[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 71 (Thursday, April 11, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25535-25542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-07402]


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

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 212327]


Resilient Networks; Disruptions to Communications

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
adopts the Second Report and Order (Order) to advance the lines of 
inquiry particularly concerning the Network Outage Reporting System 
(NORS) and the Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS).

DATES: 
    Effective date: This rule is effective April 11, 2024.
    Compliance date: Compliance with 47 CFR 4.18 will not be required 
until the FCC has published a document in the Federal Register 
announcing the compliance date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Logan Bennett, Attorney Advisor, Cybersecurity and 
Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau, (202) 418-7790 or via email at [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 
Report and Order (Order), in PS Docket Nos. 21-346 and 15-80; ET Docket 
No. 04-35; FCC 24-5, adopted on January 25, 2024, and released on 
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. To request this 
document in accessible formats for people with disabilities (e.g., 
Brialle, large print, electronic files, audio format, etc.) or to 
request reasonable accommodations, (e.g., accessible format documents, 
sign language interpreters, CART, etc.), send an email to 
[email protected] or call the FCC's Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau 
at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). When the FCC 
Headquarters reopens to the public, the full text of this document will 
also be available for public inspection and copying during regular 
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20554.
    Congressional Review Act: The Commission has determined, and the 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 
concurs, that this rule is non-major under the Congressional Review 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the Order to 
Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A).
    Paperwork Reduction Act: This document contains additional 
information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) 
of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be 
invited to comment on the new or modified information collection 
requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific 
comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees. (See FCC, Resilient Networks Second Report and Order and 
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-5A1.pdf (Jan. 26, 2024) at 38, para. 86 and 
at 42, Appdx. B.)

Synopsis

    The Commission initially adopted the DIRS system as a disaster 
response information tool in 2007, but we have not revisited the 
voluntary nature of the system in almost two decades even as the 
disaster and emergency landscape continues to change and technology 
continues to advance. By way of example, since DIRS was adopted on a 
voluntary basis, the Commission has adopted rules pursuant to the 
Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act to implement Wireless 
Emergency Alerts (WEAs), creating a valuable tool used by emergency 
response officials to leverage mobile communications networks to 
provide timely alerts to consumers in disaster situations.

[[Page 25536]]

    As such, while a voluntary system like DIRS is beneficial, we 
believe in the current regulatory, technological and interconnected 
network environment it cannot work to its fullest potential unless we 
expand the aperture of who reports in the system, and enhance the 
fidelity of the data to allow for more effective decision making in 
response to disaster environments by requiring filings be made in 
emergency contexts. As the Commission evaluates the best approaches to 
support better outcomes for consumers in these challenging situations 
in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM) (89 
FR 22106, March 29, 2024), input from industry, public safety, public 
interest groups, as well as individuals who deal directly with these 
issues, will play a crucial role in determining how to effectively 
streamline disaster reporting while addressing individual entities' 
specific operational challenges.
    The 2021 Resilient Networks Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
(86 FR 61103, Nov. 5, 2021) sought comment on three distinct topics: 
(i) enhancements to NORS and DIRS to improve situational awareness 
around disasters and outage events (which is the subject of the Order); 
(ii) improving implementation of the industry-developed Wireless 
Resiliency Cooperative Framework (which was addressed in the 2022 
Report and Order (87 FR 59329, Sept. 30, 2022) and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (87 FR 59379, Sept. 30, 2022) with the Mandatory 
Disaster Response Initiative (MDRI)); and (iii) developing 
communications resilience strategies for power outages (i.e., backup 
power). As detailed below, the Order adopts rules to:
     require cable communications, wireline, wireless, and 
interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) providers (i.e., 
``subject providers'') to report their infrastructure status 
information in DIRS daily when the Commission activates DIRS in 
geographic areas in which they provide service, even when their 
reportable infrastructure status has not changed compared to the prior 
day The Commission has chosen to focus on cable communications, 
wireless, wireline, and VoIP providers (i.e., ``subject providers'') in 
the Order. Broadcasters, broadband, satellite, and broadband internet 
access service (BIAS) providers expressed varying concerns and unique 
comments compared to those of the subject providers addressed herein 
which we believe are better addressed in a separate proceeding which 
will seek more narrow comments pertaining to those providers 
specifically as is previewed in the Second FNPRM];
     codify, in part 4 of the Commission's outage reporting 
rules, the current practice that a subject provider's NORS reporting 
obligations are waived while they report in DIRS [This exemption is 
codified as a revision to the Commission's part 4 rules stating that 
NORS reporting requirements do not apply when the Commission requires 
DIRS reporting. See 47 CFR 4.1 through 4.17]; and
     require that subject providers who report in DIRS provide 
a single, final DIRS report to the Commission, within 24 hours of the 
Commission's deactivation of DIRS, that provides the status of their 
infrastructure identified to the Commission during the DIRS reporting 
period that has not yet been fully restored at the time of the 
deactivation.

