25088 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

reconsideration described in this Notice 

must be filed in the Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit by June 

26, 2012. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 18, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10098 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 4 

[PS Docket No. 11–82; FCC 12–22] 

Extension of the Commission’s Rules 

Regarding Outage Reporting to 

Interconnected Voice Over Internet 

Protocol Service Providers and 

Broadband Internet Service Providers 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission extends the outage 

reporting requirements of the 

Commission’s rules to interconnected 

Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 

service providers and defers action with 

respect to reporting of outages of 

broadband Internet services. In addition, 

the NPRM for The Proposed Extension 

of Part 4 of the Commission’s Rules 

Regarding Outage Reporting to 

Interconnected Voice Over Internet 

Protocol Service Providers and 

Broadband Internet Service Providers 

proposal included reporting of both 

outages based on the complete loss of 

service and those where, while service 

is technically available, technical 

conditions effectively prevent 

communication. The rule adopted 

applies only to outages resulting from 

complete loss of service and only to 

interconnected VoIP services. Collecting 

this data will help the Commission help 

ensure the Nation’s 9–1–1 systems are 

as reliable and resilient as possible and 

also allow the Commission to monitor 

compliance with the statutory 9–1–1 

obligations of interconnected VoIP 

service providers. 

DATES: The rules in this document 

contain information collection 

requirements that have not been 

approved by OMB. The Federal 

Communications Commission will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Intoccia, Special Counsel, 

Cybersecurity and Communications 

Reliability Division, Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418– 

1470 or gregory.intoccia@fcc.gov 

(email). For additional information 

concerning the Paperwork Reduction 

Act information collection requirements 

contained in this document, contact 

Judith Boley-Herman, (202) 418–0214 or 

PRA@fcc.gov (email). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order in PS Docket No. 11–82, FCC 

12–22, released to the public on 

February 21, 2012, and NPRM released 

in Federal Register in Vol. 76, No. 111, 

June 9, 2011; and correction Vol. 76, No. 

121, June 23, 2011. The full text of the 

document is available for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 

Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554, or online at 

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/ 

Daily_Business/2012/db0221/FCC-12- 

22A1.pdf. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 

Document FCC 11–184 seeks 

comment on potential new information 

collection requirements. If the 

Commission adopts any new 

information collection requirement, the 

Commission will publish another notice 

in the Federal Register inviting the 

public to comment on the requirements, 

as required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the 

Commission seeks comment on how it 

might ‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. Consumers are increasingly using 

interconnected VoIP services in lieu of 

traditional telephone service. 

Interconnected VoIP services allow a 

wireline or wireless user generally to 

receive calls from and make calls to the 

legacy public telephone network, 

including calls to 9–1–1. As of the end 

of 2010, 31 percent of U.S. residential 

telephone subscriptions were provided 

by interconnected VoIP providers, an 

increase of 21 percent from the previous 

year. The public’s increased reliance on 

interconnected VoIP services is also 

reflected in 9–1–1 usage trends; 

approximately 31 percent of residential 

wireline 9–1–1 calls are made using 

VoIP service. The availability and 

resilience of our communications 

infrastructure, specifically 9–1–1, 

directly impacts public safety and the 

ability of our first responders to fulfill 

their critical mission. The most effective 

way to maintain emergency 

preparedness is to work continuously to 

minimize the incidence of routine 

outages. 

2. The Commission’s public safety 

mission is one of its core functions. In 

2008, Congress affirmed the 

Commission’s efforts to accomplish this 

mission by codifying the requirement 

for interconnected VoIP providers to 

provide 9–1–1 services. Also, 

Presidential Directives and Executive 

Orders and related documents charge 

the Commission with ensuring the 

resilience and reliability of the Nation’s 

commercial and public safety 

communications infrastructure. The 

Commission also has the responsibility 

to ensure continuous operations and 

reconstitution of critical 

communications and services, and plays 

an active role in Emergency Support 

Function 2 (ESF2), the communications 

branch of the National Response 

Framework, which guides the Nation’s 

conduct during an all-hazards response. 

Executive Order 12472, which 

establishes the National 

Communications System, the functions 

of which include coordination of the 

planning for and provision of national 

security and emergency preparedness 

communications for the Federal 

government, also requires Commission 

participation. 

3. There is cause to be concerned 

about the ability of interconnected VoIP 

subscribers to reach emergency services 

when they need them. In the past 

several years, a series of significant VoIP 

outages has increased our concern about 

the availability of 9–1–1 over VoIP 

service. Unlike other outages of voice 

service, VoIP outages are not reported to 

the Commission because the current 

outage reporting requirements apply 

only to traditional voice and paging 

communications services over wireline, 

wireless, cable, and satellite, but not to 

outages affecting interconnected VoIP 

services. Without detailed information 

about these outages, the Commission is 

unable to know whether and how well 

providers are meeting their statutory 

obligation to provide 9–1–1 and 

Enhanced 9–1–1 (E9–1–1) service. 

4. Seeking to ensure the availability of 

9–1–1 service, this Report and Order: 

Extends the Commission’s mandatory 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25089 

outage reporting rules to facilities-based 

and non-facilities-based interconnected 

VoIP service providers; applies the 

current Part 4 definition of an outage to 

outages of interconnected VoIP service, 

covering the complete loss of service 

and/or connectivity to customers; and 

requires that these providers submit 

electronically a notification to the 

Commission of the affected 9–1–1 

facility as the provider’s contact person 

for communications outages at that 

facility. Requiring interconnected VoIP 

service providers to report even 

significant outages imposes a burden on 

them, but the cost to these providers of 

implementing the rules adopted herein 

is justified by the overwhelming public 

benefit of a reliable 9–1–1 system. 

II. Background 

5. To perform our statutory and 

administrative duties effectively, the 

Commission needs timely, accurate 

information about the Nation’s 

communications infrastructure. Since 

1992, the Commission has required 

wireline providers to report major 

disruptions to their communications 

services. In 2004, the Commission 

extended reporting requirements to 

providers of wireless (including paging), 

cable, and satellite communications. 

Reports are submitted online via the 

Commission’s Network Outage 

Reporting System (NORS). The 

Commission uses outage information 

submitted pursuant to Part 4 of the rules 

to carry out its statutory mission to 

promote ‘‘safety of life and property.’’ 

Specifically, Commission staff analyzes 

NORS data to spot statistically 

meaningful outage trends, then works 

either with an individual providers or 

through industry groups, as appropriate, 

to identify the cause of outages and best 

practices that would reduce the 

incidence of such outages. As a result of 

reporting and our subsequent analysis, 

measureable reliability improvements 

have been achieved, and reporting has 

led to improvements in communications 

infrastructure and services and 

emergency readiness. 

6. For example, wireline outages 

spiked in 2008, decreasing the 

reliability of 9–1–1 services. Systematic 

analysis of monthly wireline outages 

and subsequent work helped to 

understand the root causes of this trend, 

and resulting in improved industry 

practices that reduced the estimated 

number of lost wireline 9–1–1 calls by 

40 percent. 

7. Before the adoption of this rule, 

interconnected VoIP services were not 

covered by the Commission’s outage 

reporting rules, which meant that the 

Commission had little knowledge of the 

reliability of these services, including 

with respect to 9–1–1, and could not 

include these services in the process of 

continual evaluation and improvement. 

