Rule2023-01479
Disruptions to Communications; Improving 911 Reliability
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 15, 2023
Effective
March 17, 2023
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts final rules to ensure that 911 special facilities, including Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), receive timely and actionable information about 911 service outages that potentially affect them. Also, as a clerical matter, we codify related, previously adopted rule changes which expand the outage reporting exemption for wireless and satellite providers to include "all specific offices and facilities" as that term is defined in the Commission's Rules.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9756-9765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01479]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 4 and 9
[PS Docket Nos. 15-80, 13-75; ET Docket No. 04-35; FCC 22-88; FR ID
121451]
Disruptions to Communications; Improving 911 Reliability
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) adopts final rules to ensure that 911 special facilities,
including Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), receive timely and
actionable information about 911 service outages that potentially
affect them. Also, as a clerical matter, we codify related, previously
adopted rule changes which expand the outage reporting exemption for
wireless and satellite providers to include ``all specific offices and
facilities'' as that term is defined in the Commission's Rules.
DATES: Amendatory instructions 2 (Sec. 4.9(c)(2) and (e)(1)) and 5
(Sec. 9.19(d)(4)) are effective March 17, 2023, and amendatory
instruction 3 (Sec. 4.9(a)(4), (c)(2), (e), (f)(4), (g)(1), and (h))
is delayed indefinitely. The Federal Communications Commission will
announce the effective date of the delayed amendment by publishing a
document in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Cinnamon, Attorney-Advisor,
Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety
and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-2319 or via email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfecdcd0cbcb91fcd6d1d1ded2d0d1ffd9dcdc91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d083b3bfa4a4fe93b9bebeb1bdbfbe90b6b3b3feb7bfa6">[email protected]</span></a>. For additional information concerning the
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements
[[Page 9757]]
contained in this document, send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#663634272600050548010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="abfbf9eaebcdc8c885ccc4dd">[email protected]</span></a> or contact
Nicole Ongele, Office of Managing Director, Performance Evaluation and
Records Management, 202-418-2991, or by email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b3b392a2b0d0808450c041d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e6b6b4a7a6808585c8818990">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Report and Order, FCC 22-88, adopted on November 17, 2022, and released
on November 18, 2022. The document is available for download at the
following website: <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-88A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-88A1.pdf</a>. To request this document in accessible formats for people
with disabilities (e.g., Braille, large print, electronica files, audio
format, etc.) or to request reasonable accommodations (e.g., accessible
format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.), send an
email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#94d2d7d7a1a4a0d4f2f7f7baf3fbe2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a4c49493f3a3e4a6c6969246d657c">[email protected]</span></a> or call the FCC's Consumer and Government
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
The Second Report and Order requires originating service providers
(OSPs) and covered 911 service providers to adjust their 911 outage
reporting procedures which represent new and modified information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. The document will be submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the
PRA and, with the exception of the revision to 47 CFR 4.9(e)(1)(iv),
will not take effect until approved by OMB. OMB, the general public,
and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new or
modified information collection requirements contained in this
proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission
might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Congressional Review Act
The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
concurs, that this rule is non-major under the Congressional Review
Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the Second
Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Synopsis
1. In this final rule, we adopt rules and procedures that (a)
require covered 911 service providers and OSPs to maintain accurate
contact information for the 911 special facilities in areas that they
serve; (b) harmonize the 911 special facility outage notification
requirement for both covered 911 service providers and OSPs; (c)
continue to require covered 911 service providers to file an annual
certification with the FCC addressing the reliability of their systems;
and (d) direct covered 911 service providers who cease operations to
notify the Commission.
A. Require Covered 911 Service Providers and OSPs to Maintain Up-to-
Date 911 Special Facility Contact Information
2. We require both covered 911 service providers and OSPs to gather
and maintain up-to-date contact information for the 911 special
facilities in areas they serve. When 911 outages occur, 911 special
facilities lead efforts to notify the public about the outage and
establish alternative means of reaching emergency services, which can
save lives. 911 special facilities cannot play this important role,
however, when they do not receive notification about 911 outages from
service providers in their area, which can occur when the service
provider does not have an effective point of contact for the 911
special facility. Based on our experience with 911 special facility
outage notification over the years, we agree with Association of
Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) that
``service providers possess the necessary resources, are already
required under Commission rules to notify [911 special facilities] of
outages, and already maintain their own databases for contacting [911
special facilities].'' It is critical that service providers maintain
up-to-date contact information for 911 special facilities so that they
can discharge their 911 outage notification obligations.
3. We require covered 911 service providers and OSPs to annually
use special diligence to obtain a 911 special facility's contact
information and maintain it up-to-date. ``Special diligence'' is the
diligence expected from a person practicing in a particular field of
specialty under circumstances like those at issue. The Commission has
imposed this higher level of care in circumstances where a failure to
take sufficient care can lead to particularly serious public harms. In
these circumstances, ``special diligence'' would require, for example,
actively seeking to confirm the accuracy of contact information and not
relying on the absence of a response. We disagree with CTIA--The
Wireless Association (CTIA) and others that argue that special
diligence should only require three attempts to contact the 911 special
facility using at least two different types of media (e.g., email,
phone, text). We believe that this approach would defeat the purpose of
this requirement, as instead of incentivizing providers to ascertain
and update such contact information to prepare for anticipated natural
disasters or other emergencies, it would allow 911 service providers
and OSPs to satisfy their obligations during such emergencies by simply
reaching out to what may well be an outdated point of contact.
Obtaining, maintaining, and annually confirming up-to-date accurate
contact information for 911 special facilities is the overarching goal
of this requirement, so requiring a higher level of care than reaching
out to the prior contact is imperative to ensure public safety.
Providers may deem it appropriate to maintain documentation of their
attempts to annually obtain and maintain up-to-date contact information
from the 911 special facilities they serve, including by escalating
their elicitation of contact information to state or local 911
authorities where a 911 special facility is not immediately responsive.
These requirements do not relieve a provider from any requirement in
current consent decrees with the Commission to obtain and maintain up-
to-date contact information for 911 special facilities.
