Rule2024-06092
Resilient Networks; Disruptions to Communications
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 26, 2024
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) published a document in the Federal Register on January 26, 2024, concerning an Order on Reconsideration that addresses the Petition for Clarification and Partial Reconsideration (Petition) filed by CTIA and the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) (collectively, Petitioners) of the Commission's Report and Order regarding the "Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative" (MDRI) by extending the compliance deadline to implement elements of the MDRI to May 1, 2024. In its Order on Reconsideration, the Commission also agrees with the request to treat Roaming under Disaster arrangements (RuDs) as presumptively confidential when filed with the Commission. In this document, the Commission is withdrawing its previous Federal Register publication of the Order on Reconsideration and substituting the present document to correct certain information regarding the compliance date and effective date. In addition, this document announces that, on October 27, 2023, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements associated with the rules adopted in the Report and Order. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1317. The Commission also announces that compliance with the rules will be required, and revises its rules to specify this date and to remove text advising that compliance was not required until OMB review was completed. This action is consistent with the 2023 Order on Reconsideration, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing a compliance date and revise the rule accordingly.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20860-20869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-06092]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 4
[PS Docket Nos. 21-346, 15-80; ET Docket No. 04-35; FCC 23-71; FR ID
209914]
Resilient Networks; Disruptions to Communications
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; withdrawal; re-issuance; announcement of compliance
date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC)
published a document in the Federal Register on January 26, 2024,
concerning an Order on Reconsideration that addresses the Petition for
Clarification and Partial Reconsideration (Petition) filed by CTIA and
the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) (collectively, Petitioners)
of the Commission's Report and Order regarding the ``Mandatory Disaster
Response Initiative'' (MDRI) by extending the compliance deadline to
implement elements of the MDRI to May 1, 2024. In its Order on
Reconsideration, the Commission also agrees with the request to treat
Roaming under Disaster arrangements (RuDs) as presumptively
confidential when filed with the Commission. In this document, the
Commission is withdrawing its previous Federal Register publication of
the Order on Reconsideration and substituting the present document to
correct certain information regarding the compliance date and effective
date. In addition, this document announces that, on October 27, 2023,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved, for a period of
three years, the information collection requirements associated with
the rules adopted in the Report and Order. The OMB Control Number is
3060-1317. The Commission also announces that compliance with the rules
will be required, and revises its rules to specify this date and to
remove text advising that compliance was not required until OMB review
was completed. This action is consistent with the 2023 Order on
Reconsideration, which stated that the Commission would publish a
document in the Federal Register announcing a compliance date and
revise the rule accordingly.
DATES:
Withdrawal date: The rule published at 89 FR 5105, January 26,
2024, is withdrawn March 26, 2024.
Effective date: This rule is effective April 25, 2024.
Compliance date: Compliance with the provisions of 47 CFR 4.17 is
required beginning May 1, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact James Wiley, Deputy Division Chief, Cybersecurity
and Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau, (202) 418-1678 or via email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a1ebc0ccc4d28ff6c8cdc4d8e1c7c2c28fc6ced7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7f351e121a0c512816131a063f191c1c51181009">[email protected]</span></a> or
Logan Bennett, Attorney-Advisor, Cybersecurity and Communications
Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202)
418-7790 or via email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d79bb8b0b6b9f995b2b9b9b2a3a397b1b4b4f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="89c5e6eee8e7a7cbece7e7ecfdfdc9efeaeaa7eee6ff">[email protected]</span></a>. If you have any
comments on the information collection burden estimates listed below,
or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any
burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal
Communications Commission, via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aefefcefeec8cdcd80c9c1d8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ededccfcee8ededa0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a> and to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ddb3b4beb2b1b8f3b2b3bab8b1b89dbbbebef3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ef0f7fdf1f2fbb0f1f0f9fbf2fbdef8fdfdb0f9f1e8">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is an updated summary of the
Commission's Order on Reconsideration, FCC 23-71, adopted September 14,
2023, and released September 15, 2023. The full text of this document
remains available by downloading the text from the Commission's website
at: <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-71A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-71A1.pdf</a>. This
document also announces that OMB approved the information collection
requirements in Sec. 4.17 on October 27, 2023. The Commission
publishes this document as an announcement of the compliance date of
the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed
below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any
burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal
Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554,
regarding OMB Control Number 3060-1317. Please include the applicable
OMB Control Number in your correspondence. The Commission will also
accept your comments via email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0e0e2f1f0d6d3d39ed7dfc6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9dcdcfdcddfbfefeb3faf2eb">[email protected]</span></a>. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfd9dcdc8a8f8bffd9dcdc91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e686d6d3b3e3a4e686d6d20696178">[email protected]</span></a> or
call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Congressional Review Act
The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), concurs, that this rule is non-major under the Congressional
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission has sent a copy of the
Order on Reconsideration to Congress and the Government Accountability
Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Paperwork Reduction Act
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB
approval on October 27, 2023, for the information collection
requirements contained in Sec. 4.17.