Yet, the Communications Act and 

Commission rules impose 9–1–1-related 

obligations on interconnected VoIP 

service providers. Outages of 

interconnected VoIP service negatively 

affect the ability of interconnected VoIP 

service providers to meet basic and 

enhanced 9–1–1 service obligations. 

8. To remedy this situation, on May 

12, 2011, we adopted an NPRM 

proposing to extend outage reporting 

obligations under Part 4 of the rules to 

interconnected VoIP services for both 

complete service outages and situations 

where, though service is technically 

available, performance conditions 

prevent communication. In the NPRM, 

we also proposed to apply the Part 4 

outage reporting rules to both 

broadband access and broadband 

backbone Internet services for both 

complete and technical performance 

outages. In this Report and Order, we 

extend Part 4 reporting obligations to 

interconnected VoIP services with 

respect to complete service outages, and 

defer action on technical performance 

outages. We also defer action on all 

outage reporting of broadband Internet 

services. 

III. Need for Collecting Outage 

Information 

A. Need for the Requirement 

9. We conclude that significant 

outages of interconnected VoIP service 

should be reported to the Commission. 

In the NPRM, we proposed to extend the 

Part 4 outage reporting requirements to 

both facilities- and non-facilities-based 

interconnected VoIP services. The 

Commission recognized that monitoring 

and analysis of outages is needed in 

light of increasing evidence that major 

VoIP service outages are occurring and 

given that such outages may disable 9– 

1–1 and other service capabilities. 

10. Comments. Most industry 

commenters argue that the Commission 

does not need to collect interconnected 

VoIP service outage information because 

service providers have market 

incentives to ensure that their systems 

are reliable. Some industry commenters 

argue that the interconnected VoIP 

information is unnecessary because 

broadband network technologies are 

designed to reroute traffic to avoid loss 

of service and/or connectivity, and thus, 

an outage of a facility for interconnected 

VoIP service may have no effect on the 

ability to continue to send or receive the 

related traffic. Some industry 

commenters argue that the burdens of 

extending the Part 4 requirements 

outweigh the benefits or are otherwise 

not justified. State government and 

commenters from critically important 

industry sectors, however, indicate that 

this additional outage information is 

needed to protect the public. 

11. Discussion. Outage reporting is the 

most effective and least burdensome 

way to ensure that interconnected VoIP 

providers are meeting their statutory 

obligation to provide 9–1–1. Without 

such reporting, we will continue to have 

extremely limited visibility into the 

reliability of access to 9–1–1 emergency 

services. Since the institution of the Part 

4 rules in 2004, we have reviewed and 

analyzed outage data on both an 

individual provider and an aggregated 

basis. We regularly collaborate with 

providers to identify the causes of 

outages, develop and apply best 

practices to address the causes of 

outages. 

12. The Commission is uniquely 

positioned to piece together an overall 

picture of aggregated network 

performance because of the ability to 

collect and analyze outage data 

provided by communications providers 

that would otherwise be disinclined to 

share sensitive outage data. The 

Commission’s ability to look at 

information received from different 

providers allows us to assess large-scale 

outages when they occur, thereby 

increasing the opportunities for federal 

assistance in dealing with the 

immediate problem. Analysis of NORS 

data has served as a uniquely effective 

precipitating force for improving 

network reliability, and thus the 

reliability of 9–1–1 services. This 

happens via a number of mechanisms: 

13. First, the Commission regularly 

provides the Network Reliability 

Steering Committee (NRSC) with 

aggregated outage data across all entities 

subject to Part 4 of the rules and draws 

attention to those categories of outages 

showing a statistically significant trend 

upward in the number of outages. 

Depending on the type of outage, the 

Commission may request that the NRSC 

create a team to recommend procedures, 

best practices and, in some cases, 

equipment design alterations to address 

the underlying issue. For example, 

following this process, in one six-month 

period in the 2008–2009 time frame, the 

Commission worked with the NRSC to 

reverse the trend in an increase in 

wireline outages, and consequently 

there was a more than 40-percent 

reduction in the estimated lost 9–1–1 

calls due to wireline outages. 

14. Second, using outage reporting 

data and coordinating with providers, 

the Commission has been able to spot 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

25090 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

upward trends in the number of outages 

filed by particular providers. In these 

cases, the Commission contacts the 

provider and works with it to identify 

causes and solutions. Consequently, 

some service providers have 

implemented large-scale improvements 

to their networks, reducing outages and 

increasing resiliency of the 

communications infrastructure and 

availability of the public safety services 

that rely on the communications 

infrastructure. 

15. Third, the Commission staff can 

identify industrywide issues through 

NORS analysis. In 2010, Commission 

staff discerned from outage reports that 

a significant number of outages 

associated with delivery of 9–1–1 

services were being caused by a 

relatively small number of factors, each 

of which could be addressed by 

applying known best practices, and a 

Public Notice was released identifying 

these particular practices and urging 

communications providers to 

implement them widely in their 

networks. 

16. Fourth, the Commission can 

leverage outage data to assist in 

emergency responses. For example, 

during emergency situations, the 

Commission can provide ‘‘Notification’’ 

data in NORS to the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, where it is used to 

support the emergency response. 

17. In these ways, the Commission’s 

intervention has resulted in tangible 

improvements to the communications 

reliability necessary to support 9–1–1 

service. No single provider has the data 

to spot trends across industry and lead 

efforts to address reliability problems. 

Therefore, we disagree with commenters 

that argue that market incentives 

eliminate the need for network outage 

reporting. In addition, we are not 

persuaded that outage reporting is 

unnecessary because broadband 

technologies reliably reroute traffic, 

particularly in light of the rise in the 

incidence of significant VoIP outages. 

Observers in critical infrastructure 

industries and in government, 

domestically and abroad, are becoming 

increasingly aware of the need to track 

reliability data obtained from services 

relying on broadband technologies to 

help ensure the reliability of emergency 

services and critical communications. 

18. Further, reporting outage data is 

the most efficient means for the 

Commission to ensure that 

interconnected VoIP service providers 

are complying with their statutory 

obligation to provide 9–1–1 service, and 

to obtain critical information needed to 

monitor the reliability and availability 

of VoIP 9–1–1/E9–1–1 services. Both the 

Act and the Commission’s rules 

mandate that interconnected VoIP 

service providers provide 9–1–1 and 

E9–1–1 service. The rules we adopt 

today will provide the Commission with 

a mechanism in place to monitor 

whether these providers are complying 

with this basic obligation. Requiring 

interconnected VoIP service providers 

to promptly file reports when they 

experience outages that meet certain 

thresholds appears vastly superior, for 

example, to a complaint-driven process; 

the latter would likely be ineffective in 

enabling the Commission to detect and 

resolve quickly. 

B. Mandatory or Voluntary Requirement 

19. We conclude that reporting 

significant outages of interconnected 

VoIP service should be mandatory, as 

was proposed in the NPRM. Mandatory 

reporting would permit the Commission 

to obtain a comprehensive, nationwide 

view of significant outages and assess 

and address their impact on 9–1–1 and 

other services, while voluntary 

reporting would likely create substantial 

gaps in data that would thwart efforts to 

monitor compliance with statutory 

obligations and to analyze and facilitate 

improvement of the Nation’s 9–1–1 

system. 

