70316 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 0, 4 and 63

[ET Docket No. 04–35; FCC 04–188] 

Disruptions to Communications

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document extends the 

Commission’s disruption reporting 

requirements to communications 

providers who are not wireline carriers. 

The Commission also streamlines 

compliance with the reporting 

requirements through electronic filing 

with a ‘‘fill in the blank’’ template and 

by simplifying the application of that 

rule. In addition, the Commission 

delegates authority to the Chief, Office 

of Engineering and Technology, to make 

the revisions to the filing system and 

template necessary to improve the 

efficiency of reporting and to reduce, 

where reasonably possible, the time for 

providers to prepare, and for the 

Commission staff to review, the 

communications disruption reports 

required to be filed. These actions will 

allow the Commission to obtain the 

necessary information regarding service 

disruptions in an efficient and 

expeditious manner and to achieve 

significant concomitant public interest 

benefits.

DATES: Effective January 3, 2005 except 

for Part 4 and the amendments to 

§ 63.100, which contains information 

collection requirements that have not 

been approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget. The Federal 

Communications Commission will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date. 

Written comments by the public on the 

modified information collection 

requirements must be submitted on or 

before January 3, 2005. Written 

comments must be submitted by the 

Office of Management and Budget on 

the information collection requirements 

on or before January 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

information collection requirements 

should be addressed to the Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to 

filing comments with the Secretary, a 

copy should be submitted to Leslie 

Smith, Federal Communications 

Commission, Room 1–C804, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or 

via Internet to Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov, and 

to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, 

10234 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503 or via the 

Internet to 

Kristy_L._LaLonde@omb.eop.gov. or via 

fax at (202) 395–5167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Iseman at (202) 418–2444, 

charles.iseman@fcc.gov, Office of 

Engineering and Technology, TTY (202) 

418–2989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, portion of the Report and 

Order and Further Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making, ET Docket No. 04–35, FCC 

04–188, adopted August 4, 2004, and 

released August 19, 2004. The full text 

of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text of this document also may 

be purchased from the Commission’s 

copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, 

Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY–

B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full 

text may also be downloaded at 

www.fcc.gov. Alternate formats are 

available to persons with disabilities by 

contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418–

7426 or TTY (202) 418–7365.

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

This document contains modified 

information collection requirements. 

The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public to 

comment on the information collection 

requirements contained in this R&O as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Public 

and agency comments are due January 

3, 2005. In addition, the Commission 

notes that pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), we previously sought 

specific comment on how the 

Commission might ‘‘further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’

In this present document, we have 

assessed the effects of how the modified 

outage-reporting requirements, which 

apply to wireline communications 

providers and to cable communications 

providers of circuit-switched telephony, 

and the new outage-reporting 

requirements, which apply to satellite 

communications providers, Signaling 

System 7 (‘‘SS7’’) providers, terrestrial 

wireless communications providers, and 

affiliated and non-affiliated entities that 

maintain or provide communications 

networks or services used by the 

provider in offering such 

communications, will impose 

information collection burdens on small 

business concerns. We anticipate that 

the revised rule will require the 

reporting of a few more outages than the 

approximately 200 outages that were 

reported annually. Communications 

providers that are small businesses are 

likely to have far fewer end users than 

the large ILECs, which have filed the 

vast majority of all outage reports in the 

past. We find it likely that, only on the 

rarest of occasions, small businesses 

may be required to file outage reports. 

Furthermore, it is practically 

inconceivable that a small business 

employing 25 or fewer employees will 

ever be required to file an outage report, 

because the communications providers 

to whom the revised rule applies 

typically require far larger numbers of 

employees. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Commission will send a copy of 

this Report & Order, in a report to be 

sent to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

Summary of Report and Order 

1. The Report and Order adopted, 

with some modifications, the 

Commission’s proposal to extend 

mandatory outage-reporting 

requirements to include all 

communications providers (satellite and 

wireless providers, in addition to 

wireline and cable communications 

providers, which are now covered by 

the rule) that provide voice and/or 

paging communications. As proposed, 

we adopt a common metric that will 

apply across all communications 

platforms in determining the general 

outage-reporting threshold criteria. The 

common metric is the number of ‘‘userminutes’’ potentially affected by an 

outage and is defined as the 

mathematical result of multiplying the 

outage’s duration expressed in minutes 

and the number of users potentially 

affected by the outage. For example, a 

30-minute outage that potentially affects 

30,000 end users also potentially affects 

900,000 user-minutes (30 minutes ×

30,000 users = 900,000 user-minutes). 

The general threshold criteria are that 

an outage must be reported to the 

Commission if (a) its duration is at least 

30 minutes; and (b) it potentially affects 

at least 900,000 user-minutes. We have 

applied the common metric and general 

threshold criteria as a basis for 

determining specific outage-reporting 

threshold criteria that account for the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70317

unique technical aspects of each 

communications platform. In taking 

these actions, the Commission 

recognizes 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 in the Report and Order. In an 

effort to promote rapid reporting and 

minimal administrative burden on 

covered entities, the Commission also 

streamlines compliance with the 

reporting requirements through 

electronic filing with a ‘‘fill in the 

blank’’ template and by simplifying the 

application of the existing rule (47 CFR 

63.100). 

2. Extension of Mandatory Reporting 

Requirements for Communications 

Providers. Most commenting parties 

recognize the need for some form of 

outage reporting so that the Commission 

can fulfill its responsibilities in 

overseeing the reliability and security of 

our Nation’s telecommunications 

networks. The Department of Homeland 

Security (‘‘DHS’’) undisputedly needs 

this data to fulfill its responsibilities 

concerning homeland security. There 

was, however, a mixed record 

concerning the manner in which outage 

data should be collected, with some 

commenting parties in favor of 

mandatory outage reporting and others 

opposed. We find that the mandatory 

reporting of network outages is the only 

reliable way to collect this important 

information for use by this Commission 

and, where appropriate, for other 

government entities.

3. In its comments, the Department of 

Homeland Security states it ‘‘is not 

opposed to a voluntary reporting 

structure, provided there is persuasive 

evidence of an absolute commitment 

from all carriers in the relevant industry 

segments to participate fully and to 

furnish complete and accurate 

disruption information in a consistent, 

timely, and thorough manner.’’ There is, 

however, no evidence in the record that 

the ‘‘Industry-Led Outage Reporting 

Initiative’’ (‘‘ILORI’’) process proposed 

by the Alliance for Telecommunications 

Industry Solutions (ATIS) and other 

commenting parties, or any other 

voluntary process, would meet the 

Department’s criteria that all relevant 

communications providers provide an 

absolute commitment to participate 

fully in a voluntary reporting structure; 

nor is there any probative evidence that 

the participants would, thereafter, 

furnish complete or accurate service 

disruption information in a consistent, 

or timely, or thorough manner. 

4. In sum, based on the record before 

us, we find no persuasive evidence that 

a voluntary program would be workable. 

We therefore adopt our proposal to 

extend mandatory outage reporting to 

non-wireline communications 

providers, and we will treat information 

in all outage reports as confidential 

information that is exempt from routine 

public disclosure under Freedom of 

Information Act (‘‘FOIA’’). See the 

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 0.457, 

0.459. We note, however, that the 

analytical substance of these reports is 

essential to the development and 

validation of best practices. As a 

consequence, we will also use 

information from those reports in 

analyses that will enable us to provide 

guidance to the Network Reliability and 

Interoperability Council, the Network 

Reliability Steering Committee and 

other organizations. We will do so, 

however, in a way that does not provide 

sensitive information to those who 

might use it for hostile, or competitive, 

purposes. (This may take the form, for 

example, of providing direct assistance 

to developers of Best Practices who 

address sources of outage problems. 

This would be consistent with previous 

efforts by our staff who, by analyzing 

outage reports, were able to provide 

detailed guidance to the Network 

Reliability Steering Committee and 

Network Reliability and Interoperability 

Councils.) 

5. The Department of Homeland 

Security (‘‘DHS’’) requests that it receive 

outage information directly, so that the 

Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security and the 

Department’s organizational units can 

fulfill their responsibilities under the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, which 

granted DHS broad authority to obtain 

information from federal agencies. See 6 

U.S.C. 21(d)(4) and (13) providing DHS 

with ‘‘timely and efficient access * * * 

to all information necessary to discharge 

the responsibilities under this 

section.***’’); 6 U.S.C. 122(a)(1) 

(giving DHS access to ‘‘all information 

concerning infrastructure or other 

vulnerabilities of the United States to 

terrorism, whether or not such 

information has been analyzed, that may 

be collected, possessed, or prepared by 

any agency of the Federal 

Government’’); 6 U.S.C. 122(b) (DHS 

may obtain access to information from 

agencies ‘‘on regular or routine basis’’). 

In addition, the Commission has an 

affirmative obligation to ‘‘promptly’’

provide DHS with all reports and 

information relating to threats of 

terrorism concerning critical 

infrastructure vulnerability. See 6 U.S.C. 

122(b)(2). We will, therefore, make 

available to DHS, in encrypted form and 

immediately upon receipt, all 

electronically submitted outage reports. 

DHS can then undertake to provide 

information from those reports to such 

other governmental authorities (such as 

State Public Utilities Commissions) as it 

may deem to be appropriate.

Consistent Reporting 

6. A. Common Metric. We conclude 

that the reporting threshold should 

henceforth be based on the number of 

‘‘users’’ potentially affected by outages 

instead of the more ambiguous term 

‘‘customers,’’ which is currently 

employed in our rules. Most 

commenting parties agree, in the 

abstract, that ‘‘users’’ would be a less 

ambiguous metric than ‘‘customers.’’ In 

addition, we are not persuaded by the 

comments that suggest the use of 

‘‘blocked calls’’ would be superior to 

user-minutes as a basis for a threshold 

reporting criterion, and we adopt the 

proposed 900,000 user-minutes as a 

common metric to serve as an outagereporting threshold. The major 

weakness of the blocked calls proposal 

is that it would result in a significant 

undercount of the number of users 

potentially affected by any outage. Our 

focus on the number of potentially 

affected end users is even more 

important today, in light of the 

homeland security concerns raised in 

the aftermath of the tragic events of 

September 11, 2001. In short, and more 

generally, because earthquakes, 

hurricanes, and terrorist attacks can 

occur at any time, day or night, we need 

to ensure that our communications 

infrastructure is reliable and secure on 

a ‘‘24–7’’ basis. In sum, our proposed 

900,000 user-minute threshold could 

result in the reporting of more outages 

in rural areas (e.g., if 

telecommunications in those areas were 

less reliable); however, the availability 

of essential telecommunications 

services are particularly vital in rural 

areas, given the remote nature and lack 

of quick access to emergency services 

and other forms of communications that 

are more frequently available in urban 

environments. In this regard, we do not 

agree with the comments of the Staff of 

the Kansas Corporation Commission 

that it is necessary to lower the 

reporting threshold to 150,000 userminutes in order to capture rural outage 

data. And, an increased number of 

outages affecting large organizational 

customers could also be reported 

because the number of potentially 

affected end users would no longer be 

under counted. In other words, use of 

the common metric will result in a more 

70318 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

accurate and realistic assessment of 

outages on a national basis. We have 

adopted our proposed 900,000 userminute as a common metric for 

determining the general outagereporting threshold for each 

communications technological platform 

addressed in the Report and Order. 

7. B. Simplified Reporting for Special 

Offices and Facilities and 911 Services. 

Based on the record, we conclude that 

some revisions to our proposed 911/

E911 outage-reporting criteria are 

justified. We have adopted the following 

threshold criteria for reporting 911/E911 

outages for wireline and non-wireline 

operations: 

(1) There is a loss of communications 

to PSAP(s) potentially affecting at least 

900,000 user-minutes and: (a) The 

failure is neither at the PSAP(s) nor on 

the premises of the PSAP(s); (b) no 

reroute for all end users was available; 

and (c) the outage lasts 30 minutes or 

more; or 

(2) There is a loss of 911 call 

processing capabilities in one or more 

E–911 tandems/selective routers for at 

least 30 minutes duration; or 

(3) One or more end-office or MSC 

switches or host/remote clusters is 

isolated from 911 service for at least 30 

minutes and potentially affects at least 

900,000 user-minutes; or 

(4) There is a loss of ANI/ALI and/or 

a failure of location determination 

equipment, including Phase II 

equipment, for at least 30 minutes and 

potentially affecting at least 900,000 

user-minutes (provided that the ANI/

ALI or the necessary location 

determination equipment was then 

currently deployed and in use, and the 

failure is neither at the PSAP(s) or on 

the premises of the PSAP(s)). 

In taking this action, we have applied 

the 900,000 user-minute threshold as a 

substitute for the 30,000 customer 

threshold proposed by commenting 

parties in order to maintain consistency 

with the general threshold that we have 

adopted. We also adopted BellSouth’s 

suggestion to specify that it is the loss 

of ‘‘911 call processing capabilities’’ in 

E–911 tandem/selective routers, and not 

the loss ‘‘all call processing 

capabilities,’’ that is the gist of this 

reportable event. In addition, we are 

persuaded by NENA’s comments that 

ANI/ALI (callback and location 

identification) functionality is a 

fundamental part of E911 service whose 

loss should be considered to be a 

reportable event. ANI/ALI functionality 

or its loss can make, and has made, the 

difference between life and death, even 

in situations in which voice 911 calls 

were completed. We understand that 

communications providers will not 

necessarily know whether the PSAP(s) 

receive 911/E911 communications. 

Therefore, the providers’ responsibility 

is to report outages that meet the 

threshold criteria and that potentially 

affect their ability to transmit 911/E911 

communications to the PSAP(s). We 

will not hold providers accountable for 

determining whether their 

transmissions were in fact received by 

the PSAP(s). For this reason, we are 

excluding outages caused by ‘‘failures at 

the PSAP(s) or on the premises of the 

PSAP(s).’’ We disagree with the 

contention that some of the threshold 

criteria should be limited to only those 

outages that are caused by a failure in 

the reporting communications 

provider’s network. We find that it is 

vitally important that we be informed of 

all significant outages that affect PSAPs, 

regardless of the network(s) in which 

the underlying causal factors lie. This 

information is crucial to gleaning more 

quickly a fuller understanding of how 

outages in a network affect other 

networks. This is especially so where 

PSAPs are affected, because of their 

major role in protecting public safety 

and human lives. We also disagree with 

the contention that the Commission 

should defer addressing outage 

reporting requirements for E911 until 

the completion of NRIC VII’s study of 

the issue, at the end of 2005. We find 

that the public’s interest in reliable and 

secure public safety E911 

telecommunications is better served by 

our acting promptly.

8. We are persuaded that our original 

proposal to include as special facilities 

all airports, including those small 

private airports that lack modern air 

traffic control communications 

infrastructure, may be overly inclusive. 

Instead, we shall limit the reporting 

requirement to those airports that are 

listed as current primary (PR), 

commercial service (CM), and reliever 

(RL) airports in the FAA’s National Plan 

of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) 

(as issued at least one calendar year 

prior to the outage) for the following 

reasons. There are over 19,000 airports 

in the United States. Most of those 

airports are civilian landing areas that 

are not open to the general public. That 

leaves a total of 5,314 airports open to 

the public. Of those airports, there is a 

list of (currently) 3,489 airports listed in 

the current NPIAS plan as airports that 

are ‘‘significant to national air 

transportation.’’ These airports are 

categorized as primary (PR), commercial 

(CM), reliever (RL), and general aviation 

(GA). There are currently 422 PR, 124 

CM, 260 RL, and 2558 GA airports. 

