[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34350-34362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14687]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 4

[PS Docket No. 15-80; FCC 15-39]


Amendments to the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to 
Communications

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on proposals to 
improve its rules governing the reporting of disruptions to 
communications. The proposals contained in this document seek to build 
on the Commission's decade of experience administering these rules and 
the associated Network Outage Reporting System (NORS). This experience 
has provided perspective on aspects of the rules that could be refined 
so as to improve the quality and utility of the outage reporting data 
the Commission receives. Improving the reporting that occurs under the 
Commission's rules will advance the Commission's efforts to monitor the 
reliability and resiliency of the nation's communications networks, 
including 911 networks, and to address systemic vulnerabilities and 
threats to the communications infrastructure.

DATES: Submit comments on or before July 16, 2015, and reply comments 
on or before July 31, 2015. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction 
Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by 
the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested 
parties on or before August 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 15-80, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document. In addition to filing comments 
with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction 
Act information collection requirements contained herein should be 
submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to 
[email protected] and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, 
via email to [email protected] or via fax at 202-395-5167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda D. Villanueva, Attorney 
Advisor, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-7005 or 
[email protected]. For additional information concerning the 
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained 
in this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Nicole 
On'gele, (202) 418-2991.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket No. 15-80, released on March 30, 
2015. The complete text of this document is available for public 
inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through 
Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. In addition, the complete text is available 
online http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-part-4-improvements-item.
    This document contains proposed 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

[[Page 34351]]

collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency 
comments are due August 17, 2015. Comments should address: (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 estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information collected; (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; and (e) way to further reduce the information 
collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees. 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.
    To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) 
submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called ``Currently 
Under Review,'' (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the 
``Select Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under Review'' heading, (4) 
select ``Federal Communications Commission'' from the list of agencies 
presented in the ``Select Agency'' box, (5) click the ``Submit'' button 
to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box, (6) when the list of FCC 
ICRs currently under review appears, look for the Title of this ICR and 
then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to 
OMB will be displayed.
    OMB Control Number: 3060-0484.
    Title: Section 4.9, Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning 
Disruptions to Communications.
    Form No.: Not applicable.
    Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,100 Respondents; 15,783 
Responses.
    Estimated Time per Response: 2-2.5 hours.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting 
requirements, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure 
requirement.
    Obligation to Respond: Mandatory.
    Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained 
in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j) & (o), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 251(e)(3), 
301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, and 
615c.
    Total Annual Burden: 30,548 hours.
    Total Annual Costs: None.
    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Collected information is 
afforded a presumption of confidential treatment under section 4.2 of 
the Commission's rules.
Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) seeks comment on proposals to update its part 4 outage 
reporting rules. In doing so it seeks to apply a decade of experience 
administering the part 4 rules and the associated Network Outage 
Reporting System, which has improved the Commission's ability to detect 
adverse outage trends and facilitate industry-wide network 
improvements. Our primary goal remains ensuring the reliability and 
resiliency of the Nation's communications system, and in particular 
strengthening the Nation's 911 system.
    In a companion document, a Second Report and Order and Order on 
Reconsideration in ET Docket No. 04-35, the Commission resolves several 
outstanding matters related to its adoption of the part 4 rules in a 
Report and Order in 2004. This includes disposing of seven pending 
Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions). Some of the issues raised in 
some of these Petitions, as well as in their responsive pleadings, are 
incorporated into proposals considered in this NPRM. The portions of 
these pleadings that present substantive arguments on such issues are 
incorporated into the record of this proceeding.

I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Costs and Benefits

    1. We seek comment on the potential costs and benefits associated 
with each proposal considered below. As a general matter, we seek to 
determine the most cost-effective approach for modifying existing 
policies and practices to achieve the goals of our proposed rules. We 
ask that commenters provide specific data and information, such as 
actual or estimated dollar figures, including a description of how the 
data or information was calculated or obtained and any supporting 
documentation. Vague or unsupported assertions regarding costs or 
benefits generally will receive less weight and be less persuasive than 
more specific and supported statements.
    2. Some of the proposals advanced today would likely increase the 
number of reports, and some would likely decrease the number of 
reports. We estimate that, overall, adoption of the proposed rules may 
result in the filing of a total of 339 additional reports industry-wide 
per year, representing a $54,240 cost increase. This net cost increase 
is the sum of a $526,560 in cost increases and $472,320 in cost 
reductions. The projected cost increases are associated with proposed 
requirements for reporting outages that significantly degrade 911 
communications ($1,600); radio access network overload events in 
wireless networks ($67,200); simplex outages that persist forty-eight 
hours or longer ($163,200); and wireless outages in rural areas based 
on geographic impact ($294,560). The cost reductions are associated 
with proposals to raise the threshold for reporting major facility 
outages ($453,600) and to clarify when airport-related outages are 
subject to reporting ($18,720). We project that other proposals 
contained in the NPRM will not have an appreciable cost impact. Given 
the breadth of industry sectors subject to Part 4, we believe this 
estimated total cost impact to be de minimis, and, in any event, 
significantly outweighed by the benefits to the public interest from 
adopting these changes. The modest proposals set forth in this NPRM 
will improve the Commission's ability to fulfill its statutory mission 
and inform policymaking, such as the Commission's efforts to safeguard 
the public safety attributes of networks as critical communications 
transition to Internet Protocol-based platforms. In addition, we expect 
that adoption of the proposed rules will enhance the Commission's 
effective coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
and other federal agencies on matters of national security and 
emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. We seek comment on 
whether, or to what extent, the proposed rule changes below will help 
the Commission achieve these goals.

B. Call Failures

    3. Reporting of Outages That Significantly Degrade Communications 
to PSAP(s). We first seek comment on whether to amend our rules to 
clarify the circumstances under which degradation of communications to 
a PSAP constitutes a reportable outage under section 4.9(e)(1) of our 
rules.

[[Page 34352]]