20. Comments. Some commenters 

suggest that, if the Commission extends 

its outage reporting rules, then reporting 

should be entirely voluntary; some 

argue that existing voluntary efforts by 

providers and their ongoing 

involvement in public-private 

coordination efforts to share information 

and promulgate best practices are 

sufficient to minimize risks to the 

communications infrastructure. Several 

industry parties argue that any reporting 

process should be voluntary and 

modeled after the voluntary Disaster 

Information Reporting System (DIRS). 

21. Discussion. Our experience has 

been that competitive friction frequently 

makes service providers reluctant to 

voluntarily disclose detailed 

information about their own service 

outages. There was a history of several 

years of unsuccessful voluntary outage 

reporting trials conducted by groups 

working under the auspices of Network 

Reliability and Interoperability Council 

(NRIC). Those trials showed that 

provider participation was spotty, and 

the quality of information obtained was 

very poor. Based on this experience, the 

existing Part 4 reporting system was 

adopted as a mandatory reporting 

scheme to ensure timely, complete and 

accurate reporting. The record in this 

proceeding provides us with no reason 

to believe that long-term, voluntary 

reporting would fare any better this time 

around. This reluctance would inhibit 

the development of a highly reliable, 

nationwide 9–1–1 service, because it 

inhibits the kinds of information sharing 

and analysis described above. Moreover, 

even if VoIP providers were not 

reluctant to share this information, an 

individual provider would have 

insufficient incentive to share such data, 

because some of the benefits would 

accrue to other providers. As we 

explained earlier, the outage 

information shared by one provider has 

led to the development of industry best 

practices that have benefited all 

providers nationwide. Given the 

significant increase in VoIP usage, the 

risks of a less vigilant approach in this 

context are becoming indefensible. 

22. We are also not persuaded that 

any new outage reporting process 

should apply the voluntary DIRS model. 

DIRS is a reporting system for use 

during large-scale disasters. DIRS is 

rarely activated, and the urgent events 

that lead to its activation tend to 

motivate communications providers to 

cooperate. Outage reporting, on the 

other hand, is designed to enable the 

Commission to identify key network 

failures quickly to facilitate restoration 

and, over time, to create a consistent 

body of data to permit analysis of 

trends. Moreover, apart from the outage 

reports themselves, the Commission 

may otherwise be unaware of the 

underlying cause of the outage, such as 

an internal network failure, whereas 

outages reported under DIRS are 

generally widely known and created by 

an external event. 

23. The Commission’s poor 

experience with voluntary outage 

reporting is not unique. The New York 

Public Service Commission, for 

example, comments that—based on its 

experience—voluntary reporting does 

not ensure that providers ‘‘will provide 

timely, accurate outage information.’’ 

Likewise, the Japanese government 

finds it necessary to require mandatory 

outage reporting from broadband 

communications providers, including 

high-quality VoIP service. 

24. As we observed, the Commission 

attempted a voluntary outage reporting 

trial without success before adoption of 

the Part 4 rules. The record in this 

proceeding provides us no reason to 

believe that long-term, voluntary 

reporting would fare any better this time 

around. We believe a mandatory 

reporting requirement best meets the 

needs of the Commission to ensure the 

statutory mandate that interconnected 

VoIP service providers deliver reliable 

9–1–1 service. 

25. In short, given the long-term 

upward trend in VoIP subscription and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25091 

use, the growing dependence on VoIP 

for 9–1–1 communications, our prior 

experience with voluntary reporting, 

and the statutory mandate that VoIP 

providers provide 9–1–1, we adopt 

mandatory outage reporting of 

interconnected VoIP service. To the 

extent that interconnected VoIP service 

providers have affiliated and/or nonaffiliated entities that maintain or 

provide communications networks or 

services used by the provider in offering 

such communications, these obligations 

apply to them as well. 

26. The rules adopted modify 

significantly the proposal in the NPRM, 

in part in response to providers’ 

concerns regarding the costs and 

burdens. In the NPRM, we proposed to 

extend Part 4 to broadband Internet in 

addition to interconnected VoIP 

services. In addition, we proposed to 

require reporting of both loss of service/ 

connectivity as well as situations where, 

though service is technically being 

provided, packet loss, latency or jitter 

were experienced at a level that 

effectively prevented communication. 

We are not acting at this time on the 

extension of Part 4 rules to broadband 

Internet service providers or to outages 

based on performance degradation, both 

of which were sharply opposed by 

industry in part based on the expected 

costs. The rules we adopt to extend 

outage reporting to interconnected VoIP 

services received broad support in the 

record, and no commenter has argued 

that this type of reporting would be 

unduly burdensome. The reporting 

obligation we impose will allow us to 

fulfill our own obligations and to 

adequately monitor providers’ 

compliance with statutory 9–1–1 

obligations. 

27. The record in this proceeding 

reflects that the additional costs of 

compliance with our data collection 

requirement would be minor and 

significantly outweighed by the benefits. 

We require the reporting only of 

significant outages where customers 

lose service and/or connectivity and, 

therefore, the ability to access 9–1–1 

services. Given providers’ incentives to 

satisfy their customers, it is reasonable 

to conclude that every such provider is 

already tracking this sort of information. 

The configuration of VoIP service 

should already make this information 

available. For example, the Network 

Management System (NMS) of 

interconnected VoIP providers is able to 

auto-poll or execute a manual poll of a 

portion or all of its VoIP-enabled 

devices to see if they have connectivity. 

Thus, interconnected VoIP service 

providers have the ability to monitor 

their end-user devices to determine if 

connectivity to those devices has been 

lost. The record shows that the costs 

involved in determining whether 

customers are completely out of service 

do not impose an undue burden. A wide 

array of commenters submit that the 

type of outage reporting requirement we 

are adopting today is either reasonable, 

not unduly burdensome, or could be 

applied so as not to be unduly 

burdensome. Even small providers do 

not assess our outage reporting 

requirement to be a burden. This Report 

and Order limits outage reporting to a 

complete loss of interconnected service, 

an approach that achieves Commission 

purposes but is sensitive to costs. 

28. As interconnected VoIP service 

providers are driven by business reasons 

to monitor for service outages, it follows 

that tracking such information under 

our rules should not be unduly 

burdensome. It is significant that not 

one commenter has stated that it would 

have to install any additional equipment 

into its network to detect when a large 

number of VoIP customers are out of 

service. We find that mandatory 

reporting of significant outages is 

minimally intrusive and fully justified 

by the benefits of ensuring compliance 

with statutory 9–1–1 statutory 

obligations and benefits to public safety 

through robust 9–1–1 communications 

that we expect to result from our 

analysis and use of the reports. 

29. Because service providers already 

have business reasons to routinely 

collect outage information, the costs of 

compliance with a reporting 

requirement are essentially those of 

identifying reportable outages, then 

electronically reformatting and 

uploading that information into NORS. 

Many of the interconnected VoIP 

customers are served by providers that 

already have years of experience filing 

outage reports in NORS with respect to 

other services. Industry-wide, the total 

operating cost for reporting on 

interconnected VoIP outages and 

administering outage reporting 

programs likely is less than $1 million 

in the first year and less than $500,000 

per year thereafter for all the providers 

who will report. 

30. In arriving at our decision, we 

considered feasible alternatives. We 

evaluated the cost effectiveness of our 

adopted approach against a less 

stringent option as well as several more 

stringent options. We also considered 

other mechanisms, such as certification. 

