[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22106-22115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-06664]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 4

[PSHSB: PS Docket Nos. 21-346 and 15-80; ET Docket No. 04-35; FCC 24-5 
FR ID 210795]


Amendments to Resilient Networks Disruptions to Communications; 
New Considerations Concerning Disruptions to Communications

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) 
proposes further examination of whether television broadcasters, radio 
broadcasters, and satellite providers should be subject to mandatory 
reporting in the FCC's Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS). 
Additionally, this document proposes requirements for the First 
Responder Network (FirstNet) to report in the Commission's Network 
Outage

[[Page 22107]]

Reporting System (NORS) and in DIRS. This document also proposes to 
require mobile and fixed Broadband internet access service (BIAS) 
providers to submit reports of outages to the FCC's NORS and DIRS. The 
document also proposes requiring current and future service providers 
to supply the Commission with information concerning the location of 
their mobile recovery assets, including the location of their Cells on 
Wheels (COWs) and Cells on Light Trucks (COLTs). This document also 
proposes requiring providers that report in DIRS to provide ``after 
action'' reports at the Commission's direction. These requirements 
would further protect the nation's communications systems from 
cybersecurity threats. With this Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (SFNPRM), the Commission seeks comment on the proposed rules 
and any suitable alternatives.

DATES: Comments are due on or before April 29, 2024 and reply comments 
are due on or before May 28, 2024. Written comments on the Paperwork 
Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be 
submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and 
other interested parties on or before May 28, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 21-346; 
PS Docket No. 15-80; ET Docket No. 04-35; and FCC 24-5, by any of the 
following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://www.apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by 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. Commercial overnight mail 
(other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be 
sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal 
Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 
L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission 
no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a 
temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of 
individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
     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).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding 
these proposed rules, please contact Logan Bennett, Attorney Advisor, 
Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety 
and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-7790, or by email to 
[email protected].
    For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collection requirements contained in this document, send an 
email to [email protected] or contact Nicole Ongele, Office of Managing 
Director, Performance Evaluation and Records Management, 202-418-2991, 
or by email to [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SFNPRM), FCC 24-5, adopted 
January 25, 2024, and released January 26, 2024. The full text of this 
document is available by downloading the text from the Commission's 
website at: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-5A1.pdf

Synopsis

    1. In establishing a mandatory DIRS reporting obligation for 
subject providers in the Second Report and Order, released 
simultaneously with the Second Further Notice, we remain cognizant that 
a complete picture of the available means of communication and 
dissemination of critical emergency information necessitates that we 
evaluate whether additional reporting segments are appropriate. While 
we previously sought comment on the inclusion of mandatory DIRS 
reporting obligations for television broadcasters, radio broadcasters, 
and satellite providers, the ensuing record convinces us that these 
potential reporting entities are sufficiently different in kind and 
resources from subject providers in the Second Report and Order that 
additional information is needed. In addition, we note the growing 
presence of the First Responder Network (FirstNet) as a provider of 
critical public safety communications services in a variety of disaster 
contexts and seek comment on whether information on FirstNet's status 
should be permitted or required in DIRS, and whether NORS reporting 
should also be extended to encompass its services. While the Commission 
previously sought comment on the inclusion of BIAS providers in our 
reporting regimes, in light of the Commission's recently released Open 
Internet Notice in which the Commission proposes re-classifying BIAS 
providers as a telecommunications service under Title II of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act), we find it 
prudent to revisit this issue, and refresh the record on this topic. 
See FCC, Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (SFNPRM) (88 FR 76048, November 3, 2023), WC Docket 
No. 23-320, released Sept. 28, 2023, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397309A1.pdf (Open Internet NPRM).
    2. Through this Second Further Notice, we propose additional 
enhancements to DIRS in order to further improve communications and 
network resilience during emergencies specific to these segments of the 
communications network ecosystem and in response to the considerations 
raised by parties in the previous comment period. In addition, we seek 
comment on targeted expansions of the NORS system to advance similar 
goals for network reliability in non-disaster contexts and to address 
technological platforms providing essential components of an evolving 
and highly integrated network ecosystem supporting public safety and 
other critical services. For example, since the Commission issued its 
initial NPRM in this matter in 2021 (86 FR 61103, November 5, 2021), 
outage reporting and notification requirements were also adopted for 
covered 988 service providers. Should we extend mandatory DIRS 
reporting to this class of providers?

Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Outage Reporting by Broadcast Entities

    3. As broadcast providers, as well as satellite and broadband 
providers, have varying needs and differing responsibilities from the 
subject providers addressed in the Order, we find it vital to explore 
the elements and current workings of both the NORS and

[[Page 22108]]