Some providers may be interpreting this provision narrowly to require 
reporting only when there is a complete, i.e., when a PSAP is rendered 
unable to receive any 911 calls for a long enough period to meet the 
reporting threshold. Under this interpretation, a failure or 
degradation that prevents hundreds or even thousands of 911 calls from 
completing might fail to qualify as a reportable outage if some 911 
calls continued to reach the PSAP throughout the event. We believe that 
such a narrow reading of the provision is not consistent with the 
intent of the Part 4 outage reporting process and that the rule should 
not be left open to this interpretation during an event that 
debilitates 911 service. In adopting Part 4 in 2004, the Commission 
defined a reportable outage to include a significant degradation.
    4. A network malfunction or higher level issue that prevents large 
numbers of 911 calls from completing certainly disrupts service in a 
manner that endangers public safety, irrespective of whether any PSAP 
has suffered a complete loss of ability to receive 911 calls. Moreover, 
requiring reporting under such circumstances would permit systematic 
analysis of the conditions that lead to these degradations and help 
reveal potential solutions. Without the benefits of such reporting, the 
Commission may not have sufficient, timely information to address 
serious incidents of this magnitude.
    5. Accordingly, we propose revising section 4.5(e)(1) to clarify 
that any network malfunction or higher-level issue that significantly 
degrades or prevents 911 calls from being completed constitutes a 
``loss of communications to PSAP(s),'' regardless of whether the PSAP 
is rendered completely unable to receive 911 calls. We seek comment on 
this proposed clarification. How would a provider determine the need to 
report an outage that results only in a partial ``loss of 
communications'' to a PSAP? Should the provider simply calculate user 
minutes potentially affected as it would for a complete loss of 
communications, and then multiply that figure by the percentage of PSAP 
communications capacity that has been ``lost'' to determine whether the 
900,000 user minutes threshold has been reached? Is the percentage of 
lost capacity equivalent to the percentage of trunks serving a PSAP 
that have been disabled, or are there factors (e.g., built-in 
redundancy) that complicate the relationship between these parameters? 
Should a ``loss of communications to PSAP(s)'' be defined to include 
only ``losses'' that exceed a certain magnitude? For instance, should 
we specify that a ``loss of communications'' to a PSAP occurs only when 
at least 80 percent of the trunks serving a PSAP are disabled? As 
another possibility, should we consider establishing a separate 
reporting threshold based on the number of 911 calls that actually fail 
to be completed as the result of an outage? If so, should we set a 
uniform numerical threshold, or should the threshold be relative to the 
number of users a PSAP serves? Should the Commission require reporting 
of any outage of at least thirty minutes' duration that exceeds some 
threshold level of impairment to the communications capabilities of any 
PSAP, irrespective of the number of user minutes potentially affected? 
If so, how should the Commission define such a threshold? Are there 
other metrics and thresholds the Commission should consider that could 
better capture this type of degradation in the ability to complete 911 
calls? What are the potential advantages and disadvantages of any such 
alternatives?
    6. We also seek comment on the costs and benefits of the various 
measures mentioned above. Even assuming that the measures would expand 
reporting obligations, we do not believe that any such measures would 
have a substantial cost impact. Over the previous three years, the 
Commission has been made aware of only a handful of events that appear 
to have produced a ``significant degradation in communications to a 
PSAP(s)'' without resulting in a complete loss of such communications. 
For purposes of estimating reporting costs, we could treat those years 
as a best case scenario and instead posit that as many as ten such 
events a year would be reportable were we to adopt any of the various 
measures considered above. Assuming further that each reportable event 
requires two hours of staff time to report, at eighty dollars per hour, 
we conclude that adoption of any of the considered measures would 
result in a total cost increase of $1,600 per year. The two-hour 
estimate, which we use throughout this document, includes the time 
necessary to file the notification, initial report and final report. 
These estimates were developed in 2004 during the process to obtain 
approval for the information collection associated with the original 
Part 4 rules and were subject to public comment both then and at 
periodic intervals since to renew the collection authorization. We 
believe these estimates remain valid, especially in light of both 
advances in information technology that have permitted providers to 
streamline processes and providers' increasing familiarity with the 
NORS outage reporting process. We seek comment on the foregoing 
analysis, including the assumptions used to arrive at the cost estimate 
and the extent to which these estimates appropriately reflect the costs 
associated with reporting. Interested parties should include 
information regarding whether the submission process (i.e., time to 
fill out the form, review by management and filing) takes two hours. We 
also seek comment as to whether we could achieve our objectives in a 
less costly, less burdensome, or more efficient manner. Finally, we 
clarify that our proposals in this NPRM do not prejudge any issue the 
Commission may take up in another docket or proceeding to address the 
reliability of 911 service.
    7. Call Failures in the Wireless Access Network. We next seek 
comment on the reporting of wireless call failures that result from 
congestion in the access network, a problem often encountered during 
emergencies. In particular, the inability of a radio access network 
(RAN) to support excess demand for radio channels may not constitute a 
reportable ``failure or degradation'' under our current rules, yet 
pervasive call failures undermine the reliability of networks for 
consumers regardless of their cause. Because this appears to be 
predominantly an issue with wireless networks, we propose to amend our 
part 4 rules to require the reporting of systemic wireless call 
failures that result from RAN overloading. In doing so we note that the 
Commission already requires reporting of interexchange carrier (IXC) 
and local exchange carrier (LEC) tandem facility outages of at least 
thirty minutes' duration in which 90,000 or more calls are blocked.
    8. Such failures appear to be most prevalent during and in the 
immediate aftermath of major disasters, when call volume is 
particularly heavy. To provide a more complete understanding of the 
problem, we seek comment on the failure rate of wireless calls. How 
often and under what circumstances do wireless calls fail in RANs? How 
different is that failure rate from the rate experienced during 
ordinary circumstances? How different is that from failure rates in 
wireline networks--including both TDM and IP-based networks--in both 
extraordinary (e.g., during or immediately after a weather event) and 
typical circumstances? How often and with what impact is ``load 
shedding'' applied whereby a provider intentionally decreases network 
functionality to allocate available resources to the most critical 
functions?
    9. We also seek comment on ways to measure the customer impact of 
call failures caused by RAN congestion. The

[[Page 34353]]

most obvious potential metric is percent of calls failed. Is there a 
surrogate metric more readily attainable that can provide the 
Commission with similar information? What are the relative strengths 
and weaknesses of each metric? What would be the appropriate reporting 
threshold? Are there alternative ways of defining the reporting 
threshold that would generate more useful information without imposing 
unreasonable burdens on reporting entities? Are there other indicators 
the Commission could track that would help it better understand the 
network dynamics that prevent a wireless network from effectively 
handling calls once a certain saturation point is reached? Are these 
indicators likely to vary depending on the technology used to provide 
service?
    10. We also seek comment on the costs, burdens and benefits of 
requiring providers to report widespread call failures in wireless 
RANs. To estimate these costs, we first assume that wireless access 
networks and interoffice networks are engineered to achieve comparably 
low rates of call failure (i.e., blocked calls). We base this 
assumption on the fact that the nation's communications networks are 
vastly interdependent, which we believe could encourage the 
implementation of similarly robust parameters across networks, e.g., 
call blocking monitoring and measuring. This leads us to assume that 
these two types of networks have a comparable rate of calls blocked 
and, therefore, would have a comparable number of outage reports. We 
seek comment on these assumptions. As the Commission receives 
approximately 420 reports per year of interoffice facility outages, we 
estimate that adoption of the proposed requirement would result in the 
filing of an additional 420 reports per year. Assuming further that two 
hours of staff time are necessary to file the reports on each outage, 
at eighty dollars per hour, we tentatively conclude that the adoption 
of the requirement would result in an annual increase of $67,200 in 
reporting costs. We also assume that providers are already technically 
capable of tracking call failures at each cell site, and that they do 
so as a matter of practice, and they thus would not incur additional 
costs in tracking reportable outages under the proposed rule. We seek 
comment on this cost estimate, including its underlying assumptions. We 
believe these costs would be outweighed by the concomitant benefits of 
improved Commission awareness of the frequency and impact of RAN-
overload events on wireless customers, and of providing the Commission 
with greater understanding about the overall health of the nation's 
networks and, thereby, the ability to work with industry toward 
improved reliability and situational awareness goals to ultimately 
achieve and sustain more reliable and resilient communications 
networks.
    11. Call Failures in the Non-Wireless Access Network. The 
Commission's rules also do not require reporting on widespread call 
blockages in the non-wireless local access network to the extent such 
events involve no ``failure or degradation'' of the network. We seek 
comment on whether the Commission should impose similar reporting 
requirements on these types of outages. If so, how should such 
requirements be defined, and what costs and benefits would attend their 
adoption? Is there evidence that congestion in the access portion of a 
wireline network causes significant amount of calls to fail?

