**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | ET Docket No. 04-35          |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| New Part 4 of the Commission's   | ** |                              |
| Rules                            |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Concerning Disruptions to        | *) |                              |
| Communications                   | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING**

**Adopted: February 12, 2004 Released: February 23, 2004**

**COMMENT DATE: \[60 days after publication in the Federal Register\]**

**REPLY COMMENT DATE: \[90 days after publication in the Federal
Register\]**

**By the Commission: Chairman Powell, Commissioners Abernathy, Martin
and Adelstein issuing**

**separate statements.**

Table of Contents

Paragraph No.

I. Introduction 1

II\. The Need for Communications Disruptions Reporting 2

A. Homeland Security 2

B. Commission Responsibilities 4

C. Convergence 5

> D. Our Existing Approach to Reporting Has Worked Well 6
>
> 1\. Background 6
>
> 2\. Evolution of \"Best Practices\" 8
>
> 3\. Proposed Rules for Communications Disruption Reporting 13
>
> E. Proposed Application to Non-Wireline Communications 14
>
> 1\. Application to Wireless Communications 14
>
> 2\. Application to Cable Circuit-Switched Telephony 15
>
> 3\. Application to Satellite Communications 16

F. Conclusion 18

III\. Consistent Reporting 19

> A. Common Metric 22
>
> B. Simplified Reporting for Special Offices and Facilities and
>
> 911 Services 24
>
> C. Elimination of Separate Reporting Requirement for Fires 26
>
> D. Simplified Time Calculation for Filing Initial Report 27
>
> E. Other 31

IV\. Outage Reporting Requirements for Wireline Communications 32

> A. Voice Telephony 32

B. IXC and LEC Tandem Outages 34

V. Outage Reporting Requirements for Wireless Communications 36

> A. Common Metric for Wireless Services 36 B. Related Criteria for
> Wireless Communications 37

C. E911 Communications 40

VI\. Outage Reporting Requirements for Cable Circuit-Switched Telephony
41

VII\. Outage Reporting Requirements for Satellite Communications 42

VIII\. Application to Underlying Infrastructure: Major Infrastructure
Failures 46

> A. DS3 Minutes 47
>
> B. Signaling System Seven ("SS7") 48

IX\. Electronic Filing and New Reporting Process 50

X. Small Business Alternatives 53

XI\. Conclusion 55

XII\. Procedural Matters 56

> A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 56
>
> B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 57
>
> C. Comment Filing Procedures 58
>
> D. *Ex Parte* Presentations 62

XIII\. Ordering Clauses 63

Appendix A: Proposed Rules

Appendix B: Proposed Electronic Filing Template

Appendix C: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

**I. Introduction**

1.  In recognition of the critical need for rapid, full, and accurate
    information on service disruptions that could affect homeland
    security, public health and safety, as well as the economic
    well-being of our Nation, and in view of the increasing importance
    of non-wireline communications in the Nation's communications
    networks and critical infrastructure, we propose to extend our
    disruption reporting requirements to communications providers who
    are not wireline carriers.[^1] In this connection, we also propose
    to move the outage-reporting requirements from Part 63 of our rules
    to Part 4.[^2] By moving the outage-reporting requirements out of
    Part 63 and into Part 4, we are taking cognizance that, although
    these requirements were originally established within the
    telecommunications common carrier context, it is now appropriate to
    adapt and apply them more broadly across all communications
    platforms to the extent discussed herein. Further, in an effort to
    promote rapid reporting and minimal administrative burden on covered
    entities, we also propose to streamline compliance with the
    reporting requirements through electronic filing with a \"fill in
    the blank\" template and by simplifying the application of that
    rule.[^3] We believe that these proposals will allow the Commission
    to obtain the necessary information regarding services disruptions
    in an efficient and expeditious manner and achieve significant
    concomitant public interest benefits.

> **II. The Need for Communications Disruptions Reporting**

**A. Homeland Security**

2.  The terrorist acts of September 11, 2001 starkly illustrate the need
    for reliable communications during times of crisis. First responders
    and medical personnel were notified by pagers, cellular telephones,
    wireline telephones, and the Internet of the tragic events that had
    occurred, and were occurring, and the immediate need for their
    services. Long distance communications, including satellite
    communications, were used to initiate the movement of equipment and
    personnel into the affected areas for restoration purposes and to
    coordinate their work. All levels of government (municipal, county,
    state, and Federal) coordinated their restoration and Homeland
    Defense efforts through wireless and wireline phones, public data
    networks (including dial-up telephone, wireless, and cable modem
    access to the Internet),[^4] and pagers. In this context, the need
    for immediate, secure, and reliable communications services is
    obvious.

3.  In addition, our Nation has become totally dependent on
    communications services that are now essential to the operation of
    virtually all government, business, and critical infrastructures
    throughout the United States as well as to our Nation\'s
    economy.[^5] One illustration should suffice, although many are
    available. Consider, for example, our financial infrastructure
    which, in large measure, consists of computers, databases, and
    communications links. If the communications links were severed, or
    severely degraded, ATM machines would not be able to supply cash,
    credit card transactions would not \"go through,\" banks would not
    be able to process financial transactions (including checks), and
    the financial markets would become dysfunctional.[^6] In a short
    time, economic activity would grind to a halt and consumers' ability
    to purchase food, fuel or clothing would be severely limited if not
    destroyed. This single example leads, ineluctably, to the conclusion
    that the people of the United States must have secure communications
    that they can rely upon for their daily needs, as well as during
    terrorist attacks, fires, natural disasters (such as hurricanes,
    earthquakes, and tornadoes) and war. Ensuring that the United States
    has reliable communications requires us to obtain information about
    communications disruptions and their causes to prevent future
    disruptions that could otherwise occur from similar causes, as well
    as to facilitate the use of alternative communications facilities
    while the disrupted facilities are being restored.

**B. Commission Responsibilities**

4.  The responsibilities of the Commission are stated in the
    Communications Act.[^7] That Act states that the Commission was
    created for the "purpose of regulating interstate and foreign
    commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available,
    so far as possible, to all the people of the United States . . . *a
    rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio
    communication service with adequate facilities* . . . *for the
    purpose of the national defense, \[and\] for the purpose of
    promoting safety of life and property* through the use of wire and
    radio communication*.*"[^8] Section 4(o) of the Act also states
    "\[f\]or *the purpose of obtaining maximum effectiveness from the
    use of radio and wire communications in connection with safety of
    life and property*,\" the Commission \"shall investigate and study
    all phases of the problem and the best methods of obtaining the
    cooperation and coordination of these systems.*"*[^9] And, to assist
    the Congress in performing its normal oversight responsibilities,
    the Act requires the "Commission \[to\] make an annual report to
    Congress . . . . \[which\] shall contain: (1) such information and
    data collected by the Commission as may be considered of value in
    the determination of questions connected with the regulation of
    interstate and foreign wire and radio communication and radio
    transmission of energy; . . . and (4) specific recommendations to
    Congress as to additional legislation which the Commission deems
    necessary or desirable. . . ."[^10] Thus, the Communications Act
    authorizes the Commission to collect information it needs to perform
    its duties, and wireline service disruption reporting has assisted
    us in that effort. In the case of wireline carriers, outage reports
    have triggered investigations and, where sufficient cause for
    concern existed, we initiated corrective actions with those
    carriers. Service disruption reports have also been used, on a
    continuing basis, to analyze wireline vulnerabilities. This, in
    turn, has assisted the Network Reliability and Interoperability
    Council in developing industry best practices and in recommending
    actions for the Commission to take.[^11] Service disruption
    reporting has also permitted us to assess trends in wireline
    reliability and determine the extent to which our policies need
    modification. This proceeding was initiated because we expect that
    service disruption reporting by non-wireline communications
    providers will provide benefits similar to those that have been
    achieved by requiring service disruption reports from wireline
    communications providers. We seek comment on this conclusion.

**C. Convergence**

5.  Many technological changes have occurred since our initial service
    disruption reporting requirements were adopted more than ten years
    ago. These changes have facilitated the rapid deployment of new
    communications technologies that have become increasingly important
    as substitutes for, and complements to, older communications
    services. Today, a majority of people in the United States use cell
    phones.[^12] In addition, mobile satellite service[^13] is being
    used to provide global connectivity for people with critical as well
    as non-critical communications needs. None of these services were
    included in the wireline service disruption reporting requirements
    that we adopted in the early 1990\'s.

**D. Our Existing Approach to Reporting Has Worked Well**

**1. Background**

6.  The Commission first required wireline common carriers to provide
    service disruption reports after massive telephone outages occurred
    simultaneously on the East and West coasts in 1991.[^14] As
    discussed more fully below, these reporting requirements have been
    successful in permitting the causes of certain types of disruptions
    in telephone networks to be identified and corrected.[^15] This, in
    turn, has permitted organizations[^16] voluntarily to develop more
    than seven hundred \"best practices\" for use by carriers and
    manufacturers in reducing the likelihood, and length, of network
    outages, and has also resulted in the development of best practices
    to facilitate the restoration of failed communications
    services.[^17] In addition, we believe that mandatory reporting has
    permitted operators of private communications networks to improve
    the reliability of their networks.[^18]

7.  One benefit of this process has been that public access to outage
    reports has enabled individual communications providers, as well as
    manufacturers, to learn directly from each other's outage
    experiences. This, in turn, has created an environment for the
    wireline telephone industry that has fostered reliability in
    telephone networks even as the number of competitive, interconnected
    telephone and data networks has increased throughout the United
    States. As a consequence, this network outage reporting requirement
    has enabled a successful public-private partnership to emerge in
    which the telephone industry and manufacturers have voluntarily
    developed best practices that telephone companies have been
    encouraged, but have not been required, to adopt.[^19] The validity
    of those best practices has been continuously confirmed (or, in some
    cases, invalidated) through outage reports that have been filed in
    compliance with our reporting requirements. The steady stream of new
    outage reports, in turn, has permitted existing best practices to be
    refined and has permitted the development of new best practices. Our
    outage reporting requirements have been, however, directed only to
    the wireline telephone industry with the consequence that the
    available communications disruption data has not taken into account
    newly emerging forms of communications (*e.g.*, wireless and
    satellite) upon which our Nation has now become so vitally
    dependent. We tentatively conclude that this data-driven,
    self-improvement model should be extended to these other
    communications providers, and we seek comment on this conclusion.

> **2. Evolution of \"Best Practices\"**

8.  Before the Commission became actively involved in reliability issues
    and affirmatively required wireline telephone companies to report
    network outages, significant network outages had been
    increasing.[^20] In 1992, the Commission adopted outage reporting
    rules which, among other things, required each \"Final Service
    Disruption Report\" to contain \"all available information on the
    service outage, including any information not contained in \[the\]
    Initial Service Disruption Report and detailing specifically the
    root cause of the outage and listing and evaluating the
    effectiveness and application in the immediate case of any best
    practices or industry standards identified by the Network
    Reliability Council to eliminate or ameliorate outages of the
    reported type.\"[^21] With the information provided by these
    reports, the Network Reliability Council,[^22] other carriers, and
    manufacturers were able to understand the root cause of each outage
    and determine whether an existing best practice adequately addressed
    the cause of that outage or whether a new best practice, or
    standard, had to be developed to avert the cause of that outage in
    the future. After enough information had been received***,*** the
    Network Reliability Council made a series of recommendations to the
    telecommunications industry, to manufacturers, and to the Commission
    to improve network reliability.[^23] Communications service
    providers, manufacturers, and other entities voluntarily came
    together, under the aegis of the Network Reliability Steering
    Committee (\"NRSC\"),[^24] to formally study wireline telephone
    network outages and develop additional best practices.

9.  Building upon the work of the first Council, as well as the large
    number of additional network outage reports that have been filed,
    subsequent Network Reliability Councils[^25] and the NRSC have been
    able to refine the best practices that were developed by earlier
    Councils and create new best practices to address newly-identified
    sources of wireline network failure.[^26] Initially, the fifth and
    sixth Network Reliability and Interoperability Councils took the
    best practices that had been developed for telephone companies and
    tried to adapt them to wireless, Internet, satellite, and cable
    providers. These efforts, however, were hampered by the absence of
    useful network outage reports from wireless, satellite, and public
    data network providers. This absence of useful outage data prevented
    the NRIC and the NRSC from being able to validate or improve the
    best practices that they had initially recommended for such
    providers.

10. In general, a significant benefit of this process has been that
    public access to each outage report enabled individual service
    providers, as we well as manufacturers, to learn from each other's
    outage experiences. This, in turn, has facilitated the development
    of new best practices, has provided a mechanism for refining and
    improving those best practices, and has provided a basis for
    confirming, or refuting, the effectiveness of the best practices
    that have been developed. This process would likely not have been
    possible or so successful if service disruption reporting had not
    been mandatory and if those reports had not been available to
    communications providers, manufacturers, and the public.[^27]

11. On several occasions beginning in 1999 and extending through 2003,
    the Commission, through NRIC, charged the telecommunications
    industry with developing and implementing, on a trial basis, a
    voluntary service disruption reporting process for providers not
    subject to Section 63.100 of our rules. The results of this effort
    have not provided us with the quality or quantity of information
    that we need to accurately track outages. Less than three dozen
    service providers agreed to enroll in the trial, and few
    participated actively throughout the entire trial.[^28] Recently,
    however, we have observed an improvement in the results from the
    NRIC trial reporting process insofar as the percentage of entities
    that were actively participating (*i.e.,* either filing initial
    service disruption reports or filing a report indicating the absence
    of a service disruption) increased. However, important fields in
    most reports were not completed.

12. Bearing in mind the experiences described above and industry's
    desire for a voluntary reporting regime, we seek comment as to how a
    voluntary service disruption reporting process would assure the
    Commission that accurate, useful and complete reports would be filed
    dependably, even during periods of high service disruption and/or
    management turnover. In particular, we seek comment on possible ways
    to assure voluntary reporting of all major outages. In addition, we
    question how this Commission will be able to be certain that, as
    service provider management and other staff changes occur, service
    providers will continue to be committed to filing voluntary,
    accurate, and complete service disruption reports.

**3. Proposed Rules for Communications Disruption Reporting**

13. We seek to determine the specific levels of disruption reporting
    that will be most useful in refining voluntary best practices and in
    developing new best practices. In each case for the reporting
    thresholds identified below, we propose specific outage
    circumstances, applicable to the communications technology that is
    there being discussed, that in our view would warrant an
    investigation into whether the development, and/or refinement, of
    best practices would avert similar outages in the future. There may
    be additional thresholds, which are not identified below, that
    should also be included to improve the process of developing, and
    refining, best practices for wireline, wireless, satellite, and
    cable communications providers. We encourage interested parties to
    address these issues in the context of each of the technologies that
    we discuss below and to develop their comments in the context of the
    ways in which the proposed information collection would facilitate
    best practices development and increased communications reliability
    throughout the United States and its Territories.

**E. Proposed Application to Non-Wireline Communications**

**1. Application to Wireless Communications**

14. Since 1990, wireless communications have grown rapidly and are now
    increasingly gaining acceptance as an alternative to wireline
    telephony. Advances in technology, increased investment, and the
    advent of Personal Communication Services (PCS)[^29] and digital
    technologies have fueled a rapid expansion of commercial mobile
    wireless networks carrying cellular-type service[^30] and the number
    of wireless providers has increased substantially. In 1990 there
    were approximately 5,283,000 cellular users served by 5,600 cell
    sites throughout the United States and, by 2002, cellular service
    had grown to encompass approximately 140,766,842 users served by
    131,350 cell sites.[^31] Since then, wireless services have
    continued to grow steadily. Six wireless providers now offer
    nationwide services and others offer regional and local
    services.[^32] Some CMRS licenses remain to be auctioned, and
    additional spectrum is being made available for third generation
    wireless services (3G).[^33] Today, unlike the situation that
    existed in 1992, many Americans depend exclusively on wireless
    telephony for emergency communications and expect, for example, to
    have E911 connectivity in the event of an emergency.[^34] Consumers
    are beginning to substitute wireless phones for their landline
    telephones, making wireless phones even more critical. In 1996, the
    Commission adopted rules requiring cellular, PCS and certain SMRS
    providers to ensure compatibility with E911 emergency calling
    systems.[^35] In adopting those rules, the Commission stated that
    almost 18 million wireless calls were made to 911 and other public
    service telephone numbers in 1994.[^36] By 2001, there were more
    than 128,374,000 wireless subscribers nationwide and Public Safety
    Answering Points ("PSAPs") received approximately 56,879,000
    wireless 911 calls.[^37] Wireless and satellite paging have also
    increased in importance and are now commonly used by 911 "first
    responders," medical personnel, emergency rescue teams, police, fire
    fighters, and government officials. It is, of course, essential that
    all of these forms of wireless communications perform reliably in
    general use but it is even more essential that they do so during
    times of local or national emergencies or terrorist attacks.[^38] In
    view of the great importance that wireless services now enjoy as
    part of the Nation's critical communications infrastructure, [^39]
    we propose to extend our outage reporting requirements to wireless
    providers.[^40] This should significantly enable the development and
    refinement of best practices for these providers and encourage a
    more effective public/private partnership in which useful best
    practices would be voluntarily adopted. We request comment on these
    proposed modifications to our rules.

**2. Application to Cable Circuit-Switched Telephony**

15. As discussed in Section VI, below, circuit-switched telephony
    provided by cable operators has always been subject to the
    communications disruptions reporting requirements set forth in
    Section 63.100. We propose to clarify this point and to modify these
    requirements in a manner consistent with our proposed changes to the
    outage-reporting requirements for wireline telephony. We request
    comment on these proposed modifications to our rules.[^41]

> **3. Application to Satellite Communications**

16. Since the early 1990's, technological developments have permitted
    satellites to evolve as a more direct medium for personal
    communications. Newer technology, now in use, allows the end user's
    satellite telephone to connect directly to a satellite without the
    need for an intervening VSAT terminal.[^42] It also permits the user
    to have unconstrained domestic and transoceanic connectivity from
    any place to any other place, through the PSTN, using handheld
    phones, pagers or other terminal equipment.[^43] Satellite
    technology permits the rapid establishment of communications
    networks for use in emergency situations (including re-establishing
    other communications networks). In addition, satellites are being
    used more frequently for airplane-to-ground telecommunications, to
    transmit data, to provide GPS location information for commercial as
    well as governmental users, and to provide secure back-up
    communications networks for corporations, universities and
    government instrumentalities. The use of satellite communications
    decreases the vulnerabilities that are associated with relying
    exclusively on fixed, terrestrial facilities with the consequence
    that satellite communications are now an important supplement to
    Homeland Security related communications.