DIRS systems in accordance with these specific providers. Particularly, 
we examine reporting requirements for NORS and DIRS, consider and 
compare the varying infrastructures of different providers, and 
determine whether there should be unique or modified reporting 
standards. We propose requiring TV and radio broadcasters report in 
both NORS and DIRS based on the type and modality of certain broadcast 
infrastructures and seek comment on this proposal. We seek comment on 
the classes of broadcasters that should be included as mandatory 
filers, whether a simplified reporting process would be appropriate, 
and what reporting elements should be included for such a purpose in 
NORS and/or DIRS.
    4. Unlike the providers that are the otherwise discussed herein, 
broadcasters do not currently report in NORS. They may, however, 
voluntarily file reports in DIRS if they so choose. Broadcasters, 
however, play a crucial role in keeping the public updated on the 
status of public infrastructure and emergency response efforts as 
within the EAS distribution chain and provide for critical information 
including, for example, evacuation orders, real-time guidance from 
public safety organizations, and the availability of other public 
services. Broadcasters play a particularly important role in ensuring 
that non-English-speaking and rural communities have access to up-to-
date emergency information during times of exigency, both on a 
localized basis and during widespread disasters.
    6. In staff's experience, broadcasters voluntarily provide 
information in DIRS for between 20% and 35% of the stations in most 
activations. This, however, leaves gaps in the ability to adequately 
gauge the available communications pathways to disseminate information 
during emergencies. These statistics are based on DIRS data collected 
for Hurricane Lee, Hurricane Idalia, and Hurricane Ida. Beyond the 
disaster context, the Commission generally lacks timely insight into 
the resiliency of segments of the broadcast ecosystem. For example, the 
Commission's rules only require TV broadcast stations to notify the 
Commission within 10 days of discontinuing operations. The Commission, 
therefore, as well as other emergency response officials, may be 
unaware that a broadcast station that might otherwise be transmitting 
emergency, weather, or other timely government notices, is off air, and 
that its listeners are not receiving relevant information. As such, the 
Commission has limited ability to know or understand on a timely basis 
when broadcast stations' facilities are impacted by infrastructure, 
equipment, or power failures, cybersecurity incursions or other issues 
that impact their ability to disseminate a signal. We believe this to 
be a particular deficiency in light of the broadcast community's 
critical role in the EAS and the need for emergency officials and the 
Commission to be able to have information on, and insight into, the 
operational readiness of this system at a moment's notice. We seek 
comment on this analysis.
    7. We believe mandatory DIRS reporting for broadcasters could 
ensure a standardized and coordinated approach among entities 
potentially impacted by disasters, allowing authorities to make 
informed decisions about emergency response activities and avenues to 
communicate with the public during emergency situations. We seek 
comment on this belief. We believe this could be of particular 
significance given broadcasters' role in the EAS, as well as the 
continued reliance on broadcast communications by underserved and non-
English-speaking communities for the dissemination of emergency and 
weather-related information. Objections to mandatory DIRS reporting for 
the broadcast community may overlook the fact that disasters often come 
with uncertainty and unpredictability. In such situations, as the 
Commission has experienced, a voluntary system does not guarantee 
comprehensive and accurate information for response officials, 
potentially leading to gaps in emergency response. While we understand 
REC Networks' concerns about the potential burden of mandatory 
reporting for smaller broadcasters, it is important to recognize that 
emergencies demand a coordinated effort to disseminate information 
quickly and effectively, or to provide follow up information to 
constituents over the course of a disasters as conditions change. We 
seek comment on whether, by participating in mandatory DIRS reporting, 
even smaller broadcasters can contribute to a broader emergency 
response network, ultimately benefiting the communities they serve, and 
if the benefits of requiring such reporting outweigh any burden on such 
broadcasters. In light of concerns expressed for smaller providers, 
however, we seek comment on whether we should consider adopting 
different reporting requirements for small and large broadcasters and, 
if so, how should those lines be drawn? What specific challenges do 
small broadcasters experience, and how can the Commission require DIRS 
reporting while addressing these challenges? We also seek comment on 
whether low power broadcast stations should be excluded from this 
proposed mandate. We note that low power television and low power FM 
radio do not serve as Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations or Local 
Primary (LP) stations within the EAS daisy chain. Would this exemption 
disproportionately impact underserved or non-English speaking 
communities? Does the potential overlap in broadcast stations' coverage 
areas mitigate concerns regarding any exclusion low power broadcast 
stations? Conversely, should booster or translator stations, which we 
do not propose to subject to our reporting requirement, be included?
    8. DIRS serves as a foundational tool for ensuring that the right 
information reaches the right people at the right time. Additionally, 
we believe that concerns about mandatory DIRS participation straining 
limited resources during disasters should be considered against the 
backdrop of Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial emergency 
response needs and invite comment on this balance. We believe a unified 
mandatory reporting system could minimize duplication of efforts and 
enable authorities to allocate resources efficiently as the Commission 
could instead collect data on behalf of all such entities and share it 
with these government entities in real-time (or as close to real-time 
as possible given the particular disaster or emergency situation) 
rather than multiple governments collecting the same information. 
Maintaining DIRS as a voluntary system for some segments of the 
communications ecosystem could lead to incomplete data during critical 
times, hindering the effectiveness of disaster response. Finally, we 
believe that NAB's advocacy for voluntary DIRS participation, based on 
the 2007 assessment of Hurricane Katrina, overlooks the advancements in 
technology across communications platforms, the growth in DIRS as an 
informational resource since that time, changes to the alerting 
environment to include the advent of WEA and IPAWS, as well as the 
changing landscape of emergency response as the frequency and severity 
of disasters increase. While the voluntary state of DIRS may have been 
suitable back in 2007, the state of DIRS has not been reevaluated in 
almost two decades and the state of emergencies and disasters has 
significantly changed in the interim, as have advances in technology 
and resiliency solutions. As an alternative, NAB proposes a government-
funded automated system that identifies which

[[Page 22109]]