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB
Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply
with a
[[Page 20861]]
collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that
does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents
are as follows:
OMB Control Number: 3060-1317.
OMB Approval Date: October 27, 2023.
OMB Expiration Date: October 31, 2026.
Title: Resilient Networks.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
Number of Respondents and Responses: 75 respondents; 1,725
responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour-20 hours.
Frequency of Response: One-time, on occasion reporting and annual
reporting requirements.
Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this
information collection is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o),
201(b), 214(d), 218, 251(e)(3), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r),
307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, and 615c of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j) &
(o), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 251(e)(3), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(j),
303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, and 615c.
Total Annual Burden: 4,575 hours.
Total Annual Cost: No Cost.
Needs and Uses: The nation's communications networks provide a
significant lifeline for those in need during disasters and other
emergencies. Recent events, including Hurricane Ida, earthquakes in
Puerto Rico, severe winter storms in Texas, and active hurricane and
wildfire seasons, have demonstrated however that the United States'
communications infrastructure is susceptible to disruption during
disaster events. To address this issue, the Federal Communications
Commission adopted a Report and Order in June 2022 to improve the
reliability and resiliency of mobile wireless networks. See 87 FR 59329
(2022). In the Report and Order, the Commission introduced the
Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative (MDRI) and set forth
requirements that the nation's facilities-based mobile wireless
providers must take to ensure their compliance the MDRI. Pursuant to
the MDRI, these providers must take action related to roaming with
other providers, mutual aid agreements, municipal preparedness and
restoration and consumer readiness and preparation. These providers
must also submit reports to the Commission detailing the timing,
duration, and effectiveness of their implementation of the MDRI's
provisions on request, perform annual testing of their roaming
capabilities and related coordination processes, and issue written
denials of roaming requests, among other requirements.
The Commission submits this information collection, which seeks to
have collected information described in the Report and Order, to
support its adoption of the MDRI. The collected information will be
used by the Commission, consumers and consumer groups, service
providers to realize significant public safety benefits. For example,
consumers and consumer groups will use the information to increase
consumer education and improve consumer preparedness for disasters and
other emergencies. Further, providers will use the information to
ensure that roaming will work expeditiously in times of emergencies and
to better understand their network capabilities related to roaming and
ensure their networks roam as effectively as possible when a disaster
strikes. Further, the Commission will use information as a basis for
potential future improvements to the MDRI and other programs in
furtherance of public safety, including by gauging providers'
compliance with the MDRI's roaming provision, ensuring accountability
by providers who fail to comply and for resolving disputes related to
roaming agreements. Thus, the information sought in this collection is
necessary and vital to ensuring that the MDRI is effective at
protecting the life and property of the public.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
The Report and Order adopted the Mandatory Disaster Response
Initiative (MDRI) to improve network resilience during disasters,
aligning with the industry-developed Wireless Network Resiliency
Cooperative Framework. It mandated five provisions for facilities-based
mobile wireless providers, including bilateral Roaming under Disaster
arrangements (RuDs), mutual aid agreements, municipal preparedness,
consumer readiness, and public communication. In particular, the Report
and Order requires that each facilities-based mobile wireless provider
enter into bilateral roaming agreements with all other facilities-based
mobile wireless providers from which it may foreseeably request roaming
privileges, or that may foreseeably request roaming privileges from it,
when the MDRI is active. The Commission clarified that roaming is
foreseeable, without limitation, when two providers' geographic
coverage areas overlap. The Commission originally set a compliance date
for the rules at the later of (i) 30 days after review of any new
information collection requirements associated with the Report and
Order by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or the Public Safety
and Homeland Security Bureau's (Bureau) determination that such review
is not required, or (ii) March 30, 2023, for non-small providers and
June 30, 2023, for small providers.