17. Thus, commercial satellite communications have emerged as a
    significant part of our national communications infrastructure, and
    we anticipate that they will play an ever-increasing role in
    providing important services to the military, to emergency
    responders, to other providers of communications services for
    restoration purposes, and to personnel who are involved in Homeland
    Defense and Security and emergency preparedness (*e.g.,* F.E.M.A.)
    functions. Given the increased role played by satellites in our
    Nation's communications infrastructure, and the likelihood that the
    importance of satellite communications will grow substantially in
    the future, we propose to eliminate the satellite exemption in our
    outage reporting rules and propose to require, as discussed more
    fully below, disruption reporting that recognizes the unique
    attributes of satellite communications.[^44]

**F. Conclusion**

18. The timely provision of outage information by communications
    providers, their affiliates, and those who maintain or provide
    communications systems on their behalf, should provide sufficient
    information to facilitate the prompt discovery of outage and
    reliability problems that occur within, and across, communications
    networks.[^45] As a consequence, communications failures
    (particularly catastrophic failures) should become more easily
    preventable, and information accumulated through the outage
    reporting process should further facilitate efforts by
    communications providers to discover potential vulnerabilities in
    their own systems. In addition, to fulfill the other statutory
    objectives identified above, we must have sufficient information to
    enable us to discharge the duties that have been placed on this
    Commission by the Communications Act. Accordingly, we initiated this
    proceeding in order to assure that these vital objectives are met.

**III. Consistent Reporting**

19. Communications disruptions can be characterized as consisting
    of: (i) an inability to access a network (*e.g.,* an inability to
    acquire dial-tone);[^46] or (ii) once a network has been
    successfully accessed, the inability to complete the communication
    effectively.[^47] Section 63.100 applies to both types of
    communications disruptions which are further classified into,
    essentially, two types of reporting requirements: (i) the reporting
    of disruptions that could have a direct effect on the safety of life
    or property or on the National defense and security;[^48] and (ii)
    the reporting of outages that are otherwise sufficiently significant
    that they warrant reporting.[^49] We propose to retain this basic
    type of reporting framework with modifications to improve its
    usefulness that we discuss in more detail below.

20. Section 63.100(c) requires that an outage report be filed when
    30,000 customers are affected for 30 minutes or more.[^50] The
    determination that outages of that size warrant reporting resulted
    from the investigation into the 1991 Signaling System 7 outages that
    blocked communications on both the East and West coasts for extended
    periods of time. Those conjunctive criteria have, in general, worked
    well and we propose to apply those criteria to all communications
    platforms with modifications that are discussed in more detail
    below. The first issue that we need to address concerns the
    criterion of 30,000 affected customers. This criterion presents two
    issues. The first concerns the use of the word "customers." The
    outage reporting criteria currently set forth in subsections
    63.100(b) and (c) are based on the number of "customers" potentially
    affected. Subsection 63.100(a) (2) defines a customer as "a user
    purchasing telecommunications service from a common carrier."[^51]
    In the past, reporting carriers have tended to apply this definition
    literally, so that if an outage affected a large business or
    governmental customer with tens of thousands of telephone lines, the
    business was nevertheless counted as a single customer for outage
    reporting purposes. We tentatively conclude that application of the
    reporting requirements in this way disserves the public interest.
    The reporting thresholds were meant to require the reporting of
    outages that could potentially affect significant numbers of end
    users, that is, people, regardless of whether they may be viewed,
    collectively, to be part of a single commercial or governmental
    customer. As a consequence, we propose to utilize the word \"user,\"
    rather than \"customer,\" to address the problem posed by a single
    customer (*e.g.,* the U.S. Government or General Motors) having
    hundreds of thousands of \"users\" even though, in each case, there
    is only one affected "customer." In the absence of making this
    change, hundreds of thousands of users could be without service
    without a communications disruption report having to be filed.

21. The second issue concerns how the current rule conjoins the length
    of time (at least 30 minutes) for which users suffer loss of service
    with the number of potentially-affected users (at least 30,000) in
    determining whether a communications disruption report must be
    filed. As Section 63.100(c) is presently configured, 29,999 or fewer
    customers could be without service for decades without triggering
    the need to file an outage report. This, in turn, would foreclose
    our ability to understand, and address, extended outages that may be
    occurring on a routine basis, because the duration of the outage is
    not taken into account where fewer than 30,000 users are
    affected.[^52] We propose to address both of these concepts through
    the use of a \"common metric,\" which is discussed below, that can
    be applied to wireline, wireless, cable, and satellite
    communications. Although the concept of a uniformly applied common
    metric is properly based on the number of people potentially
    affected by, and duration of, an outage, irrespective of the
    communications system, differences may necessitate variations in
    developing the metric for these communications systems or even
    alternative approaches. We seek comment on such approaches.

**A. Common Metric**

22. To address these anomalies and to create a metric that accords more
    precisely with the true intent of the rule, we intend to cease using
    the number of "customers" in the threshold criteria for
    communications outage reporting. Instead, we propose to base the
    criteria on a newly-defined measurement, the number of user-minutes
    potentially affected by the outage. We define "user-minutes" as the
    mathematical result of multiplying the outage duration, expressed in
    minutes, by the number of end users potentially affected by the
    outage. We will address how the number of potentially affected end
    users is determined, below, in each section devoted to a particular
    form of communications (*e.g.,* wireline, wireless, cable, *etc.*)
    for which we propose outage reporting requirements.[^53] In general,
    however, we propose the following as revised threshold criteria for
    communications outage reporting:

-   The outage duration must be at least 30 minutes; *[and]{.underline}*

-   The number of "user-minutes" potentially affected per outage must
    equal or exceed 900,000.[^54]

In other words, outages of at least 30 minutes duration would have to be
reported whenever the mathematical result of multiplying the outage's
duration (expressed in minutes) by the total number of end users
potentially affected by the outage is at least 900,000. In developing
these criteria, we have continued to retain the current rule's
conceptualization of a metric that is based on the number of people who
may be *potentially affected* by the outage. That is, the proposed
metric focuses on the number of people who would have been affected by
the outage if, for example, they had attempted to make or receive
telephone calls during the outage, regardless of whether they, in fact,
had actually attempted to do so. This reflects expectations that these
forms of communication should be available at all times, that people
rely on voice and data communications to serve needs that arise
unexpectedly in emergency situations as well as every day needs, and
that outages could prevent communications providers from knowing which
people unsuccessfully sought access during the outages.

23. The proposed threshold criteria will enable us to better assess the
    reliability of voice and data communications platforms. For example,
    the individual failures of more than four-fifths of the wireline
    telephone switching centers in the United States would not be
    reportable under our current rule.[^55] One implication of the
    proposed approach is that outages in non-urban areas (*i.e.,* most
    of the United States), where the end users potentially affected are
    likely to be smaller in number than for urban area outages, would
    nevertheless be required to be reported if those outages persisted
    for an excessively long time. In addition, urban area outages
    potentially affecting less than 30,000 end users would nevertheless
    have to be reported whenever their duration reaches the 900,000
    user-minute threshold criteria. Graphically, the proposed criteria
    can be illustrated as follows:

![](media/image1.wmf){width="4.729166666666667in"
height="3.2708333333333335in"}

We request comment on these conclusions and proposed modifications to
our rules and note that it is not our intention, in proposing these
rules, to preclude the voluntary filing of outage reports where the size
of the outage falls below the proposed threshold criteria for mandatory
reporting.

**B.** **Simplified Reporting for Special Offices and Facilities and 911
Services**

24. We also propose to simplify the requirements for reporting
    communications outages that potentially affect special offices and
    facilities or potentially affect the ability to complete 911
    calls.[^56] Section 63.100(e) of our rules presently requires the
    reporting of outages of at least 30 minutes duration that
    potentially affect special offices and facilities.[^57] We will keep
    this requirement substantively intact with a minor modification that
    will make it applicable to all airports, not just major airports.
    Section 63.100(e), however, only applies to local exchange carriers,
    interexchange carriers, and competitive access providers. In light
    of the rapid changes that have occurred since this rule was adopted,
    we anticipate that special offices and facilities will increasingly
    take advantage of new communications technologies and services as
    they become available, with decreasing regard for the particular
    technological platform over which they are provided. As a
    consequence, we propose to extend the requirement to report outages
    potentially affecting special offices and facilities to include all
    communications providers for which we are proposing general
    communications outage-reporting requirements. These include
    wireline, wireless, cable, and satellite communications
    providers.[^58]

25. In addition, the current requirements for reporting outages that
    potentially affect 911 services are differentiated by the length of
    the outage, the number of lines potentially affected, and other
    factors.[^59] We tentatively conclude that these requirements are
    overly complex. We propose to revise these rules and simply require
    the reporting of all communications outages of at least 30 minutes
    duration that potentially affect the ability to originate, complete,
    or terminate 911 calls successfully (including the delivery of all
    associated name, identification, and location data). Because we
    anticipate that the public safety community and 911-type services
    will also evolve to utilize new technologies, services, and
    platforms, we propose to apply this requirement to all
    communications providers for which we are proposing general
    outage-reporting requirements. In a separate proceeding, however, we
    have been considering E911 implementation issues for Mobile
    Satellite Service providers and have concluded that MSS providers of
    interconnected two-way voice service have an E911 compliance
    obligation, specifically to establish call centers for the purpose
    of answering 911 emergency calls and forwarding these calls to an
    appropriate PSAP.[^60] Although we propose that MSS providers of
    interconnected voice service be subject to E911 outage reporting
    requirements, we propose to delay implementation of these
    requirements until the implementation issues raised in the *2^nd^
    Further Notice* portion of the separate proceeding are resolved. We
    seek comment on these conclusions and proposals.

**C. Elimination of Separate Reporting Requirement for Fires**

26. A separate reporting requirement, set forth in Section 63.100(d),
    pertains to the reporting of outages caused by fires. Carriers are
    required to report fire-related incidents that affect 1,000 or more
    service lines for a period of 30 minutes or more.[^61] Only a few
    outages have been reported pursuant to this subsection and these
    have tended to be very minor outages. In general, major fire outages
    have met the more general reporting criteria because they exceed the
    current 30-minute, 30,000-customer threshold criteria. Such outages
    would also exceed the proposed 900,000 user-minute threshold
    criterion. Thus, retention of separate outage reporting criteria for
    fire-related incidents appears to be an unnecessary complication for
    reporting carriers that does not appear to provide any significant
    benefit to the Commission or to the public. We therefore propose to
    eliminate this requirement. We seek comment on this conclusion and
    our proposed elimination of this rule.

**D. Simplified Time Calculation for Filing Initial Report**

27. An initial outage report is required to contain contact information
    so that additional information can be obtained if necessary. Initial
    reports are helpful in determining whether an immediate response is
    required (*e.g.*, terrorist attacks or systemic failures) and
    whether patterns of outages are emerging (*e.g.,* phased terrorist
    attacks) that warrant further coordination or other action.[^62]

28. Section 63.100 of our rules currently distinguishes between how
    quickly outages, of at least 30 minutes duration, are required to be
    reported, based on whether the number of customers potentially
    affected meets or exceeds a threshold criterion of 50,000. If this
    secondary threshold is exceeded, the carrier\'s initial report must
    be made "by facsimile or other record means delivered within 120
    minutes of the carrier's first knowledge. . . ."[^63] Otherwise,
    when such outages potentially affect less than 50,000 customers (but
    satisfy the primary threshold criterion of 30,000 customers), the
    initial notification must be delivered within "3 days of the
    carrier's first knowledge."[^64] We believe that this distinction
    complicates the outage reporting requirements without any
    off-setting benefit and should, therefore, be eliminated.

29. The current rule requires that the filing be made \"by facsimile or
    other record means.\"[^65] In the future, the ability to file
    initial reports electronically (*e.g.*, over the Internet), coupled
    with the \"fill in the blank\" template[^66] that we are proposing
    in this Notice, should make it possible for communications providers
    to notify us more promptly, and more easily, when communications
    disruptions arise.

30. The improvements in filing requirements, as well as the electronic
    filing process that we are proposing, should make it easy for
    communications providers to file initial disruption reports within
    120 minutes of discovering a reportable outage. This, in turn, will
    facilitate more rapid action in the event of a serious crisis, and
    will also facilitate more rapid, more coherent, and more accurate
    responses when multiple outages are occurring during simultaneous
    (or virtually coincident) crises. We therefore propose to require
    all initial outage reports to be filed electronically within 120
    minutes of becoming reportable and all final outage reports to be
    filed within 30 days of the initial report. We seek comment on these
    conclusions and proposed requirements. We also seek comment as to
    whether, given the rapid response time that the Internet and
    circuit-switched telephony (*e.g.,* dial-up modems) enable, we
    should require the filing of initial outage reports over the
    Internet within a shorter period of time than the 120-minute period
    discussed above.

**E. Other**

31. Our experience in administering Section 63.100 has enabled us to
    understand more completely other aspects of the existing reporting
    requirements that should be revised. As a consequence, we find that
    existing requirements for final disruption reports should be
    modified to include the following information:

-   A statement as to whether the reported outage was at least partially
    caused because the network did not follow engineering standards for
    full diversity (redundancy);[^67] and

-   A statement of all of the causes of the outage. Outages may result
    from the occurrence of several events. The current rule requires
    that the final report identify the root cause.[^68] Experience in
    administering this part of our rules has convinced us that there may
    be more than one root cause and that, to facilitate analysis, all
    causes of each outage should be reported.

In addition, as the communications market evolves, we anticipate that
communications may increasingly be offered through complex arrangements
among communications providers and other entities (which may or may not
be affiliated with the provider) that maintain or provide communications
systems or services for them. For example, local exchange carriers have
long provided Signaling System 7 ("SS7") communications for their own
use as well as for their customers, but some entities have more recently
emerged to provide SS7 for such carriers. We propose to require these
entities to comply with any disruption reporting requirements that we
may adopt to the same extent as would be required of the communications
provider if it were directly providing the voice or data communications
or maintaining the system. We seek comment on these proposals.

> IV\. Outage Reporting Requirements for Wireline Communications

**A. Voice Telephony**

32. In this *Notice,* we use the term "wireline provider" to refer to an
    entity that provides terrestrial communications through direct
    connectivity, predominantly by wire, coaxial cable, or optical
    fiber, between the serving central office (as defined in the
    glossary to Part 36 of the Commission's Rules)[^69] and end user
    location(s).[^70] As noted in the preceding section, we propose to
    require wireline providers to report outages that meet the following
    criteria:

-   The outage duration must be at least 30 minutes; *[and]{.underline}*

-   The number of "user-minutes" potentially affected must equal or
    exceed 900,000.

33. For telephony, we propose to define the number of end users as the
    number of "assigned telephone numbers," by which we mean the sum of
    "assigned numbers" and "administrative numbers" as defined in
    Section 52.15(f)(i) and (iii) of the Commission\'s Rules.[^71]
    Assigned numbers are defined as "numbers working in the Public
    Switched Telephone Network (\"PSTN\") under an agreement such as a
    contract or tariff at the request of specific end users or customers
    for their use, or numbers not yet working but having a customer
    service order pending."[^72] Administrative numbers are "numbers
    used by telecommunications carriers to perform internal
    administrative or operational functions necessary to maintain
    reasonable quality of service standards."[^73] As noted in the
    preceding section, we believe that the combination of these two
    measurements will provide a better assessment of the actual number
    of users that are potentially affected by the communications
    disruption, as distinguished from the number of "customers" that may
    be potentially affected.[^74]

**B. IXC and LEC Tandem Outages**

34. Section 63.100(g) states that, for the tandem facilities of
    interexchange or local exchange carriers, "carriers must, if
    technically possible, use real-time *blocked calls* to determine
    whether criteria for reporting an outage have been reached. Carriers
    must report IXC and LEC tandem outages . . . where more than 90,000
    calls are blocked during a period of 30 or more minutes for purposes
    of complying with the 30,000 potentially affected customers
    threshold."[^75] We propose to modify this rule to replace the
    "customer" metric with the "assigned telephone number-minute"
    metric, in order to be consistent with the modifications that we
    have proposed above. We also note that the term "blocked calls" is
    not clearly defined in Section 63.100 and that some companies count
    only *originating* calls that are blocked, while other companies
    count both *originating* and *terminating* blocked calls. To
    eliminate this ambiguity and permit the Commission to gain an
    understanding of the full impact of each outage, as well as to
    promote consistent reporting by all carriers, we propose to require
    that all blocked calls, regardless of whether they are originating
    or terminating calls, be counted in determining compliance with the
    outage reporting threshold criteria.

35. For those outages where the failure prevents the counting of blocked
    calls in either the originating or terminating direction, or in both
    directions, historical data may be used.[^76] Three times the actual
    number of carried calls for the same day of the week and the same
    time of day should be used as a surrogate for the number of blocked
    calls that could not be measured directly.[^77] We also wish to
    clarify that "blocked calls" are a \"running measurement\" made for
    the total duration of the outage. That is, an outage that blocks
    only 50,000 calls in the first 30 minutes may nevertheless reach the
    90,000 blocked-call threshold criterion if the outage lasts, for
    example, for one hour. In relatively rare cases, it may be possible
    to obtain the number of originating blocked calls only, or the
    number of terminating blocked calls only, but not both. For these
    cases, we propose to require that the blocked-call count be doubled
    to compensate for the missing data, unless the carrier certifies
    that only one direction of the call set-up was affected by the
    outage. We seek comment on this proposed rule.