broadcast stations are operating during a disaster using ``specialized 
spectrum observation equipment to determine the radio spectrum and 
identify disaster-related communications outages . . . [and] studying 
the radio frequency spectrum `Pre-disaster' and `Post-disaster' and 
comparing those results to each other and to licensee databases to 
determine which critical infrastructure systems are down.'' While this 
approach could be useful, this more complex solution is beyond the 
scope of this proceeding as we are focused, and believe that, the shift 
from voluntary to mandated reporting could provide the Commission, 
other agencies, and the providers themselves with a larger scope of 
infrastructure status during and after disasters without the need for 
funding and creating specific systems beyond DIRS. Instead, the rules 
we propose here would merely require those to report who have not in 
the past but have the capacity to do so and would mandate reporting for 
a system that already has existed for years and will improve from 
including more participants for a wider view. We seek comment on this 
analysis.
    9. While we acknowledge the position that some broadcasters may 
have unique limitations on their number of employees and the technical 
and legal expertise of those employees in addressing regulatory matters 
compared to the subject providers addressed in the Second Report and 
Order who report in NORS and DIRS, we believe that there is a 
significant public interest in ensuring that broadcasters' facilities 
are operational and that the Commission has an accounting of when these 
facilities are offline, as broadcasters are often a principal way in 
which some communities, including certain rural, minority and non-
English speaking, and elderly communities, receive critical emergency 
information. Without information on the operational status of 
broadcasters' facilities, the Commission and its partners only have an 
incomplete picture of available resources which could stunt the 
Commission's public safety initiatives and its ability to direct 
resources to certain communities or share emergency information, 
especially as there is no NORS requirement for broadcasters. We seek 
comment on these views. We also seek comment on the specific 
limitations and challenges of small broadcasters and the way in which 
the Commission can assist or encourage cooperation with larger 
broadcasters who have more resources and funding and/or easier ways 
that small broadcasters can file. For small broadcasters that lack the 
ability to coordinate with larger broadcasters, what limitations or 
challenges do they face? Should the Commission consider relief to 
reduce the burden of reporting on these small broadcasters? How should 
we define small broadcasters?
    10. Beyond the disaster context, the Commission generally lacks 
timely insight into the resiliency of segments of the broadcast 
ecosystem. For example, the Commission's rules only require TV 
broadcast stations to notify the Commission within 10 days of 
discontinuing operations. The Commission, therefore, as well as other 
emergency response officials, may be unaware that a broadcast station 
that might otherwise be retransmitting emergency, weather, or other 
timely government notices, is off air, and that its listeners are not 
receiving relevant information. As such, the Commission has limited 
ability to know or understand on a timely basis when broadcast 
stations' facilities are impacted by infrastructure, equipment, or 
power failures, cybersecurity incursions or other issues that impact 
their ability to disseminate a signal. We believe this to be a 
particular deficiency in light of the broadcast community's critical 
role in the EAS and the need for emergency officials and the Commission 
to be able to have information on, and insight into, the operational 
readiness of this system at a moment's notice regardless of whether 
there is a declared disaster that would otherwise trigger DIRS.
    11. As such, we propose requiring TV and radio broadcasters report 
in both NORS and DIRS subject to a simplified reporting process based 
on the type and modality of certain broadcast infrastructures. Both 
NORS and DIRS provide distinct information serve distinct purposes and 
requiring reporting for both systems would help the Commission see 
outages across a geographic area via NORS, including so-called ``sunny 
day'' outages, while DIRS reports are submitted for the affected area 
during a specific activation. We seek comment on this proposal. We also 
seek comment on the scope of such simplified reporting, the ability of 
broadcasters to provide it during events where DIRS is activated, and 
the burdens of doing so. Alternatively, would a simplified reporting 
requirement be preferable if the Commission could craft the requirement 
so that it would not hinder restoration efforts? If so, what could such 
a requirement entail? For instance, should simplified reporting in DIRS 
merely require a broadcaster to identify whether it is ``on-air'' or 
``off-air,'' (i.e., unable to operate or broadcast regularly) or 
provide details on any necessary restoration? Should we also require 
broadcasters to notify us within 24 hours of going silent when DIRS has 
been activated and within 24 hours of resuming service after DIRS 
activation has been lifted? What alternative NORS or DIRS reporting 
intervals would be appropriate? Should NORS or DIRS filings specify if 
alerting capabilities are impacted, including whether the broadcaster's 
access to FEMA's IPAWS is operational? Should we require notice when a 
broadcaster's ability to access IPAWS is disrupted regardless of the 
operational status of the transmitter? Should the DIRS filing 
requirement apply to translators and boosters that merely pass along 
programming from other stations without generating their own? We 
propose that reporting in NORS or DIRS would not supplant the ongoing 
requirement to notify the Commission about going silent in the 
Licensing and Management System (LMS); does this create duplication in 
effort? Further, a broadcast station can go silent for numerous reasons 
and reasons unrelated to disasters and emergencies at times. NORS puts 
these broadcast stations in a specific outage light and a direct path 
to a public safety specific view of what broadcast stations are 
experiencing outages and which are not. A silent station is not 
necessarily synonymous with a station experiencing an outage and should 
be reported distinctly from each other. We seek comment on ways that 
this information can be shared with the Commission.
    12. What estimated costs would be part of the new reporting 
requirements? How would such reporting improve mortality or other 
measures of welfare? How does broadcasting differ in both cost and 
benefit from the subject providers mandated in the Second Report and 
Order based on technology and/or how the technology is used? As some 
broadcasters may receive an automated alert when their facilities are 
``down,'' to what extent could broadcasters use automated alerting to 
provide operational status directly to DIRS/NORS?
    13. We estimate that the proposed filing rules would incur no more 
than $33.7 million total per year to broadcasters, including $33.5 
million for NORS filing and $212,000 for DIRS reporting. Among the 
21,392 broadcast stations (which does not include 12,055 FM translators 
& boosters, UHF translators, and VHF translators), we estimate that 
approximately an average of 2,755 stations will have to file reports in 
NORS per year under the proposed rules. Per NORS data, each provider