Petitioners jointly filed a Petition for Clarification and Partial
Reconsideration (CTIA and CCA Petition or Petition) of the Commission's
Report and Order. In response to the Petition, the Commission issued an
Order on Reconsideration extending the compliance deadline, determining
that RuD arrangements would be treated as presumptively confidential,
and otherwise declining to modify the Report and Order.
Modification of Compliance Implementation Timeline
The CTIA and CCA Petition requests that the Commission ``[p]rovide
sufficient time for wireless providers--at least 12 months for non-
small facilities-based mobile wireless providers and 18 months for
small facilities-based mobile wireless providers--to achieve compliance
with the new obligations.'' They further ask that those dates be
calculated from the date of OMB approval of the rule for Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) purposes. As described below, the Order on
Reconsideration establishes a single date certain for compliance by all
providers of May 1, 2024 that affords a reasonable extension by
providing approximately 20 months for all providers from publication of
the Report and Order in the Federal Register to achieve compliance.
This will extend reasonable relief to providers, while preserving the
benefits of the underlying rules for consumers relying on Petitioners'
networks for connectivity and emergency communications access during
disasters in advance of the 2024 hurricane and wildfire seasons. In
doing so, the Order on Reconsideration also eliminates the need to
continue to distinguish between small and non-small providers under the
MDRI.
Background. In requesting an extended implementation timeframe,
Petitioners argue that the Commission's estimate of 200 hours per
provider for compliance is ``not aligned with the
[[Page 20862]]
amount of work and resources that will be required to enter the
multiple bilateral RuD and mutual aid arrangements and to complete
roaming testing as required by the MDRI rules.'' They further argue
that providers will need more time to (1) negotiate agreements and (2)
complete an initial round of roaming testing. In addition, Petitioners
indicate that ``[i]n some cases'' providers may not have existing
agreements to leverage, raising the potential for unanticipated
complexities, and may need to include ``terms unique to the disaster
context in which they will be invoked.'' In instituting a deadline for
providers to enter into RuDs, they further assert that the Commission
has ``effectively reverse[d] course on a decade of precedent regarding
the timeframes for negotiating roaming arrangements.'' Petitioners also
claim that the time allowed is insufficient for providers to enter into
both RuDs and mutual aid agreements and to complete the technical and
operational tasks necessary to support roaming testing. Finally,
Petitioners argue that providers would need to negotiate agreements and
conduct testing serially, rather than simultaneously, due to resource
constraints for smaller providers.
Relatedly, the Petition seeks clarification on three other issues
impacting timeframes for compliance. First, the Petition recites that
``[t]he Commission should affirm that, like the Resilient Networks
Order's approach to mutual aid arrangements, the small provider
compliance date applies to both parties to a RuD arrangement, as well
as roaming testing, when at least one party to an arrangement is a
small provider.'' Second, the Petition requests that the Commission
``[a]lign the definitions of `non-small facilities-based' and `small
facilities-based' wireless providers with the FCC's existing
definitions of `nationwide' and `non-nationwide' wireless providers
applied in the 9-1-1 context.'' Third, the Petition asks the Commission
to ``[a]ffirm that [OMB] review is required for all information
collection obligations.'' Petitioners further argue that ``giving
providers a mere 30 days after OMB approval to comply with Sec.
4.17(a) and (b) is unworkable given the complexity of executing RuD and
mutual aid agreements, as well as roaming testing.
Comments. In support of the Petition, one commenter cites the
``limited personnel and financial resources'' of small carriers as
justification for providing at least an 18-month timeframe for
compliance, suggesting that negotiating RuDs and mutual aid agreements
with multiple parties and conducting testing of their roaming
capabilities ``is likely to take longer than the 200 hour estimate,''
and argue that a longer timeframe would put smaller carriers on ``a
more equal footing'' for negotiations. Others similarly assert that the
Commission's compliance estimates for small providers is unrealistic
and support an extended compliance timeframe of at least 18 months. A
commenter also argues that small providers are less likely to have
existing agreements to leverage, and echo the argument that truncated
negotiations may negatively impact their ability to obtain reasonable
terms and conditions. Another commenter also suggests that ``small
rural wireless carriers will receive a lower priority from large
carriers in conducting negotiations,'' and another similarly avers that
``small, rural carriers will receive a lower priority than negotiations
with larger providers'' impacting their ability to timely comply.
