Proposed Rule2025-16737
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
September 2, 2025
Effective
October 2, 2025
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) commences a thorough review of the Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS) and proposes changes to ensure the system is collecting information useful to disaster response without imposing unreasonable burdens on stakeholders. To reduce these burdens, this document proposes replacing the different DIRS worksheets with a single, dynamic form and introduces a "one-click" option for indicating there is "no change" from the preceding day's DIRS report. Further, this document proposes eliminating or modifying information fields that are duplicative or that may not request information that offers significant value for disaster response. The document further proposes reducing burdens by removing the requirement for mandatory DIRS filers to submit a final report within 24 hours of DIRS deactivation, and eliminating the reporting obligations for non- facilities-based providers. Other modernization proposals include suspending Network Outage Reporting System (NORS) reporting requirements for providers that timely report in DIRS Lite and removing barriers to outage information sharing for state agencies.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 167 (Tuesday, September 2, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 167 (Tuesday, September 2, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42355-42363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-16737]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 4
[PS Docket Nos. 21-346, 15-80, ET Docket No. 04-35; FCC 25-45; FR ID
310513]
Resilient Networks; Disruptions to Communications
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC
or Commission) commences a thorough review of the Disaster Information
Reporting System (DIRS) and proposes changes to ensure the system is
collecting information useful to disaster response without imposing
unreasonable burdens on stakeholders. To reduce these burdens, this
document proposes replacing the different DIRS worksheets with a
single, dynamic form and introduces a ``one-click'' option for
indicating there is ``no change'' from the preceding day's DIRS report.
Further, this document proposes eliminating or modifying information
fields that are duplicative or that may not request information that
offers significant value for disaster response. The document further
proposes reducing burdens by removing the requirement for mandatory
DIRS filers to submit a final report within 24 hours of DIRS
deactivation, and eliminating the reporting obligations for non-
facilities-based providers. Other modernization proposals include
suspending Network Outage Reporting System (NORS) reporting
requirements for providers that timely report in DIRS Lite and removing
barriers to outage information sharing for state agencies.
DATES: Comments are due on or before October 2, 2025 and reply comments
are due on or before November 3, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of
the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Comments may be filed
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). You may
submit comments, identified by PS Docket Nos. 21-346 and 15-80; ET
Docket No. 04-35 by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the Commission's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
<bullet> Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class
Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L
Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> People with Disabilities: 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#60060303555054200603034e070f16"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5f393c3c6a6f6b1f393c3c71383029">[email protected]</span></a> or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanne Stockman, Attorney Advisor,
Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety
and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-7830, or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcf6d9ddd2d2d992efc8d3dfd7d1ddd2fcdadfdf92dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="89c3ece8e7e7eca7dafde6eae2e4e8e7c9efeaeaa7eee6ff">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third FNPRM), PS Docket Nos. 21-
346 and 15-80; ET Docket No. 04-35, FCC 25-45, adopted August 4, 2025,
and released August 6, 2025. 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-25-45A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-45A1.pdf</a>. The full text
of this document is available for public inspection and copying during
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554. 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" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e484d4d3b3e3a4e686d6d20696178">[email protected]</a> or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice). A RULE relating to
47 CFR part 4 is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.
Ex Parte Rules
The proceeding this Third FNPRM initiates shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in
[[Page 42356]]
the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's
written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the
presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her
prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant
page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be
found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown
or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be
written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with Sec.
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires
that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-
and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that
``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.'' Accordingly, the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) concerning potential rule and policy changes contained in this
Third FNPRM. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix D of the FCC document,
<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-modernization-nations-alerting-systems">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-modernization-nations-alerting-systems</a>. The Commission invites the general public, in
particular small businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments must be
filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM indicated on the first
page of this Third FNPRM and must have a separate and distinct heading
designating them as responses to the IRFA.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may contain
revised information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of
its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general
public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the
information collection requirements contained in this document, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment
on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act
Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency
Act, Public Law 118-9, a summary of this Third FNPRM will be available
on <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
Synopsis
I. Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Streamlining the DIRS Reporting Framework
The Third FNPRM proposes to redesign the DIRS user interface to
offer manual DIRS filers the ability to file a single, dynamic form
instead of the current array of ten separate worksheets concerning
different types of service and infrastructure, and seek comment on this
proposal. Under the current framework, when the Bureau activates DIRS,
providers must log into DIRS the day after activation (and on each
subsequent day during which DIRS remains active) to complete worksheets
applicable to its infrastructure. As described below, each of the ten
DIRS worksheets is about one page in length and includes multiple
information fields for providers to complete, and providers that file
manually must input line-item data for each report applicable to the
services they provide--and sometimes must complete multiple versions of
the same worksheet if, for instance, they have more than one type of
major equipment affected by the disaster. Many of the worksheets
request overlapping data, rendering the current DIRS manual reporting
framework cumbersome and inefficient for manual filers. Moreover, the
frequency and intensity of disasters has increased since the Commission
first established DIRS in 2007, leading to more frequent and lengthier
DIRS activations. This increase, combined with newly effective
mandatory DIRS reporting obligations for cable communications,
wireless, wireline and interconnected VoIP providers, makes it
appropriate for us to examine whether to simplify the DIRS reporting
framework.