Commercial airports are airports that 

receive scheduled passenger service and 

enplane at least 2,500 passengers per 

year. Of the primary airports, 142 are 

hubs. A hub is a commercial airport that 

individually enplanes at least .05% of 

the total U.S. customer volume per year. 

All hub airports will be covered by our 

outage reporting requirements. We also 

find that the primary non-hub airports, 

which are commercial airports that 

enplane over 10,000 passengers per 

year, should be covered by these 

requirements. Similarly, we are 

including reliever airports, which are 

airports that are used as alternatives for 

congested hubs, as well as providing 

general aviation service to the 

surrounding area. In contrast we will 

exclude at this point general aviation 

airports, which are the airports that do 

not receive scheduled commercial 

service. In sum, 806 airports—the 422 

primary airports including all hubs, the 

124 commercial service airports, and the 

260 reliever airports that are used as 

alternative airports for congested hubs—

will now be covered by the revised 

outage-reporting requirements for 

special facilities that we are adopting 

herein. Although we believe that all 

communications providers will be able 

to adapt fairly easily to the inclusion of 

these airports within the outagereporting requirements for special 

offices and facilities, we recognize that 

in some cases small rural 

communications providers might not be 

able to comply with the revised rule. In 

such cases, we anticipate granting 

appropriate waivers of this rule to 

providers that file a written request for 

waiver of the rule that is supported with 

clear and convincing evidence of the 

need for such a waiver. 

9. As commenting parties have 

pointed out, the critical 

communications infrastructure serving 

airports is landline based. Therefore, the 

outage-reporting requirements for 

special offices and facilities, insofar as 

they cover communications to airports, 

will not be applied to satellite and 

terrestrial wireless communications 

providers at this time. 

10. C. Elimination of Separate 

Reporting Requirement for Fires. A 

separate reporting requirement, set forth 

in § 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, 

§ 63.100(d). 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70319

threshold criteria. Such outages would 

also exceed the proposed 900,000 userminute threshold criterion. We therefore 

proposed to eliminate this requirement. 

Commenting parties unanimously 

support elimination of this rule for the 

reasons that we advanced in the NPRM.

We therefore conclude that the separate 

reporting requirement for outages 

caused by fires no longer serves the 

public interest and rescind that 

requirement. 

11. D. Simplified Time Calculation for 

Filing Initial Report. In the NPRM, we 

had proposed to require the filing of 

initial outage reports within two hours 

of the onset of the outage and the filing 

of final reports within 30 days of the 

onset of the outage. We are persuaded, 

however, that the alternative three-step 

approach proposed by various 

commenting parties would best provide 

the information that we need in an 

efficient and timely manner and would 

lessen the administrative burden on 

communications providers. A ‘‘barebones’’ notification within two hours of 

the provider’s first knowledge of the 

outage will alert the Commission and 

DHS that a significant outage might be 

underway and will also provide some 

essential initial information (e.g., who to 

contact if more information were 

required in order to proceed further) if 

it is necessary to proceed further. This 

will not impose any significant burden 

on the provider’s restorative efforts. 

Efficient, electronic, Web-based filing, 

using a ‘‘fill-in-the-blank’’ template will 

be the preferred method of notification, 

but since there cannot be a guarantee 

that any particular method of 

communications would be operating 

normally, other written alternatives 

(e.g., FAX, courier) would be equally 

acceptable. The Notification shall 

include the following items—Reporting 

Entity, Date, Time, Brief Description of 

Problem, Services Affected, Geographic 

Area, Contact Name and Contact 

Telephone Number. At the three-day 

(72-hour) mark, the initial report shall 

be due. The data contained in the initial 

report will tend to be more complete 

and accurate than those that are filed at 

the two-hour mark under our current 

reporting rule. It may be the case, as 

PanAmSat and SES Americom suggest, 

that varying amounts of information 

will be available at the three-day mark 

from one outage to another and, thus, 

that not all data fields in every initial 

outage report will be able to be 

completed on time. We understand this 

but expect that reporting providers will 

exercise good faith in filling out the 

initial report as completely as possible. 

As a result, use of the same template for 

initial and final reports will enable 

reporting entities to submit all available 

information in the initial report and reuse that information in the final report 

to the extent that it is still accurate. 

Attestation will be required for the final 

report only. 

12. E. Other. In the NPRM, we 

tentatively found 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) (the deployment 

and operation of redundant assets (e.g., 

transmission facilities, network 

equipment, or logical paths) to achieve 

survivable communications in the event 

of a failure. Diversity requirements are 

specified in applicable industry 

standards and best practices.); 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, § 63.100(h)(1). 

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 anticipated that 

communications might 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 

networks 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 proposed 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. 

13. After reviewing the record in this 

proceeding, we find that the public 

interest will be best served by requiring 

that final outage reports identify 

whether the outage was at least partially 

caused because the network did not 

follow engineering standards for full 

diversity (redundancy). In an era in 

which networks are increasingly 

interconnected and in which there is 

heightened concerns that a failure of 

one network could conceivably cause 

the failure of other, interconnected 

networks, we find it important to 

facilitate analysis of the extent to which 

lack of diversity causes significant 

network outages. To analyze the text 

fields of existing outage reports 

manually for variations from best 

practices and for lack of diversity would 

be a very time consuming task. If past 

outage reports had contained a check 

box for identifying a lack of diversity, 

those analyses could have been readily 

done. In any event, we deem it 

important to discover if increased 

diversity would appreciably prevent the 

occurrences of outages. Therefore, we 

conclude that the outage template 

should, as proposed, include a checkbox 

for diversity. In general, if Best Practices 

related to diversity are discussed in any 

of the Best Practice fields or if lack of 

diversity is listed as a root cause or 

contributing factor to the outage, then 

the diversity checkbox must also be 

checked. In addition, we have been 

persuaded by those comments that 

assert that each outage has only a single 

root cause but may have many 

contributing factors. Accordingly, 

reporting entities will be required to 

reveal in the final outage report the root 

cause of the outage and several 

contributing factors (if any) to the 

outage. 

14. Regarding outage reporting by 

third party entities that maintain or 

provide communications networks or 

services for covered communications 

providers, we adopt our proposal. We 

point out that equipment manufacturers 

or vendors that do not maintain or 

provide such networks or services will 

not be subject to outage-reporting 

requirements. As BellSouth cogently 

observes: ‘‘SS7 outages have the 

potential to affect large numbers of end 

users and can have a large impact on the 

reliability and availability of the public 

switched telephone network’’ and 

therefore ‘‘it is reasonable to require 

disruption reporting for SS7 service 

from all SS7 providers.’’ Although, as 

Syniverse, KCC, and Ericsson observe, 

third party entities and communications 

providers should fully cooperate in 

assembling outage report data and in 

restoration efforts, we do not deem it 

advisable to countenance any delay that 

could result from these coordination 

efforts or from any emerging contractual 

disputes among the parties with respect 

to their service agreements. The outage 

reporting requirements we have adopted 

serve not only the general, long-term 

interests of network reliability and 

security, and potential resultant 

improvements in customer service, but 

also the overarching need to obtain 

70320 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

rapidly and accurately outage data that 

could serve the vital interests of 

homeland security. Our proposal better 

serves those vital interests and we 

therefore adopt it. 

Outage Reporting Requirements for 

Wireline Communications 

15. A. Voice Telephony. 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 Appendix-Glossary to 47 CFR part 

36) and end user location(s). We 

proposed to require wireline providers 

to report outages that meet the following 

criteria: 

• The outage duration must be at least 

30 minutes; and

• The number of ‘‘user-minutes’’

potentially affected must equal or 

exceed 900,000. 

16. For telephony, we proposed 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 

§ 52.15(f)(i) and (iii) of the 

Commission’s Rules, § 52.15(f)(i), (iii). 

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.’’

Administrative numbers are ‘‘numbers 

used by telecommunications carriers to 

perform internal administrative or 

operational functions necessary to 

maintain reasonable quality of service 

standards.’’ We tentatively concluded 

that the combination of these two 

measurements would provide a better 

assessment of the number of users that 

are potentially affected by the 

communications disruption, as 

distinguished from the number of 

‘‘customers’’ that may be potentially 

affected.

17. After reviewing the record, we 

agree with a number of commenting 

parties that our proposed use of 

assigned telephone numbers as a count 

of potentially affected wireline end 

users could result in a small over 

counting, which might unnecessarily 

increase the number of reports. Hence 

we have revised our requirement to 

include assigned telephoned number or

working telephone numbers, where 

working telephone numbers refer to 

telephone numbers that have been 

assigned and provisioned for service. 

(To be more specific, ‘‘working 

telephone numbers’’ are defined to be 

the sum of all telephone numbers that 

can originate, or terminate 

telecommunications. As a consequence, 

this would include, for example, all 

working telephone numbers on the 

customer’s side of a PBX or Centrex.) 

Working telephone numbers include 

direct inward dialing (‘‘DID’’) telephone 

numbers assigned to PBX and Centrex 

customers. Service providers may be 

aware of working telephone numbers to 

support their billing and operations 

processes and, if so, may use working 

telephone numbers in place of assigned 

telephone numbers. If the working 

telephone numbers are unknown for any 

reason, assigned telephone numbers 

must be used. 

18. Blocked calls, which were 

proposed as an alternative by a number 

of commenting parties, measure the 

actual impact, not the potential impact, 

of an outage. Our concern is to identify 

problem areas in the network by 

receiving reports on events that, if they 

had occurred at a different time or on 

a different day of the week, could have 

affected many users. We are not 

interested primarily in a tally of the 

exact number of users that were affected 

because we have not, and do not 

currently intend to rank or rate outage 

reports based on their actual impact on 

end users. 

19. Furthermore, the use of blocked 

calls as a reporting criterion would 

result in a significant undercounting of 

the number of end users potentially 

affected by outages. We find that the use 

of ‘‘access lines in service’’ or any of the 

other types of lines mentioned in the 

comments would suffer from the same 

flaw primarily because there are no 

useful definitions on the record for any 

of those terms. (As a general example, 

a large PBX or Centrex with many users, 

working stations, and telephone 

numbers can be connected to a switch 

by a relatively small number of lines or 

trunks. Simply counting these lines or 

trunks would underestimate the number 

of potentially-affected end users. In fact, 

even counting telephone numbers may 

underestimate the impact, particularly 

in the case of PBXs for which unique 

telephone numbers are not assigned to 

each end user.) 

20. We disagree with ATIS’s 

assertions about inaccuracies and ‘‘outdatedness’’ of, and difficulties in using, 

NRUF data. ATIS’s claim that the NRUF 

reports ‘‘do not reflect working 

telephone lines’’ is not apposite because 

the Commission’s rules, which are also 

clearly set forth in the NRUF 

instructions, state that ‘‘assigned 

numbers are numbers working in the 

Public Switched Telephone Network.’’

(§ 52.15 (f)(1)(iii) makes no reference to 

the number of ‘‘lines.’’) In addition, it is 

not clear what definition of ‘‘working’’

ATIS is using in reference to access 

lines. We emphasize that telephone 

switches are not designed to enable 

every telephone number that can be 

served by a switch to be actually served 

simultaneously, but every such number 

is potentially affected if the switch fails. 

Our rules and the NRUF guidelines 

clearly spell out the five mutually 

exclusive utilization categories in which 

telephone numbers are to be counted. 

These categories cover all of the various 

problem areas mentioned in the 

comments. 

21. Similarly, ATIS and other’s 

proposed requirement—that a 

‘‘survivable element’’ must fail in order 

for an outage to be reportable—fails to 

account for the fact that end users are 

potentially affected by outages 

regardless of whether ‘‘survivable 

elements’’ fail. We take particular 

exception to the USTA comment that 

outages should not be required to be 

reported if ‘‘non-intelligent elements’’

are involved regardless of the number of 

users affected. We stress that our 

concern is with the communications 

users, not with the intelligence or lack 

thereof in various network elements. As 

ATIS and others state, the adoption of 

our proposal could result in the filing of 

more outage reports than have been 

filed under the existing reporting 

threshold criteria. We do not believe 

that the number of such reports will 

dramatically increase, but the additional 

data will better enable the Commission 

to meet its responsibilities to facilitate 

increased reliability and security of our 

nation’s telecommunications 

infrastructure. 

22. Finally, we reject the assertions 

that it is difficult and cumbersome for 

wireline providers to use NRUF data to 

determine the number of assigned 

telephone numbers potentially affected 

by outages. The NRUF data is reported 

by rate center, and the individual 

utilization records in each rate center 

are reported by NPA, NXX, and the 

thousands digit of the telephone 

numbers. It is a simple, straight forward 

process for wireline providers to use the 

Local Exchange Routing Guide 

(‘‘LERG’’) (which is published by 

Telcordia and updated monthly) to sum 

up the utilization of all the numbers 

served by each switch to determine the 

total assigned numbers and 

administrative numbers. We note that 

none of the smaller carriers or their 

industry associations that submitted 

comments in this proceeding has raised 

any concern regarding their ability to 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70321

track assigned and administrative 

numbers for each switch. All wireline 

carriers continuously keep track of 

assigned and administrative numbers so 

that an incoming call to any of those 

numbers can be switched to the correct 

line and trunk, so that they can respond 

to requests for new service or for 

specific vanity telephone numbers. As a 

consequence, we find that our proposal 

will best serve the public interest and, 

therefore, has been adopted. 

23. B. IXC and LEC Tandem Outages.

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.’’ § 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.’’ We 

proposed to modify this rule to replace 

the ‘‘customer’’ metric with the 

‘‘assigned telephone number-minute’’

metric, in order to be consistent with 

the other modifications that we 

proposed. We also noted that the term 

‘‘blocked calls’’ is not clearly defined in 

§ 63.100 and that some companies have 

counted 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 proposed to require that all 

blocked calls, regardless of whether they 

are in the originating or terminating 

direction, be counted in determining 

compliance with the outage reporting 

threshold criteria. 

24. 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. 

We tentatively concluded that 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. 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). We also 

clarified 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 

outgoing blocked calls only, or the 

number of incoming blocked calls only, 

but not both. For these cases, we 

proposed 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 setup was affected by the outage.

25. Based on our review of the record, 

we believe that there is some confusion 

about our proposal. Contrary to the 

comments of several entities, we are not 

using assigned telephone numbers as 

the basis for determining if a tandem 

outage is reportable. Instead, we are 

using blocked calls. We disagree with 

commenting parties who object to our 

proposal to triple the number of historic 

carried calls to determine if an outage is 

reportable. We believe that setting the 

threshold for real-time blocked calls 

equal to triple the threshold using the 

number based on measured historic 

carried calls is still appropriate. This is 

not a change in the Commission’s 

position. The existing rule, as it always 

has, states:

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. Carriers may use historical data to 

estimate blocked calls when required realtime blocked call counts are not possible. 

When using historical data, companies, 

corporations or entities 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.

Section 63.100(f) of the Commission’s 

Rules, (emphases added). (When 

referring to historical data, for which 

30,000 ‘‘historic carried calls’’ is the 

appropriate criterion, the existing rule 

inaccurately refers to 30,000 ‘‘calls [that 

are] blocked.’’ This is so, because in the 

historic period, all calls were 

presumably carried and none were 

‘‘blocked.’’) One can logically infer that 

there are more call attempts when 

outages occur. This implies that there 

should be a conversion factor when 

using real-time information instead of 

historical information. In the early 

1990s, ATIS Committee T1A1.2 used a 

factor of three in its recommended 

methodology. This resulted in the 

existing threshold of 90,000 for realtime blocked calls. If we follow the 

suggestion of certain commenting 

parties and eliminate the factor of three, 

the threshold for real-time blocked calls 

would be 30,000 blocked calls—the 

same as the threshold for historical 

carried calls. We find that this would be 

an unsupported deviation from the 

existing rule and would disserve the 

public interest. 

