Disruptions to Communications; Improving 911 Reliability; Concerning Disruptions to Communications, 67558-67560 [2024-18606]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 21, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67558-67560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18606]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 4

[PS Docket Nos. 15-80 and 13-75, ET Docket No. 04-35, FCC 24-73 FR ID 
238688]


Disruptions to Communications; Improving 911 Reliability; 
Concerning Disruptions to Communications

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
adopted an Order on Reconsideration that denies the petition for 
reconsideration filed by Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) with 
respect to the Second Report and Order in this proceeding.

DATES: Effective August 21, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact 
Barbara Kunkel, Attorney Advisor, Policy and Licensing Division, Public 
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0671 or via email at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
on Reconsideration, FCC 24-73, adopted on July 10, 2024, and released 
on July 11, 2024. The complete text of this document is available for 
public inspection on the Commission's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-73A1.pdf. 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).

Synopsis

    1. The Order on Reconsideration denies the petition for 
reconsideration of the Second Report and Order, 88 FR 9756 (Feb. 15, 
2023), filed by CCA on March 17, 2023. In the Second Report and Order 
the Commission adopted rules to harmonize the 911 outage notification 
requirements for originating service providers (OSPs) and covered 911 
service providers. Specifically, the Second Report and Order required 
both OSPs and covered 911 service providers to notify Public Safety 
Answering Points (PSAPs) of outages that potentially affect them as 
soon as possible, but no later than 30 minutes after discovering the 
outage. The Commission also required OSPs and covered 911 service 
providers to maintain accurate and up-to-date PSAP contact information 
for the purpose of providing 911 outage notifications.
    2. CCA sought reconsideration of two aspects of the Second Report 
and Order as they apply to OSPs. First, CCA argued that it is 
unreasonable to require OSPs to initially notify PSAPs of 911 outages 
within 30 minutes of discovering an outage. CCA further argued that OSP 
compliance with the 30-minute rule (1) is infeasible or impossible, (2) 
should not apply to outages attributable to third-party vendors, (3) 
will cause over-notification to PSAPs, and (4) will overburden small 
and rural carriers. CCA argued instead that the Commission should 
revert to the previous rule that required OSPs to notify PSAPs ``as 
soon as possible'' with no time limitation. In the alternative, if the 
Commission retains the 30-minute rule, CCA argued that the Commission 
should define ``discovery'' of an outage to be when an OSP receives 
notification of the outage from its third-party vendor or service 
provider, rather than when the third-party vendor or service provider 
itself discovers the outage. CCA also argued that the Commission should 
modify the 30-minute rule to deem OSPs compliant if they begin 
notifying affected PSAPs within 30 minutes, even if they do not 
complete notification to all potentially affected PSAPs within that 
timeframe. Second, CCA requested that the Commission reconsider the 
requirement that OSPs use ``special diligence'' to identify, maintain, 
and annually confirm contact information for PSAPs in their service 
areas. CCA argued that the Commission materially erred in estimating 
the cost to OSPs of complying with this requirement, and that the rule 
will overburden small and rural carriers. Accordingly, CCA asserted 
that the Commission should create and operate a centralized PSAP 
contact information database rather than requiring OSPs to maintain 
PSAP contact information themselves.
    3. Regarding the application of a 30-minute initial PSAP 
notification deadline to OSPs, the Commission

[[Page 67559]]