Under our proposal, rather than filling out a series of separate,
overlapping worksheets, providers that log into DIRS would respond to
initial questions concerning the types of services they provide in the
DIRS activation area and the types of equipment and facilities affected
by the disaster. Based on these initial responses, each provider would
be presented with questions seeking information relevant only to the
services it provides, and would only be required to provide information
common to multiple services and equipment types (such as the location
and number of subscribers affected) once. For DIRS filers who complete
the current worksheets manually, who we acknowledge represent a
minority of the providers who are required to report in DIRS, this will
also eliminate the need to complete multiple copies of certain
worksheets if, for instance, they must report damage to multiple types
of equipment or cell sites out in multiple counties. We further propose
to include a ``one-click'' option on the consolidated worksheet for
providers to indicate there is ``no change'' from the preceding day's
DIRS report, which would eliminate the current need for providers to
complete multiple steps to report each day when their infrastructure
status has not changed. We believe these modifications may
significantly simplify and reduce the time burden associated with
manual DIRS data entry, while preserving the value of DIRS for the
Commission and emergency management officials. We seek comment on this
assessment.
We seek comment on how we could best implement these changes to
DIRS. In an appendix, we propose sets of fields that we tentatively
believe will be most relevant to each type of provider in DIRS and that
therefore would need to be completed by those providers as part of the
dynamic manual form. Should changes be made to this approach to ensure
that providers are completing both all the fields that are relevant to
them, and only the fields that are relevant to them? Are there
additional ways in which we can streamline the method by which
providers report in DIRS without adversely impacting either the quality
or utility of information that DIRS provides to public safety
stakeholders and emergency managers?
We have identified several of the current DIRS worksheets and
information fields that we propose to
[[Page 42357]]
eliminate or modify because they are duplicative or may not provide
information that provides significant value for emergency response.
Specifically, we seek comment on whether we should take the following
actions:
<bullet> Eliminate the fields from the Inter-exchange Carrier (IXC)
Blocking worksheet, which does not appear to have proven useful for
disaster response.
<bullet> Eliminate the Satellite worksheet, which we believe is
unnecessary because no satellite service providers have ever made a
DIRS filling.
<bullet> Eliminate the ``Percent of Historical Capacity Available''
field from the Wireless Cell Site by County worksheet, because the
Commission can determine the extent to which capacity is available
based on the number of cell sites reported as up or down.
<bullet> Eliminate fields from the Cable System worksheet that
request both the number of cable telephone subscribers served and the
number whose service is down, as these fields duplicate data that also
must be reported for VoIP service.
<bullet> Eliminate fields from the Cable System and Major Equipment
worksheets that request the numbers of video subscribers served and the
number whose service is down, because we do not believe the
availability of cable video service constitutes critical disaster-
response information.
<bullet> Eliminate the ``Number of Access Lines'' field from the
Major Equipment worksheet, which is covered in more granular questions
elsewhere on the same worksheet.
<bullet> Harmonize fields on the Interoffice Facilities--TSP
worksheet with NORS by requesting information about the number of
Optical Carrier circuits (or their functional equivalent) affected, and
eliminating the requirement to report the ``number of DS3s down.''
<bullet> Make it voluntary for providers to report the number of
remote aggregation devices that are down on the Remote Aggregation
Devices worksheet, which seeks information that is less crucial for
emergency response than data requested elsewhere on the same worksheet.
<bullet> Make it voluntary, instead of mandatory, for providers to
report the number of broadband data users served and the number of
those users whose service is down, as found on the Major Equipment and
Cable System worksheets (except as the Commission requires as a
condition for the receipt of Universal Service Funds).
<bullet> Instead of the current approach, under which some
worksheets request both the address and latitude and longitude of
affected equipment or facilities, we would request location information
in one of these formats (but not both) for each type of facility or
equipment. We seek comment on whether this change would both reduce the
number of fields in DIRS and improve the data by making it more
uniform, and on whether, for each type of equipment or facility for
which information is requested in DIRS, it would be more useful to
request latitude and longitude or address.
We seek comment on whether eliminating or modifying these
worksheets and fields would reduce the time burden associated with both
manual and batch DIRS filing, and on whether the elimination or
modification of these worksheets and fields would have a positive or
negative effect on public safety or disaster recovery. For example,
would eliminating fields concerning cable communications service video
subscribers reduce emergency managers' visibility into disaster impacts
to people with disabilities, given the role of video-enabled alerting
and notifications for people with access and functional needs? We also
seek comment on additional ways we can streamline the substance of DIRS
reporting for manual and batch filers to reduce filing burdens and
without sacrificing the value of DIRS for emergency response and
recovery. Are there other ways the Commission can modify or improve the
reporting process to reduce compliance burdens for smaller providers?
