[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 212 (Tuesday, November 3, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67689-67697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27926]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 4
[GN Docket No. 15-206; FCC 15-119]
Improving Outage Reporting for Submarine Cables and Enhancing
Submarine Cable Outage Data
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) proposes to require submarine cable licensees, as a
condition of their license, to report on outages involving either lost
connectivity or degradation of 50 percent or more of a submarine
cable's capacity for periods of at least 30 minutes, regardless of
whether the cable's traffic is re-routed. The Commission seeks comment
on whether this reporting system is necessary, whether the proposed
reporting triggers are appropriate, and whether the reporting system
proposed is the most efficient means to accomplish the Commission's
goals of gaining visibility into the operational status of submarine
cables. The document also seeks comment on ways in which the Commission
can act to improve the submarine cable deployment process either on its
own accord or by coordinating with other stakeholders.
DATES: Submit comments on or before December 3, 2015 and reply comments
by December 18, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number GN 15-
206, by any of the following methods:
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and
Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC
20554. 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.
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.
Parties wishing to file materials with a claim of confidentiality
should follow the procedures set forth in section 0.459 of the
Commission's rules. Confidential submissions may not be filed via ECFS
but rather should be filed with the Secretary's Office following the
procedures set forth in 47 CFR 0.459. Redacted versions of confidential
submissions may be filed via ECFS. For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking
process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael D. Saperstein, Jr., Attorney
Advisor, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-7008 or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in GN Docket No. 15-206, released on
September 18, 2015. The full text of this document is available for
public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or
online at https://www.fcc.gov/document/improving-outage-reporting-submarine-cables.
Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
I. Introduction
Submarine (or ``undersea'') cables provide the primary means of
connectivity--voice, data and Internet--between the mainland United
States and consumers in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, the
Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as
well as connectivity between the United States and the rest of the
world. Given the role of submarine cables to the nation's economic and
national security, there is value to ensuring that infrastructure is
reliable, resilient and diverse. Today, however, the ad hoc approach to
outage reporting for undersea cables has resulted in a gap in the
sufficiency of the information that the Commission staff receives from
service providers. To effectuate our statutory obligations of promoting
the
[[Page 67690]]
public interest and our nation's economic and national security, we
need the ability to (1) be advised of undersea cable outages when they
occur; (2) receive the information necessary to understand the nature
of the damage and potential impacts on critical U.S. economic sectors,
national security, and other vital interests; and (3) enhance
coordination and help facilitate restoration of service in outage
events.
In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ``NPRM''), we propose to
require submarine cable licensees to report outages involving either
lost connectivity or degradation of 50 percent or more of an undersea
cable's capacity for periods of at least 30 minutes, regardless of
whether the cable's traffic is re-routed. We also propose to amend the
submarine cable landing license rules to require compliance with the
outage reporting requirements.
II. Discussion
In this NPRM we propose rules to improve the Commission's present
lack of visibility on undersea cable operational status by requiring
undersea cable licensees to provide outage information to the
Commission through a reliable part 4 template in accordance with
logical standards and triggers. We also propose to revise part 1 of the
rules governing submarine cable licenses to ensure compliance with the
outage reporting requirements. We seek comment on all aspects of this
proposal, including the definitions, degradation thresholds, and
reporting structure for these requirements.
A. Extending Mandatory Outage Reporting to Submarine Cables
Undersea Cable Information System (UCIS). In 2008, in cooperation
with other Federal agencies, and in support of Federal national
security and emergency preparedness communications programs, the
Commission began UCIS as a voluntary outage reporting system. Licensees
that elect to use UCIS are asked to provide four categories of
information for each submarine cable with a cable landing in the United
States: (1) A terrestrial route map; (2) a location spreadsheet; (3) a
general description of restoration plans in the event of an incident;
and (4) system restoration messages. The Commission's experience with
the ad hoc nature of this reporting approach highlights two significant
concerns: (1) The Commission only receives information on about one-
fourth of the cables; and (2) the information submitted is neither
uniform, complete, nor consistent with respect to reporting triggers,
form, or substance. We seek comment on licensees' evaluation of their
participation in the UCIS program. To what extent and under what
circumstances do submarine cable licensees make use of this tool? How
many outages, planned or unplanned, does a licensee experience per
year? Are there discernable patterns to submarine cable outages?
