Rule2024-07402
Resilient Networks; Disruptions to Communications
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
April 11, 2024
Effective
April 11, 2024
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopts the Second Report and Order (Order) to advance the lines of inquiry particularly concerning the Network Outage Reporting System (NORS) and the Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 71 (Thursday, April 11, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 71 (Thursday, April 11, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25535-25542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-07402]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 4
[PSHSB: PS Docket Nos. 21-346 and 15-80; ET Docket No. 04-35; FCC 24-5
FR ID 212327]
Resilient Networks; Disruptions to Communications
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
adopts the Second Report and Order (Order) to advance the lines of
inquiry particularly concerning the Network Outage Reporting System
(NORS) and the Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS).
DATES:
Effective date: This rule is effective April 11, 2024.
Compliance date: Compliance with 47 CFR 4.18 will not be required
until the FCC has published a document in the Federal Register
announcing the compliance date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Logan Bennett, Attorney Advisor, Cybersecurity and
Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau, (202) 418-7790 or via email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c488aba3a5aaea86a1aaaaa1b0b084a2a7a7eaa3abb2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="511d3e36303f7f13343f3f342525113732327f363e27">[email protected]</span></a>.
For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection requirements contained in this document, send an
email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a6a687b7a5c5959145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e7e7c6f6e484d4d00494158">[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#28787a69684e4b4b064f475e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="86d6d4c7c6e0e5e5a8e1e9f0">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Report and Order (Order), in PS Docket Nos. 21-346 and 15-80; ET Docket
No. 04-35; FCC 24-5, adopted on January 25, 2024, and released on
January 26, 2024. The full text of this document is available by
downloading the text from the Commission's website at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-5A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-5A1.pdf</a>. To request this
document in accessible formats for people with disabilities (e.g.,
Brialle, large print, electronic 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#f4b2b7b7c1c4c0b4929797da939b82"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5a1c19196f6a6e1a3c3939743d352c">[email protected]</span></a> or call the FCC's Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau
at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). When the FCC
Headquarters reopens to the public, the full text of this document will
also be available for public inspection and copying during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington,
DC 20554.
Congressional Review Act: The Commission has determined, and the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB,
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 Order to
Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A).
Paperwork Reduction Act: This document contains additional
information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d)
of the PRA. 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. (See FCC, Resilient Networks Second Report and Order and
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-5A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-5A1.pdf</a> (Jan. 26, 2024) at 38, para. 86 and
at 42, Appdx. B.)
Synopsis
The Commission initially adopted the DIRS system as a disaster
response information tool in 2007, but we have not revisited the
voluntary nature of the system in almost two decades even as the
disaster and emergency landscape continues to change and technology
continues to advance. By way of example, since DIRS was adopted on a
voluntary basis, the Commission has adopted rules pursuant to the
Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act to implement Wireless
Emergency Alerts (WEAs), creating a valuable tool used by emergency
response officials to leverage mobile communications networks to
provide timely alerts to consumers in disaster situations.
[[Page 25536]]
As such, while a voluntary system like DIRS is beneficial, we
believe in the current regulatory, technological and interconnected
network environment it cannot work to its fullest potential unless we
expand the aperture of who reports in the system, and enhance the
fidelity of the data to allow for more effective decision making in
response to disaster environments by requiring filings be made in
emergency contexts. As the Commission evaluates the best approaches to
support better outcomes for consumers in these challenging situations
in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM) (89
FR 22106, March 29, 2024), input from industry, public safety, public
interest groups, as well as individuals who deal directly with these
issues, will play a crucial role in determining how to effectively
streamline disaster reporting while addressing individual entities'
specific operational challenges.
The 2021 Resilient Networks Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
(86 FR 61103, Nov. 5, 2021) sought comment on three distinct topics:
(i) enhancements to NORS and DIRS to improve situational awareness
around disasters and outage events (which is the subject of the Order);
(ii) improving implementation of the industry-developed Wireless
Resiliency Cooperative Framework (which was addressed in the 2022
Report and Order (87 FR 59329, Sept. 30, 2022) and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (87 FR 59379, Sept. 30, 2022) with the Mandatory
Disaster Response Initiative (MDRI)); and (iii) developing
communications resilience strategies for power outages (i.e., backup
power). As detailed below, the Order adopts rules to:
<bullet> require cable communications, wireline, wireless, and
interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) providers (i.e.,
``subject providers'') to report their infrastructure status
information in DIRS daily when the Commission activates DIRS in
geographic areas in which they provide service, even when their
reportable infrastructure status has not changed compared to the prior
day The Commission has chosen to focus on cable communications,
wireless, wireline, and VoIP providers (i.e., ``subject providers'') in
the Order. Broadcasters, broadband, satellite, and broadband internet
access service (BIAS) providers expressed varying concerns and unique
comments compared to those of the subject providers addressed herein
which we believe are better addressed in a separate proceeding which
will seek more narrow comments pertaining to those providers
specifically as is previewed in the Second FNPRM];
<bullet> codify, in part 4 of the Commission's outage reporting
rules, the current practice that a subject provider's NORS reporting
obligations are waived while they report in DIRS [This exemption is
codified as a revision to the Commission's part 4 rules stating that
NORS reporting requirements do not apply when the Commission requires
DIRS reporting. See 47 CFR 4.1 through 4.17]; and
<bullet> require that subject providers who report in DIRS provide
a single, final DIRS report to the Commission, within 24 hours of the
Commission's deactivation of DIRS, that provides the status of their
infrastructure identified to the Commission during the DIRS reporting
period that has not yet been fully restored at the time of the
deactivation.