B. Harmonizing 911 Special Facility Notification for Covered 911
Service Providers and OSPs
4. We conclude that, as proposed, we should harmonize OSPs'
notification requirements with those of covered 911 service providers.
Providers and public safety organizations strongly suggest that a 911
special facility notification process with uniform content, means,
timing, and frequency of notification will simplify compliance for
providers and reduce confusion for 911 special facilities. Namely, we
require covered 911 service providers and OSPs to notify 911 special
facilities about outages by providing the same notification content, by
the same means, and with the same timing and frequency. Covered 911
service providers and OSPs shall include the same industry-standard
informational elements in their 911 special facility notifications. As
covered 911 service
[[Page 9758]]
providers do today, OSPs shall transmit their 911 special facility
notifications by telephone and in writing via electronic means in the
absence of another method mutually agreed upon in writing in advance by
the 911 special facility and the provider. OSPs and covered 911 service
providers shall transmit initial 911 special facility notifications as
soon as possible, but no later than 30 minutes after discovering that
they have experienced an outage that potentially affects a 911 special
facility and will communicate additional material information to
potentially affected 911 special facilities as the information becomes
available, but no later than two hours after the initial notification.
47 CFR 4.9(h).
5. Some commenters claim that the scope of the existing
notification requirements does not include general network outages.
Specifically, some argue that the Commission's current rules require
OSPs to notify 911 special facilities about outages that affect only
911 service, but not about outages that affect general calling, even if
that outage prevents 911 calls from being transmitted to the PSAP. The
Commission's rules make clear, however, that notification to a 911
special facility is required when an outage ``potentially affects a 911
special facility'' under Sec. 4.5(e)(1) to the extent that the outage
results in ``a loss of communications to PSAP(s) potentially affecting
at least 900,000 user-minutes and the failure is neither at the PSAP(s)
nor on the premises of the PSAP(s); no reroute for all end users was
available; and the outage lasts 30 minutes or more.'' CTIA argues that
the Commission confirmed CTIA's interpretation of the outage reporting
rules when adopting notification rules for interconnected voice over
internet protocol services (VoIP) providers because those rules
distinguish between outages that ``affect all interconnected VoIP
calls, not just calls to 9-1-1'' and those ``that potentially affect a
9-1-1 special facility.'' The distinction that Report and Order, 77 FR
25088 (April 27, 2012), 27 FCC Rcd 2650 para. 99 & n.214, made was
warranted because some general outages may not ``potentially affect a
911 special facility.'' When general outages do ``potentially affect a
911 special facility,'' however, service providers, including
interconnected VoIP providers, must notify 911 special facilities. This
approach ensures that PSAPs stay informed about outages that affect
their operations, as it would not serve the purpose of the rule to
solely require PSAPs be notified about outages to a service provider's
911-specific services but not require notification about more extensive
outages that prevent the delivery of all calls (including 911 calls).
Service providers are only required to notify 911 special facilities
about outages that potentially affect that facility. If an outage does
not result in loss of communications to a PSAP, then no PSAP is
required to be notified although notification to the Commission may
still be required.
6. The 911 special facility notification requirements we adopt in
this final rule apply to all covered 911 service providers and OSPs. As
the Boulder Regional Telephone Service Authority (BRETSA) observes,
whether the outage affects a covered 911 service provider, or a
wireless, wireline, cable, satellite, or VoIP service provider, to the
public and PSAPs, the inability of people in need of emergency
assistance to reach 911 is just as serious. No commenter raises a
concern about any particular type of service provider's ability to
comply with the harmonized 911 special facility outage notification
requirements we adopt in this final rule except Voice on the Net
Coalition (VON), who claims that because interconnected ``VoIP
providers rely on third party service providers . . . to manage and
route 911 calls, . . . unless there is a complaint from an end user
customer unable to complete a 911 call'' a VoIP provider would be
unaware of the outage and by then, more than likely, the affected PSAPs
would already have notice of the outage.'' We note that 47 CFR
4.9(g)(1)(i) requires VoIP providers to notify 911 special facilities
of outages that potentially affect them. Reconsidering that rule is
outside of the scope of this proceeding. Moreover, VoIP providers
routinely file NORS reports with the Commission when reportable 911
outages in their systems occur.
7. Reliance upon a third-party service provider to manage, route,
or otherwise contribute to 911 call processing does not relieve a
covered 911 service provider or an OSP, including an interconnected
VoIP provider, of the obligation to provide notification to 911 special
facilities under this rule. It is the duty of covered 911 service
providers and OSPs, including interconnected VoIP service providers, to
provide 911 service in accordance with the Commission's rules. Where a
covered 911 service provider or an OSP supports 911 calling through a
contractual arrangement with a third-party, we will hold those service
providers accountable for compliance with their notification
obligations. In this regard, the Commission has long held that
licensees and other regulatees are responsible for the acts and
omissions of their employees and independent contractors and has
recognized that under long established principles of common law,
statutory duties are nondelegable.
8. Content. We conclude that, as proposed, we should require
covered 911 service providers and OSPs to provide the following
material informational elements in their 911 special facility outage
notifications:
<bullet> An identifier unique to each outage;
<bullet> The name, telephone number, and email address at which the
notifying service provider can be reached for follow-up;
<bullet> The name of the service provider(s) experiencing the
outage;
<bullet> The date and time when the incident began (including a
notation of the relevant time zone);
<bullet> The type of communications service(s) affected;
<bullet> The geographic area affected by the outage;
<bullet> A statement of the notifying service provider's
expectations for how the outage potentially affects the 911 special
facility (e.g., dropped calls or missing metadata could include an
intermittent, partial, or complete loss of Automatic Location
Identification (ALI) or Automatic Number Identification (ANI), the
absence of which could prevent a 911 special facility from timely
deploying first responders to the caller's location);
<bullet> The expected date and time of restoration, including a
notation of the relevant time zone;
<bullet> The best-known cause of the outage; and
<bullet> A statement of whether the message is the notifying
service provider's initial notification to the 911 special facility, an
update to an initial notification, or a message intended to be the
notifying service provider's final assessment of the outage.