Based on our experience, we believe that the Commission needs
access to more timely and consistent reporting and information to
assess the operational status of submarine cables, including any
outages and the associated restoration status of these cables. We seek
comment on whether the approach we propose in this item achieves our
policy goals, and whether there are other approaches that may also
achieve our policy goals. Is there a manner in which the Commission
could maintain the UCIS model, either in format or in substance, and
ensure it receives the necessary data on submarine cable operational
status? What changes would need to be made to the current system?
B. Proposed Submarine Cable Reporting System
In light of the foregoing, we propose to replace UCIS in its
entirety by extending modified outage reporting requirements in part 4
of our rules to submarine cable licensees.
1. Covered Providers
Pursuant to the Cable Landing License Act and Executive Order
10530, the Commission has promulgated cable landing licensing rules
that require a person or entity to obtain a cable landing license to
connect: (1) The contiguous United States with any foreign country; (2)
Alaska, Hawaii, or United States territories or possessions with a
foreign country, the contiguous United States, or with each other; and
(3) points within the contiguous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or a
territory or possession in which the cable is laid within international
waters (e.g., Washington State to Alaska). The following entities are
required to be licensees on a cable landing license: (1) Any entity
that owns or controls a cable landing station in the United States; and
(2) all other entities owning or controlling a five percent or greater
interest in the cable system and using the U.S. points of the cable
system. We note that although an entity with less than 5 percent
ownership in a submarine cable is not required to be a licensee under
the current rules, it may be a licensee, particularly on cables
licensed prior to the rule change in 2002.
In order to ensure resiliency of these critically important
undersea cables, regardless of whether they are used for domestic or
international voice and data traffic, we propose to require that all
submarine cable licensees will be subject to Part 4's reporting
requirements as further described in this Notice. Specifically, we
propose to amend section 1.767 to make outage reporting a condition of
each cable landing license. We seek comment on this proposal. Are there
any categories of licensees that should be exempted from mandatory
outage reporting? If so, why? Are there any entities subject to the
Commission's jurisdiction (e.g., international communications service
providers) that are not licensees that should be covered by these
rules? How would applying these rules to such providers affect our
legal analysis of our authority?
Many submarine cables are jointly owned and operated by multiple
licensees in a consortium. We seek comment on the assumption that,
should an outage occur, it will generally cause a disruption for all
licensees of that submarine cable. Based on that premise, and in an
effort to minimize the burden both on licensees and the Commission, we
propose that where there are multiple licensees of the same cable, only
one licensee per cable will be required to file an outage report. In
particular, we propose an approach whereby all licensees sharing a
submarine cable would acknowledge and provide consent for a designated
licensee to file on behalf of the cable should an outage occur. We seek
comment on this approach.
We observe that using a single licensee to coordinate filing is
consistent with our treatment of submarine cables in other contexts. We
seek comment on whether requiring only one licensee to file outage data
on cables with multiple licensees would be efficacious. Does such an
approach present a risk that the Commission will receive insufficient
or otherwise incomplete information? Will the ``Responsible Licensee''
always have sufficient information to timely file and provide a full
and accurate report? Should we require licensees to formally designate
with the Commission one ``Responsible Licensee'' per submarine cable to
bear the reporting obligation where there are multiple licensees? Does
designating a ``Responsible Licensee'' place that licensee in the
position of having to get information from a different licensee who
caused or experienced the outage in order to
[[Page 67691]]
comply with full and accurate reporting requirements?
If we adopt a ``Responsible Licensee'' reporting paradigm to
enhance administrative efficiency and convenience, we believe that
every submarine cable licensee has a duty to ensure that outages are
properly and adequately reported. We seek comment on this approach. Is
such an approach equitable and capable of efficient implementation?
Would such an approach create the right incentives for co-licensees to
work together to quickly and accurate identify and report on outages?
If reports are not timely-filed or accurate due to inability of the
``Responsible Licensee'' to obtain necessary information from the
licensee who caused the outage, would enforcement action be appropriate
against the ``Responsible Licensee'' only, or against co-licensees?
Should each licensee be jointly and severally liable for any
forfeiture? Are the administrative efficiencies of the Responsible
Licensee system beneficial to reporting entities? Would the Responsible
Licensee system complicate the Commission's ability to ensure proper
reporting?
2. Defining a Reportable Outage or Disruption
We propose that an outage sufficient to trigger Part 4 reporting
exists for submarine cables if there is a failure or significant
degradation in the performance of a submarine cable, regardless of
whether traffic traversing that cable can be re-routed to an alternate
cable. This proposal, analogous to part 4 reporting for simplex
outages, seems appropriate given the possibility of damage to multiple
cables due to one or multiple related or unrelated events and the
relatively small number of undersea cables available for re-routing
generally. We seek comment on this proposal. How do licensees generally
provide redundancy, and what are the notable effects on other services,
if any?
