[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10769-10773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-3702]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the 
Federal Communications Commission, Comments Requested

February 20, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC), as 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden, invites the 
general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to 
comment on the following information collection, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not 
conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any 
penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid 
control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the 
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the 
information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 
Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, 
and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 
burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including 
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.

DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be 
submitted on or before April 28, 2008. If you anticipate that you will 
be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the 
period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts 
listed below as soon as possible.

ADDRESSES: You may submit all PRA comments by e-mail or U.S. mail. To 
submit your comments by e-mail, send them to [email protected]. To submit 
your comments by U.S. mail, send them to Jerry Cowden, Federal 
Communications Commission, Room 1-B135, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the 
information collection(s) contact Jerry Cowden via e-mail at 
[email protected] or at 202-418-0447.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: None.
    Title: Information Collection Regarding Redundancy, Resiliency and 
Reliability of 911 and E911 Networks and/or Systems as set forth in the 
Commission's Rules (47 CFR 12.3).
    Form No.: Not applicable.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents and Responses: 74 respondents; 74 responses.
    Estimated Time per Response: 105.3 hours (120 hours for local 
exchange carriers, 72 hours for commercial mobile radio service 
providers, and 40 hours for interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol 
service providers).
    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting.
    Obligation to Respond: Mandatory (47 CFR 12.3).
    Total Annual Burden: 7,792 hours.
    Total Annual Cost: None.
    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: This information collection does not 
affect individuals or households, and therefore a privacy impact 
assessment is not required.
    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: These reports will contain 
sensitive data and, for reasons of national security and the prevention 
of competitive injury to reporting entities, Section 12.3 of the 
Commission's rules specifically states that all reports will be 
afforded confidential treatment. Data in these reports will be 
considered confidential information that is exempt from routine public 
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemption 4. See 
47 CFR 0.457 and 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4); see also Homeland Security 
Presidential Directive 7, Part 10. These reports will be shared 
pursuant to a protective order with only the following three entities, 
if the entities file a request for the information: The National 
Emergency Number Association, The Association of Public Safety 
Communications Officials, and The National Association of State 9-1-1 
Administrators. All other access to these reports must be sought 
pursuant to procedures set forth in 47 CFR 0.461. Notice of any 
requests for inspection of these reports will be provided to the filers 
of the reports pursuant to 47 CFR 0.461(d)(3).

[[Page 10770]]

    Needs and Uses: The Commission, in order to help fulfill its 
statutory obligation to make wire and radio communications services 
available to all people in the United States for the purpose of the 
national defense and promoting safety of life and property, released an 
Order (FCC 07-107) that adopted a rule requiring analysis of 911 and 
E911 networks and/or systems and reports to the Commission on the 
redundancy, resiliency and reliability of those networks and/or systems 
(47 CFR 12.3). It is critical that Americans have access to a resilient 
and reliable 911 system irrespective of the technology used to provide 
the service. These analyses and reports on the redundancy, resiliency, 
and dependability of 911 and E911 networks and systems will further 
this goal. This requirement will serve the public interest and further 
the Commission's statutory mandate to promote the safety of life and 
property through the use of wire and radio communication. See 47 U.S.C. 
151. This rule obligates local exchange carriers (LECs), commercial 
mobile radio service (CMRS) providers that are required to comply with 
the wireless 911 rules set forth in Section 20.18 of the Commission's 
rules, and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service 
providers to analyze their 911 and E911 networks and/or systems and 
file a detailed report to the Commission on the redundancy, resiliency 
and reliability of those networks and/or systems. LECs that meet the 
definition of a Class B company set forth in Section 32.11(b)(2) of the 
Commission's rules, non-nationwide commercial mobile radio service 
providers with no more than 500,000 subscribers at the end of 2001, and 
interconnected VoIP service providers with annual revenues below the 
revenue threshold established pursuant to Section 32.11 of the 
Commission's rules are exempt from this rule. The reports are due 120 
days from the date that the Commission or its staff announces 
activation of the 911/E911 network and system reporting process.
    Description of Information Collection: The Commission delegated 
authority to the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) to 
implement and activate a process through which these reports will be 
submitted. The Bureau will collect these reports via a web-based 
database that will have a separate table for each entity type subject 
to Section 12.3 of the Commission's rules (LECs, CMRS providers 
required to comply with the wireless 911 rules set forth in Section 
20.18 of the Commission's rules, and interconnected VoIP service 
providers). This data collection system will carefully restrict access 
to the data. Users will be able to input and see data for their company 
but will not be able to see or input data for another company. The 
system will also allow users to input other information they may wish 
to provide about the redundancy, resiliency and dependability of their 
911 and E911 networks and systems.
    The Commission also delegated authority to the Bureau to establish 
the specific data that will be required. The following is the 
information that the Bureau will require from LECs, CMRS providers and 
interconnected VoIP service providers pursuant to Section 12.3.
    LECs (including incumbent LECs and competitive LECs). Each LEC will 
be asked to provide the FCC Registration Number(s) of the responding 
carrier and the OCN (LERG assigned service provider number) Number(s) 
of the responding carrier. For each state in which LECs provide 
service, they will be asked to provide the following information on a 
state-by-state basis.
    LECs will be required to provide information about switches to 
Selective Routers, specifically, information about those switches that 
they own or operate. LECs must report the percent of switches that they 
own or operate in the network from which 911 calls originate. With 
respect to those switches, LECs must identify the percent of switches 
with logically diverse paths to their primary Selective Routers. 
Logical diversity is achieved when redundant circuits are assigned 
between the source node and the destination node. For switches for 
which they have not provided or made arrangements for a logically 
diverse path, LECs must discuss the circumstances, including why 
logically diverse paths are not provisioned, and any plans to provide 
logically diverse paths in the future. With respect to those switches 
that a LEC owns or operates in the network from which 911 calls 
originate, LECs must also report the percent of switches with 
physically diverse connections to their primary Selective Routers. 
Physical diversity is achieved when geographically separated redundant 
facilities are assigned between the source node and the destination 
node. For those switches for which LECs have not provided or made 
arrangements for physically diverse connections, they must discuss the 
circumstances including why physically diverse paths are not 
provisioned and any plans to provide physically diverse connections in 
the future. Finally, with respect to those switches that a LEC owns or 
operates in the network from which 911 calls originate, LECs must 
report the percent of switches with mostly physically diverse 
connections to their primary Selective Routers. Mostly physically 
diverse connectivity means that facilities are diverse for at least 95% 
of the length (but not for the entire length). For example the 
facilities could be physically diverse except for a bridge crossing or 
passing through the same Digital Cross Connect System. For those 
switches for which LECs have not provided or made arrangements for 
mostly physically diverse connections, they must discuss the 
circumstances including why mostly physically diverse connections are 
not provisioned and any plans to provide mostly physically diverse 
connections in the future.
    LECs must also provide information if they own or operate Selective 
Routers. They must provide the percent of Selective Routers with at 
least one alternate Selective Router for at least 50% of the 911 
traffic. If they have not provided or made arrangements for alternate 
selective routers for at least 50% of 911 traffic, they must discuss 
the circumstances including why an alternate selective router for at 
least 50% of 911 traffic is not provisioned and any plans to provide an 
alternate selective router in the future.
    With respect to Selective Routers to public safety answering points 
(PSAPs), LECs must provide the following information if they own or 
operate Selective Routers but only for the PSAPs supported by those 
Selective Routers. LECs must state the number of PSAPs supported by 
their Selective Routers and the percent of PSAPs with an alternate 
(back-up) Selective Router in addition to the primary Selective Router. 
For those PSAPs for which a LEC has not provided or made arrangements 
for an alternate (back-up) Selective Router in addition to the primary 
Selective Router, the LEC needs to discuss the circumstances including 
why an alternative (back-up) selective router is not provisioned and 
any plans to provide an alternate (back-up) selective router in the 
future. LECs must also identify the percent of PSAPs with logically 
diverse paths to their primary Selective Router. For those PSAPs for 
which a LEC has not provided or made arrangements for logically diverse 
paths to the primary Selective Router, they must discuss the 
circumstances including why logically diverse paths are not 
provisioned, and any plans to provide logically diverse paths in the 
future. LECs must also report the percent of PSAPs with physically

[[Page 10771]]

diverse connections to their primary Selective Router. For those PSAPs 
for which they have not provided or made arrangements for physically 
diverse connections to the primary Selective Router, LECs must discuss 
the circumstances including why physically diverse paths are not 
provisioned and any plans to provide physically diverse paths in the 
future.
    Further, LECs must report the percent of PSAPs with logically 
diverse paths to their primary Selective Router in which the 
interoffice portion of the connections to the primary Selective Router 
is physically diverse. The interoffice network consists of facilities 
and transmission equipment that interconnects switching offices in a 
telecommunications inter-exchange network. For those PSAPs with 
logically diverse paths to the primary Selective Router for which they 
have not provided or made arrangements for physical diversity in the 
interoffice portion of the connections to the primary Selective 
Routers, LECs must discuss the circumstances including why such 
physical diversity is not provisioned and any plans to provide such 
logical diversity in the future. LECs will also need to provide the 
percent of PSAPs where the connection between the PSAP and the primary 
Selective Router is physically diverse from the connection between the 
PSAP and the alternate Selective Router. For those PSAPs for which the 
connection between the PSAP and the primary Selective Router is not 
physically diverse from the connection between the PSAP and the 
alternate Selective Router, LECs must discuss the circumstances 
including why such physically diverse connections are not provisioned 
and any plans to provide such physically diverse connections in the 
future. Finally, LECs must provide the percent of PSAPs where the 
interoffice portion of the connection from the PSAP to the primary 
Selective Router is physically diverse from the interoffice portion of 
the connection from the PSAP to the alternate Selective Router. For 
those PSAPs where the interoffice portion of the connection from the 
PSAP to the Selective Router is not physically diverse from the 
interoffice portion of the connection from the PSAP to the alternate 
Selective Router, LECs must discuss the circumstances including why 
such physical diversity is not provisioned and any plans to provide 
physical diversity in the future.
    Additionally, LECs that own or operate Selective Routers must 
provide information about alternate PSAPs, but only for the PSAPs 
supported by those Selective Routers. These LECs will be required to 
provide the percent of PSAPs for which traffic is automatically 
rerouted to another PSAP if the PSAP is unavailable. For those PSAPs 
without automatic re-routing, they need to discuss the circumstances 
including why automatic re-routing to another PSAP is not provisioned 
and any plans to provide such automatic re-routing in the future.
    LECs will also be required to provide specific information if they 
own or operate Automatic Location Information (ALI) databases. LECs 
must provide the number of ALI Database pairs (redundant). An ALI 
database pair is a configuration of two ALI databases that will operate 
seamlessly even if one of the two databases fails. LECs that own or 
operate ALI databases will also be required to state the percent of 
PSAPs supported by ALI database pairs in which the connections from the 
ALI databases to the PSAP are physically diverse. For those PSAPs 
supported by ALI database pairs in which the connections from the ALI 
databases to the PSAP are not physically diverse, LECs must discuss the 
circumstances including why physically diverse connections are not 
provisioned and any plans to provide physically diverse connections in 
the future. LECs that own or operate ALI databases must also provide 
the percent of PSAPs supported by ALI database pairs in which the 
interoffice portion of the connections from the ALI databases to the 
PSAP are physically diverse. For those PSAPs supported by ALI database 
pairs in which the interoffice portion of the connections from the ALI 
databases to the PSAP are not physically diverse, they must discuss the 
circumstances including why such physical diversity is not provisioned 
and any plans to provide such physical diversity in the future.
    CMRS Providers. Each CMRS provider will be asked to provide the FRN 
Number or Numbers of the responding provider and the OCN Number or 
Numbers of the responding provider. CMRS providers must provide 
information for each area in which the CMRS provider serves.
    Regarding Mobile Switching Centers (MSCs) to Selective Routers, 
CMRS providers must provide information for the MSCs that they own or 
operate. This information includes the: (1) Percent of MSCs in network 
that have Phase I E911 capability; (2) percent of MSCs in network that 
have Phase II E911 capability; and (3) percent of MSCs with logically 
diverse paths to primary Selective Routers. For those MSCs for which 
CMRS providers have not provided or made arrangements for logically 
diverse paths, they are required to discuss the circumstances including 
why logically diverse paths are not provisioned and any plans to 
provide logically diverse paths in the future. CMRS providers must also 
report the percent of MSCs with physically diverse connections to their 
primary Selective Routers. For those MSCs for which they have not 
provided or made arrangements for physically diverse connections, CMRS 
providers must discuss the circumstances including why physically 
diverse connections are not provisioned and any plans to provide 
physically diverse connections in the future. Further, CMRS providers 
will be required to provide the percent of MSCs with mostly physically 
diverse connections to their primary Selective Routers. For those MSCs 
for which they have not provided or made arrangements for mostly 
physically diverse connections, CMRS providers must discuss the 
circumstances including why mostly physically diverse connections are 
not provisioned and any plans to provide mostly physically diverse 
connections in the future.
    CMRS providers must also provide information about MSCs to Mobile 
Positioning Centers (MPCs) or Gateway Mobile Location Centers (GMLCs). 
They must report the percent of MSCs connected to a pair of MPCs/GMLCs. 
MSCs can be connected to a pair of MPCs/GMLCs for redundancy. In 
configurations like this, the MSC will continue to provide positioning 
information even if one of the MPCs/GMLCs suffers an outage. CMRS 
providers must also state the percent of MSCs with logically diverse 
paths to their primary MPCs/GMLCs. For MSCs for which they have not 
provided or made arrangements for logically diverse paths to the 
primary MPCs/GMLCs, CMRS providers must discuss the circumstances, 
including why logically diverse paths are not provisioned and any plans 
to provide logically diverse paths in the future. They must also 
provide the percent of MSCs with physically diverse connections to 
their primary MPCs/GMLCs. For those MSCs for which CMRS providers have 
not provided or made arrangements for physically diverse connections, 
they must discuss the circumstances including why physically diverse 
connections are not provisioned and any plans to provide physically 
diverse connections in the future. Additionally, CMRS providers will be 
required to report the percent of MSCs with mostly physically diverse 
connections to their

[[Page 10772]]

primary MPCs/GMLCs. For those MSCs for which they have not provided or 
made arrangements for mostly physically diverse connections, CMRS 
providers must discuss the circumstances including why mostly 
physically diverse connections are not provisioned and any plans to 
provide mostly physically diverse connections in the future.
    Further, CMRS providers must report the percent of MSCs where the 
connection from the MSC to the primary MPC/GMLC is physically diverse 
from the connection to the alternate MPC/GMLC. For those MSCs where the 
connection from the MSC to the primary MPC/GMLC is not physically 
diverse from the connection to the alternate MPC/GMLC, providers must 
discuss the circumstances including why physically diverse connections 
are not provisioned and any plans to provide physically diverse 
connections in the future. CMRS providers will be required to provide 
the percent of MSCs where the connection from the MSC to the primary 
MPC/GMLC is mostly physically diverse from the connection to the 
alternate MPC/GMLC. For those MSCs where the connection from the MSC to 
the primary MPC/GMLC is not mostly physically diverse from the 
connection to the alternate MPC/GMLC, they must discuss the 
circumstances including why mostly physically diverse connections are 
not provisioned and any plans to provide mostly physically diverse 
connections in the future.
    CMRS providers that own or operate MPCs/GMLCs must report 
additional information, including the percent of MPCs/GMLCs for which 
there is an alternate MPC/GMLC. This question is concerned with the 
percentage of MPCs/GMLCs that are backed up. An earlier question asked 
about the percentage of MSCs that are served by a pair of MPCs/GMLCs. 
Both questions address the redundancy of MPCs/GMLCs but this one 
addresses MPC/GMLC pairing while the previous one addressed redundant 
access from MSCs to MPC/GMLC pairs. For those MPCs/GMLCs that do not 
have alternates, CMRS providers must discuss the circumstances 
including why alternate MPCs/GMLCs are not provisioned and any plans to 
provide alternate MPCs/GMLCs in the future. CMRS providers must also 
state whether they are able to pass location information from more than 
one MPC/GMLC. For those cases in which they are not able to do so, they 
must discuss the circumstances including why the capability to pass 
location information from more than one MPC/GMLC is not provisioned and 
any plans to provide this capability in the future.
    CMRS providers that own or operate MPCs/GMLCs must also report 
whether there are logically diverse paths from each MPC/GMLC to either 
the primary ALI database or the back-up ALI database. For those cases 
where they have not provided or made arrangements for logically diverse 
paths, CMRS providers must discuss the circumstances including why 
logically diverse paths are not provisioned and any plans to provide 
logically diverse paths in the future. Additionally, CMRS providers 
that own or operate MPCs/GMLCs must state whether there are physically 
diverse connections from each MPC/GMLC to either the primary ALI 
database or the back-up ALI database. For those cases where they have 
not provided or made arrangements for physically diverse connections, 
they must discuss the circumstances including why physically diverse 
connections are not provisioned and any plans to provide physically 
diverse connections in the future. Finally, CMRS providers that own or 
operate MPCs/GMLCs will have to report whether there are mostly 
physically diverse connections from each MPC/GMLC to either the primary 
ALI database or the back-up ALI database. For those cases in which they 
have not provided or made arrangements for mostly physically diverse 
connections, CMRS providers must discuss the circumstances including 
why mostly physically diverse connections are not provisioned and any 
plans to provide mostly physically diverse connections in the future.
    Interconnected VoIP Service Providers. Each responding 
interconnected VoIP service provider will be asked to report their FRN 
Number or Numbers, if any, and OCN Number or Numbers, if any. 
Interconnected VoIP providers will have to provide information about 
interconnection to Selective Routers and third-party providers. They 
must report the percent of switches wherein 911 service is provided by 
the interconnected VoIP provider; where the VoIP provider has a direct 
connection to Selective Routers. Additionally, interconnected VoIP 
service providers will be required to report the percent of switches 
wherein 911 service is provided by a third party; where another company 
is utilized to route 911 calls.
    Interconnected VoIP service providers that have direct connections 
to Selective Routers must report the percent of switches with logically 
diverse paths to their primary Selective Routers--for cases when the 
VoIP provider has direct connections to Selective Routers. For switches 
for which they have not provided or made arrangements for logically 
diverse paths, they must discuss the circumstances, including why 
logically diverse connections are not provisioned and any plans to 
provide logically diverse paths in the future. Interconnected VoIP 
service providers that have direct connections to Selective Routers 
must also report the percent of switches with physically diverse 
connections to their primary Selective Routers. For those switches for 
which they have not provided or made arrangements for physically 
diverse connections, they must discuss the circumstances including why 
physically diverse connections are not provisioned and any plans to 
provide physically diverse connections in the future. Finally, 
Interconnected VoIP service providers that have direct connections to 
Selective Routers will be required to provide the percent of switches 
with mostly physically diverse connections to their primary Selective 
Routers. For those switches for which they have not provided or made 
arrangements for mostly physically diverse connections, they must 
discuss the circumstances including why mostly physically diverse 
connections are not provisioned and any plans to provide mostly 
physically diverse connections in the future.
    Interconnected VoIP service providers that use a third party to 
provide connections to Selective Routers must report the percent of 
switches with logically diverse paths to their primary access points--
for cases when the VoIP provider uses a third party. For switches for 
which they have not provided or made arrangements for logically diverse 
paths to their primary access points, they must discuss the 
circumstances including why logically diverse paths are not provisioned 
and any plans to provide logically diverse paths in the future. 
Interconnected VoIP service providers that use a third party to provide 
connections to Selective Routers are also required to report the 
percent of switches with physically diverse connections to their 
primary access points. For those switches for which they have not 
provided or made arrangements for physically diverse connections to 
their primary access points, they must describe the circumstances 
including why physically diverse connections are not provisioned and 
any plans to provide physically diverse connections in the future. 
Finally, interconnected VoIP service providers that use a third party 
to provide connections to Selective

[[Page 10773]]

Routers are required to report the percent of switches with mostly 
physically diverse connections to their primary access points. For 
those switches for which they have not provided or made arrangements 
for mostly physically diverse connections to their primary access 
points, they must discuss the circumstances including why mostly 
physically diverse connections are not provisioned and any plans to 
provide mostly physically diverse connections in the future.
    Responding LECs, CMRS providers and interconnected VoIP service 
providers must also provide information regarding disaster planning for 
the resiliency and reliability of 911 architecture. All respondents 
must state whether they have a contingency plan that addresses the 
maintenance and restoration of 911/E911 service during and following 
disasters. If the answer is ``yes,'' the respondent will be asked to 
describe its contingency plan including those elements that address the 
maintenance and restoration of 911/E911 service. If the answer is 
``no,'' the respondent will be asked to discuss the circumstances 
including why it does not have a contingency plan that addresses 911/
E911 maintenance and restoration and any plans to develop such a 
contingency plan in the future.
    Respondents that do have a contingency plan that addresses the 
maintenance and restoration of 911/E911 service must state whether they 
regularly test their plan. If respondents answer ``yes'' to this 
question, they must describe the program for testing their contingency 
plan, including the extent to which they periodically test to ensure 
that the critical components (e.g., automatic re-routes, PSAP Make Busy 
Key) included in contingency plans work as designed and the extent they 
involve PSAPs in tests of their contingency plan. Respondents that 
answer ``no'' will be asked to discuss the circumstances including why 
they do not test their contingency plan and any plans to test their 
plan in the future.
    All respondents must state whether they have a routing plan so 
that, in the case of a lost connection of dedicated transport 
facilities between the originating switch/MSC and the Selective Router, 
911 calls are routed over alternate transport facilities. Respondents 
that answer ``yes'' must describe their routing plan. Respondents that 
answer no must discuss the circumstances and any plans to develop such 
a plan in the future.
    All responding LECs, CMRS providers and interconnected VoIP service 
providers must state whether, in cases where 911 service is disrupted, 
they make test calls to assess the impact as part of the restoration 
process. If the answer is ``no,'' respondents must discuss the 
circumstances including why they do not make test calls as part of the 
restoration process and any plans to do so in the future. Respondents 
must also state whether their company makes additional test calls when 
service is restored and, if not, they must discuss why they do not make 
additional test calls.
    All respondents must describe any current plans they have to 
migrate to next generation 911 (NG911) architecture once a standard for 
NG911 has been developed. Finally, respondents are asked to provide any 
additional relevant information regarding steps they have taken to 
ensure redundancy, resiliency and reliability of their 911/E911 
facilities.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-3702 Filed 2-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P