Second Report and Order

A. Mandating DIRS Reporting for Cable Communications, Wireless, 
Wireline, and Interconnected VoIP Providers

    In the 2021 Resilient Networks NPRM, the Commission proposed 
requiring cable, wireless, wireline, Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), 
Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS), interconnected VoIP 
providers, and TV and radio broadcasters to report their infrastructure 
status information in DIRS when the Commission activates DIRS in 
geographic areas in which they provide service. In this respect, the 
Commission proposed to shift the reporting obligation from voluntary to 
mandatory for these providers and expand the categories of providers 
subject to DIRS reporting. In support of this proposal, the Commission 
noted that smaller providers often did not elect to voluntarily 
participate in DIRS reporting, reducing the Commission's situational 
awareness. The size of the provider a consumer uses should not affect a 
consumer's right to public safety and potentially life-saving 
information, nor should small rural communities be less entitled to 
functioning networks that provide alerts and 911 capability than 
communities served by large providers. The Commission also sought 
comment on ways to resolve ambiguity about whether a subject provider's 
lack of DIRS filings means that its network infrastructure remains 
fully operational or it is unable to file, and whether it cannot access 
DIRS due to disruption of its internet access or other exigencies. 
Based on the record, in the Order, the Commission requires DIRS 
reporting only as to cable communications wireline, wireless and 
interconnected VoIP providers, and provides that such reports must be 
filed on a daily basis until the Commission deactivates DIRS. We note 
that in some instances, and where warranted based on circumstances 
during extended activations, the Bureau has required reporting less 
frequently than daily. While we find daily reporting the best cadence 
norm, we delegate authority to PSHSB to amend the reporting schedule to 
a less frequent cadence where warranted. For instance, the Bureau may 
waive, sua sponte, the daily reporting time. In this regard, we also 
decline to provide more specificity as to the time daily reporting 
should occur as requested by NCTA--The internet and Television 
Association (NCTA), in that DIRS reporting may inform other time-
sensitive disaster coordination activities across the Federal 
Government and that Commission staff must respond to those coordination 
activities by specifying reporting times in each DIRS activation Public 
Notice (PN) on a case-by-case basis. On days when a subject provider 
has no otherwise reportable changes in its infrastructure status, the 
report would take the form of a simplified ``check in'' report. In the 
Second FNPRM, we seek further comment to build a more robust record 
regarding the inclusion of satellite, broadband, and broadcast 
providers in a mandatory DIRS environment.
    DIRS provides pertinent daily information that the Commission 
provides to a variety of public safety entities through information 
sharing, collaborative disaster response efforts, and to the public. 
The information in DIRS reports also enables the Bureau's Operations 
and Emergency Management Division (OEM) to manage its disaster response 
activities, such as visiting sites and validating communications 
restoration status, supporting vital search and rescue operations, and 
performing eyes-on assessments of disaster impacts and damages to 
prioritize and allocate response and recovery resources. At their core, 
DIRS reports, in combination with operational spectrum surveys and 
other direct engagement, serve as an impetus for open lines of 
communication between communications carriers and emergency management 
officials.
    In response to the 2021 Resilient Networks NPRM, several public 
interest and public safety-focused commenters opine that mandating DIRS 
reporting would increase the value of the situational awareness 
information that the Commission collects and will result in meaningful 
improvements to public safety. For example, Next Century Cities

[[Page 25537]]