One commenter in particular also emphasized the monetary impact on
rural providers of the current compliance timeline, and argues
extending the timeline for implementation would allow for more cost-
effective compliance. A commenter states many of the same concerns, and
asserts that its own ongoing experience has yielded negotiation efforts
that ``significantly exceed[ ] the Commission's . . . estimate'' and
that implementation and testing ``requires tens of dozens of hours or
more of dedicated network engineer time for each and every potential
RuD partner.'' It also expresses concern that timely compliance may be
a challenge, and perhaps contrary to national security considerations,
where a provider with whom an RuD is to be negotiated is subject to
``Rip and Replace'' obligations due to the presence of Chinese-
manufactured network equipment.
As to the Report and Order's use of ``small'' and ``non-small''
designations to assign differing compliance timeframes, commenters
support the Petition's request to replace these designations with ``the
long-standing and well-understood definitions of `nationwide' and `non-
nationwide' wireless providers in the context of wireless 9-1-1
accuracy.'' Others call the Commission's non-small and small
distinctions of providers too ``narrow'' and do not find that the
definitions can ``recognize the extent of the burden the new rules will
place on small and regional providers that may have 1,500 or more
employees . . . but [will still] be challenged to achieve compliance
within the deadlines imposed by the [Report and Order].'' A commenter
also asserts that companies like itself that have large employee counts
across affiliated businesses may in reality only have small resources
attached to their telecommunications-specific enterprises.
Decision. The Order on Reconsideration agrees with Petitioners and
commenters that an extension of time is warranted in order for
providers to timely implement elements of the MDRI. For the reasons
discussed below, the Order on Reconsideration establishes a single,
date certain of May 1, 2024 for compliance with all elements of the
MDRI regardless of the size of the provider (in the unlikely event that
PRA review remains pending on May 1, 2024, set the compliance date for
all elements of the MDRI will be 30 days following publication of an
announcement that OMB review is completed).
As the record reflects, some providers will likely need additional
time to coordinate with other providers, conduct testing, and establish
new mutual aid relationships. As Petitioners and commenters also note,
certain elements of the MDRI require expenditure of more time and
effort initially compared to later on when these agreements and
arrangements will be more established and routine. As such, while the
Commission is persuaded that a reasonable extension is appropriate to
accommodate the concerns expressed by providers, we do not believe that
the lengthy extension requested is justified or necessary, and may
unreasonably delay the benefits of the MDRI. The Order on
Reconsideration finds that a May 1, 2024, compliance date should afford
providers more flexibility to allocate their resources to meet the
MDRI's requirements while still supporting the need for prompt
execution of these agreements and responsibilities in support of
disaster response and preparedness.
In particular, the Commission finds that the Petitioners' full
requested timeframes would unreasonably delay the benefits of the MDRI,
and would likely result in a compliance date more than two and a half
years from the adoption of the Report and Order for most providers,
eclipsing not only the 2023 hurricane season (defined as from June 1 to
November 30) and the 2023 wildfire season (generally during the summer
months, or later in Western states) but the entirety of hurricane and
wildfire seasons in 2024 as well. This would place wireless consumers
impacted by these disaster scenarios at greater risk for being unable
to reach
[[Page 20863]]
911, call for help, or receive emergency information and assistance.
While there are costs associated with these obligations both in terms
of monetary and other resource commitments for subject providers, the
Commission continues to find that the benefits outweigh these costs.
The timeframe requested by Petitioners, moreover, unreasonably dilutes
those benefits in a context in which prompt action is likely to save
lives and property.
In setting a single deadline, the Order on Reconsideration further
finds the distinction between small and non-small providers is no
longer necessary to perpetuate for two reasons. First, whereas non-
small providers were originally afforded 6 months (March 30, 2023) and
small providers were afforded 9 months (June 30, 2023) initially
providing different compliance dates based on provider size, the Report
and Order contemplated a singular date if OMB review were delayed
beyond these timeframes. As OMB has not yet completed its review at the
time of the Report and Order, the singular date contingency had
materialized. Second, the Order on Reconsideration finds this outcome
largely consistent with the ultimate outcome advocated by Petitioners
when their requests are taken as a whole. That is, if one accepted
Petitioners' request to use nationwide/non-nationwide distinctions for
purposes of the MDRI, and clarified that in all instances where a
nationwide and non-nationwide provider were parties to a negotiation
warranted a longer compliance timeframe, this would result in virtually
all negotiations being subject to the longer timeframe except in those
very few instances when a nationwide provider is negotiating with
another nationwide provider. It is far simpler, and equally equitable,
to provide a common timeframe across all scenarios.