[[Page 22110]]

files an average of 2,175 reports in a 12-month period. Assuming that 
each report takes 10 minutes to file, we estimate that the total cost 
is approximately $33.5 million per year for broadcasters to comply with 
the NORS reporting obligation. For DIRS reporting, we assume broadcast 
stations are evenly distributed across counties, and there would be 
about 7 broadcast stations per county. Given that an average of 339 
counties were affected by DIRS activations for an average of 14 days 
per year, we estimate that the total cost of complying with DIRS 
reporting rules is approximately $212,000 per year for broadcasters. We 
treat the cost estimate as an upper bound because it does not account 
for the cost savings from the waiver of NORS reporting obligation 
during DIRS activations, the potentially simplified reporting processes 
for broadcasters, or voluntary DIRS filings already being submitted by 
stations. We seek comment on our cost estimates for broadcasters to 
comply with the NORS and DIRS filing rules. The estimate may also be 
overstated because we rely on the average number of reports from all 
types of providers, including wireless providers which tend to file 
more reports than other types of providers. We note, in particular, 
that the record indicates that the average number of outages, or 2,175, 
which we use for our NORS reporting cost estimates, may be too high, 
resulting in a corresponding overestimate of costs. We seek comment on 
the average number of annual outages that broadcast stations 
experience.
    14. With respect to NORS reporting, should we require that NORS 
filings provide more detail than that proposed for DIRS, particularly 
with respect to final reports filed within 30 days? What would the 
appropriate thresholds be to trigger broadcast reporting obligations? 
Is a simple duration standard sufficient? Satellite providers are 
required to file a notification in NORS within 120 minutes of an 
outage's discovery--is the same standard appropriate here? Why or why 
not? Should initial reports at 72 hours and final reports in 30 days 
also follow? How should an outage be defined for broadcast services? We 
seek comment on the costs and benefits of these options.

B. Outage Reporting by Satellite Providers

    15. We seek comment on whether to require DBS providers, SDARS 
providers, Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) providers, and Mobile 
Satellite Service (MSS) providers report in DIRS, and if so, what 
fields should be included in mandatory DIRS reporting as to these 
providers. We further seek comment on whether these or other categories 
of satellite providers should be required to file in NORS or DIRS, and 
how the existing NORS reporting thresholds for satellite providers 
should be modified to reflect technological changes to these networks 
that have occurred since the initial adoption of the rules.
    16. While it is a small measure of burden to require an additional 
type of reporting, we believe that the public safety benefits outweigh 
the cost burden to satellite providers by providing the Commission and 
therefore consumers with potentially life-saving information. We seek 
comment on this belief. All satellite providers are currently required 
to report in NORS and are able to voluntarily report in DIRS. Yet the 
Commission has observed that satellite providers supply only a very 
small number of NORS reports, and we currently lack comprehensive 
insight as to why satellite providers file so few mandatory NORS 
reports. Satellite providers similarly provide very few voluntary DIRS 
reports. The Commission's original 2004 NORS outage reporting 
thresholds for satellite providers remain in place today, despite 
changes that have occurred to the status of satellite provider network 
operations since that time. Specifically, outage reporting in NORS for 
satellite providers is triggered for outages meeting the 30 minute 
duration threshold and manifesting as ``a failure of any of the 
following key system elements: One or more satellite transponders, 
satellite beams, inter-satellite links, or entire satellites.'' For MSS 
satellite operators, reporting is triggered where the outage 
``manifests itself as a failure of any gateway earth station, except in 
the case where other earth stations at the gateway location are used to 
continue gateway operations within 30 minutes of the onset of the 
failure.'' Certain satellite infrastructure used for internal networks 
and one-way distribution of audio or video are also excluded from 
reporting obligations in NORS. As discussed with subject providers in 
the Second Report and Order, a voluntary state for reporting makes it 
difficult for the Commission to know whether entities are electing not 
to report because reporting is voluntary or whether they do not 
physically have the capacity to report because of infrastructure 
damages or the disaster event itself.
    17. In response to the proposal regarding the requirement for 
satellite providers to report in DIRS, we received several industry 
comments. DirecTV does not opine on whether service providers should 
report on infrastructure status through DIRS post-emergencies, but 
suggests that if such a requirement is imposed on DBS systems like 
theirs, reporting should be confined to key infrastructure under the 
provider's control. They advocate for reporting limited to transmitting 
earth stations supporting the DBS system. Iridium, an MSS provider, 
asserts that satellite services like theirs, which do not rely on 
ground infrastructure for user links, remain largely unaffected by 
terrestrial disasters and should not be required to submit DIRS reports 
at all. In alignment with DirecTV's viewpoint, SDARS provider SiriusXM 
agrees that any DIRS reporting requirement for satellite networks 
should be limited to ``key infrastructure under the provider's 
control,'' citing the difficulty of determining subscriber receiver 
functionality during disasters and the lack of location information for 
SDARS receivers in vehicles or mobile devices.
    18. Based on the responses to the proposal regarding the 
requirement for satellite providers to report in DIRS, we received 
several industry comments that raise issues we believe merit additional 
inquiry. DirecTV and Iridium express concerns that any mandatory DIRS 
reporting for satellite providers should only include information on 
key infrastructure equipment within a satellite provider's control 
(e.g., excluding equipment installed at customers' homes) that, if 
compromised, could affect the ability of the satellite provider to 
offer service. However, Iridium itself says that ``[s]atellite services 
provide essential connectivity in disaster response and recovery, 
including voice and data services, satellite imagery, and satellite for 
cellular backhaul. Iridium [says they] play[ ] an important role in 
enabling critical communications before, during, and after disasters. 
[The] demand for and use of Iridium's MSS devices spikes and government 
agencies and consumers use Iridium devices more extensively.'' In cases 
where a terrestrial component is involved, reporting in DIRS could help 
authorities gauge the extent of disruption and fill-in informational 
gaps daily filing updates for an entire affected area, which NORS does 
not do. Finally, we acknowledge that SiriusXM, Iridium, and DirecTV 
share the view that they do not have all the location information that 
current DIRS forms request as some of their equipment is located in 
customers' vehicles or in other mobile facilities. We seek comment on 
these concerns. Are there satellite providers that do not have any 
terrestrial components that could be affected by natural disasters, or 
should

