposed rules would bifurcate the Covered List into producer/provider-based entries and production location-based entries--notably Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS), UAS critical components, and consumer routers. Among other proposals, the FNPRM would seek to expand supply chain disclosures for such equipment at the application stage, while also permitting certain modifications to ensure installed equipment continues to get software and hardware updates. The FNPRM also proposes strengthening oversight of the self-attestation Supplier's Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) process and closing loopholes in our importation and marketing rules.
The public draft of the proposed Third Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be available this afternoon at: https://www.fcc.gov/July2026.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-422722A1.pdf