Commenters further note that additional time has been afforded to
small providers for compliance in other contexts, e.g., with respect to
certain E911 and Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) obligations. The Order
on Reconsideration finds those examples inapposite here. In the E911
and WEA context, newly required obligations involved the potential for
network modifications and upgrades or equipment availability in a way
that is not present or relevant here.
The Petition and related comments further argue that the 200-hour
estimate provided by the Commission did not properly account for the
amount of time and resources necessary for entering into multiple
bilateral RuD and mutual aid arrangements and to complete roaming
testing. In particular, Petitioners and commenters claim that the
estimate does not properly account for the complexity of negotiating
and executing the required arrangements for many regional and local
providers, e.g., providers may have to negotiate arrangements and
complete roaming testing with a large number of providers, some
providers do not have existing agreements with other providers and may
need to address unanticipated complexities or include terms unique to
certain disaster contexts, and some providers lack the resources to
negotiate agreements and conduct testing with multiple providers at the
same time.
The Order on Reconsideration disagrees with Petitioners' view that
the Commission did not appropriately account for the level of likely
burden on providers in the Report and Order. In reaching its
conclusion, the Report and Order specifically took into account
assertions by small and regional entities regarding actions already
undertaken to engage in storm preparation, information and asset
sharing as well as their assertions that many ``already abide'' by the
principles on which the MDRI is based, concluding that setup costs
would be limited, and otherwise noting examples in the record around
existing efforts, time and resources expended in support of the
activities codified in the MDRI. As such, it was reasonable to assume
that providers existing engagements could be levied in support of these
obligations, and accordingly providing a reasoned estimate associated
with the actions required by regional and local providers to update or
revise their existing administrative and technical processes to conform
to processes required the MDRI. Further, the Report and Order noted the
lack of record comment regarding recurring costs. As such, we do not
believe the Report and Order erred in its conclusion.
However, even taking as true Petitioners assertion that the Report
and Order miscalculated the burden, and considering the additional
arguments presented regarding complexity and limited resources and the
possible need to negotiate serially, the Order on Reconsideration finds
the extension granted accounts for the additional burdens that
Petitioner and commenters have asserted (the date extension for
implementation of the MDRI should address concerns surrounding small
providers and the 200-hour estimated burden).
Petitioners also argue that the Commission has departed from its
own precedent by establishing a compliance deadline for entering into
roaming agreements. The Order on Reconsideration disagrees and finds
that there is a compelling public interest in ensuring the availability
of networks during a disaster justifies the need for an established
deadline. An open ended timeframe in this regard also fails to take
into account the need to enhance and improve disaster and recovery
efforts on the ground in preparation for, during, and in the aftermath
of disaster events, including by increasing predictability and
streamlining coordination in recovery efforts among providers.
Additional Small Provider Considerations. The Order on
Reconsideration also finds that the bargaining inequity posited by
smaller providers in their comments with respect to the roaming
arrangements and mutual aid agreements is also mitigated by the
extension granted. Moreover, RuDs and mutual aid agreements in this
context are required to adhere to a reasonableness standard, with
negotiations conducted in good faith, with disputes and enforcement
provided for before the Commission. The Order on Reconsideration finds
that these safeguards adequately address these concerns. With respect
to the argument that small providers in particular may need to conduct
negotiations serially rather than simultaneously due to resource
constraints, the Commission does not find that this circumstance alone
prevents timely compliance, and Petitioners and commenters do not
provide sufficient evidence that sequential negotiations for some
subset of providers requires industry-wide revisions of compliance
timeframes. Moreover, the extension of time should accommodate the need
for smaller providers to serially negotiate if necessary.
Rip and Replace. As to the possibility that a provider's need to
complete ``Rip and Replace'' activities prior to implementing or
completing initial testing of RuD or mutual aid arrangements under the
MDRI could delay timely compliance, the Commission expect that these
instances are specific enough to be addressed in a petition for waiver,
in response to which the Bureau could consider whether special
circumstances justify an appropriate delay.