Because information reported in DIRS is vital to determining where
the ``reparation, replacement, and restoration of communications
infrastructure'' is needed, we seek to increase DIRS's utility as a key
input to disaster recovery efforts. Given the emergence of public
safety communications networks and offerings such as FirstNet, Verizon
Frontline, and T-Priority, we seek comment on whether to add fields to
DIRS, as shown in an appendix, to enable voluntary reporting on the
status of public safety broadband networks during DIRS. Currently,
AT&T's, Verizon's, and T-Mobile's DIRS infrastructure status reports do
not distinguish impacts to their respective public safety broadband
networks from effects on other customers. This prevents the Commission
from disseminating information to emergency management agencies about
outages that may affect first responders' ability to communicate with
one another and with PSAPs in disaster-affected areas. The Commission
proposed requiring FirstNet to report information about its
infrastructure status in DIRS in the Second Report and Order & FNPRM,
which most commenters supported in view of FirstNet's role in enabling
communications for first responders during disaster response and
recovery. FirstNet opposed this proposal, arguing that the information
that it already provides to customers via its FirstNet Central platform
is a sufficient source of near real-time operational status
information. FirstNet Central, however, does not report outages within
any specific required timeframe and is not accessible to non-FirstNet
users. First responders rely on public safety broadband networks to
access key technologies that affect situational awareness, such as
cameras that convey real-time or historical data; internet-connected
devices and sensors that monitor weather, traffic, environmental
issues, or access to secured locations; and maps and Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) that may provide the location of responders
or assets, potential hazards, or relational information between
personnel and assets. Thus, FirstNet and other public safety broadband
networks are a critical component of timely and effective emergency
response. Any disruption to these services could literally be a matter
of life or death for first responders themselves or members of the
public who rely on police, fire, and emergency medical services that
subscribe to these services. In view of the particularly sensitive role
FirstNet and other public safety communications networks can play by
enabling first responders to communicate during emergencies, we believe
it appropriate to collect information during disasters on the
operational status of FirstNet and similar public safety communications
networks on a voluntary basis and seek comment on this approach. How
would public safety stakeholders use this information if it were to be
collected? We also seek comment on the burdens that collecting and
reporting this information in DIRS would pose to the providers of these
public safety networks, and whether these providers should report this
information on a mandatory or voluntary basis. In seeking comment, we
seek to both refresh the record on this issue from the Second Report
and Order & FNPRM and broaden its potential scope to include other
public safety communications networks.
We also seek comment on whether the Commission should collect more
granular information in DIRS from wireless providers on the location of
cell sites that are out of service. Wireless service is an important
lifeline during
[[Page 42358]]
disasters and emergencies, including by enabling the public to receive
Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA). Currently, DIRS collects information
about the county in which out-of-service cell sites are located.
However, the average geographic size of a county in the United States
is over 1,100 square miles, so the county-based data DIRS collects is
often insufficient to pinpoint which communities have lost wireless
connectivity. Emergency managers have often requested more specific
cell site location and coverage information from the Commission to help
prioritize recovery efforts. To provide first responders more
actionable information, we propose to revise our Wireless Cell Site by
County worksheet to enable wireless providers to voluntarily provide
more granular location information for cell sites in a DIRS activation
area, or, alternatively, to attach geospatial data describing cell site
location and coverage to their DIRS submissions. In what format(s) and
level of granularity should the Commission collect this data? We seek
comment on whether and how public safety officials would use this
information to support disaster response. We understand that many
wireless providers already have this information and seek comment on
the burden associated with providing it as part of their DIRS reports.
The Commission has delegated authority to the Bureau ``to
administer the communications disruption reporting requirements
contained in part 4 of this chapter and to revise the filing system and
template used for the submission of such communications disruption
reports.'' We believe that this existing delegation is sufficiently
broad to allow the Bureau to implement these changes to DIRS, as well
as future modifications to DIRS and its fields that may be needed to
ensure that the system continues to serve its crucial role in disaster
response and recovery. We seek comment on this view, including whether
this delegation should be amended to more clearly describe the Bureau's
administrative responsibilities.
B. Eliminating the Requirement To File DIRS Final Reports
We propose to eliminate the requirement for mandatory DIRS filers
to submit a final report within 24 hours of DIRS deactivation and seek
comment on this proposal. Based on our experience administering the
DIRS final report requirement, we tentatively conclude that final DIRS
reports are not sufficiently beneficial to justify the burden they
impose. We do not believe that these reports contain additional
information beyond what is included in regular DIRS filings that
meaningfully improves the Commission's (or public safety officials')
situational awareness. We have found that, during the 24-hour period
between DIRS deactivation and the deadline to submit final DIRS
reports, providers do not develop significantly deeper insight into the
expected repair time for their degraded facilities. Indeed, 24 hours
after DIRS deactivation, the timeframe for the recovery of damaged
assets may still depend on factors outside of the service provider's
control, such as the accessibility of the damaged area to service
technicians or the availability of replacement parts. In such
circumstances, providing a service restoration estimate to local
emergency managers could do more harm than good by inviting reliance on
an uncertain service restoration timeline. We also believe that
eliminating final reports would reduce the overall DIRS reporting
burden for mandatory DIRS filers and enable these providers to better
focus their resources on restoration and recovery activities, rather
than regulatory reporting, without adversely affecting public safety
stakeholders. We seek comment on these beliefs.