Our approach captures most of the 

expected benefits while avoiding the 

much larger costs associated with more 

intrusive options. Even a modest 

improvement in the reliability of 9–1–1 

services potentially represents lives 

saved. Based on the record, our analysis 

concluded the net benefits will be 

greater with the approach we are 

adopting. With respect to the less 

stringent option, our adopted approach 

provides all the benefits of increased 

reliability at a nominal cost estimated to 

be less than $1 million industrywide. 

With respect to the more stringent 

option, our approach captures most of 

the expected benefits while avoiding the 

much larger costs associated with those 

options. 

31. While some commenters urge a 

period of transition before any 

mandatory outage reporting 

requirements go into effect, we find any 

significant delay unjustified in light of 

the fact that providers already monitor 

this type of activity in the ordinary 

course of their business and that the 

costs of electronically reporting related 

outages will not be substantial. Also, the 

vast majority of interconnected VoIP 

services are provided by an entity that 

also provides legacy services and, 

therefore, has years of experience filing 

in NORS. Finally, as our ultimate 

approach is much more circumscribed 

than the one proposed in the NPRM, 

implementing the required reporting 

will be far less complicated. However, 

to ensure that NORS updates are 

completed to receive these new reports 

and that PSHSB has an opportunity to 

present the updates to reporting 

providers and resolve questions, the 

mandatory reporting requirement will 

become effective after data collection 

approval from the Office of Management 

and Budget, and we will publish in the 

Federal Register an announcement of a 

date certain that the mandatory 

reporting requirement will become 

effective. 

C. Legal Authority To Require the 

Outage Reporting 

32. In the NPRM, we requested 

comment on the Commission’s legal 

authority to extend the Part 4 outage 

reporting rules to interconnected VoIP 

service providers. We conclude that the 

Commission has sufficient legal 

authority to require the reporting of 

outages of interconnected VoIP service. 

33. Comments. Some commenters 

originally expressed harsh opposition to 

the requirements proposed in the 

NPRM. Several industry commenters 

argue that the Commission lacks 

authority to take the actions proposed in 

the NPRM with regard to interconnected 

VoIP. Others argue that the 

Commission’s authority is either unclear 

or questionable. Several parties 

maintain that the link between the 

obligation to ensure 9–1–1 compliance 

by VoIP service providers and the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

25092 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

imposition of outage reporting 

requirements on them is too tenuous to 

support any assertion of direct or 

ancillary jurisdiction. Others suggest, 

however, that the Commission has some 

authority, or even that our authority 

here is ‘‘unambiguous.’’ In more recent 

ex parte filings, some providers focus 

their legal objections on NPRM 

proposals that we do not adopt. 

34. Discussion. We focus our analysis 

here on our authority to impose outage 

reporting requirements on 

interconnected VoIP. We are not 

persuaded by arguments that the 

Commission lacks authority to extend 

our outage reporting requirements to 

interconnected VoIP service. Consistent 

with our mission in section 1 to 

‘‘promote[e] safety of life and property,’’ 

section 615a–1 of the Communications 

Act clearly imposes a ‘‘duty’’ on ‘‘each 

IP-enabled voice service [interconnected 

VoIP] provider to provide 9–1–1 service 

and enhanced 9–1–1 service to its 

subscribers in accordance with the 

requirements of the Federal 

Communications Commission.’’ Further, 

section 615a–1(c) generally directs the 

Commission to issue regulations 

implementing the statute. Section 615a– 

1(c) thus grants the Commission 

authority to require network outage 

reporting with respect to interconnected 

VoIP services as provided herein. In 

addition, the Communications Act 

grants the Commission broad authority 

to take necessary steps to implement the 

Act’s mandates, and thus provides 

concurrent sources of authority for our 

actions to require network outage 

reporting. Sections 4(i) and 303(r) 

generally authorize the Commission to 

take any actions ‘‘as may be necessary’’ 

to ensure that interconnected VoIP 

providers fulfill their statutory 9–1–1 

and E9–1–1 duties in section 615a–1. 

Network outage reporting for 

interconnected VoIP providers is one of 

the less intrusive means by which the 

Commission may monitor compliance 

with the statutory obligation to provide 

9–1–1 and E9–1–1 service and identify 

and work to eliminate barriers to that 

compliance. Section 403 authorizes the 

Commission to launch inquiries to 

resolve compliance matters and other 

questions regarding the provisions of 

the Communications Act. With regard to 

affiliates of common carriers—the 

subscribers of which represent an 

increasing share of all residential 

interconnected VoIP subscribers, 

currently over ten percent—the 

Commission also is authorized to 

impose outage reporting requirements 

under section 218, which grants the 

Commission broad investigatory powers 

to inquire into the management of the 

business, which would include VoIP 

service providers that are affiliates of 

common carriers subject to the Act. 

Finally, section 4(o) directs the 

Commission to study of all phases of a 

problem for the purpose of effective 

communications in connection with 

safety of life or property. We do just that 

when we collect and examine outage 

reports. Hence, the Commission is on 

solid ground to adopt the subject 

reporting rules. 

35. We disagree with commenter 

assessments of the relationship between 

Section 615a–1 and our authority. 

AT&T, for instance, argues that section 

615a–1 is not an express grant of 

authority to the Commission to order 

the regulation of VoIP service providers, 

but rather the Commission’s role under 

that provision is to ‘‘pave the way’’ for 

VoIP service providers to provide 9–1– 

1 and E9–1–1 service by adopting 

regulations applicable to the owners and 

controllers of 9–1–1 facilities, who are 

ILECs, CLECs, and third-party 

providers, to make that possible. AT&T 

points to the context of the enactment 

of section 615a–1 as indicative of the 

limited nature of its scope. 

36. AT&T’s arguments are 

inconsistent with the express terms of 

the statute, which covers VoIP service 

providers and plainly is not limited to 

the owners and controllers of trunks and 

routers. Among the Commission rules 

that section 615a-1 codified are rules 

directly applicable to VoIP service 

providers. These rules impose detailed 

obligations on the manner in which 

interconnected VoIP providers provide 

E9–1–1. Further, AT&T’s arguments are 

inconsistent with the Commission’s 

previous views on the scope of section 

615a-1. Following enactment of the NET 

911 Improvement Act, the Commission 

in implementing section 615a-1 adopted 

rules in the NET 911 Report and Order, 

which requires interconnected VoIP 

service providers to comply with all 

applicable industry network security 

standards to the same extent as 

traditional telecommunications carriers 

when accessing capabilities 

traditionally used by carriers. This 

standard is comprehensive and not 

limited to network security standards 

that are ostensibly E9–1–1–related. 

37. With respect to CTIA’s concern 

about technological neutrality expressed 

in section 615a-1(e)(1) limitation, 

nothing in this Report and Order 

violates that limitation. The outage 

reporting requirement and threshold in 

this Report and Order do not favor or 

disfavor any particular technology. To 

the contrary, our action arguably 

corrects an imbalance that existed by 

requiring some providers of voice and 

9–1–1 service to report outages, but not 

others. 