Related Requests for Clarification. Finally, in establishing the
singular compliance date for all facilities-based mobile wireless
providers, it is unnecessary to address Petitioners' other requests. In
particular, the Petitioners' request the Commission reconsider its use
of ``small'' versus
[[Page 20864]]
``non-small'' delineations preferring the use of ``nationwide'' and
``non-nationwide'' as used in the 911 context instead. However, the
adoption of a unified implementation timeline for all providers makes
differentiating between providers irrelevant. Similarly, their request
for clarification as to the applicable timeframes when parties to an
RuD arrangement or roaming testing include one small and one non-small
provider is also unnecessary, as all providers are subject to the same
revised compliance date. While the Commission also disagrees that the
compliance timeframes adopted in the Report and Order are in any way
unclear, and therefore that the Commission should ``reaffirm'' the
applicability of the PRA timeframes to particular provisions of the
rule, the Order on Reconsideration grant dispensation to all parties by
extending the May 1, 2024 compliance date to all provisions of Sec.
4.17. (To the extent providers have professed disagreement or confusion
as to the applicability of the PRA to a particular element of Sec.
4.17, we forbear from enforcement action for any violations that may
have occurred during the pendency of the Petition and until the new
compliance date occurs.) It should be noted that Sec. 4.17(e)
previously set forth a separate compliance date for the requirement to
enter into mutual aid arrangements, but in modifying the implementation
timing and to provide clarity, the Commission finds it most logical for
all elements of the MDRI to have the same timing (see para. 25, supra,
``Providers must have mutual aid arrangements in place within 30 days
of the compliance date of the MDRI''). In the Order on Reconsideration,
the Commission eliminates the distinction between the mutual aid
arrangement requirement and the other requirements under the MDRI to
provide clarity and simplicity for implementation. In doing so, the
Commission provides a clear date to eliminate confusion, give providers
extra time for implementation and provide certainty not only to
Petitioners and commenters as to the scope and timing of their
obligations, but to the public safety and related incident planning and
response organizations that support communities during disasters, and
the public that relies on these networks. Petitioners' other argument
that the entire rule implicates PRA shall be resolved through the PRA
process.
List of Providers Subject to the MDRI
The Petitioners ask that the Commission ``[p]rovide a list of
potential facilities-based mobile wireless providers to which the MDRI
may apply, so that providers can determine with more certainty the
scope of their obligation to execute Roaming under Disaster (`RuD')
arrangements with all `foreseeable' wireless providers.'' Further,
Petitioners ask the Commission to ``publish the list on the FCC's
website'' and request that they ``update the list on a regular basis.''
As detailed below, the existing public information published by the
Commission in connection with its Form 477 information collections and
available to Petitioners and other providers adequately identify those
potentially subject to the MDRI. This resource coupled with other
public information available to Petitioners, as well as the additional
clarification we offer below on when roaming may be ``foreseeable'' for
MDRI purposes, provides adequate clarity in the Commission's view for
Petitioners to execute their obligations.
Background. Petitioners argue that providers need a Commission-
generated list to ensure they are engaging with all other providers for
required RuDs, mutual aid agreements, and testing of roaming under
Sec. 4.17. The Petition states that a failure to do so frustrates both
providers and the Commission's goals of the Report and Order and
creates a challenge to determining whether providers have reached
compliance with the MDRI. In particular, they assert that they have
spent resources on determining foreseeable roaming partners using the
Commission's estimated number of applicable providers as specified in
the Report and Order, but were only able to identify fewer than half of
the 63 providers referenced.
Comments. In support the Petition, commenters contend that while
roaming is foreseeable ``when two providers' geographic coverage areas
overlap,'' there is an issue with small carriers who may know the
``identity of competing service providers in their territory, [but] may
not have an existing business relationship with them, and . . . may not
know the appropriate legal and/or technical personnel who are
responsible for implementing roaming and mutual aid discussions.''
Commenters agree that the list is necessary to ``avoid ambiguity when
implementing the MDRI, streamline the initial contact process, [and]
clarify regulatory obligations for large and small carriers alike.''
They recommend that the Commission compile the initial list and allow
providers to identify appropriate points of contact and to update the
list if providers implement new technology, merge with or are acquired
by another service provider, or stop offering mobile wireless service.
They further suggest that the Commission's Disaster Information
Reporting System (DIRS) might serve as a model for collecting and
maintaining contact information. In particular, DIRS, ``provides
communications providers with a single, coordinated, consistent process
to report their communications infrastructure status information during
disasters and collects this information from wireline, wireless,
broadcast, cable, interconnected VoIP and broadband service
providers.'' Another commenter similarly concludes that an ``official
and continually updated resource of contact information would
streamline the process and clarify obligations for all providers.''