[[Page 22111]]

we limit reporting to include only specific types of terrestrial 
network components? We note, however, that a better understanding of 
network operations of various satellite technologies would give the 
Commission insight into the reliability of connectivity for customers 
located in remote or rural areas, who may disproportionately rely on 
satellite-based communications for broadband connectivity or where 
rural communications companies may more heavily rely on satellite 
capabilities for backhaul. We believe that knowledge of impacts to 
satellite communications capabilities, particularly in disaster 
contexts, could also provide situational awareness for emergency 
response personnel in some of the most potentially dire circumstances 
where impacts to solely terrestrial based infrastructure may be more 
severe. We seek comment on these views.
    19. We also seek comment on whether and how the NORS reporting 
thresholds for satellite providers should be modified to reflect 
technological changes to these networks since the Commission's original 
2004 reporting rules were effectuated. Do the definitions currently 
used in part 4 remain the most salient way to capture impactful 
outages? If not, what alternative thresholds should be utilized? Is 120 
minutes the appropriate time threshold for outage notifications for all 
satellite providers? Are there additional data elements specific to 
some or all satellite reporting entities that should be added to or 
eliminated from the existing notification, initial report or final 
report templates? Should the scope of reporting satellite providers be 
amended, or exclusions re-examined? Are there estimates of how the 
reporting would improve public safety or other measures of welfare? 
What are the estimated costs of the proposed reporting requirements? 
How do satellites differ in cost and benefits from the subject 
providers mandated in the Second Report and Order based on their 
difference in technology and use?
    20. Although these satellite providers were not addressed in the 
Second Report and Order we seek comment on whether the Commission 
should require satellite BIAS providers and satellite broadcast 
providers to report in DIRS as the subject providers in the Second 
Report and Order have been mandated. If adopted, we seek comment on 
potential modification of the types of information requested in DIRS 
forms pertaining to satellite providers and seek comment on how to best 
capture information relevant to satellite network status and 
availability in potential disaster scenarios. We seek comment on the 
types of satellite equipment that are relevant to ensuring operation 
during exigencies and on whether DIRS forms need to be revised to 
include or exclude certain pieces of infrastructure equipment. Should 
our rules, as some commenters suggest, differentiate more completely 
between types of infrastructure within the satellite providers network 
and how it may be impacted? What are the costs and benefits of the 
proposed reporting?
    21. According to an analysis of operational licensee and ownership 
data, there are a total of 18 satellite service providers, including 
six FSS providers, six MSS providers, two DBS providers and one SDARS 
provider. If all 18 providers are subject to the DIRS reporting 
mandate, we estimate that the total cost would not exceed $545,000 per 
year. We seek comment on our cost estimate.

C. Outage Reporting by FirstNet

    22. We seek comment on whether FirstNet should be subject to 
reporting requirements in NORS, DIRS, or in both systems. FirstNet is 
not currently subject to NORS or DIRS outage reporting obligations and 
has never participated in NORS or DIRS on a voluntary basis. However, 
the Commission believes that the information collected through these 
reports will provide us with a more complete picture of the overall 
health and resiliency of the nation's communications infrastructure, 
particularly during disasters during which FirstNet is specifically 
designed to provide more robust public safety communications. Thus, the 
Commission is now considering whether outage reporting of FirstNet 
operations is necessary and appropriate given its importance to the 
public safety community and the unique customer base it serves.
    23. The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) is an 
independent authority within the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA). FirstNet serves as a high-speed, 
nationwide wireless broadband network for first responders. FirstNet 
was established as an independent authority within the Department of 
Commerce with the responsibility of standing up and managing the 
network. After a competitive Request for Proposal process, AT&T won a 
25-year contract to deploy, operate, and maintain the network and use 
the company's telecommunications network assets (in addition to the 20 
MHz of FirstNet spectrum) to connect FirstNet users. While FirstNet is 
required to provide an annual report to Congress and holds monthly 
public meetings informing its Board of FirstNet's operations, these 
reports do not supply near real-time information on FirstNet outages 
and infrastructure status. Moreover, while FirstNet's operations 
partner, AT&T, is subject to the Commission's reporting rules (and so 
some information on FirstNet may be inferred as to network health and 
operation through AT&T's filings) information on FirstNet specific 
infrastructure and services is not available to the Commission, or to 
the public safety personnel the network serves. In 2013, the Commission 
last sought comment on whether to institute reporting obligations on 
FirstNet. FirstNet opposed this proposal on grounds that FirstNet 
already had Congressionally created obligations to consult with 
stakeholders and report to Congress on its network. The Commission did 
not draw conclusions on FirstNet's arguments or make final 
determinations on the merits of a reporting requirement, deferring any 
action for future consideration. Since that time, however, parties have 
expressed concern regarding the lack of information with FirstNet's 
operations and the performance of its network during times of crisis. 
For example, parties to the proceeding addressing FirstNet's recent 
license renewal process and participating in the Commission's hearing 
following Hurricane Ida each expressed frustration in this regard.
    24. To ensure that we have a fuller picture of the health of all 
public safety networks and that our first responders have the 
information they need, we seek comment on whether FirstNet, or AT&T, 
should file outage reports with the Commission in NORS with respect to 
FirstNet infrastructure and services. As the related Second Report and 
Order adopts a mandatory obligation for subject providers to file in 
DIRS, we seek comment in this Second Further Notice on whether this 
obligation should be extended with regard to FirstNet. Given the 
importance of the clients served by FirstNet, we seek comment on this 
position. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether one or both of 
these obligations should be voluntary. Consistent with the purpose of 
NORS and DIRS reporting in other contexts, timely situational awareness 
on the part of the Commission and its Federal, State, Tribal, and 
territorial information sharing partners could allow more nimble 
decision making when public safety may need alternative

[[Page 22112]]

communications paths or operational support.
    25. In considering this issue, we remain cognizant of FirstNet's 
unique status as a Congressionally-created entity with statutory 
reporting requirements. Due to its preexisting reporting requirements, 
we seek comment on providing the Commission with this type of reporting 
in addition to the FirstNet reporting already required by statute and 
on the Commission's authority to request that of FirstNet as a 
Commission licensee. Do the Commission's general Title III authorities, 
coupled with section 6003(a) of the Public Safety Spectrum Act, support 
our ability to seek information beyond FirstNet's statutorily mandated 
reports? What other provisions might support such reporting? What 
quantitative estimates of potential costs and benefits of this 
integration are available? What would be additional improvements to 
public safety and other measures of welfare due to specifically 
reporting about the FirstNet network? How would the magnitude of these 
benefits compare to the benefits estimated in the Second Report and 
Order?