Further, we propose reporting of a submarine cable disruption when
either: (i) an event occurs in which connectivity in either the
transmit mode or the receive mode is lost for at least 30 minutes; or
(ii) an event occurs in which 50 percent or more of a cable's capacity
in either the transmit mode or the receive mode is lost for at least 30
minutes, regardless of whether the traffic is re-routed. In this
proposal we distinguish connectivity, which is the fundamental ability
to transmit a signal, from capacity, which speaks to the cable's
bandwidth or throughput that it is capable of transmitting at any one
time. We seek comment on all aspects of this proposal.
We seek comment on whether there are more specific technical
aspects of submarine cable performance or operation that, if reported,
would enable the Commission to perform more sophisticated and useful
outage reporting analysis. Are there any elements of the UCIS reporting
structure that should remain if we adopt our proposal to require
submarine cable outages under Part 4 of our rules? If we were to retain
UCIS, are these reporting elements still applicable? Are there other
technical specifications or aspects of submarine cable performance that
should trigger a reporting requirement?
3. Report Information, Format and Timing
We propose to integrate submarine cable outage reporting into the
existing NORS platform because it has proven to be an efficient
mechanism for both reporting entities and Commission analysis. Our
proposed system is similar, but not identical, to other part 4 outage
reporting requirements. Here, we propose a three-report system that
requires a Notification, an Interim Report to inform the Commission
when repairs have been scheduled, and a Final Report for each outage
event. We propose that in the event of a planned outage, licensees
would not be required to file an Interim Report if the planned nature
of the event was appropriately signaled in the Notification.
Under our proposal, a licensee would be required to file a
Notification in NORS within 120 minutes from the time that the licensee
has determined that an event is reportable. We propose that the
Notification would include:
The name of the reporting entity;
The name of the cable and a list of all licensees for that
cable;
A brief description of the event, including root cause;
Whether the event is planned or unplanned;
The date and time of onset of the outage (for planned
events, this is the estimated start time/date of the repair);
Nearest cable landing station;
Approximate location of the event (either in nautical
miles from the nearest cable landing station or in latitude and
longitude);
Best estimate of the duration of the event (total amount
of time connectivity will be lost or 50 percent or more of the capacity
will be lost);
A contact name, contact email address, and contact
telephone number by which the Commission's technical staff may contact
the reporting entity. We seek comment on all aspects of our proposed
Notification. Should we require reporting of additional technical
elements of submarine cable performance that would enable the
Commission to perform more thorough and systematic outage reporting
analysis? What technical elements would be appropriate to include in
the Notification and do they differ from those that should be included
in the Interim Report and Final Report? Are all of the reporting
elements proposed generally known, or knowable with due diligence, to
the licensees at the time the Notification would be due? If not, what
elements are generally unknown at this stage and when do licensees
receive such information? If the outage is a planned outage, should we
require advance notification of the planned outage?
Following the Notification, we propose to require licensees to file
an Interim Report, if applicable (i.e., for an unplanned outage), when
the repair has been scheduled. We believe that a licensee will have
significantly more information about expected repair times after it has
scheduled its undersea repair. Accordingly, we propose to require an
Interim Report within 120 minutes of scheduling the repair. We propose
that the Interim Report would include:
The name of the reporting entity;
The name of the cable;
A brief description of the event, including root cause;
The date and time of onset of the outage;
Nearest cable landing station;
Approximate location of the event (either in nautical
miles from the nearest cable landing station or in latitude and
longitude);
Best estimate of when the cable is scheduled to be
repaired, including approximate arrival time and date of the repair
ship, if applicable;
A contact name, contact email address, and contact
telephone number by which the Commission's technical staff may contact
the reporting entity. We seek comment on all aspects of our proposed
Interim Report. We note that the NORS interface automatically populates
the fields where information required duplicates that of the
Notification, so the reporting licensee will not have to reenter data
unless it is to amend or edit a previously-supplied response. Should we
require reporting of additional technical elements of submarine cable
performance that would enable the Commission to perform more thorough
and systematic outage reporting analysis? What technical elements would
be appropriate to include in the Interim
[[Page 67692]]
Report and do they differ from those that should be included in the
Notification and Final Report? Are all of the reporting elements
proposed generally known, or knowable with due diligence, to the
licensees at the time the Interim Report would be due? If not, what
elements are generally unknown at this stage and when do licensees
receive such information?
