Rule2024-18606
Disruptions to Communications; Improving 911 Reliability; Concerning 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
August 21, 2024
Effective
August 21, 2024
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted an Order on Reconsideration that denies the petition for reconsideration filed by Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) with respect to the Second Report and Order in this proceeding.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 162 (Wednesday, August 21, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 21, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67558-67560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18606]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 4
[PS Docket Nos. 15-80 and 13-75, ET Docket No. 04-35, FCC 24-73 FR ID
238688]
Disruptions to Communications; Improving 911 Reliability;
Concerning Disruptions to Communications
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
adopted an Order on Reconsideration that denies the petition for
reconsideration filed by Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) with
respect to the Second Report and Order in this proceeding.
DATES: Effective August 21, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact
Barbara Kunkel, Attorney Advisor, Policy and Licensing Division, Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0671 or via email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c785a6b5a5a6b5a6e98cb2a9aca2ab87a1a4a4e9a0a8b1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="95d7f4e7f7f4e7f4bbdee0fbfef0f9d5f3f6f6bbf2fae3">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order
on Reconsideration, FCC 24-73, adopted on July 10, 2024, and released
on July 11, 2024. The complete text of this document is available for
public inspection on the Commission's website at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-73A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-73A1.pdf</a>. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a1e7e2e2949195e1c7c2c28fc6ced7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ec8cdcdbbbebacee8ededa0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a> or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).
Synopsis
1. The Order on Reconsideration denies the petition for
reconsideration of the Second Report and Order, 88 FR 9756 (Feb. 15,
2023), filed by CCA on March 17, 2023. In the Second Report and Order
the Commission adopted rules to harmonize the 911 outage notification
requirements for originating service providers (OSPs) and covered 911
service providers. Specifically, the Second Report and Order required
both OSPs and covered 911 service providers to notify Public Safety
Answering Points (PSAPs) of outages that potentially affect them as
soon as possible, but no later than 30 minutes after discovering the
outage. The Commission also required OSPs and covered 911 service
providers to maintain accurate and up-to-date PSAP contact information
for the purpose of providing 911 outage notifications.
2. CCA sought reconsideration of two aspects of the Second Report
and Order as they apply to OSPs. First, CCA argued that it is
unreasonable to require OSPs to initially notify PSAPs of 911 outages
within 30 minutes of discovering an outage. CCA further argued that OSP
compliance with the 30-minute rule (1) is infeasible or impossible, (2)
should not apply to outages attributable to third-party vendors, (3)
will cause over-notification to PSAPs, and (4) will overburden small
and rural carriers. CCA argued instead that the Commission should
revert to the previous rule that required OSPs to notify PSAPs ``as
soon as possible'' with no time limitation. In the alternative, if the
Commission retains the 30-minute rule, CCA argued that the Commission
should define ``discovery'' of an outage to be when an OSP receives
notification of the outage from its third-party vendor or service
provider, rather than when the third-party vendor or service provider
itself discovers the outage. CCA also argued that the Commission should
modify the 30-minute rule to deem OSPs compliant if they begin
notifying affected PSAPs within 30 minutes, even if they do not
complete notification to all potentially affected PSAPs within that
timeframe. Second, CCA requested that the Commission reconsider the
requirement that OSPs use ``special diligence'' to identify, maintain,
and annually confirm contact information for PSAPs in their service
areas. CCA argued that the Commission materially erred in estimating
the cost to OSPs of complying with this requirement, and that the rule
will overburden small and rural carriers. Accordingly, CCA asserted
that the Commission should create and operate a centralized PSAP
contact information database rather than requiring OSPs to maintain
PSAP contact information themselves.
3. Regarding the application of a 30-minute initial PSAP
notification deadline to OSPs, the Commission
[[Page 67559]]
found CCA's arguments unpersuasive and concluded that the Commission
was reasonable in adding a time limit to the OSP notification rules.