> V. Outage Reporting Requirements for Wireless Communications

**A. Common Metric for Wireless Services**

36. Consistent with the 30 minutes/900,000 user-minutes criteria
    discussed above*,* we propose to require wireless service providers
    to report outages of at least 30 minutes duration that potentially
    affect 900,000 user-minutes. We seek comment on this proposal.[^78]
    While we believe in the importance of a common metric that is based
    on outage impact on people irrespective of the communications system
    involved, we also seek comment on possible alternative criteria that
    would yield outage data that would be useful in developing best
    practices. Paging remains an important technology for emergency
    responders and therefore we are proposing to include paging service
    providers within the scope of the outage reporting requirements for
    wireless service providers. For those paging systems in which each
    individual user is assigned a telephone number, we propose to define
    an end user as an assigned telephone number, and the number of
    potentially-affected user minutes would be the mathematical result
    of multiplying the outage's duration (expressed in minutes) by the
    number of potentially-affected assigned telephone numbers. It is our
    understanding that for other paging systems in which a caller must
    first dial a central number (*e.g.,* an "800 number") and then dial
    a unique identifier for the called party, the paging provider
    maintains a database of identifiers for its end users and would
    therefore know how many of its end users are potentially affected by
    any particular outage. The number of potentially-affected end users
    for those paging systems would simply be the mathematical result of
    multiplying the outage's duration (expressed in minutes) by the
    number of end users potentially affected by the outage. We seek
    comment on this interpretation and proposed addition to our rules.
    We also seek comment on whether there are alternative approaches for
    measuring the extent of the impact of the outage of CMRS paging
    systems. For other wireless services, the determination of the
    number of potentially affected users can be more complex.

**B. Related Criteria for Wireless Communications**

37. To measure the extent of wireless services system degradation, we
    propose to require the use of blocked calls instead of using
    assigned telephone numbers as a proxy for the usefulness of the
    system to users.[^79] In the wireless telephony service, a call is
    deemed "blocked" whenever the MSC[^80] cannot process the call
    request of an authenticated, registered user. Call blocking can
    result from a malfunction or from an overloaded condition in the
    wireless service network. Usually when calls are blocked, users
    newly attempting to access the system cannot be registered on the
    system until the underlying problem is corrected. Because wireless
    service networks typically provide user access through several MSCs,
    an outage on a single MSC affects only those subscribers served by
    that MSC. Accordingly, call blocking on a single MSC would be
    reportable if it were to result in an outage of at least 30 minutes
    duration that meets or exceeds the 900,000 user-minute criterion
    described *supra* Section III.

38. To estimate the number of potential users affected by a significant
    system degradation[^81] of wireless service facilities, we propose
    to require providers to determine the total call capacity of the
    affected MSC switch (or, in the case of a MSC that has more than one
    switch, the total call capacity of all switches in the affected MSC)
    and multiply the call capacity by the concentration ratio.[^82]
    Although the concentration ratio may vary among MSCs, we believe
    that, on average, the concentration ratio used for determining the
    outage reporting threshold should be uniform to facilitate
    correlative analyses of outage reports from different wireless
    providers. Based upon discussions with telecommunications engineers
    and our understanding of typical traffic loading/switch design
    parameters, we propose that the concentration factor be ten.[^83]
    Thus, a MSC switch that is capable of handling 3,000 simultaneous
    calls would have 30,000 potentially affected users (*i.e.,* (3,000)
    x (10) = 30, 000). Our analysis suggests that this proposed
    concentration factor should adequately account for those users that
    are in the service area of the MSC and are thus eligible for
    immediate service. This factor would also take into account users
    that are assigned to the local home location register database for
    the MSC as well as potential visitors.[^84] Thus, under the general
    outage-reporting criteria that we are proposing, wireless service
    providers would be required to report MSC outages of at least 30
    minutes duration that potentially affect at least 900,000
    user-minutes. We seek comment on this proposed addition to our rules
    and on whether there are specific types of wireless systems for
    which a concentration factor of other than ten should be applied. As
    with CMRS paging providers, we also seek comment on possible
    alternative criteria for wireless service providers and approaches
    to measure the extent of the impact of system degradation that would
    yield useful outage data on which to base the development of best
    practices.

39. We further propose to require the filing of an outage report
    whenever a MSC is incapable of processing communications for at
    least 30 minutes, without regard to the number of user-minutes
    potentially affected by the outage. Our reason for this specific
    proposal on MSC-outage reporting is based on our continuing need to
    be aware of the underlying robustness, as well as the overall
    reliability, of wireless networks. The MSC, in this regard, is a
    critical architectural component in wireless systems that is
    designed to address significant levels of traffic aggregation and
    call routing that is dependent upon SS7 signaling. We seek comment
    on these additional conclusions and further proposal.

**C. E911 Communications**

40. We have been aware for some time that the use of wireless telephony
    to place emergency 911 calls has been increasing. Accordingly, we
    adopted rules requiring wireless providers to facilitate the work of
    E911 service responders by providing to Public Safety Answering
    Points (\"PSAPs\")[^85] both the automatic name information (ANI)
    and automatic location information (ALI) associated with the
    handset. The reliability of E911 service continues to be of vital
    concern to this Commission and is an essential part of our
    responsibilities. We therefore propose to require wireless service
    providers to report any failure of a wireless network element[^86]
    that prevents a MSC from receiving, or responding to, 911 calls
    (including the delivery of all associated data) for at least 30
    minutes.[^87] We seek comment on this proposed rule and whether
    local network element failures or degradations should also be
    reported to the affected PSAPS in real time. In addition, we seek
    comments as to whether a 30 minute outage is the most appropriate
    time metric to measure a significant failure of call completion to a
    PSAP. Finally, if a commenting party were to conclude that 30
    minutes is not, we request that such a party include in its comments
    its reasoning for that conclusion and a recommendation for a more
    appropriate time interval for E911 emergency calls.

**VI. Outage Reporting Requirements for Cable Circuit-Switched
Telephony**

41. Failures in various portions of cable systems infrastructures[^88]
    can cause disruptions to cable circuit-switched telephony service.
    For example, failures within the cable distribution plant, the fiber
    distribution plant, cable headend systems, and voice terminating
    equipment, as well as failures within Local Exchange Carrier ("LEC")
    facilities such as switches and other points within the Public
    Switched Telephone Network ("PSTN") can cause cable telephony to be
    disrupted.[^89] Circuit-switched telephony provided by cable
    operators has always been subject to our communications disruption
    reporting requirements, and outage reports have been filed by cable
    operators.[^90] Nonetheless, we propose to amend Section 63.100 to
    make it explicitly clear that cable circuit-switched telephony is
    subject to our service disruption reporting requirements. The
    current thresholds for reporting cable telephony outages are the
    same as those for wireline telephony \-- outages must last at least
    30 minutes in duration and potentially affect at least 30,000
    customers. We propose to apply to cable telephony the same revised
    threshold reporting criteria (30 minutes/900,000 assigned telephone
    number-minutes potentially affected) that we are proposing for
    wireline telephony outage reporting and seek comment on this
    proposed addition to our rules.

**VII.** **Outage Reporting Requirements for Satellite Communications**

42. Section 63.100 of our rules does not contain outage reporting
    requirements that are applicable to satellite communications.[^91]
    We propose however, that because of the increasing role and
    importance of satellites in our national communications
    infrastructure, the prudent course is to require all major failures
    to be reported by U.S. space station licensees and by those foreign
    licensees that are providers of satellite communications to the
    American public. This would apply to satellites or transponders used
    to provide telephony and/or paging. Thus, our proposal does not
    include satellites or transponders used solely to provide
    intra-corporate or intra-organizational private telecommunications
    or solely for the one-way distribution of video or audio
    programming.

43. Satellite communications have space components and terrestrial
    components. The reporting requirements that we propose cover all
    satellite communications outages, regardless of whether they result
    from failures in the space or terrestrial components. Specifically,
    we propose to require the reporting of any loss of complete
    accessibility to a satellite or any of its transponders for 30
    minutes or more. Such outages could result, for example, from an
    inability to control a satellite, a loss of uplink or downlink
    communications, Telemetry Tracking and Command failures, or the loss
    of a satellite telephony terrestrially-based control center, and we
    regard such outages to be major infrastructure failures. Analogous
    to the cases of wireline, wireless, and cable communications, we
    also propose to require the reporting of the loss, for 30 minutes or
    more, of any satellite link or its associated terrestrial components
    that are used to provide telephony and/or paging, whenever at least
    900,000 user-minutes are potentially affected.[^92] We request
    comment on this proposed addition to our rules.[^93]

44. As previously noted,[^94] Part 25 of the Commission's Rules provides
    that certain satellite licensees file annual reports that contain
    some information on outages and that Mobile-Satellite Service
    (MSS)[^95] Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) licensees report
    certain outages within 10 days of their occurrence. These rules were
    adopted to provide the Commission with information necessary to
    assess the commercial and technical development of satellite
    services, including the efficiency of spectrum utilization by
    satellite licensees,[^96] and, in the case of MSS ATC licensees, to
    ensure that the terrestrial use of spectrum remains ancillary to
    satellite use.[^97] We believe that our proposed additional
    reporting requirements may be necessary so that we can more rapidly
    acquire information that will be more useful in achieving our
    objectives of increasing reliability and security in satellite
    communications. We seek comment on these proposals and on
    alternative ways to accomplish our objectives in this proceeding
    while minimizing any duplication of reporting requirements or
    unnecessary burdens on satellite communications providers.

45. Finally, we note that in the E911 Scope proceeding,[^98] we decided
    to require MSS providers of voice service that is interconnected
    with the PSTN to establish E911 call centers. We also directed NRIC
    to study several E911 implementation technical issues for satellite
    systems. Finally, we sought comment on whether transition periods
    are necessary for MSS providers with an ancillary terrestrial
    component (ATC) to comply with the terrestrial wireless E911
    requirements and on proposed reporting and recordkeeping
    requirements in connection with implementation of the emergency call
    center rule. We now propose that MSS providers of interconnected
    voice service will be subject to E911 outage-reporting requirements,
    including those proposed in the proceeding paragraph. Nevertheless,
    we propose to delay implementation of these proposed requirements
    for MSS providers until the implementation issues for the MSS,
    raised in the *Second Further Notice* in the E911 Scope
    proceeding,[^99] are resolved. We welcome comments on these
    proposals.

**VIII. Application to Underlying Infrastructure: Major Infrastructure
Failures**

46. The communications outage reports that we have received over the
    past ten years have provided significant insight into some of the
    major problems affecting circuit-switched voice communications. The
    infrastructure used to provide these services, however, is also used
    to provide many other services that are essential to Homeland
    Security and our nation's economy. A tiny glimpse into the other
    uses of our Nation's communications infrastructure was provided in
    Verizon's network outage report covering the World Trade Center
    disaster on September 11, 2001.[^100] That report states that "some
    300,000 dial tone lines and some 3.6 million DS0 equivalent data
    circuits were out of service" as a result of the damage. The ratio
    of more than ten times as many DS0[^101] equivalent services using
    the infrastructure as dial tone lines is not unusual in a major
    metropolitan area. Most of the DS0 equivalent circuits are used to
    carry what are frequently called "special services." While we have
    not previously required the reporting of communications outages that
    affected large numbers of special services, we need to recognize in
    our communications disruption reporting rules the continuously
    increasing importance of data communications throughout the United
    States. Our rules should be revised to account for important
    attributes of special services that have not been fully addressed in
    the earlier sections of this Notice that focused on different
    communications platforms. Rather than collect information that is
    limited specifically to "special services," however, we propose to
    directly address the underlying issue and collect information on the
    potential impact on all communications services of major
    infrastructure failures.

**A. DS3 Minutes**

47. As a consequence, we propose to establish additional
    outage-reporting criteria that would apply to failures of
    communications infrastructure components having significant
    traffic-carrying capacity. This requirement would apply to those
    communications providers for which we have already proposed
    outage-reporting requirements and would also apply to those
    affiliated and non-affiliated entities that maintain or provide
    communications systems on their behalf.[^102] We believe that the
    threshold reporting criterion for such infrastructure outages should
    be based on the number of DS3[^103] minutes affected by the outage
    because DS3s are the common denominator used throughout the
    communications industry as a measure of capacity. A DS3 can handle
    28 DS1s (T1s) or 672 DS0 (64 kbps voice or data circuits). On the
    higher end of the multiplexing hierarchy, an OC3 includes 3 DS3s, an
    OC48 includes 48 DS3s, and an OC192 includes 192 DS3s. Specifically,
    we propose to require the reporting of all outages of at least 30
    minutes duration that potentially affect at least 1,350 DS3
    minutes.[^104] We propose to count only working DS3s in this
    measure, by which we mean those actually carrying some traffic of
    any type at the time of a failure. For example, an OC24 could have a
    maximum of 24 DS3s working, but at the time of a failure might have
    only 10 DS3s that are in working condition and equipped with the
    necessary electronics. In this case, only the 10 DS3s would be
    counted in determining whether the threshold reporting criterion had
    been met. In addition, as discussed in Section VII of this Notice,
    we regard the failure for at least 30 minutes duration of a
    satellite or any of its in-service transponders as a major
    infrastructure failure and therefore have proposed to require
    reporting of such outages. We stress that the 1,350 DS3-minute and
    the satellite/transponder failure reporting criteria would be in
    addition to the 90,000 blocked-call and the 900,000 user-minute
    criteria proposed in the previous sections of the Notice. Whenever
    any of these criteria are exceeded, the outage would be reportable
    and the values of all three measures, if applicable, would be
    required to be included in the outage report. We request comment on
    these conclusions and proposed rules.

**B. Signaling System Seven (\"SS7\")**

48. Signaling System 7 (SS7) systems provide information to process, and
    terminate, virtually all domestic and international telephone calls
    irrespective of whether the call is wireless, wireline, local, long
    distance, or dial-up telephone modem access to ISPs.[^105] SS7 is
    also used in providing SMS text messaging services, 8XX number
    (i.e., toll free) services, local number portability, VoIP Signaling
    Gateway services, 555 type number services, and most paging
    services. Currently our rules do not require outage reporting by
    those companies that do not provide service directly to end users.
    In addition, even for companies currently subject to outage
    reporting requirements, no threshold reporting criteria are
    currently based on blocked or lost SS7 messages.[^106]

49. As a consequence, we are proposing the addition of SS7
    communications disruption reporting requirements. To be more
    specific, all providers of Signaling System 7 service (or its
    equivalent)[^107] would be required to report those communications
    disruptions of at least 30 minutes duration for which the number of
    blocked or lost ISDN User Part (ISUP) messages[^108] (or its
    equivalent) was at least 90,000.[^109] This reporting threshold is
    similar to the one for blocked calls that was addressed in
    connection with the wireline telephony outage reporting criteria
    (see *supra* ¶ 35). We request comment on these conclusions and
    proposed addition to our rules.

> IX\. Electronic Filing and New Reporting Process

50. Consistent with authority granted by the Communications Act of 1934,
    as amended,[^110] and in furtherance of the objectives of the
    Government Paperwork Elimination Act,[^111] we propose to require
    that communications outage reports be filed electronically with the
    Commission.[^112] Electronic filing would have several major
    advantages for the Commission, reporting communications providers,
    and the public. For example:

-   Providers would be able to file reports more rapidly and more
    efficiently.

-   Information would be updated immediately. The expenses and efforts
    that are associated with the outage reporting process should be
    reduced substantially which, in turn, should result in continuing
    productivity gains.

-   Changes to outage report data should be more easily accessible by
    communications providers, the public, and the Commission. Thus,
    reporting entities should be able to file initial and final report
    information more easily, and interested parties should also be able
    to access this information more quickly.

-   Changes to electronic input form(s) can be implemented more quickly.
    Two of the purposes of the reliability database are to help identify
    causes of outages and to refine best practices for averting failures
    in communications networks. As networks evolve and experience is
    gained, the data fields can be more easily revised to improve the
    quality of the information received to reflect changes in
    communications infrastructures and management procedures.

-   In addition, security precautions can be implemented to authenticate
    access by authorized users.

51. Our current outage reporting rules do not require, or even refer to,
    electronic filing (other than by facsimile). Although it is
    understandable, in retrospect, that our rules did not incorporate
    electronic filing because the Internet was just beginning to expand
    in 1992, the time has now arrived to implement electronic filing
    procedures.[^113] These procedures should not only facilitate
    compliance with the objectives that are expressed in the Government
    Paperwork Elimination Act but also should improve service to the
    public, enhance the efficiency of our internal operations, and
    virtually eliminate any burden that would be associated with
    complying with the proposed reporting requirements.[^114] It may,
    however, be desirable for other reasons to have alternative ways by
    which outage reports can be filed with this Commission. Accordingly,
    we request comment on whether there are any circumstances under
    which electronic filing would not be appropriate and, if so, on what
    alternative filing procedures should be used in such circumstances.
    Finally, we recognize that as experience is gained with the
    electronic filing of outage reports, modifications to the filing
    template may be necessary to fully implement an automated outage
    reporting system that will maximize reporting efficiency and
    minimize the time for providers to prepare, and for the Commission
    staff to review, outage reports. Accordingly, we propose to delegate
    authority to the Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology to make
    the revisions to the filing system and template that are necessary
    to achieve these goals.[^115]

52. Historically, outage reports from wireline carriers have been
    available to the public. We seek comment as to whether this policy
    should not be applied, in whole or in part, to outage reports that
    will be filed by wireless, wireline, satellite, or cable providers
    and, if so, why.

**X. Small Business Alternatives**

53. We note that the economic impact on small entities that would result
    from our proposed action consists of the electronic filing of two
    outage reports for each significant outage experienced. This impact
    is likely to not be significant, and we therefore might have chosen
    to certify this present action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
    5 U.S.C. § 605(b). However, out of an abundance of caution and a
    desire to have a fuller record regarding small entity compliance
    burdens, we have created the IRFA set forth *infra* paragraph 56 and
    Appendix C. In any event, we believe that our proposals will not
    have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
    businesses. We anticipate that our proposals would produce no more
    than 1,000 communications outage reports filed by all communications
    providers annually and that the vast majority of these reports will
    be filed by larger businesses. Our proposals would require the
    reporting of outages of at least 30 minutes duration that meet
    specified criteria. One of the criteria is that the outage
    potentially affects at least 900,000 user-minutes for providers of
    telephony and/or paging services (including wireline, cellular-type
    wireless, cable telephony, and satellite telephony services). Those
    communications providers that would qualify as "small businesses"
    are, we believe, highly unlikely to experience outages of sufficient
    magnitude to meet the user-minute criterion. If they were to
    experience such an outage, then a likely inference would be that a
    small number of users had lost service for several days duration, a
    situation of which we should be apprised. We do not believe that it
    would be wise to exempt small businesses from the proposed
    requirements to report outages of at least 30 minutes duration that
    also satisfy the other proposed reporting criteria (*i.e.,* those
    criteria that are not expressed in terms of user-minutes), such as
    the criteria of potentially affecting special facilities, offices,
    or services (including 911) or presenting major infrastructure
    failures or SS7 problems.