(NCC) remarks that DIRS data from smaller-sized subject providers would 
allow the Commission to have a more granular look at how infrastructure 
and service has been disrupted on the ground, which would critically 
aid disaster response. Public Knowledge notes similarly that, in the 
current voluntary regime, the value of DIRS information is diminished 
as it is unclear if a non-reporting subject provider is unable to 
report due to severe damage or is simply electing not to file DIRS 
reports. Free Press states that more robust DIRS information will allow 
customers and impacted individuals to assess all communications options 
that may be available to them in the immediate aftermath of disaster 
and during a subsequent rebuilding phase; Public Knowledge further 
notes that having more DIRS information will allow the Commission to 
better hold providers accountable for failures.
    Conversely, several parties representing industry, like ACA 
Connects--America's Communications Association (ACA), oppose mandating 
DIRS on grounds that it would be too burdensome or would only provide a 
limited benefit when it comes to requiring compliance from small 
providers. NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA) believes that 
small operators will likely lack the personnel, time, or physical 
resources to make such reports in the midst of a disaster and states 
that DIRS reports may not actually be useful in disaster scenarios 
because the Department of Homeland Security's National Coordinating 
Center for Communications (DHS-NCC) and the Communications Information 
Sharing and Analysis Center (Comms-ISAC) provide a forum for industry 
stakeholders ``to share real-time information and collaborate with 
government partners on network restoration efforts [so] [a]ny new 
information sharing commitments would likely duplicate, and potentially 
conflict with, these established, well-defined processes, creating 
unnecessary burden and undermining rather than strengthening network 
resiliency.'' AT&T argues that, to manage burdens, mandatory reporting 
should be based on a ``best efforts'' standard and that there should be 
no penalty for failure to meet any deadlines established for particular 
events. NTCA also argues, ``it is currently unclear whether filing the 
[DIRS] reports lead to greater coordination between government and 
industry or offers a benefit to a company or community in crisis.''
    We find that mandatory DIRS reporting will yield substantial public 
safety benefits. DIRS provides situational awareness of communications 
operational status and actionable information to public safety entities 
assisting in disaster response, thus promoting public safety. 
Additionally, the Commission's information sharing program provides 
direct read-only access to government agencies, providing a direct 
benefit to emergency response, and providing complete and accurate 
information to these sharing partners will provide actionable data to 
those making decisions in disaster and reliability contexts. DIRS 
exists ``to report communications infrastructure status and situational 
awareness information during times of crises'' and enables ``the 
Commission [to] disseminate DIRS information to other Federal 
agencies'' to ``facilitate Federal restoration efforts,'' as well as 
efforts from state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments, and get 
boots on the ground in the locations requiring urgent assistance. 
Public Knowledge asserts that ``[t]he FCC must require all wireless . . 
. providers to perform basic measures that reflect the lessons it has 
gleaned from recent post-disaster reports [as] [i]n these reports, the 
FCC has outlined straight-forward and obvious procedures that, if 
performed, would undoubtedly improve disaster responses.'' However, in 
its current voluntary state, DIRS provides the Commission with an 
incomplete picture of infrastructure status and other important 
emergency information and cannot reliably be used to determine whether 
entities are merely not reporting by choice or if they have lost the 
ability to report and are in need of aid and collaboration. Mandating 
DIRS reporting provides a more consistent picture of status during and 
after disasters and emergencies since there is a wider sampling of 
providers recording how an event has affected their infrastructure and 
capabilities. Requiring DIRS reporting will identify clearly for the 
Commission and other emergency response agencies of any possible issues 
and signals for needed aid and assistance and will make apparent when a 
provider does not or cannot report that there is an issue with their 
system or reporting capabilities. APCO International agrees that 
``improving the information in these important systems will be helpful 
for situational awareness and ongoing efforts to improve network 
resiliency.'' Public Knowledge stresses the importance of ``better, 
timelier, and more detailed outage and service-quality reporting to 
ensure accountability [and] . . . needs to make this data available to 
the public in a way that balances the twin imperatives of transparency 
and information security.'' We agree that mandating reporting in DIRS 
will improve situational awareness through daily status updates during 
emergencies and serve the public interest by providing vital 
information regarding the operational status of communications networks 
the Commission and emergency response entities need to effectively 
manage communications needs during and after disasters occur.
    Mandating DIRS is especially important in today's disaster climate 
as the quantity of disasters has increased since DIRS was first 
formulated. 2023 was recorded as the worst year on record for billion-
dollar weather and climate disasters, passing the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) prior record of 22 events in 2020 
within the first eight months of 2023. DIRS data associated with an 
impacted area is of particular importance, since it provides a 
preliminary understanding of both the impact and scope of damages, 
enables the optimization of the allocation, prioritization, and 
deployment of response and restoration personnel and resources. 
Further, the analysis of DIRS data enables the identification of 
reliability trends and challenges associated with infrastructure in 
rural, underserved, and underprivileged communities. In addition, given 
the rise in the utilization of communications infrastructure by 
emergency response officials as a tool for alerting both through WEA 
and through more established Emergency Alert System (EAS) channels, as 
well as the advent of Next-Generation 911 and text-to-911, the need for 
relevant and comprehensive information related to the availability of 
the infrastructure for communication from and with the public provides 
added urgency for the reformation of our information collection efforts 
in the DIRS context in particular.
    While commenters argue that reporting in this context is a burden 
particularly for small entities, we disagree with those who surmise 
that mandating participation in DIRS will be unduly burdensome for 
subject providers and that the benefits of such reporting and 
information garnered do not outweigh the detriments, especially in the 
matter of preserving life and public safety. For example, NCTA says 
that ``[w]hile outreach to customers during emergencies is vital, 
`prescriptive requirements for specific modes of communication or 
unrealistic levels of precision and detail--as

