Amendments to Resilient Networks Disruptions to Communications; New Considerations Concerning Disruptions to Communications
| Published date | 29 March 2024 |
| Record Number | 2024-06664 |
| Citation | 89 FR 22106 |
| Court | Federal Communications Commission |
| Section | Proposed rules |
Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 62 (Friday, March 29, 2024)
[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 220701.
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