C. Major Transport Facility Outages

1. Appropriate Metric and Threshold
    12. The Commission requires reporting of ``failures of 
communications infrastructure components having significant traffic-
carrying capacity.'' Based on our analysis of NORS data, it appears 
that an increasing proportion of the outages reported under the current 
DS3-based standard are minor disruptions unlikely to have a significant 
impact on communications or jeopardize public safety. Accordingly, we 
seek comment on whether upward adjustment of the reporting threshold 
for transport facility outages could reduce reporting burdens while 
preserving the Commission's ability to obtain critical information 
about communications reliability.
    13. In its Petition, Qwest (now CenturyLink) argued that the outage 
reporting threshold should be defined in terms of impact on ``OCn''- 
level circuits (i.e., optical circuits such as OC1 and OC3) rather than 
DS3 circuits. Alternatively, Qwest argues that the Commission should 
require reporting of DS3 outages only on a quarterly basis.
    14. In the years since the part 4 rules were adopted and Qwest 
filed its petition, the industry has come to rely more heavily on 
circuits larger than the DS3, including OCn-level circuits, for 
transport of communications traffic. We thus believe it may be 
appropriate to express the reporting threshold for transport facility 
outages in terms of impact on higher capacity circuits. In particular, 
we propose to define the threshold in terms of ``OC3 minutes'', i.e., 
based on impact on OC3 circuits or other circuits or aggregations of 
circuits that provide equal or greater capacity. We believe that 
expression of the outage threshold in ``OC3 minutes'' may better 
indicate the magnitude of network outages to which the part 4 rules 
were designed to apply. We seek comment on this proposal.
    15. We further seek comment on raising the reporting threshold to 
account for changes in how networks are scaled and designed. The 
current threshold of 1,350 DS3 minutes--which is equivalent to 450 OC3 
minutes--was selected, consistent with our goals of technological 
neutrality, to match the 900,000 user minutes threshold put in place 
for voice-grade services, based on a calculation of 667 voice-grade 
users per DS3. Yet, as communications services transition to more 
advanced technologies, greater capacity often carries the same number 
of users. In the emerging VoIP environment, we believe that 450 voice-
grade equivalent users is a better estimate of the carrying capacity of 
a single DS3, based on our recent estimate that a single VoIP call 
requires 100 kbps of bandwidth. This would mean that, to retain 
equivalency with the 900,000 user minutes threshold, the major 
facilities outage threshold should be adjusted to 2,000 DS3 minutes--or 
667 OC3 minutes. We seek comment on this analysis and on the resultant 
proposal.
    16. We also seek comment on the cost savings that would accrue from 
this proposal. We observe that there were 2,208 major transport 
facility outages reported in 2013 that did not affect OC3-grade or 
equivalent circuits, and an additional 627 that did not exceed 667 OC3 
minutes. We accordingly believe that the proposed changes to the 
reporting requirements for major transport facility outages could 
reduce the number of associated reports filed each year by as many as 
2,835. Assuming that each such report would have required two staff 
hours to complete, at eighty dollars per hour, we conclude that the 
proposed adjustments of the reporting threshold for major facility 
outages would reduce reporting costs by $453,600. We seek comment on 
this cost analysis and its underlying assumptions.
2. Simplex Outage Reporting
    17. A simplex event occurs when circuits that are configured with 
built-in path protection, as when arranged in a protection scheme such 
as a Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) ring, lose one of the paths. 
Under such configurations, when one of the circuits fails, traffic is 
diverted to a back-up circuit or ``protect path,'' and a

[[Page 34354]]

``simplex event'' has occurred. We propose to shorten from five days to 
48 hours the reporting timeframe for this type of event. While above we 
propose to revise the metric for reporting major facility outages from 
DS3-based to OC3-based, we now address the independent concern of the 
appropriate time frame for reporting simplex events on major network 
facilities, regardless of whether measured as DS or OC.
    18. When it adopted the part 4 rules the Commission rejected a 
proposal to exempt ``simplex events'' from the reach of these 
requirements and determined that such events would constitute 
reportable outages. The Commission reasoned that, although such events 
do not immediately result in any loss of communications, they eliminate 
redundancies that prevent major losses of communications from occurring 
and provide valuable insight into the actual resiliency of critical 
networks. The Commission later issued a Partial Stay Order that granted 
a stay of this requirement as to outages that persist for less than 
five days. In issuing this partial stay, the Commission contemplated 
``developing a full record'' on this issue, including on the costs that 
providers would incur in complying with the rule as originally adopted.
    19. Some Petitioners argue that it is overly burdensome to report 
simplex events. In its response to the Petitions, the National 
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA) argued that 
circuits are ``critical'' for commerce and national defense, including, 
``Federal Reserve, ATM and other bank and commercial transactions, FAA 
flight controls, [and] the Defense Department[,]'' and that simplex 
outages should thus be reported.
    20. Because simplex events are typically scheduled for repair 
during daily maintenance cycles as Petitioners suggest, such outages 
should generally be rectified within twenty-four to forty-eight hours 
in the normal course of business. Neglecting to address simplex outages 
within forty-eight hours of their discovery would thus contravene an 
established industry best practice. Recent years have witnessed an 
increase in the reporting of simplex outages, even under the relaxed, 
five-day standard set forth in the Partial Stay Order, wherein the 
Commission conceded that five days for repair of a simplex outage may 
be tolerable ``[i]n the worst case scenario.'' This suggests that the 
best practice is not being followed.
    21. In light of these observations, we propose improving our 
reporting requirements for simplex events to require reporting of any 
such event not rectified within forty-eight hours of its discovery as a 
reportable outage. We seek comment on the choice of forty-eight hours 
after discovery of a reportable outage as the point at which providers 
must report the outage. Are providers correct in asserting that the 
vast majority of these outages are likely to be repaired within a 
forty-eight-hour window and thus would remain exempt from reporting? 
How common are outages that last longer than forty-eight hours but 
shorter than five days after they are discovered as reportable outages? 
Do the outages that persist longer than five days tend to be 
particularly large in scope or difficult to repair? Is there an 
alternative threshold for the reporting of simplex events that the 
Commission should consider? If so, what is the threshold and what are 
its advantages?
    22. We also seek comment on whether, and to what extent, reducing 
the reporting threshold from five days to forty-eight hours would 
increase costs on providers. We believe that this proposed change would 
create incentives for providers to repair simplex outages in a timelier 
manner, without imposing an undue cost burden. We would expect that 
adoption of this proposal would increase the number of reportable 
events, given that there are likely a number of simplex events that 
exceed the shorter 48 hour threshold proposed in this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, but do not exceed the longer 5-day threshold 
currently in the Commission's rules. We propose a proportional estimate 
that the shortened reporting window threshold would double the number 
of simplex outages subject to reporting, this would amount to an 
increase of approximately 1,250 reports per year. However, the proposed 
change from DS3 to OC3-based reporting for major network transport 
facility outages would reduce the number of simplex-based reports 
because events affecting a small number of DS3s would no longer be 
reportable. Assuming that we reduce the simplex reporting window 
threshold from five days to 48 hours, and adopt OC3 as the metric 
threshold, we estimate these conditions combined will result in an 
estimated 1,020 additional outage reports. (We calculate 1,020 reports 
= 1,250 additional DS3-based reports due to reduction to 48 hours 
threshold - 230 reports only affecting one or two DS3s. We base this 
calculation on the 230 outage reports previously received by the 
Commission in 2013, for events affecting one or two DS3s.) Assuming 
further that two staff hours required to file each report, at eighty 
dollars per hour, this increase in the number of filed reports would 
carry with it an increased cost of $163,200. We believe these costs 
would be outweighed by the concomitant benefits of improved Commission 
awareness of the extent of industry best practices implementation in 
this area, and of providing the Commission's with greater understanding 
about the overall health of the nation's networks and, thereby, the 
ability to work with industry toward improved reliability and 
situational awareness goals to ultimately achieve and sustain more 
reliable and resilient communications networks. We seek comment on this 
analysis and its underlying assumptions.