26. We strongly disagree with Sprint’s 

recommendation that we limit the 

counting of blocked calls to those that 

occur in the first 30 minutes of an 

outage. This would result in a severe 

and unjustified undercount of the 

effects of outages. Thus, many severe 

outages would not be reported. Most 

outage reports that the Commission 

receives and which have been triggered 

by blocked calls are the result of cable 

failures; these outages can persist for 

hours and even days. Regarding the 

‘‘originating’’ and ‘‘terminating’’

terminology that we have historically 

applied to blocked calls, we 

acknowledge that for tandem switches 

the terms ‘‘incoming’’ and ‘‘outgoing’’

would serve just as well. Our paramount 

goal is to ensure that all effects of 

outages are counted. For outages of 

tandem switches, all blocked calls need 

to be counted. Since any call incoming 

to a tandem switch is also outgoing from 

that tandem, the number of blocked 

calls can be counted by determining the 

number of blocked incoming calls or by 

determining the number of outgoing 

blocked calls. That is, there is no need 

to double either figure or to add them 

together. For failures of interoffice 

facilities, blocked calls also need to be 

counted. Many interoffice facilities 

carry traffic in both directions. In this 

case, if the number of blocked calls in 

only one direction can be determined, 

then the estimate of the number of 

blocked calls for both directions must be 

obtained by doubling that number. Our 

proposal, when interpreted and applied 

in this manner, will not result in the 

double counting of blocked calls but 

will accurately count the number of all 

blocked calls. Therefore, we adopt our 

70322 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

proposal. Additionally, we clarify that 

whenever a provider relies on available 

‘‘historical data,’’ it must use historic 

carried call load data for the same day 

of the week and the same time of day 

as the outage, and for a time interval not 

older than 90 days preceding the onset 

of the outage. Finally, we must account 

for situations where, for whatever 

reason, real-time and historical data are 

unavailable to the provider, even after a 

detailed investigation. In such cases, the 

provider must determine the carried call 

load based on data obtained in the time 

interval between the onset of the outage 

and the due date for the final report; this 

data must cover the same day of the 

week and the same time of day as the 

outage. Justification that such data 

accurately estimates the traffic that 

would have been carried at the time of 

the outage had the outage not occurred 

must be available on request. 

Outage Reporting Requirements for 

Wireless and Paging Communications 

27. A. Common Metric for Paging and 

Wireless Services. Consistent with the 

30-minutes/900,000 user-minutes 

criteria, we proposed in the NPRM to 

require wireless service providers to 

report outages of at least 30 minutes 

duration that potentially affect 900,000 

user-minutes. We sought comment on 

this proposal. For those paging networks 

in which each individual user is 

assigned a telephone number, we 

proposed 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 

networks 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 networks 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 sought 

comment on this interpretation and 

proposed addition to our rules.

28. In the Report and Order, we 

adopted outage reporting requirements 

for paging providers because of paging’s 

vitally important role in alerting first 

responders and other critical personnel 

in emergencies, as well as its general 

importance as part of our Nation’s 

telecommunications infrastructure. 

Nonetheless, we recognize that paging 

users are highly mobile, and there is no 

way to predict accurately how many 

users will be at specific locations at any 

particular time. Therefore, after 

considering the comments filed with 

respect to our proposal, we are adopting 

modified outage-reporting threshold 

criteria for paging to account for its 

unique characteristics. We find that the 

key, common element in paging 

networks is the switch. All messages are 

processed through a single switch before 

being distributed for broadcast. In 

addition, most paging switches have 

large numbers of users assigned to them. 

Therefore, if the switch cannot receive 

messages or distribute them to the 

transmitters, all assigned users are 

potentially affected. On the other hand, 

we find that it would be difficult to 

determine the number of potential users 

affected by the failure of one or more 

transmitters. Also, a failure of a single 

transmitter would not cause a service 

outage if the paging messages were 

successfully completed through the use 

of other transmitters. Therefore, we find 

that the 900,000 user-minute reporting 

threshold is applicable only to failures 

of the switch, and not to failures of 

individual transmitters. If the switch is 

incapable of processing paging messages 

for at least 30 minutes and at least 

900,000 user-minutes are thereby 

potentially affected, then the paging 

provider will be required to report the 

outage to the Commission. 

29. B. Related Criteria for Wireless 

Communications. To measure the extent 

of wireless service system degradation, 

in the NPRM we proposed to require the 

use of blocked calls instead of using 

assigned telephone numbers as a proxy 

for the usefulness of the system to users. 

In the wireless telephony service, a call 

is deemed ‘‘blocked’’ whenever the 

Mobile Switching Center (‘‘MSC’’) 

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, under 

our proposal, 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. 

30. To estimate the number of 

potential users affected by a significant 

system degradation of wireless service 

facilities, we proposed 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. Although the 

concentration ratio may vary among 

MSCs, we tentatively concluded 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 proposed 

that the concentration factor be ten. 

Thus, a MSC switch that is capable of 

handling 3,000 simultaneous calls 

would have 30,000 potentially affected 

users (i.e., (3,000) × (10) = 30,000). We 

tentatively concluded that this 

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. Thus, under 

the general outage-reporting criteria that 

we proposed, 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. The 900,000 minutes 

were calculated by multiplying the 

number of simultaneous calls the MSC 

can complete through the switch by the 

concentration ratio of 10, and then 

multiplying the result by the duration of 

the outage expressed in minutes. In the 

case of the preceding example, the 

calculation would be 3,000 multiplied 

by 10, or 30,000 users. 30,000 users 

multiplied by 30 minutes would equal 

900,000 user minutes. That is, 3,000 

(user switch capacity) multiplied by 10 

(concentration ratio) equals 30,000 

(number of potentially affected users). 

Then, 30,000 (number of potentially 

affected users) multiplied by 30 minutes 

(outage duration) equals 900,000 userminutes. If the outage were to involve 

less than the full capacity of the switch, 

then that portion of the traffic that is 

disrupted would be calculated. For 

example, if a 3,000 user switch were 

operating at one-half of its capacity for 

one hour, during which the switch 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70323

could simultaneously serve a maximum 

of only 1,500 users, then the calculation 

would be 1,500 users multiplied by 10 

= 15,000 potentially affected users. 

Then, 15,000 potentially affected users 

multiplied by 60 minutes would equal 

900,000 user-minutes. This outage 

would meet the threshold and, 

therefore, would be required to be 

reported. We sought comment on this 

proposed addition to our rules and on 

whether there are specific types of 

wireless networks for which a 

concentration factor other than ten 

should be applied. As with CMRS 

paging providers, we also sought 

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. 

31. We further proposed 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 userminutes potentially affected by the 

outage. Our reason for this specific 

proposal on MSC-outage reporting was 

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 networks that is designed to 

address significant levels of traffic 

aggregation and call routing that is 

dependent upon SS7 signaling. We 

sought comment on these additional 

conclusions and further proposal. 

32. In the Report and Order, after 

considering the comments filed with 

respect to our proposals, we have 

adopted modified outage-reporting 

criteria for wireless communications 

providers. First, we clarify that only 

those SMR providers that meet the 

definition of ‘‘covered CMRS’’ providers 

shall be required to submit outage 

reports. As explained in the NPRM, our 

intent is to include SMR providers that 

offer services interconnected with the 

PSTN and compete with cellular and 

PCS services. We believe that our 

clarification accurately depicts the SMR 

services to which we intend to apply 

outage-reporting requirements. Second, 

we find that there is a public interest 

need to determine the potential number 

of users that may be affected by an 

outage. As explained in the NPRM the 

current trend is for wireless users to 

replace their landline telephones with 

wireless service. The number of U.S. 

households that have completely cut the 

cord remains small. However, half of the 

wireless households report that wireless 

usage has replaced some, a significant 

amount or all of their regular telephone 

usage. In addition, wireless service 

providers are offering flat rate calling 

plans that encourages users to 

approximate wireline-calling patterns. 

Similar to wireline, there are many 

users who seldom make or receive 

wireless telephone calls, their main 

intent is to have communications 

available in case of an emergency. This 

reliance on wireless for emergency 

communications has reportedly 

increased in the wake of the September 

11, 2001 terrorist attacks. In addition, in 

the immediate aftermath of these 

terrorist attacks, the volume of wireless 

communications traffic reached 

saturation levels, causing several 

wireless networks to become 

overloaded. In such situations, it is clear 

that the alternative proposed by some 

commenting parties, that we rely on 

either real-time or historical blocked 

call counts to determine whether an 

outage has reached the reporting 

threshold, would result in severe 

undercounts of the number of users that 

would have likely relied on wireless 

phones to attempt calls to reach 

emergency assistance or loved ones. 

Therefore, we find it imperative that the 

outage-reporting threshold rely on a 

more realistic method for calculating the 

number of users potentially affected by 

a wireless outage. The impact of an 

outage on the Nation’s infrastructure 

and the growing reliance of first 

responders on wireless communications 

make the reporting of the number of 

potential users affected imperative to 

determine the robustness of the nation’s 

wireless infrastructure. Although 

concentration ratios vary among MSCs, 

we believe that, on average, the 

concentration ratio used for determining 

outages should be uniform to facilitate 

correlative analysis of outage reports 

from different wireless providers. Based 

on discussions with 

telecommunications engineers and our 

understanding of typical traffic loading/

switch design parameters, the NPRM

proposed that the number be 10.

33. We conclude, however, that the 

concentration ratio should be reduced to 

8 to account for the dynamic nature and 

the mobility of wireless telephony 

systems. The proposed concentration 

ratio of 10 was based on an analysis that 

assumed a presented load of 0.05 

Erlangs/user, which is half the load 

presented to a typical wireline switch. 

We believed this assumption was 

justified in light of the fact that wireless 

phones, while gaining considerably in 

popularity, are still not complete 

substitutes for wireline telephone 

service. For example, because wireless 

users tend to be aware of remaining 

battery life, they may tend to shorten the 

average duration of their calls. Wireless 

calls can also terminate prematurely due 

to the uncertain nature of wireless 

coverage areas and dead spots. 

However, despite these issues, more 

recent information leads us to believe 

that more users are considering wireless 

service to be a complete substitute for 

wireline local exchange service, where 

issues like coverage area and battery life 

would weigh less on the average call 

duration, and that this trend is likely to 

continue. Hence, we find that our 

original assumption about the average 

load presented to a typical wireless 

switch was low but could increase in 

the future. After increasing the assumed 

presented load to a more realistic level, 

we conclude that the concentration ratio 

should be reduced to 8. Thus, a MSC 

switch that is capable of handling 3,750 

simultaneous calls would have 30,000 

potentially affected users (i.e., (3,750) ×

(8) = 30,000). 

34. The comments help illustrate the 

complexities of developing a common 

method to estimate the number of 

potential users affected by an outage. 

The use of historical data will only 

account for the normal usage patterns of 

the MSC. Once a MSC is overloaded or 

is out of service there is no mechanism 

to count blocked calls. As a 

consequence, reliance on historical data 

would result in a gross underestimate of 

the number of roamers and the number 

of users who only use their wireless 

phones in an emergency. This 

underestimation of potential users 

through the use of historical data has 

been repeatedly illustrated during 

emergencies in which wireless usage 

has overloaded wireless networks. As 

one commenting party, the BloostonLaw 

Rural Carriers, concede, when a switch 

fails, all users assigned to the switch are 

potentially affected. We conclude that 

outage reports should account for all 

potential users, not just those users who 

normally use their phones. 

35. The concentration ratio of 8 

reflects the generic parameters that are 

routinely used in basic 

telecommunication traffic analysis. In 

practice, cellular and PCS networks 

strive to maintain not more than 2% 

blocking. The wireless design goal is to 

accommodate 2% blocking of calls 

during the busy hour. Similar statistical 

calculations are used to determine 

wireline switch capacity. During an ex 

parte meeting held on June 10, 2004, 

discussions with CTIA and other 

representatives of the cellular industry 

confirmed that wireless networks are 

designed to not permit more than 2% 

70324 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

blocking during the busy hour. This 

means that, on average, during the 

switch’s busy hour, 2% of all calls 

presented to the switch will be blocked 

and 98% will be completed. Based on 

application of the 2% blocking factor 

and commonly accepted switch design 

parameters and principles, we find, 

first, that use of a concentration ratio to 

determine the call capacity of MSC 

switches is appropriate. Second, we find 

that the choice of 8 as the concentration 

ratio for determining the wireless 

outage-reporting threshold is also 

appropriate. 

36. We conclude that application of a 

concentration ratio of 8 in determining 

the call capacity of MSC switches will 

not result in over counting users in rural 

areas. Finally, we find that the use of a 

common concentration ratio for all 

wireless networks will provide 

consistency, will be easy to understand 

and use, and, in turn, will best serve the 

public interest. In sum, we adopt a 

common concentration ratio of 8 based 

on our best engineering judgment as 

applied to the record before us. This 

concentration ratio corresponds to a 

service level approximately equal to a 

2% blocking factor, for which wireless 

networks are designed. Accordingly, we 

have adopted our proposed method of 

determining the call capacity of a MSC, 

that is, the number of potential users = 

(MSC switch capacity) × (the 

concentration ratio of 8). We recognize, 

however, that this concentration ratio 

may change over time. As a 

consequence, we direct the Chief, Office 

of Engineering and Technology, to 

monitor the numerical value of the 

concentration ratio and advise the 

Commission if this value needs to be 

revised to more adequately reflect the 

number of potential users that are 

impacted by an outage. 

37. Outage Reporting Requirements 

for Cable Circuit-Switched Telephony.

Failures in various portions of cable 

network infrastructures 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 PSTN can cause cable 

telephony to be disrupted. Circuitswitched telephony provided by cable 

operators has always been subject to our 

communications disruption reporting 

requirements, and outage reports have 

been filed by cable operators. 

Nonetheless, we proposed to amend 

§ 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 proposed to apply to 

cable telephony the same revised 

threshold-reporting criteria (30 minutes/

900,000 assigned telephone numberminutes potentially affected) that we 

proposed for wireline telephony outage 

reporting and sought comment on this 

proposed addition to our rules. In the 

Report and Order, we adopted our 

proposed outage-reporting requirements 

for cable communications providers. We 

note that the customer base for circuitswitched telephony over cable may not 

be as large as the one over wireline and, 

hence, few cable outages might be 

reported. However, the reporting 

threshold that we adopted will capture 

outages when they are sufficiently long, 

and it is a more stringent threshold than 

the existing one. We do not find that the 

needs of homeland security warrant a 

different action at this time. Also, as we 

stated in the NPRM, we are not 

addressing VoIP or public data network 

outage reporting at this time. 

38. Outage Reporting Requirements 

for Satellite Communications. Section 

63.100 of our rules does not contain 

outage-reporting requirements that are 

applicable to satellite communications. 

We tentatively concluded in the NPRM,

that because of the increasing role and 

importance of satellites in our national 

communications infrastructure, it would 

be prudent to require U.S. space station 

licensees and those foreign licensees 

that are providers of satellite 

communications to the American public 

to report all major failures. This would 

apply to satellites or transponders used 

to provide telephony and/or paging. 