These informational elements were developed by the Network
Reliability Steering Committee Situational Awareness for 9-1-1 Outages
Task Force Subcommittee (NRSC Task Force) and proposed in the Third
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 86 FR 34679 (June 30, 2021). The
unique outage identifier was proposed separately by the NRSC Task Force
and included in the Third NPRM with a request for comment. Commenters
overwhelmingly support covered 911 service providers' and OSPs' use of
a standardized set of informational elements in their 911 outage
reports so that 911 special facilities will receive timely, accurate,
and actionable
[[Page 9759]]
information in a consistent format from all of the providers within
their service area. T-Mobile expressed readiness ``to modify its outage
notification to PSAPs to include this information'' when the new rule
becomes effective. Texas 911 Entities ``urges the Commission to adopt
the specific informational elements [proposed] as reasonable and
potentially helpful; but [to] also include as a required specific
information element the ATIS NRSC [Alliance for Telecommunications
Industry Solutions Network Reliability Steering Committee] Task Force
recommended Unique Incident Identifier.'' The National Emergency Number
Association (NENA) states ``[h]armonization will provide 9-1-1 with
more reliable, actionable information, and will streamline the channels
and means by which 9-1-1 receives outage notifications'' and also
supports the use of a Unique Incident Identifier.
9. We defer action on our proposal to require covered 911 service
providers and OSPs to include geographic information system (GIS) data
relevant to the geographic area affected by a 911 outage in their 911
special facility outages notifications. We agree with Verizon,
USTelecom, and Lumen that including such data at this time might
involve potentially burdensome IT changes. Moreover, some commenters
argue that many 911 special facilities do not currently have the
ability to receive or make use of GIS information. However, other
commenters argue that graphical outage information other than GIS
information could be useful to 911 special facilities, which do ``rely
on GIS for a variety of mapping needs.'' In addition to a lack of
clarity in the record as to the current capabilities of PSAPs, we do
not have a sufficient record on alternative kinds of graphical
information that would be useful to 911 special facilities. We direct
the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to gather for future
consideration additional information on 911 special facilities'
capabilities to use graphical outage information, the utility of that
information for 911 outage remediation, and the formats in which the
graphic information would be feasible for service providers to produce.
10. We disagree with the suggestions of USTelecom and Verizon that
providers should not be required to share the ``best known cause'' of
an outage due to national security and business competition concerns.
Covered 911 service providers have been required to transmit ``the
nature of the outage [and] its best known cause'' to 911 special
facilities no later than two hours after their initial contact with the
911 special facility since 2013. Until this proceeding, we have had no
reason to address stakeholder concerns about confidentiality as a
result of this disclosure until receiving the comments of USTelecom and
Verizon. Including ``best known cause'' as an informational element is
necessary because, if known, the cause of the outage can provide
guidance which might assist the 911 special facility in mitigating the
effect of the outage. To allow providers sufficient flexibility in
their initial assessment of ``best known cause,'' the ATIS NRSC task
force suggests simply stating whether the cause was hardware, software,
or network related. We endorse that approach in instances where
disclosure of greater detail could implicate national security issues.
We conclude that describing an outage's ``best known cause'' at this
level of generality in such instances will allow 911 special facilities
to better determine whether they can play a role in outage management
and remediation without disclosing information that implicates national
security or business competition issues.
11. Means. We conclude that, as proposed, we should require OSPs to
notify 911 special facilities of outages that potentially affect them
by telephone and in writing by electronic means, as covered 911 service
providers do. Some commenters showed a preference for electronic
notification while others suggested that there is room for both
electronic and telephonic notifications. We will maintain the dual
notification requirement to provide the greatest assurance that a 911
special facility, regardless of their size or capability, will receive
the outage notification, whether administrative lines are affected by
an outage preventing receipt of a telephone call, or internet service
is down preventing receipt of an email.
12. Nevertheless, we also allow OSPs to notify 911 special
facilities by alternative means if mutually agreed upon in writing in
advance by the 911 special facility and the provider, as we currently
allow covered 911 service providers to do. This also allows a 911
special facility to request delivery by an electronic means other than
email, or solely by electronic means. For example, if a provider and a
911 special facility agree in writing in advance of an outage that
outage notifications be provided only by text message, then no
telephonic notice shall be required. Service providers can notify 911
special facilities in the manner described by their written agreement.
This approach recognizes that 911 special facilities have varying staff
resources and degrees of technological sophistication. Thus, as T-
Mobile suggests, we will ``provide [OSPs] the flexibility to provide
notifications and related updates in the manner desired by the [911
special facility] (email, phone, or both), rather than mandate specific
means of communicating an outage.''
13. Timing. We conclude that, as proposed, we should require
covered 911 service providers and OSPs to notify 911 special facilities
of outages as soon as possible, but no later than within 30 minutes of
when the outage that potentially affects 911 service is discovered.
These initial notifications are intended to provide preliminary notice
of a potential problem to a 911 special facility so that the 911
special facility can, as quickly as possible, ``mitigate the impacts of
the outage and, as necessary, alert the public to alternative means of
connecting to 911.'' If a 911 special facility does not receive timely
outage notification, it cannot effectively initiate alternate means of
communications and provide access for those populations impacted by the
outage. According to the Maryland NG911 Commission, when OSPs wait
longer than 30 minutes to provide the initial notification of an
outage, it limits the ability of 911 special facilities to timely
publicize alternative methods for contacting emergency services during
many 911 outages. As we believe there is ample precedent that describes
what constitutes ``discovery'' for purposes of this rule, we decline
the request of CTIA and others to define ``discovery'' as the time when
a provider both confirms that the service disruption constitutes a
reportable outage and confirms the identities of the potentially
affected PSAPs. We believe that such a definition of discovery would
disincentivize providers from learning as much about an outage as
quickly as possible. This would undermine the requirement's purpose of
providing 911 special facilities with notice of a potential problem so
they quickly take mitigating actions. It would also be inconsistent
with the important goal of creating uniform notification requirements
as between covered 911 service providers and OSPs. We also decline the
request of CTIA and others to clarify that an OSP is under no
obligation to notify a 911 special facility if the OSP discovers an
outage only after it has been resolved, as it also would disincentivize
OSPs from rapidly investigating outages and would therefore be
inconsistent with the purpose of the requirement.