We also seek comment on whether requiring mandatory DIRS reporting
for cable communications, wireline, wireless, and interconnected VoIP
providers has resulted in useful information for emergency managers and
other public safety officials. For those public safety officials who
have experienced DIRS activations under both voluntary and mandatory
reporting regimes, are public safety officials receiving more useful
and/or complete information than they did when DIRS reporting was
voluntary? How are public safety officials using this information? Is
it premature to make this assessment given that DIRS filing only became
mandatory in February 2025 and there has only been one DIRS activation
since then? If so, how much additional time do parties anticipate is
needed to make an assessment? Are there additional changes to DIRS that
would make it easier for providers to use and reduce the burdens
associated with reporting? Are there other ways the Commission can
modify or improve the reporting process to facilitate compliance with
DIRS reporting obligations, e.g., how DIRS is activated, or how the
Commission notifies communications service providers of DIRS
activations?
C. Eliminating DIRS Reporting Obligations for Resellers and Mobile
Virtual Network Operators
DIRS enables the Commission to collect infrastructure status and
restoration information from communications service providers during
disasters and subsequent recovery efforts. However, as currently
constituted, the Commission's mandatory DIRS reporting rules also apply
to communications service providers that do not own their own
infrastructure or other facilities, i.e., Mobile Virtual Network
Operators (MVNOs) and wireline and interconnected VoIP resellers. As a
result, these non-facilities-based providers are required to submit
reports concerning infrastructure they do not own that will already be
the subject of DIRS reporting by their facilities-based counterparts,
creating additional burdens for them and for the underlying facilities-
based providers who must relay infrastructure status to their non-
facilities based partners to enable their reporting. To eliminate
unnecessary burdens on MVNOs and resellers, as well as on the
underlying facilities-based providers who support them, we propose to
limit DIRS reporting to facilities-based providers and thereby exempt
MVNOs and resellers from the obligation to file DIRS reports. We seek
comment on this proposal.
Given the importance of wireless service in emergencies, in order
to maintain situational awareness about the impact of disasters on
service to customers of MVNOs, we propose to require facilities-based
wireless providers to list in their initial report in DIRS which MVNOs
utilize their respective networks within the DIRS activation area. In
this way, providers would only need to list their MVNO information
once. Further, we expect that facilities-based providers to have this
information readily available, as such network use arrangements are
governed by detailed agreements with the MVNOs, and seek comment on
this belief. Alternatively, would requiring MVNOs to identify their
underlying network provider as part of a limited DIRS filing be a more
efficient and less burdensome way to collect this information? Would
information about the operational status of MVNOs be valuable to
federal, state, Tribal, territorial, and local stakeholders for
maintaining visibility into the operational status of all wireless
service providers and their subscribers? To what extent would this
proposal reduce compliance burdens for non-facilities-based providers
and/or their facilities-
[[Page 42359]]
based partners? Would it be useful for the Commission to also require
facilities-based wireline and VoIP providers to list in DIRS which
resellers utilize their respective networks within the DIRS activation
area?
D. Extending the NORS Reporting Waiver to DIRS Lite Activations
In its petition, ATIS asked the Commission to clarify whether the
Commission's waiver of NORS filing obligations during DIRS activations
extends to activations of DIRS Lite. DIRS Lite collects information
about the status of major wireline and wireless assets, such as
switches, and PSAPs, for disaster events that are less serious than
those triggering DIRS activations. Instead of filers reporting in an
online system as they do when DIRS is activated, DIRS Lite consists of
information compiled by Commission staff in response to email and
telephone requests to communications service providers. As a result,
the scope of the DIRS-Lite information collection is narrower than that
of DIRS and is not available to agencies with NORS or DIRS access. We
seek comment on whether the NORS reporting waiver afforded to mandatory
DIRS filers should be extended to providers that share information with
the Commission during DIRS-Lite activations. Is the information the
Commission receives in DIRS-Lite activations an appropriate substitute
for NORS reporting in situations where DIRS-Lite is activated? Would
public safety stakeholders have sufficient visibility into
communications infrastructure status from DIRS-Lite submissions, given
both the voluntary nature of DIRS-Lite activations and the fact that
the Commission's NORS and DIRS information sharing regime does not
extend to DIRS Lite? Would extending the NORS waiver to DIRS-Lite
activations create a gap in the Commission's outage records and data
analysis, allowing providers to avoid NORS filings, which require
information about the cause and scope of an outage, while submitting
only information the provider chooses to include as part of a voluntary
oral or emailed submission to Commission staff?