found CCA's arguments unpersuasive and concluded that the Commission 
was reasonable in adding a time limit to the OSP notification rules. 
The Commission found in the Second Report and Order that in the absence 
of a time limit, the ``as soon as possible'' standard does not 
incentivize OSPs to provide timely outage notifications, but instead 
incentivizes them to take a passive approach to monitoring and 
detecting outages. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission 
observed that delays in receiving outage notifications undermine the 
ability of PSAPs to provide timely information to the public on 
available means to contact emergency services when an outage impacts 
911 service, and that reverting to a notification standard with no time 
limit, as CCA advocated, would exacerbate the very harm the rule was 
adopted to address. The Commission also disagreed with CCA's contention 
that a 30-minute time limit on OSP notifications is infeasible or 
unreasonable. The Commission found that CCA and supporting commenters 
provided no basis for reconsidering the Commission decision in the 
Second Report and Order rejecting arguments that 30 minutes is an 
insufficient amount of time for OSPs to obtain initial information 
about outages and provide notification to PSAPs. In the Order on 
Reconsideration, the Commission explained that as a practical matter, 
providers will have at least an hour, and potentially more, from the 
start of any outage to gather information to include in the initial 
outage notifications to PSAPs, and that the purpose of the initial 
notification is not to provide complete information about the outage, 
but to serve as a preliminary notice of a potential problem to a 911 
special facility. With respect to OSP responsibility for third-party 
discovery of an outage, in the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission 
determined that the Second Report and Order properly defined an OSP's 
discovery of an outage to include when the outage is discovered by its 
third-party vendor or service provider. In addition, the Commission in 
the Order on Reconsideration explained that an OSP may satisfy its 
obligation to notify a PSAP of an outage ``if the party that actually 
discovers the outage--which may be a third party--notifies the PSAP 
within these timeframes.'' With respect to over-notification to PSAPs, 
the Commission rejected CCA's contention that the 30 minute rule will 
force OSPs to send blanket notifications to PSAPs that may not be 
directly affected by an outage, leading to over-notification, 
notification fatigue, and overburdening of PSAPs. The Commission found 
that proper application of the rule should limit the risk of over-
notification, citing the reporting thresholds in the Part 4 rules and 
that nothing precludes OSPs from working together to establish more 
coordinated and efficient outage notification processes that reduce the 
likelihood of unnecessary notifications. Additionally, even if the rule 
results in occasional unnecessary notifications, the Commission found 
that the overriding objective is for OSPs to notify PSAPs to better 
enable PSAPs to more quickly reduce the impact of an outage, including 
the PSAPs' ability to coordinate emergency response resources with 
first responders. Finally, with regard to CCA's assertion that the 30 
minute requirement will overburden small or rural carriers, the burden 
on smaller carriers to provide notifications is likely to be less than 
for larger carriers because the notification requirement is based in 
part on potential user minutes impacted. The Commission explained that 
OSPs that operate lines that serve fewer customers would have to 
experience longer outages to reach the user-minute threshold required 
for notification, which effectively allows more time for them to 
investigate the outages.
    4. Regarding using special diligence to maintain up-to-date PSAP 
contact information, the Commission rejected CCA's proposal to have the 
Commission create a centralized database before OSPs would be required 
to exercise special diligence in maintaining PSAP contact information. 
The Commission noted that this compliance obligation can be readily met 
by other means, including by the service providers developing their own 
database capabilities rather than waiting for the Commission to do so; 
PSAP contact information is currently available to OSPs through a 
variety of sources; and CCA's proposal ignores the fact that the rules 
have long required OSPs to contact PSAPs in the event of an outage, 
which necessitates their having current PSAP contact information. The 
Commission declined to establish a safe harbor because it would act as 
a disincentive for OSPs to create methods to affirmatively confirm PSAP 
contact information, effectively nullifying the special diligence 
standard. The Commission also was unpersuaded by arguments that the 
special diligence standard for maintaining up-to-date PSAP contact 
information is confusing and fails to provide certainty on how to 
comply; and the Commission found that the Second Report and Order fully 
explained the special diligence standard and properly rejected 
commenters' proposed alternatives. Regarding the burden on small and 
rural carriers, the Commission found, contrary to CCA's arguments, that 
the Second Report and Order correctly took the interests and 
capabilities of small and rural carriers into account, in adopting the 
special diligence requirement for maintaining PSAP contact information. 
Finally, the Commission reviewed the Second Report and Order cost 
estimate in light of CCA's arguments that the Commission materially 
erred in estimating the compliance costs for providers to maintain up-
to-date PSAP contact information, and the Commission made upward 
revisions to better reflect the cost information. Although this change 
resulted in a considerable increase in costs, the Commission found that 
costs are still low enough for the Commission to conclude that the 
benefits outweigh the costs of the requirements.

I. Procedural Matters

    5. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This Order on Reconsideration 
does not contain any new or modified information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 
104-13. Thus, it does not contain any new or modified information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
    6. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will not send a copy of 
this Order on Reconsideration to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because no rule was adopted or amended.
    7. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. In the Second Report and 
Order, the Commission provided a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA). 
We received no petitions for reconsideration of that Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis. In this present Order on Reconsideration, the 
Commission promulgates no additional final rules. Our present action 
is, therefore, not an RFA matter.

II. Ordering Clauses

    8. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Petition for Reconsideration 
filed on March 17, 2023, by CCA is denied.
    9. It is further ordered that this Order on Reconsideration shall 
be effective

[[Page 67560]]

upon publication in the Federal Register.

Federal Communications Commission
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-18606 Filed 8-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P