D. Wireless Outage Reporting Metrics

    23. Reporting Wireless Outages Generally. We have observed over the 
last several years that wireless providers use different methods to 
calculate the number of users ``potentially affected'' by an outage, 
and we seek to find a uniform method of calculating this number that 
can be used by all reporting wireless providers, regardless of 
underlying technology. Wireless service providers in particular are 
directed to calculate this number ``by multiplying the simultaneous 
call capacity of the affected equipment by a concentration ratio of 
8,'' which is based on ``the generic parameters that are routinely used 
in basic telecommunications traffic analysis.'' This measurement of 
call capacity is undertaken at the mobile switching center (MSC), which 
avoids the ``computational difficulties'' of directly measuring outages 
within the more dynamic radiofrequency (RF) portion of the network. 
However, as wireless technologies have continued to evolve, providers 
implementing different technologies have employed various methods of 
measuring the call capacity of their MSCs for purposes of outage 
reporting. Based on our analysis of the data, it appears that this 
variation among providers and technologies has led to inconsistencies 
in reporting that may compromise the Commission's ability to reliably 
detect wireless network outage trends. The lack of a clear and 
consistent process for measuring and reporting wireless outages also 
undermines the technology neutrality that lies at the heart of the part 
4 rules.
    24. In light of these observations, we propose adopting a more 
standardized, technology neutral method for calculating the number of 
users ``potentially affected'' by a wireless network outage. We seek 
comment on two options.

[[Page 34355]]

    25. First, the wireless provider could calculate the total number 
of users potentially affected by an outage by multiplying the number of 
cell sites disabled as part of the outage by the average number of 
users it serves per site, assuming for purposes of the calculation that 
each user is served by a single site and site assignments are 
distributed evenly throughout the provider's network. Alternatively, a 
wireless provider could determine by reference to its Visitor Location 
Register the actual number of users that were being served at each 
affected cell site when the outage commenced. We seek comment on the 
strengths and weaknesses of each of these calculation methods. How 
significantly would adoption of either proposed method affect current 
reporting practices? Are either or both methods preferable to the 
variety of methods used by providers to measure ``simultaneous call 
capacity'' under the existing rule? What are the drawbacks or 
limitations of each proposed method? Are there ways of modifying either 
method to improve its utility? Would adoption of either method unduly 
favor certain network technologies or deployment configurations over 
others? Is either method more technology neutral than the other? We 
also seek comment on the costs and benefits that would attend adoption 
of either calculation method. We do not believe that adoption of either 
proposed calculation would have an appreciable cost impact. We seek 
comment on this assumption.
    26. Finally, we seek comment on whether to adopt a separate and 
additional wireless outage reporting requirement based on the 
geographical scope of an outage, irrespective of the number of users 
potentially affected. We believe that doing so could provide the 
Commission with valuable information on the reliability of wireless 
service in less densely populated areas. As the percentage of calls to 
911 from wireless devices continues to increase, the negative impact to 
the public from large geographic areas losing wireless coverage for 
emergency calls grows in significance. We seek comment on these 
observations. Were the Commission to adopt a geography-based reporting 
requirement for wireless outages, how should it define the threshold? 
Should providers be required to report any outage that disrupts service 
over a specified percentage (e.g., 5 percent) of the provider's 
advertised coverage footprint or some more granular level (e.g., at the 
State, county, or zip code)?
    27. We also seek comment on the costs and benefits that would 
attend adoption of a geography-based reporting threshold. To estimate 
the cost of a potential, new geographic-based reporting threshold, we 
need to estimate the number of additional reports that would be filed 
under such a threshold. We estimate this number as (1) the number of 
additional outage reports that would be generated by geography-based 
reporting (2) minus the number of reports that would be submitted for 
outages that meet the current 900,000 user-minute threshold. For this 
purpose and based on our experience reviewing a decade's worth of 
outage data, we estimate that geography-based reporting would generate 
additional reports in counties where a company has fifteen or fewer 
cell sites. The number of counties with fifteen or fewer cell sites 
represents 2.7 percent of the total number of cell sites nationwide. 
Using as a guide counties with fifteen or fewer cell sites, a 
disruption to communications would be reportable under a geographic 
coverage standard if one or two cell sites in the county are down. We 
next estimate, based on historical NORS data, that each cell site has a 
22.6 percent chance of experiencing an outage within a given year. 
Finally, we adopt CTIA's estimate that 301,779 cell sites were in 
operation nationwide as of the end of 2012. Based on these data, we 
conclude that adoption of a geography-based reporting requirement would 
likely result in the filing of 1,841 additional reports per year. 
Assuming that two staff hours are required to file each report, at 
eighty dollars per hour, we further conclude that the additional 
reporting would carry with it a $294,560 cost burden. We believe these 
costs would be outweighed by the concomitant benefits of improved 
reporting on wireless outages in less-populated areas, and of providing 
the Commission's with greater understanding about the overall health of 
the nation's networks and, thereby, the ability to work with industry 
toward improved reliability and situational awareness goals to 
ultimately achieve and sustain more reliable and resilient 
communications networks. Are there steps the Commission could take to 
reduce the reporting burden associated with such a requirement?
    28. Estimating the Number of ``Potentially Affected'' Wireless 
Users for Outages Affecting a PSAP. A reportable outage affecting a 911 
special facility--or PSAP--occurs, inter alia, whenever: (1) There is a 
loss of communications to a PSAP potentially affecting at least 900,000 
user-minutes; (2) the outage is not at the PSAP; (3) a complete reroute 
is not possible; and (4) the outage lasts 30 minutes or more. In its 
Petition for Reconsideration, Sprint requests clarification of section 
4.9(e)(5), arguing that ``if an outage affects only one of the 
subtending PSAPs, only those customers whose calls would have been 
routed to such PSAP would potentially be affected.'' Sprint requests 
that wireless providers be permitted to divide the capacity of the 
Mobile Switching Center (MSC), as defined in the rule, by the number of 
subtending PSAPs in order to more accurately estimate the number of end 
users potentially affected by an outage affecting a given PSAP. T-
Mobile supported Sprint's proposal.
    29. We propose a slightly modified version of Sprint's proposal. 
Rather than have providers divide capacity equally among subtending 
PSAPs in order to calculate numbers of users potentially affected, we 
propose that capacity be allocated to each PSAP in reasonable 
proportion to its size in terms of number of users served. Thus, while 
Sprint's proposal would divide the capacity of the MSC evenly by the 
number of PSAPs, our proposal would base the allocation on the size of 
the subtending PSAP. We believe that this clarification would limit 
reporting to those significant outages that potentially impact public 
safety and for which the rules are intended. Moreover, this calculation 
method is consistent with what we observe to be the current reporting 
practice. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on any 
potential new burdens that would result from this clarification. We do 
not believe that adoption of the proposed modification would have an 
appreciable cost impact. We seek comment on this assumption.