After the Interim Report (if applicable), we propose to require
licensees to file a Final Report seven days after the repair is
completed. We propose that the Final Report would include:
The name of the reporting entity;
The name of the cable;
Whether the outage was planned or unplanned;
The date and time of onset of the outage (for planned
events, this is the start date and time of the repair);
A brief description of the event;
Nearest cable landing station;
Approximate location of the event (either in nautical
miles from the nearest cable landing station or in latitude and
longitude);
Duration of the event (total amount of time connectivity
was lost or 50 percent or more of the capacity is lost);
The restoration method;
A contact name, contact email address, and contact
telephone number by which the Commission's technical staff may contact
the reporting entity.
We seek comment on all aspects of our proposed Final Report. We
note that the NORS interface automatically populates the fields where
information required duplicates that of the Notification and Interim
Report, so the reporting licensee will not have to reenter data unless
it is to amend or edit a previously-supplied response. Should we
require reporting of additional technical elements of submarine cable
performance that would enable the Commission to perform more thorough
and systematic outage reporting analysis? What technical elements would
be appropriate to include in the Final Report and do they differ from
those that should be included in the Notification and Interim Report?
Are all of the reporting elements proposed generally known, or knowable
with due diligence, to the licensees at the time the Final Report would
be due? If not, what elements are generally unknown at this stage and
when do licensees receive such information?
We propose to adopt substantially the same wording codified in
section 4.11 of our rules for the submarine cable outage reporting
system to the extent that it addresses authorized personnel, the
requirement of good faith, the method of attestation that the
information supplied is complete and accurate, and the manner of
filing. We seek comment on applying the concepts of this rule to
submarine cable reporting.
4. Confidentiality
Section 4.2 of the Commission's rules governing outage reporting
states that ``[r]eports filed under this part will be presumed to be
confidential.'' We propose to continue treating this information as
presumptively confidential. We seek comment on this proposal. We
observe that NORS data is routinely shared with the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). The Commission is currently seeking comment on
whether to share its Part 4 NORS outage reporting data with other
federal agencies and/or state governments. We seek comment on whether
the decision the Commission adopts regarding sharing outage reporting
in the current NORS context should be applicable to information the
Commission would receive if it were to extend the outage reporting
requirements to submarine cables. What types of federal agencies and/or
state and territorial governments would need to access information on
submarine cable outage reports? Should such sharing be limited to cases
where there is a direct effect on the government entity?
C. Costs and Benefits of Outage Reporting Requirements
We tentatively conclude that the benefits to be gained from this
new reporting regime will substantially outweigh any costs to
providers. The benefit of the Commission's situational awareness and
ability to facilitate communications alternatives, which would come as
a result of promulgating these rules, is particularly amplified with
submarine cables due to the relatively small number of submarine cable
serving as conduits for traffic to and from the United States.
We are proposing a narrowly-tailored submarine cable outage
reporting regime that we believe will have minimal cost to the entities
reporting those outages. We seek comment on the tentative conclusion
that our proposal's expected benefits will far exceed the minimal costs
imposed on reporting entities. In our UCIS OMB Supporting Statement we
estimated that the reporting required would cost $265,000 for 5,300
total hours spent on annual reporting (i.e., developing the initial
reporting on terrestrial route maps, undersea cable location
spreadsheet and restoration capabilities, updating the initial reports
as necessary and reporting outages as they occur); we believe that the
reporting system we propose in this NPRM would have substantially lower
costs of compliance because we have eliminated many of the elements
requested in UCIS. We estimated that there would be 40 annual
restoration or trouble reports. Is this figure still accurate? There
are roughly 100-200 incidents requiring repair each year globally, and
the majority of these incidents appear to have occurred on cables not
directly connected to the United States. In light of the relatively
small number of submarine cable incidents that appear to have affected
FCC-licensed cables directly, and depending on how we define a
reportable incident, we seek input on the burden of such reporting on
filing parties. Do licensees already collect the information we are
seeking? If so, how much extra effort would be required to input that
information into the proposed database?