The Commission found in the Second Report and Order that in the absence
of a time limit, the ``as soon as possible'' standard does not
incentivize OSPs to provide timely outage notifications, but instead
incentivizes them to take a passive approach to monitoring and
detecting outages. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission
observed that delays in receiving outage notifications undermine the
ability of PSAPs to provide timely information to the public on
available means to contact emergency services when an outage impacts
911 service, and that reverting to a notification standard with no time
limit, as CCA advocated, would exacerbate the very harm the rule was
adopted to address. The Commission also disagreed with CCA's contention
that a 30-minute time limit on OSP notifications is infeasible or
unreasonable. The Commission found that CCA and supporting commenters
provided no basis for reconsidering the Commission decision in the
Second Report and Order rejecting arguments that 30 minutes is an
insufficient amount of time for OSPs to obtain initial information
about outages and provide notification to PSAPs. In the Order on
Reconsideration, the Commission explained that as a practical matter,
providers will have at least an hour, and potentially more, from the
start of any outage to gather information to include in the initial
outage notifications to PSAPs, and that the purpose of the initial
notification is not to provide complete information about the outage,
but to serve as a preliminary notice of a potential problem to a 911
special facility. With respect to OSP responsibility for third-party
discovery of an outage, in the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission
determined that the Second Report and Order properly defined an OSP's
discovery of an outage to include when the outage is discovered by its
third-party vendor or service provider. In addition, the Commission in
the Order on Reconsideration explained that an OSP may satisfy its
obligation to notify a PSAP of an outage ``if the party that actually
discovers the outage--which may be a third party--notifies the PSAP
within these timeframes.'' With respect to over-notification to PSAPs,
the Commission rejected CCA's contention that the 30 minute rule will
force OSPs to send blanket notifications to PSAPs that may not be
directly affected by an outage, leading to over-notification,
notification fatigue, and overburdening of PSAPs. The Commission found
that proper application of the rule should limit the risk of over-
notification, citing the reporting thresholds in the Part 4 rules and
that nothing precludes OSPs from working together to establish more
coordinated and efficient outage notification processes that reduce the
likelihood of unnecessary notifications. Additionally, even if the rule
results in occasional unnecessary notifications, the Commission found
that the overriding objective is for OSPs to notify PSAPs to better
enable PSAPs to more quickly reduce the impact of an outage, including
the PSAPs' ability to coordinate emergency response resources with
first responders. Finally, with regard to CCA's assertion that the 30
minute requirement will overburden small or rural carriers, the burden
on smaller carriers to provide notifications is likely to be less than
for larger carriers because the notification requirement is based in
part on potential user minutes impacted. The Commission explained that
OSPs that operate lines that serve fewer customers would have to
experience longer outages to reach the user-minute threshold required
for notification, which effectively allows more time for them to
investigate the outages.
4. Regarding using special diligence to maintain up-to-date PSAP
contact information, the Commission rejected CCA's proposal to have the
Commission create a centralized database before OSPs would be required
to exercise special diligence in maintaining PSAP contact information.
The Commission noted that this compliance obligation can be readily met
by other means, including by the service providers developing their own
database capabilities rather than waiting for the Commission to do so;
PSAP contact information is currently available to OSPs through a
variety of sources; and CCA's proposal ignores the fact that the rules
have long required OSPs to contact PSAPs in the event of an outage,
which necessitates their having current PSAP contact information. The
Commission declined to establish a safe harbor because it would act as
a disincentive for OSPs to create methods to affirmatively confirm PSAP
contact information, effectively nullifying the special diligence
standard. The Commission also was unpersuaded by arguments that the
special diligence standard for maintaining up-to-date PSAP contact
information is confusing and fails to provide certainty on how to
comply; and the Commission found that the Second Report and Order fully
explained the special diligence standard and properly rejected
commenters' proposed alternatives. Regarding the burden on small and
rural carriers, the Commission found, contrary to CCA's arguments, that
the Second Report and Order correctly took the interests and
capabilities of small and rural carriers into account, in adopting the
special diligence requirement for maintaining PSAP contact information.
Finally, the Commission reviewed the Second Report and Order cost
estimate in light of CCA's arguments that the Commission materially
erred in estimating the compliance costs for providers to maintain up-
to-date PSAP contact information, and the Commission made upward
revisions to better reflect the cost information. Although this change
resulted in a considerable increase in costs, the Commission found that
costs are still low enough for the Commission to conclude that the
benefits outweigh the costs of the requirements.
I. Procedural Matters
5. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This Order on Reconsideration
does not contain any new or modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law
104-13. Thus, it does not contain any new or modified information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
6. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will not send a copy of
this Order on Reconsideration to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because no rule was adopted or amended.
7. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. In the Second Report and
Order, the Commission provided a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA).
We received no petitions for reconsideration of that Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis. In this present Order on Reconsideration, the
Commission promulgates no additional final rules. Our present action
is, therefore, not an RFA matter.
II. Ordering Clauses
8. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Petition for Reconsideration
filed on March 17, 2023, by CCA is denied.
9. It is further ordered that this Order on Reconsideration shall
be effective
[[Page 67560]]
upon publication in the Federal Register.
Federal Communications Commission
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-18606 Filed 8-20-24; 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 August 21, 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.