E. Special Offices and Facilities

    30. Identifying ``Special Offices and Facilities.'' Part 4 requires 
various classes of communications providers to report outages that 
potentially affect ``special offices and facilities,'' a term defined 
in section 4.5(b) to include ``major military installations, key 
government facilities, nuclear power plants, and [relatively major 
airports].'' It further states that National Communications System 
(NCS) member agencies will determine which of their facilities qualify 
as major military installations or key government facilities. Prior to 
the dissolution of the NCS in 2012, none of its member agencies 
provided any guidance as to which of their facilities should be 
included in these categories. In the wake of NCS's dissolution and the 
establishment of the Executive Committee on National Security and 
Emergency Preparedness

[[Page 34356]]

Communications, we seek alternative means of identifying ``special 
offices and facilities'' for purposes of part 4.
    31. We propose to classify as ``special offices and facilities'' 
those facilities enrolled in or eligible for the Telecommunications 
Service Priority (TSP) program, which prioritizes the restoration and 
provisioning of circuits used by entities with National Security/
Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP) responsibilities and duties. The TSP 
framework for restoring critical circuits comprises five priority 
levels, with levels 1 and 2 reserved for critical national security and 
military communications and the remaining levels dedicated to the 
protection of public safety and health and the continued functioning of 
the economy. TSP-enrolled facilities include military installations; 
federal cabinet-level department and agency headquarters; state 
governors' offices; Federal Reserve Banks; national stock exchanges; 
federal, state, and local law enforcement facilities; hospitals; 
airports; major passenger rail terminals; nuclear power plants; oil 
refineries; and water treatment plants.
    32. We seek comment on this proposal. If the TSP framework is 
suitable for identifying ``special offices and facilities,'' should the 
rule apply only to facilities enrolled in the program? If so, should 
there be a separate, free ``outage reporting only'' category created 
for facilities that are eligible for TSP but not otherwise enrolled? 
Should ``special offices and facilities'' instead be defined to include 
any facility that would be eligible for TSP? If so, how would a 
provider determine which of the facilities it serves are eligible for 
the program? In addition, if TSP eligibility or enrollment is used to 
define ``special offices and facilities'' under part 4, should 
facilities at all priority levels be included or only those at the 
highest levels? Should the rules expressly exempt providers from 
reporting any information about a TSP-enrolled facility that is 
protected under a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement with a 
TSP participant? Are there ways in which the TSP framework is 
unsuitable as a basis for classifying ``special offices and 
facilities''? For instance, are there critical facilities that would 
fail to qualify as ``special offices and facilities'' under this 
approach? If so, should we consider broadening the scope of the 
definition to include facilities that are guaranteed priority 
restoration under ``TSP-like'' provisions in service-level agreements? 
Are there alternative classification frameworks that would be more 
suitable? We also request comment on the costs and benefits of these 
proposed options. We do not believe that redefining the term ``special 
offices and facilities'' as considered in this NPRM would have an 
appreciable cost impact. We seek comment on this assumption. Which 
means of defining the term ``special offices and facilities'' would 
strike the optimal balance between useful results and minimal costs to 
all parties? We expressly seek comment from our national security 
agencies on the types of communications sector critical infrastructure 
they believe should be included in such reporting.
    33. Section 4.13. Section 4.13 directs special offices and 
facilities to report outages to the NCS, which may then forward the 
reported information to the Commission at its discretion. No such 
reports were ever forwarded to the FCC from the NCS prior to the 
latter's dissolution in 2012. However, the Commission separately 
imposes requirements on communications providers to report outages that 
potentially affect ``special offices and facilities'' as that term is 
defined section 4.5. Accordingly, we propose deleting section 4.13 from 
our rules as redundant with respect to information that providers are 
already required to supply, and obsolete with respect to obligations 
regarding the NCS. We seek comment on this proposal. Would deleting 
this provision have any practical impact on the Commission's ability to 
gather information about critical outages? Should the Commission 
establish a voluntary mechanism for operators of ``special offices and 
facilities'' to share information directly with the Commission about 
outages affecting their facilities? What benefits to network 
reliability and public safety might be realized were such reports filed 
directly with the Commission? Should the Commission encourage or 
require providers to report information regarding outages affecting 
``special offices and facilities'' to member agencies of the former NCS 
or to agencies that have absorbed NCS functions?
    34. Airport Reporting Requirements. Section 4.5(b) defines 
``special offices and facilities'' to include all airports listed as 
``current primary (PR), commercial service (CM), and reliever (RL) 
airports in the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) National Plan 
of Integrated Airports Systems (NPIAS).'' In its Petition, Sprint asks 
the Commission to clarify that outages that ``potentially affect'' such 
airports (and are thereby reportable under various subsections of 
section 4.9 of the rules) are classified as such only to the extent 
they have a potential impact on critical communications. Such an 
interpretation is consistent with language proposed but not adopted in 
the Part 4 rulemaking proceeding, under which an outage potentially 
affecting an airport would have been defined as one that: (i) Disrupts 
50 percent or more of the air traffic control links or other FAA 
communications links to any airport; (ii) has caused an Air Route 
Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) or airport to lose its radar; (iii) has 
caused a loss of both primary and backup facilities at any ARTCC or 
airport; or (iv) has affected an ARTCC or airport that is deemed 
important by the FAA as indicated by FAA inquiry to the provider's 
management personnel.
    35. We propose clarifying the circumstances under which providers 
must report outages potentially affecting airport communications. In 
doing so, we first observe that most of the reports filed in this 
category have concerned outages not significant enough to pose a 
substantial threat to public safety, particularly at smaller regional 
airports. In light of this observation, we seek comment on amending the 
definition of ``special offices and facilities'' to exclude all 
airports other than those designated ``primary commercial service'' 
airports in the NPIAS. This category includes the nation's most heavily 
trafficked airports, where even minor degradations in critical 
communications can pose grave threats to public safety and national 
security. To what extent would this proposed restriction of the scope 
of section 4.5(b) affect current reporting practice? Would it put the 
Commission at risk of failing to learn of serious outages?
    36. We next seek comment on clarifying the types of communications 
that must be jeopardized for an outage to be held to ``potentially 
affect'' an airport. As an initial matter, we find compelling Sprint's 
argument that only outages relating to critical communications should 
be included. The definition of an outage potentially affecting an 
airport proposed in the original Part 4 rulemaking proceeding (and 
discussed above) would exclude communications such as these not 
directly related the role of airports as critical transportation 
infrastructure. Should the Commission adopt this proposed definition? 
Are there circumstances this definition fails to cover under which an 
outage should be held to ``potentially affect'' an airport? Should the 
definition include all communications outages that could impact the 
safety and security of the airport, passengers, crew, or staff? On the 
other hand, should the Commission