E. Eliminating Unnecessary Barriers to Information Sharing
Since direct access to NORS and DIRS filings became available on
September 30, 2022, only 22 federal, state, Tribal, or territorial
emergency management or public safety agencies have sought and been
granted direct access. Our understanding is that several emergency
management agencies have declined to participate in the Commission's
NORS and DIRS information sharing program because they regard the
requirements as too burdensome. As a result of this relatively low rate
of adoption, we are concerned that NORS and DIRS information is being
underutilized during emergencies. We seek comment on this view.
We seek comment on ways to simplify our information sharing
requirements to make it easier for emergency management agencies to
obtain direct access to NORS and DIRS filings for use in restoration
and recovery efforts. For example, we seek comment on whether
eliminating the following provisions of the Participating Agency
Certification Form would encourage greater participation by federal and
state agencies while continuing to safeguard confidential information:
(1) remove provisions that simply restate the rules and associated
training materials; (2) eliminate requirements that agencies annually
recertify to the terms of access; (3) dispose of requirements that
agencies regularly change user account passwords; and (4) remove
requirements that requesting agency employees complete initial and
annual security trainings to access NORS and DIRS reports. We also seek
comment on whether to loosen the restrictions on how non-confidential
NORS and DIRS data can be shared and used, so that the information can
be shared more broadly with local public safety agencies and government
agencies with relevant equities outside the emergency-management space.
If these restrictions are loosened, which sharing restrictions should
be modified or eliminated and what kinds of additional uses should be
allowed? We seek comment on whether these actions would further our
goal of promoting more robust participation in the Commission's
information sharing program, which would in turn enhance emergency
response and public safety efforts.
The Commission could also ease access to DIRS data by making some
information included in DIRS filings more widely available to the
public. We seek comment on whether there are types of information
currently included in DIRS filings that could be subject to public
disclosure without adversely impacting national security or
commercially sensitive interests. Narrowing the presumption of
confidentiality for DIRS filings may allow the Commission to include
more data in public DIRS reports, eliminating the need for emergency
management agencies to enter into complex information sharing
agreements with the Commission while still protecting providers' most
sensitive data. This approach would also increase overall transparency
into the reliability of providers' networks, which will increase
competition between providers. Allowing greater public access to DIRS
reports could result in a variety of potential benefits, including more
information for the public about the scope of outages and disaster-
related service disruptions when they occur, so that they can fund
alternative means of communications. Moreover, researchers or other
groups could collate and analyze the data in DIRS reports to help
identify systemic or provider-specific problems and recommend
solutions. As the Commission has recognized, even limited information
disclosure from outage reports can spur industry-wide collaboration to
improve network reliability issues and other improvements. Is it
necessary for all of the information filed in DIRS to continue to be
treated confidentially? What specific categories of information do
providers view as particularly sensitive that may warrant continued
confidential treatment, and what harms may arise if that information
was publicly released?
F. Cost Benefit Analysis
We believe that our proposals to reduce the burdens of DIRS
reporting on service providers will result in annual cost savings of
approximately $4 million, which outweighs the $1,400 one-time cost and
the $215,000 annual recurring costs to implement these changes. The
approximate $4 million benefit estimate includes cost savings of
$143,000 for streamlining the filing process and eliminating the final
report requirement for facilities-based voice providers, $3.9 million
from eliminating DIRS reporting obligations for MVNOs and VoIP
resellers, and $700 for waiving the NORS filing requirement when DIRS
LITE is activated. The cost estimates include a $1,400 one-time cost
for DIRS batch filing reconfiguration, an annual cost of $143,000 for
facilities-based wireless providers to include MVNO information in DIRS
filing, and an annual cost of $72,000 for public safety broadband
networks to report outages when DIRS is activated. These net cost
savings, along with freeing up resources to restore and maintain
service, will outweigh any potential effects on public safety from the
Commission no longer receiving and sharing certain types of
infrastructure status information.
Pursuant to staff estimation, at the county-level, there are on
average 53 fixed voice providers, including cable communications,
wireline, and VoIP
[[Page 42360]]
providers per county. Among these, an average of 12 fixed voice
providers are facilities-based, and 41 are non-facilities-based
resellers. We further estimate that there are an average of six
facilities-based mobile wireless voice providers and 82 MVNOs per
county. We estimate the overall benefits from cost savings for
providers that arise from modifying DIRS as proposed above to be
approximately $143,000. By removing the need for providers to select
from the current array of ten separate forms concerning different types
of service and infrastructure, we estimate that manual filers should be
able to complete their filings more quickly than prior to these
changes. In addition, we estimate that eliminating unnecessary and
duplicative fields will allow DIRS filings to be submitted more
quickly. While it is difficult to precisely estimate the change in
burden for providers overall due to differences in burdens that arise
from differing service types, size, extent of service area, and
preferred filing method, we estimate that these changes are likely to
result in at least a 20% reduction in the amount of time that providers
must spend on average when filing in DIRS on average. Our proposal to
eliminate the requirement to file a final DIRS report further reduces
this burden. 2025 statistics suggest a base hourly wage of $24.12/hour.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of March 2025, civilian
wages and salaries averaged $32.92/hour and benefits averaged $15/hour.