54. We request comment on these conclusions and on any useful
    alternatives that we should consider that would further reduce the
    impact of the outage reporting requirements on small businesses. We
    do not at this point believe that additional accommodations for
    small businesses are necessary, desirable, or advisable, but we will
    consider any such suggestions that are well supported analytically.

**XI. CONCLUSION**

55. For the reasons stated above, we propose to modify the
    communications outage reporting requirements currently set forth in
    Section 63.100 of the Commission's Rules and move the modified rule
    into Part 4, which we are creating for the purpose of addressing
    disruptions to communications regardless of the particular
    technological platform employed, as well as amending Sections 0.241
    and 0.31 of the Commission's Rules which delegate authority to, and
    describe the functions of, the Office of Engineering and Technology.
    These proposed rule changes are set forth in Appendix A to this
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making. We request comment on any other
    changes to our communications outage reporting rules that would
    eliminate inadequacies in these reporting requirements. Based upon
    the comments that we receive in this proceeding and on our analysis
    of the information that is before us, we may make such additional
    modifications to our existing and proposed communications
    outage-reporting requirements as may be necessary or desirable to
    fulfill, more fully, the objectives that are set forth in the
    Communications Act.

**XII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS**

## Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

56. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    (RFA),[^116] the Commission has prepared this present Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Act (IRFA) of the possible
    significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
    entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking (Notice). The IRFA is set forth in Appendix C.
    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 Notice provided in paragraph 57 of
    this Notice. The Commission will send a copy of this Notice,
    including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration (SBA).[^117] In addition, the Notice and
    IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
    Register.[^118]

## Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

57. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would establish both new and
    modified information collections. As part of our continuing efforts
    to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the
    Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information
    collections contained in this *Notice,* as required by the Paperwork
    Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and agency
    comments are due 60 days from publication of this Notice in the
    Federal Register. Comments should address the following: (a) whether
    the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper
    performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether
    the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
    Commission\'s burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
    utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
    minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
    respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
    other forms of information technology. In addition to filing
    comments with the Secretary of the Commission (see *infra*
    paragraphs 59-60), a copy of any Paperwork Reduction Act comments on
    the information collections proposed herein should be submitted to
    Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804,
    445 12^th^ Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
    <Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov> and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk
    Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17^th^ Street, NW, Washington, DC
    20503, or via the Internet to <Kristy_L._LaLonde@omb.eop.gov> or by
    fax to 202-395-5167.

## Comment Filing Procedures

58. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission\'s rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on
    or before sixty (60) days after publication of this Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking (\"Notice\") in the Federal Register and reply
    comments on or before ninety (90) days after publication of this
    Notice in the Federal Register. Comments may be filed using the
    Commission\'s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing
    paper copies.

59. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to \<<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>\>.
    Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed.
    If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of
    this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic
    copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced
    in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters
    should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address,
    and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also
    submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing
    instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail
    to [ecfs@fcc.gov](../ecfs@fcc.gov), and should include the following
    words in the body of the message, \"get form \<your e-mail
    address\>.\" A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.

60. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
    copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number
    appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit
    two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking
    number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
    commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
    Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in
    receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission\'s contractor,
    Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered
    paper filings for the Commission\'s Secretary at 236 Massachusetts
    Avenue, N.E., Suite 110, Washington, D.C. 20002. The filing hours at
    this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
    held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be
    disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail
    (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must
    be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S.
    Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail
    should be addressed to 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington,
    D.C. 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission\'s
    Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission.

61. Parties that are not filing electronically must also send three
    paper copies and a 3.5"diskette copy of their filings to Dwayne
    Jackson, Network Technologies Division, Office of Engineering and
    Technology, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street S.W.,
    Room 7-A226, Washington, D.C. 20554. In addition, commenters must
    send two (2) diskette copies to the Commission\'s copy contractor,
    Natek Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-B402,
    Washington, D.C. 20054.

## *Ex Parte* Presentations

62. In accordance with Section 1.1206 of the Commission\'s rules, this
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking initiates a permit‑but‑disclose
    notice‑and‑comment rulemaking proceeding. *Ex parte* presentations
    are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided
    that they are disclosed in accordance with the Commission\'s
    rules.[^119]

**XIII. ORDERING CLAUSES**

63. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to the authority contained
    in Sections 1, 4(i)-(j), 4(k), 4(o), 218, 219, 230, 256, 301,
    302(a), 303(f), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 403, 621(b)(3), and 621(d)
    of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151,
    154(i)-(j), 154(k), 154(o), 218, 219, 230, 256, 301, 302(a), 303(f),
    303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 403, 621(b)(3), and 621(d), and in Section
    1704 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
    Appropriations Act of 1998, 44 U.S.C. § 3504, this Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED.

64. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
    Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

> **FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**
>
> **Marlene H. Dortch**

**Secretary**

**APPENDIX A**

**PROPOSED RULES**

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend Parts 0 and 63 and to create new Part 4 of
Chapter I of Tile 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) as
follows:

**PART 0 -- COMMISSION ORGANIZATION**

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

**Authority:** Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155.

1\. Section 0.31 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (i) to
read as follows:

**[§ 0.31 Functions of the Office]{.underline}.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(i\) To administer parts 2, 4, 5, 15, and 18 of this chapter, including
licensing, recordkeeping, rule making, and revising the filing system
and template used for compliance with the Commission's communications
disruption reporting requirements.

\* \* \* \* \*

2\. Section 0.241 is proposed to be amended by revising the introductory
text paragraph (a) and paragraph (1) and paragraphs b through g and by
adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:

**[§ 0.241 Authority delegated]{.underline}.**

\(a\) The performance of functions and activities described in § 0.31 of
this part is delegated to the Chief of the Office of Engineering and
Technology: [Provided,]{.underline} that the following matters shall be
referred to the Commission en banc for disposition:

\(1\) Notices of proposed rulemaking and of inquiry and final orders in
rulemaking proceedings, inquiry proceedings and non‑editorial orders
making changes, except that the Chief of the Office of Engineering and
Technology is delegated authority to make the revisions to the filing
system and template necessary to maximize the efficiency of reporting
and responding to critical data and minimize the time for providers to
prepare and for the Commission staff to review the communications
disruption reports required to be filed pursuant to part 4 of this
chapter.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is delegated
authority to administer the Equipment Authorization program as described
in part 2 of the Commission\'s Rules.

\(c\) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is delegated
authority to administer the Experimental Radio licensing program
pursuant to part 5 of the Commission\'s Rules.

\(d\) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is delegated
authority to administer the communications disruption reporting
requirements that are contained in part 4 of this chapter and to revise
the filing system and template used for the submission of such reports.

\(e\) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is delegated
authority to examine all applications for certification (approval) of
subscription television technical systems as acceptable for use under a
subscription television authorization as provided for in this chapter,
to notify the applicant that an examination of the certified technical
information and data submitted in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter indicates that the system does or does not appear to be
acceptable for authorization as a subscription television system. This
delegation shall be exercised in consultation with the Chief, Media
Bureau.

\(f\) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is
authorized to dismiss or deny petitions for rulemaking which are
repetitive or moot or which for other reasons plainly do not warrant
consideration by the Commission.

\(g\) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is
authorized to enter into agreements with the National Institute of
Standards and Technology and other accreditation bodies to perform
accreditation of test laboratories pursuant to § 2.948(d) of this
chapter. In addition, the Chief is authorized to make determinations
regarding the continued acceptability of individual accrediting
organizations and accredited laboratories.

\(h\) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is delegated
authority to enter into agreements with the National Institute of
Standards and Technology to perform accreditation of Telecommunication
Certification Bodies (TCBs) pursuant to §§ 2.960 and 2.962 of this
chapter. In addition, the Chief is delegated authority to develop
specific methods that will be used to accredit TCBs, to designate TCBs,
to make determinations regarding the continued acceptability of
individual TCBs, and to develop procedures that TCBs will use for
performing post‑market surveillance.

\(i\) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is delegated
authority to make nonsubstantive, editorial revisions to the
Commission's rules and regulations contained in parts 2, 4, 5, 15, and
18 of this chapter.

**PART 4 -- DISRUPTIONS TO COMMUNICATIONS**

**GENERAL**

Sec.

4.1 Scope, basis and purpose.

**Reporting Requirements for Disruptions to Communications**

3.  Communications providers covered by the requirements of this part.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
5.  Definitions of outages, special offices and facilities, and 911
    special facilities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
7.  Definitions of metrics used to determine the general
    outage-reporting threshold criteria.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
9.  Outage reporting requirements \-- threshold criteria.

4.11 Initial and final communications outage reports that must be filed
by communications providers.

4.13 Reports by the National Communications System (NCS) and by special
offices and facilities, and related responsibilities of communications
providers.

The authority citation for Part 4 is proposed to read as follows:

**Authority:** Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o), 218, 219, 230, 256, 301,
302(a), 303(f), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 403, 621(b)(3), and 621(d) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),
154(j), 154(o), 218, 219, 230, 256, 301, 302(a), 303(f), 303(g), 303(j),
303(r), 403, 621(b)(3), and 621(d), unless otherwise noted.

GENERAL

**§ 4.1 Scope, basis and purpose.**

By these rules the Federal Communications Commission is setting forth
requirements pertinent to the reporting of disruptions to communications
and to the reliability of communications infrastructures.

**Reporting Requirements for Disruptions to Communications**

2\. New section 4.3 is proposed to read as follows:

**[§ 4.3 Communications providers covered by the requirements of this
part.]{.underline}** As used in this Part:

(a) "Cable communications" providers are cable service providers that
    also provide circuit-switched telephony. Also included are
    affiliated and non-affiliated entities that maintain or provide
    communications systems or services used by the provider in offering
    telephony.

(b) "Wireless service" providers include Commercial Mobile Radio Service
    communications providers that use cellular architecture and CMRS
    paging providers. In particular, they include Cellular Radio
    Telephone Service (Part 22 of the Commission's Rules), Personal
    Communications Service (PCS) (Part 24), and enhanced Special Mobile
    Radio Service (Part 90) providers, as well as those private paging
    (Part 90) providers that are treated as CMRS providers (see Section
    20.9 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 20.9) and narrowband PCS
    providers (Part 24). Also included are affiliated and non-affiliated
    entities that maintain or provide communications systems or services
    used by the provider in offering such communications.

(c) IXC or LEC tandem facilities refer to the tandem facilities used in
    the provision of interexchange or local exchange communications.

(d) "Satellite communications providers" use space stations as a means
    of providing the public with communications, such as telephony and
    paging. Also included are affiliated and non-affiliated entities
    that maintain or provide communications systems or services used by
    the provider in offering such communications.

(e) Signaling System 7 (SS7) is a signaling system used to control
    telecommunications networks. It is frequently used to "set up,"
    process, control, and terminate circuit-switched telecommunications,
    including but not limited to domestic and international telephone
    calls (irrespective of whether the call is wholly or in part
    wireless, wireline, local, long distance, or is carried over cable
    or satellite infrastructure), SMS text messaging services, 8XX
    number type services, local number portability, VoIP signaling
    gateway services, 555 number type services, and most paging
    services. For purposes of this rule Part, SS7 refers to both the SS7
    protocol and the packet networks through which signaling information
    is transported and switched or routed. It includes future
    modifications to the existing SS7 architecture that will provide the
    functional equivalency of the SS7 services and network elements that
    exist as of **\[the date of adoption of this rule\]**. SS7
    communications providers are subject to the provisions of Part 4 of
    the Commission's rules regardless of whether or not they provide
    service directly to end users. Also subject to Part 4 of the
    Commission's rules are affiliated and non-affiliated entities that
    maintain or provide communications systems or services used by the
    SS7 provider in offering SS7 communications.

(f) "Wireline communications providers" offer terrestrial communications
    through direct connectivity, predominantly by wire, coaxial cable,
    or optical fiber, between the serving central office (as now defined
    on October 1, 2002 in the glossary to Part 36 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 36, Appendix-Glossary) and end user
    location(s). Also included are affiliated and non-affiliated
    entities that maintain or provide communications systems or services
    used by the provider in offering such communications.

(g) "Communications provider" is an entity that provides two-way voice
    and/or data communications, and/or paging service, by radio, wire,
    cable, satellite, and/or lightguide for a fee to one or more
    unaffiliated entities.

2\. New section 4.5 is proposed to read as follows:

**[§ 4.5 Definitions of outage, special offices and facilities, and 911
special facilities]{.underline}**. As used in this Part:

(a) "Outage" is defined as a significant degradation in the ability of
    an end user to establish and maintain a channel of communications as
    a result of failure or degradation in the performance of a
    communications provider\'s network.

(b) Special offices and facilities are defined as airports, major
    military installations, key government facilities, and nuclear power
    plants. The member agencies of the National Communications System
    (NCS) will determine which of their locations are "major military
    installations\'\' and "key government facilities.\'\' 911 special
    facilities are addressed separately in paragraph (e) of this
    section.

(c) An outage that "potentially affects\'\' an airport is defined as an
    outage that: (i) disrupts 50% or more of the air traffic control
    links or other FAA communications links to any airport; or (ii) has
    caused an Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) or airport to
    lose its radar; or (iii) causes a loss of both primary and backup
    facilities at any ARTCC or airport; or (iv) affects an ARTCC or
    airport that is deemed important by the FAA as indicated by FAA
    inquiry to the provider's management personnel; or (v) has affected
    any ARTCC or airport and that has received any media attention of
    which the communications provider\'s reporting personnel are aware.

(d) A mission-affecting outage is defined as an outage that is deemed
    critical to national security/emergency preparedness (NS/EP)
    operations of the affected facility by the National Communications
    System member agency operating the affected facility.

(e) An outage that potentially affects a 911 special facility is defined
    as an outage that potentially affects the ability of a
    communications provider to complete 911 calls (including all
    associated name, identification, and location data). Such outages
    include those significant service degradations and switch or
    transport failures where rerouting to the same or an alternative
    answering location was not implemented. Examples of such outages
    include one or more of the following situations:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) isolation of one or more Public Service Answering Points (PSAPs) for
    > at least 30 minutes duration; or

(2) loss of call processing capabilities in one or more E911 tandems for
    > at least 30 minutes duration; or

(3) isolation of one or more end office switches or host/remote
    > clusters, for at least 30 minutes duration.

3\. New section 4.7 is proposed to read as follows:

**[§ 4.7 Definitions of metrics used to determine the general
outage-reporting threshold criteria.]{.underline}** As used in this
Part:

(a) "Administrative numbers" are defined as the telephone numbers used
    by communications providers to perform internal administrative or
    operational functions necessary to maintain reasonable quality of
    service standards.

(b) "Assigned numbers" are defined as the telephone numbers working in
    the Public Switched Telephone Network under an agreement such as a
    contract or tariff at the request of specific end users or customers
    for their use, or numbers not yet working but having a customer
    service order pending. Numbers that are not yet working and have a
    service order pending for more than five days shall not be
    classified as assigned numbers.

(c) "Assigned telephone number minutes" are defined as the mathematical
    result of multiplying the duration of an outage, expressed in
    minutes, by the sum of the number of assigned numbers (defined in
    paragraph (b) of this section) potentially affected by the outage
    and the number of administrative numbers (defined in paragraph (a)
    of this section) potentially affected by the outage.

(d) "DS3 minutes" are defined as the mathematical result of multiplying
    the duration of an outage, expressed in minutes, by the number of
    previously operating DS3 circuits that were affected by the outage.

(e) "User minutes" are defined as:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(A) assigned telephone number minutes (as defined in paragraph (c) of
    > this section), for telephony and for those paging systems in which
    > each individual user is assigned a telephone number;

(B) the mathematical result of multiplying the duration of an outage,
    > expressed in minutes, by the number of end users potentially
    > affected by the outage, for all other forms of communications.

4\. New section 4.9 is proposed to read as follows:

**[§ 4.9 Outage reporting requirements -- threshold
criteria.]{.underline}**

(a) *Cable.* All cable communications providers shall submit
    electronically an Initial Communications Outage Report to the
    Commission within 120 minutes of discovering that they have
    experienced on any facilities that they own, operate, lease, or
    otherwise utilize, an outage of at least 30 minutes duration
    that: (1) potentially affects at least 900,000 user minutes of
    telephony service; (2) affects at least 1,350 DS3 minutes; (3)
    represents the loss of at least one satellite transponder; (4)
    potentially affects any special offices and facilities (in
    accordance with paragraphs (a) - (d) of section 4.5); or (5)
    potentially affects a 911 special facility (as defined in
    paragraph (e) of section 4.5), in which case they also shall notify,
    as soon as possible by telephone or other electronic means, any
    official who has been designated by the management of the affected
    911 facility as the provider's contact person for communications
    outages at that facility, and they shall convey to that person all
    available information that may be useful to the management of the
    affected facility in mitigating the effects of the outage on callers
    to that facility. (DS3 minutes and user minutes are defined in
    paragraphs (d) and (e) of section 4.7.) Not later than thirty days
    after the outage, the provider shall submit electronically a Final
    Communications Outage Report to the Commission. The Initial and
    Final reports shall comply with all of the requirements of section
    4.11.