[[Page 34357]]

declare that outages potentially affecting airports include only those 
that affect FAA communications links? Are there are other ways of 
delineating this category of outages that we should consider? We also 
seek comment on the costs and benefits of clarifying the scope of 
outages that ``potentially affect'' airports as discussed above. In 
2013, the Commission received 117 reports of airport-related outages 
that do not appear to have implicated critical communications and thus 
would likely not be reportable under any clarification of the rules 
considered above. We thus estimate that such a clarification would 
reduce the number of reports filed annually by 117. Assuming that each 
report requires two staff hours to complete, at $80 per hour, this 
reduction in the number of reports filed would represent a cost savings 
of $18,720. We seek comment on this analysis.
    37. Finally, we seek comment on the relationship between the 
general definition of ``special offices and facilities'' in part 4 and 
the special provisions for airports. Were the Commission to classify 
``special offices and facilities'' using the familiar TSP framework, 
under which airports are eligible facilities, could it eliminate as 
redundant its separate requirements to report outages affecting 
airports? Would doing so make the rules clearer and more efficient, or 
would it create the risk of critical airport outages going unreported? 
Should the Commission instead broaden the scope of the airport-based 
reporting rules to include other modes of public transportation or even 
wider to other critical infrastructure, perhaps based on the ``critical 
infrastructure sectors'' identified by DHS? Does the TSP framework 
already adequately encompass such infrastructure for purposes of part 4 
reporting? Do answers to any of these questions depend on whether 
``special offices and facilities'' are defined to include all TSP-
eligible facilities or only those facilities enrolled in the program?
    38. Reporting Obligations of Satellite and Terrestrial Wireless 
Service Providers. The part 4 rules applicable to satellite and 
terrestrial wireless providers exempt these classes of providers from 
reporting outages potentially affecting airports. In carving out these 
exemptions, the Commission explained that ``the critical communications 
infrastructure serving airports is landline based.'' In separate 
Petitions, CTIA, Cingular Wireless, and Sprint each argue that wireless 
providers should be similarly exempt from reporting outages pertaining 
to all other ``special offices and facilities.'' CTIA argues in support 
of its petition that ``the rationale for excluding wireless carriers 
from outage reporting for airports applies with equal force to all 
special offices and facilities.'' That is, ``[j]ust as with airports, 
wireless providers do not generally assign dedicated access lines to 
specific end users, and therefore do not have dedicated access lines 
for the critical portions of any of the special offices and 
facilities.'' The Commission notes, however, the continued growth in 
the use of wireless networks, including in and around facilities that 
may qualify as ``special offices and facilities'' under the current 
rules or under various proposals we are considering.
    39. As we consider changes to the outage reporting rules that 
pertain to ``special offices and facilities,'' we seek comment on how 
such rules should apply to satellite and terrestrial wireless 
providers. Does airport communications infrastructure remain ``landline 
based,'' and are other facilities the Commission might classify as 
``special offices and facilities'' served by a similar infrastructure? 
If so, should the Commission exempt wireless providers from any 
requirement to report outages potentially affecting ``special offices 
and facilities,'' as Petitioners request? Should we grant a similarly 
broad exemption to satellite providers? On the other hand, should the 
rules specify that a wireless or satellite provider must report outages 
potentially affecting any ``special offices [or] facilities'' to which 
it has assigned dedicated access lines? Are there other service 
arrangements that should give rise to an obligation to report wireless 
or satellite outages potentially affecting ``special offices [or] 
facilities''? More generally, are there other circumstances where 
reporting from wireless or satellite providers on outages potentially 
affecting a special office or facility might provide the Commission 
with valuable information it would not receive otherwise? We also seek 
comment on the costs and benefits that would attend adoption of any 
rules in this area. We observe that wireless and satellite providers 
have historically filed few, if any, reports pertaining to outages 
affecting special offices and facilities. We thus estimate any further 
relaxation of their obligations to report such outages would not have 
an appreciable cost impact. We seek comment on this analysis.

F. Part 4 Information Sharing

    40. Sharing of NORS Data With State Public Utility Commissions. 
Section 4.2 provides that reports filed in NORS are presumed 
confidential and thus withheld from routine public inspection. The 
Commission routinely shares NORS reports with the Office of Emergency 
Communication at DHS, which may ``provide information from those 
reports to such other governmental authorities as it may deem to be 
appropriate,'' but the Commission does not share NORS information 
directly with state governments. In the absence of routine access to 
NORS data, many states independently require communications providers 
to file network outage reports with their public utility commissions or 
similar agencies. The content of such reporting overlaps to a great 
extent with the information providers must report to the Commission 
under part 4.
    41. In 2009, the California Public Utility Commission filed a 
petition (CPUC Petition) in which it requests that the Commission amend 
its rules to permit state agencies to directly access the NORS 
database. CPUC also informally requests that the Commission grant it 
password-protected access to those portions of the NORS database that 
contain data relating to communications outages in the State of 
California. CPUC argues that reliable access to network outage data is 
``necessary to perform its traditional role of protecting public health 
and safety through monitoring of communications network 
functionality.'' Direct access to NORS, CPUC further argues, is the 
most effective means of obtaining such information. CPUC cites as 
precedent for its requested access to NORS the Commission's Numbering 
Resource Optimization proceeding, in which the Commission divulged 
confidential telephone numbering data to States on the condition that 
they have adequate protections in place to shield the information from 
public inspection.
    42. Granting states access to NORS data on a confidential basis 
could advance compelling state interests in protecting public health 
and safety in an efficient manner. We further observe that none of the 
commenters on CPUC's petition made the case that such sharing would be 
unworkable in practice or would undermine the core purposes of NORS. 
Accordingly, we propose granting states read-only access to those 
portions of the NORS database that pertain to communications outages in 
their respective states. In advancing this proposal, we reaffirm our 
view that NORS data should be presumed confidential and shielded from 
public inspection. We thus propose that, in order to receive direct 
access to NORS, a state must certify that it will keep the data 
confidential and that it has in place confidentiality protections at 
least equivalent to those set forth in the