D. Reporting by Broadband Internet Access Service Providers

    26. In the 2021 Resilient Networks Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 14802 (2021), 
the Commission sought comment on the inclusion of broadband providers 
within the mandatory reporting rules for NORS. Currently, while BIAS 
providers may voluntarily report their status in DIRS when activated, 
they are not required to report their status in NORS. The Commission 
sought input on the public interest benefits and the costs of reporting 
of broadband service outages, as well as whether the inclusion of 
broadband reporting in NORS reporting would improve emergency managers' 
situational awareness during disasters, help identify broadband outage 
trends, and/or support first response and network reliability efforts. 
Since issuing that Notice, the FCC released the Open Internet Notice in 
2023, which seeks comment on reestablishing the framework the 
Commission adopted in 2015 to classify BIAS as a telecommunications 
service and to classify mobile BIAS as a commercial mobile service. The 
Open Internet Notice, WC Docket No. 23-320, posits that restoration of 
Title II authority will allow the Commission to prevent BIAS providers 
from engaging in harmful consumer practices, strengthen the 
Commission's ability to secure communications networks and critical 
infrastructure against national security threats, and better enable the 
Commission to protect public safety during disasters and other 
emergencies including by preventing blocking and discrimination of 
internet traffic.
    27. In response to the 2021 Resilient Networks Notice (86 FR 61103, 
November 5, 2021), proponents of a NORS/DIRS filing requirement for 
BIAS providers agree with the Commission's premise that ``improving the 
information in these important systems will be helpful for situational 
awareness and ongoing efforts to improve network resiliency,'' although 
APCO also notes that even more specific information is typically 
required by emergency personnel. The National Association of State 
Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA) similarly supports outage filings 
by BIAS providers, noting that BIAS is used to provide emergency 
information to the public about emergency situations. For DIRS in 
particular, NCC notes that ``[r]equiring providers to include broadband 
data can fill information gaps for areas that lack DIRS reporting'' 
which ``may be due to nonparticipation by providers or a lack of 
broadband connection.'' Public Knowledge states, ``[o]ne of the most 
significant problems when discussing network reliability and resiliency 
is that there is no meaningful way to measure it other than `is the 
network operating today?' This is why Public Knowledge called on the 
Commission for years to evaluate end-user technologies based on 
objective metrics, which are consistent with the FCC's latest proposals 
for reform, including: network capacity under stress; call quality; 
device interoperability; service and support for users with 
disabilities; system availability; service to 911 entities and PSAPs; 
cybersecurity; call persistence; call functionality; and wireline 
coverage.''
    28. Commenters against broadband reporting argue that it is 
duplicative or otherwise unnecessary. T-Mobile, for example, asserts 
that wireless providers should not be required to separately report 
BIAS outages as such reporting requirement ``would be duplicative of 
other outage reporting requirements that CMRS providers are already 
subject to.'' T-Mobile further states that ``[e]very commenter in the 
prior proceeding that addressed whether distinct outage reporting rules 
should apply to BIAS offered by CMRS providers opposed such a 
requirement'' and shares that ``CMRS providers long have been subject 
to the Commission's network outage reporting rules and that subjecting 
the CMRS industry to BIAS outage reporting will increase costs, cause 
confusion, and produce little if any benefits.'' Verizon argues that 
some of the Commission's reporting proposals ``would constitute 
reporting for its own sake without consumer benefit'' and that ``[w]ith 
respect to broadband services . . . existing outage reporting 
requirements already capture most significant broadband outages since 
broadband and voice services increasingly use the same IP-enabled 
networks, so additional rules would be duplicative.'' SIA suggests that 
the Commission should ``issue a supplemental public notice in this 
proceeding that provides a clear definition of a `broadband outage' and 
include potential thresholds that would require providers to file a 
report in NORS.'' NCTA ``urges the Commission not to significantly 
alter [DIRS] and [NORS] . . . [as] DIRS can be valuable in providing 
emergency managers with facts on the ground during major disasters, and 
NORS can play a valuable role in identifying trends in network 
reliability, provided that appropriate protections are in place for 
sensitive network information with serious competitive and national 
security implications. As the Commission considers potential expansion 
of these programs, it should be sensitive to the burdens that reporting 
places on providers during disaster situations and take care not to 
duplicate other information sharing that is already occurring at the 
state and local level or to impose burdensome reporting requirements 
that divert resources away from maintaining and restoring service to 
customers.''
    29. Consistent with an objective of the Second Report and Order to 
provide a more complete and comprehensive snapshot of the status of 
critical communications networks, we believe that reported data to NORS 
and DIRS should also encompass disruptions to BIAS, including mobile 
and fixed wireless BIAS service. In light of the Commission's pending 
consideration of the regulatory classification of BIAS as a 
telecommunications service under the Communications Act and the 
increasing importance of BIAS to a host of uses by consumers, public 
safety officials, and others, particularly during times of disaster, we 
renew our inquiry into whether BIAS providers should be required to 
submit outage reports in NORS. We also seek comment on whether 
participation in DIRS when activated should also be mandatory.
    30. The Open Internet Item seeks comment on whether Title II 
classification would enhance the Commission's authority to impose 
reporting requirements on BIAS providers for BIAS outages should the

[[Page 22113]]

Commission classify BIAS as a Title II service. We seek comment on the 
impact of Title II classification on our authority to require BIAS 
providers to file NORS and/or DIRS reports. We also renew our assertion 
that the statutory provisions cited in the 2016 document considering 
outage reporting for BIAS provide the Commission with authority to 
require such reporting and seek comment on additional authority that 
may be relevant. Among other considerations, we seek comment on how 
outage reporting might support the Commission's obligations under, and 
implementation of, the digital discrimination provisions of the 2021 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
    31. We estimate that the proposed filing rules would incur no more 
than $3.9 million total cost per year to BIAS providers, including $3.5 
million for NORS filing and $394,000 for DIRS reporting. Among the 
2,234 BIAS providers, we estimate that approximately an average of 288 
BIAS providers will have to file reports in NORS per year under the 
proposed rules. Per NORS data, each provider filed an average of 2,175 
reports in a 12-month period. Assuming that each report takes 10 
minutes to file, we estimate that the total cost is approximately $3.5 
million per year for BIAS providers to comply with the NORS reporting 
obligation. For DIRS reporting, we estimate that on average there are 
13 BIAS providers in each county. Given that an average of 339 counties 
were affected by DIRS activations for an average of 14 days per year, 
we estimate that the total cost of complying with DIRS reporting rules 
is approximately $394,000 per year for BIAS providers. We treat the 
cost estimate as an upper bound because it does not subtract the cost 
savings from the waiver of NORS reporting obligation during DIRS 
activations and the potentially simplified reporting processes for BIAS 
providers. We seek comment on our cost estimates for broadband service 
providers to comply with the NORS and DIRS filing rules.
    32. With respect to reporting obligations of BIAS providers, we 
seek comment on how to define an ``outage'' within the context of BIAS 
provision. Is the current threshold of 900,000 user minutes appropriate 
in this context? What other ways should the Commission measure 
``impact'' for BIAS outage reporting purposes? Is the current 30-minute 
threshold otherwise utilized in part 4 appropriate, coupled with a 
scope metric? Should the duration metric be higher or lower? Should 
reporting be required based on significant degradation in throughput 
and, if so, how should that be measured? Should the definition consider 
redundant or alternate pathways for data already being reported to the 
Commission pursuant to some other requirement? We seek comment on how 
an appropriate threshold would support the ability of the Commission to 
discern when outages or significant network degradation stemming from 
issues such as cybersecurity breaches, wire cuts, infrastructure 
damages from natural disasters, and/or operator errors or 
misconfigurations in support of its public safety obligations, and what 
those thresholds should be.
    33. In considering the record to date, parties objecting to the 
inclusion of BIAS in reporting obligations argued that such reporting 
would be redundant, as many providers in this space already report 
outages under different provisions of part 4. We do not believe, 
however, that requiring the Commission or other emergency response 
personnel to infer when a BIAS outage occurs from an outage report made 
by a communications provider as to a related service is a tenable way 
to mitigate the impact of a network outages, or promptly and clearly 
provide emergency managers with an understanding of how they can 
communicate with the public and how the public can communicate with 
them. We seek comment on this view, and more generally on the costs and 
benefits of our proposal. We also seek comment on any other service 
categories that might be included in order to gain a relevant picture 
of network outage impact on the call/data transmission chain; for 
example, should SS7 providers or other transport providers be required 
to report in DIRS? Are there other classes of broadband providers that 
should be reporting in NORS and/or DIRS? We also seek comments on ways 
to mitigate any perceived burden for filers that would otherwise be 
obligated, in whole or in part, to report outages on services already 
subject to the Commission's part 4 rules.

E. Reporting Mobile Recovery Assets in DIRS

    34. We seek comment on whether current or future providers who are 
subject to DIRS reporting requirements should be required to supply the 
Commission with information concerning the location of their mobile 
recovery assets, and specifically whether providers should be required 
to supply the Commission with information on the location of their 
Cells on Wheels (COWs) and Cells on Light Truck (COLTs) or comparable 
assets, either as a component of their daily DIRS reporting or through 
alternate means. Additionally, we seek comment on whether subject 
providers should be required to quantify the traffic load provided by 
those assets. For example, could providers report on select metrics 
such as the number of texts, voice minutes, broadband data provided by 
a recovery asset over the last 24 hours as well as the total data 
provided since that recovery asset was incorporated into that location, 
or other metrics? We note, for example, that these types of metrics may 
help with understanding the use of such assets on a long-term basis, 
gauging the speed of transition of traffic back to permanent network 
assets, and the utility of placement emergency uses such as 911 calling 
and distribution of emergency information. We seek comment on this 
position.
    35. The Commission does not currently systematically collect 
information regarding the location of mobile recovery assets, although 
staff experience in providing disaster response support indicates to 
the Commission that public safety organizations and first responders 
critically need this information in the aftermath of disaster events to 
improve situational awareness and assist in coordinating on the ground 
recovery efforts. Currently, the Bureau's OEM Division will contact 
providers for this information on an event-by-event basis, with varying 
degrees of responsiveness to OEM's (non-compulsory) request.
    36. We tentatively conclude that if information regarding the 
location of mobile recovery assets were required to be supplied in 
DIRS, the Commission would obtain this information more efficiently and 
uniformly across providers than is currently the case, likely leading 
to better public safety outcomes. We seek comment on this conclusion. 
Should we require such reporting? If so, which subject providers should 
be required to provide such information?
    37. If reporting is adopted, we seek comment on what types of 
mobile assets should be reported (including COWs and COLTs) based on 
provider type, the level of granularity for which location information 
should be reported (e.g., on a zip code or street address basis) and on 
whether this information should be reported directly in existing DIRS 
forms or through other means. Should information on the time of 
deployment, coverage, or available power for such assets be reported as 
well? We further seek comment on whether the reporting should indicate 
whether the mobile recovery assets support WEAs, as we

[[Page 22114]]

note in particular the ability to disseminate WEAs in disaster 
environments may be of critical importance for evacuation, safety of 
life, or other disaster mitigation and response efforts.
    38. We also seek comment on the logistics and parameters of these 
submissions. How frequently should this information be reported? We 
note that in some instances mobile assets are repositioned at the 
request of state or local emergency managers; should such repositioning 
be reported? Should this information be available to those entities 
that have access to DIRS under the Commission's information sharing 
framework? Should this information be treated as presumptively 
confidential? We further seek comment on the costs and benefits of 
adopting a reporting requirement for mobile recovery assets. What would 
be additional improvements to public safety and other measures of 
welfare due to improved information to the Commission about mobile 
recovery assets? How would the magnitude of these benefits compare to 
the benefits estimated in the Second Report and Order?

F. After Action Reporting

    39. In the Second Report and Order, we establish a mandate for 
subject providers to furnish the Commission with a conclusive status 
report within 24 hours following the deactivation of DIRS. This report 
will serve as a crucial source of information concerning the 
restoration of communication infrastructure that may still be offline 
in the aftermath of a disaster. However, it is important to note that 
this report alone will not offer a comprehensive overview of how 
networks performed throughout the disaster. For that reason, we seek 
comment as to whether providers subject to DIRS reporting requirements 
should be required to supply the Commission with ``after action'' 
reports detailing more specifically how their networks fared after the 
event or exigency and the nature, timing, duration, and effectiveness 
of their pre-disaster response plans after the Commission's 
deactivation of DIRS and within 60 days of when the Bureau, under 
delegated authority, issues a Public Notice announcing such reports 
must be filed. We seek comment as to whether providers would prefer an 
after action report template to complete or if the flexibility of a 
free-text document would be better suited to an entity's individual 
needs for reporting.
    40. The Commission does not currently collect qualitative 
information on how a provider's efforts and preparation may have 
impacted the resiliency of its networks over the duration of a DIRS 
event. The MDRI is activated by the Commission in response to real-
world exigencies and requires that providers take steps to further 
network resiliency. The Commission recently adopted a related rule, 
however, that requires facilities-based mobile wireless providers to 
submit a report detailing the timing, duration, and effectiveness of 
their implementation of the Commission's MDRI provisions within 60 days 
of when the Bureau, under delegated authority, issues a Public Notice 
announcing such reports must be filed.
    41. We believe that the collection of this ``after action'' 
information could better inform the Commission's analysis and any 
subsequent assessment or action that the Commission may take in the 
aftermath of disaster events. Further, we believe that this approach 
could complement the MDRI reports required of facilities-based mobile 
wireless providers by detailing additional aspects of a provider's 
network resiliency plans and actions. We seek comment on this belief, 
and on whether these reports should be required of all DIRS filers, or 
just a subset, and seek comment on how to address potential overlap 
between reports filed pursuant to the MDRI and under the proposal 
herein. Are there ways to minimize such overlap, or to incorporate MDRI 
related filings such that burden is minimized for this class of filers? 
Should subject providers be held to these after action reports? Should 
such reports be confidential, or should they be shared, for example, 
with the Federal, State, local, Tribal and territorial public response 
agencies that managed a particular disaster pursuant to which such 
reports are filed? We have proposed that these after action reports be 
filed 60 days the Bureau issues a PN announcing such a requirement; 
should the trigger be tied to the event? Is 60-days too much or too 
little of a timeframe?
    42. We also seek estimates on the benefits and costs of this 
proposal for mandatory after-action reports. How much would public 
safety and other measures of welfare improve due to additional 
information to the Commission caused by this proposal? How would the 
magnitude of these benefits compare to the benefits estimated in the 
Second Report and Order?
Procedural Matters
    43. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document contains proposed new 
and modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the 
general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment 
on the information collection requirements contained in this document, 
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific 
comment on how we might further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    44. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding initiated 
by the Second Further Notice shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any 
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation 
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different 
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making 
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must: (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, 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

[[Page 22115]]

themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
    45. Comment Period and Filing Requirements. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, 
interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before 
the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be 
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). 
See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 
24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
     Paper Filers: Parties that choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
     Filings can be sent by 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.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington DC 20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788, 2788-89 (OS 2020), 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    46. 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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
    47. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis 
be prepared for notice and comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the 
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning potential rule and policy 
changes contained in this Second Report and Order on small entities. 
The FRFA is set forth in Exhibit B of the FCC's Second Report and Order 
and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 24-5, adopted 
January 26, 2024, at this link: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-5A1.pdf.''
    48. We have also prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact of rule and policy 
change proposals contained in the Second Further Notice. Written public 
comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the 
deadline for comments on the Second Further Notice indicated on the 
first page of this document and must have a separate and distinct 
heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
    49. The Second Further Notice may contain proposed new or modified 
information collection requirements related to providers' reporting of 
their roaming measures to the Commission. The Commission, as part of 
its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general 
public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on any 
such information collection requirements contained in this document, as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In 
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment 
on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    50. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. The 
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act requires each agency, 
in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a brief plain-
language summary of the proposed rule. Accordingly, the Commission will 
publish the required summary of this Second Further Notice on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

Legal Basis

    51. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 
4(j), 4(n), 201, 214, 218, 251(e)(3), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(j), 
303(r), 307, 309316, 332, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j) & (n), 201, 214, 218, 251(e)(3), 
301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 
403; sections 2, 3(b), and 6-7 of the Wireless Communications and 
Public Safety Act of 1999, 47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a-1, and 615b.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    52. 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 policies and rules 
proposed in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second 
Further Notice). 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 on the Second Further Notice. The 
Commission will send a copy of the Second Further Notice, including the 
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). The IRFA Analysis for the rules proposed in this 
Second Further Notice can be found as Exhibit C of the FCC's Second 
Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 
24-5, adopted January 26, 2024, at this link: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-5A1.pdf.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-06664 Filed 3-28-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P