38. The Commission has ancillary 

authority to ensure both that 

interconnected VoIP providers fulfill 

their duty to provide 9–1–1 services and 

to address major obstacles to their doing 

so, such as failures in underlying 

communications networks. For 

example, CTIA argues that ‘‘the 

proposed rules sweep too broadly to be 

linked to the expressly delegated 

responsibility to provide 9–1–1 services, 

and Verizon argues that the Commission 

has provided no explanation regarding 

how its proposed requirements would 

result in ensuring that VoIP providers 

meet their statutory duty to provide 9– 

1–1 service. The relationship between 

network reliability and reliable 9–1–1 

service is clear: without reliable 

network operations, there can be no 

reliable 9–1–1 service. As explained 

throughout the decision, reporting 

obligations act as a critical element to 

enable the Commission to identify and 

evaluate lapses in the provision of 9–1– 

1 service in order to enable providers to 

meet their obligations under the statute. 

Indeed, as a general matter, the 

Commission regularly imposes reporting 

requirements on its regulatees to ensure 

compliance with statutory and 

regulatory obligations. The imposition 

of such reporting requirements in this 

instance is appropriate not only to 

enable the Commission to ensure that 

providers are complying with their legal 

obligations, but also to enhance the 

reliability of such service industry-wide. 

D. Outage Metrics and Thresholds 

39. Facilities-Based vs. Non-FacilitiesBased Interconnected VoIP Services. We 

conclude that the outage reporting 

requirements should apply to both 

facilities- and non-facilities-based 

interconnected VoIP services. Given that 

interconnected VoIP services 

increasingly are now viewed by 

consumers as a substitute for traditional 

telephone service, in the NPRM, we 

proposed to extend our outage reporting 

rules to both facilities-based and nonfacilities-based interconnected VoIP 

service providers. 

40. Comments. Several commenters 

agree that, if the Commission adopts 

rules extending outage reporting to 

interconnected VoIP services, the rules 

should apply equally to both facilitiesbased and non-facilities-based 

interconnected VoIP services. For 

example, NASUCA and the New Jersey 

Division of Rate Counsel take this 

position as both types of VoIP services 

are already subject to 9–1–1 service 

obligations. Some commenters argue 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25093 

against inclusion of non-facilities-based, 

interconnected VoIP services, saying 

that non-facilities-based interconnected 

VoIP service providers have no visibility 

into other providers’ networks. 

41. Discussion. We adopt our proposal 

to extend the outage reporting rules to 

both facilities-based and non-facilitiesbased interconnected VoIP service 

providers because both types of 

providers are subject to the same 

statutory and regulatory duties to 

provide E9–1–1, and subscribers of nonfacilities-based interconnected VoIP 

services should benefit from our work 

with industry to ensure robust access to 

emergency services just as subscribers of 

facilities-based interconnected VoIP and 

traditional services do. 

42. Accounting for technical 

differences between facilities-based and 

non-facilities based interconnected VoIP 

service providers, we require nonfacilities-based VoIP service providers 

to report service outages that involve 

facilities that they own, operate, lease, 

or otherwise utilize. Non-facilities-based 

VoIP providers must report service 

outages that meet the threshold to the 

extent that they have access to 

information on service outages affecting 

their customers. As both facilities- and 

non-facilities-based interconnected VoIP 

providers are able to use NMS to 

determine the connectivity of their enddevices, we expect that they will be able 

to report on the loss of service and/or 

connectivity to their customers’ 

terminals. The non-facilities VoIP 

providers may not be able to tell where 

connectivity has failed if the failure has 

occurred in another provider’s network, 

but it can tell that its call management 

cannot reach the end-user devices, and 

thus, an outage has occurred that affects 

its customers. They should be able to 

report significant outages where their 

call management systems have lost 

connectivity to their customers’ enduser devices. Also, even where 

broadband networks provide facilitiesbased VoIP service, there will still be a 

number of end-users that will use a nonfacilities-based interconnected VoIP 

service instead of the broadband service 

associated with the facilities-based 

interconnected VoIP service provider. 

Thus, the Commission would not know 

the true loss of voice service to endusers, as it is actually facilities-based 

plus non-facilities-based outages that 

should be counted. Thus, we will 

require both facilities-based and nonfacilities-based interconnected VoIP to 

report service outages. 

43. Definition of Outage. We conclude 

that the current Part 4 definition of 

‘‘outage’’ should apply also to outages of 

interconnected VoIP service. Currently 

under Part 4 of our rules, an ‘‘outage’’ 

is defined to include ‘‘a significant 

degradation in the ability of an end user 

to establish and maintain a channel of 

communication as a result of failure or 

degradation in the performance of a 

communications provider’s network.’’ 

Our current rules tailor the definition of 

a reportable significant degradation to 

communications over cable, telephony 

carrier tandem, satellite, SS7, wireless, 

or wireline facilities. Broadband 

networks operate differently than legacy 

networks, so the impact of outages is 

likely to be different. This difference 

does not appear to require a different 

definition of outage for reporting 

purposes, so in the NPRM, the 

Commission proposed to apply the 

existing definition of outage to 

interconnected VoIP, tailored to the 

characteristics of the broadband 

technologies. In the NPRM, the 

Commission also proposed a broad 

standard of a ‘‘loss of generally-useful 

availability and connectivity’’ to 

represent the degradation in the 

performance of a communication 

provider’s network and sought comment 

on packet loss, round-trip latency, and 

jitter as appropriate metrics to trigger 

the outage reporting. 

44. Comments. Many commenting 

parties support applying the current 

Part 4 definition of an ‘‘outage’’ to 

interconnected VoIP service providers. 

Other parties raise concerns with the 

definition of ‘‘outage.’’ CTIA is 

concerned about a regulatory scheme for 

VoIP service that would treat perceived 

or actual performance degradation as a 

reportable outage. MegaPath states that 

the current outage definition is overly 

broad and fails to take into account the 

unique characteristics of the broadband 

network. 

45. Several commenting parties do not 

support the concept of ‘‘loss of 

generally-useful availability or 

connectivity’’ in differentiating among 

outages. MetroPCS argues that a broad 

standard of ‘‘loss of generally-useful 

availability and connectivity’’ 

exacerbates the problem of precisely 

associating an outage with underlying 

network conditions. Vonage argues that 

the measures proposed in the NPRM— 

packet loss, latency, and jitter—do not 

relate to actual outages, but are instead 

measures of call quality. Vonage further 

argues that the collection of such quality 

of service information simply will not 

indicate when a VoIP customer loses the 

ability to make an emergency call. 

47. Discussion. We apply to 

interconnected VoIP services the current 

Part 4 definition of an ‘‘outage’’ 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.’’ Yet, the triggering 

criteria for a reportable ‘‘outage’’ for 

interconnected VoIP outage reporting 

purposes that we adopt today excludes 

the concept of a ‘‘loss of generallyuseful availability and connectivity’’ 

proposed in the NPRM based on 

performance degradations. We defer a 

decision on that issue. For the purposes 

of the rules we adopt today, a 

‘‘significant degradation’’ resulting in 

‘‘the complete loss of service or 

connectivity to customers’’ is a 

reportable outage if it meets the 

reporting criteria and thresholds. 

47. We are persuaded by arguments 

that the proposed reporting of an 

interconnected VoIP outage be based on 

the ‘‘the complete loss of service or 

connectivity to customers.’’ We agree 

with the rationale that triggering the 

reporting of an interconnected VoIP 

outage based on the loss of a user’s 

ability to make or receive a call, as 

opposed to the loss of generally-useful 

availability and connectivity, as 

measured by packet loss, latency, and 

jitter standards, would avoid the need to 

revise packet loss, latency, and jitter 

standards as providers continue to 

improve performance. 