Discussion. The Commission is not persuaded that a Commission-
maintained list specifically for this purpose is the most efficient and
effective means for providers to identify those other facilities-based
mobile wireless providers subject to the MDRI. Petitioners assert that
they were unable to identify a full roster of facilities-based mobile
providers based on the Commission's estimate that 63 facilities-based
mobile wireless providers that are not signatories to the Wireless
Resiliency Cooperative Framework would be required to undertake certain
activities to comply with the new rule. Specifically, they assert that
``several of the Petitioners' members have worked in good faith, and
expended resources and time, through Petitioners and the companies'
established business channels, to compile information on the relevant
points of contact and subject matter experts for their respective
companies and identify contact information for all providers subject to
these new requirements'' but that they ``have been able to identify
fewer than half of the 63 facilities-based providers that the Resilient
Networks Order identifies as subject to the MDRI rules.'' Because they
were unable to do so, they argue this should obligate the Commission to
take on the responsibility of identifying and maintaining a list of
providers subject to the MDRI. However, the information used to provide
this estimate in the Report and Order is readily available to
providers.
In estimating the number of providers subject to the MDRI, the
Report and Order relied on data on the number of entities derived from
2022 Voice Telephone Services Report (VTSR). The information from the
VTSR is derived from Form 477 filings made with Commission. The
Commission already publishes the underlying list of Form 477 ``Filers
by State'' and periodically
[[Page 20865]]
updates this information. This pre-existing tool identifies, on a
state-by-state basis, those filers subject to Form 477 filing
obligations; those marked as ``mobile voice'' providers make up the
total utilized by the Commission to estimate those subject to the MDRI.
The Commission believes a simple sorting of this information, coupled
with a provider's own knowledge of its particular service area,
provides sufficient basis for a provider to (1) identify the providers
subject to the MDRI; and (2) identify the relevant providers within
this set with whom they should engage under the MDRI for establishing
RuDs and mutual aid agreements. For example, the Report and Order makes
clear that ``each facilities-based mobile wireless provider [shall]
enter into mutual aid arrangements with all other facilities-based
mobile wireless providers from which it may request, or receive a
request for aid during emergencies.'' Utilizing the ``Filers by State''
tool, as well as their geographic knowledge of their own service area,
past emergencies, and business relationships, it should be similarly
clear to providers which other providers they could potentially receive
or request aid from during an emergency.
Foreseeability. To provide additional guidance, the Order on
Reconsideration also delineates additional context for considering when
it may be ``foreseeable'' for a provider to need to roam onto another
provider's network under an RuD. In terms of foreseeability for RuD
purposes, the Commission continues to find that a particular provider
is in the best position to know with which other providers its coverage
area overlaps. In identifying foreseeable roaming partners, a provider
should be able to leverage the information about its own coverage to
reasonably predict which other providers may wish to enter into
bilateral roaming arrangements or mutual aid agreements from publicly
available service area maps, information in the Commission's Universal
Licensing System (ULS), utilizing an internet search or other research
sources to identify local providers. Indeed, providers have clear
competitive incentives to familiarize themselves with competing
providers who cater to their geographic area and consumers. In this
respect, providers subject to the MDRI could, by way of example, reach
out to all providers who are within their geographic service area to
help satisfy this obligation. Some commenters appear to concede that
geographic overlap is sufficient to understand what constitutes
``foreseeable'' roaming, only citing as an impediment to MDRI
implementation that providers may not already have an existing
relationship with each other.
Contact information. With respect to the need to identify contacts
and establish relationships, nothing in the Report and Order prevents
providers from making such information available of their own accord on
a website or other such resource. In this respect, the bi-lateral
nature of the roaming and mutual aid obligations also dictates that
providers will be reaching out to each other, providing multiple
avenues for mutual identification. As such, the Order on
Reconsideration does not find that the Commission is in a better
position than the individual providers to accumulate, collect, or
maintain this information.
Moreover, as the same commenters acknowledge, instituting a process
for Commission collection and dissemination of this data may have PRA
or other privacy implications. The Order on Reconsideration finds that
this effort could unreasonably delay the MDRI's implementation,
particularly when the alternative is achievable with little burden. It
is simpler, more efficient and more logical that providers use existing
knowledge of their geographic coverage area, geographic competitors,
and existing business relationships to begin implementation immediately
without the need for undue delay by waiting for the Commission to re-
organize information on an industry-wide basis that already exists with
the providers themselves.