Using these figures, benefits constitute a markup of $15/$32.92 ~46%.
Taking 46% for cost of benefits ($11.10/hour), we arrive at an hourly
compensation of $35.22/hour ($24.12/hour + $11.10/hour). We estimate
the cost saving from streamlining DIRS reporting with a (20% cost
reduction) x 1 office and administrative support worker x ($35.22
hourly compensation) x [(10/60) hours for the initial entry + (10/60)
hours for daily updates x 14 days] x 339 counties x 18 facilities-based
service providers = $107,456. We further estimate a $35,819 cost saving
from eliminating the final reporting requirement as 1 office and
administrative support worker x ($35.22 hourly compensation) x (10/60)
hours for the final report entry x 339 counties x 18 facilities-based
service providers = $35,819. The aggregate cost saving is $143,275 (=
$107,456 + $35,819), which we round to $143,000. Using the updated 2025
hourly compensation figure of $35.22, we estimate a total annual cost
savings of $143,000 for facilities-based providers. We seek comment on
our analysis. We seek comment on whether this methodology remains an
appropriate starting point for identifying the cost savings that arise
from the changes to DIRS that we propose today. If not, what
methodology should we use to determine the costs associated with DIRS
filings?
We recognize that our proposal to eliminate certain data fields may
cause service providers that use the DIRS batch filing option to incur
one-time costs. In batch filing, a service provider utilizes the
Commission's spreadsheet template so that multiple DIRS worksheets can
be filed simultaneously. In response to our proposed reporting field
changes, a provider may need to reconfigure its systems to reorganize
how it exports data, and to ensure that the data is formatted in a
manner accepted by DIRS. This may involve a one-time cost of an
Information Technology (IT) professional, such as a database
administrator, setting up the new index. According to the BLS, a
database administrator has an average hourly wage of $51.65 per hour,
which would amount to a total hourly compensation of $75.41/hour. We
find this by taking 46% for cost of benefits ($23.76/hour), arriving at
an hourly compensation of $75.41/hour (= $51.65/hour + $23.76/hour).
Updating a provider's systems can take anywhere from a few seconds to
several hours, depending on the amount of data fields. The amount of
data required for a DIRS report is relatively minimal. Accordingly, we
estimate that the one-time costs would require an average of one hour
in view of the amount of data being modified. We estimate the total
cost to be no more than $1,357 = 1 database administrator x $75.41/hour
x 1 hour x 18 facilities-based cable, wireline, wireless, and
interconnected VoIP providers, which we round to $1,400. This would
result in an upfront cost of no more than $1,400 if all the DIRS filers
use the batch filing option, which we believe would be significantly
outweighed by the recurring cost savings described above. We seek
comments on these cost estimates.
We estimate that clarifying that we are excluding resellers and
MVNOs from the requirements to file in DIRS will result in additional
savings of $3.9 million for those categories of providers. In the
Second Report and Order, we did not include resellers and MVNOs in the
cost calculation. Instead, we estimated that an average county would be
supported by 54 voice providers, including facilities-based providers
and VoIP resellers but omitting any MVNOs. As currently constituted,
the Commission's mandatory DIRS reporting rules also apply to service
providers that do not own their own infrastructure, i.e., MVNOs and
wireline and interconnected VoIP resellers. To eliminate unnecessary
burdens on MVNOs and resellers, we propose to limit DIRS reporting to
facilities-based providers and thereby exempt MVNOs and resellers from
the obligation to file DIRS reports. We estimate that the proposed
exclusion of non-facilities-based providers from the DIRS filing
requirement will result in an annual cost savings of $3.9 million for
these affected MVNOs and resellers. We arrived at this estimate by
calculating an average of 82 MVNOs and 41 resellers providing service
in each county, and then applying the same cost methodology for DIRS
filings that we use in the Second Report and Order. Specifically, we
estimate the cost savings as follows: 1 office and administrative
support worker x ($35.22 hourly compensation) x [(10/60) hours for the
initial entry + (10/60) hours for daily updates x 14 days + (10/60)
hours for the final report entry] x 339 counties x (82 MVNOs + 41
resellers) = $3,916,182, which we round to $3.9 million. To maintain
situational awareness about the impact of disasters on service to
customers of MVNOs, we propose to require facilities-based wireless
providers to list in DIRS which MVNOs utilize their respective networks
within the DIRS activation area. We believe the cost of requiring
facilities-based wireless providers to list in DIRS which MVNOs utilize
their respective networks within the DIRS activation area would be
minimal because facilities-based providers should have this information
readily available. Nevertheless, we conservatively estimate that the
additional reporting cost should not be greater than the overall DIRS
reporting burden for these wireless facilities-based providers. We
estimate $143,000 as an upper bound of such incremental costs, as
follows: (1-20% cost saving) x 1 office and administrative support
worker x ($35.22/hour) x [(10/60) hours for the initial entry + (10/60)
hours for daily updates x 14 days] x 339 counties x 6 facilities-based
wireless providers = $143,275, which we round to $143,000. We recognize
that requiring information on public safety broadband networks to be
included in DIRS reports may trigger additional costs. We estimate this
additional filing cost will not exceed $72,000, using (1-20% cost
saving) x {1 office and administrative support worker x ($35.22/hour) x
[(10/60) hours for the initial entry + (10/60) hours for daily updates
x 14 days] x 339 counties x 3 public safety broadband network
[[Page 42361]]
providers{time} = $71,637, which we round to $72,000. We do not
account for any benefits and costs arising from collecting additional
voluntary information (e.g., granular location information) because
providers will only voluntarily provide such information when they deem
the benefits from providing such information outweigh the costs. We
seek comment on these estimates.