Thus, our proposal did not include 

satellites or transponders used solely to 

provide intra-corporate or intraorganizational private 

telecommunications or solely for the 

one-way distribution of video or audio 

programming. 

39. Satellite communications have 

space components and terrestrial 

components. The reporting 

requirements that we proposed cover all 

satellite communications outages, 

regardless of whether they result from 

failures in the space or terrestrial 

components. Specifically, we proposed 

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, 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 

proposed 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. We anticipated 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 

networks, one user-minute would be 

defined as one assigned telephone 

number-minute.

40. The Report and Order adopted 

modified outage-reporting criteria for 

satellite communications. We are 

persuaded that FSS communications 

providers do not have a way to 

determine the number of end users nor 

the nature of the communications traffic 

that would be potentially affected by 

any given transponder failure. In 

addition, we find that MSS service 

providers are not likely to know how 

many end users are potentially affected 

during intermittent service disruptions. 

Nevertheless, we think it is important 

that major outages of satellite networks 

involving voice or paging services be 

reported. As a result, in the Report and 

Order, we adopted a two tier approach 

for reporting—one for satellite operators 

and one for satellite communications 

providers. In either of the satellite 

outage reporting tiers, we are applying 

our rules only to voice and paging 

communications. In many cases, the 

satellites may carry a mix of traffic that 

includes video or audio programming, 

or private network communications, 

which are not covered by these rules. 

We believe that it is important that we 

obtain information on any outages that 

meet our criteria if they could involve 

voice or paging communications. As a 

result, our reporting rules will not apply 

to satellites, satellite beams, intersatellite links, MSS gateway earth 

stations, and satellite networks when 

those elements are used exclusively for 

non-covered services (that is, when they 

never are used to carry voice or paging 

communications). We believe this 

clarification will help satellite operators 

and satellite communications providers 

to determine more easily when 

reporting is required, and are modifying 

our rules accordingly. We are also 

modifying our rules to more clearly 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70325

distinguish between the requirements 

that apply to satellite operators and 

satellite communications providers. 

41. As a first tier, all satellite 

operators will be required to report any 

outage of more than 30 minutes 

duration of the following key system 

elements: satellite transponders, 

satellite beams, inter-satellite links, or 

entire satellites. In addition, MSS 

satellite operators will be required to 

report any outage of more than 30 

minutes duration at any gateway earth 

station. We recognize that several 

commenting parties have suggested that 

reporting requirements should apply 

only for service outages, not for 

equipment outages. They argue that 

satellite operators can often bring inorbit spares into use or rely on other 

satellites in the network to provide 

coverage. While this may be true, we 

still believe that reporting should be 

required when key satellite system 

elements have failed for more than 30 

minutes. Satellite systems in general are 

expensive and difficult to replace, and 

it can take a long time for replacement 

satellite systems to be manufactured and 

launched. Furthermore, use of in-orbit 

spares or other satellites in a network 

can have a significant impact on future 

satellite network redundancy and 

overall system capacity. Given the 

critical backup role that satellites 

systems play in the overall U.S. 

communications infrastructure, we 

believe it is essential that operators 

report outages of key satellite system 

elements. 

42. We have adopted rules that 

identify the key satellite system 

elements, which would require 

reporting if there is an outage of more 

than 30 minutes duration, as satellite 

transponders, satellite beams, intersatellite links, or entire satellites. We are 

also applying reporting requirements to 

MSS gateway earth stations if there is an 

overall gateway outage of more than 30 

minutes duration. The reporting 

requirements will not apply to 

individual MSS gateway earth station 

outages where other earth stations at the 

gateway location are used to continue 

gateway operations within 30 minutes. 

Outage of any of the key satellite 

elements for an extended period could 

have a significant impact on the overall 

functioning of a satellite network and 

can affect system coverage, capacity and 

usability. They can also affect that 

ability of satellite systems to handle 

higher levels of emergency traffic if 

there is an outage elsewhere in the 

communications infrastructure. We note 

that this approach avoids the concerns 

raised by satellite operators that they 

could not determine the number of 

users or user-minutes that would be 

involved in an outage. 

43. The second tier of our approach 

for satellite outage reporting is to 

require satellite communications 

providers to report outages that involve 

more than 900,000 user-minutes. We 

recognize that a FSS satellite operator 

may not know that an outage is even 

occurring when it involves the failure in 

a service provider’s network that 

communicates with the FSS satellite. 

However, the satellite communications 

provider should know when such an 

outage occurs, and should be 

responsible for reporting that outage just 

as other non-satellite communications 

providers are required to do. We 

recognize that there may be cases, as 

raised by MSS operators, that a satellite 

communications provider doesn’t know 

how many users may be potentially 

affected by the outage. This can be 

particularly true with the MSS operator 

is providing service both inside and 

outside the U.S. In those cases, we 

expect the satellite communications 

provider to determine whether reporting 

is required based on an estimate of how 

many users in the U.S. might be 

impacted and the amount of time those 

users lose service. 

44. Reporting of Major Infrastructure 

Failures. 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. 

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-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. We 

tentatively concluded in the NPRM that 

our rules should be revised to account 

for certain important attributes of 

special services. Rather than collect 

information that is limited specifically 

to ‘‘special services,’’ however, we 

proposed to directly address the 

underlying issue and collect 

information on the potential impact on 

all communications services of major 

infrastructure failures. 

45. A. DS3 Minutes. As a 

consequence, we proposed to establish 

additional outage-reporting criteria that 

would apply to failures of 

communications infrastructure 

components having significant trafficcarrying 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 networks or 

services on their behalf. We tentatively 

concluded that the threshold reporting 

criterion for such infrastructure outages 

should be based on the number of DS3 

minutes affected by the outage because 

DS3s are the common denominator used 

throughout the communications 

industry as a measure of capacity.

46. In the Report and Order, after 

considering the comments, we adopted 

our proposal to require the reporting of 

all outages that last at least 30 minutes 

and affect 1,350 or more DS3 minutes. 

For example, if 45 or more DS3s are out 

of service for 30 minutes, an outage 

report must be filed. However, the 

quantity of DS3s affected in an outage 

is just one factor used to determine if 

the 1,350 DS3 minute threshold has 

been reached. Outages of longer 

duration will become reportable for 

fewer than 45 DS3s according to the 

1,350 DS3 minute threshold. For 

example, a single DS3 that was out of 

service for 1,350 minutes would 

constitute a reportable outage. Similarly, 

an outage of two DS3s for 675 minutes 

would constitute a reportable outage, 

and so forth. 

47. When a DS3 is part of a protection 

scheme such as a SONET ring, it will 

frequently switch to a protect-path 

within seconds of a failure in the 

primary path. The communication 

services being provided over the DS3 

will not be immediately affected, but 

they will no longer be protected.

Unfortunately, we have had a number of 

network outages reported where there 

are multiple failures on a SONET ring 

at different points in time, in one case 

five months after the initial failure. The 

second failure that occurs before the 

first failure is repaired causes the loss of 

all communications services being 

provided over the DS3. We therefore 

require that DS3s that switch to protect 

70326 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

be counted in DS3 outage minutes until 

such time as the DS3s are restored to 

normal service, including protection. 

An analogy would be to a two-engine 

airplane that can still fly with one 

engine. If one engine fails, the second 

(protection) engine keeps the plane 

flying but in an impaired state. Service 

is not restored to normal until both 

engines operate properly. Protected 

communications services are not 

restored to normal until both the 

primary and protect DS3s operate 

properly. In this same regard, if 

protection DS3s should fail while the 

primary DS3s are still working, services 

would not be immediately affected but 

the failed DS3 minutes are still counted 

toward the reportable trigger due to the 

loss of protection. Hence, we reject the 

proposed alternative that would exempt 

failures of DS3’s that are part of a 

protection scheme. 

48. A DS3 is a communications 

highway that has been put in place to 

carry traffic in a digital format. That 

traffic can range from simple alarm and 

control circuits, to voice circuits, to 

radio and television programs, to 

circuits carrying ATM or credit card 

transactions, to FAA flight control 

circuits, to Department of Defense 

circuits, to circuits transferring billions 

of dollars from one Federal Reserve 

Bank to another, to circuits critical to 

the operation of the stock and bond 

markets. Some DS3s that carry no traffic 

are built strictly as protection in the 

case of a failure of another DS3. We find 

it necessary to point out that our 

concern is with the loss of 

communication highways regardless of 

how lightly or heavily they may be 

loaded at the time of an outage. The 

actual impact of a DS3 failure is that a 

communications highway that is part of 

this nation’s communications 

infrastructure is no longer available. We 

are not asking carriers to calculate the 

potential impact of a DS3 failure. For 

example, if a failed DS3 is the only 

working DS3 in an OC48 (with 48 

possible DS3s), then the potential is for 

48 DS3s to have failed. Likewise, if that 

same OC48 was riding one fiber in a 72-

fiber cable that was cut, then the 

potential is for all of the fibers to be 

multiplexed at the OC48 level even if 

some of the fibers were actually dark. 

We only require that the working DS3s 

be counted, not those that could be 

potentially working. 

49. A number of commenting parties 

suggested that only DS3 failures that 

should be reported are those where ‘‘the 

service provider owns, operates and 

maintains the electronic terminal 

equipment at both end points.’’ This is 

an extremely restrictive provision that 

would be very difficult for the ‘‘service 

provider’’ to implement. The American 

National Standard for 

Telecommunications, T1.238–2003 

(Information Interchange—Structure for 

the Identification of 

Telecommunications Facilities for the 

North American Telecommunications 

System), used to identify DS3s, does not 

even include data elements that identify 

who owns, operates or maintains the 

electronic terminal equipment at the 

ends of DS3s. The Commission is 

concerned with understanding 

infrastructure failures that might suggest 

that adequate facilities are not being 

provided to serve the communications 

needs of the people of the United States, 

and not with who owns, operates and 

maintains the electronic terminal 

equipment. Hence, we reject the 

suggestion that the only DS3 failures 

that should be reported are those where 

‘‘the service provider owns, operates 

and maintains the electronic terminal 

equipment at both end points.’’

50. We also clarify that we have no 

intention of asking service providers to 

report individual DS3 outages where the 

customer has deliberately turned the 

DS3 off, or where the customer’s 

equipment has failed. To do so would 

be unfair to the communications 

provider. However, if that same DS3 

goes through a multiplexer, a digital 

cross-connect, a fiber cable or other 

network component that fails then it 

shall be counted as one of the many 

DS3s that are affected. The 

determination that a customer 

intentionally or unintentionally caused 

a DS3 failure typically cannot be made 

until after service is restored.

51. We agree with the suggestion that 

the service provider whose 

infrastructure network component 

causes a reportable DS3 outage, or has 

maintenance responsibility for the point 

of failure, should submit an outage 

report. But we will not limit the 

reporting responsibility to such 

providers only. In this regard, we 

recognize that any given failure may 

trigger multiple outage reports. We have 

made the reporting process very simple 

so as to readily accept and process 

multiple reports triggered by the same 

event such as a fiber cable cut. The 

individual fibers in the cable may be 

leased to different organizations, and 

the working DS3s riding on each fiber 

may be used to provide a wide variety 

of services. If a reportable quantity of 

calls is blocked due to the cut fiber then 

that should be reported. Likewise, if the 

cut fiber also causes a reportable 

quantity of wireline user minutes to be 

potentially affected then that should 

also be reported. The value of this 

system of outage reporting is that it is 

most likely to reveal how failures in one 

part of a network can trigger failures in 

other parts of the same network or in 

other networks. The needs of homeland 

security and the long-term goal of 

improving network security and 

reliability demand no less. 

52. We disagree with AT&T’s 

suggestion that in cases in which DS3s 

are the subject of a Service Level 

Agreement, they should not be counted 

in DS3 outages. The presence or absence 

of a SLA is not shown in the records 

described in ANSI T1.238–2003 and 

such information would only be readily 

available to the parties to the contract. 

Communications service providers 

routinely contract with third party 

vendors for equipment and various 

services, but the service provider always 

maintains ultimate responsibility for its 

network operations and services. Thus, 

all DS3s, regardless of whether they are 

the subjects of SLAs, shall be included 

in the DS3 minute calculation. We 

disagree with BellSouth’s assertion that 

our proposal on outage reporting for 

major infrastructure failures would 

result in the indirect regulation of the 

‘‘Internet and other data services’’ that 

should be free of regulation. Internet 

and data services are two examples of 

hundreds of services that can be, and 

are, provided on DS3s. We have no 

intention of requiring every carrier to 

examine all of the services that were 

provided on every failed DS3 and then 

deciding if it is reportable. That would 

be an almost impossible burden for the 

carriers and would unacceptably extend 

the amount of time that would be 

required before an outage would be 

reported. If a DS3 fails it shall be 

counted regardless of the services it was 

providing at the time of the failure. We 

also disagree with the contention that a 

‘‘working DS3 should be defined as one 

that has more than 10% of the DS0s in 

use, i.e., 67 DS0s’’ and the SBC 

suggestion to increase the threshold to 

400 DS0s. Many of the working 

transport DS3s being are not 

demultiplexed down to the DS2, DS1, or 

DS0 level within the confines of the 

reporting carrier so it would be almost 

impossible to determine how many DS0, 

or DS0-equivalent, channels were in use 

at the time of a failure. The fact that a 

DS3 is working, as we have defined 

working, is sufficient for it to be 

counted as part of this infrastructure. 

53. We also disagree with the 

suggestions that various labels, such as 

‘‘access,’’ ‘‘customer,’’ ‘‘interoffice,’’ or 

‘‘infrastructure’’ be placed on DS3s and 

that they then be counted, or not, 

depending on the label. None of the 

labels suggested by the commenting 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70327

parties are clearly defined and they are 

not necessary to identify a failure. We 

are not asking telecommunications 

providers to apply various labels to 

working DS3s and then to count them, 

or not count them, based on those 

labels. The fact that a DS3 is working, 

as we have defined ‘‘working,’’ is 

sufficient for it to be counted as part of 

the infrastructure. 

54. We observe that Nextel’s 

comments regarding problems it has had 

with T–1 (DS1) lines provided by ILECs 

illustrate just how dependent wireless 

carriers are on the services provided by 

wireline carriers. While we are 

concerned with the DS1 problems 

identified by Nextel we decline to 

include DS1s in the outage reporting 

requirements at this time. 

55. We also observe that, in the case 

of a ‘‘mid-span meet,’’ we require, at a 

minimum, that an outage report be 

submitted by the provider whose 

network element failed or who ‘‘has 

maintenance responsibility for the point 

of failure.’’ Other service providers may 

also report the same failure if their 

failed services met one of the other 

reporting thresholds such as blocked 

calls or user minutes. MCI recognizes 

that ‘‘a single outage situation could 

* * * give rise to two [or more] 

reportable events.’’ We recognize this 

possibility and have made the electronic 

reporting of outages as simple as 

possible. The advantage of multiple 

reports of the same outage under these 

circumstances is that: (i) Outages can be 

reported more rapidly without provider 

confusion as to who should report; and 

(ii) we will have a much better 

understanding of the overall impact of 

a given outage. We further observe that 

several commenting parties portray DS3 

outage reporting as far more complex a 

matter than we intend it to be. These 

concerns are misplaced. We have 

absolutely no intention of placing a 

burden on the DS3 provider to 

determine just what services were being 

carried, nor of determining just how 

many DS0s, if any, might have been in 

use, at the time of the outage, nor of 

determining the ‘‘real impact on end 

users’’ (an almost impossible task). Our 

concern is with the failure of working 

DS3s regardless of the services being 

carried or the fill at the time of the 

failure. In this regard, while a DS3 has 

a capacity of 672 DS0 communication 

channels, this is not relevant to 

infrastructure outage reporting since it 

is only one of hundreds of possible 

services that can be carried in a DS3. A 

DS3 is simply a unit of communications 

capacity that can be and is used to carry 

hundreds of different services, and the 

services that are actually carried can 

vary from hour to hour, if not moment 

by moment. 