We conservatively estimate that the total annual burden will be
$8,000 for the entire industry once the licensees have set up adequate
reporting processes. For the annual burden, we conservatively estimate
that there will be 50 reportable events. We conservatively estimate
based on our experience with NORS reporting that the Notification will
require 15 minutes to complete, the Interim Report will require 45
minutes to complete, and the final report will require one hour to
complete, for a total of two hours per reportable event. At an assumed
labor cost of $80/hour, and two hours for each of the 50 reporting
cycles, the total cost of compliance would be $8,000. We seek comment
on this analysis. We recognize that there are costs associated with
implementing any new reporting system. What are the incremental costs
of implementing the proposed NORS reporting system, recognizing a
reporting system may already be in place for filing UCIS reports? To
what extent are we proposing to require information that is not readily
available as part of the normal course of business in the event of an
outage? Are there costs associated with initiating the Responsible
Licensee system, such as inter-licensee negotiations, that would add to
the burdens associated with our proposal? Does the Responsible Licensee
system alleviate the need for many licensees to establish an internal
reporting system if they previously lacked one? We seek comment on all
aspects of our analysis.
[[Page 67693]]
D. Improving Submarine Cable Deployment Processes and Interagency
Coordination
The installation of submarine cable systems involves authorizations
or permits from a number of federal and state agencies. We seek comment
on the submarine cable deployment processes generally, and request any
information concerning, for example, burdensome regulations or other
issues that may impede rapid deployment and maintenance of undersea
cables. We also seek comment on whether there are any actions we can
take or steps we can encourage other agencies to take.
With respect to interagency coordination, the International Bureau,
which is responsible for administering submarine cable licenses, in
coordination with the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, will
reach out to relevant government agencies, under its existing delegated
authority, to develop and improve interagency coordination processes
and best practices vis-[agrave]-vis submarine cable deployment
activities and related permits and authorizations to increase
transparency and information sharing among the government agencies,
cable licensees, and other stakeholders. The Bureaus will report their
progress to the Commissioners. Are there additional means in which we
may take actions to facilitate investments in and the rapid
construction of reliable submarine cable network infrastructure?
E. Legal Authority
The Cable Landing License Act and Executive Order 10530 provide the
Commission with authority to grant, withhold, condition and revoke
submarine cable landing licenses. We tentatively conclude that that the
Cable Landing License Act and Executive Order 10530 provide the
Commission authority to adopt the outage reporting rules proposed in
this NPRM and to impose compliance obligations with the proposed outage
reporting requirements. We seek comment on the Commission's authority
under the Cable Landing License Act and Executive Order 10530 to adopt
the Part 1 and Part 4 rules on outage reporting obligations proposed in
the NPRM.
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of
the proposals addressed in the NPRM. The IRFA is set forth in Section
VII of this NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
on or before the dates 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). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The NPRM 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 to comment on the information collection requirements contained
in the NPRM, 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
The proceeding is 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,
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
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 the
NPRM. Comments should be filed in GN Docket No. 15-206. 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).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing.
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 a.m. to 7 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.
[[Page 67694]]
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).
Confidential Materials: Parties wishing to file materials with a
claim of confidentiality should follow the procedures set forth in
section 0.459 of the Commission's rules. Confidential submissions may
not be filed via ECFS but rather should be filed with the Secretary's
Office following the procedures set forth in 47 CFR 0.459. Redacted
versions of confidential submissions may be filed via ECFS.
V. Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
4(o), of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
154(i)-(j) & (o), and pursuant to the Cable Landing License Act of
1921, 47 U.S.C. 34-39 and 3 U.S.C. 301 that this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 15-206 is adopted.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
VII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities by the recommendations in this
NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments provided in ``Comment Period and Procedures'' of
this NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of this NPRM, including this
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
We propose measures to improve the utility and effectiveness of the
current scheme for receiving information on submarine cable outages,
with the ultimate goal of enhancing both our overall understanding of
submarine cable system status and our knowledge regarding specific
outages disruptions and restoration efforts.
B. Legal Basis
The NPRM is adopted pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 4(o) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j) &
(o) and pursuant to the Cable Landing License Act of 1921, 47 U.S.C.
34-39 and 3 U.S.C. 301.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
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 proposals, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as 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 that: (1) Is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
The proposals in the NPRM apply only to entities licensed to
construct and operate submarine cables under the Cable Landing License
Act. The NPRM proposes to have submarine cable licensees affected by a
service outage file outage reports with the Commission describing the
outage and restoration.
The entities that the NPRM proposes to require to file reports are
a mixture of both large and small entities. The Commission has not
developed a small business size standard directed specifically toward
these entities. However, as described below, these entities fit into
larger categories for which the SBA has developed size standards that
provide these facilities or services.