14. Consistent with our reasoning above, reliance upon a third-
party service provider to manage, route, or otherwise contribute to 911
call
[[Page 9760]]
processing does not relieve a service provider of its obligation to
notify 911 special facilities about outages that potentially affect
them within 30 minutes of when the outage is discovered--even if the
discovery is first made by the third party. Service providers,
including providers of interconnected VoIP service, are responsible for
providing 911 service in accordance with the Commission's rules, and
this includes responsibility for transmitting the required information
to a PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate
local emergency authority. Thus, the obligation to notify a 911 special
facility within 30 minutes is triggered when the outage is discovered,
regardless of whether it is discovered by a third-party transport
provider or covered 911 service provider. We expect service providers
to address these responsibilities within their 911 service contracts
with third parties as needed.
15. Service providers must provide 911 special facilities with all
available material information they have about the outage 30 minutes
from the time of discovery, even if the service provider does not have
available all the informational elements described above. We agree with
NENA that ``a notification's utility to 9-1-1 diminishes significantly
as time passes.'' At the same time, we acknowledge CTIA's point that
wireless providers may not have the all the required information to
transmit the outage notification to 911 special facilities within 30
minutes. We disagree with CTIA, Lumen, and others who request that the
Commission apply this 30-minute notification deadline flexibly by
allowing providers to merely begin, and not complete, the notification
to 911 special facilities within 30 minutes. As the record
demonstrates, all 911 special facilities need outage notifications as
soon as possible and an approach that would potentially allow service
providers--contrary to our established requirement for covered 911
service providers--to delay some 911 special facilities' outage
notifications for hours after discovery would not serve the public
safety purposes of the rule. Lumen additionally argues that the non-
fixed nature of VoIP services makes it particularly challenging for
interconnected VoIP providers to notify PSAPs of outages within 30
minutes and risks ``over-notifying PSAPs out of an abundance of
caution.'' On balance, we believe the public safety interests served by
PSAPs quickly receiving outage notifications outweigh the risk of
inaccuracies or over-notification.
16. We decline to mandate a period of fewer than 30 minutes for
covered 911 service providers and OSPs to notify 911 special facilities
about outages that potentially affect them, as some commenters request.
While we require covered 911 service providers and OSPs to notify 911
special facilities about outages that potentially affect 911 as soon as
possible--which could be less than 30 minutes in some circumstances--we
are persuaded by the comments of providers that a deadline of less than
30 minutes would not allow sufficient time for covered 911 service
providers or OSPs to gather and transmit meaningful information to
potentially affected 911 special facilities in all instances. In this
connection, we disagree with AT&T that ``the Commission is elevating
the speed of [911 special facility] notifications over accuracy.''
Rather, with the approach we adopt in this final rule, we strike a
balance between the need for timely and actionable 911 outage
information and the accuracy of that information.
17. Frequency. We conclude that, as proposed, OSPs should update
911 special facilities with additional, material outage information as
soon as possible after it becomes available and no later than two hours
after the provider's initial notification, as covered 911 service
providers already do. Material information for the purpose of this
follow up notification consists of the same informational elements that
we require covered 911 service providers and OSPs to disclose in their
initial notification, if available. We agree with NENA that the two-
hour follow-up deadline will produce ``predictability in notification
frequency [which] will significantly assist [911 special facilities] in
analysis and mitigation of network outages.'' NCTA opposes a follow up
notification requirement for OSPs because it could make it harder to
notify relevant 911 special facilities and ``would likely not lead to
the sharing of useful information.'' The follow-up notification
requirement we adopt in this final rule, however, does not introduce
any additional complexity into the determination of which 911 special
facilities should receive notice of an outage. Even where a 911 outage
remains unresolved after two hours without any new, material
information becoming available in the intervening period, an obligation
to provide an update no later than two hours after initial contact
provides better information to 911 special facilities than having them
assume there is no news if they do not have an update from the service
providers. CTIA and others encourage the Commission to prepare 911
special facilities for an increased volume and frequency of
notifications by OSPs. We decline this suggestion because, to the
contrary, APCO states the problem with 911 special facility outage
notification today is not too many notifications, but too few. Indeed,
APCO asks the Commission to lower the threshold for a reportable
outage. Providers argue that such a change to the current trigger for
these outage notification requirements would require extensive changes
to their systems whose benefits would not outweigh the costs. We direct
the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to gather for future
consideration information on the volume of 911 outages that may go
unreported under the Commission's existing outage notification
thresholds and seek additional comment on possible alternative outage
reporting thresholds.
18. In this connection, we note that, for outages that last longer
than two hours, a service provider's obligation to continue to follow
up with additional material information as soon as possible after it
becomes available continues until the outage is completely repaired and
service is fully restored. This ongoing cadence of notifications
ensures that speed and accuracy of 911 special facility notifications
are not mutually exclusive. After providing initial notification no
later than 30 minutes after discovering the outage, service providers
have an opportunity to provide more information and make any
corrections that may be necessary to their prior statements about the
outage. Under the rules we adopt in this document, the conclusion of
any outage would constitute material information because it would
represent a change in at least ``the expected date and time of
restoration.'' Such a notification would likely represent ``a service
provider's final assessment of the outage,'' and should be described as
such, if appropriate. Just as timely and accurate information is needed
for 911 special facilities to assist service providers in mitigating
the disruptions caused by network outages, it is equally important for
911 special facilities to know when the outage has been resolved so
that normal services and processes can be restored as soon as possible.
19. Outage notifications directly to customers. We decline to adopt
our proposal that OSPs and covered 911 service providers directly
notify their customers about 911 outages. ATIS states that disclosing
information about where 911 service is unavailable would provide bad
actors with information on vulnerable locations. Several
[[Page 9761]]
commenters state that direct customer notification from service
providers has the potential to cause confusion and result in
notification fatigue to customers. Several commenters suggested that
notice of 911 service outages should come from 911 special facilities
and state or local governments, not providers, because public
organizations have accountability for public safety.
20. We also note that the Commission has adopted and implemented
new information sharing rules that allow state and local officials
access to the information in outage reports filed with the Commission
in the Network Outage Reporting System (NORS) and Disaster Outage
Reporting System (DIRS) (<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/outage-information-sharing">https://www.fcc.gov/outage-information-sharing</a>). This access will provide public safety agencies with
situational awareness never before available, allowing for these state
and local agencies to keep their communities aware of the status of 911
services in their communities.
C. Maintain the Annual 911 Certification Reporting Requirement
21. We decline to reduce the frequency by which covered 911 service
providers file 911 reliability certifications, as proposed, in light of
the limited record that the Commission received on this issue. We
instead continue to require covered 911 service providers to file 911
reliability certifications annually. We find that maintaining an annual
frequency for 911 reliability certification is necessary to ensure that
our 911 network remains resilient and robust as the use of our 911
network continues to expand. As the transition to NG911 continues, more
and more 911 special facilities are swapping out legacy systems for new
equipment and these annual certifications enable the Commission to
monitor implementation and performance of the new equipment. NENA
reports that the number of 911 calls annually continues to increase. In
fact, in 2019 alone, over 200 million emergency calls were placed to
911, and of those calls, 70% were from wireless phones. As APCO states,
``[a]ny burden on submitting the annual certification . . . is
outweighed by the interest in continuing to promote the seriousness and
significance of ensuring reliable and resilient 9-1-1 networks.'' Given
all of these factors, and the overall importance of maintaining the
reliability of 911 networks despite all these changes, we agree with
BRETSA that ``[i]t should not be too much to expect covered 9-1-1
providers to make the annual certifications required by the
Commission.'' The three commenters supporting a reduction in the
frequency of the filing of the reliability certifications did not
provide evidence that this change would reduce the providers'
regulatory burden substantially without negatively impacting 911 system
reliability.
22. The record suggests that making the obligation to file 911
reliability certification less frequent would not meaningfully reduce
the burden of compliance for covered 911 service providers. The
commenters who proposed filing 911 reliability certifications less
often than annually did not offer a compelling analysis of what
specific cost reduction would result from the change in filing
frequency. AT&T does estimate that ``it requires more than 2,000 hours
per year to review and validate the information it includes on these
[certification] worksheets.'' However, even if we could estimate the
costs associated with those 2,000 hours, it is unclear how many of
those 2,000 hours would be saved if filing the certification was
required biennially or triennially. Whether or not a covered 911
service provider is required to file an annual certification in a given
year, it would still be required to create and maintain records
supporting compliance with the elements of the 911 reliability
certification and retain those records for two years. Given that the
records still must be created and maintained, we conclude that any cost
savings realized in changing the frequency of the filing of 911
reliability certification would be outweighed by the value of
maintaining the annual filing.
D. Require Covered 911 Service Providers Who Cease Operations To Notify
the Commission
23. The Commission adopts its proposal requiring covered 911
service providers that cease operations to advise the FCC by filing a
notification no later than 60 days after the cessation of service,
except that we will allow for the notification to be a declaration
under penalty of perjury rather than affidavit, as AT&T suggests, which
is consistent with our rules. The Commission received no opposition to
this proposal. We emphasize that the notification is required only when
a covered 911 service provider completely ceases providing covered 911
services as opposed to a situation where a covered 911 service provider
might cease service to a particular 911 special facility. We adopt this
measure ``to ensure that the Commission does not expend time and
resources to investigate why a covered 911 service provider has failed
to file its 911 certification in a timely manner, when the reason is
simply because the provider is no longer a covered 911 service provider
and is therefore no longer required to file the required
certifications,'' as proposed.
E. Codify Previously Adopted Rule Changes
24. Section 4.9 of the Commission's rules sets forth the outage
reporting requirements for different service providers including
wireless and satellite providers. Initially, the rules exempted
wireless and satellite providers from having to report on outages at
airports. The rationale was that wireless and satellite providers did
not have dedicated equipment in place at airports because much of the
communications was conducted through wireline facilities. In 2016, the
Commission adopted the 2016 Part 4 Order, 81 FR 45055 (July 12, 2016),
that expanded the reporting exemption for satellite and wireless
providers to include ``all special offices and facilities'' as that
term is defined in Sec. 4.5(b) of the rules (i.e., to ``entities
enrolled in the Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) Program at
priority Levels 1 and 2, which may include, but are not limited to,
major military installations, key government facilities, nuclear power
plants, and those airports that are listed as current primary (PR)
airports in the FAA's [Federal Aviation Administration] National Plan
of Integrated Airports Systems (NPIAS)).'' The changes to Sec. 4.9 of
the rules adopted in the 2016 Part 4 Order were not codified into our
rules. In the Third NPRM, we proposed to codify the rule as previously
adopted.
25. In the absence of comments on this issue, we amend our part 4
rules to expand the outage reporting exemption for satellite and
wireless providers to include all ``special offices and facilities'' as
defined in Sec. 4.5(b), as adopted in the 2016 Part 4 Order. While
wireless service has become ubiquitous throughout the United States, it
has not yet been adopted by special offices and facilities for their
critical communications.
F. Compliance Timeframe
26. New rules for collecting and maintaining 911 special facility
contact information. The rules we adopt in this document requiring
covered 911 service providers and OSPs to gather, update, and maintain
accurate contact information for officials designated to receive outage
notification at each 911 special facility in areas that they serve
require review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
[[Page 9762]]
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Following the completion
of that review, the Bureau will publish a document in the Federal
Register announcing the relevant effective date, which will be 120 days
after such publication. The record shows that many service providers
already have accurate contact information for the 911 special
facilities in their service areas enabling accurate outage reporting.
For those service providers that do not already have up-to-date contact
information for 911 special facilities in areas that they serve, we
anticipate they will use the time between now and the expiration of the
120-day period to develop and implement procedures needed to initially
obtain accurate contact information through the special diligence
process. Once providers have a contact list in place, special diligence
would require them to annually verify the accuracy of their 911 special
facility contact list to maintain it up-to-date.
27. New rules to harmonize reporting requirements for part 4 and
covered 911 service providers. The rules we adopt in this document
requiring OSPs to modify the means, timing, and frequency of their
outage notification templates to conform with those provided by covered
911 service providers, and for covered 911 service providers and OSPs
to adjust the content of their outage notifications to conform with the
information template designed by ATIS, will require review of the new
and modified information collection requirements by OMB under the PRA.
Following the completion of that review, the Bureau will publish a
document in the Federal Register announcing the relevant effective
date, which will be 120 days after such publication. This compliance
period will allow covered 911 service providers and OSPs to modify and
standardize the informational elements that they provide to 911 special
facilities, including through use of the preexisting and freely
available ATIS PSAP notification template. It will allow OSPs to, in
parallel, make any procedural changes that may be necessary to notify
911 special facilities in areas they serve about outages that
potentially affect them within 30 minutes of discovery, including by
automating their notification processes to the extent warranted. It
will allow OSPs to develop procedures to notify 911 special facilities
by telephone and electronic means, or to establish in writing another
mutually agreeable notification method, including through the contact
information elicitation process described above. T-Mobile said that it
``stands ready to modify its outage notifications to PSAPs to include
this information by the effective date proposed in the [Third NPRM],''
and we suspect many other providers are similarly prepared for the
changes adopted here. We do not anticipate that OSPs will need to
expend substantial time or resources to come into compliance with our
follow-up notification requirement because service providers can use
the same procedures to follow up with 911 special facilities as they
use to notify 911 special facilities in the first instance.
28. We require covered 911 service providers to notify the FCC when
they cease operations as of the date 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register announcing the completion of OMB review. We anticipate
that any additional time and resources that covered 911 service
providers might expend to comply with this requirement would be
negligible because service providers winding down their businesses
already provide notification of the occurrence to their stakeholders,
and the Commission does not require this notice to contain any
particular content that might pose an additional burden to compile.
29. Finally, the exemption that we have decided to codify in this
final rule for reporting outages at special offices and facilities in
addition to airports will be effective 30 days after the Bureau
publishes a document in the Federal Register announcing the
codification of this already adopted rule. The codification of this
existing exemption eliminates any burden that may have been attendant
to the provision of these reports.
G. Benefits and Costs
30. We determine that the rules we adopt in this document
concerning the creation and maintenance of a 911 special facility
contact list will result in a one-time compliance cost of $149,000 and
an annual recurring cost of $1,652,000. We sought comment on these cost
estimates in the Third NPRM and received no persuasive objection or
alternative calculation in response. We conclude that the one-time cost
for covered 911 service providers and OSPs to create an email survey to
elicit 911 special facility contact information that operate in the
areas they serve will be $50,000, and the one-time cost to harmonize
the covered 911 service provider and OSP 911 special facility outage
notification templates will be $99,000. We note, however, that our
analysis is based on averages across all providers and that, whereas
some nationwide providers like AT&T likely have higher costs than the
average cost we estimate, others, such as local providers, are expected
to have lower costs. We believe the majority of 911 special facilities
will respond to the email survey, limiting the number of follow-up
calls necessary to establish the initial contact list. The rules we
adopt here will result in annual recurring costs for covered 911
service providers and OSPs of $197,000 for identifying 911 special
facilities that could potentially be affected by a service outage,
$197,000 for maintaining and updating 911 special facility contact
information for those 911 special facilities that could potentially be
affected by a service outage, and $1,258,000 for notifying 911 special
facilities of outages that potentially affect them pursuant to the
harmonized notification framework we adopt in this document. The
$1,258,000 recurring cost presented in the NPRM was calculated as
follows: To notify 911 special facilities, we propose that a
communications equipment operator, earning $34/hour, would spend a
total of one hour per outage to send out two notifications for each of
an estimated 37,000 outages, for a total of $1,258,000 [$34/hour x 1
hour x 37,000]. Our estimate of 37,000 outages is based on the
incidence of outages that potentially affected 911 in NORS reports
during 2020.
31. We recognize that it is difficult to quantify the value of
continuity of access to 911 service, which includes its capacity to
save lives and mitigate and prevent injuries. In this case, it is only
necessary to demonstrate that the public safety value of the proposals
adopted in this final rule is reasonably likely to exceed the costs of
implementation. People who dial 911 are often in perilous situation
where time and accuracy are critical. As we stated in the Third NPRM,
``the benefits attributable to outage notification are substantial and
may have significant positive effects on the abilities of 911 special
facilities to safeguard the health and safety of residents during
outages that threaten residents' ability to reach 911.'' When 911
service providers and OSPs have timely, actionable information about
911 outages that affect the 911 special facilities including the PSAPs
they serve, they are the best able to maintain the public's access to
emergency services when it would otherwise be interrupted. We agree
with the Maryland NG911 Commission that ``[w]hen the PSAP does not get
timely or complete notification of outages, they cannot effectively
initiate alternate means of communication and provide
[[Page 9763]]
access for those populations impacted by the outage. Public service
messaging, crisis communications options, and back-up operations all
require time to activate. When the 911 special facility is not informed
in a thorough or punctual manner, their ability to trigger alternative
methods for their populations to contact emergency services is severely
compromised.'' The rules we adopt in this document, both individually
and taken together, will serve to improve communications between
providers and 911 special facilities by requiring providers to maintain
develop and maintain an accurate contact list for the 911 special
facilities they serve. Consequently, they will also facilitate the
prompt ability of 911 special facilities to manage those outages'
impacts on operations and on the public, resulting in more prompt
dispatch of service.
32. In the Third NPRM we sought comment on what costs savings would
be realized if less frequent 911 reliability certifications were
required. While there were general suggestions of cost savings if the
annual certification requirement was changed to biennial or triennial,
the record offered no evidence of specific cost savings. We conclude
that there will be no additional costs resulting from our decision to
maintain the existing annual certification requirement.
33. We adopt the new rule requiring covered 911 service providers
to notify the FCC when they cease operations ``to ensure that the
Commission does not expend time and resources to investigate why a
covered 911 service provider has failed to file its 911 certification
in a timely manner, when the reason is simply because the provider is
no longer a covered 911 service provider and is therefore no longer
required to file the required certifications''. We sought comment on
the costs and benefits of this proposal, but commenters were silent on
this issue. We conclude that our presumption in the Third NPRM is
correct and that because there will be few companies that cease their
covered 911 service provider operations from year to year, the filings
costs will be minimal, while the benefits will be much greater.
34. Finally, our proposal to codify the rule that we adopted in
2016 to extend the exemption for filing network outage reports to all
special offices and facilities should not result in any additional
costs. It will result in the filing of fewer reports. The record was
silent on the issue of cost for this proposal, so we conclude our
analysis is correct.
Procedural Matters
35. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Third
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third NPRM) adopted in April 2021. The
Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Third
NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing
the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
conforms to the RFA and was attached as Appendix B to the Second Report
and Order.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Final Rules
36. In this proceeding, the Commission adopts rules and procedures
to improve the reliability and resiliency of telecommunications
networks nationwide and 911 networks specifically so that the American
public can continue to reach emergency services without undue delay or
disruption. In particular, the Third NPRM proposed and sought comment
on measures to harmonize the Commission's Public Safety Answering
Points (PSAP) outage notification rules such that all service providers
must notify all potentially affected 911 special facilities, including
PSAPs, of outages in the same manner and with more specific
information. The Commission's current rules for 911 special facility
outage reporting differentiates between ``covered 911 service
providers'' that provide service directly to 911 special facilities and
``originating'' or ``part 4'' service providers that only provide the
capability for consumers to originate 911 calls. These new rules apply
to all originating service providers as well as to all covered 911
service providers and make the nation's 911 service more reliable and
the public safer, while striking an appropriate balance between costs
and benefits of such regulation. We note that cable providers and
interconnected VoIP providers often are also wireline providers. The
references to providers of these types of services here correspond to
references in the part 4 outage reporting rules. We also adopt a rule
that requires covered 911 service providers to notify the Commission
within 60 days of the day they cease operations. This will conserve
Commission resources by avoiding unnecessary pursuit of covered 911
service providers no longer providing service. We also codify rules
adopted in 2016 extending the exemption of satellite and terrestrial
wireless providers from reporting outages potentially affecting special
offices and facilities.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration
37. The Small Business Administration (SBA) Chief Counsel did not
file comments on the IRFA.
D. Description of the Small Entities to Which the Final Rules Will
Apply
38. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of the small
entities that may be affected by the rules. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The types
of entities that will be affected include Cable and Other Subscription
Programming Providers, Cable System Operators, Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers, Local Exchange Carriers, Satellite Telecommunications
Providers, Wired Telecommunications Carriers, Wireless Communications
Service Providers, Wireless Telecommunications Carriers, Wireless
Telephony Operators, Telecommunications Resellers, and All Other
Telecommunications, which includes specialized telecommunications
service providers, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation, and providers of internet
service (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or voice over internet protocol (VoIP)
services.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
39. The rules adopted in the Second Report and Order require OSPs,
including those that are small entities, to adjust their procedures for
obtaining and maintaining contact information for the 911 special
facilities they serve and for notifying 911 special facilities of
outages that might potentially affect them. These new rules change the
content, means, timing, and frequency of the 911 special facilities
outage notifications these providers transmit.
40. The rules also require covered 911 service providers to file a
notice with the FCC when they discontinue service.
[[Page 9764]]
The notice should be filed no later than 60 days after the cessation of
service and accompanied by a declaration, rather than a notarized
affidavit, from a representative of the provider. This is a one-time,
minimal burden for those covered 911 service providers that cease
operations. Based on our year over year review of annual reliability
certifications filed by covered 911 service providers, we anticipate
only a small number of these filings each year.
41. We do not believe that the costs and/or administrative burdens
associated with any of the proposal rule changes will unduly burden
small entities. Furthermore, we believe the value of the public safety
benefits generated by our 911 special facility outage notification
proposals outweigh the estimated costs. These rule changes will enable
911 special facilities to accelerate the public's ability to reach 911
call takers during an outage, reducing the probability of lives lost
during any such outage. These rules will also generate an additional,
incremental benefit by helping people reach 911 call takers more
quickly and by reducing first responder response times. Notifying the
FCC when a covered 911 service provider ceases operations will prevent
the FCC from transmitting and the provider from responding to
unnecessary notices regarding the operational status of the provider.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
42. The Commission has taken several steps that could reduce the
economic impact for small entities. First, the elements for 911 special
facility outage notifications that we adopt largely track the NRSC Task
Force's template. Therefore, to the extent small entities have or will
implement the ATIS NRSC Task Force's template, compliance with our
rules should not impose significant additional costs. Next, we adopt an
approach that establishes a baseline expectation of shared information
while otherwise preserving flexibility for service providers to
determine the means by which they present this information to 911
special facilities. Similarly, we do not specify the particular
procedures that service providers must develop or follow to elicit 911
special facility contact information.
43. Following review of the record in this proceeding, the
Commission has decided not to change the frequency with which covered
911 service providers are required to file 911 reliability
certifications. The current annual filing requirement strikes the
appropriate balance between maintaining 911 network reliability and
public awareness of 911 unavailability.
Ordering Clauses
44. Accordingly it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(n), 201(b), 214, 218, 251(e)(3),
301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 332, and 403, of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 3(b) and 6 of the
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j) 154(n), 201(b), 214, 218, 251(e)(3), 301,
303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 332, 403, 615, 615a-1, the Second
Report and Order is adopted.
45. It is further ordered that the amendments of the Commission's
Rules as set forth in Appendix A of the Second Report and Order are
adopted, effective as of the dates set forth above.
46. It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing Director,
Performance Evaluation and Records Management, shall send a copy of the
Second Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 4 and 9
Airports, Communications common carriers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 4 and 9 as follows:
PART 4--DISRUPTIONS TO COMMUNICATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 34-39, 151, 154, 155, 157, 201, 251, 307,
316, 615a-1, 1302(a), and 1302(b); 5 U.S.C. 301, and Executive Order
no. 10530.
Sec. 4.9 [Amended]
0
2. Effective March 17, 2023March 17, 2023, amend Sec. 4.9 by:
0
a. Adding the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (c)(2)(ii);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(2)(iii);
0
c. Adding the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (e)(1)(iii); and
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(1)(iv).
0
3. Delayed indefinitely, further amend Sec. 4.9 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (c)(2)(iv);
0
b. Adding a heading for paragraph (e); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e)(1)(v), (f)(4), (g)(1)(i), and (h).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 4.9 Outage reporting requirements--threshold criteria.
(a) * * *
(4) Potentially affects a 911 special facility (as defined in Sec.
4.5(e)), in which case they also shall notify the affected 911 facility
in the manner described in paragraph (h) of this section. Not later
than 72 hours after discovering the outage, the provider shall submit
electronically an Initial Communications Outage Report to the
Commission. Not later than 30 days after discovering the outage, the
provider shall submit electronically a Final Communications Outage
Report to the Commission. The Notification and the Initial and Final
reports shall comply with all of the requirements of Sec. 4.11.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Potentially affecting a 911 special facility (as defined in
Sec. 4.5(e)), in which case the affected 911 facility shall be
notified in the manner described in paragraph (h) of this section.
* * * * *
(e) Wireless.
(1) * * *
(v) That potentially affects a 911 special facility (as defined in
Sec. 4.5(e)), in which case they also shall notify the affected 911
facility in the manner described in paragraph (h) of this section.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(4) Potentially affects a 911 special facility (as defined in Sec.
4.5(e)), in which case they also shall notify-the affected 911 facility
in the manner described in paragraph (h) of this section. Not later
than 72 hours after discovering the outage, the provider shall submit
electronically an Initial Communications Outage Report to the
Commission. Not later than 30 days after discovering the outage, the
provider shall submit electronically a Final Communications Outage
Report to the Commission. The Notification and
[[Page 9765]]
the Initial and Final reports shall comply with all of the requirements
of Sec. 4.11.
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Within 240 minutes of discovering that they have experienced on
any facilities that they own, operate, lease, or otherwise utilize, an
outage of at least 30 minutes duration that potentially affects a 911
special facility (as defined in Sec. 4.5(e)), in which case they also
shall notify the affected 911 facility in the manner described in
paragraph (h) of this section; or
* * * * *
(h) 911 special facility outage notification. All cable, satellite,
wireless, wireline, interconnected VoIP, and covered 911 service
providers (as defined in Sec. 9.19(a)(4) of this chapter) shall notify
any official at a 911 special facility who has been designated by the
affected 911 special facility as the provider's contact person(s) for
communications outages at the facility of any outage that potentially
affects that 911 special facility (as defined in Sec. 4.5(e)) in the
following manner:
(1) Appropriate contact information. To ensure prompt delivery of
outage notifications to 911 special facilities, cable, satellite,
wireless, wireline, interconnected VoIP, and covered 911 service
providers shall exercise special diligence to identify, maintain, and,
on an annual basis, confirm current contact information appropriate for
911 outage notification for each 911 special facility that serves areas
that the service provider serves.
(2) Content of notification. Cable, satellite, wireless, wireline,
interconnected VoIP, and covered 911 service providers' 911 outage
notifications must convey all available material information about the
outage. For the purpose of this paragraph (h), ``material information''
includes the following, where available:
(i) An identifier unique to each outage;
(ii) The name, telephone number, and email address at which the
notifying cable, satellite, wireless, wireline, interconnected VoIP, or
covered 911 service provider can be reached for follow up;
(iii) The name of the cable, satellite, wireless, wireline,
interconnected VoIP, or covered 911 service provider(s) experiencing
the outage;
(iv) The date and time when the incident began (including a
notation of the relevant time zone);
(v) The types of communications service(s) affected;
(vi) The geographic area affected by the outage;
(vii) A statement of the notifying cable, satellite, wireless,
wireline, interconnected VoIP, or covered 911 service provider's
expectations for how the outage potentially affects the 911 special
facility (e.g., dropped calls or missing metadata);
(viii) Expected date and time of restoration, including a notation
of the relevant time zone;
(ix) The best-known cause of the outage; and
(x) A statement of whether the message is the notifying cable,
satellite, wireless, wireline, interconnected VoIP, or covered 911
service provider's initial notification to the 911 special facility, an
update to an initial notification, or a message intended to be the
service provider's final assessment of the outage.
(3) Means of notification. Cable, satellite, wireless, wireline,
interconnected VoIP, and covered 911 service providers' 911 outage
notifications must be transmitted by telephone and in writing via
electronic means in the absence of another method mutually agreed upon
in writing in advance by the 911 special facility and the covered 911
service provider.
(4) Timing of initial notification. Cable, satellite, wireless,
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and covered 911 service providers shall
provide a 911 outage notification to a potentially affected 911 special
facility as soon as possible, but no later than within 30 minutes of
discovering that they have experienced on any facilities that they own,
operate, lease, or otherwise utilize, an outage that potentially
affects a 911 special facility, as defined in Sec. 4.5(e).
(5) Follow-up notification. Cable, satellite, wireless, wireline,
interconnected VoIP, and covered 911 service providers shall
communicate additional material information to potentially affected 911
special facilities in notifications subsequent to the initial
notification as soon as possible after that information becomes
available, but cable, satellite, wireless, wireline and interconnected
VoIP providers shall send the first follow-up notification to
potentially affected 911 special facilities no later than two hours
after the initial contact. After that, cable, satellite, wireless,
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and covered 911 service providers are
required to continue to provide material information to 911 special
facilities as soon as possible after discovery of the new material
information until the outage is completely repaired and service is
fully restored.
PART 9--911 REQUIREMENTS
0
4. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 152(a), 155(c), 157, 160, 201,
202, 208, 210, 214, 218, 219, 222, 225, 251(e), 255, 301, 302, 303,
307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 403, 405, 605, 610, 615, 615
note, 615a, 615b, 615c, 615a-1, 616, 620, 621, 623, 623 note, 721,
and 1471, and Section 902 of Title IX, Division FF, Pub. L. 116-260,
134 Stat. 1182, unless otherwise noted.
0
5. Effective March 17, 2023, amend Sec. 9.19 by adding paragraph
(d)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 9.19 Reliability of covered 911 service providers.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) Covered 911 service providers that cease operations must notify
the FCC by filing a notification under penalty of perjury no later than
60 days after the cessation of service.
[FR Doc. 2023-01479 Filed 2-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 15, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.