Emergency services: State 911 Advisory Board.

The State 911 Advisory and Oversight Board is renamed back to the State 911 Advisory Board. Its direct oversight authority over the California 911 Emergency Communications Office (formerly in Section 53115.2(d)) is removed entirely. The board now only advises and may make formal recommendations, while the Department of Technology retains oversight power under Section 53115.2.1.

The board's role in Section 53115.2(a) is expanded from simply 'advise' to 'advise and may make formal recommendations to the office,' giving it a slightly more active advisory function even without oversight power.

A new reporting requirement (Section 53115.4(b)(3)) mandates that quarterly reports include recommendations made by the State 911 Advisory Board, actions taken in response, and any decisions that contradict those recommendations along with justification for the contradiction.

All three quarterly report deadlines are extended by one month: first report moved from September 1, 2026 to October 1, 2026; second from December 1, 2026 to January 1, 2027; third from March 1, 2027 to April 1, 2027.

Various minor grammatical and formatting corrections throughout, including fixing possessive forms (office's to the office's), clarifying pronoun references, and renumbering sections to eliminate duplicate section numbers present in the prior version.

New Section 53115.2.1 gives the Department of Technology oversight power over the California 911 Emergency Communications Office on nine subjects: policies and procedures, technical and operational standards, training standards, budget and funding decisions, proposed projects and studies, Enhanced 911 Phase II rollout, changes to approved plans, evaluating transition plans, and outcomes of quarterly reports. This creates a parallel oversight channel alongside the existing State 911 Advisory and Oversight Board.

The legislative digest now includes background on the Department of Technology's existing role in conducting a comprehensive inventory of automated decision systems across state agencies, providing context for why the department is being given 911 oversight authority.

New subsection (d) in Section 53115.2 requires the Office of Emergency Services to timely share all information relevant to items pending before the board and prior to implementation of plans, so the board can provide actionable feedback. This is a new affirmative duty on CalOES.

The bill now covers emergency services governance in addition to wireless network resiliency. It amends and adds sections to the Government Code (53115.1, 53115.2, 53115.4, 53115.5) to restructure the state's 911 oversight framework.

The State 911 Advisory Board is renamed the State 911 Advisory and Oversight Board. Membership is revised: a representative from the Department of Technology is added, and the Chief of the Public Safety Communications Division changes from chair to nonvoting member. Term limits of two consecutive two-year terms are imposed on members.

The board is granted oversight authority over the California 911 Emergency Communications Office, including power over policies, technical standards, training standards, budget decisions, and project approvals. The board may also conduct hearings to resolve conflicts between local agencies and the office, with a 30-day meeting deadline and 90-day recommendation deadline.

The California State Auditor is required to conduct an audit of Next Generation 911 implementation by CalOES, commencing no later than September 1, 2026. The audit covers 16 specific areas including vendor vetting processes, lifecycle costs, cybersecurity, regional vs. statewide model comparison, and the advisory board's role in past decisions.

CalOES must submit quarterly reports to the Legislature on Next Generation 911 development starting September 1, 2026, then December 1, 2026, and March 1, 2027. Reports must document progress, challenges, proposed solutions, costs, and timeline impacts.

The board is authorized to hire independent technical experts for advisory or oversight purposes, with a two-year conflict-of-interest restriction barring anyone who worked for CalOES or a current/former vendor.

In the wireless network resiliency provisions, 'facility network' was changed to 'network' and 'high fire-threat' was changed to 'high fire threat' (hyphen removed). These are minor terminology cleanups with no substantive policy effect.

The fiscal note line for 'State-mandated local program' was changed from 'yes' to 'yes no,' suggesting the designation is being reconsidered or corrected in this amendment.

Entire Article 5 of the Public Utilities Code (Sections 2900-2900.5) was deleted. This article would have required wireless service providers in high fire or earthquake threat districts to maintain minimum service levels (including 911 access, emergency alerts, and basic internet), prepare written network resiliency plans with backup energy for 72 hours, network redundancy, physical hardening, and earthquake mitigation measures, and submit those plans to the PUC by April 1, 2027.

New Section 53115.4(d) prohibits CalOES from awarding a contract or issuing a request for proposal for a Next Generation 911 system until two conditions are met: the State Auditor's audit under Section 53115.5 is completed, and CalOES submits a report to the Legislature describing actions taken to implement the audit findings.

Two new items added to the State Auditor's audit scope in Section 53115.5(b): item (17) requires evaluation of benefits and detriments of using a single permanent vendor for Next Generation 911 delivery, and item (18) asks whether the Legislature should consider a statewide system with a regional backup.

New Section 5 declares the bill an urgency statute that takes effect immediately, citing the need to ensure CalOES and the Next Generation 911 project are adequately planned before bearing responsibility for public safety.

The required legislative vote changed from majority to two-thirds, reflecting the urgency clause added to the bill.

The definition of 'wireless service provider' was narrowed from 'any entity providing commercial mobile service' to 'facilities-based provider of commercial mobile service,' excluding resellers and mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) that do not own or control their own infrastructure.

A new definition for 'facilities-based providers' was added, meaning those providers that own or control facilities used to provide communications for compensation, including the line to the end-user's location.

The original 'facility' definition (covering macro cell sites, small cells, rooftop installations, distributed antenna systems, switching and backhaul facilities) was replaced with a broader 'network' definition that explicitly includes both temporary and permanent facilities used to deliver service, expanding coverage to mobile cell sites and other temporary infrastructure.

Throughout the operative provisions, references to 'a facility located wholly or partially within' were changed to 'a facility network located wholly or partially within,' aligning the legal requirements with the new 'network' definition.