Facilities-based Carriers. Facilities-based providers of
international telecommunications services would fall into the larger
category of 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. Under that
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census Bureau data for 2007, which now supersede data from
the 2002 Census, 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 Interexchange carriers can be
considered small entities. According to Commission data, 359 companies
reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the
provision of interexchange services. Of these 359 companies, an
estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 42 have more than 1,500
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
interexchange service providers are small entities that may be affected
by rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
In the 2009 annual traffic and revenue report, 38 facilities-based
and facilities-resale carriers reported approximately $5.8 billion in
revenues from international message telephone service (IMTS). Of these,
three reported IMTS revenues of more than $1 billion, eight reported
IMTS revenues of more than $100 million, 10 reported IMTS revenues of
more than $50 million, 20 reported IMTS revenues of more than $10
million, 25 reported IMTS revenues of more than $5 million, and 30
reported IMTS revenues of more than $1 million. Based solely on their
IMTS revenues the majority of these carriers would be considered non-
small entities under the SBA definition.
The 2009 traffic and revenue report also shows that 45 facilities-
based and facilities-resale carriers (including 14 who also reported
IMTS revenues) reported $683 million for international private line
services; of which four reported private line revenues of more than $50
million, 12 reported private line revenues of more than $10 million, 30
reported revenues of more than $1 million, 34 reported private line
revenues of more than $500,000; 41 reported revenues of more than
$100,000, while 2 reported revenues of less than $10,000.
The 2009 traffic and revenue report also shows that seven carriers
(including one that reported both IMTS and private line revenues, one
that reported IMTS revenues and three that reported private line
revenues) reported $50 million for international miscellaneous
services, of which two reported miscellaneous services revenues of more
than $1 million, one reported revenues of more than $500,000, two
reported revenues of
[[Page 67695]]
more than $200,000, one reported revenues of more than $50,000, while
one reported revenues of less than $20,000. Based on its miscellaneous
services revenue, this one carrier with revenues of less than $20,000
would be considered a small business under the SBA definition. Based on
their private line revenues, most of these entities would be considered
non-small entities under the SBA definition.
Providers of International Telecommunications Transmission
Facilities. According to the 2012 Circuit-Status Report, 61 U.S.
international facility-based carriers filed information pursuant to
section 43.82. Some of these providers would fall within the category
of Inter-exchange Carriers, some would fall within the category of
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, while others may not. The Commission
has not 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.
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2007, which now supersede data
from the 2002 Census, 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 Interexchange carriers can be
considered small entities. According to Commission data, 359 companies
reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the
provision of interexchange services. Of these 359 companies, an
estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 42 have more than 1,500
employees. The circuit-status report does not include employee or
revenue statistics, so we are unable to determine how many carriers
could be considered small entities under the SBA standard. Although it
is quite possible that a carrier could report a small amount of
capacity and have significant revenues, we will consider those 61
carriers to be small entities at this time. In addition, of the 79
carriers that filed an annual circuit-status report for 2009, there
were at least four carriers that reported no circuits owned or in use
at the end of 2009.
Operators of Undersea Cable Systems. The NPRM seeks comment on
whether submarine cable facilities should be subject to reporting
requirements in the event of an outage. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard specifically for operators of
undersea cables. Such entities would fall within the large category of
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The size standard under SBA rules
for that category is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2007, which now supersede data
from the 2002 Census, 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 carriers can be considered small
entities. We do not have data on the number of employees or revenues of
operators of undersea cables. Because we do not have information on the
number of employees or their annual revenues, we shall consider all
such providers to be small entities for purposes of this IRFA.
Operators of Non-Common Carrier International Transmission
Facilities. At present, carriers that provide common carrier
international transmission facilities over submarine cables are not
required to report on outages, though the NPRM seeks comment on whether
such carriers should be required to provide outage reports. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
specifically for providers of non-common carrier terrestrial
facilities. The operators of such terrestrial facilities would fall
within the larger category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules for the Wired
Telecommunications Carriers category is that such a business is small
if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2007, which
now supersede data from the 2002 Census, 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 1000 or more.
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Because some of the
international terrestrial facilities that are used to provide
international telecommunications services may be owned by incumbent
local exchange carriers, we have included small incumbent local
exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis, to the extent that such
local exchange carriers may operate such international facilities.