(b) *Wireless.* All wireless service providers shall submit
    electronically an Initial Communications Outage Report to the
    Commission within 120 minutes of discovering that they have
    experienced on any facilities that they own, operate, lease, or
    otherwise utilize, an outage of at least 30 minutes duration: (1) of
    a Mobile Switching Center (MSC); (2) that potentially affects at
    least 900,000 user minutes of either telephony and associated data
    (2^nd^ generation or lower) service or paging service; (3) that
    affects at least 1,350 DS3 minutes; (4) represents the loss of at
    least one satellite transponder; (5) that potentially affects any
    special offices and facilities (in accordance with
    paragraphs (a) - (d) of section 4.5); or (6) that potentially
    affects a 911 special facility (as defined in (e) of section 4.5),
    in which case they also shall notify, as soon as possible by
    telephone or other electronic means, any official who has been
    designated by the management of the affected 911 facility as the
    provider's contact person for communications outages at that
    facility, and they shall convey to that person all available
    information that may be useful to the management of the affected
    facility in mitigating the effects of the outage on callers to that
    facility. (DS3 minutes and user minutes are defined in
    paragraphs (d) and (e) of section 4.7.) Not later than thirty days
    after the outage, the provider shall submit electronically a Final
    Communications Outage Report to the Commission. The Initial and
    Final reports shall comply with all the requirements of section
    4.11.

(c) *IXC or LEC tandem facilities.* In the case of IXC or LEC tandem
    facilities, providers must, if technically possible, use real‑time
    blocked calls to determine whether criteria for reporting an outage
    have been reached. Providers must report IXC and LEC tandem outages
    of at least 30 minutes duration in which at least 90,000 calls are
    blocked or at least 1,350 DS3-minutes are lost. The number of
    blocked calls is the sum of the number of blocked originating calls
    and the number of blocked terminating calls. Providers may use
    historical data for the appropriate time(s) of day to estimate
    blocked calls when required real‑time blocked call counts are not
    possible. When using historical data, providers must report
    incidents where at least 30,000 originating and terminating calls
    are blocked during a period of at least 30 minutes duration. (DS3
    minutes are defined in paragraph (d) of section 4.7.)

(d) *Satellite.* All satellite communications providers shall submit
    electronically an Initial Communications Outage Report to the
    Commission within 120 minutes of discovering that they have
    experienced on any facilities that they own, operate, lease, or
    otherwise utilize, an outage of at least 30 minutes duration that
    manifests itself as: (1) a loss of complete accessibility to at
    least one satellite or transponder; (2) a loss of a satellite
    communications link that potentially affects at least 900,000 user
    minutes of either telephony service or paging service; (3) affecting
    at least 1,350 DS3 minutes; or (4) potentially affecting any special
    offices and facilities (in accordance with paragraphs (a) - (d) of
    section 4.5). (DS3 minutes and user minutes are defined in
    paragraphs (d) and (e) of section 4.7.) Not later than thirty days
    after the outage, the provider shall submit electronically a Final
    Communications Outage Report to the Commission. The Initial and
    Final reports shall comply with all the requirements of section
    4.11. Excluded from these outage-reporting requirements are
    satellite transponders used solely for intra-corporate or
    intra-organizational private telecommunications networks, and
    satellite transponders that are used solely for the one-way
    distribution of video or audio programming.

(e) *Signaling System 7.* Signaling System 7 (SS7) providers shall
    submit electronically an Initial Communications Outage Report to the
    Commission within 120 minutes of discovering that they have
    experienced on any facilities that they own, operate, lease, or
    otherwise utilize an outage of at least 30 minutes duration that
    manifests itself as the loss or blocking of at least 90,000 ISDN
    User Part (ISUP) messages. The number of lost or blocked messages
    may be based on call logs if available. Otherwise if call logs are
    not available, the number of lost or blocked messages may be
    estimated based on the normal message volumes during the applicable
    time(s) of day. Not later than thirty days after the outage, the
    provider shall submit electronically a Final Communications Outage
    Report to the Commission. The Initial and Final reports shall comply
    with all the requirements of section 4.11.

(f) *Wireline.* All wireline communications providers that operate
    transmission, routing, or switching facilities and provide
    interstate or international communications service shall submit
    electronically an Initial Communications Outage Report to the
    Commission within 120 minutes of discovering that they have
    experienced on any facilities that they own, operate, lease, or
    otherwise utilize, an outage of at least 30 minutes duration
    that: (1) potentially affects at least 900,000 user minutes of
    either telephony or paging; (2) affects at least 1,350 DS3
    minutes; (3) represents the loss of at least one satellite
    transponder; (4) potentially affects any special offices and
    facilities (in accordance with paragraphs (a) - (d) of section 4.5);
    or (5) potentially affects a 911 special facility (as defined in (e)
    of section 4.5), in which case they also shall notify, as soon as
    possible by telephone or other electronic means, any official who
    has been designated by the management of the affected 911 facility
    as the provider's contact person for communications outages at that
    facility, and the provider shall convey to that person all available
    information that may be useful to the management of the affected
    facility in mitigating the effects of the outage on efforts to
    communicate with that facility. (DS3 minutes and user minutes are
    defined in paragraphs (d) and (e) of section 4.7.) Not later than
    thirty days after the outage, the provider shall submit
    electronically a Final Communications Outage Report to the
    Commission. The Initial and Final reports shall comply with all the
    requirements of section 4.11.

5\. New section 4.11 is proposed to read as follows:

**[§ 4.11 Initial and Final Communications Outage Reports that must be
filed by communications providers.]{.underline}** Initial and Final
Communications Outage Reports shall be submitted by a person authorized
by the communications provider to submit such reports to the Commission.
The person submitting the Final report to the Commission shall also be
authorized by the provider to legally bind the provider to the truth,
completeness, and accuracy of the information contained in the report.
Each Initial report shall be attested by the person submitting the
report that he/she has read the report prior to submitting it and on
oath deposes and states that the information contained therein is true,
correct, and accurate to the best of his/her knowledge and belief. Each
Final report shall be attested by the person submitting the report that
he/she has read the report prior to submitting it and on oath deposes
and states that the information contained therein is true, correct, and
accurate to the best of his/her knowledge and belief and that the
communications provider on oath deposes and states that this information
is true, complete, and accurate. The Initial and Final reports shall
contain the information \[identified in Appendix B to the *Notice of
Proposed Rule Making\]*. The Final report shall contain all pertinent
information on the outage, including any information that was not
contained in, or that has changed from that provided in, the Initial
report.

6\. New section 4.13 is proposed to read as follows:

**[§ 4.13 Reports by the National Communications System (NCS) and by
special offices and facilities, and related responsibilities of
communications providers.]{.underline}** Reports by the National
Communications System (NCS) and by special offices and facilities (other
than 911 special offices and facilities) of outages potentially
affecting them (see paragraphs (a) -- (d) of section 4.5) shall be made
according to the following procedures:

(a) When there is a mission-affecting outage, the affected facility will
    report the outage to the NCS and call the communications provider in
    order to determine if the outage is expected to last 30 minutes. If
    the outage is not expected to, and does not, last 30 minutes, it
    will not be reported to the Commission. If it is expected to last 30
    minutes or does last 30 minutes, the NCS, on the advice of the
    affected special facility, will either:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) Forward a report of the outage to the Commission, supplying the
    > information for initial reports affecting special facilities
    > specified in this section of the Commission\'s Rules;

(2) Forward a report of the outage to the Commission, designating the
    > outage as one affecting "special facilities,\'\' but reporting it
    > at a level of detail that precludes identification of the
    > particular facility involved; or

(3) Hold the report at the NCS due to the critical nature of the
    > application.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(b) If there is to be a report to the Commission, an electronic,
    written, or oral report will be given by the NCS within 120 minutes
    of an outage to the Commission\'s Duty Officer, on duty 24 hours a
    day in the FCC\'s Communications and Crisis Management Center in
    Washington, DC. Notification may be served at such other facility
    designated by the Commission by public notice or (at the time of the
    emergency) by public announcement only if there is a telephone
    outage or similar emergency in Washington, DC. If the report is
    oral, it is to be followed by an electronic or written report the
    next business day. Those providers whose service failures are in any
    way responsible for the outage must consult and cooperate in good
    faith with NCS upon its request for information.

(c) Additionally, if there is to be a report to the Commission, the
    communications provider will provide a written report to the NCS,
    supplying the information for final reports for special facilities
    required by this section of the Commission\'s rules. The
    communications provider\'s final report to the NCS will be filed
    within 28 days after the outage, allowing the NCS to then file the
    report with the Commission within 30 days after the outage. If the
    outage is reportable as described in paragraph (b) of this section,
    and the NCS determines that the final report can be presented to the
    Commission without jeopardizing matters of national security or
    emergency preparedness, the NCS will forward the report as provided
    in either paragraphs (a) (1) or (a) (2) of this section to the
    Commission.

**PART 63 -- EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES, AND DISCONTINUANCE,
REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND
GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS**

The authority citation for Part 63 continues to read as follows:

**Authority:** Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 10, 11, 201-205, 214, 218, 403
and 651 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
154(i), 154(j), 160, 161, 201-205, 214, 218, 403, and 571, unless
otherwise noted.

1\. Section 63.100 is proposed to be amended by removing paragraphs (a)
through (h) and revising § 63.100 to reads as follows:

**[§ 63.100 Notification of service outage.]{.underline}**

The requirements for communications providers concerning communications
disruptions and the filing of outage reports are set forth in Part 4 of
this chapter.

**APPENDIX B**

#### PROPOSED ELECTRONIC FILING TEMPLATE {#proposed-electronic-filing-template .unnumbered}

The proposed template for reporting telecommunications disruption
("outage") information is given below. It is expected that additions,
modifications, and deletions to this proposed template will be made as
appropriate to better achieve the purposes that are contained in
Sections 1 and 256 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and as
discussed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. We propose to delegate
authority to the Chief, Office of Engineering Technology, to modify the
Commission\'s telecommunications disruption reports, including this
template, to reflect changes in technology, usage patterns, evolving
telecommunications disruption characteristics and the Commission\'s
needs for information in this area (*see generally,* 47 U.S.C. §
155(c)(1)).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Name of Reporting Entity (e.g., Company)**:                         |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Type of Entity Reporting Disruption:**                              |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Date of Incident**:                                                 |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Local Time Incident Began (24 hr clock)**:                          |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Outage Duration**:                                                  |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}**Hrs**                                |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}**Min**                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Explanation of Outage Duration (for incidents with partial          |
| restoration times)**\                                                 |
| ![](media/image3.wmf){width="4.490972222222222in"                     |
| height="0.9263888888888889in"}                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Inside Building Yes**                                               |
| ![](media/image4.wmf){width="0.28194444444444444in"                   |
| height="0.23958333333333334in"}                                       |
| **No**![](media/image5.wmf){width="0.28194444444444444in"             |
| height="0.23958333333333334in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Effects of the Outage**                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Services Affected**                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Cable Telephony:  **                                                |
| ![](media/image5.wmf){width="0.28194444444444444in"                   |
| height="0.23958333333333334in"}                                       |
|                                                                       |
| **Wireless (other than paging):  **                                   |
| ![](media/image5.wmf){width="0.28194444444444444in"                   |
| height="0.23958333333333334in"}                                       |
|                                                                       |
| **E911:  ** ![](media/image5.wmf){width="0.28194444444444444in"       |
| height="0.23958333333333334in"}                                       |
|                                                                       |
| **Paging:** ![](media/image4.wmf){width="0.28194444444444444in"       |
| height="0.23958333333333334in"}                                       |
|                                                                       |
| **Satellite:** ![](media/image4.wmf){width="0.28194444444444444in"    |
| height="0.23958333333333334in"}                                       |
|                                                                       |
| **Signaling (SS7):   **                                               |
| ![](media/image4.wmf){width="0.28194444444444444in"                   |
| height="0.23958333333333334in"}                                       |
|                                                                       |
| **Special Facilities (Airport,**                                      |
|                                                                       |
| **Government, etc.):**                                                |
| ![](media/image4.wmf){width="0.28194444444444444in"                   |
| height="0.23958333333333334in"}                                       |
|                                                                       |
| **Wireline:** ![](media/image5.wmf){width="0.28194444444444444in"     |
| height="0.23958333333333334in"}                                       |
|                                                                       |
| **Other (please specify)**                                            |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Number of Potentially Affected:**                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Wireline Users:**                                                   |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Wireless (non-paging) Users:**                                      |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Paging Users:** ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"  |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Cable Telephony Users:**                                            |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Satellite Users:**                                                  |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Number of Affected:**                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Blocked Calls (Originating + Terminating):**                        |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DS3s:** ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"          |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **SS7 Signaling Messages (Blocked or Failed):**                       |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mobile Switching Center (MSC) Failed Yes**                          |
| ![](media/image4.wmf){width="0.28194444444444444in"                   |
| height="0.23958333333333334in"}                                       |
| **No**![](media/image4.wmf){width="0.28194444444444444in"             |
| height="0.23958333333333334in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Geographic Area Affected**                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| **State**:   ![](media/image6.wmf){width="1.7069444444444444in"       |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
|                                                                       |
| **County**:   ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"      |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **More Complete Description of Geographic Area of Outage**\           |
| ![](media/image7.wmf){width="4.490972222222222in"                     |
| height="0.9263888888888889in"}                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Description of Incident**\                                          |
| ![](media/image7.wmf){width="4.490972222222222in"                     |
| height="0.9263888888888889in"}                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Description of the Cause(s) of the Outage**\                        |
| ![](media/image7.wmf){width="4.490972222222222in"                     |
| height="0.9263888888888889in"}                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Direct Causes: The direct cause is the immediate event that         |
| resulted in an outage. Please scroll down to the appropriate          |
| entry.**\                                                             |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Root Cause(s): The root cause is the underlying reason why the      |
| outage occurred. Please scroll down to the appropriate entry.**\      |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Other Causes 2. Please scroll down to the appropriate entry.**\     |
| ![](media/image8.wmf){width="5.969444444444444in"                     |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Other Causes 3. Please scroll down to the appropriate entry.**\     |
| ![](media/image8.wmf){width="5.969444444444444in"                     |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Absence of Physical Or Logical Separation of Network Facility or    |
| Software That Would Have Prevented The Outage**:                      |
| ![](media/image9.wmf){width="0.7076388888888889in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Malicious Activity:**                                               |
| ![](media/image9.wmf){width="0.7076388888888889in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **If yes, please explain**                                            |
|                                                                       |
| ![](media/image7.wmf){width="4.490972222222222in"                     |
| height="0.9263888888888889in"}                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Name and Type of Equipment that Failed**:                           |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Specific Part of the Network Involved**:                            |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Method(s) Used to Restore Service**\                                |
| ![](media/image7.wmf){width="4.490972222222222in"                     |
| height="0.9263888888888889in"}                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Steps Taken to Prevent Reoccurrence**\                              |
| ![](media/image7.wmf){width="4.490972222222222in"                     |
| height="0.9263888888888889in"}                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Applicable Best Practices That Might Have Prevented**               |
|                                                                       |
| **the Outage or Reduced Its Effects**\                                |
| ![](media/image7.wmf){width="4.490972222222222in"                     |
| height="0.9263888888888889in"}                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Best Practices Used**\                                              |
| ![](media/image7.wmf){width="4.490972222222222in"                     |
| height="0.9263888888888889in"}                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Analysis of Best Practices**\                                       |
| ![](media/image7.wmf){width="4.490972222222222in"                     |
| height="0.9263888888888889in"}                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Primary Contact Person:**                                           |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Phone Number:** ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"  |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **E-mail Address:**                                                   |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **U.S. Postal Service Address**                                       |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
|                                                                       |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
|                                                                       |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Secondary Contact Person:**                                         |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Phone Number:** ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"  |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **E-Mail Address** ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in" |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **U.S. Postal Service Address**                                       |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
|                                                                       |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
|                                                                       |
| ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.9986111111111111in"                    |
| height="0.24861111111111112in"}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**APPENDIX C**

**Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act ("RFA"),[^120] the
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
("IRFA") of the possible significant economic impact on small entities
by the policies and rules proposed in this *Notice of Proposed Rule
Making* ("*Notice"*). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA
and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the *Notice* provided
above in paragraph 57. The Commission will send a copy of the* Notice*,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.[^121] In addition, the *Notice* (or summaries
thereof), including the IRFA, will be published in the Federal
Register.[^122]

*A. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules.* We seek comment on
whether communications providers, whose customers experience outages on
any facilities that the providers own, operate, lease, or otherwise
utilize, should be required to report those outages that meet the
revised reporting criteria set forth in our proposed amendments to
Section 63.100 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 63.100. The
current rule applies outage-reporting requirements only to wireline
common carriers and to circuit-switched telephony service, if any, that
is offered by cable television service providers. Our proposal, however,
would extend such requirements to those commercial mobile radio service
(CMRS) providers that employ cellular architecture ("wireless service
providers"), terrestrial or satellite paging providers, satellite
communications providers, affiliated or non-affiliated entities that
maintain or provide communications systems or services used by the
provider in offering such communications, and Signaling System 7 (SS7)
providers. We believe that this proposed extension of the outage
reporting requirements will provide needed information for fulfilling
our statutory responsibilities with respect to the reliability of
communications and their underlying infrastructures, given the
increasing substitutability of communications through different media
and our Nation's increasing reliance on these substitutes for Homeland
Defense and National Security. Similarly, the changes that we propose in
the threshold reporting criteria are well tailored, we believe, to
accomplish this objective. Our proposal to move the outage-reporting
requirements out of Part 63 and into Part 4 of the Commission's rules
reflects that the proposed rules would be adapted to and applied broadly
across all communications platforms to the extent discussed in the
*Notice of Proposed Rule Making*. Finally, the proposed rules would
require electronic filing of outage reports, pursuant to the
requirements of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 1998, 44 U.S.C. § 1704.

*B. Legal Basis.* The legal basis for the rule changes proposed in this
*Notice* are contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(k), 4(o), 218, 219, 230,
256, 301, 302(a), 303(f), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 303(v), 403,
621(b)(3), and 621(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(k), 154(o), 218, 219, 230, 256, 301, 302(a),
303(f), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 303(v), 403, 621(b)(3), and 621(d), and
in section 1704 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 1998, 44 U.S.C. § 1704.

*C. Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rules Adopted in This Notice May Apply.* The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules.[^123] The
RFA generally defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning
as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
governmental jurisdiction."[^124] In addition, the term "small business"
has the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the
Small Business Act.[^125] A small business concern is one which: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
Small Business Administration (SBA).[^126]

We further describe and estimate the number of small entity licensees
and regulatees that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to this
*Notice*. The most reliable source of information regarding the total
numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as
well as the number of commercial wireless entities, appears to be the
data that the Commission publishes in its *Trends in Telephone Service*
report.[^127] The SBA has developed small business size standards for
wireline and wireless small businesses within the three commercial
census categories of Wired Telecommunications Carriers,[^128]
Paging,[^129] and Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.[^130]
Under these categories, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Below, using the above size standards and others, we discuss
the total estimated numbers of small businesses that might be affected
by our actions.

