Resilient Networks; Disruptions to Communications
| Published date | 11 April 2024 |
| Record Number | 2024-07402 |
| Citation | 89 FR 25535 |
| Court | Federal Communications Commission |
| Section | Rules and Regulations |
25535
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 29, 2024.
Charles Smith,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the
preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR
chapter I as follows:
PART 180—TOLERANCES AND
EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE
CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD
■1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
■2. In § 180.910, amend Table 1 to
180.910 by adding, in alphabetical
order, an entry for ‘‘Silane,
hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis
products with silica (CAS Reg. No.
199876–45–4)’’ to read as follows:
§ 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and
post-harvest; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.
* * * * *
T
ABLE
1
TO
180.910
Inert Ingredients Limits Uses
*******
Silane, hexadecyltrimethoxy-, hydrolysis products with
silica (CAS Reg. No. 199876–45–4). No more than 0.6% by weight of the pes-
ticide formulation. Stabilizing emulsion (Pickering emul-
sion).
*******
[FR Doc. 2024–07192 Filed 4–10–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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
Logan.Bennett@fcc.gov. For additional
information concerning the Paperwork
Reduction Act information collection
requirements contained in this
document, send an email to PRA@
fcc.gov or contact Nicole Ongele, Office
of Managing Director Performance
Evaluation and Records Management,
202–418–2991, or by email to PRA@
fcc.gov.
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 FCC504@fcc.gov 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11APR1.SGM 11APR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
25536
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11APR1.SGM 11APR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
25537
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
(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
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11APR1.SGM 11APR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
25538
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11APR1.SGM 11APR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
25539
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11APR1.SGM 11APR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
25540
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11APR1.SGM 11APR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
25541
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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
■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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11APR1.SGM 11APR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
25542
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
■2. Add § 4.18 to read as follows:
§ 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\11APR1.SGM 11APR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