(Local exchange carriers along the U.S.-border with Mexico or Canada
may have local facilities that cross the border.) Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. The appropriate
size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for
2007, which now supersede data from the 2002 Census, 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 1000 or more. According to Commission data, 1,307
carriers reported that they were incumbent local exchange service
providers. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees. 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 local exchange
carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such
dominance is not ``national'' in scope. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most providers of local exchange service are small
entities that may be affected by the rules and policies proposed in the
NPRM. We have therefore included small incumbent local exchange
carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA
action has no effect on Commission analysis and determinations in
other, non-RFA contexts. Thus under this category and the associated
small business size standard, the majority of these incumbent local
exchange service providers can be considered small providers.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
The NPRM seeks comment on a proposal to mandate outage reporting
requirements to all submarine cable licensees. An outage occurs when a
licensee experiences an event in which (1) connectivity in either the
transmit mode or receive mode is lost for at least 30 minutes; or (2)
50 percent or more of the capacity of the submarine cable, in either
transmit or receive mode, is lost for at least 30 minutes. After a
triggering event, the reporting requirement consists of three filings,
the Notification,
[[Page 67696]]
an Interim Report for unplanned outages, and the Final Report, which
provide the Commission important data to improve the Commission's
situational awareness on the operational status of submarine cables. We
expect the filed reports will be based on information already within
the reporting entity's possession, therefore these should be considered
routine reports, though we seek comment on this assumption.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, 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 and
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage or the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.''
The NPRM seeks comment on its cost-benefit analysis of imposing
this new reporting requirement, including information on the extent to
which submarine cable licensees already possess the outage information
that we propose to require. The Commission takes the position that the
national security and economic benefits of providing the Commission
with situational awareness of the operating status submarine cables
outweighs the minimal cost of reporting proposed. We seek comment on
that view. The Commission proposes these rules only after its existing
ad hoc and voluntary system of reporting submarine cable outages has
failed to provide the Commission with the information it requires. In
addition, the Commission proposes that where there are multiple
licensees of a single submarine cable that experiences an outage, the
licensees of that cable can designate a Responsible Licensee to report
on the outage on behalf of all affected licensees. While each licensee
maintains the responsibility of ensuring that the proper reports are
filed, this process can cut down on the individual reporting
requirements for many licensees, possibly including small businesses.
The Commission seeks comment on how it can create the most efficient
and least burdensome process possible while still meeting its goals.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR parts 1 and 4
Disruptions to Communications, Telecommunications, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
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 parts 1 and 4 as
follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 157, 225, 303(r), 309,
1403, 1404, 1451, and 1452.
0
2. Section 1.767 is amended by adding paragraph (g)(15), revising
paragraph (n) and adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.767 Cable landing licenses.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(15) Licensees shall file submarine cable outage reports as
required in part 4 of this chapter.
* * * * *
(n)(1) With the exception of submarine cable outage reports, and
subject to the availability of electronic forms, all applications and
notifications described in this section must be filed electronically
through the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS). A list of forms
that are available for electronic filing can be found on the IBFS
homepage. For information on electronic filing requirements, see part
1, subpart Y, and the IBFS homepage at http://www.fcc.gov/ibfs. See
also Sec. Sec. 63.20 and 63.53 of this chapter.
(2) Submarine cable outage reports must be filed as set forth in
part 4 of this chapter.
(o) Outage Reporting Licensees of a cable landing license granted
prior to March 15, 2002 shall file submarine cable outage reports as
required in part 4 of this chapter.
PART 4--DISRUPTIONS TO COMMUNICATIONS
0
3. The authority citation for part 4 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 34-39, 154, 155, 157, 201, 251, 307, 316,
615a-1, 1302(a), and 1302(b); 5 U.S.C. 301, and Executive Order no.
10530.
0
4. Section 4.1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4.1 Scope, basis, and purpose.
(a) In this part, the Federal Communications Commission is setting
forth requirements pertinent to the reporting of disruptions to
communications and to the reliability and security of communications
infrastructures.
(b) The definitions, criteria, and reporting requirements set forth
in Sec. Sec. 4.2 through 4.13 of this part are applicable to the
communications providers defined in Sec. 4.3 of this part.
(c) The definitions, criteria, and reporting requirements set forth
in Sec. 4.15 of this part are applicable to providers of submarine
cable licensees who have been licensed pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 34-39.