48. Furthermore, we accept that 

determining what constitutes a ‘‘loss of 

generally-useful availability and 

connectivity’’ in a broadband 

environment is considerably more 

complicated than in the legacy network 

context. In the environment in which 

interconnected VoIP service operates, 

voice is a real-time application that 

utilizes broadband connectivity and is 

more sensitive to network impairments 

than non-real-time applications such as 

email. Although we believe performance 

degradations affect the ability of 

facilities-based and non-facilities-based 

interconnected VoIP service providers 

to establish and maintain 9–1–1 calls, 

adopting bright-line reporting criteria 

reduces the burden on the providers 

while, we expect, delivering to us the 

information we need. 

49. Reporting Thresholds. We 

conclude that the outage reporting 

thresholds for interconnected VoIP 

service outages should be similar to the 

existing Part 4 outage reporting 

thresholds. Based on how 

interconnected VoIP service is typically 

configured and provided, the NPRM 

proposed that a significant degradation 

of interconnected VoIP service exists 

and must be reported when an 

interconnected VoIP service provider 

has experienced an outage or service 

degradation for at least 30 minutes: on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

25094 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

any major facility that it owns, operates, 

leases, or otherwise utilizes; potentially 

affecting generally useful availability 

and connectivity of at least 900,000 user 

minutes; or otherwise potentially 

affecting special offices, or special 

facilities, including 9–1–1 PSAPs. The 

rule we adopt requires reporting of 

outages where there is a complete loss 

of service. We defer action on the issue 

of reporting outages for performance 

degradation that involves less than a 

total loss of service. 

50. Comments. NASUCA comments 

that it is plausible that industry would 

be tracking significant performance 

degradation in order to compete 

effectively in relevant markets, but most 

industry commenters oppose the 

adoption of any performance 

degradation metric as a triggering 

mechanism for a reportable outage. The 

parties argue the reporting of outages 

should be based on actual loss of service 

rather than performance degradation 

measurements that were proposed in the 

NPRM. Other parties argue that 

requiring outage reports based on 

quality of service measurements would 

greatly increase regulatory compliance 

burdens and expand the obligations of 

interconnected VoIP service providers 

beyond those that apply to providers of 

circuit-switched telephony under the 

current Part 4 Rules. 

51. With respect to reporting outages 

or service degradation as a result of a 

major facility failure, Verizon states that 

it deploys many of these elements in a 

redundant, diverse manner such that an 

outage on a given network element may 

have no impact on a subscriber’s ability 

to establish and maintain a channel of 

communications. 

52. Discussion. We adopt outage 

reporting thresholds for interconnected 

VoIP service outages similar to the 

existing Part 4 wireline and wireless 

communications service outage 

reporting thresholds. We apply to 

interconnected VoIP service providers 

the obligation to report when they have 

experienced, on any facilities that they 

own, operate, lease, or otherwise utilize, 

an outage of at least 30 minutes 

duration: (1) That potentially affects at 

least 900,000 users; (2) that potentially 

affects any special offices and facilities 

(in accordance with paragraphs (a)–(d) 

of section 4.5); or (3) that potentially 

affects a 9–1–1 special facility (as 

defined in (e) of section 4.5), in which 

case they also shall notify, as soon as 

possible by telephone or other 

electronic means, any official who has 

been designated by the management of 

the affected 9–1–1 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. 

53. We defer action at this time on the 

performance degradation reporting 

metrics and thresholds proposed in the 

NPRM. Based on the record, we believe 

that the simpler rules we adopt today 

will provide a clear view into E9–1–1 

compliance as well as advance the goals 

we have laid out above with regard to 

working with industry to improve 

performance. The rules we adopt today 

are more consistent with the rules we 

apply to other providers under the 

existing rules. Therefore, we will not at 

this time require reporting based on 

packet loss, latency, or jitter. Instead, we 

will require the reporting of an 

interconnected VoIP outage based on 

the complete loss of service or 

connectivity. 

54. With respect to reporting outages 

due to major facility failures, after 

carefully studying the record, we will 

not at this time adopt the proposal in 

the NPRM to require outage reporting 

when an interconnected VoIP service 

experiences a major facility failure. We 

believe the rules, as adopted, 

sufficiently account for major facility 

failures that result in reportable outages 

meeting the thresholds defined. We 

recognize a major facility failure, 

depending on how the interconnected 

VoIP service provider has engineered 

those major facilities, may not 

necessarily result in a reportable outage 

meeting the thresholds, and we, 

therefore, do not require, at this time, 

the reporting of outages on this basis. 

55. Reporting Process for Outages of 

Interconnected VoIP Service. We 

conclude that the reporting process for 

significant outages of interconnected 

VoIP service should differ in certain 

respects from the proposal in the NPRM. 

We extend the time frame for 

notification of an outage and reduce and 

the number of required submissions. 

The NPRM proposed to follow the 

current Part 4 reporting process for 

interconnected VoIP service providers. 

Under the current rules, providers are 

required to notify the Commission with 

very basic information within two hours 

of discovering a reportable outage, file 

an initial report within 72 hours, and 

file a final report within 30 days that 

provides detail on the outage. The Final 

Communications Outage Report must 

contain all potentially significant 

information known about the outage 

after a good faith effort has been made 

to obtain it. The current NORS process 

provides an electronic reporting 

template to facilitate outage reporting by 

those currently subject to our Part 4 

rules. In the NPRM, we proposed to 

follow the same reporting process. 

56. Comments. The majority of parties 

commenting on this issue focused on 

the burden of filing multiple reports, 

and filing those reports while 

simultaneously seeking to resolve the 

network outage. Although state 

government commenters generally 

support the proposed deadlines, 

industry commenters argue that the 

proposed deadlines would be too 

restrictive. Opposition to the proposed 

reporting timeframes centers on several 

arguments: reporting requires critical 

personnel to spend time reporting 

instead of fixing the underlying 

problem; the complexity of the network 

makes it too difficult to report within 

two hours; and, to develop best 

practices, the only report needed is a 30- 

day final report. 

57. Discussion. We are persuaded by 

commenters’ arguments to adopt a 

reporting process similar to NORS, but 

lengthen the notification interval to 

allow more time for interconnected 

VoIP service providers to work the 

outage problem as opposed to reporting 

on the outage. We agree with MetroPCS’ 

rationale for lengthening the initial 

notification in that ‘‘this change is 

particularly important since data 

networks operate differently than voice 

networks, and the cause of some 

degradations of service may not be as 

clearly identifiable, which can lead to 

inaccurate reporting, or over-reporting, 

under strict time constraints.’’ 

Therefore, with respect to outages that 

meet the reporting threshold, a 

notification will be due within 24 hours 

of discovering that an outage is 

reportable and a final report within 30 

days. 

58. Verizon’s suggested two-reporting 

system, in which a provider would file 

a notification within four hours and a 

final report within thirty days, makes 

more sense to us in situations that could 

have the potential to have a significant 

negative impact on the 9–1–1 

infrastructure. A two-tier report system 

would still provide a measure of 

‘‘situational awareness’’ to allow the 

Commission to become involved in 

significant outages early should it 

choose to do so. Final reports would 

still give the Commission the 

opportunity to obtain the full details 

within the same timeframe as it does so 

today. Yet, eliminating the initial report 

would reduce the providers’ workloads, 

and if implemented in conjunction with 

a four-hour window for the notification, 

would likely still provide the 

Commission with valuable information 

at the outset of the outage. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25095 

59. We do not, however, adopt the 24- 

hour interval with respect to outages 

that may have a significant negative 

impact on the 9–1–1 infrastructure. For 

these outages, we adopt Verizon’s 

suggested two-tier reporting structure 

and require notification for outages that 

may have a significant negative impact 

on the 9–1–1 infrastructure within four 

hours and a final report within 30 days. 