We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As
noted above, a "small business" under the RFA is one that, *inter alia*,
meets the pertinent small business size standard (*e.g.*, a wired
telecommunications carrier having 1,500 or fewer employees), and "is not
dominant in its field of operation."[^131] The SBA's Office of Advocacy
contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant
in their field of operation because any such dominance is not "national"
in scope.[^132] We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this
RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect
on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

*Wired Telecommunications Carriers*. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which
consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees.[^133]
According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 2,225 firms in this
category, total, that operated for the entire year.[^134] Of this total,
2,201 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional
24 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^135] Thus, under
this size standard, the great majority of firms can be considered small.

*Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs)*. Neither the Commission nor
the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under
SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees.[^136] According to Commission data,[^137] 1,337 carriers have
reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local
exchange services. Of these 1,337 carriers, an estimated 1,032 have
1,500 or fewer employees and 305 have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent
local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our
action.

*Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access
Providers (CAPs), "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and "Other Local
Service Providers."* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
small business size standard specifically for these service providers.
The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^138] According to
Commission data,[^139] 609 carriers have reported that they are engaged
in the provision of either competitive access provider services or
competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 609 carriers, an
estimated 458 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 151 have more than 1,500
employees. In addition, 16 carriers have reported that they are
"Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and all 16 are estimated to have
1.500 or fewer employees. In addition, 35 carriers have reported that
they are "Other Local Service Providers." Of the 35, an estimated 34
have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of
competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers,
"Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and "Other Local Service Providers"
are small entities that may be affected by our action.

*Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of
interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is
for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees.[^140] According to Commission data,[^141] 261 carriers have
reported that they are engaged in the provision of interexchange
service. Of these, an estimated 223 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 38
have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates
that the majority of IXCs are small entities that may be affected by our
action.

*Wireless Service Providers***.** The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for wireless small businesses within the two separate
categories of Paging[^142] and Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications. [^143] Under both SBA categories, a wireless
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the
Commission's most recent data,[^144] 1,387 companies reported that they
were engaged in the provision of wireless service. Of these 1,387
companies, an estimated 945 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 442 have
more than 1,500 employees.[^145] Consequently, the Commission estimates
that most wireless service providers are small entities that may be
affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.

*Broadband Personal Communications Service.* The broadband Personal
Communications Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency
blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for
each block. The Commission defined "small entity" for Blocks C and F as
an entity that has average gross revenues of \$40 million or less in the
three previous calendar years.[^146] For Block F, an additional
classification for "very small business" was added and is defined as an
entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of
not more than \$15 million for the preceding three calendar
years."[^147] These standards defining "small entity" in the context of
broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA.[^148] No small
businesses, within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid
successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning
bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A
total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40
percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F.[^149] On March 23,
1999, the Commission re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses.
There were 48 small business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the
Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses
in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29
qualified as "small" or "very small" businesses. Based on this
information, the Commission concludes that the number of small broadband
PCS licenses would have included the 90 winning C Block bidders, the 93
qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F Block auctions, the 48 winning
bidders in the 1999 re-auction, and the 29 winning bidders in the 2001
re-auction, for a total of 260 small entity broadband PCS providers, as
defined by the SBA small business size standards and the Commission's
auction rules. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 260 broadband
PCS providers would have been small entities that could be affected by
the rules and policies adopted herein. The results of Auction No. 35,
however, were set aside and the licenses previously awarded to NextWave,
which had qualified as a small entity, were reinstated. Therefore, the
Commission estimates that less than 260 broadband PCS providers will be
small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted
herein.

*Narrowband Personal Communications Services.* To date, two auctions of
narrowband personal communications services (PCS) licenses have been
conducted. For purposes of the two auctions that have already been held,
"small businesses" were entities with average gross revenues for the
prior three calendar years of \$40 million or less. Through these
auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41 licenses, out of
which 11 were obtained by small businesses. To ensure meaningful
participation of small business entities in future auctions, the
Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in the
*Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order*.[^150] A "small business" is an
entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has
average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than
\$40 million. A "very small business" is an entity that, together with
affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the
three preceding years of not more than \$15 million. The SBA has
approved these small business size standards.[^151] In the future, the
Commission will auction 459 licenses to serve Metropolitan Trading Areas
(MTAs) and 408 response channel licenses. There is also one megahertz of
narrowband PCS spectrum that has been held in reserve and that the
Commission has not yet decided to release for licensing. The Commission
cannot predict accurately the number of licenses that will be awarded to
small entities in future actions. However, four of the 16 winning
bidders in the two previous narrowband PCS auctions were small
businesses, as that term was defined under the Commission's Rules. The
Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis that a large portion
of the remaining narrowband PCS licenses will be awarded to small
entities. The Commission also assumes that at least some small
businesses will acquire narrowband PCS licenses by means of the
Commission's partitioning and disaggregation rules.

*800 MHz and 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses.* The Commission
awards "small entity" and "very small entity" bidding credits in
auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) geographic area licenses in
the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that had revenues of no more than
\$15 million in each of the three previous calendar years, or that had
revenues of no more than \$3 million in each of the previous calendar
years, respectively.[^152] These bidding credits apply to SMR providers
in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands that either hold geographic area
licenses or have obtained extended implementation authorizations. The
Commission does not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz
geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended implementation
authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of
no more than \$15 million. One firm has over \$15 million in revenues.
The Commission assumes, for purposes here, that all of the remaining
existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small
entities, as that term is defined by the SBA. The Commission has held
auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR
bands. There were 60 winning bidders that qualified as small or very
small entities in the 900 MHz SMR auctions. Of the 1,020 licenses won in
the 900 MHz auction, bidders qualifying as small or very small entities
won 263 licenses. In the 800 MHz auction, 38 of the 524 licenses won
were won by small and very small entities. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that there are 301 or fewer small entity SMR licensees in the
800 MHz and 900 MHz bands that may be affected by the rules and policies
adopted herein.

*Paging.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for
Paging, which consists of all such firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees.[^153] According to Census Bureau data for 1997, in this
category there was a total of 1,320 firms that operated for the entire
year.[^154] Of this total, 1,303 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and an additional seventeen firms had employment of 1,000
employees or more.[^155] Thus, under this size standard, the majority of
firms can be considered small.

*Rural Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted a size
standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone
Service.[^156] A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service
is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS).[^157] The
Commission uses the SBA's small business size standard applicable to
"Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications," *i.e.*, an entity
employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^158] There are approximately
1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission
estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the
Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by the rules and
policies adopted herein.

*Cable and Other Program Distribution*.[^159] This category includes
cable systems operators, closed circuit television services, direct
broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite
master antenna systems, and subscription television services. According
to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were a total of 1,311 firms in
this category, total, that had operated for the entire year.[^160] Of
this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million and an
additional 52 firms had receipts of \$10 million or more but less than
\$25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority
of providers in this service category are small businesses that may be
affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.

*Satellite Telecommunications Providers*. The appropriate size standards
under SBA rules are for the two broad categories of Satellite
Telecommunications and Other Telecommunications. Under both categories,
such a business is small if it has \$12.5 or less in average annual
receipts.[^161] For the first category of Satellite Telecommunications,
Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were a total of 324 firms
that operated for the entire year.[^162] Of this total, 273 firms had
annual receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional twenty-four
firms had receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,999. Thus, the majority
of Satellite Telecommunications firms can be considered small.

*Signaling System 7 (SS7) Providers.* The Commission has not developed a
definition of small entities applicable to Signaling System 7 providers.
We shall apply the SBA's small business size standard for Other
Telecommunications, which identifies as small all such companies having
\$12.5 million or less in annual receipts.[^163] We believe that there
are no more than half-a-dozen SS7 providers and doubt that any of them
have annual receipts less then \$12.5 million. Nonetheless, we shall
assume that there may be several SS7 providers that are small businesses
which could be affected by the proposed rules. We request comment on how
many SS7 providers exist and on how many of these are small businesses
that may be affected by our proposed rules.

*D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements.* The rules proposed in this *Notice* would
require telecommunications providers to report those outages that meet
specified threshold criteria. These criteria are largely determined by
the number of end users potentially affected by the outage and the
duration of the outage, which generally must be at least 30 minutes.
Under the current rules, which apply only to wireline carriers and cable
television service providers that also provide telecommunications
service, only about 200 outage reports per year from all reporting
sources combined are filed with the Commission. The proposed revisions
to the threshold criteria are not expected to alter the number of outage
reports filed annually to a significant degree. Nevertheless, the
proposed rules would extend the outage reporting requirements to
telecommunications providers that are not currently subject to these
rules. Therefore, we anticipate that more than 200 outage reports will
be filed annually, but estimate that the total number of reports from
all reporting sources combined will be substantially less than 1,000
annually. We note that, occasionally, the proposed outage reporting
requirements could require the use of professional skills, including
legal and engineering expertise. Without more data, we cannot accurately
estimate the cost of compliance by small telecommunications providers.
But irrespective of any of the reporting requirements that we are
proposing here, we expect that telecommunications providers will track,
investigate, and correct all of their service disruptions as an ordinary
part of conducting their business operations \-- and will do so for
service disruptions that are considerably smaller than for disruptions
that would trigger the reporting criteria that we propose here. As a
consequence, we believe that in the usual case, the only burden
associated with the reporting requirements contained in this Notice will
be the time required to complete the initial and final reports. We
anticipate that electronic filing, through the type of template that we
have identified in Appendix B, should minimize the amount of time and
effort that will be required to comply with the rules that we propose in
this proceeding. In this IFRA, we therefore seek comment on the types of
burdens telecommunications providers will face in complying with the
proposed requirements. Entities, especially small businesses and small
entities, more generally, are encouraged to quantify the costs and
benefits of the proposed reporting requirements.

*E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered.* Since the inception
of the outage-reporting requirements in 1992, the number of outages
reported each year has remained relatively steady at about 200. Since
1992, the substitutability of telecommunications through different media
has increased substantially, and our Nation increasingly relies on these
substitutes for Homeland Defense and National Security. We believe that
the proposed telecommunications outage reporting requirements are
minimally necessary to assure that we receive adequate information to
perform our statutory responsibilities with respect to the reliability
of telecommunications and their infrastructures. Also, we believe that
the magnitude of the outages needed to trigger the reporting
requirements (*e.g.,* outages of at least 30 minutes duration that
potentially affect at least 900,000 user minutes) are sufficiently high
as to make it unlikely that small businesses would be impacted
significantly by the proposed rules. Finally, we believe that the
proposed requirement that outage reports be filed electronically would
significantly reduce the burdens and costs currently associated with
manual filing processes.

> *F. Federal Rules that Might Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
> Proposed Rules.* None.

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL**

*Re: New Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to
Communications, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 04-35*

Our homeland security agenda begins with reliable telecommunications
infrastructure. Today's Notice would give us headlights on the road to
reliability.

Numerous technological changes have occurred since the Commission
adopted its communications disruptions reporting requirements more than
ten years ago. These changes have facilitated the rapid deployment of
new communications technologies and play an ever increasingly role in
providing important services to consumers, our military, and emergency
responders.

Our outage reporting requirements have been directed primarily to the
telephone industry. These reporting requirements have been successful in
permitting the causes of certain types of disruptions in telephone
networks to be identified and corrected. This, in turn, has permitted
organizations to develop \"best practices\" for use by carriers and
manufacturers in reducing the likelihood, and length, of network
outages.

Today, we adopt an NPRM that proposes to streamline and apply our
disruption reporting to other communications providers including
wireless, cable, and satellite. It is essential that they take into
account newly emerging forms of communications upon which we have become
so vitally dependent. The timely provision of outage information by
multiple communications providers should provide sufficient information
to facilitate the prompt discovery of outage and reliability problems
that occur to communications networks. In addition, such information
should further facilitate efforts by communications providers to
discover potential vulnerabilities in their systems.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY**

*Re: New Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to
Communications, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 04-35*

As the world is becoming increasingly dependent on telecommunications
services for commerce, security, and defense, it is imperative that the
FCC have information available to it concerning significant service
disruptions that impact the American public. Accordingly, I believe that
it is appropriate for the FCC to examine how best to collect data
concerning significant disruptions from providers of telecommunications
services offered over wireline, cable, satellite, and CMRS platforms.

Specifically, the record in this proceeding will enable us to examine
the effectiveness our past rules on mandatory outage reporting
requirements for wireline carriers and whether such mandatory
requirements should be extended to other service providers. In general,
I am hesitant to impose new regulatory burdens on service providers in
competitive markets, because a fully functioning market generally makes
better decisions than the government. However, I also recognize that
there are critical public policy goals, such as protecting public
safety, that can make regulation imperative. Accordingly, as part of
this proceeding, I will carefully analyze the record to determine the
best way to ensure the Commission has sufficient information regarding
the reliability of our communications infrastructure during times of
crisis.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER KEVIN J. MARTIN**

*Re: Re: New Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to
Communications*, *Notice of Proposed Rule Making,* *ET Docket No. 04-35*

I am pleased to support this item, which explores updating our network
outage reporting requirements. One of this Commission's most important
responsibilities is to seek to "make available, so far as possible" a
nationwide and worldwide wire and radio communication service "for the
purpose of the national defense" and "for the purpose of promoting
safety of life and property." 47 U.S.C. § 151. After massive telephone
outages on the east and west coasts occurred in 1991, a congressional
investigation questioned the extent to which the Commission was
fulfilling this responsibility. The Commission responded by establishing
a counsel -- today known as the Network Reliability and Interoperability
Council or NRIC -- and implementing network outage reporting
requirements for telephone companies and cable companies providing
common carrier services. These steps have proven effective. NRIC has
used the information gathered from our reporting requirements to develop
best practices to reduce the severity and number of telecommunications
outages. This information has also enabled the FCC to determine whether
and how network reliability is improving.

However, the world has changed a great deal from the early 1990s. Since
then, wireless and satellite communications -- which are not covered by
our reporting requirements -- have become ubiquitous. Moreover, these
communications are now the first choice of many (including Government
and public safety officials) for use in emergencies. It is thus crucial
that we ensure the reliability of these communications. As the
Commission found with respect to wireline communications, an important
part of this task is obtaining network outage information. Accordingly,
I look forward to receiving comments on the best way the Commission can
obtain information on all components of our telecommunications
infrastructure and ensure continued communications reliability in the
21st century.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

*Re: New Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to
Communications, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 04-35*

I recognize that a discussion of mandatory reporting requirements for
wireless and satellite providers is not embraced by everyone in
industry. But I believe the time is right to look at this important
issue. As we have heard today, our country continues to increasingly
rely on alternative technologies for communications. Events over the
past several years dictate that this Commission has access to accurate
and immediate information when there are significant disruptions to our
nation's communications systems.

There has been a significant effort by a number of industry
representatives to work with a voluntary system for outage reporting.
And that effort should be applauded. It is unclear, though, if the
voluntary trial was truly successful in that it may not have provided
the depth and breadth of information we really need. That concerns me,
and makes this item all the more necessary.

I am pleased that we also explore in today's item improved methods for
reporting disruption information electronically. These new procedures
would apply to all providers subject to outage reporting requirements.
This is a positive step forward that will hopefully simplify the process
for both industry and the Commission staff responsible for reviewing
such filings.

[^1]: By the term "communications provider" we mean an entity that
    provides two-way voice and/or data communications, and/or paging
    service, by radio, wire, cable, satellite, and/or lightguide for a
    fee to one or more unaffiliated entities.

[^2]: Section 63.100 of the Commission\'s rules currently requires only
    wireline carriers to report significant service disruptions. Section
    63.100 of the Commission's rules, which is codified at 47 C.F.R. §
    63.100, was first adopted in 1992. *Notification by Common Carriers
    of Service Disruptions,* CC Docket No. 91-273, *Report and Order,* 7
    FCC Rcd 2010 (1992); *Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* 8 FCC Rcd 8517 (1993); *Second
    Report and Order,* 9 FCC Rcd 3911 (1994); *Order on Reconsideration
    of Second Report and Order,* 10 FCC Rcd 11764 (1995). As discussed
    below, our proposal stems from the Commission's broad
    responsibilities under Title I of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended to ensure that radio and wire communications effectively
    serve the public's interest in the safety of life and property and
    in the national defense. Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064,
    as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151 *et seq.* (hereinafter, "the Act" or
    \"the Communications Act\"). See *infra* ¶ 4.

[^3]: *See infra* Appendices A and B. We note as an initial matter, the
    actual text of the final rules and the final reporting template that
    will be adopted may differ from the text and template that are
    contained in Appendix A and Appendix B to this Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking (hereinafter, \"Notice\"). We accordingly invite
    interested parties to file comments and reply comments to address
    the issues that are discussed in this Notice as well as the specific
    rules that are proposed in Appendix A and the reporting template
    that is proposed in Appendix B. *See generally infra* ¶¶ 58-61,
    concerning the filing of comments and reply comments in this
    proceeding, and the Commission\'s rules of procedure, which may be
    found at 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1-1.120, 1.399-1.429, 1.1200-1.1206,
    1.1210-1.1216.

[^4]: In this *Notice*, we are using the phrase "public data network" to
    refer to a network that provides data communications for a fee to
    one or more unaffiliated entities. We are not proposing, at this
    time, to adopt reporting requirements for public data networks.

[^5]: The Communications Act defines the United States to include
    Alaska, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the forty-eight contiguous
    Commonwealths and States, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
    Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam,
    Howland Island, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. *See* 47 U.S.C. §
    153(51).

[^6]: For a very localized example of this, see \"The Economic Effects
    of September 11,\" Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of
    New York, Vol. 18, No.2 (Nov. 2002) at 46 (On September 12, 2001,
    Government Securities Corporation settlement fails were
    \$440,000,000,000.00.).

[^7]: Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §
    151 *et seq.* (hereinafter, "the Act" or \"the Communications
    Act\").

[^8]: Section 1 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 151 (emphasis supplied). All
    subsequent sections of the Act are to be read, and construed, in
    light of the statements of purpose that are contained in Section 1
    of the Act. *U.S. v. Southwestern Cable Co.,* 392 U.S. 157, 167-168,
    172-173 (1968); *see also Building Owners and Managers Assoc. Int'l.
    v. FCC,* 254 F.3d 89, 94 (D.C. Cir. 2001) *and* Sections 4(i)-(j)
    and 403 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i)-(j), 403 (additional
    authority to acquire information needed to perform the Commission\'s
    responsibilities).

[^9]: Section 4(o) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 154(o) (emphasis supplied).

[^10]: Section 4(k) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 154(k). More generally,
    Section 4(i) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), provides that the
    "Commission may perform any and all acts . . . and issue such
    orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the
    execution of its functions."

[^11]: The work of the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council
    is described *infra* ¶¶ 8-9*.*

[^12]: As of December 31, 2002, the number of cellular telephone users
    in the United States was estimated to be 140.8 million, as compared
    with 189.1 million wireline telephone subscribers as of June 30,
    2002. *Compare* <http://www.wow-com.com/industry/stats/surveys>
    (visited June 3, 2003) *with Local Competition:* *Status as of June
    30, 2002*, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline
    Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Dec. 9,
    2002).

[^13]: Mobile satellite service refers to telephone communications that
    are achieved through portable transceivers that are connected
    through satellite systems. This type of service has the advantage of
    being available over most of the earth\'s surface with very limited
    interaction with terrestrial facilities and is, therefore,
    particularly useful in communicating and restoring service when
    terrestrial facilities have been destroyed or impaired.

[^14]: These massive outages, which occurred on June 26, 1991, arrived
    in the aftermath of an accumulating series of outages, which had
    been increasing in severity from 1988 through 1991, and the
    introduction of legislation to require the FCC to enforce network
    reliability and quality standards on telephone common carriers.
    *Asleep At The Switch? Federal Communications Commission Efforts To
    Assure Reliability Of The Public Telephone Network,* U.S. House of
    Representatives Committee On Government Operations, House Report
    102-420 (Dec. 11, 1991) (hereinafter, \"*Asleep At The Switch\")*;
    *Notification by Common Carriers of Service Disruptions,* CC Docket
    No. 91-273, *Report and Order,* 7 FCC Rcd 2010 (1992); *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* 8 FCC
    Rcd 8517 (1993); *Second Report and Order,* 9 FCC Rcd 3911 (1994);
    *Order on Reconsideration of Second Report and Order,* 10 FCC Rcd
    11764 (1995), and references cited therein. The rules codifying the
    Commission\'s service disruption reporting requirements may be found
    at 47 C.F.R. § 63.100.

[^15]: For example, filings of Initial Service Disruption Reports
    generally declined as follows: 219 (1996), 222 (1997), 217 (1998),
    230 (1999), 142 (2000), 200 (2001), and 142 (2002).

[^16]: These organizations include the Network Reliability Council, the
    Network Reliability and Interoperability Council, and the Network
    Reliability Steering Committee.

[^17]: These best practices may be found at
    [www.nric.org](http://www.nric.org/) (visited January 21, 2004).

[^18]: Many business, government, and educational organizations operate
    their own networks for a variety of reasons that include increased
    security, increased reliability, lower cost and, in some cases, the
    provision of telecommunications services that would not otherwise be
    available. Our service disruption reporting requirements have
    enabled these private network operators to learn from the operating
    experiences of reporting carriers and to benefit from best practices
    that were developed through analysis of the causes of reported
    network outages.

[^19]: For example, network operators should provide duplicate
    facilities that are physically separate, for all critical resources,
    such as electrical power, timing sources, and Signaling System 7
    communications links. See, generally,
    [www.nric.org](http://www.nric.org/) (last visited Feb. 9, 2004) for
    the text of best practices that have been developed through December
    5, 2003.

[^20]: *See supra* note 14, and references cited therein.

[^21]: Section 63.100(b) of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    63.100(b).

[^22]: The Network Reliability Council was created by the Commission in
    compliance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee
    Act, Pub.L. 92-463, Oct. 6, 1972, as amended, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

[^23]: Network Reliability: A Report to the Nation, Compendium of
    Technical Papers, Network Reliability Council (June, 1993).

[^24]: The NRSC is now a subcommittee of the Alliance for
    Telecommunications Industry Solutions (\"ATIS\"), which is an
    American National Standards Institute accredited standards body.

[^25]: After the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted, the Network
    Reliability Council was renamed the Network Reliability and
    Interoperability Council to reflect the addition of Section 256 (47
    U.S.C. § 256) to the Act. The sixth council will complete work under
    its current charter by January 6, 2004. See, generally,
    [www.nric.org](http://www.nric.org/) for the sixth council\'s
    charter and the work that is being accomplished to achieve the
    objectives expressed in that charter.

[^26]: See [www.nric.org](http://www.nric.org/) for the best practices
    that have been developed so far. As noted above, this is a dynamic
    process in which continuing best practices development, and
    refinements, are driven by the provision of required data which
    validate or disprove conclusions contained in the then-existing best
    practices. New best practices developed through this process are, in
    turn, validated or modified as new network outage data become
    available.

[^27]: Mandatory reporting also provides information on the extent to
    which best practices are not being used effectively, thereby
    providing further insight into the ways by which the implementation
    of best practices can be made more effective.

[^28]: During NRIC VI, 28 companies were asked to respond either by
    filing an outage report or by stating that the company did not have
    an outage for that month. On average, 17.5 companies participated
    each month during that trial (a 63% participation rate). During the
    third quarter of 2003, the number of participating companies
    increased to 23 (an 82% participation rate) but, during the last
    quarter of 2003, participation dropped by 16% to 19.3 (a 69%
    participation rate) from the previous quarter but was still higher
    than the average for the entire trial.

[^29]: PCS provides voice and data services at frequencies that were not
    initially used by cellular service providers.

[^30]: From this point forward, we use the phrase "wireless services" to
    refer to communications that are provided using cellular
    architecture in the Cellular Radio Telephone Service ("CRTS") (Part
    22 of the Commission\'s Rules); Personal Communications Service
    (\"PCS\") (Part 24); and enhanced Special Mobile Radio Service
    (\"SMRS\") (Part 90) (such as that provided by NEXTEL). It is also
    our intention to include Short Message Service (\"SMS\")
    communications, which consist of short text messages (typically 20
    octets or less), as well as CMRS paging services (see 47 C.F.R. §§
    20.9(a) (1), (6), 22.99, 22.507(c), and 90.7) and narrowband PCS
    (Part 24), as wireless services. Entities that provide wireless
    services will be referred to as "wireless service providers."

[^31]: *See* <http://www.wow-com.com/industry/stats/surveys> (visited
    June 3, 2003).

[^32]: *Seventh Annual CMRS Competition Report,* 17 FCC Rcd 12985, 12997
    (2002).

[^33]: *In the Matter of Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules
    to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to
    Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services,
    Including Third Generation Wireless Systems,* ET Docket No. 00-258,
    *Second Report and Order,* 17 FCC Rcd 23193 (2002) (allocating an
    additional 90 MHz of spectrum for 3G), *Third Report and Order,
    Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Second Memorandum Opinion
    and Order,* 18 FCC Rcd 2223 (2003).

[^34]: See, *e.g.*, "A Wireless World -- In a Few Years, Mobile Phones
    Will Dominate U.S. Communications," *Business Week* (Oct. 27, 2003),
    at 110-14.

[^35]: *In the Matter of Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
    Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems,* CC
    Docket No. 94-102, *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking,* 11 FCC Rcd 18676 (1996).

[^36]: *Id.* at ¶ 6.

[^37]: CTIA,
    [www.wow-com.com/industry/stats/e911](http://www.wow-com.com/industry/stats/e911).

[^38]: Accordingly, it is our intention to include CMRS paging services
    along with the CRTS, PCS, and SMRS in our discussion of wireless
    services. See *supra* note 30 and *infra* ¶¶ 36-40. As used in this
    *Notice,* "paging" is a CMRS service in which coded radio signals,
    which may represent messages or sounds, are transmitted for the
    purpose of activating specific pagers. Paging signals may be
    transmitted terrestrially or by satellite. *See* Sections 20.9(a)
    (1), (6), 22.99, 22.507(c), and 90.7 of the Commission's Rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 20.9(a) (1), (6), 22.99, 22.507(c), and 90.7.

[^39]: The President of the United States, by Executive Order 12472,
    established the National Communications System (NCS), which is a
    Federal interagency entity responsible for planning and implementing
    initiatives to enhance national security and emergency preparedness
    ("NS/EP") telecommunications. *See* Executive Order 12472,
    *Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness
    Telecommunications Functions*, 49 Fed. Reg. 13471 (1984). The NCS is
    now part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The NCS
    established a priority access service ("PAS") that enables
    authorized government users and other restoration personnel to have
    priority wireline access to the public switched telephone network
    ("PSTN"). The emergence of wireless telephony as an alternative way
    to access the PSTN during an emergency prompted the NCS to develop a
    priority access plan for wireless. To facilitate those efforts, the
    Commission amended Section 64.402 of its rules to permit CMRS
    providers to voluntarily offer PAS to national security and
    emergency preparedness personnel. *See The Development of
    Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting
    Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communications Through
    the Year 2010*, WT Docket No. 96-86, *Second Report and Order*, 15
    FCC Rcd 16720, 16721 at ¶ 3 (2000). Under these rules, authorized
    NS/EP users in emergencies could gain access to the next available
    wireless channel to originate a call; however, the priority calls
    would not preempt calls in progress. *Id*.

[^40]: *See supra* note 30.

[^41]: We are aware that disruptions occurring within cable system
    infrastructures can affect the reliability of communications and
    cause significant consequences. As a consequence, during May, 2002,
    we created the Media Security and Reliability Council ("MSRC") to
    address one-way broadcast, cable and satellite homeland security
    issues. The MSRC was created by the Commission in compliance with
    the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub.L.
    92-463, Oct. 6, 1972, as amended, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2. For more
    information on the MSRC, see the MSRC's web site at
    [www.mediasecurity.org](../www.mediasecurity.org). We also note that
    video services (including those delivered over cable) might play a
    bigger role in the future in transmitting Homeland Security
    information to the public during emergencies. Although this
    proceeding does not address the reliability of, or disruptions in,
    broadcast, cable or other video-media infrastructures that deliver
    one-way multi-video or multi-radio signals, we may revisit this
    issue if future events so warrant.

[^42]: VSAT is an acronym for "very small aperture terminal.\" VSATs
    receive and transmit satellite communications.

[^43]: Typically, satellite teleports or gateways are used to link calls
    between satellite telephones and PSTN telephones.

[^44]: We note that Section 63.10(c)(3) of our rules requires dominant
    U.S. international carriers to file quarterly reports that include,
    *inter alia*, the number of outages and the intervals between each
    fault report and service restoration. 47 C.F.R. § 63.10(c)(3). While
    this information is helpful in determining the extent to which
    spectrum is not being utilized, it does not provide for the prompt
    reporting of event-driven outage information that is needed to
    facilitate the prompt discovery of outage and reliability problems
    and the refinement of best practices, which are the main policy
    purposes for Section 63.100 of our rules, 47 C.F.R. § 63.100, and of
    this proceeding.

[^45]: See generally, Section 256(a)-(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §
    256(a)-(b) ("It is the purpose of this section to promote
    non-discriminatory accessibility by the broadest number of users and
    vendors of communications products and services to public
    telecommunications service . . . to insure the ability of users and
    information providers to seamlessly transmit and receive information
    between and across telecommunications networks.") and Sections 1,
    4(o) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(o) (the Commission shall
    investigate and study wire and radio communications to achieve the
    maximum effectiveness of those technologies for the safety of life
    and property).

[^46]: We shall refer to this as a lack of generally-useful availability
    of communications.

[^47]: We shall refer to this as a lack of generally-useful connectivity
    of communications. Combining these two related concepts, we shall
    refer to the user\'s normal expectations for communications as
    having "generally-useful availability and connectivity."

[^48]: These include, for example, airports, military installations, key
    government facilities, 911 facilities and nuclear power plants*.
    See* 47 C.F.R. § 63.100(a) (3)-(4).

[^49]: *See, e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. § 63.100(c).

[^50]: "Outage" is defined as "a significant degradation in the ability
    of a customer to establish and maintain a channel of communication
    as a result of failure or degradation in the performance of a
    carrier\'s network." 47 C.F.R. § 63.100(a) (1).

[^51]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.100(a) (2).

[^52]: We note that more than eighty percent (80%) of the telephone
    company switches and end offices in the United States have fewer
    than 30,000 assigned telephone numbers.

[^53]: For example, for wireline telephony the number of "end users" is
    the number of assigned telephone numbers. By the term "assigned
    telephone numbers," we mean the sum of "assigned numbers" and
    "administrative numbers" as currently defined in Sections 52.15(f)
    (i) and (iii) of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 52.15(f) (i),
    (iii).

[^54]: 900,000 user-minutes is the product of 30,000 users times 30
    minutes.

[^55]: Section 52.15(f) of our rules requires telecommunications
    carriers to report telephone number utilization, 47 C.F.R. §
    52.15(f).  Analysis of that data shows that, as of December 31,
    2001, there were 27,293 switches with one or more "assigned
    telephone numbers" (see *supra* note 53 and *infra* ¶ 33, for an
    explanation of the meaning of the phrase "assigned telephone
    numbers").  These switches were located in 23,482 buildings.  Only
    15.5% of these switches and 16.4% of the buildings had 30,000 or
    more assigned telephone numbers and thus, in the event of a local
    switch or office failure, would have been subject to the reporting
    requirements set forth in Section 63.100(c) of our rules. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 63.100(c). Put somewhat differently, more than 83% of the
    telephone company central offices in the United States had fewer
    than 30,000 assigned telephone numbers and outages in any one of
    those offices would not have been reportable under our existing
    rules. *See id.*

[^56]: "Special offices and facilities" are defined as "major airports,
    major military installations, key government facilities, nuclear
    power plants," and include 911 facilities. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    63.100(a) (3).

[^57]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.100(e).

[^58]: As discussed *infra* Section VIII, we also propose to require
    disruption reports to be filed by providers of critical facilities
    irrespective of whether they would, or would not, otherwise be
    characterized as providers of wireline, wireless, cable, or
    satellite communications.

[^59]: *See* Section 63.100(h) (1) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.
    § 63.100(h) (1).

[^60]: *In the Matter of Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
    Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems and
    Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 to Implement the Global Mobile Personal
    Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) Memorandum of Understanding and
    Arrangements et al.,* CC Docket No. 94-102 and IB Docket No. 99-67,
    *Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,
    FCC 03-290, released December 1, 2003, at ¶¶ 20-48 and 111-112
    (adopting 911 service call center requirements and seeking further
    comment on how to implement E911 requirements for the MSS).

[^61]: Section 63.100(d) of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    63.100(d).

[^62]: The initial service disruption report \"shall identify a contact
    person who can provide further information, the telephone number at
    which the contact person can be reached, and what information is
    known at the time about the service outage . . . . \[l\]ack of any
    of the above information shall not delay the filing of this
    report.\" Section 63.100(b) of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    63.100 (b). Final service disruption reports, which are due not
    later than thirty days from the date of the outage, shall provide
    \"all available information on the service outage, including any
    information not contained in \[the\] Initial Service Disruption
    Report and detailing specifically the root cause of the outage and
    listing and evaluating the effectiveness and application in the
    immediate case of any best practices or industry standards
    identified by the Network Reliability Council to eliminate or
    ameliorate outages of the reported type.\" *Id.*

[^63]: Section 63.100(b) of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    63.100(b).

[^64]: Section 63.100(c) of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    63.100(c). This distinction between how quickly outages must be
    reported is a historical vestige of how the original reporting
    criteria were developed. See Network Reliability: A Report to the
    Nation -- Compendium of Presentations, Section I (June 1993) at 3.

[^65]: Section 63.100(b) of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    63.100(b).

[^66]: See *infra* Appendix B for the template that we are proposing for
    Internet reporting of outages by communications providers.

[^67]: *See, e.g.,* the following requirements for Signaling System 7
    systems: ANSI T1.111-2001 Signaling System No. 7, Message Transfer
    Part; ATIS/NIIF-5001 Network Interconnection Interoperability Forum
    Reference Document -- January 2002 -- Issue 4; GR-246-CORE,
    Telcordia Technologies Specification of Signaling System Number 7
    (SS7); and GR-905-CORE, Common Channel Signaling Network Interface
    Specification (CCSNIS) Supporting Network Interconnection, Message
    Transfer Part (MTP) and Integrated Services Digital Network User
    Part (ISUP). Full diversity encompasses electronic, logical,
    optical, and physical diversity.

[^68]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.100(h) (1).

[^69]: 47 C.F.R. Part 36, Appendix-Glossary.

[^70]: Wireline communications may also be augmented through the use of
    micro-wave links and other links that use other radio frequencies.
    It is our intention to include these fixed service technologies with
    the other wireline technologies described above.

[^71]: 47 C.F.R. § 52.15(f) (i), (iii).

[^72]: 47 C.F.R. § 52.15(f) (iii). That subsection also states
    \"\[n\]umbers that are not yet working and have a service order
    pending for more than five days shall not be classified as assigned
    numbers.\"

[^73]: 47 C.F.R. § 52.15(f) (i).

[^74]: See *supra* ¶¶ 20-23. 

[^75]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.100(g) (emphasis supplied). This subsection
    further provides that: "\[c\]arriers may use historical data to
    estimate blocked calls when required real-time blocked call counts
    are not possible. When using historical data, carriers must report
    incidents . . . where more than 30,000 calls are blocked during a
    period of 30 or more minutes for purposes of complying with the
    30,000 potentially affected customers threshold."

[^76]: For example, if 70,000 calls were carried during the historical
    period, the assumption would be made for reporting purposes that
    70,000 calls would have been carried during the outage.

[^77]: The proposed multiplicand of three is based on the total number
    of times (three) that an average subscriber would attempt to redial
    a number after first not being able to complete a telephone call.
    *In the Matter of Amendment of Part 63 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Provide for Notification by Common Carriers of Service Disruptions,*
    CC Docket No. 91-273, *Second Report and Order,* 9 FCC Rcd 3911,
    3914 at ¶ 14 (1994). Providers should use larger multiplicands for
    determining whether the outage should be reported if their
    experience has been that three is too small a number (*i.e.,* that
    their subscribers try, on average, to redial a number more
    frequently than three times after first not being able to complete a
    telephone call). Thus, if 70,000 calls were carried during the
    historical period, the assumption for reporting purposes would be
    that each of those calls would have been attempted three times,
    which means that 210,000 calls would have been blocked during the
    outage.

[^78]: On May 15, 2003, we adopted a Report and Order and Further Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking to improve the efficiency with which spectrum
    is used by permitting wireless radio licensees that hold "exclusive
    use" licenses to lease spectrum usage rights to third parties
    seeking access to spectrum. *In the Matter of Promoting Efficient
    Use of Spectrum through Elimination of Barriers to the Development
    of Secondary Markets*, WT Docket No. 00-230, *Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, FCC 03-113, 30
    Communications Reg. (P&F) 661, 2003 WL 22289295 (2003). As a
    consequence, we request comment as to whether the lessor, the
    lessee, or both should be subject to the reporting requirements that
    we propose here.

[^79]: "Degradation" differs from the term "outage" in that it connotes
    a reduction in the quality of service that could be perceived by
    some (but not necessarily all of the) users as a total outage.

[^80]: "MSC" is an acronym for Mobile Switching Center, which is also
    frequently referred to as a Mobile Telephone Switching Office, or
    MTSO. The MSC coordinates calls among cells, participates in
    Signaling System 7 switching, and serves as a point of aggregation
    for calls originating from a group of cell sites and as a point for
    distribution of incoming calls to individual cell phone subscribers.

[^81]: Section 63.100(a)(1) of our rules defines an "\[*o\]utage*" as
    "significant degradation in the ability of a customer to establish
    and maintain a channel of communications as a result of failure or
    degradation in the performance of a carrier's network." 47 C.F.R. §
    63.100(a)(1).

[^82]: Concentration is based on the premise that not all users eligible
    to place and receive calls on a particular switch do so
    simultaneously. Accordingly, more users can be assigned to a switch
    than the actual capacity of that switch. The concentration ratio is
    the quotient of the number or users eligible for service from a
    particular MSC switch at any given time divided by the call capacity
    of the switch. A concentration ratio of 10-to-1 means that for every
    ten users eligible to access service from a particular switch there
    is one communication channel available to handle calls. This ratio
    and similar ones are frequently used in the design of cellular
    system architectures.

[^83]: *See* Bellamy, John, *Digital Telephony*, 2nd ed., John Wiley and
    Sons (2000) at 234, for a description of call blocking and the
    development of a concentration ratio.

[^84]: "Visitors" are wireless service users whose transceivers are
    active in areas that are not served by the physical facilities of
    their particular service provider.

[^85]: Responses to E911 calls are typically made by personnel in call
    centers that are funded by local, county, and state governments. As
    a consequence, the function of the wireless service provider in this
    context is to provide two-way connectivity (from the user to the
    PSAP and from the PSAP to the user) and identification of the
    subscriber\'s handset and its location (these later functions are
    analogous to the data that are provided to PSAPs by wireline
    telephone companies).

[^86]: For reporting purposes this also includes an outage, or
    significant degradation of information: (i) from a wireless
    provider's network; (ii) from a wireless provider's location vendor;
    (iii) from a wireless provider's point of connection to the PSTN;
    (iv) from a wireless provider's other point of connectivity to the
    PSAP (if that provider does not connect to the PSAP through the
    PSTN); (v) from a failure or degradation in the trunk(s) that
    connect the mobile switching center to other LECS that serve PSAPS;
    or (vi) from a failure in the trunking from the LEC that is supplied
    to the wireless provider to connect it to the PSAP. Failure or
    significant degradation in any of these components could affect
    delivery of a 911 call to a PSAP.

[^87]: We note that not all MSCs provide accessibility to E911 services.

[^88]: "Cable system infrastructure" refers to the physical paths,
    switches, routers, and databases that the cable system operator uses
    to provide connectivity for its subscribers to the PSTN (in the case
    of cable telephony).

[^89]: Of course, failures that occur outside of the cable
    infrastructure (*e.g.,* at the switch or elsewhere within the PSTN)
    are also covered by the outage reporting requirements as they relate
    to the communications provider whose facility failed.

[^90]: Section 2(a) of the Act states that cable service is subject to
    the provisions of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 152(a), and Subsections
    621(b) (3) and (d) of the Act state that cable service providers may
    provide telecommunications services but these services are outside
    the scope of the regulatory provisions of Title VI of the Act, 47
    U.S.C. § 621(b) (3) and (d). Cable circuit-switched telephony
    providers fall within the definition of telecommunications carriers,
    which have always been subject to the requirements of Section 63.100
    of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 63.100.

[^91]: As discussed below, satellite licensing and several technical
    portions of our rules require the limited disclosure of information
    on some satellite outages in the context of determining the extent
    to which the electromagnetic spectrum is being used efficiently.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.142(c), 25.143(e), 25.144(c), 25.145(g),
    25.149(b), and 25.210(k). With the exception of the requirement that
    those Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) licensees using ancillary
    terrestrial components (which use spectrum terrestrially) must
    report certain outages within 10 days of their occurrence (47 C.F.R.
    §§ 25.149(b)(2)(iii)), these rules require the filing of reports on
    an annual basis. As a consequence, these rules do not provide for
    the prompt and detailed disclosure of information that is needed to
    develop best practices and assure that satellite telecommunications
    infrastructures and networks are reliable and secure.

[^92]: We anticipate that the satellite provider's Network Operations
    Center would be aware of the loss of satellite system components and
    their potential impact on end users. For telephony and many paging
    systems, one user-minute would be defined as one assigned telephone
    number-minute. See *supra* ¶¶ 33, 36, and 41*.*

[^93]: In a separate proceeding, we have sought comment on whether we
    should adopt reporting requirements regarding aspects of spacecraft
    operations that may affect the ability of operators to complete
    appropriate satellite end-of-life procedures. *See In the Matter of
    Mitigation of Orbital Debris*, IB Docket No. 02-54, *Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, 17 FCC Rcd 5586 (2002). This issue will be
    addressed in that proceeding.

[^94]: See *supra* note 91.

[^95]: "Mobile Satellite Service" is defined as a radio communication
    service between mobile earth stations and one or more space
    stations, between space stations used by this service, or between
    mobile earth stations by means of one or more space stations.
    Section 2.1(c) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 2.1(c).

[^96]: *See Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules and
    Policies Pertaining to a Non-Voice, Non-Geostationary
    Mobile-Satellite Service,* CC Docket No. 92-76, *Report and Order*,
    8 FCC Rcd 845 at ¶ 11 (1993) (Section 25.142(c) reporting
    requirements, including listing of non-scheduled space station
    outages lasting more than thirty minutes and their causes, provides
    information by which the Commission assesses the commercial and
    technical development of a satellite service, including its spectrum
    utilization); *accord Amendment of the Commission's Rules to
    Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to Mobile Satellite Service
    in the 1610-1626.5/248.5-2500 MHz Frequency Bands*, CC Docket No.
    92-166, *Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* 12 FCC Rcd 5754, 5799 at ¶ 10 (1997)
    (Section 25.144(c) with respect to DARS); CC Docket No. 92-297,
    *Third Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 22310, 22335 at ¶ 62 (1997)
    (Section 25.145(g) with respect to the FSS in the 20/30 GHz bands);
    and *Amendment of Part 25 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations
    to Reduce Alien Carrier Interference Between Fixed-Satellites at
    Reduced Orbital Spacing and To Revise Application Processing
    Procedures for Satellite Communication Services,* CC Docket No.
    86-496, *Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking,* 8 FCC Rcd 1316 at ¶¶ 21-23, (current Section 25.210(l)
    -- then subsection (j) -- with respect to the technical requirements
    for FSS space stations).

[^97]: *See Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile
    Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, et al.,* IB Docket
    Nos. 01-185 and 02-364, *Report and Order and Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking,* 18 FCC Rcd 11030 at ¶ 78 (2003).

[^98]: *In the Matter of Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
    Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems and
    Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 to Implement the Global Mobile Personal
    Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) Memorandum of Understanding and
    Arrangements et al.,* CC Docket No. 94-102 and IB Docket No. 99-67,
    *Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,
    FCC 03-290, released December 1, 2003, at ¶¶ 20-48 and 111-112
    (adopting 911 service call center requirements and seeking further
    comment on how to implement E911 requirements for the MSS).

[^99]: *Id.*

[^100]: Network Outage 01-147, Verizon Final Report (Oct. 11, 2001).

[^101]: A DS0 circuit is normally associated with a 64 Kbps data rate.

[^102]: For example, an entity that supplies optical fiber transmission
    links to communications providers or to ISPs would be included in
    this reporting requirement.

[^103]: DS3 circuits have a data rate of approximately 44.7 megabits per
    second.

[^104]: The 1,350 figure was derived from the current
    threshold-reporting criterion of "30,000 customers potentially
    affected." Each DS3 has a capacity of 672 DS0 circuits (basically,
    672 "customers"). Therefore, to determine how many DS3s are
    equivalent to 30,000 customers, we compute: 30,000 customers divided
    by the DS3 capacity of 672 DS0 circuits (customers) equals 44.6 DS3s
    rounded to 45. Then, 45 DS3s multiplied by 30 minutes equals 1,350
    DS3 minutes. Note that the figure of 45 DS3s for at least 30 minutes
    was proposed by Pacific Telesis (now part of SBC Communications,
    Inc.) in the Comments and Reply Comments it filed in CC Docket No.
    91-273 in January and February 1994, respectively. At that time,
    however, there was no record of the number of outages that had
    affected the basic communications infrastructure.

[^105]: See Telcordia Notes on Common Channel Signaling (CCS) Networks,
    SR-NOTES-SERIES-17, Issue 1, August 2001, at 2-1 for a description
    of SS7 architecture.

[^106]: Implicit in this statement is that a blocked or lost signaling
    message will result in a blocked or lost call. There are numerous
    types of failures that have already resulted in lost or blocked
    signaling messages. For example, SS7 failures have occurred: when
    both A-links were cut; when A links were out of service due to a
    common power pack failure; when a timing problem on both A links
    isolated a central office; when all B links became overloaded; when
    a common software problem caused a pair of STPs to fail; when a
    translation error caused both STPs to fail; when a common table
    entry error caused both SCPs to fail; and when a software upload
    problem in both STPs resulted in SS7 service failure.

[^107]: Services "equivalent" to SS7 would be those services that
    currently provide, or will provide, the transmission signaling that
    SS7 protocols (and their successors) provide. Our intention here is
    to insure that this reporting requirement will continue to apply to
    future signaling developments that are similar in function to those
    that are performed through SS7 transmission/router/server
    architectures and databases.

[^108]: ISDN User Part (ISUP) is the functional module of the SS7
    protocol that supports the signaling interactions responsible for
    the control of calls and connections for circuit-switched narrowband
    communications. An explanation of all SS7 messages including ISUP
    messages can be found in Telcordia Notes on SS7 and CCS Network
    Evolution, SR-NOTES-SERIES-13, Issue 1, August 2001, at 3-15.

[^109]: Under this approach, the number of blocked or lost messages
    could be based on call logs if they are available. Otherwise if call
    logs are not available, the number of blocked or lost messages could
    be estimated based on the normal call volumes during the applicable
    time(s) of day. The 90,000 criterion for blocked ISUP messages is
    analogous to the criterion of 90,000 blocked calls because an ISUP
    message is utilized to set up each call.

[^110]: See *supra* ¶ 4 and references cited therein and *infra* ¶ 63
    and references cited theren.

[^111]: Government Paperwork Elimination Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3504 note,
    Pub. L. No. 105-277, Div. C, Title XVII, 112 Stat. 2681-749 (1998).

[^112]: See Appendix B for a description of the proposed data collection
    fields.

[^113]: The Commission has adopted mandatory electronic filing
    requirements in several other contexts. *See Wireline Competition
    Bureau Initiates Electronic Filing of Automated Reporting Management
    Information System (ARMIS) Data and Associated Documents by
    Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers,* Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 3245
    (Wireline Comp. Bur., 2003); *In the Matter of Amendment of the
    Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies and 2000
    Biennial Regulatory Review (Part 25),* IB Docket Nos. 02-34 and
    00-248, *Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking,* FCC 03-154, released July 8, 2003 ("*Space
    Station Licensing Rules 3^rd^ R&O*"), at ¶ 64 (adopting mandatory
    electronic filing for routine C- and Ku-band earth station
    applications), ¶ 66 (adopting mandatory electronic filing for space
    station applications), ¶ 84 (inviting comment on extending
    electronic filing requirements to all pleadings governed by Part 25)
    & n.153; *In the Matter of Amendment of Part 5 of the Commission's
    Rules to Require Electronic Filing of Applications for Experimental
    Radio Licenses and Authorizations, Order,* FCC 03-207, released
    August 20, 2003; *Amendment of the Commission's Rules for
    Implementation of its Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS)
    to Allow for Electronic Filing,* CS Docket No. 00-78, *Report and
    Order,* 19 FCC Rcd 5162 (2003); *Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
    (WTB) Extends Mandatory Electronic Filing Date,* Public Notice, 15
    FCC Rcd 15692 (WTB, 2000); *1998 Biennial Review -- Streamlining of
    Mass Media Applications, Rules and Processes,* MM Docket No. 98-43,
    13 FCC Rcd 23056, 23060 ¶ 8 (1998); *and Electronic Tariff Filing
    System (ETFS),* Order, 13 FCC Rcd 12335 (Com. Car. Bur.,1998).

[^114]: Irrespective of any of the reporting requirements that we are
    proposing here, we expect that communications firms will track,
    investigate, and correct all of their service disruptions as an
    ordinary part of conducting their business operations - and will do
    so for service disruptions that are considerably smaller than those
    that would trigger the reporting criteria that we propose here. As a
    consequence we believe, in the usual case the only burden associated
    with the reporting requirements contained in this Notice will be the
    time required to complete the initial and final reports. We
    anticipate that electronic filing, through the type of template that
    we have identified in Appendix B, will minimize the amount of time
    and effort that will be required to comply with the rules that we
    propose in this proceeding. Electronic records and signatures are
    legally binding to the same extent as if they were filed by
    non-electronic means. *See generally* Sections 101-106 of the
    Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, Pub.L.
    106-229, June 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 464, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§
    7001-7006.

[^115]: *See, generally,* Section 5(c) (1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §
    155(c) (1); *Space Station Licensing Rules 3^rd^ R&O, supra* note
    113, at ¶ 8.

[^116]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601--612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^117]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^118]: *Id*.

[^119]: *See generally* Sections 1.1200 *et seq.* of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 *et seq*.

[^120]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 - 612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1966 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104‑121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).

[^121]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^122]: *Id*.

[^123]: 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(b) (3), 604(a) (3).

[^124]: *Id*. § 601(6).

[^125]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
    § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such terms which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definitions(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^126]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^127]: FCC, Wire line Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, *Trends in Telephone Service*, Table 5.3 (May
    2002) (*Trends in Telephone Service*).

[^128]: 13 CFR § 121.201, North American Industry Classification System
    (NAICS) code 517110.

[^129]: 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517211.

[^130]: 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^131]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^132]: Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to
    William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business
    Act contains a definition of "small business concern," which the RFA
    incorporates into its own definition of "small business." *See* 15
    U.S.C. § 632(a); 5 U.S.C. § 601(3). SBA regulations interpret "small
    business concern" to include the concept of dominance on a national
    basis. 13 C.F.R. § 121.102(b).

[^133]: 13 CFR § 121.201 (1997), NAICS code 513310 (changed to 517110 in
    October 2002).

[^134]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 513310 (issued October 2000).

[^135]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is "Firms with 1,000
    employees or more."

[^136]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^137]: FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3,
    Page 5-5 (Aug. 2003) (hereinafter "Trends in Telephone Service").
    This source uses data that are current as of December 31, 2001.

[^138]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^139]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^140]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^141]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^142]: 13 CFR § 121.201, North American Industry Classification System
    (NAICS) code 517211.

[^143]: 13 CFR § 121.201, North American Industry Classification System
    (NAICS) code 517212.

[^144]: FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, Trends in Telephone Service, Table 5.3, (August
    2002).

[^145]: Id.

[^146]: *See* Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules --
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap, WT Docket No. 96-59, Report and Order, 61 FR
    33859 (July 1, 1996); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b).

[^147]: *See* Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules --
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap, WT Docket No. 96-59, Report and Order, 61
    Fed.Reg. 33859 (July 1, 1996).

[^148]: *See. e.g.,* Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
    Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253,
    Fifth Report and Order, 59 Fed.Reg. 37566 (July 22, 1994).

[^149]: FCC News, Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, No.
    71744 (released January 14, 1997). *See also* Amendment of the
    Commission's Rules Regarding Installment Payment Financing for
    Personal Communications Services (PCS) Licenses, WT Docket No.
    97-82, Second Report and Order, 62 FR 55348 (Oct. 24,1997).

[^150]: In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission's Rules to
    Establish New Personal Communications Services, Narrowband PCS,
    Docket No. ET 92-100, Docket No. PP 93-253, *Second Report and Order
    and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 65 FR 35875 (June
    6, 2000).

[^151]: *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998).

[^152]: 47 CFR § 90.814(b) (1).

[^153]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517211 (changed from 513321 in
    October 2002).

[^154]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 513321 (issued October 2000).

[^155]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is "Firms with 1,000
    employees or more."

[^156]: The service is defined in Section 22.99 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^157]: BETRS is defined in Sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the
    Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.757 and 22.759.

[^158]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^159]: 13 CFR § 121.201, North American Industry Classification System
    (NAICS) code 513220 (changed to 517510 in October 2002).

[^160]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)", Table 4, NAICS code 513220 (issued October 2000).

[^161]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517410 and 517910 (changed from
    513340 and 513390 in Oct. 2002).

[^162]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, \"Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization),\" Table 4, NAICS code 513340 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^163]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517910.