For extending the NORS suspension to DIRS Lite, we estimate the
cost savings to be approximately $70 per DIRS-Lite responder. The
Commission has historically estimated that a provider requires two
hours to complete all of the NORS filing requirements. The Commission
previously activated DIRS Lite for New Mexico wildfires in 2024 and for
Hawaii wildfires in 2023. Our records indicate that 10 service
providers responded during each DIRS-Lite activation. In view of this
information, we estimate that providers would have saved approximately
$700 per year by having their NORS filings requirements waived, by
estimating that that the task of reporting outages in NORS can be
accomplished by a miscellaneous office and administrative support
worker x 2 hours per provider x $35.22 per hour x 10 providers = $704,
which we round to $700 per year. We seek comment on our analysis.
We seek comment on the benefit from cost savings associated with
our proposed changes to the Commission's NORS and DIRS information
sharing requirements. In the past, we have estimated that each agency
participating in that framework would spend five hours preparing,
reviewing, and submitting its initial request for NORS and DIRS access
to the FCC and a similar amount of time annually to re-certify their
qualifications to access NORS in every year thereafter. These initial
and annual requirements include the review of the security training
materials and the submission of the certification and recertification
forms, which we propose to simplify in the Third FNPRM. Would the
proposed changes reduce the number of hours that agencies would require
to apply for NORS and DIRS access, and if so, by how much? Are there
other ways in which the changes to NORS and DIRS that we propose above
would reduce burdens on agencies that seek NORS and DIRS information?
We further seek comment on the benefits and costs associated with
loosening the restrictions on how non-confidential NORS and DIRS data
can be shared and used, and making more data publicly available.
Commenters are encouraged to provide specific examples, suggesting
guiding criteria for making confidentiality determinations when the
harms of disclosure outweigh the benefits of public access to these
data. We particularly welcome input supported by data, legal precedent,
and practical experience.
II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and
rules proposed in the Third FNPRM assessing the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the Third FNPRM.
The Commission will send a copy of the Third FNPRM, including this
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA)
Office of Advocacy. In addition, the Third FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
The Third FNPRM explores the benefits of reducing burdens faced by
small and other service providers and government agencies so that they
can dedicate more resources to restoring and maintaining service during
a disaster. The Third FNPRM also seeks comment on collecting new
information that we believe would offer significant public safety
value, namely collecting infrastructure status information for public
safety communications service offerings like FirstNet, and collecting
cell site location data for downed cell sites on a voluntary basis. Our
proposals not only reduce burdens from the mandated reporting
requirements of the Second Report and Order, but also burdens that
arise from the Commission's sharing information contained within the
outage reports. The Commission believes the proposals in the Third
FNPRM strike the appropriate balance of reducing regulatory burdens for
providers while insuring we collect necessary and relevant information
when disasters occur.
B. Legal Basis
This action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4, 201, 214, 218,
251, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 307, 309, 316, 332, and 403,
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201,
214, 218, 251, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 307, 309, 316, 332,
403; and sections 2, 3(b), and 6-7 of the Wireless Communications and
Public Safety Act of 1999, 47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a-1, and 615b.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three
broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by our
actions. First, while there are industry specific size standards for
small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis,
in general, a small business is an independent business having fewer
than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of
all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million
businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are not-for-profit
enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant
their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-
profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have
fewer than 500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental jurisdictions''
are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty
thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we
estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
The rules proposed in the Third FNPRM if adopted will apply to
small entities in the following industries: All Other
Telecommunications; Media Streaming Distribution Services, Social
Networks, and Other Media Networks and Content Providers; Radio
Stations; Satellite Telecommunications; Telecommunications Resellers;
Television Broadcasting; Wired Telecommunications Carriers; and
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Affected
entities within these identified industries include: Competitive Local
Exchange Carriers; Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers; Local Exchange
Carriers; Wired Telecommunications Carriers; Interexchange Carriers;
Local Resellers; Toll Resellers; Telecommunications Resellers; Wireless
Telecommunications
[[Page 42362]]
Carriers (except Satellite); and Wireless Telephony.
D. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
The proposed requirements in the Third FNPRM, if adopted, will
impose new or modified reporting, recordkeeping and/or other compliance
obligations on small entities which should simplify and reduce
regulatory reporting and filing requirements. These proposed
requirements include exempting non-facilities-based providers from
mandatory DIRS reporting and eliminating the DIRS final report;
redesigning the DIRS user interface to allow manual DIRS filers to use
a single dynamic form instead of completing a series of forms and
overlapping worksheets; presenting small and other providers only with
questions relevant to the services they provide and only require
information common to multiple services and equipment types to be
provided once; voluntarily collecting infrastructure status information
for public safety communication service offerings like FirstNet and
cell site location data for downed cell sites; and eliminating or
making voluntary completion of specific data fields not core to
disaster recovery and response. While the majority of the Commission's
proposals in the Third FNPRM, if adopted, will result in cost saving
for small and other providers, the Commission is aware that our
proposal to eliminate certain data fields may result in small and other
providers that use the DIRS batch filing option to incur a one-time
cost for an Information Technology (IT) professional, such as a
database administrator. Small entities therefore may have to hire an IT
professional to the extent they do not already have one. We believe
this expense would be significantly outweighed by the recurring cost
savings of our other proposal in Third FNPRM. We also recognize that
requiring information on public safety broadband networks to be
included in DIRS reports may trigger additional costs.
E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
None.
F. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
The Third FNPRM seeks comment on proposals to reduce burdens for
service providers during a disaster. We expect the comments we receive
in response to the Third FNPRM to include information which should help
the Commission further identify, and evaluate relevant issues and
burdens for small entities, including compliance costs, before adopting
final rules. The Commission's proposals in the Third FNPRM reflect the
significant alternatives we considered to reduce the burdens of DIRS
reporting and minimize the economic impact for small and other
providers. While we continue believe the benefits of DIRS reporting for
purposes of disaster response and recovery outweighs its burdens, the
Commission is mindful that DIRS reporting requires providers to
allocate resources to reporting while they are simultaneously
responding to an ongoing disaster. We consider several alternatives in
the Third FNPRM that seek to give small and other providers maximum
flexibility and reduce potential costs of compliance with our various
proposals, and seek comment on other means to reduce DIRS reporting
burdens. We expect to consider the economic impact more fully on small
entities following our review of comments filed in response to the
Third FNPRM and the IFRA. The Commission's evaluation of this
information will shape the final alternatives it considers to minimize
any significant economic impact that may occur on small entities, the
final conclusions it reaches and any final rules it promulgates in this
proceeding. The Third FNPRM seeks comment on any alternatives to the
Commission's proposals that could reduce burdens, particularly for
small entities, while preserving the intended benefits of DIRS
reporting.
III. Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 1, 4, 201, 214, 218, 251, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r),
307, 309, 316, 332, and 403, of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201, 214, 218, 251, 301, 303(b), 303(g),
303(j), 303(r), 307, 309, 316, 332, 403, sections 2, 3(b), and 6-7 of
the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, 47 U.S.C.
615 note, 615, 615a-1, and 615b, that this Third Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket Nos. 21-346 and 15-80 and ET Docket
No. 04-35 is adopted.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary
shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 4
Airports, Communications common carriers, Communications equipment,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 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.
0
2. Amend Sec. 4.18 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 4.18 Mandatory Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS)
reporting for Cable Communications, Wireless, Wireline, and VoIP
providers.
(a) Facilities-based cable communications, wireline communications,
wireless service, and interconnected VoIP providers shall submit daily
reports on their infrastructure status 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.
Facilities-based providers shall include in their reports the following
information about areas in which the Commission has activated DIRS:
(1) Cable communications providers shall submit information
concerning the type, power status, location, and identifying
information of any major equipment that is down.
(2) Wireline communications providers shall submit information
concerning the type, power status, location, and identifying
information of any major equipment that is down; the quantity of
working telephone numbers for which the provider provides service, and
the quantity of such numbers that are without service; the name,
service area, and number of customers served by any Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAPs) for which the provider provides service; the
number of Optical Carrier 3
[[Page 42363]]
(OC3) circuits or their equivalents that are down; and the location,
identifying information, and quantity of working numbers served by any
remote aggregation device, and the quantity of such numbers that are
without service.
(3) Wireless service providers shall submit information concerning
the type, power status, location, and identifying information of any
major equipment that is down; the number and location of cell sites
that are down or on backup power, and the cause of any cell site
outages; and the identity of any Mobile Virtual Network Operators
(MVNOs) that rely on the wireless service provider's network in the
area.
(4) Interconnected VoIP providers shall submit information
concerning the type, power status, location, and identifying
information of any major equipment that is down; the number of
interconnected VoIP service subscribers without service; and the number
of OC3 circuits or their equivalents that are down.
(5) Facilities-based cable communications, wireline communications,
and interconnected VoIP providers that are stage 2 recipients of the
Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and Connect USVI Fund shall also submit
information concerning the quantity of broadband internet access
service subscribers for whom the provider provides service, and the
quantity of such subscribers who are without service.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-16737 Filed 8-29-25; 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 September 2, 2025.
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.