This provides a measure of ‘‘situational 

awareness’’ to allow the Commission to 

become involved in significant outages 

early should it choose to do so. Final 

reports would still give the Commission 

the opportunity to obtain the full details 

within the same timeframe as it does so 

today. Yet, eliminating the initial report 

would reduce providers’ workloads 

considerably without harming the 

Commission’s ability to react in the 

short term or facilitate the development 

and application of best practices in the 

long term. 

60. Accordingly, the Commission will 

require all interconnected VoIP service 

providers to submit electronically a 

Notification to the Commission within 

four hours 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 potentially affects a 9–1–1 special 

facility. In such situations, they also 

must notify, as soon as possible by 

telephone or other electronic means, 

any official who has been designated by 

the management of the affected 9–1–1 

facility as the provider’s contact person 

for communications outages at that 

facility, and the provider must 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. Such 

timing of the Notification targets 

conditions in which the 9–1–1 

infrastructure is most likely to 

experience a negative impact, and 

balancing costs and burdens. 

61. Interconnected VoIP service 

providers that experience a reportable 

outage that does not affect a 9–1–1 

special facility must submit 

electronically a Notification to the 

Commission within twenty-four hours 

of discovering such an outage. This 

timing recognizes that these outages are 

less likely to impact the 9–1–1 

infrastructure negatively, though the 

ability of users to make individual 9–1– 

1 calls may nonetheless be impaired. 

This distinction also balances different 

potential benefits with costs and 

burdens. 

62. Regardless of which of the two 

above conditions prompts the 

Notification, not later than 30 days after 

discovering the outage, the provider 

must submit electronically a Final 

Communications Outage Report to the 

Commission. We adopt a very similar 

level of specificity in reporting content 

and the same electronic reporting 

processing as is required by NORS. 

63. The process we adopt for 

reporting significant outages of 

interconnected VoIP service reduces the 

burden on providers from that proposed 

in the NPRM. Reducing the number of 

reports from three to two and extending 

the time frame for reporting will provide 

the Commission with the information it 

needs while reducing the reporting 

burden on the providers. It is likely that 

most interconnected VoIP service 

providers currently collect information 

on significant outages in the ordinary 

course of their business in order to serve 

their customers effectively. We 

conclude that the reporting burden is 

minimal and well-justified by the 

benefits to 9–1–1 reliability. 

E. Part 4 Rules and Voice Service—New 

Wireless Spectrum Bands 

64. We clarify that Part 4 of the rules 

currently covers all providers of 

Commercial Mobile Radio Service 

(CMRS) voice (and paging) service 

regardless in which spectrum band the 

service is provided and that the process 

that applies to reporting outages of these 

services should be the process in the 

current Part 4 rules. In 2004, when the 

Commission extended in its outage 

reporting requirements beyond wireline 

providers in its 2004 Part 4 Order to 

include wireless providers, the 

Commission enumerated several types 

of licensees providing wireless service 

that would be covered by the Part 4 

outage reporting obligations. Since that 

time, licensing in additional spectrum 

bands, e.g., Advanced Wireless Services 

(AWS) and 700 MHz licensing, has 

become available for wireless services. 

Our 2004 Part 4 Order suggests that the 

Commission intended to extend the 

scope of outage reporting to include all 

non-wireline providers, including new 

technologies developed after the 

adoption of the decision which 

established the existing outage reporting 

rules. In the NPRM, we sought comment 

on whether we should amend Section 

4.3(f) to clarify and reflect this meaning. 

65. Comments. MetroPCS argues that 

competition and innovation are best 

served by not extending the current 

outage reporting rules to new spectrum 

bands or technologies. It, however, 

recognizes that if the Commission were 

to adopt MetroPCS’s recommendation to 

not extend the current Part 4 rules to 

licensees in the AWS and 700 MHz 

spectrum bands, an unlevel wireless 

service provider playing field may 

result. The WCS Coalition also argues 

that AWS, 700 MHz, WCS and other 

similarly situated licensees should be 

exempt from new Part 4 outage 

reporting requirements until such time 

as they are required to meet their initial 

performance or substantial service 

obligations under their service-specific 

rules. 

66. Discussion. We believe that the 

existing rules apply to wireless service 

providers including CMRS 

communications providers that use 

cellular architecture and CMRS paging 

providers. That includes AWS and 700 

MHz, as well as Personal 

Communications Service (PCS), 

Broadband Radio Service (BRS) that 

elect common carrier service, 

Educational Broadband Service (EBS) 

that elect common carrier service, and 

Wireless Communications Service 

(WCS) wireless service providers, inter 

alia, operating as CMRS 

communications providers that use 

cellular architecture or as CMRS paging 

providers, are subject to the outage 

reporting obligation. We also believe 

that our 2004 Part 4 Order establishing 

the existing outage reporting rules 

extended the scope of outage reporting 

to include all non-wireline providers, 

including new technologies developed 

after adoption of our 2004 Part 4 Order. 

To eliminate any potential for 

confusion, we amend the rule by 

eliminating specific examples of 

services. This elimination will avoid 

any potential for confusion as to the 

rule’s scope as new spectrum bands are 

authorized and/or reallocated. 

67. We are not persuaded by 

commenters’ arguments that AWS and 

700 MHz services should be exempt 

from outage reporting requirements. To 

provide an exemption for AWS and 700 

MHz would lead to an unlevel playing 

field among competing mobile service 

providers. These newer wireless 

technologies are forming the core of 

major deployments where an outage 

could impact an increasingly large 

number of users. 

68. Reporting Process. We conclude 

that the reporting process as reflected in 

the existing reporting structure in NORS 

should be the same for AWS and 700 

MHz wireless service providers as for 

the other wireless service providers. 

Since we have clarified that section 

4.3(f) should be read broadly to include 

such services as AWS and 700 MHz as 

among those wireless service providers 

covered by the Part 4 reporting 

obligations, the technical requirements 

for making the reports used for these 

other wireless service providers should 

also apply to AWS and 700 MHz service 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

25096 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

providers. We see no reason that would 

warrant different treatment. 

IV. Sharing of Information and 

Confidentiality 

69. We will apply the same 

confidential treatment and restricted 

information sharing to reports of 

interconnected VoIP service outages as 

currently apply to outage reports of 

services already subject to Part 4 of the 

rules. The NPRM proposed to treat 

outage reports filed with respect to 

interconnected VoIP service as 

presumptively confidential, the same 

manner outage reporting data is 

currently treated under Part 4. The 

NPRM also sought comment on making 

aggregated information across 

companies public, and whether the 

Commission should share this new 

outage information with other Federal 

agencies on a presumptively 

confidential basis. 