[[Page 25538]]

proposed by some in the record--are impractical under emergency 
conditions and would divert limited resources away from maintenance and 
restoration of service.'' Commenters making such assertions opposing 
mandatory DIRS reporting, however, fail to adequately counter the 
benefits it will provide, and overlook the efficiencies associated with 
the proposal. While opposing commenters identify some burdens 
associated with filing in DIRS, they fail to take into account that 
providers would benefit from a simultaneous reduction of burdens due to 
the waiver of NORS filing requirements that we codify below. For 
instance, under NORS, a provider may have to file multiple reports for 
outages across a geographic area (even within counties for areas like 
cities and towns) dependent on the number of components involved. Under 
DIRS, while providers are filing daily, they are submitting DIRS 
reports for the entirety of the affected area. Further, the DIRS 
reporting content is less burdensome than NORS in terms of 
requirements. We agree with Free Press' observation that the Commission 
can also manage burdens as it has the authority to waive mandatory DIRS 
requirements on a case-by-case basis where appropriate, such as for 
extraordinary circumstances. In this respect, non-filing due to such 
circumstances will be examined on a case-by-case basis. In those 
instances where extraordinary circumstances prevent filing due to 
operational limitations, providers should: (1) use the Operations 
Center or otherwise notify the Commission if they are unable to file; 
and (2) make a filing as soon as they are capable, but no later than 
the final report due upon deactivation of DIRS, described below.
    We also disagree with NTCA's contention that DIRS reports may not 
be useful because there are other avenues, including through the work 
of the DHS-NCC, for emergency managers and first responders to obtain 
real-time situational awareness information. NCTA's similar argument 
that mandating DIRS filings is not warranted because it does not result 
in active participation by stakeholders at the state and local level is 
also unpersuasive. First, the systematic, mandatory collection of 
information in DIRS would not overlap with other Federal, state, local, 
Tribal, and territorial government efforts, and this non-duplicative 
information would be made available in real-time to both DHS and other 
participating public safety entities pursuant to the Commission's 
information sharing rules to further enhance their efforts (The 
mandated collection of information associated with DIRS would be non-
duplicative and lacking in overlap with state, local, Tribal, and 
territorial governments as the information they receive comes from the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Emergency Support 
Function #2 (ESF-2) and/or its state public utility system. Local 
response officials would be lacking this information unless a state or 
local entity has a relationship with a specific carrier, which is not 
common.). Such information could also be available to local entities 
through permitted downstream sharing (The Commission's rules allow 
Participating Agencies to share NORS and DIRS information with first 
responders, emergency communications centers, and other local 
government agencies who play a vital public safety role during crises 
and have a need to know this information (Downstream Agencies).), and 
is shared with the public on an aggregated basis via communications 
status reports published daily by the Commission when DIRS is 
activated, providing valuable public information on available avenues 
for communications during emergencies. Additionally, mandating 
reporting in DIRS for all subject providers would ensure full 
participation of service providers in each affected area and therefore 
present the Commission and other entities with a comprehensive insight 
as to infrastructure status and reporting capabilities of such entities 
through regular updates. The contentions of NTCA and NCTA are 
contradicted by a significant factual record identified in the 2021 
Resilient Networks NPRM and in the Commission's Disaster Communications 
Fall 2021 Field Hearing. As Public Knowledge underscores, the 
importance of information regarding the status of communications 
networks during and after disasters, especially in providing real-time 
updates and emergency alerts to the public as well as to emergency 
response personnel, is critical, particularly as it provides more 
geographically and infrastructure-specific information to those 
affected by outages.
    We also reject the assertions of ACA Connects and NTCA that the 
burden for small providers with limited resources is too substantial to 
justify mandatory reporting, particularly in the midst of the need to 
effectuate repairs. Small providers, including many recipients of 
Universal Service Funds (USF), are often a crucial link for alerting 
and 911 in rural and underserved communities. The lack of visibility 
into the operational status of these networks when disaster response 
officials are performing vital tasks like determining how to effectuate 
outreach to communities that may involve evacuation instructions, 
shelter in place, or other emergency directives does a significant 
disservice to these populations, and may place them at increased risk. 
While timely restoration is crucially important, the minimal time and 
burden associated with notifying the Commission of infrastructure 
status is necessary to ensure timely emergency response activity. 
Moreover, we clarify that submissions made in DIRS under the rule 
adopted in the Order shall be based on information known by the 
provider at the time. We further recognize that in circumstances where 
DIRS is activated subject providers are necessarily operating in a 
disaster environment, and that submissions must be provided with a 
reasonable basis for believing the information therein is accurate. In 
those instances where extraordinary circumstances prevent filing due to 
operational limitations, providers should: (1) use the FCC Operations 
Center or otherwise notify the Commission if they are unable to file; 
and (2) make a filing as soon as they are capable, but no later than 
the final report due upon deactivation of DIRS, described herein.
    It has been sixteen years since the Commission launched DIRS, and 
the time is ripe to take steps to improve the efficacy of the system. 
While the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) argues that 
nothing has changed since the Commission's 2007 determination that a 
voluntary process for DIRS reporting proved adaptable to the unique 
circumstances of various crises, we disagree. The state of natural 
disasters, frequencies of emergencies, and the emergence of advanced 
technology has changed remarkably over the last almost two decades. The 
evolution of alerting through the advent of WEA, the associated 
implementation of FEMA's Integrated Public Alert and Warning System 
(IPAWS) gateway for the dissemination of WEAs and EAS alerts, as well 
as the launch of the Commission's own information sharing program for 
NORS and DIRS have altered the regulatory landscape as well. NAB's 
position similarly fails to consider the results of a Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) report noting a sharp increase in the 
number of wireless outages attributed to a physical incidents, and its 
recommendation that the Commission improve its monitoring of industry

[[Page 25539]]

efforts to strengthen wireless network resilience, as well as the 
Commission's own previous determinations, as a result of inquiries and 
investigations of the infrastructure status and capabilities of 
providers during and after disasters, that there is a need for a more 
comprehensive monitoring of situational awareness information. Like the 
recently adopted Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative (MDRI), DIRS is 
another valuable tool that can aid the Commission in its resiliency and 
restoration efforts. While the MDRI focuses on improving the resiliency 
and reliability of mobile wireless networks before, during, and after 
emergencies, DIRS provides the means to identify where the reparation, 
replacement, and restoration of communications infrastructure is vital.
    DIRS also provides important information regarding which and how 
many Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) are unable to receive 
incoming emergency information from consumers in need. In regard to 
PSAPs, while NORS and DIRS serve similar purposes (reporting network 
outages), they collect different types of data. PSAP impact data is 
specifically collected by DIRS and not NORS. Once DIRS is activated, 
the Commission gets more fidelity as to PSAP status that it would not 
ordinarily get if only NORS were utilized, as no PSAP-specific 
information is collected in NORS at all. DIRS further provides 
information such as how many cell sites have been affected, where 
damaged power infrastructure is impacting communications, and other 
status information. Rather than waiting for the next emergency--be it 
natural or man-made--to strike and remind us, again, of the importance 
of comprehensive situational awareness to ensure the public safety and 
expedite the restoration of communications, we are relying on our 
experience and the record before us to adopt mandatory DIRS 
requirements now.
    In considering the scope of reporting entities, we limit our 
determination at this time to cable communications, wireless, wireline, 
and interconnected VoIP providers. In this respect, we find that the 
record supports adoption of mandatory DIRS reporting for these 
providers because this group of providers should already have 
information like points of contact, roaming agreements, coordination 
and response plans, and restoration plans of action in place due to the 
general course of business. This was echoed in the record by Public 
Knowledge. Wireless providers especially should already have these 
ideals for resiliency and restoration in place given the 2016 Wireless 
Network Resiliency Cooperative Framework that has recently been 
mandated as the MDRI, which requires wireless providers to establish 
and share with the Commission (upon request) elements like roaming 
arrangements and mutual aid agreements. However, we note the concerns 
raised by satellite (DBS and SDARS) and broadcast (television and 
radio) providers seeking to differentiate their services in terms of 
impact to their specific technology in disaster contexts, operational 
restrictions, and the types of information that is likely relevant for 
disaster response relative to these particular services that may impact 
the specific data needs to be collected from these entities. For 
example, certain types of technology, like satellite, may have limited 
terrestrial components impacted by a disaster such that a more nuanced 
approach for outage reporting may be appropriate. In this respect, we 
also note that these services, while crucial to distribute information 
during disasters, may not serve the same function as the other services 
for which we require DIRS reporting today--namely, the use by consumers 
to seek help by communicating with emergency responders and loved ones. 
The Satellite Industry Association (SIA) requests more detail regarding 
proposals for mandatory DIRS reporting for that sector, and NAB raises 
arguments about the burdens of reporting, especially for smaller 
broadcasters who experience disruptions in the services they provide as 
well as underlying telephone, internet, or power services on which 
broadcasters rely to provide service. Further, these emergencies and 
``disasters often lead to power outages and the loss of telephone and 
internet access, making it difficult if not impossible for smaller 
stations without a corporate support infrastructure to file a DIRS 
report.'' To build a more complete record about the impact of our 
proposals on the satellite and broadcast sectors, we seek further 
comment pertaining to satellite and broadcast, as well as broadband, 
providers whose comments share different concerns and views than the 
subject providers included under the Order, in the Second FNPRM.
    By mandating DIRS reporting for subject providers, we expect that 
there will be an increase in both the volume and clarity of situational 
awareness information collected, and the Commission will be able to 
share this information with Federal, state, Tribal, and territorial 
partners. Additional DIRS information will be helpful during disaster 
events and can help improve public safety planning and response 
efforts. DIRS provides decision-making public safety officials and 
emergency managers with an invaluable tool for assessing where 
communications services and infrastructure are impacted by disasters, 
as well as insights into the speed and scope of communications 
restoration. Particularly, DIRS information is a key performance 
indicator and serves as a primary input to the FEMA Lifelines report 
and Senior Leaders Interagency Briefings, which enables decision makers 
to concentrate their personnel and resources on areas presumed to have 
been impacted the hardest. Requiring this information to be reported by 
subject providers will assist with general situational awareness, the 
deployment of disaster and recovery logistics, and applications of 
infrastructure grants and insurance claims.
    Confidentiality. Several commenters raise concerns regarding the 
protection of information that entities would be providing in DIRS on a 
mandatory basis. For instance, NCTA urges the Commission to maintain 
its presumption of confidentiality for DIRS information submitted by 
subject providers, while the California Public Utilities Commission 
(CPUC) alternatively argues that ``it is critical for people to acquire 
as much information about outages, disasters, and service restoration 
efforts before relocating to another, presumably safer location.'' 
Public Knowledge similarly argues that public disclosure of outage 
information would enhance market incentives to provide more reliable 
service. While we shift from voluntary to mandatory reporting, we find 
no compelling reason at this time to alter the existing presumption of 
confidentiality for any reporting information received merely by virtue 
of this change, and decline to amend that presumption here. The 
Commission acknowledges that the CPUC filed a Petition for 
Reconsideration in regard to information sharing. The determination 
here discussing confidentiality and the treatment of information is not 
a pre-judgment of the Petition in that context. Particularly in the 
DIRS context, we note that public disclosures are already made on an 
aggregated basis, providing a level of transparency to consumers to 
effectuate the primary purpose of DIRS--the collection and 
dissemination of disaster-specific outage impact information. While 
driving the market to more reliability is an important goal, we do not 
find that disclosure in this context is appropriate at this time.

[[Page 25540]]

B. Codifying the NORS Reporting Waiver When DIRS Is Activated

    In the 2021 Resilient Networks NPRM, the Commission sought comment 
on whether to codify the Commission's typical practice of granting 
subject providers a waiver of their NORS reporting requirements when 
they report in DIRS. Under the Commission's current voluntary DIRS 
reporting approach, the Bureau typically waives NORS reporting 
obligations for subject providers who elect to report in DIRS for the 
duration of its activation period. This decision is announced through 
the release by the Commission of a formal notice on an activation-by-
activation basis. The Bureau has routinely issued this sua sponte 
waiver when DIRS has been activated and has found success with this 
approach. In the Order, we adopt this proposal and give it effect by 
revising the Commission's part 4 rules to suspend all NORS reporting 
obligations pertaining to outages that arise when DIRS reporting is 
activated and outages are timely reported in DIRS. 47 CFR part 4. More 
specifically, the Commission will waive NORS filings that would be due 
while DIRS is activated. Further, and as discussed more below in the 
following sections, once an outage has been filed under DIRS per the 
Order, a provider need not file the same outage in NORS.
    USTelecom--The Broadband Association (USTelecom), NCTA, and AT&T 
support this proposal expressly, and no commenters oppose it. 
Accordingly, we conclude that formally codifying this practice would 
give providers more clarity on their obligations and both streamline 
and formalize existing practices with no detrimental impact on the 
Commission's current public safety efforts. Because of the long and 
successful practice of granting waivers, the Bureau and the industry 
should easily transition to this permanent solution. Moreover, the 
codification of this practice will be beneficial for subject providers 
as this waiver will reduce burdens for DIRS filers during emergency 
conditions when the system is activated. As proposed, this shift 
between reporting mechanisms also mitigates the burden of potentially 
duplicative reporting for subject providers by only requiring reporting 
in one system during and after disasters instead of a dual requirement. 
This will also provide administrative efficiency by eliminating the 
need for the Bureau to determine and issue waivers on an activation-by-
activation basis.

C. Final DIRS Reports Upon Deactivation

    In the 2021 Resilient Networks NPRM, the Commission sought comment 
on how to maintain situational awareness as to the status of providers' 
services when a provider has not yet fully restored its service at the 
time that the Commission deactivates DIRS. The 2021 Resilient Networks 
NPRM asked whether providers with ongoing outages at the time of DIRS 
being deactivated should be required to report those outages in NORS; 
the Commission proposed resolving this issue by requiring that subject 
providers with ongoing outages at the time of DIRS deactivation provide 
a final report that describes their current infrastructure status at 
the time the system was deactivated to be submitted within 24 hours of 
deactivation. This would allow the Commission to see what remains 
unresolved immediately following deactivation of DIRS, and provide to 
the Commission an estimate of when the subject provider believes the 
issue(s) can be resolved. We adopt that proposal here; the final report 
shall be provided as input to a free form text field in the current 
DIRS interface, where a subject provider will be able to describe in 
detail the identity and status of outstanding infrastructure equipment 
and issues and the estimated dates by which these issues shall be 
resolved.
    Under the Commission's current rules, there may be instances in 
which DIRS is deactivated but some providers have not yet fully 
restored service. In these instances, the Commission no longer has 
situational awareness as to the status of those subject providers' 
services because updates are no longer being filed in DIRS and the 
outage would have never been filed in NORS (as the Commission typically 
suspends NORS reporting obligations for subject providers who elect to 
report in DIRS, and we adopt that practice in the Order). This has 
resulted in an information gap where the Commission loses situational 
awareness of subject providers' status in restoring services after DIRS 
is deactivated. No commenter directly addresses whether providers with 
ongoing outages at the time of DIRS deactivation should be required to 
report those outages in NORS, but AT&T opines that any such report 
should be provided in DIRS rather than NORS.
    We find that a final deactivation report, filed in DIRS within 24 
hours of the Commission deactivating DIRS, will close a significant gap 
that currently occurs at the conclusion of the DIRS reporting period, 
and therefore adopt such a reporting requirement. Bridging this 
informational divide will also enable Commission staff to conduct 
follow-up inquiries on an as-needed basis based on the information 
gathered, increase provider accountability, and provide needed 
opportunities for analysis associated with recovery. While this minor 
additional filing to close out issues presented though the course of a 
DIRS activation is only a minimal burden, we find the minor burden 
outweighed by the anticipated benefits and efficiencies associated with 
more directed staff engagement with incident resolution. We also find 
that this close-out report obviates the need for any additional filings 
in NORS as related to the same outage and clarify that once an outage 
is filed in DIRS, the event need not be filed in NORS.
    We also agree with AT&T that it would be most effective for 
providers to supply a final report in DIRS since the report relates to 
a provider's previous filings in DIRS. Moreover, filing such reports in 
DIRS will promote efficiency and reduce confusion, both for those who 
file reports and for those who review them. This would include subject 
providers, participating entities who take part in the Commission's 
NORS and DIRS information sharing program, and Commission staff. Final 
reports will promote clarity by continuing to associate such reports 
with the initiating incident in the same system.
    While the 2021 Resilient Networks NPRM did not posit a specific 
implementation for the reporting format, and no commenter proposed a 
specific implementation, we clarify here that the report should be 
completed by filling in a free form text field in DIRS where a subject 
provider shall provide, in a text field, a short summary of the 
identity and status of its outstanding infrastructure equipment and 
estimated dates by which any and all issues will be resolved. This 
format will allow maximum flexibility for subject providers to include 
effective descriptions to the Commission given the wide range of issue 
types and related circumstances that may occur in the aftermath of DIRS 
activation. We require, however, that a part of that free form input 
include estimated resolution dates, which will both create 
accountability on the part of providers and allow the Commission staff 
to promptly and effectively follow-up with the providers as necessary.

D. Cost-Benefit Analysis

    In the 2021 Resilient Networks NPRM, the Commission generally 
sought information on the costs and benefits specific to promoting 
situational

[[Page 25541]]

awareness during disasters, noting that ``a proposed requirement to 
file in DIRS must be balanced against additional burdens on providers, 
particularly as DIRS reports are filed in the midst of disasters and 
other emergencies.'' The Commission asked commenters to explore the 
costs and benefits associated with mandatory reporting, but the record 
was lacking in response to this request. However, ACA Connects states 
that the Commission ``should not adopt any requirements to participate 
in DIRS without undertaking a cost-benefit analysis that addresses such 
questions when it comes to considering mandatory reporting for smaller 
providers.''
    We are cognizant of the fact that, as a general matter, it is 
impossible to assign precise dollar values to the improvement in public 
safety, life and health resulting from changes to the DIRS reporting 
requirements. Nevertheless, we believe that these proposals will result 
in benefits in terms of lives saved and injuries and property damages 
prevented. Expanded reporting will improve situational awareness of 
outages during disasters and aid in emergency response and recovery 
coordination. Improved information on outages makes communications 
options clearer for the individual responding in disasters. Improved 
data on outages can also help the government hold providers accountable 
for failures to timely respond to outages. Data collected can help with 
future disasters through improved planning for support and mitigation 
strategies. According to NOAA, natural disasters have caused annually 
in excess of $118 billion in economic damages and 564 deaths for the 
last 10 years. We believe that the mandatory DIRS filing obligation 
will result in a reduction of these harms to a degree that results in a 
significant social and public safety benefit.
    In considering the costs associated with a mandatory DIRS filing 
obligation, we expect that subject providers will enter emergency 
contact information and critical information as necessary (i.e., 
related to infrastructure damage and restoration) in DIRS. Responses, 
and DIRS reports generally, will differ and appear unique for each 
emergency or disaster due to differing events, geographic areas (e.g., 
a network covers several affected counties and submits one DIRS report 
for each county), and varieties of service provided. We estimate that 
the average cost of the mandatory DIRS reporting for cable 
communications, wireless, wireline, and interconnected VoIP providers 
is less than $1.6 million per year. We do not account for the cost 
arising from assessing the network availability during DIRS activations 
because, as part of normal business operations, service providers would 
have made these assessments without the reporting requirement when a 
disaster strikes. As a result, the assessment cost is not considered 
separately in the cost estimate. The cost estimate of $1.6 million is 
likely an overestimate because it includes service providers that are 
currently voluntarily participating and already incurring the reporting 
costs without the changes in rules for mandated subject providers.
    While it would be impossible to quantify the precise financial 
value of these health and safety benefits, we believe that the value of 
these benefits will significantly outweigh the annual cost of $1.6 
million. In light of the record reflecting large benefits to 
communications providers, agencies, and other industry stakeholders, we 
find that the total incremental costs imposed on the nation's subject 
providers by these new requirements will be minimal in many instances 
and, even when significant, will be far outweighed by the nationwide 
benefits. While DIRS provides vital information pertaining to 
infrastructure status, it can only be beneficial if as many providers 
as possible participate in reporting. This level of participation has 
yet to be achieved in a voluntary reporting state, causing the need to 
transition to mandatory reporting.

E. Timelines for Compliance

    We set a single date for compliance by all subject providers for 
implementing these rules at the later of 30 days after the FCC 
publishes notice in the Federal Register that the OMB has completed its 
review of Paperwork Reduction Act requirements, November 30, 2024. The 
Commission has selected November 30, 2024, as the effective date for 
mandated DIRS reporting to go into effect as this gives subject 
providers a number of months to comply and ensures that mandated DIRS 
reporting is in place for the entirety of the 2025 hurricane season 
(based on the 2023 current hurricane season that runs from June 1, 
2023, to November 30, 2023). We anticipate that by November 2024 new 
filers will have sufficient time to prepare for filing and the 
Commission will be able to make any changes required in the DIRS 
system. This date will also provide reasonable assurance that any 
necessary transitions do not occur during the height of hurricane 
season, which typically ends by late November.
    We also find that subject providers will require only a modest 
amount of time to adjust their processes to comply with these rules 
because, as noted above, many subject providers already voluntarily 
report in DIRS or have similar reporting or recording practices for 
disasters in place. We believe that the compliance timing provided 
grants sufficient time for subject providers, including small entities, 
to implement any changes to their reporting methods and work with 
Bureau staff to resolve any concerns about the DIRS reporting process.
    Once the compliance date has been established, we will require that 
cable communications, wireless, wireline, and interconnected VoIP 
subject providers report their infrastructure status information in 
DIRS whenever the Commission activates DIRS in geographic areas where 
such entities provide service. To resolve previous ambiguity as to 
whether a subject provider was failing to report because (1) its 
network infrastructure remained fully operational; (2) the entity was 
unable to file; or (3) the entity cannot access DIRS due to disruption 
of its internet access or other exigencies, the Commission requires 
entities to file reports on a daily basis until the Commission has 
deactivated DIRS. In this respect, non-filing due to such circumstances 
will be examined on a case-by-case basis. In those instances where 
extraordinary circumstances prevent filing due to operational 
limitations, providers should: (1) use the Operations Center or 
otherwise notify the Commission if they are unable to file; and (2) 
make a filing as soon as they are capable, but no later than the final 
report due upon deactivation of DIRS.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 4

    Communications equipment, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 part 4 as follows:

PART 4--DISRUPTIONS TO COMMUNICATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 34-39, 151, 154, 155, 157, 201, 251, 307, 
316, 615a-1, 1302(a), and 1302(b); 5 U.S.C. 301, and Executive Order 
no. 10530.


[[Page 25542]]



0
2. Add Sec.  4.18 to read as follows:


Sec.  4.18  Mandatory Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS) 
reporting for Cable Communications, Wireless, Wireline, and VoIP 
providers.

    (a) Cable Communications, Wireline, Wireless, and Interconnected 
VoIP providers shall be required to report their infrastructure status 
information each day in the Disaster Information Reporting System 
(DIRS) when the Commission activates DIRS in geographic areas in which 
they provide service, even when their reportable infrastructure has not 
changed compared to the prior day. Cable Communications, Wireless, 
Wireline and Interconnected VoIP providers are subject to mandated 
reporting in DIRS and shall:
    (1) Provide daily reports on their infrastructure status from the 
start of DIRS activation until DIRS has been deactivated.
    (2) Provide a single, final report to the Commission within 24 
hours of the Commission's deactivation of DIRS and the termination of 
required daily reporting, detailing the state of their infrastructure 
at the time of DIRS deactivation and an estimated date of resolution of 
any remaining outages.
    (b) Cable Communications, Wireline, Wireless, and Interconnected 
VoIP providers who provide a DIRS report pursuant to paragraph (a) of 
this section are not required to make submissions in the Network Outage 
Reporting System (NORS) under this chapter pertaining to any incidents 
arising during the DIRS activation and that are timely reported in 
DIRS. Subject providers shall be notified that DIRS is activated and 
deactivated pursuant to Public Notice from the Commission and/or the 
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
    (c) This section may contain information collection and/or 
recordkeeping requirements. Compliance with this section will not be 
required until this paragraph (c) is removed or contains compliance 
dates.

[FR Doc. 2024-07402 Filed 4-10-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P