Second Report and Order
A. Mandating DIRS Reporting for Cable Communications, Wireless,
Wireline, and Interconnected VoIP Providers
In the 2021 Resilient Networks NPRM, the Commission proposed
requiring cable, wireless, wireline, Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS),
Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS), interconnected VoIP
providers, and TV and radio broadcasters to report their infrastructure
status information in DIRS when the Commission activates DIRS in
geographic areas in which they provide service. In this respect, the
Commission proposed to shift the reporting obligation from voluntary to
mandatory for these providers and expand the categories of providers
subject to DIRS reporting. In support of this proposal, the Commission
noted that smaller providers often did not elect to voluntarily
participate in DIRS reporting, reducing the Commission's situational
awareness. The size of the provider a consumer uses should not affect a
consumer's right to public safety and potentially life-saving
information, nor should small rural communities be less entitled to
functioning networks that provide alerts and 911 capability than
communities served by large providers. The Commission also sought
comment on ways to resolve ambiguity about whether a subject provider's
lack of DIRS filings means that its network infrastructure remains
fully operational or it is unable to file, and whether it cannot access
DIRS due to disruption of its internet access or other exigencies.
Based on the record, in the Order, the Commission requires DIRS
reporting only as to cable communications wireline, wireless and
interconnected VoIP providers, and provides that such reports must be
filed on a daily basis until the Commission deactivates DIRS. We note
that in some instances, and where warranted based on circumstances
during extended activations, the Bureau has required reporting less
frequently than daily. While we find daily reporting the best cadence
norm, we delegate authority to PSHSB to amend the reporting schedule to
a less frequent cadence where warranted. For instance, the Bureau may
waive, sua sponte, the daily reporting time. In this regard, we also
decline to provide more specificity as to the time daily reporting
should occur as requested by NCTA--The internet and Television
Association (NCTA), in that DIRS reporting may inform other time-
sensitive disaster coordination activities across the Federal
Government and that Commission staff must respond to those coordination
activities by specifying reporting times in each DIRS activation Public
Notice (PN) on a case-by-case basis. On days when a subject provider
has no otherwise reportable changes in its infrastructure status, the
report would take the form of a simplified ``check in'' report. In the
Second FNPRM, we seek further comment to build a more robust record
regarding the inclusion of satellite, broadband, and broadcast
providers in a mandatory DIRS environment.
DIRS provides pertinent daily information that the Commission
provides to a variety of public safety entities through information
sharing, collaborative disaster response efforts, and to the public.
The information in DIRS reports also enables the Bureau's Operations
and Emergency Management Division (OEM) to manage its disaster response
activities, such as visiting sites and validating communications
restoration status, supporting vital search and rescue operations, and
performing eyes-on assessments of disaster impacts and damages to
prioritize and allocate response and recovery resources. At their core,
DIRS reports, in combination with operational spectrum surveys and
other direct engagement, serve as an impetus for open lines of
communication between communications carriers and emergency management
officials.
In response to the 2021 Resilient Networks NPRM, several public
interest and public safety-focused commenters opine that mandating DIRS
reporting would increase the value of the situational awareness
information that the Commission collects and will result in meaningful
improvements to public safety. For example, Next Century Cities
[[Page 25537]]
(NCC) remarks that DIRS data from smaller-sized subject providers would
allow the Commission to have a more granular look at how infrastructure
and service has been disrupted on the ground, which would critically
aid disaster response. Public Knowledge notes similarly that, in the
current voluntary regime, the value of DIRS information is diminished
as it is unclear if a non-reporting subject provider is unable to
report due to severe damage or is simply electing not to file DIRS
reports. Free Press states that more robust DIRS information will allow
customers and impacted individuals to assess all communications options
that may be available to them in the immediate aftermath of disaster
and during a subsequent rebuilding phase; Public Knowledge further
notes that having more DIRS information will allow the Commission to
better hold providers accountable for failures.
Conversely, several parties representing industry, like ACA
Connects--America's Communications Association (ACA), oppose mandating
DIRS on grounds that it would be too burdensome or would only provide a
limited benefit when it comes to requiring compliance from small
providers. NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA) believes that
small operators will likely lack the personnel, time, or physical
resources to make such reports in the midst of a disaster and states
that DIRS reports may not actually be useful in disaster scenarios
because the Department of Homeland Security's National Coordinating
Center for Communications (DHS-NCC) and the Communications Information
Sharing and Analysis Center (Comms-ISAC) provide a forum for industry
stakeholders ``to share real-time information and collaborate with
government partners on network restoration efforts [so] [a]ny new
information sharing commitments would likely duplicate, and potentially
conflict with, these established, well-defined processes, creating
unnecessary burden and undermining rather than strengthening network
resiliency.'' AT&T argues that, to manage burdens, mandatory reporting
should be based on a ``best efforts'' standard and that there should be
no penalty for failure to meet any deadlines established for particular
events. NTCA also argues, ``it is currently unclear whether filing the
[DIRS] reports lead to greater coordination between government and
industry or offers a benefit to a company or community in crisis.''
We find that mandatory DIRS reporting will yield substantial public
safety benefits. DIRS provides situational awareness of communications
operational status and actionable information to public safety entities
assisting in disaster response, thus promoting public safety.
Additionally, the Commission's information sharing program provides
direct read-only access to government agencies, providing a direct
benefit to emergency response, and providing complete and accurate
information to these sharing partners will provide actionable data to
those making decisions in disaster and reliability contexts. DIRS
exists ``to report communications infrastructure status and situational
awareness information during times of crises'' and enables ``the
Commission [to] disseminate DIRS information to other Federal
agencies'' to ``facilitate Federal restoration efforts,'' as well as
efforts from state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments, and get
boots on the ground in the locations requiring urgent assistance.
Public Knowledge asserts that ``[t]he FCC must require all wireless . .
. providers to perform basic measures that reflect the lessons it has
gleaned from recent post-disaster reports [as] [i]n these reports, the
FCC has outlined straight-forward and obvious procedures that, if
performed, would undoubtedly improve disaster responses.'' However, in
its current voluntary state, DIRS provides the Commission with an
incomplete picture of infrastructure status and other important
emergency information and cannot reliably be used to determine whether
entities are merely not reporting by choice or if they have lost the
ability to report and are in need of aid and collaboration. Mandating
DIRS reporting provides a more consistent picture of status during and
after disasters and emergencies since there is a wider sampling of
providers recording how an event has affected their infrastructure and
capabilities. Requiring DIRS reporting will identify clearly for the
Commission and other emergency response agencies of any possible issues
and signals for needed aid and assistance and will make apparent when a
provider does not or cannot report that there is an issue with their
system or reporting capabilities. APCO International agrees that
``improving the information in these important systems will be helpful
for situational awareness and ongoing efforts to improve network
resiliency.'' Public Knowledge stresses the importance of ``better,
timelier, and more detailed outage and service-quality reporting to
ensure accountability [and] . . . needs to make this data available to
the public in a way that balances the twin imperatives of transparency
and information security.'' We agree that mandating reporting in DIRS
will improve situational awareness through daily status updates during
emergencies and serve the public interest by providing vital
information regarding the operational status of communications networks
the Commission and emergency response entities need to effectively
manage communications needs during and after disasters occur.
Mandating DIRS is especially important in today's disaster climate
as the quantity of disasters has increased since DIRS was first
formulated. 2023 was recorded as the worst year on record for billion-
dollar weather and climate disasters, passing the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) prior record of 22 events in 2020
within the first eight months of 2023. DIRS data associated with an
impacted area is of particular importance, since it provides a
preliminary understanding of both the impact and scope of damages,
enables the optimization of the allocation, prioritization, and
deployment of response and restoration personnel and resources.
Further, the analysis of DIRS data enables the identification of
reliability trends and challenges associated with infrastructure in
rural, underserved, and underprivileged communities. In addition, given
the rise in the utilization of communications infrastructure by
emergency response officials as a tool for alerting both through WEA
and through more established Emergency Alert System (EAS) channels, as
well as the advent of Next-Generation 911 and text-to-911, the need for
relevant and comprehensive information related to the availability of
the infrastructure for communication from and with the public provides
added urgency for the reformation of our information collection efforts
in the DIRS context in particular.
While commenters argue that reporting in this context is a burden
particularly for small entities, we disagree with those who surmise
that mandating participation in DIRS will be unduly burdensome for
subject providers and that the benefits of such reporting and
information garnered do not outweigh the detriments, especially in the
matter of preserving life and public safety. For example, NCTA says
that ``[w]hile outreach to customers during emergencies is vital,
`prescriptive requirements for specific modes of communication or
unrealistic levels of precision and detail--as
[[Page 25538]]
proposed by some in the record--are impractical under emergency
conditions and would divert limited resources away from maintenance and
restoration of service.'' Commenters making such assertions opposing
mandatory DIRS reporting, however, fail to adequately counter the
benefits it will provide, and overlook the efficiencies associated with
the proposal. While opposing commenters identify some burdens
associated with filing in DIRS, they fail to take into account that
providers would benefit from a simultaneous reduction of burdens due to
the waiver of NORS filing requirements that we codify below. For
instance, under NORS, a provider may have to file multiple reports for
outages across a geographic area (even within counties for areas like
cities and towns) dependent on the number of components involved. Under
DIRS, while providers are filing daily, they are submitting DIRS
reports for the entirety of the affected area. Further, the DIRS
reporting content is less burdensome than NORS in terms of
requirements. We agree with Free Press' observation that the Commission
can also manage burdens as it has the authority to waive mandatory DIRS
requirements on a case-by-case basis where appropriate, such as for
extraordinary circumstances. In this respect, non-filing due to such
circumstances will be examined on a case-by-case basis. In those
instances where extraordinary circumstances prevent filing due to
operational limitations, providers should: (1) use the Operations
Center or otherwise notify the Commission if they are unable to file;
and (2) make a filing as soon as they are capable, but no later than
the final report due upon deactivation of DIRS, described below.
We also disagree with NTCA's contention that DIRS reports may not
be useful because there are other avenues, including through the work
of the DHS-NCC, for emergency managers and first responders to obtain
real-time situational awareness information. NCTA's similar argument
that mandating DIRS filings is not warranted because it does not result
in active participation by stakeholders at the state and local level is
also unpersuasive. First, the systematic, mandatory collection of
information in DIRS would not overlap with other Federal, state, local,
Tribal, and territorial government efforts, and this non-duplicative
information would be made available in real-time to both DHS and other
participating public safety entities pursuant to the Commission's
information sharing rules to further enhance their efforts (The
mandated collection of information associated with DIRS would be non-
duplicative and lacking in overlap with state, local, Tribal, and
territorial governments as the information they receive comes from the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Emergency Support
Function #2 (ESF-2) and/or its state public utility system. Local
response officials would be lacking this information unless a state or
local entity has a relationship with a specific carrier, which is not
common.). Such information could also be available to local entities
through permitted downstream sharing (The Commission's rules allow
Participating Agencies to share NORS and DIRS information with first
responders, emergency communications centers, and other local
government agencies who play a vital public safety role during crises
and have a need to know this information (Downstream Agencies).), and
is shared with the public on an aggregated basis via communications
status reports published daily by the Commission when DIRS is
activated, providing valuable public information on available avenues
for communications during emergencies. Additionally, mandating
reporting in DIRS for all subject providers would ensure full
participation of service providers in each affected area and therefore
present the Commission and other entities with a comprehensive insight
as to infrastructure status and reporting capabilities of such entities
through regular updates. The contentions of NTCA and NCTA are
contradicted by a significant factual record identified in the 2021
Resilient Networks NPRM and in the Commission's Disaster Communications
Fall 2021 Field Hearing. As Public Knowledge underscores, the
importance of information regarding the status of communications
networks during and after disasters, especially in providing real-time
updates and emergency alerts to the public as well as to emergency
response personnel, is critical, particularly as it provides more
geographically and infrastructure-specific information to those
affected by outages.
We also reject the assertions of ACA Connects and NTCA that the
burden for small providers with limited resources is too substantial to
justify mandatory reporting, particularly in the midst of the need to
effectuate repairs. Small providers, including many recipients of
Universal Service Funds (USF), are often a crucial link for alerting
and 911 in rural and underserved communities. The lack of visibility
into the operational status of these networks when disaster response
officials are performing vital tasks like determining how to effectuate
outreach to communities that may involve evacuation instructions,
shelter in place, or other emergency directives does a significant
disservice to these populations, and may place them at increased risk.
While timely restoration is crucially important, the minimal time and
burden associated with notifying the Commission of infrastructure
status is necessary to ensure timely emergency response activity.
Moreover, we clarify that submissions made in DIRS under the rule
adopted in the Order shall be based on information known by the
provider at the time. We further recognize that in circumstances where
DIRS is activated subject providers are necessarily operating in a
disaster environment, and that submissions must be provided with a
reasonable basis for believing the information therein is accurate. In
those instances where extraordinary circumstances prevent filing due to
operational limitations, providers should: (1) use the FCC Operations
Center or otherwise notify the Commission if they are unable to file;
and (2) make a filing as soon as they are capable, but no later than
the final report due upon deactivation of DIRS, described herein.
It has been sixteen years since the Commission launched DIRS, and
the time is ripe to take steps to improve the efficacy of the system.
While the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) argues that
nothing has changed since the Commission's 2007 determination that a
voluntary process for DIRS reporting proved adaptable to the unique
circumstances of various crises, we disagree. The state of natural
disasters, frequencies of emergencies, and the emergence of advanced
technology has changed remarkably over the last almost two decades. The
evolution of alerting through the advent of WEA, the associated
implementation of FEMA's Integrated Public Alert and Warning System
(IPAWS) gateway for the dissemination of WEAs and EAS alerts, as well
as the launch of the Commission's own information sharing program for
NORS and DIRS have altered the regulatory landscape as well. NAB's
position similarly fails to consider the results of a Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report noting a sharp increase in the
number of wireless outages attributed to a physical incidents, and its
recommendation that the Commission improve its monitoring of industry
[[Page 25539]]
efforts to strengthen wireless network resilience, as well as the
Commission's own previous determinations, as a result of inquiries and
investigations of the infrastructure status and capabilities of
providers during and after disasters, that there is a need for a more
comprehensive monitoring of situational awareness information. Like the
recently adopted Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative (MDRI), DIRS is
another valuable tool that can aid the Commission in its resiliency and
restoration efforts. While the MDRI focuses on improving the resiliency
and reliability of mobile wireless networks before, during, and after
emergencies, DIRS provides the means to identify where the reparation,
replacement, and restoration of communications infrastructure is vital.
DIRS also provides important information regarding which and how
many Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) are unable to receive
incoming emergency information from consumers in need. In regard to
PSAPs, while NORS and DIRS serve similar purposes (reporting network
outages), they collect different types of data. PSAP impact data is
specifically collected by DIRS and not NORS. Once DIRS is activated,
the Commission gets more fidelity as to PSAP status that it would not
ordinarily get if only NORS were utilized, as no PSAP-specific
information is collected in NORS at all. DIRS further provides
information such as how many cell sites have been affected, where
damaged power infrastructure is impacting communications, and other
status information. Rather than waiting for the next emergency--be it
natural or man-made--to strike and remind us, again, of the importance
of comprehensive situational awareness to ensure the public safety and
expedite the restoration of communications, we are relying on our
experience and the record before us to adopt mandatory DIRS
requirements now.
In considering the scope of reporting entities, we limit our
determination at this time to cable communications, wireless, wireline,
and interconnected VoIP providers. In this respect, we find that the
record supports adoption of mandatory DIRS reporting for these
providers because this group of providers should already have
information like points of contact, roaming agreements, coordination
and response plans, and restoration plans of action in place due to the
general course of business. This was echoed in the record by Public
Knowledge. Wireless providers especially should already have these
ideals for resiliency and restoration in place given the 2016 Wireless
Network Resiliency Cooperative Framework that has recently been
mandated as the MDRI, which requires wireless providers to establish
and share with the Commission (upon request) elements like roaming
arrangements and mutual aid agreements. However, we note the concerns
raised by satellite (DBS and SDARS) and broadcast (television and
radio) providers seeking to differentiate their services in terms of
impact to their specific technology in disaster contexts, operational
restrictions, and the types of information that is likely relevant for
disaster response relative to these particular services that may impact
the specific data needs to be collected from these entities. For
example, certain types of technology, like satellite, may have limited
terrestrial components impacted by a disaster such that a more nuanced
approach for outage reporting may be appropriate. In this respect, we
also note that these services, while crucial to distribute information
during disasters, may not serve the same function as the other services
for which we require DIRS reporting today--namely, the use by consumers
to seek help by communicating with emergency responders and loved ones.
The Satellite Industry Association (SIA) requests more detail regarding
proposals for mandatory DIRS reporting for that sector, and NAB raises
arguments about the burdens of reporting, especially for smaller
broadcasters who experience disruptions in the services they provide as
well as underlying telephone, internet, or power services on which
broadcasters rely to provide service. Further, these emergencies and
``disasters often lead to power outages and the loss of telephone and
internet access, making it difficult if not impossible for smaller
stations without a corporate support infrastructure to file a DIRS
report.'' To build a more complete record about the impact of our
proposals on the satellite and broadcast sectors, we seek further
comment pertaining to satellite and broadcast, as well as broadband,
providers whose comments share different concerns and views than the
subject providers included under the Order, in the Second FNPRM.
By mandating DIRS reporting for subject providers, we expect that
there will be an increase in both the volume and clarity of situational
awareness information collected, and the Commission will be able to
share this information with Federal, state, Tribal, and territorial
partners. Additional DIRS information will be helpful during disaster
events and can help improve public safety planning and response
efforts. DIRS provides decision-making public safety officials and
emergency managers with an invaluable tool for assessing where
communications services and infrastructure are impacted by disasters,
as well as insights into the speed and scope of communications
restoration. Particularly, DIRS information is a key performance
indicator and serves as a primary input to the FEMA Lifelines report
and Senior Leaders Interagency Briefings, which enables decision makers
to concentrate their personnel and resources on areas presumed to have
been impacted the hardest. Requiring this information to be reported by
subject providers will assist with general situational awareness, the
deployment of disaster and recovery logistics, and applications of
infrastructure grants and insurance claims.
Confidentiality. Several commenters raise concerns regarding the
protection of information that entities would be providing in DIRS on a
mandatory basis. For instance, NCTA urges the Commission to maintain
its presumption of confidentiality for DIRS information submitted by
subject providers, while the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) alternatively argues that ``it is critical for people to acquire
as much information about outages, disasters, and service restoration
efforts before relocating to another, presumably safer location.''
Public Knowledge similarly argues that public disclosure of outage
information would enhance market incentives to provide more reliable
service. While we shift from voluntary to mandatory reporting, we find
no compelling reason at this time to alter the existing presumption of
confidentiality for any reporting information received merely by virtue
of this change, and decline to amend that presumption here. The
Commission acknowledges that the CPUC filed a Petition for
Reconsideration in regard to information sharing. The determination
here discussing confidentiality and the treatment of information is not
a pre-judgment of the Petition in that context. Particularly in the
DIRS context, we note that public disclosures are already made on an
aggregated basis, providing a level of transparency to consumers to
effectuate the primary purpose of DIRS--the collection and
dissemination of disaster-specific outage impact information. While
driving the market to more reliability is an important goal, we do not
find that disclosure in this context is appropriate at this time.
[[Page 25540]]
B. Codifying the NORS Reporting Waiver When DIRS Is Activated
In the 2021 Resilient Networks NPRM, the Commission sought comment
on whether to codify the Commission's typical practice of granting
subject providers a waiver of their NORS reporting requirements when
they report in DIRS. Under the Commission's current voluntary DIRS
reporting approach, the Bureau typically waives NORS reporting
obligations for subject providers who elect to report in DIRS for the
duration of its activation period. This decision is announced through
the release by the Commission of a formal notice on an activation-by-
activation basis. The Bureau has routinely issued this sua sponte
waiver when DIRS has been activated and has found success with this
approach. In the Order, we adopt this proposal and give it effect by
revising the Commission's part 4 rules to suspend all NORS reporting
obligations pertaining to outages that arise when DIRS reporting is
activated and outages are timely reported in DIRS. 47 CFR part 4. More
specifically, the Commission will waive NORS filings that would be due
while DIRS is activated. Further, and as discussed more below in the
following sections, once an outage has been filed under DIRS per the
Order, a provider need not file the same outage in NORS.
USTelecom--The Broadband Association (USTelecom), NCTA, and AT&T
support this proposal expressly, and no commenters oppose it.
Accordingly, we conclude that formally codifying this practice would
give providers more clarity on their obligations and both streamline
and formalize existing practices with no detrimental impact on the
Commission's current public safety efforts. Because of the long and
successful practice of granting waivers, the Bureau and the industry
should easily transition to this permanent solution. Moreover, the
codification of this practice will be beneficial for subject providers
as this waiver will reduce burdens for DIRS filers during emergency
conditions when the system is activated. As proposed, this shift
between reporting mechanisms also mitigates the burden of potentially
duplicative reporting for subject providers by only requiring reporting
in one system during and after disasters instead of a dual requirement.
This will also provide administrative efficiency by eliminating the
need for the Bureau to determine and issue waivers on an activation-by-
activation basis.
C. Final DIRS Reports Upon Deactivation
In the 2021 Resilient Networks NPRM, the Commission sought comment
on how to maintain situational awareness as to the status of providers'
services when a provider has not yet fully restored its service at the
time that the Commission deactivates DIRS. The 2021 Resilient Networks
NPRM asked whether providers with ongoing outages at the time of DIRS
being deactivated should be required to report those outages in NORS;
the Commission proposed resolving this issue by requiring that subject
providers with ongoing outages at the time of DIRS deactivation provide
a final report that describes their current infrastructure status at
the time the system was deactivated to be submitted within 24 hours of
deactivation. This would allow the Commission to see what remains
unresolved immediately following deactivation of DIRS, and provide to
the Commission an estimate of when the subject provider believes the
issue(s) can be resolved. We adopt that proposal here; the final report
shall be provided as input to a free form text field in the current
DIRS interface, where a subject provider will be able to describe in
detail the identity and status of outstanding infrastructure equipment
and issues and the estimated dates by which these issues shall be
resolved.
Under the Commission's current rules, there may be instances in
which DIRS is deactivated but some providers have not yet fully
restored service. In these instances, the Commission no longer has
situational awareness as to the status of those subject providers'
services because updates are no longer being filed in DIRS and the
outage would have never been filed in NORS (as the Commission typically
suspends NORS reporting obligations for subject providers who elect to
report in DIRS, and we adopt that practice in the Order). This has
resulted in an information gap where the Commission loses situational
awareness of subject providers' status in restoring services after DIRS
is deactivated. No commenter directly addresses whether providers with
ongoing outages at the time of DIRS deactivation should be required to
report those outages in NORS, but AT&T opines that any such report
should be provided in DIRS rather than NORS.
We find that a final deactivation report, filed in DIRS within 24
hours of the Commission deactivating DIRS, will close a significant gap
that currently occurs at the conclusion of the DIRS reporting period,
and therefore adopt such a reporting requirement. Bridging this
informational divide will also enable Commission staff to conduct
follow-up inquiries on an as-needed basis based on the information
gathered, increase provider accountability, and provide needed
opportunities for analysis associated with recovery. While this minor
additional filing to close out issues presented though the course of a
DIRS activation is only a minimal burden, we find the minor burden
outweighed by the anticipated benefits and efficiencies associated with
more directed staff engagement with incident resolution. We also find
that this close-out report obviates the need for any additional filings
in NORS as related to the same outage and clarify that once an outage
is filed in DIRS, the event need not be filed in NORS.
We also agree with AT&T that it would be most effective for
providers to supply a final report in DIRS since the report relates to
a provider's previous filings in DIRS. Moreover, filing such reports in
DIRS will promote efficiency and reduce confusion, both for those who
file reports and for those who review them. This would include subject
providers, participating entities who take part in the Commission's
NORS and DIRS information sharing program, and Commission staff. Final
reports will promote clarity by continuing to associate such reports
with the initiating incident in the same system.
While the 2021 Resilient Networks NPRM did not posit a specific
implementation for the reporting format, and no commenter proposed a
specific implementation, we clarify here that the report should be
completed by filling in a free form text field in DIRS where a subject
provider shall provide, in a text field, a short summary of the
identity and status of its outstanding infrastructure equipment and
estimated dates by which any and all issues will be resolved. This
format will allow maximum flexibility for subject providers to include
effective descriptions to the Commission given the wide range of issue
types and related circumstances that may occur in the aftermath of DIRS
activation. We require, however, that a part of that free form input
include estimated resolution dates, which will both create
accountability on the part of providers and allow the Commission staff
to promptly and effectively follow-up with the providers as necessary.
D. Cost-Benefit Analysis
In the 2021 Resilient Networks NPRM, the Commission generally
sought information on the costs and benefits specific to promoting
situational
[[Page 25541]]
awareness during disasters, noting that ``a proposed requirement to
file in DIRS must be balanced against additional burdens on providers,
particularly as DIRS reports are filed in the midst of disasters and
other emergencies.'' The Commission asked commenters to explore the
costs and benefits associated with mandatory reporting, but the record
was lacking in response to this request. However, ACA Connects states
that the Commission ``should not adopt any requirements to participate
in DIRS without undertaking a cost-benefit analysis that addresses such
questions when it comes to considering mandatory reporting for smaller
providers.''
We are cognizant of the fact that, as a general matter, it is
impossible to assign precise dollar values to the improvement in public
safety, life and health resulting from changes to the DIRS reporting
requirements. Nevertheless, we believe that these proposals will result
in benefits in terms of lives saved and injuries and property damages
prevented. Expanded reporting will improve situational awareness of
outages during disasters and aid in emergency response and recovery
coordination. Improved information on outages makes communications
options clearer for the individual responding in disasters. Improved
data on outages can also help the government hold providers accountable
for failures to timely respond to outages. Data collected can help with
future disasters through improved planning for support and mitigation
strategies. According to NOAA, natural disasters have caused annually
in excess of $118 billion in economic damages and 564 deaths for the
last 10 years. We believe that the mandatory DIRS filing obligation
will result in a reduction of these harms to a degree that results in a
significant social and public safety benefit.
In considering the costs associated with a mandatory DIRS filing
obligation, we expect that subject providers will enter emergency
contact information and critical information as necessary (i.e.,
related to infrastructure damage and restoration) in DIRS. Responses,
and DIRS reports generally, will differ and appear unique for each
emergency or disaster due to differing events, geographic areas (e.g.,
a network covers several affected counties and submits one DIRS report
for each county), and varieties of service provided. We estimate that
the average cost of the mandatory DIRS reporting for cable
communications, wireless, wireline, and interconnected VoIP providers
is less than $1.6 million per year. We do not account for the cost
arising from assessing the network availability during DIRS activations
because, as part of normal business operations, service providers would
have made these assessments without the reporting requirement when a
disaster strikes. As a result, the assessment cost is not considered
separately in the cost estimate. The cost estimate of $1.6 million is
likely an overestimate because it includes service providers that are
currently voluntarily participating and already incurring the reporting
costs without the changes in rules for mandated subject providers.
While it would be impossible to quantify the precise financial
value of these health and safety benefits, we believe that the value of
these benefits will significantly outweigh the annual cost of $1.6
million. In light of the record reflecting large benefits to
communications providers, agencies, and other industry stakeholders, we
find that the total incremental costs imposed on the nation's subject
providers by these new requirements will be minimal in many instances
and, even when significant, will be far outweighed by the nationwide
benefits. While DIRS provides vital information pertaining to
infrastructure status, it can only be beneficial if as many providers
as possible participate in reporting. This level of participation has
yet to be achieved in a voluntary reporting state, causing the need to
transition to mandatory reporting.
E. Timelines for Compliance
We set a single date for compliance by all subject providers for
implementing these rules at the later of 30 days after the FCC
publishes notice in the Federal Register that the OMB has completed its
review of Paperwork Reduction Act requirements, November 30, 2024. The
Commission has selected November 30, 2024, as the effective date for
mandated DIRS reporting to go into effect as this gives subject
providers a number of months to comply and ensures that mandated DIRS
reporting is in place for the entirety of the 2025 hurricane season
(based on the 2023 current hurricane season that runs from June 1,
2023, to November 30, 2023). We anticipate that by November 2024 new
filers will have sufficient time to prepare for filing and the
Commission will be able to make any changes required in the DIRS
system. This date will also provide reasonable assurance that any
necessary transitions do not occur during the height of hurricane
season, which typically ends by late November.
We also find that subject providers will require only a modest
amount of time to adjust their processes to comply with these rules
because, as noted above, many subject providers already voluntarily
report in DIRS or have similar reporting or recording practices for
disasters in place. We believe that the compliance timing provided
grants sufficient time for subject providers, including small entities,
to implement any changes to their reporting methods and work with
Bureau staff to resolve any concerns about the DIRS reporting process.
Once the compliance date has been established, we will require that
cable communications, wireless, wireline, and interconnected VoIP
subject providers report their infrastructure status information in
DIRS whenever the Commission activates DIRS in geographic areas where
such entities provide service. To resolve previous ambiguity as to
whether a subject provider was failing to report because (1) its
network infrastructure remained fully operational; (2) the entity was
unable to file; or (3) the entity cannot access DIRS due to disruption
of its internet access or other exigencies, the Commission requires
entities to file reports on a daily basis until the Commission has
deactivated DIRS. In this respect, non-filing due to such circumstances
will be examined on a case-by-case basis. In those instances where
extraordinary circumstances prevent filing due to operational
limitations, providers should: (1) use the Operations Center or
otherwise notify the Commission if they are unable to file; and (2)
make a filing as soon as they are capable, but no later than the final
report due upon deactivation of DIRS.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 4
Communications equipment, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 part 4 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.
[[Page 25542]]
0
2. Add Sec. 4.18 to read as follows:
Sec. 4.18 Mandatory Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS)
reporting for Cable Communications, Wireless, Wireline, and VoIP
providers.
(a) Cable Communications, Wireline, Wireless, and Interconnected
VoIP providers shall be required to report their infrastructure status
information each day in the Disaster Information Reporting System
(DIRS) when the Commission activates DIRS in geographic areas in which
they provide service, even when their reportable infrastructure has not
changed compared to the prior day. Cable Communications, Wireless,
Wireline and Interconnected VoIP providers are subject to mandated
reporting in DIRS and shall:
(1) Provide daily reports on their infrastructure status from the
start of DIRS activation until DIRS has been deactivated.
(2) Provide a single, final report to the Commission within 24
hours of the Commission's deactivation of DIRS and the termination of
required daily reporting, detailing the state of their infrastructure
at the time of DIRS deactivation and an estimated date of resolution of
any remaining outages.
(b) Cable Communications, Wireline, Wireless, and Interconnected
VoIP providers who provide a DIRS report pursuant to paragraph (a) of
this section are not required to make submissions in the Network Outage
Reporting System (NORS) under this chapter pertaining to any incidents
arising during the DIRS activation and that are timely reported in
DIRS. Subject providers shall be notified that DIRS is activated and
deactivated pursuant to Public Notice from the Commission and/or the
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
(c) This section may contain information collection and/or
recordkeeping requirements. Compliance with this section will not be
required until this paragraph (c) is removed or contains compliance
dates.
[FR Doc. 2024-07402 Filed 4-10-24; 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 April 11, 2024.
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.