70. Comments. Most commenters 

addressing the issue support treating 

reported information as presumptively 

confidential. ATIS, AT&T, CenturyLink, 

and New York PSC support the 

Commission’s sharing of information 

with other Federal agencies. AT&T, 

CenturyLink, ATIS, and WISPA do not 

oppose the public disclosure of 

aggregated outage information provided 

the individual service provider data will 

not be identified. Telecommunications 

Industry Association (TIA) opposes the 

public disclosure of the aggregated 

information, arguing that the 

Commission has acknowledged that 

‘‘disclosure of outage reporting 

information to the public could present 

an unacceptable risk of more effective 

terrorist activity.’’ 

71. Discussion. We direct that 

individual outage reports of 

interconnected VoIP service providers 

also be treated on a presumptively 

confidential basis, that sharing of such 

reports with other Federal agencies, as 

needed, be conducted on the same basis, 

and that aggregated information across 

providers may be publicly reported. The 

Commission makes existing outage 

reports available to the U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) pursuant to 

the authority of DHS under the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002. Sharing 

confidential materials with other 

Federal agencies is governed by Section 

0.442 of the Commission’s rules, which 

provides that the Commission may 

share with other Federal agencies 

materials received under a request for 

confidential treatment or that are 

presumptively confidential, and the 

confidentiality of the records travels 

with the records. The approach here is 

identical to the one we took with regard 

to outage reports from traditional 

providers subject to the existing Part 4 

rules; we are aware of no problems 

resulting from the current approach. 

V. Voluntary Dialogue on Internet 

Service Outage Issues 

72. The NPRM addressed whether the 

Commission should extend its outage 

reporting requirements to significant 

outages of broadband Internet service, 

and if so, what outage metrics and 

thresholds should apply. The technical 

issues involved in identifying and 

reporting such outages require further 

study. The record in this proceeding 

shows a willingness by broadband 

Internet service providers to participate 

in a voluntary process to improve the 

Commission’s understanding of the 

underlying technical issues associated 

with broadband Internet service outages 

to assist public safety and first 

responders. 

VI. Conclusion 

73. We adopt outage reporting 

requirements for interconnected VoIP 

service providers and 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 need for information on 

service disruptions that could affect 

homeland security, public health and 

safety, including the reliability of the 

Nation’s 9–1–1 system. This action takes 

into account the associated costs and 

burdens, the trend in greater VoIP 

service usage and its potential impact 

on the Nation’s 9–1–1 infrastructure, 

and the increasing importance of IP 

networks. 

VII. Procedural Matters 

A. Accessible Formats 

74. To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (tty). 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

75. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. 604, 

the Commission has prepared a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on small entities of the policies 

and rules addressed in this document. 

The FRFA is set forth in Appendix B of 

the document. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 

76. The Report and Order contains 

new information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. It will be submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under section 3507(d) 

of the PRA. OMB, the general public, 

and other interested parties are invited 

to comment on the new information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proceeding. 

77. We note that pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506 (c)(4), we previously sought 

specific comment on how the 

Commission might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. We have described impacts 

that might affect small businesses, 

which includes most businesses with 

fewer than 25 employees, in the FRFA 

in Appendix B, infra. 

D. Congressional Review Act 

78. The Commission will send a copy 

of the Report and Order in a report to 

be sent to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

E. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

79. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was included in the 

NPRM in PS Docket No. 11–82. The 

Commission sought written comment on 

the proposals in this docket, including 

comment on the IRFA. This Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

conforms to the RFA. 

VIII. Ordering Clauses 

80. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i)–(k), 4(o), 

218, 219, 230, 256, 301, 302(a), 303(f), 

303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 403, 615a–1, 

621(b)(3), 621(d), and 1302(a), and 

1302(b) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 

154(i)–(k), 154(o), 218, 219, 230, 256, 

301, 302(a), 303(f), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 

403, 615a–1, 621(b)(3), 621(d), 1302(a), 

and 1302(b) and Section 1704 of the 

Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Act of 

1998, 44 U.S.C. 3504, this Report and 

Order in PS Docket No. 11–82 is 

adopted and that Part 4 of the 

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR part 4 is 

amended as set forth in Appendix C. 

81. It is further ordered that the rules 

in this document contain information 

collection requirements that have not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25097 

been approved by OMB. The Federal 

Communications Commission will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date. 

82. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Report and Order, including the 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 4 

Communications common carriers, 

Communications equipment. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 4 as 

follows: 

PART 4—DISRUPTIONS TO 

COMMUNICATIONS 

■ 1. The authority for part 4 is revised 

to read as follows: 

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

amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 201, 251, 307, 

316, 615a–1, 1302(a), and 1302(b). 

■ 2. Section 4.3 is amended by revising 

paragraph (f) and redesignating 

paragraph (h) as paragraph (i) and 

adding new paragraph (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 4.3 Communications providers covered 

by the requirements of this part. 

* * * * * 

(f) Wireless service providers include 

Commercial Mobile Radio Service 

communications providers that use 

cellular architecture and CMRS paging 

providers. See § 20.9 of this chapter for 

the definition of Commercial Mobile 

Radio Service. 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) Interconnected Voice over Internet 

Protocol (VoIP) providers are providers 

of interconnected VoIP service. See § 9.3 

of this chapter for the definition of 

interconnected VoIP service. Such 

providers may be facilities-based or 

non-facilities-based. Also included are 

affiliated and non-affiliated entities that 

maintain or provide communications 

networks or services used by the 

provider in offering such 

communications. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 4.7 is amended by revising 

paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) as follows: 

§ 4.7 Definitions of metrics used to 

determine the general outage-reporting 

threshold criteria. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Assigned telephone number 

minutes (as defined in paragraph (c) of 

this section), for telephony, including 

non-mobile interconnected VoIP 

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. For wireless service 

providers and interconnected VoIP 

service providers to mobile users, the 

number of potentially affected users 

should be determined by multiplying 

the simultaneous call capacity of the 

affected equipment by a concentration 

ratio of 8. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 4.9 is amended by adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 4.9 Outage reporting requirements— 

threshold criteria. 

* * * * * 

(g) Interconnected VoIP Service 

Providers. (1) All interconnected VoIP 

service providers shall submit 

electronically a Notification to the 

Commission: 

(i) Within 240 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 potentially 

affects a 9–1–1 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 9–1–1 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; or 

(ii) Within 24 hours 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: 

(A) That potentially affects at least 

900,000 user minutes of interconnected 

VoIP service and results in complete 

loss of service; or 

(B) That potentially affects any special 

offices and facilities (in accordance with 

paragraphs § 4.5(a) through (d)). 

(2) 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 Final 

reports shall comply with all of the 

requirements of § 4.11. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9749 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 120208116–2416–03] 

RIN 0648–BB83 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; 2012–2013 Northeast Skate 

Complex Fishery Specifications 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule implements catch 

limits and associated measures for the 

Northeast skate complex fishery for the 

2012–2013 fishing years. The action was 

developed by the New England Fishery 

Management Council pursuant to the 

provisions of the Northeast Skate 

Complex Fishery Management Plan. The 

catch limits are supported by the best 

available scientific information and 

reflect recent increases in skate biomass. 

DATES: This rule is effective May 1, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: An environmental 

assessment (EA) was prepared that 

describes the action and other 

considered alternatives, and provides a 

thorough analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed measures and alternatives. 

Copies of the EA and the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), 

are available on request from Paul J. 

Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council, 

50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 

01950. These documents are also 

available online at http:// 

www.nefmc.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tobey Curtis, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

(978) 281–9273; fax: (978) 281–9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES