FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,619
viii, 4843-5761 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
released its report ("Katrina Panel Report" or "Katrina Report") on June 12, 2006.2: The Katrina Report
identified a lack of power or fuel to maintain operation of portions of the telecommunications system as a
significant concern. The report also cited flooding and backhaul failure as two other primary contributors
to the majority of telecommunications network disruptions.26
13. In 2007, acting on the findings of the Katrina Panel, the Commission issued an Order
("Katrina Panel Order") directing the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau ("PSHSB") to
implement several recommendations of the Panel.27 Among other actions, the Commission adopted rules
requiring communications providers to ensure a minimum level of backup power capability to maintain
network operations for a period of time after the failure of commercial power sources.2' These rules,
which were the subject of judicial challenge by several wireless providers, never took effect and were
ultimately vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) after
the Commission communicated its intent to the court to revise them in further rulemaking proceedings.9
Ill. NOTICE OF INQUIRY
14. In the following paragraphs, we discuss continuity of service during emergencies, as well
as the reliability and resiliency of communications networks, including broadband technologies. We also
explore options for possible action by the Commission and the sources of legal authority for any such
action if the Commission were to decide to act. We also seek an analysis of the costs and benefits of the
various matters raised in this inquiry. Thus, we ask commenters to address particularly the following
concerns with respect to the numerous issues raised: What are the cost and benefits associated with any
potential courses of action? How could any requirements the Commission might consider be tailored to
impose the least amount of burden on those affected? What potential regulatory approaches (including
market-based approaches such as permits and fees) would maximize the potential net benefits to society
(benefits net of costs)? To the extent feasible, what explicit performance objectives should the
25 Independent Panel Reviewing Impact Of Hurricane Katrina On Communications Networks, Report And
Recommendations To The Federal Communications Commission (2006) ("Katrina Panel Report"), available at
http;:/f/ww.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/adv isory/hkip/karrp.pdft
26 Id.
27 In the Matter of Recommendations of the Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on
Communications Networks, Order, 22 FCC Rcd. 10541, 10565 (2007) ("Katrina Panel Order"), on recon., 22 FCC
Rcd 18013 (2007). vacated, CTIA v. FCC, Nos. 07-1475 et al. (Order dated July 31, 2009).
28 See 47 C.F.R. 12.2, et seq. (2007) ("Redundancy of Communications Systems").
29 The Commission had provided that the rules would not take effect until the agency had published notice of
approval from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.) of the rules' information collections. After the wireless petitioners filed their petitions for review
challenging the backup power requirements, the D.C. Circuit issued an Order stating that the consolidated cases
were not ripe for review and holding them in abeyance pending OMB's action. CTIA - The Wireless Association v.
FCC, 530 F.3d 984, 986, 989 (D.C. Cir. 2008). OMB disapproved the information collection, see Office of Mgmt.
& Budget, Executive Office of the President, Notice of Office of Mgmt. & Budget Action (2008), available at
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAView lCR?ref nbr=200802-3060-0 19, and the Commission decided not to
exercise its authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act to override the disapproval, see 44 U.S.C. 3507(f)(1).
Instead, the Commission filed a letter with the court stating its intent to revise the subject rules and requesting that
the court dismiss the consolidated cases as moot. Letter from Nandan M. Joshi, Counsel for FCC, to Mark Langer,
Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Dec. 3, 2008). In an unpublished opinion,
the court ordered the petitions for review be dismissed as moot and vacated the challenged rules. CT.IA - The
Wireless Association v. FCC, No. 07-1475 (D.C. Cir. tiled July 31, 2009).5619
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 11-55
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011, book, April 2011; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc52169/m1/791/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.