56. B. Signaling System Seven 

(‘‘SS7’’). In the NPRM, we observed that 

Signaling System 7 (SS7) networks 

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. 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. 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.

57. As a consequence, the NPRM

proposed the addition of SS7 

communications disruption reporting 

requirements. To be more specific, all 

providers of Signaling System 7 service 

(or its equivalent) 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 (or its equivalent) was at least 

90,000. 

58. In the Report and Order, we agree 

with most commenting parties that 

third-party SS7 providers should have 

to report an outage if the outage is big 

enough so that one or more affected 

carriers would also have to report. 

Having both the third party SS7 

providers report as well as the affected 

communications service providers will 

help us to understand underlying 

vulnerabilities in these interconnected 

signaling networks. We continue to find 

it important for carriers to report 

outages that affect their customers even 

if the actual cause of the outage did not 

occur in their network or was not 

caused by them. This is the case with 

our current rule, and we find no reason 

to change the rule in this regard. The 

Commission continues to need outage 

information irrespective of whether 

culpability has been definitely 

determined. In the absence of such 

outage information, it may not be 

possible to determine with rapidity 

whether further action is necessary. 

Under the requirements that we have 

adopted, if several small carriers are 

simultaneously affected by an outage in 

a third-party SS7 provider’s network, 

the third-party SS7 provider must report 

the outage if it meets the threshold 

criteria. 

59. We shall require carriers and third 

party SS7 providers with access to 

blocked call information to report each 

outage in an SS7 network that lasts 30 

minutes and either generates 90,000 

blocked calls based on real-time traffic 

data or would result in 30,000 lost calls 

based on historic carried loads. Blocked 

or lost call information should be 

readily available for database outages 

(e.g., ‘‘800-number’’ service outages). 

Also, third party SS7 providers may be 

able to use their link monitoring system 

to obtain blocked call data for other 

outages. In addition, third party SS7 

providers could ask for traffic data from 

the affected carriers. Whenever blocked 

or lost call information is available, that 

information must be used to determine 

whether the reporting-threshold criteria 

have been met. For situations in which 

blocked or lost call information is 

unavailable, we had proposed to use a 

count of lost ISUP messages as a 

surrogate for a count of lost or blocked 

calls. We agree with Alcatel, however, 

that there is an equally acceptable, more 

straightforward, and less burdensome 

alternative that will achieve this same 

goal. That is, whenever a third party 

SS7 provider cannot directly estimate 

the number of blocked calls, the 

provider must count the number of lost 

MTP messages (level 3). A count of 

500,000 real-time lost MTP messages 

shall be used as a surrogate for 90,000 

real-time blocked calls, and a count of 

167,000 lost MTP messages on a 

historical basis shall be used as a 

surrogate for 30,000 lost calls based on 

historic carried loads. (Alcatel estimates 

that there are between 5 and 6 times as 

many MTP messages as there are call 

attempts.) Additionally, we clarify that 

whenever a provider relies on available 

historic carried call load data, that data 

must be for the same day of the week 

and the same time of day as the outage, 

70328 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

and for a time interval not older than 90 

days preceding the onset of the outage. 

Finally, we must account for situations 

where, for whatever reason, real-time 

and historical data are unavailable to 

the provider, even after a detailed 

investigation. In such cases, the 

provider must determine the carried 

load based on data obtained in the time 

interval between the onset of the outage 

and the due date for the final report; this 

data must cover the same day of the 

week and the same time of day as the 

outage. Justification that such data 

accurately estimates the traffic that 

would have been carried at the time of 

the outage had the outage not occurred 

must be available on request. 

60. Electronic Filing and New 

Reporting Process. Consistent with 

authority granted by the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, and in furtherance of the 

objectives of the Government Paperwork 

Elimination Act, 44 U.S.C. 3504 note, 

Public Law 105–277, Div. C, Title XVII, 

112 Stat. 2681–749 (1998), we proposed 

in the NPRM to require that 

communications outage reports be filed 

electronically with the Commission. (An 

illustrative depiction of the proposed 

data collection fields was set forth in 

Appendix C of the NPRM.) 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.

61. 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, we 

tentatively concluded that the time has 

now arrived to implement electronic 

filing procedures. 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. 

Irrespective of any of the reporting 

requirements that we proposed, 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 proposed. As 

a consequence we believe, in the usual 

case the only burden associated with the 

reporting requirements contained in this 

NPRM will be the time required to 

complete the initial and final reports. 

We anticipated that electronic filing, 

through the type of illustrative template 

that we appended to the NPRM, will 

minimize the amount of time and effort 

that will be required to comply with the 

rules that we have adopted. 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, Public Law 

106–229, June 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 464, 

codified at 15 U.S.C. 7001–7006. 

62. We recognized in the NPRM that 

it may, however, be desirable for other 

reasons to have alternative ways by 

which outage reports can be filed with 

this Commission. Accordingly, we 

requested 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 

recognized 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 proposed 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. 

63. In the Report and Order, we agree 

with virtually all suggestions made 

about the electronic reporting process. 

That is, we agree that it is necessary to 

provide a method for time and date 

stamping all report submissions. The 

current process date stamps all faxed 

transmissions, with electronic time and 

date stamping occurring virtually 

automatically. All submissions will 

have a unique identifier or control 

number. We agree that companies will 

be allowed to prepare, save, and update 

draft reports to allow for management 

review and revision. The draft reports 

should not be available to anyone other 

than the reporting company since the 

information may still be tentative. We 

will permit providers to print drafts and 

reports submitted to the Commission. 

We plan on allowing only a small 

number of users from each company to 

submit and edit initial and final reports 

for security reasons. We are currently 

investigating the proper level of security 

for the electronic system. This may 

include digital signatures and 

encryption. We will allow for the 

appropriate withdrawal of the two-hour 

notification reports without requiring a 

formal retraction letter. We agree that 

companies need to be able to withdraw 

notifications and initial reports in 

legitimate circumstances (such as where 

a notification was filed under the 

mistaken assumption that a reportable 

outage had occurred). However, the 

system will keep copies of all 

submissions. The electronic system will 

be able to deliver a filed copy. 

64. We adopted the suggestion that 

our outage-reporting template contain a 

link to a website for accessing the list of 

Best Practices. Since several reporting 

fields are related to the use of Best 

Practices, it is essential to make it easy 

for users to access the relevant Best 

Practices. We have adopted suggestion 

that the template indicate whether the 

report is an initial report or a final 

report. Clearly, we need to be able to 

distinguish between initial and final 

reports. The electronic template will 

have a field to designate the appropriate 

time zone in which the outage occurred, 

as suggested by BellSouth. This will 

make it easier to compare outages that 

occurred nearly simultaneously across 

the country. We plan to have 

instructions for all the fields. We 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70329

1See 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), Public Law 104–121, Title II, 110 Stat. 

857 (1996).

2 In the Matter of New Part 4 of the Commission’s 

Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications, 

ET Docket No. 04–35, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, FCC 04–30, 19 FCC Rcd 3373 (2004) 

(‘‘NPRM’’), at ¶ 56 and Appendix C.

3See 5 U.S.C. 604.

4By 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.

5See § 63.100 of the Commission’s rules currently 

requires only wireline and cable 

telecommunications common carriers to report 

significant service disruptions. Section 63.100 of 

the Commission’s rules, which is codified at 47 CFR 

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).

disagree that the outage template is too 

comprehensive noting that we received 

suggestions for additional fields. We 

disagree with the comments that suggest 

that it is inappropriate and wasteful for 

the Commission to require different 

entities to file reports with respect to the 

same underlying outage. We have 

historically required all entities to 

report the same event if those 

companies cross one of our thresholds. 

There have been some instances of 

multiple filings on the same event in the 

past, but typically the number of reports 

per such events does not exceed two. 

Requiring all companies that cross a 

relevant threshold to report is simpler 

and, in the long run, less burdensome to 

all. And, it facilitates faster reporting 

which is essential for homeland 

security. If a communications provider 

experiences a single outage that satisfies 

several reporting thresholds (e.g., 

wireline, SS7 and DS3), the provider 

will be required to file only one report 

for the outage. The only occasions that 

a communications provider would have 

to file an outage report when it has not 

experienced an outage that satisfies the 

general threshold criteria based on the 

30-minute/900,000 user-minute 

common metric are when it experiences 

outages based on the additional 

threshold criteria that we are adopting 

(e.g., for DS3 or SS7). Generally, on only 

rare occasions, the modified rule could 

result in the filing of an additional 

report on the same outage event; in the 

case of SS7 outages, for example, an 

additional report could be required as a 

result of an outage in a third-party SS7 

network. Finally, analysis of these 

additional reports could be exceedingly 

important in understanding how 

reliability in one network affects the 

reliability of other networks. The 

insights gleaned from such analysis 

could contribute greatly to increasing 

the reliability and security of the 

nation’s telecommunications 

infrastructure and to furthering our 

Nation’s homeland security. 

65. With respect to the issue of 

potential duplication of the efforts of the 

states, we emphasize that we do 

understand the potential value of having 

one outage template instead of 50 

different templates. Individual states, 

however, may have their own unique 

needs that could necessitate their 

collection of outage-reporting data that 

may differ from that needed by the 

Commission. It is, however, possible 

that our reporting requirements may 

provide a common framework that will 

be of assistance to state, commonwealth 

and territorial governments; and which 

may, therefore, serve to reduce the 

number of outage reports that might 

otherwise be required by those 

jurisdictions. Furthermore, we 

anticipate increased collaboration with 

DHS, state and local governments, and 

expert industry groups on matters of 

network reliability, homeland security, 

and emergency communications. The 

fruits of this collaboration will require 

that adjustments be made to our outagereporting template and filing system on 

an expeditious basis. The most efficient 

manner in which the Commission can 

address this issue is to delegate 

authority to the Chief, Office of 

Engineering and Technology, to make 

necessary changes to the template and 

filing system. 

66. Conclusion. We have adopted 

outage-reporting requirements for 

wireline, cable, satellite, and terrestrial 

wireless communications providers, 

Signaling System 7 providers, and 

‘‘affiliated and non-affiliated entities 

that maintain or provide 

communications networks or services 

used by the provider in offering such 

communications.’’ We conclude that 

this action will best serve the public 

interest by enabling the Commission to 

obtain the necessary information 

regarding services disruptions in an 

efficient and expeditious manner. This 

action addresses 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. This action takes 

into account the increasing importance 

of non-wireline communications, as 

well as wireline communications, in the 

Nation’s communications networks and 

critical infrastructure.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

67. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA),1 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into 

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 

this proceeding.2 The Commission 

sought written public comment on the 

proposals in the NPRM, including 

comment on the IRFA. The comments 

received are discussed in the FRFA. 

This present Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.3

68. A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Report and Order: The purpose of the 

Report and Order is to extend the 

Commission’s requirements for 

reporting communications disruptions 

to communications providers that are 

not wireline carriers.4 Previously, such 

requirements have applied to wireline 

and cable telecommunications common 

carriers only.5 Now they will 

additionally apply to all 

communications providers that offer 

circuit-switched telephony, satellite 

communications providers, Signaling 

System 7 providers, terrestrial wireless 

communications providers, and 

affiliated and non-affiliated entities that 

maintain or provide communications 

networks or services used by the 

provider in offering such 

communications. We have taken this 

action because we recognize 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, 

especially in view of the increasing 

importance of non-wireline 

communications in the Nation’s 

communications networks and critical 

infrastructure. We also are moving the 

outage-reporting requirements from part 

63 of our rules to part 4 as a way to take 

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 in the NPRM. Further, in an 

effort to promote rapid reporting and 

minimal administrative burden on 

covered entities, we are streamlining 

compliance with the reporting 

requirements through electronic filing 

with a ‘‘fill in the blank’’ template and 

by simplifying the application of that 

rule. In addition, we are adopting a 

common metric that would establish a 

general outage-reporting threshold for 

all covered communications providers. 

70330 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

6The Rural ILECs include the following 33 rural 

incumbent local exchange carriers that state that 

they have fewer than 1,500 employees and should 

therefore be considered to be small businesses: Big 

Sandy Telecom, Inc.; Bluestem Telephone 

Company; C–R Telephone Company; Chautauqua 

and Erie Telephone Corporation; China Telephone 

Company; Chouteau Telephone Company; 

Columbine Telecom Company; Community Service 

Telephone Company; Ellensburg Telephone 

Company, Inc.; Fremont TelCom; Great Plains 

Communications, Inc.; GTC, Inc.; Kennebec 

Telephone Company; K&M Telephone Company; 

Maine Telephone Company; Marianna and Scenery 

Hill Telephone Company; Northland Telephone 

Company of Maine, Inc.; Odin Telephone Exchange, 

Inc.; Peoples Mutual Telephone Company; RC 

Communications, Inc.; Roberts County Telephone 

Cooperative Association; Sidney Telephone 

Company; Standish Telephone Company, Inc.; STE/

NE Acquisition Corp. d/b/a Northland Telephone 

Company of Vermont; Sunflower Telephone Co., 

Inc.; Taconic Telephone Corp.; The El Paso 

Telephone Company; The Columbia Grove 

Telephone Company; The Nebraska Central 

Telephone Company; The Orwell Telephone 

Company; Waitsfield-Fayston Telephone Company; 

Yates City Telephone Company; and YCOM 

Networks, Inc. See Rural ILECs Comments on the 

IRFA at 1 & Attachment A.

7Rural ILECs Comments on the IRFA at 1–2.

8 Id. at 2.

9 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3).

10 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

11 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 term which are appropriate to the activities of 

the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the 

Federal Register.’’

12 15 U.S.C. 632.

These actions are designed to allow the 

Commission to obtain the necessary 

information regarding services 

disruptions in an efficient and 

expeditious manner and achieve 

significant concomitant public interest 

benefits.

69. The general outage-reporting 

threshold criteria that we adopted 

specify that those outages of at least 30 

minutes duration that potentially affect 

900,000 user-minutes must be reported. 

This metric is the mathematical result of 

multiplying the number of end users 

potentially affected by the outage and 

the outage’s duration expressed in 

minutes. For example, a 30-minute 

outage that potentially affects 30,000 

users meets the 900,000 user-minute 

threshold for reporting (i.e., 30,000 

users × 30 minutes = 900,000 userminutes). Also, a 60-minute outage that 

potentially affects 15,000 users meets 

this threshold (i.e., 15,000 users × 60 

minutes = 900,000 user-minutes). We 

also adopted specific outage-reporting 

thresholds for 911/E911 services and for 

other special offices and facilities. Major 

airports have always been included as 

special offices and facilities, and we are 

expanding this definition to include all 

of those airports that are primary (PR), 

commercial service (CM), or reliever 

(RL) airports as listed in the FAA’s 

National Plan of Integrated Airport 

Systems (NPIAS) (as issued at least one 

calendar year prior to the outage). We 

also specified thresholds for major 

infrastructure failures, such as those 

involving the loss of DS3 facilities or 

Signaling System 7 messages.