[[Page 34358]]

federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). We seek comment on defining 
the term ``State'' for purposes of this proposal to include the 
District of Columbia, U.S. territories and possessions, and Tribal 
nations. We also find that rulemaking is the appropriate vehicle for 
deciding this issue, and thus hold in abeyance CPUC's informal request 
for access to California-specific NORS data, pending the completion of 
this rulemaking.
    43. We seek comment on the foregoing proposal. How can the FCC 
ensure that the data is shared with officials most in need of the 
information while maintaining confidentiality and assurances that the 
information will be properly safeguarded? Should personnel charged with 
obtaining the information be required to have security training? Should 
the identity of these individuals be supplied to the FCC? Should states 
be required to report or be penalized for breaches of the 
confidentiality of information obtained from NORS? Should a provider be 
permitted to audit a state's handling of its outage data? Should states 
be granted access to NORS data only on the condition that such access 
replace any separate outage reporting required under state law? Should 
NORS allow the placement of caveats with respect to the sharing of any 
data elements?
    44. We also seek comment on limitations on states' use of NORS 
data. When outage information is provided to state public officials or 
state public utility commissions, should the state be required to 
notify the FCC and service providers if the state seeks to share the 
data with parties outside its direct employ? Should states' use of NORS 
data be restricted to activities relating to its ``traditional role of 
protecting public health and safety?'' If so, what activities does this 
role encompass, and how should the Commission enforce any such 
limitation on states' use of the data? We seek comment on exactly what 
information should be shared with state officials. Should states be 
granted access to the notification, initial report and final reports? 
Should providers' outage coordinators' contact information be redacted 
before the information is shared with the states? Finally, we seek 
comment on the costs and benefits of sharing state specific NORS outage 
data with state entities. We believe that the proposed sharing of NORS 
data with states would not have an appreciable cost impact. We seek 
comment on this assumption. What is the best way to balance security 
and convenience with the costs and benefits to all involved parties?
    45. Federal Agency Requests to Access NORS. The Commission also has 
received occasional requests from agencies other than DHS for access to 
NORS data. Thus far, we have provided the information only to DHS, 
which may share relevant information with other federal agencies at its 
discretion. However, we recognize the validity of requests from other 
federal partners to have their own direct access to the NORS database 
when these requests are made for national security reasons. 
Accordingly, we propose entertaining requests from other federal 
agencies for access to NORS data, and acting upon such requests on a 
case-by-case basis. We seek comment on this proposed approach to 
handling such requests. Should there be limitations on DHS access or 
access by other federal agencies? Under what circumstances should this 
information be shared? Should the entities seeking NORS data specify 
how they intend to use the information, and if, or with whom, they 
intend to share it? Should they be required to demonstrate that 
sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure that the information be 
seen only by necessary parties? Should such sharing be undertaken in 
accordance with the procedures established under section 0.442 of the 
Commission's rules for the sharing of presumptively confidential 
information with other federal agencies?
    46. Information Sharing with the National Coordinating Center for 
Communications (NCC). We next seek comment on the sharing of 
information collected under part 4 with the NCC. Would access to outage 
data collected in NORS contribute to the NCC's mission? Under what 
terms, if any, should such access be provided? Should the Commission 
instead continue to leave to the discretion of individual providers 
what network outage information they choose to share with the NCC? 
Would the Commission's provision of Part 4 information to the NCC 
discourage industry participation in that program? Is there a subset of 
data collected under Part 4 that the Commission could share with the 
NCC while upholding the confidentiality presumption established for 
Part 4? Would the sharing of network outage data in aggregate or 
generalized form be useful to the NCC? Finally, we assume that such 
information sharing would not have any appreciable cost impact. We seek 
comment on this assumption.

II. Procedural Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    47. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) for this NPRM, of the possible significant economic impact on 
small entities of the proposals addressed in this document. The IRFA is 
set forth as Appendix D. Written public comments are requested on the 
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be 
filed by the deadlines for comments indicated on the first page of this 
NPRM. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this NPRM, including 
the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    48. The NPRM in this document contains proposed new 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.

C. Ex Parte Rules

    49. The proceeding this NPRM 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 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,

[[Page 34359]]

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 rule 1.1206(b). 
In proceedings governed by rule 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.

D. Comment Filing Procedures

    50. Pursuant to sections 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 this 
document. Comments should be filed in PS Docket No. 15-80. Comments may 
be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System 
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 
63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together 
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

III. Ordering Clauses

    51. Accordingly it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 
251(e)(3), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 
403, 615a-1, and 615c of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j) & (o), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 251(e)(3), 301, 
303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, and 
615c, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Second Report and Order and 
Order on Reconsideration in ET Docket 04-35 and PS Docket 15-80 is 
adopted, effective thirty (30) days after the date of publication in 
the Federal Register.
    52. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Final Regulatory Certification, 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business 
Administration.

IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    53. The NPRM seeks comment and information on a variety of issues 
related to the Commission's Part 4 outage reporting rules, including 
proposals to:
     Clarify the requirement to report outages that 
significantly degrade communications to Public Safety Answering Points 
(PSAPs);
     Adopt requirements to report widespread call failures that 
result from radio access network (RAN) congestion;
     Replace the current threshold (based on ``DS3 minutes'') 
for reporting major network outages with a threshold based on optical 
(i.e., OC-3) transmission rates;
     Require reporting of DS3 Simplex outages that persist for 
less than five days but for more than forty-eight hours;
     Adopt a common, technologically neutral method for 
calculating the number of wireless users ``potentially affected'' by an 
outage;
     Clarify the reporting metric for estimating the number of 
``potentially affected'' wireless users for outages that affect Public 
Switched Answering Points (PSAPs);
     Update the requirements that mandate reporting of outages 
that affect airports and other ``special offices and facilities''; and
     Grant NORS access to state government agencies upon 
request and certification that the state has measures in place to 
protect the data from public disclosure.
    54. The Commission traditionally has addressed reliability issues 
by working with communications service providers to develop and promote 
best practices that address vulnerabilities in the communications 
network, and by measuring the effectiveness of best practices through 
outage reporting. Under the Commission's current rules, the outage 
reporting process has been effective in improving the reliability, 
resiliency and security of communications services. Commission staff 
collaborates with individual providers and industry bodies to review 
outage results and address troublesome areas, and these efforts have 
resulted in dramatic reductions in outages. The aim of updating the 
outage reporting rules is to further improve the reliability, 
resiliency and security of communications services.

B. Legal Basis

    55. The legal basis for the rules proposed in the NPRM are 
contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(k), 4(o), 218, 219, 230, 256, 301, 
302(a), 303(f), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 403, 621(b)(3), and 621(d) of 
the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(k), 154(o), 
218, 219, 230, 256, 301, 302a(a), 303(f), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 403, 
621(b)(3), and 621(d), and section 1704 of the Omnibus Consolidated and 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1998, 44 U.S.C. 3504.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
Rules Will Apply

    56. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, 
where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may 
be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as