0
5. Add Sec. 4.15, to read as follows:
Sec. 4.15 Submarine Cable Outage Reporting
(a) Definitions
(1) For purposes of this section, ``outage'' is defined as a
failure or degradation in the performance of that communications
provider's cable regardless of whether the traffic can be rerouted to
an alternate cable.
(2) An ``outage'' requires reporting under this section when:
(i) An event occurs in which connectivity in either the transmit
mode or the receive mode is lost for at least 30 minutes; or
(ii) Fifty percent or more of the capacity of the submarine cable,
in either the transmit mode or the receive mode, is lost for at least
30 minutes.
(b) Outage Reporting
(1) For each outage that requires reporting under this section, the
licensee (or Responsible Licensee as noted herein) shall provide the
Commission with a Notification, and Interim Report (subject to the
limitations on planned outages in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this
section), and a Final Outage Report.
(i) For a submarine cable that is jointly owned and operated by
multiple licensees, the licensees of that cable may designate a
Responsible Licensee that files outage reports under this rule on
behalf of all licensees on the affected cable.
(ii) Licensees opting to designate a Responsible Licensee must
jointly notify the Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau's Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division of this
decision in writing. Such notification shall include the name of the
submarine cable at
[[Page 67697]]
issue; contact information for all licensees on the submarine cable at
issue, including the Responsible Licensee;
(2) Notification, Interim, and Final Outage Reports shall be
submitted by a person authorized by the licensee to submit such reports
to the Commission.
(i) The person submitting the Final Outage Report to the Commission
shall also be authorized by the licensee to legally bind the provider
to the truth, completeness, and accuracy of the information contained
in the report. Each Final report shall be attested by the person
submitting the report that he/she has read the report prior to
submitting it and on oath deposes and states that the information
contained therein is true, correct, and accurate to the best of his/her
knowledge and belief and that the licensee on oath deposes and states
that this information is true, complete, and accurate.
(ii) The Notification is due within 120 minutes of the time of
determining that an event is reportable. The Notification shall be
submitted in good faith. Licensees shall provide: The name of the
reporting licensee; the name of the cable and a list of all licensees
for that cable; the date and time of onset of the outage (for planned
events, this is the estimated start time/date of the repair); a brief
description of the event, including root cause; nearest cable landing
station; approximate location of the event (either in nautical miles
from the nearest cable landing station or in latitude and longitude);
best estimate of the duration of the event (total amount of time
connectivity is lost or 50 percent or more of the capacity is lost);
whether the event is planned or unplanned; and a contact name, contact
email address, and contact telephone number by which the Commission's
technical staff may contact the reporting entity.
(iii) The Interim Report is due within 120 minutes of scheduling a
repair to a submarine cable. The Interim Report shall be submitted in
good faith. Licensees shall provide: The name of the reporting
licensee; the name of the cable; a brief description of the event,
including root cause; the date and time of onset of the outage; nearest
cable landing station; approximate location of the event (either in
nautical miles from the nearest cable landing station or in latitude
and longitude); best estimate of when the cable is scheduled to be
repaired, including approximate arrival time and date of the repair
ship, if applicable; a contact name, contact email address, and contact
telephone number by which the Commission's technical staff may contact
the reporting entity. The Interim report is not required where the
licensee has reported in the Notification that the outage at issue is a
planned outage.
(iv) The Final Outage Report is due seven days after the repair is
completed. The Final Outage Report shall contain: The name of the
reporting licensee; the name of the cable, the date and time of onset
of the outage (for planned events, this is the start date and time of
the repair); a brief description of the event; nearest cable landing
station; approximate location of the event (either in nautical miles
from the nearest cable landing station or in latitude and longitude);
duration of the event (total amount of time connectivity is lost or 50
percent or more of the capacity is lost); whether the event was planned
or unplanned; the restoration method; and a contact name, contact email
address, and contact telephone number by which the Commission's
technical staff may contact the reporting entity. The Final Report must
also contain an attestation as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this
section.
(v) The Notification, Interim Report, and Final Outage Reports are
to be submitted electronically to the Commission. ``Submitted
electronically'' refers to submission of the information using
Commission-approved Web-based outage report templates. If there are
technical impediments to using the Web-based system during the
Notification stage, then a written Notification to the Commission by
email to the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau is
permitted; such Notification shall contain the information required.
Electronic filing shall be effectuated in accordance with procedures
that are specified by the Commission by public notice.
(c) Confidentiality reports filed under this part will be presumed
to be confidential. 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).
[FR Doc. 2015-27926 Filed 11-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P