70. B. Summary of Significant Issues 

Raised by Public Comments in Response 

to the IRFA: One comment—by the 

Rural ILECs 6—was filed directly in 

response to the IRFA. The Rural LECs 

state that the outage reporting rules that 

we proposed in the NPRM—which 

called for detailed, initial 

communications outage reports to be 

filed within 120 minutes of the 

discovery of the outage—‘‘could 

compromise the ability of a small, rural 

ILEC to restore service during the 

crucial hours immediately after the 

onset of an outage. Indeed, compliance 

with the proposed rules may be 

technically infeasible in situations 

where faxes cannot be sent and the 

Internet cannot be accessed.’’ 7 To 

minimize the impact on small, rural 

companies, they suggest that the 

Commission exempt those companies 

that are already subject to state outage 

reporting requirements. They further 

suggest that the Commission permit 

those companies that are not subject to 

such state requirements to report 

outages orally within 24 hours of the 

discovery of a reportable outage.8

71. Based on these comments and the 

more general comments of other parties 

in the proceeding, we are adopting 

modifications to our proposed rule that, 

we believe, will adequately address the 

concerns raised by the Rural LECs. 

Specifically, instead of requiring the 

filing of a detailed, initial outage report 

within 120 minutes of discovery of the 

outage, we are requiring the filing of 

only a bare-bones Notification 

disclosing the name of the Reporting 

Entity; the Date and Time of onset of the 

outage; a Brief Description of the 

Problem; the particular Services 

Affected; the Geographic Area affected 

by the outage; and a Contact Name and 

Contact Number by which the 

Commission’s technical staff may 

contact the reporting entity. We will not 

require the more detailed initial outage 

report to be filed until 72 hours after 

discovery of the outage. The final 

communications outage report will be 

due 30 days after discovery of the 

outage, as originally proposed. This 

action will enable communications 

providers to focus on their repair and 

restoration efforts immediately after 

onset of the outage. The bare-bones 

Notification that we require will not 

substantially divert them from these 

efforts but will alert the Commission to 

the possibility that a major 

communications might be occurring. 

The 72-hour time frame for filing initial 

outage reports is more generous than the 

24-hour time frame suggested by the 

Rural ILECs. The notification will be 

submitted electronically, but if the 

outage makes this impossible, other 

written alternatives (such as FAX or 

courier) will suffice. The initial and 

final reports will be filed electronically. 

We believe that electronic filing will 

minimize the burdens imposed on all 

reporting entities, including those (if 

any) which might be considered to be 

small businesses. We do not adopt the 

Rural ILECs suggestion that we exempt 

those small, rural companies that are 

subject to state outage-reporting 

requirements. We believe that there is a 

legitimate need for the national, uniform 

outage-reporting system that we adopted 

and which covers various 

communications platforms. This system 

is designed to address 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. Nonetheless, as the 

Commission, the Department of 

Homeland Security, and appropriate 

State authorities gain experience with 

the outage-reporting system that we 

adopting, the Commission and the 

States may make further refinements in 

their systems to improve the analytic 

results that can be gleaned from them 

and to eliminate any unnecessary 

duplication. 

72. C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rules Will Apply: The RFA directs 

agencies to provide a description of, 

and, where feasible, an estimate of, the 

number of small entities that may be 

affected by the rules adopted herein.9

The RFA generally defines the term 

‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction.’’ 10 In 

addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ has 

the same meaning as the term ‘‘small 

business concern’’ under the Small 

Business Act.11 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).12

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70331

13FCC, 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.

14 13 CFR 21.201, North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code 517110.

15 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517211.

16 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

17 15 U.S.C. 632.

18Letter 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) (Small 

Business Act); 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (RFA). SBA 

regulations interpret ‘‘small business concern’’ to 

include the concept of dominance on a national 

basis. 13 CFR 121.102(b).

19 13 CFR 121.201 (1997), NAICS code 513310 

(changed to 517110 in October 2002).

20U.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).

21 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.’’

22 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed 

from 513310 in Oct. 2002).

23 ‘‘Trends in Telephone Service’’ at Table 5.3.

24 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed 

from 513310 in Oct. 2002).

25 ‘‘Trends in Telephone Service’’ at Table 5.3.

26 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed 

from 513310 in Oct. 2002).

27 ‘‘Trends in Telephone Service’’ at Table 5.3.

28 13 CFR 121.201, North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code 517211.

29 13 CFR 121.201, North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code 517212.

30FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry 

Analysis and Technology Division, Trends in 

Telephone Service, Table 5.3, (August 2002).

31 Id.

73. We further describe and estimate 

the number of small entity licensees and 

regulatees that may be affected by rules 

adopted pursuant to the Report and 

Order. 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.13 The SBA 

has developed small business size 

standards for wireline and wireless 

small businesses within the three 

commercial census categories of Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers,14

Paging,15 and Cellular and Other 

Wireless Telecommunications.16 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.

74. We have included small 

incumbent local exchange carriers in 

this present RFA analysis. As noted, a 

‘‘small business’’ under the RFA is one 

that, inter alia, meets the pertinent 

small business size standard (e.g., a 

telephone communications business 

having 1,500 or fewer employees), and 

‘‘is not dominant in its field of 

operation.’’ 17 The SBA’s Office of 

Advocacy contends that, for RFA 

purposes, small incumbent local 

exchange carriers are not dominant in 

their field of operation because any such 

dominance is not ‘‘national’’ in scope.18

We have therefore included small 

incumbent local exchange carriers in 

this RFA analysis, although we 

emphasize that this RFA action has no 

effect on Commission analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts.

75. 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.19 According 

to Census Bureau data for 1997, there 

were 2,225 firms in this category, total, 

that operated for the entire year.20 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.21 Thus, under 

this size standard, the majority of firms 

can be considered small.

76. 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.22 According to Commission 

data,23 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.

77. 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.24 According to Commission 

data,25 609 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.

78. 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.26 According to 

Commission data,27 261 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.

79. Wireless Service Providers. The 

SBA has developed a small business 

size standard for wireless small 

businesses within the two separate 

categories of Paging 28 and Cellular and 

Other Wireless Telecommunications.29

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,30 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.31 Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

wireless service providers are small 

70332 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

32See 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 CFR 

24.720(b). 33See 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).

34See, e.g., Implementation of Section 309(j) of 

the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, PP 

Docket No. 93–253, Fifth Report and Order, 59 FR 

37566 (July 22, 1994).

35FCC 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).

36 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). 37See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and 

Industry Analysis Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Aida 

Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998). 38 47 CFR 90.814(b)(1).

entities that may be affected by the rules 

and policies adopted.

80. 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.32 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.’’ 33 These standards 

defining ‘‘small entity’’ in the context of 

broadband PCS auctions have been 

approved by the SBA.34 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.35 On 

March 23, 1999, the Commission reauctioned 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. In addition, we note 

that, as a general matter, the number of 

winning bidders that qualify as small 

businesses at the close of an auction 

does not necessarily represent the 

number of small businesses currently in 

service. Also, the Commission does not 

generally track subsequent business size 

unless, in the context of assignments or 

transfers, unjust enrichment issues are 

implicated.

81. 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.36 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.37 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.

82. 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.38

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. In addition, we note 

that, as a general matter, the number of 

winning bidders that qualify as small 

businesses at the close of an auction 

does not necessarily represent the 

number of small businesses currently in 

service. Also, the Commission does not 

generally track subsequent business size 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70333

39 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517211 (changed 

from 513321 in October 2002). 40U.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). 41 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.’’ 42The service is defined in 47 CFR 22.99 of the 

Commission’s Rules. 43BETRS is defined in 47 CFR 22.757 and 22.759 

of the Commission’s Rules.

44 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

45 13 CFR 121.201, North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code 513220 

(changed to 517510 in October 2002).

46U.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).

47 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission developed 

this definition based on its determination that a 

small cable system operator is one with annual 

revenues of $100 million or less. Implementation of 

Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation, 

Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on 

Reconsideration, MM Docket No. 92–266 and 93–

215, 10 FCC Rcd 7393 (1995), 60 Fed. Reg. 10534 

(February 27, 1995).

48Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., Cable TV Investor, 

Feb. 29, 1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995).

49 47 CFR 76.901(c).

50 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2).

51 47 CFR 76.1403(b).

52Cable TV Investor, supra note 48.

53 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS codes 517410 and 

517910 (changed from 513340 and 513390 in Oct. 

2002).

54U.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).

55 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517910.

unless, in the context of assignments or 

transfers, unjust enrichment issues are 

implicated.

83. Paging. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for Paging, 

which consists of all such firms having 

1,500 or fewer employees.39 According 

to Census Bureau data for 1997, in this 

category there was a total of 1,320 firms 

that operated for the entire year.40 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.41 Thus, under this size standard, 

the majority of firms can be considered 

small.

84. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The 

Commission has not adopted a size 

standard for small businesses specific to 

the Rural Radiotelephone Service.42 A 

significant subset of the Rural 

Radiotelephone Service is the Basic 

Exchange Telephone Radio System 

(BETRS).43 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.44 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.

85. Cable and Other Program 

Distribution.45 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.46 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.

86. Cable System Operators (Rate 

Regulation Standard). The Commission 

has developed a size standard for small 

cable system operators for the purposes 

of rate regulation. Under the 

Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small cable 

company’’ is one serving fewer than 

400,000 subscribers nationwide.47

Based on our most recent information, 

we estimate that there were 1439 cable 

operators that qualified as small cable 

companies at the end of 1995.48 Since 

then, some of those companies may 

have grown to serve over 400,000 

subscribers, and others may have been 

involved in transactions that caused 

them to be combined with other cable 

operators. The Commission’s rules 

define a ‘‘small system,’’ for the 

purposes of rate regulation, as a cable 

system with 15,000 or fewer 

subscribers.49 The Commission does not 

request nor does the Commission collect 

information concerning cable systems 

serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers and 

thus is unable to estimate, at this time, 

the number of small cable systems 

nationwide.

87. Cable System Operators (Telecom 

Act Standard). The Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, also contains 

a definition of a small cable system 

operator, which is ‘‘a cable operator 

that, directly or through an affiliate, 

serves in the aggregate fewer than 1% of 

all subscribers in the United States and 

is not affiliated with any entity or 

entities whose gross annual revenues in 

the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.’’ 50

The Commission has determined that 

there are 61,700,000 subscribers in the 

United States. Therefore, a cable 

operator serving fewer than 617,000 

subscribers shall be deemed a small 

operator, if its annual revenues, when 

combined with the total annual 

revenues of all of its affiliates, do not 

exceed $250 million in the aggregate.51

Based on available data, we find that the 

number of cable operators serving 

617,000 subscribers or less totals 

approximately 1450.52 Although it 

seems certain that some of these cable 

system operators are affiliated with 

entities whose gross annual revenues 

exceed $250,000,000, we are unable at 

this time to estimate with greater 

precision the number of cable system 

operators that would qualify as small 

cable operators as defined in the 

Communications Act of 1934.

88. 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.53 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.54 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.

89. 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.55 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. In the 

IRFA in this proceeding, we assumed 

that there may be several SS7 providers 

that are small businesses which could 

be affected by the proposed rules and 

requested comment on how many SS7 

providers exist and on how many of 

these are small businesses that may be 

affected by our proposed rules. No 

comments provided this information. 

We conclude that none of these 

providers are small businesses.

90. D. Description of Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements for Small 

Entities: The rules adopted in this 

70334 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

56See supra note 6.

Report and Order 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 prior rules, which 

have applied 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 were filed with the 

Commission. In the IRFA, we stated that 

the proposed revisions to the threshold 

criteria were not expected to alter the 

number of outage reports filed annually 

to a significant degree. Nevertheless, the 

adopted rules do extend the outage 

reporting requirements to 

telecommunications providers that are 

not currently subject to these rules. 

Thus, in the IRFA we anticipated that 

more than 200 outage reports will be 

filed annually, but estimated that the 

total number of reports from all 

reporting sources combined will be 

substantially less than 1,000 annually. 

We noted then, and find now, that, 

occasionally, the outage reporting 

requirements could require the use of 

professional skills, including legal and 

engineering expertise. Without more 

data, the IRFA concluded that we could 

not accurately estimate the cost of 

compliance by small 

telecommunications providers. But 

irrespective of any of the reporting 

requirements that were proposed, the 

IRFA expected 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 proposed reporting criteria. 

As a consequence, the IRFA tentatively 

found that in the usual case, the only 

burden associated with the proposed 

reporting requirements would be the 

time required to complete the initial and 

final reports. The IRFA anticipated that 

electronic filing using a ‘‘fill in the 

blank’’ template would minimize the 

amount of time and effort that would be 

required to comply with the proposed 

rules. The IFRA sought comment on the 

types of burdens telecommunications 

providers would face in complying with 

the proposed requirements. Entities, 

especially small entities, were 

encouraged to quantify the costs and 

benefits of the proposed reporting 

requirements. In addition, in our initial 

analysis pursuant to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, we estimated 

that the Number of Respondents would 

be 52, the Estimated Time per Response 

would be 5 hours, the Frequency of 

Response would be ‘‘on occasion,’’ the 

Total Annual Burden would be 1,040 

hours, and the Total Annual Costs 

would be $41,600. We sought comment 

on the PRA, including on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the Commission, 

including whether the information shall 

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. 

See Commission’s Rules Concerning 

Disruptions to Communications, ET 

Docket No. 04–35, Proposed Rule, FCC 

04–30, 69 FR 15761 (March 26, 2004).

91. The Rural ILECs 56 were the only 

parties to file direct comments on the 

IRFA. In these comments, they state that 

our original proposal, which would 

have required small communications 

providers to file detailed, initial outage 

reports within 120 minutes of their 

discovery that an outage was occurring, 

would be overly burdensome. They 

explain that their employees who 

diagnose outages and then work to 

repair and restore their communications 

networks are the same employees who 

would be called upon to supply the 

information needed for the initial outage 

reports and/or to file those reports with 

the Commission. Therefore, the Rural 

ILECs conclude that our proposal could 

compromise their ability to restore 

service during the critical hours 

immediately after the onset of an outage. 

In addition, they state that compliance 

with the proposed rules may be 

technically infeasible in situations 

where faxes cannot be sent and the 

Internet cannot be accessed. To address 

these concerns, the Rural ILECs suggest 

that the Commission exempt those 

companies that are already subject to 

state outage reporting requirements. 

They also suggest that the Commission 

allow those companies that are not 

subject to state reporting requirements 

to report outages orally to the 

Commission within 24 hours of their 

discovery of a reportable outage. Taking 

these comments, as well as the general 

comments of other parties into account, 

the Commission, in the Report and 

Order, adopted a modified outagereporting rule that is more flexible than 

the one proposed in the NPRM. Within 

120 minutes of discovering an outage, 

each reporting entity, whether large or 

small, will be required to submit to the 

Commission a Notification that contains 

only a minimal amount of data, that is, 

the name of the Reporting Entity; the 

Date and Time of onset of the outage; a 

Brief Description of the Problem; the 

particular Services Affected; the 

Geographic Area affected by the outage; 

and a Contact Name and Contact 

Number by which the Commission’s 

technical staff may contact the reporting 

entity. We anticipate that reporting 

entities will ordinarily not need more 

than 15 minutes to file a notification 

with the Commission. The more 

detailed initial report, with which Rural 

ILECs expressed concern, will not be 

required to be filed until 72 hours after 

the outage was discovered. Further, all 

filings are to be made electronically, 

thereby minimizing the burden on all 

reporting entities. But, if a specific 

outage situation prevents the 

Notification from being filed 

electronically or by FAX, other written 

means of filing (such as the use of a 

courier) will be acceptable. Thus, we 

find that our action will enable 

communications providers to focus on 

their repair and restoration efforts 

immediately after onset of the outage. 

The bare-bones notification that we 

require will not substantially divert 

them from these efforts but will alert the 

Commission to the possibility that a 

major communications might be 

occurring. In addition, the alternative, 

72-hour time frame for filing initial 

outage reports is more generous than the 

24-hour time frame suggested by the 

Rural ILECs. Thus, we do not find that 

the public interest would be served by 

the Rural ILECs suggestion to permit 

outage information to be reported orally 

within 24 hours. The quality of 

information that would be submitted 

orally is likely to be less accurate and 

less uniform than that submitted 

electronically through the ‘‘fill in the 

blank’’ template which we have 

adopted. Also, the reporting burden 

would likely not decrease as a result of 

oral submissions, because of the speed 

that e-filing permits and because of the 

greater likelihood that the Commission 

would need to ask oral submitters to 

correct and supplement incorrect and 

incomplete orally-submitted 

information.

92. We also do not adopt the Rural 

ILECs suggestion that we exempt those 

small, rural companies that are subject 

to state outage-reporting requirements. 

We believe that there is a legitimate 

need for the national, uniform outageVerDate jul<14>2003 11:56 Dec 02, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03DER2.SGM 03DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70335

reporting system that we adopted and 

which covers various communications 

platforms. This system is designed to 

address 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. Nonetheless, as the 

Commission, the Department of 

Homeland Security, and appropriate 

State authorities gain experience with 

the outage-reporting system that we are 

adopting, the Commission and the 

States may make further refinements in 

their systems to improve the analytic 

results that can be gleaned from them 

and to eliminate any unnecessary 

duplication. The information collection 

that we have adopted is necessary to 

fulfill the Commission’s responsibilities 

for ensuring the reliability and security 

of the Nation’s telecommunications 

networks and infrastructure, which also 

serves the public’s homeland security 

needs. We do not find that further 

accommodations for small businesses 

could be made that would not be 

outweighed by the public interest 

benefits of our present action. 

93. We estimate that reporting entities 

will ordinarily not need more than 15 

minutes to file electronically with the 

Commission the bare-bones Notification 

that will contain only a minimal amount 

of data, that is, the name of the 

Reporting Entity; the Date and Time of 

onset of the outage; a Brief Description 

of the Problem; the particular Services 

Affected; the Geographic Area affected 

by the outage; and a Contact Name and 

Contact Number by which the 

Commission’s technical staff may 

contact the reporting entity. We further 

estimate that reporting entities will 

ordinarily not need more than 45 

minutes to complete and submit 

electronically to the Commission the 

initial report, due within 72 hours of 

discovery of the outage, that will 

contain all information then available. 

Finally, we estimate that reporting 

entities will ordinarily not need more 

than 2 hours to complete and submit 

electronically the final report to the 

Commission. These time estimates 

include the actual time needed for data 

entry and submission but do not include 

the time taken for data gathering and 

analysis. Also excluded is idle time (for 

example, any time in which partially 

completed information is waiting in an 

in-box for further review), which we 

find cannot fairly be counted as a 

reporting burden. Since most companies 

routinely collect information on service 

failures, it is difficult to estimate 

precisely how much additional time for 

data gathering and analysis, if any, will 

be required to comply with the revised 

rule. In any event, we estimate that for 

the great majority of outages the total 

additional time so required will be 

significantly less than two (2) hours. 

Thus, the final report will generally not 

require more than 4 hours in total time. 

In making all of our time estimates, 

above, we have taken into account that 

all filings are to be made electronically, 

through a ‘‘fill in the blank’’ template, 

thereby minimizing the burden on all 

reporting entities. In sum, we estimate 

the total time needed to file all reports 

pertinent to each outage that meets or 

exceeds the threshold criteria to be 

significantly less than 5 hours (the 

Notification + the Initial Report + Final 

Report: 15 minutes + 45 minutes + 2 to 

4 hours < 5 hours), and most likely little 

more than 3 hours.

94. Although we anticipate that more 

than the current amount of 200 outage 

reports will be filed annually, we 

estimate that the total number of 

reports, from all reporting sources 

combined, will be substantially less 

than 1,000 annually. Similarly, we 

anticipate that more than the current 

number of 17 respondents will file 

outage reports annually, perhaps an 

increase of 50%–100%, but we deem it 

highly unlikely that the number of 

respondents will increase to more than 

52. We note that, occasionally, the 

outage reporting requirements could 

require the use of professional skills, 

including legal and engineering 

expertise. The commenting parties have 

not provided any data that would assist 

us in estimating more accurately 

estimate the cost of compliance by small 

telecommunications providers. But 

irrespective of any of the reporting 

requirements, we expect that all 

telecommunications providers 

(including small ones) 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 will be the time required 

to complete the Notification, and the 

Initial and Final Reports. We anticipate 

that electronic filing, through the type of 

illustrative template that we have set 

forth in Appendix C of the Report and 

Order, should minimize the amount of 

time and effort that will be required to 

comply with the rules. In addition, we 

anticipate that the vast majority of 

outage reports will by necessitated by 

outages that meet the general reporting 

threshold criteria of having a duration of 

at least 30 minutes and potentially 

affecting at least 900,000 user-minutes 

(that is, the mathematical result of 

multiplying the outage duration 

expressed in minutes and the number of 

users potentially affected by the outage 

meets or exceeds 900,000). We further 

anticipate that the vast majority of these 

types of outages will be experienced by 

large telecommunications providers. 

Only rarely will providers that are small 

businesses experience such outages 

because they are most likely to have a 

relatively small number of end users 

that potentially would be affected by 

any particular outage. Therefore, the 

outages that are experienced by those 

providers that are small businesses will 

most likely fall below the criteria for 

mandatory reporting and, thus, will not 

be required to be reported to the 

Commission. Therefore, such outages 

will impose minimal reporting burdens 

on small businesses. Small businesses 

as a group may experience a few outages 

yearly that must be reported because 

those outages meet the reporting criteria 

for outages potentially affecting 911/

E911 services or other special offices 

and facilities. Large businesses face the 

same reporting criteria and burden. 

Because of the critical nature of 911/

E911 and other special offices and 

facilities, it is a national priority that all 

telecommunications providers, 

including those that are small 

businesses, comply with these 

particular requirements. 

95. E. Steps Taken to Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered: In order to minimize any 

adverse impact of the modified outagereporting rule on small entities, we have 

provided for the electronic filing of 

reports through use of a ‘‘fill in the 

blank’’ template and have adopted a 

three-step reporting process that is less 

burdensome than the two-step process 

originally proposed. We had proposed 

to require that, 120 minutes after 

discovering an outage, reporting entities 

file an Initial Report that would include 

all information about the outage then 

available. Instead, we have considered 

comments that indicate that this 

proposal could interfere with the ability 

of reporting entities, especially small 

businesses, to focus on repair and 

restorative efforts. Therefore, we have 

adopted a more flexible requirement, by 

which reporting entities, 120 minutes 

after discovering an outage, will file 

electronically a bare-bones Notification 

that will contain only a minimal amount 

70336 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

57See Report and Order, supra, at ¶ 107–113.

of data, that is, the name of the 

Reporting Entity; the Date and Time of 

onset of the outage; a Brief Description 

of the Problem; the particular Services 

Affected; the Geographic Area affected 

by the outage; and a Contact Name and 

Contact Number by which the 

Commission’s technical staff may 

contact the reporting entity. The time 

frame for filing electronically the Initial 

Report, which is to contain all 

information then available, has been 

revised to be 72 hours after the outage’s 

discovery. This is less burdensome to 

reporting entities because all or most of 

the diagnostic and restorative work will 

have typically been completed by this 

time, and, thus, the reporting 

requirement will not significantly 

interfere with such efforts. Moreover, 

because all or most of the information 

will already be known, it is unlikely 

that very much time will be needed to 

complete either the Initial or the Final 

Report. The Final Report, as we had 

proposed, will be due 30 days after 

discovery of the outage; no commenting 

party has objected to this time frame. 

96. In taking this action, we have 

considered but reject the Rural ILECs 

suggestion that, instead of requiring the 

filing of the Initial Report by the 120-

minute mark, we allow small entities to 

submit outage information orally at the 

24-hour mark. The requirements that we 

adopt will allow all entities 72 hours to 

file the Initial Report electronically. At 

the 120-minute mark, we are requiring 

only that a bare-bones Notification be 

submitted. We also reject Rural ILECs 

suggestion that we exempt those small 

entities to which State outage-reporting 

requirements apply. We believe that 

there is a legitimate need for the 

national, uniform outage-reporting 

system that we have adopted and which 

covers various communications 

platforms. This system is designed to 

address 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. Nonetheless, as the 

Commission, the Department of 

Homeland Security, and appropriate 

State authorities gain experience with 

the outage-reporting system that we 

adopting, the Commission and the 

States may make further refinements in 

their systems to improve the analytic 

results that can be gleaned from them 

and to eliminate any unnecessary 

duplication. In any event, we believe 

that the requirements that we adopt will 

adequately address the concerns of 

small entities as well as provide more 

timely warning of outages and, 

ultimately, more accurate, complete, 

and uniform information that will of 

great use to the Commission, the 

Department of Homeland Security, and 

technical expert groups in assessing and 

improving network reliability and in 

addressing homeland security concerns.

97. Our action also takes into account 

comments filed by the BloostonLaw 

Paging Group, which states our 

proposed metric of 900,000 userminutes would place onerous burdens 

on the paging industry and that almost 

all paging outages involve only a 

particular transmitter or a small cluster 

of transmitters and the provider’s entire 

system. As a result, we adopted rules 

that are a modified version of our 

original proposal, which would have 

required the reporting of all paging 

outages, even ones that involve only a 

single transmitter, that meet the 

threshold. Instead, we have decided to 

apply the 900,000 user-minute criterion 

to outages of the switch only. Therefore, 

we anticipate that very few paging 

outages will be reportable. The 

BloostonLaw Paging Group also states 

that the proposed 120-minute time 

frame for filing Initial Reports would 

cause providers to divert resources from 

restoration efforts and/or to hire 

additional personnel. We addressed 

these concerns, above, where we 

referenced the comments of the Rural 

ILECs, and have adopted a more 

flexible, three-step process that 

adequately addresses and mitigates 

these concerns and, we find, would not 

impose a significant financial burden on 

paging providers. Thus, we reject the 

suggestions of BloostonLaw Paging 

Group that we limit the 

contemporaneous outage-reporting 

requirements for paging providers to 

those outages whose origins appear 

‘‘suspicious’’ and require reports for 

‘‘non-suspicious’’ outages to be filed 

semi-annually or less frequently. We do 

not find that it is always immediately 

evident whether or not an outage has a 

‘‘suspicious’’ origin. 

98. Finally, we reject the suggestions 

of BloostonLaw Rural Carriers that, in 

order to reduce reporting burdens, 

outage reporting by small (i.e., Tier III) 

wireless carriers should be on a 

voluntary basis or an annual or semiannual basis, with contemporaneous 

reporting required only for outages of 

‘‘suspicious’’ origin. We believe that the 

modifications we have adopted are 

sufficient to address and mitigate the 

concerns of small entities while 

ensuring that the Commission, DHS, 

and technical expert groups receive the 

essential information. We also disagree, 

for reasons explained in the text of the 

Report and Order, with their argument 

that the concentration ratio of 8 that we 

have adopted would, for rural wireless 

providers, result in an overstatement of 

the number of users potentially affected 

by an outage.57

99. F. Federal Rules that Might 

Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the 

Adopted Rules. None. We have 

separately adopted requirements, 

including information disclosure 

requirements, concerning 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, Second Report and Order, 

FCC 04–130, released June 21, 2004. 

Also, part 25 of the Commission’s Rules 

provides that certain satellite licensees 

file annual reports that contain some 

information on outages and that MobileSatellite Service (MSS) 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, and, in the case of 

MSS ATC licensees, to ensure that the 

terrestrial use of spectrum remains 

ancillary to satellite use. In the Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, we tentatively 

concluded that our proposed additional 

reporting requirements were necessary 

so that we can more rapidly acquire 

information that would be more useful 

in achieving our objectives of increasing 

reliability and security in satellite 

communications. We sought 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. The record 

in this proceeding does not show that 

the rules adopted in the Report and 

Order substantially duplicate the 

adopted rules. To the contrary, we find 

that the adopted rules are needed to 

fulfill the Commission’s responsibilities 

with respect to public safety, national 

security and to assist the Department of 

Homeland Security with regard to the 

nation’s telecommunications 

infrastructure within the homeland 

security context. 

Ordering Clauses 

100. 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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70337

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, that the Report and Order and 

Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making 

is adopted, and parts 0, 4, and 63 of the 

Commission’s Rules are amended as 

specified in the rule changes, effective 

January 3, 2005, except for part 4 and 

the amendments to § 63.100, which 

contains information collection 

requirements that have not been 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget. The Federal 

Communications Commission will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date. 

Written comments by the public on the 

modified information collection 

requirements must be submitted on or 

before January 3, 2005. 

101. The motion for acceptance of 

late-filed comments filed by the 

Department of Homeland Security on 

June 2, 2004, and the motions for 

acceptance of late-filed reply comments 

filed by the Department of Homeland 

Security and CCS Partners, LLC on June 

29 and July 6, 2004, respectively, ARE 

GRANTED for good cause shown. 

102. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

the Report and Order and Further 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 

including the Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration.

List of Subjects 

47 CFR Part 0

Organization and functions 

(Government agencies), Reporting and 

record-keeping requirements. 

47 CFR Part 4

Airports, Communications common 

carriers, Communications equipment, 

Disruptions to Communications, 

Network Outages, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Telecommunications. 

47 CFR Part 63

Communications common carriers, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

Federal Communications Commission 

William F. Caton, 

Deputy Secretary.

Rule Changes

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends parts 0 and 63 and 

adds part 4 of chapter I of title 47 of the 

CFR as follows:

PART 0—COMMISSION 

ORGANIZATION

■ 1. The authority citation for part 0 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as 

amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 255, unless 

otherwise noted.

■ 2. Section 0.31 is amended by revising 

paragraph (i) to read as follows:

§ 0.31 Functions of the Office.

* * * * *

(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.

* * * * *

■ 3. Section 0.241 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

and paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) through (g) 

and by adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to 

read as follows:

§ 0.241 Authority delegated. 

(a) The performance of functions and 

activities described in § 0.31 is 

delegated to the Chief of the Office of 

Engineering and Technology: Provided,

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 improve the 

efficiency of reporting and to reduce, 

where reasonably possible, 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 this chapter. 

(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 this chapter. 

(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

70338 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

nonsubstantive, editorial revisions to 

the Commission’s rules and regulations 

contained in parts 2, 4, 5, 15, and 18 of 

this chapter.

■ 4. Part 4 is added to read as follows:

PART 4—DISRUPTIONS TO 

COMMUNICATIONS

General 

Sec. 

4.1 Scope, basis and purpose. 

4.2 Availability of reports filed under this 

part. 

Reporting Requirements for Disruptions to 

Communications 

4.3 Communications providers covered by 

the requirements of this part. 

4.5 Definitions of outage, special offices and 

facilities, and 911 special facilities. 

4.7 Definitions of metrics used to determine 

the general outage-reporting threshold 

criteria. 

4.9 Outage reporting requirements—

threshold criteria. 

4.11 Notification and 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.

Authority: 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. 

In this part, the Federal 

Communications Commission is setting 

forth requirements pertinent to the 

reporting of disruptions to 

communications and to the reliability 

and security of communications 

infrastructures.

§ 4.2 Availability of reports filed under this 

part. 

Reports filed under this part will be 

presumed to be confidential. Public 

access to reports filed under this part 

may be sought only pursuant to the 

procedures set forth in 47 CFR § 0.461. 

Notice of any requests for inspection of 

outage reports will be provided 

pursuant to 47 CFR 0.461(d)(3). 

Reporting Requirements for Disruptions 

to Communications

§ 4.3 Communications providers covered 

by the requirements of this part. 

(a) Cable communications providers

are cable service providers that also 

provide circuit-switched telephony. 

Also included are affiliated and nonaffiliated entities that maintain or 

provide communications networks or 

services used by the provider in offering 

telephony. 

(b) Communications provider is an 

entity that provides for a fee to one or 

more unaffiliated entities, by radio, 

wire, cable, satellite, and/or lightguide: 

two-way voice and/or data 

communications, paging service, and/or 

SS7 communications. 

(c) IXC or LEC tandem facilities refer 

to tandem switches (or their 

equivalents) and interoffice 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 networks or 

services used by the provider in offering 

such communications. ‘‘Satellite 

operators’’ refer to entities that operate 

space stations but do not necessarily 

provide communications services 

directly to end users. 

(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 August 4, 2004. SS7 

communications providers are subject to 

the provisions of this part 4 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 

networks or services used by the SS7 

provider in offering SS7 

communications. 

(f) 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) 

providers; Personal Communications 

Service (PCS) (part 24) providers; those 

Special Mobile Radio Service (part 90) 

providers that meet the definition of 

‘‘covered CMRS’’ providers pursuant to 

§§ 20.18(a), 52.21, and 52.31 of the 

Commission’s rules, those private 

paging (part 90) providers that are 

treated as CMRS providers (see § 20.9 of 

this chapter); and narrowband PCS 

providers (part 24) of this chapter. Also 

included are affiliated and non-affiliated 

entities that maintain or provide 

communications networks or services 

used by the provider in offering such 

communications. 

(g) Wireline communications 

providers offer terrestrial 

communications through direct 

connectivity, predominantly by wire, 

coaxial cable, or optical fiber, between 

the serving central office (as defined in 

the appendix to part 36 of this chapter) 

and end user location(s). Also included 

are affiliated and non-affiliated entities 

that maintain or provide 

communications networks or services 

used by the provider in offering such 

communications. 

(h) Exclusion of equipment 

manufacturers or vendors. Excluded 

from the requirements of this part 4 are 

those equipment manufacturers or 

vendors that do not maintain or provide 

communications networks or services 

used by communications providers in 

offering communications.

§ 4.5 Definitions of outage, special offices 

and facilities, and 911 special facilities. 

(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 major military installations, 

key government facilities, nuclear 

power plants, and those airports that are 

listed as current primary (PR), 

commercial service (CM), and reliever 

(RL) airports in the FAA’s National Plan 

of Integrated Airports Systems (NPIAS) 

(as issued at least one calendar year 

prior to the outage). 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) All outages that potentially affect 

communications for at least 30 minutes 

with any airport that qualifies as a 

‘‘special office and facility’’ pursuant to 

the preceding paragraph shall be 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70339

reported in accordance with the 

provisions of §§ 4.11 and 4.13. 

(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 occurs whenever: 

(1) There is a loss of communications 

to PSAP(s) potentially affecting at least 

900,000 user-minutes and: The failure is 

neither at the PSAP(s) nor on the 

premises of the PSAP(s); no reroute for 

all end users was available; and the 

outage lasts 30 minutes or more; or 

(2) There is a loss of 911 call 

processing capabilities in one or more 

E–911 tandems/selective routers for at 

least 30 minutes duration; or 

(3) One or more end-office or MSC 

switches or host/remote clusters is 

isolated from 911 service for at least 30 

minutes and potentially affects at least 

900,000 user-minutes; or 

(4) There is a loss of ANI/ALI 

(associated name and location 

information) and/or a failure of location 

determination equipment, including 

Phase II equipment, for at least 30 

minutes and potentially affecting at 

least 900,000 user-minutes (provided 

that the ANI/ALI or location 

determination equipment was then 

currently deployed and in use, and the 

failure is neither at the PSAP(s) or on 

the premises of the PSAP(s)).

§ 4.7 Definitions of metrics used to 

determine the general outage-reporting 

threshold criteria. 

(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. This 

excludes numbers that are not yet 

working but have a service order 

pending. 

(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. 

‘‘Assigned telephone number minutes’’

can alternatively be calculated as the 

mathematical result of multiplying the 

duration of an outage, expressed in 

minutes, by the number of working 

telephone numbers potentially affected 

by the outage, where working telephone 

numbers are defined as the telephone 

numbers, including DID numbers, 

working immediately prior to 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: 

(1) Assigned telephone number 

minutes (as defined in paragraph (c) of 

this section), for telephony and for those 

paging networks in which each 

individual user is assigned a telephone 

number; 

(2) 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. 

(f) Working telephone numbers are 

defined to be the sum of all telephone 

numbers that can originate, or terminate 

telecommunications. This includes, for 

example, all working telephone 

numbers on the customer’s side of a 

PBX, or Centrex, or similar arrangement.

§ 4.9 Outage reporting requirements—

threshold criteria. 

(a) Cable. All cable communications 

providers shall submit electronically a 

Notification 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) Potentially affects any special 

offices and facilities (in accordance with 

paragraphs (a) through (d) of § 4.5); or 

(4) Potentially affects a 911 special 

facility (as defined in paragraph (e) of 

§ 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 § 4.7.) Not later 

than 72 hours after discovering the 

outage, the provider shall submit 

electronically an Initial 

Communications Outage Report to the 

Commission. Not later than thirty days 

after discovering the outage, the 

provider shall submit electronically a 

Final Communications Outage Report to 

the Commission. The Notification and 

the Initial and Final reports shall 

comply with all of the requirements of 

§ 4.11. 

(b) 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. For 

interoffice facilities which handle traffic 

in both directions and for which 

blocked call information is available in 

one direction only, the total number of 

blocked calls shall be estimated as twice 

the number of blocked calls determined 

for the available direction. Providers 

may use historic carried call load data 

for the same day(s) of the week and the 

same time(s) of day as the outage, and 

for a time interval not older than 90 

days preceding the onset of the outage, 

to estimate blocked calls whenever it is 

not possible to obtain real-time blocked 

call counts. When using historic data, 

providers must report incidents where 

at least 30,000 calls would have been 

carried during a time interval with the 

same duration of the outage. (DS3 

minutes are defined in paragraph (d) of 

§ 4.7.) In situations where, for whatever 

reason, real-time and historic carried 

call load data are unavailable to the 

provider, even after a detailed 

investigation, the provider must 

determine the carried call load based on 

data obtained in the time interval 

between the onset of the outage and the 

due date for the final report; this data 

must cover the same day of the week, 

the same time of day, and the same 

duration as the outage. Justification that 

such data accurately estimates the traffic 

that would have been carried at the time 

of the outage had the outage not 

occurred must be available on request. 

If carried call load data cannot be 

obtained through any of the methods 

described, for whatever reason, then the 

provider shall report the outage. 

(c) Satellite. (1) All satellite operators 

shall submit electronically a 

Notification to the Commission within 

120 minutes of discovering that they 

have experienced on any facilities that 

they own, operate, lease, or otherwise 

70340 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

utilize, of an outage of at least 30 

minutes duration that manifests itself as 

a failure of any of the following key 

system elements: One or more satellite 

transponders, satellite beams, intersatellite links, or entire satellites. In 

addition, all Mobile-Satellite Service 

(‘‘MSS’’) satellite operators shall submit 

electronically a Notification to the 

Commission within 120 minutes of 

discovering that they have experienced 

on any facilities that they own, operate, 

lease, or otherwise utilize, of an outage 

of at least 30 minutes duration that 

manifests itself as a failure of any 

gateway earth station, except in the case 

where other earth stations at the 

gateway location are used to continue 

gateway operations within 30 minutes 

of the onset of the failure. 

(2) All satellite communications 

providers shall submit electronically a 

Notification 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: 

(i) A loss of complete accessibility to 

at least one satellite or transponder; 

(ii) A loss of a satellite 

communications link that potentially 

affects at least 900,000 user-minutes (as 

defined in § 4.7(d)) of either telephony 

service or paging service; 

(iii) Potentially affecting any special 

offices and facilities (in accordance with 

paragraphs (a) through (d) of § 4.5) other 

than airports; or 

(iv) Potentially affecting a 911 special 

facility (as defined in (e) of § 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.

(3) Not later than 72 hours after 

discovering the outage, the operator 

and/or provider shall submit 

electronically an Initial 

Communications Outage Report to the 

Commission. Not later than thirty days 

after discovering the outage, the 

operator and/or provider shall submit 

electronically a Final Communications 

Outage Report to the Commission. 

(4) The Notification and the Initial 

and Final reports shall comply with all 

of the requirements of § 4.11. 

(5) Excluded from these outagereporting requirements are those 

satellites, satellite beams, inter-satellite 

links, MSS gateway earth stations, 

satellite networks, and transponders 

that are used exclusively for intracorporate or intra-organizational private 

telecommunications networks, for the 

one-way distribution of video or audio 

programming, or for other non-covered 

services (that is, when they are never 

used to carry common carrier voice or 

paging communications). 

(d) Signaling system 7. Signaling 

System 7 (SS7) providers shall submit 

electronically a Notification 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 is 

manifested as the generation of at least 

90,000 blocked calls based on real-time 

traffic data or at least 30,000 lost calls 

based on historic carried loads. In cases 

where a third-party SS7 provider cannot 

directly estimate the number of blocked 

calls, the third-party SS7 provider shall 

use 500,000 real-time lost MTP 

messages as a surrogate for 90,000 realtime blocked calls, or 167,000 lost MTP 

messages on a historical basis as a 

surrogate for 30,000 lost calls based on 

historic carried loads. Historic carried 

load data or the number of lost MTP 

messages on a historical basis shall be 

for the same day(s) of the week and the 

same time(s) of day as the outage, and 

for a time interval not older than 90 

days preceding the onset of the outage. 

In situations where, for whatever 

reason, real-time and historic data are 

unavailable to the provider, even after a 

detailed investigation, the provider 

must determine the carried load based 

on data obtained in the time interval 

between the onset of the outage and the 

due date for the final report; this data 

must cover the same day of the week 

and the same time of day as the outage. 

If this cannot be done, for whatever 

reason, the outage must be reported. 

Justification that such data accurately 

estimates the traffic that would have 

been carried at the time of the outage 

had the outage not occurred must be 

available on request. Finally, whenever 

a pair of STPs serving any 

communications provider becomes 

isolated from a pair of interconnected 

STPs that serve any other 

communications provider, for at least 30 

minutes duration, each of these 

communications providers shall submit 

electronically a Notification to the 

Commission within 120 minutes of 

discovering such outage. Not later than 

72 hours after discovering the outage, 

the provider(s) shall submit 

electronically an Initial 

Communications Outage Report to the 

Commission. Not later than thirty days 

after discovering the outage, the 

provider(s) shall submit electronically a 

Final Communications Outage Report to 

the Commission. The Notification and 

the Initial and Final reports shall 

comply with all of the requirements of 

§ 4.11. 

(e) Wireless. All wireless service 

providers shall submit electronically a 

Notification 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 (2nd 

generation or lower) service or paging 

service; 

(3) That affects at least 1,350 DS3 

minutes; 

(4) That potentially affects any special 

offices and facilities (in accordance with 

paragraphs (a) through (d) of § 4.5) other 

than airports through direct service 

facility agreements; or 

(5) That potentially affects a 911 

special facility (as defined in (e) of 

§ 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 § 4.7.) In 

determining the number of users 

potentially affected by a failure of a 

switch, a concentration ratio of 8 shall 

be applied. For providers of paging 

service solely, however, the following 

outage criteria shall apply instead of 

those in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) 

of this section. Notification must be 

submitted if the failure of a switch for 

at least 30 minutes duration potentially 

affects at least 900,000 user-minutes. 

Not later than 72 hours after discovering 

the outage, the provider shall submit 

electronically an Initial 

Communications Outage Report to the 

Commission. Not later than thirty days 

after discovering the outage, the 

provider shall submit electronically a 

Final Communications Outage Report to 

the Commission. The Notification and 

the Initial and Final reports shall 

comply with all of the requirements of 

§ 4.11. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70341

(f) Wireline. All wireline 

communications providers shall submit 

electronically a Notification 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) Potentially affects any special 

offices and facilities (in accordance with 

paragraphs (a) through (d) of § 4.5); or 

(4) Potentially affects a 911 special 

facility (as defined in paragraph (e) of 

§ 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 § 4.7.) Not later than 72 hours 

after discovering the outage, the 

provider shall submit electronically an 

Initial Communications Outage Report 

to the Commission. Not later than thirty 

days after discovering the outage, the 

provider shall submit electronically a 

Final Communications Outage Report to 

the Commission. The Notification and 

the Initial and Final reports shall 

comply with all of the requirements of 

§ 4.11.

§ 4.11 Notification and initial and final 

communications outage reports that must 

be filed by communications providers. 

Notification and 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 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 

Notification shall provide: the name of 

the reporting entity; the date and time 

of onset of the outage; a brief 

description of the problem; service 

affects; the geographic area affected by 

the outage; and a contact name and 

contact telephone number by which the 

Commission’s technical staff may 

contact the reporting entity. The Initial 

and Final Reports shall contain the 

information required in this part 4. The 

Initial report shall contain all pertinent 

information then available on the outage 

and shall be submitted in good faith. 

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. The 

Notification and the Initial and Final 

Communications Outage Reports are to 

be submitted electronically to the 

Commission.

‘‘Submitted electronically’’ refers to 

submission of the information using 

Commission-approved Web-based 

outage report templates. If there are 

technical impediments to using the 

Web-based system during the 

Notification stage, then a written 

Notification to the Commission by 

email, FAX, or courier may be used; 

such Notification shall contain the 

information required. All hand-deliverd 

Notifications and Initial and Final 

Communications Outage Reports, shall 

be addressed to the Federal 

Communications Commission, The 

Office of Secretary, Attention: Edmond 

J. Thomas, Chief, Office of Engineering 

& Technology, 236 Massachusetts Ave., 

NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. 

Electronic filing shall be effectuated in 

accordance with procedures that are 

specified by the Commission by public 

notice.

§ 4.13 Reports by the National 

Communications System (NCS) and by 

special offices and facilities, and related 

responsibilities of communications 

providers. 

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) through (d) of § 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 and in the exercise of its 

judgment, will either: 

(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. 

(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 not later 

than 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.

70342 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

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

■ 5. 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.

■ 6. Section 63.100 is revised to read as 

follows:

§ 63.100 Notification of service outage. 

The requirements for communications 

providers concerning communications 

disruptions and the filing of outage 

reports are set forth in part 4 of this 

chapter.

[FR Doc. 04–26167 Filed 12–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P