[[Page 34360]]

the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA.
1. Wireline Providers
    57. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate 
size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers, which are establishments primarily engaged 
in operating or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own or lease for the transmission of voice, 
data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. 
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2007, show that there were 
3,188 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 44 firms had had 
employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the 
associated small business size standard, the majority of these 
incumbent local exchange service providers can be considered small.
    58. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this 
present RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the 
RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size 
standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or 
fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' 
The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small 
incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any 
such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. The Commission has 
therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although 
the Commission emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on 
Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    59. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of 
interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules 
is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which are 
establishments primarily engaged in operating or providing access to 
transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own or lease for 
the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired 
telecommunications networks. Under that size standard, such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 
2007 show that there were 3,188 firms in this category that operated 
for the entire year. Of this total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or 
fewer, and 44 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange carriers 
are small entities that may be affected by our proposed action.
2. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile
    60. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 
2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, 
broad, economic census category. This category is composed of 
establishments that operate and maintain switching and transmission 
facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. As holders of 
spectrum licenses, these establishments use the licensed spectrum to 
provide services, such as cellular phone services, paging services, 
wireless Internet access, and wireless video services. The SBA has 
deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. For the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite), Census data for 2007, which supersede data 
contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms that 
operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, 
and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and 
the associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can 
be considered small. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service 
(PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of these, 
an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 
approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small. 
Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless 
firms can be considered small.
3. Satellite Service Providers
    61. Satellite Telecommunications Providers. Two economic census 
categories address the satellite industry. The first category, 
Satellite Telecommunications, has a small business size standard of $15 
million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. The second 
category is ``All Telecommunications Providers,'' which is discussed in 
a separate section.
    62. The category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications 
services to other establishments in the telecommunications and 
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications 
signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite 
telecommunications.'' Census Bureau data for 2007 show that 512 
Satellite Telecommunications firms that operated for that entire year. 
Of this total, 464 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 
18 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications 
firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.
4. Cable Service Providers
    63. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has developed its 
own small business size standards for the purpose of cable rate 
regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is 
one serving a total of 400,000 or fewer subscribers over one or more 
cable systems. Industry data indicate that all but ten cable operators 
nationwide are small under this size standard. In addition, under the 
Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 
or fewer subscribers. Industry data indicate that, of the 6,101 systems 
nationwide, 4,410 systems have less than 10,000 subscribers, and an 
additional 258 systems have between 10,000-19,999 subscribers. Thus, 
under this standard, most cable systems are small.
    64. Cable System Operators. The Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system 
operators, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an 
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all 
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity 
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that an

[[Page 34361]]

operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small 
operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual 
revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the 
aggregate. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators 
nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard. We note 
that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on 
whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross 
annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore we are unable to 
estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that 
would qualify as small under this size standard.
5. All Other Telecommunications
    65. The 2007 NAICS defines ``All Other Telecommunications'' as 
follows: ``This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as 
satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station 
operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged 
in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities 
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of 
transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications 
from satellite systems. Establishments providing Internet services or 
voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.'' 
This category has a size standard of $25 million or less in annual 
receipts.\1\ Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total 
of 2,383 firms that operated for the entire year.\2\ Of this total, 
2,305 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and 41 firms had 
annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.\3\ Consequently, we 
estimate that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are 
small entities that might be affected by our action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Id.
    \2\ EC0751SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series--Establishment and 
Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2007 
Economic Census, U.S. Census Bureau, http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pates/productive.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table (last 
visited Mar. 27, 2015).
    \3\ Id. The remaining 14 firms had annual receipts of $25 
million or more. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    66. The rules proposed in the NPRM would require telecommunications 
providers to report those outages that meet specified NORS Notice and 
Reports reporting threshold criteria, largely determined by the number 
of end users potentially affected by the outage and the duration of the 
outage. In the Commission's experience administering NORS, small 
companies only rarely experience outages that meet the NORS Notice and 
Reports reporting threshold criteria. Accordingly, while some of the 
rule revisions proposed in the NPRM would likely decrease the number of 
outages reported annually, while others may lead to increases, we would 
expect these impacts to be less pronounced for smaller entities. But 
notwithstanding any revisions we propose to the Part 4 reporting 
requirements, we expect that telecommunications providers to continue 
to track, investigate, and correct all of their service disruptions as 
an ordinary part of conducting their business operations and 
maintenance- even for service disruptions far too small to trigger a 
requirement to report. Telecommunications providers through internal 
network operation center personnel already file Notifications and 
Reports, typically an online form less than three pages in length based 
on data routinely collected and monitored by this same personnel. The 
form is designed to allow small entities to input information without 
the need for specialized professional, although the telecommunication 
providers may choose to hire consultants or engineers to conduct 
technical aspects, or an attorney to review compliance with applicable 
rules. Therefore, we believe the only burden associated with the 
reporting requirements contained here will be the time required to 
complete any additional Notifications and Reports following the 
proposed changes. In this IRFA, we therefore seek comment on the types 
of burdens telecommunications providers will face in complying with the 
proposed requirements. Entities, especially small businesses and small 
entities, more generally, are encouraged to comment and quantify the 
costs and benefits of the proposed reporting requirements.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    67. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) 
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.
    68. The proposed reporting requirements are minimally necessary to 
assure that we receive adequate information to perform our statutory 
responsibilities with respect to the reliability of telecommunications 
and their infrastructures. Also, we believe that the magnitude of the 
outages needed to trigger the reporting requirements are sufficiently 
high as to make it unlikely that small businesses would be impacted 
significantly by the proposed rules, and will, in fact, in many 
instances find their burden decreased by the newly proposed reporting 
thresholds. The Commission considered other possible proposals and now 
seeks comment on the proposed reporting thresholds and the analysis 
presented.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule

    69. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 4

    Airports, Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, 
Disruptions to communications, Network outages, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
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 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 
155, 201, 251, 307, 316.

0
2. Section 4.2 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  4.2  Availability of reports filed under this part.

    Reports filed under this part will be presumed to be confidential. 
A State government may file a request with the Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau for read-only access to information filed 
under this part

[[Page 34362]]

concerning outages that occur within the State. The Public Safety and 
Homeland Security may grant the request upon certification that the 
State will maintain the confidentiality of the information and that it 
has in place confidentiality protections equivalent to those of the 
Freedom of Information Act to protect the information from public 
inspection. Public access to reports filed under this part may be 
sought only pursuant to the procedures set forth in 47 CFR 0.461. 
Notice of any requests for inspection of outage reports will be 
provided pursuant to 47 CFR 0.461(d)(3).
0
3. Section 4.5 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  4.5  Definitions of outage, special offices and facilities, and 
911 special facilities.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) There is a partial or complete loss of communications to 
PSAP(s) potentially affecting at least 900,000 user-minutes and: The 
failure is neither at the PSAP(s) nor on the premises of the PSAP(s); 
no reroute for all end users was available; and the outage lasts at 
lasts 30 minutes or more; or
* * * * *
0
4. Section 4.7 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  4.7  Definitions of metrics used to determine the general outage-
reporting threshold criteria.

* * * * *
    (d) OC3 minutes are defined as the mathematical result of 
multiplying the duration of an outage, expressed in minutes, by the 
number of previously operating OC3 circuits or their equivalents that 
were affected by the outage.
* * * * *


Sec.  4.9  [Amended]

0
5. Section 4.9 is amended by removing the term ``DS3'' and adding, in 
its place, the term ``OC3'' in paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(4), (b), (e)(3), 
(e)(5), (f)(2), and (f)(4), and removing the number ``1,350'' and 
adding, in its place, the number ``667'' in paragraphs (a)(2), (b), 
(e)(3), and (f)(2).


Sec.  4.13  [Removed]

0
6. Section 4.13 is removed.

[FR Doc. 2015-14687 Filed 6-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P