[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