The Commission continues to find that the Report and Order
requirement for each facilities-based mobile wireless provider to enter
into bilateral roaming agreements with all other facilities-based
mobile wireless providers from which it may foreseeably request roaming
privileges, or that may foreseeably request roaming privileges from it,
when the MDRI is active, to be a reasonable basis by which providers
can identify potential RuD partners. And while the Report and Order is
clear that roaming is foreseeable, without limitation, when two
providers' geographic coverage areas overlap, we refine this
explanation to acknowledge that radio frequency propagation may result
in some variables as to coverage area contours. In this respect,
coverage areas in this context overlap where a provider ``knows or
reasonably should have known'' that its ``as-designed'' network service
area overlaps with the service area of another provider. For instance,
a provider should be able to reasonably predict which other providers
may wish to enter into bilateral roaming agreements or mutual aid
agreements from publicly available service area maps, information in
the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS), utilizing an
internet search or other research sources to identify local providers,
being aware of competing providers who cater to their geographic area
and consumers, or other similar engagements.
Notification of MDRI Activation
The Petition requests that the Commission ``[e]stablish the process
that [the Bureau] will use to inform facilities-based wireless
providers that [the] MDRI is active, including by providing notice via
email to facilities-based wireless providers.'' Petitioners argue that
``it is critical that all facilities-based wireless providers are
immediately aware of such an activation through automatic electronic
notifications.'' They further state that the Commission already uses a
similar process to notify providers of the activation of its Disaster
Information Reporting System (DIRS). As described below, we decline to
establish a specific mechanism to provide direct alerts for MDRI
activation. Rather, the Order on Reconsideration finds the existing
widely utilized and public notification mechanisms sufficient to afford
prompt notice of MDRI activation.
Background. The MDRI is activated when (i) any entity authorized to
declare Emergency Support Function 2 (ESF-2) activates ESF-2 for a
given emergency or disaster, (ii) the Commission activates the Disaster
Information Reporting System (DIRS), or (iii) the Commission's Chief of
the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issues a Public Notice
activating the Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative (MDRI) in
response to a state request to do so, where the state has also either
activated its Emergency Operations Center, activated mutual aid or
proclaimed a local state of emergency. The Report and Order delegated
authority to the Bureau to issue a Public Notice effectuating the MDRI
under these circumstances but did not provide a specific manner in
which the Commission might otherwise notify providers.
Comments. Some commenters agree Petitioners' request for the
Commission to base its notice procedures for the MDRI's activation ``on
the practice currently used for activating the Disaster Information
Reporting System [(DIRS)] . . . [citing the importance] that all
facilities-based wireless providers are made aware of such an
activation.'' One commenter further opines that small providers would
have the flexibility to
[[Page 20866]]
``designate multiple points of contact to receive such notices,'' which
would ensure that providers are aware of activation and could act
accordingly. Another commenter is also in agreement, explaining that
``the FCC should . . . provide notice of activation . . . directly by
email from [PSHSB] staff to designated carrier points of contact.''
Discussion. The Petitioners claim that automatic electronic
notification is necessary to (1) make sure that all facilities-based
wireless providers are immediately aware of the MDRI activation and to
(2) provide small wireless providers with the flexibility to designate
multiple points of contact to receive notice of the MDRI activation,
which will ensure the effectiveness of the system. The Commission is
not persuaded that obligating the Commission to notify providers
subject to the MDRI directly of its activation through electronic
notification is necessary, and decline to modify the Report and Order
in this regard.
In so deciding, the Commission notes that the Petition's comparison
to DIRS operating procedures is not applicable in this instance. Unlike
MDRI activations, DIRS is a voluntary reporting system where the
responsibility and decision to report information sits with the
providers themselves and not the Commission. While the Bureau similarly
issues a Public Notice when DIRS is activated, sharing DIRS activation
status, like the email notification provided to DIRS registrants, is
merely a courtesy incidental to the purpose of the system. The primary
mechanism remains the Public Notice, and the various routine
publication and distribution venues employed for all Commission
documents such as the Daily Digest and the Commission website. While
the Order on Reconsideration declines to require it here, the
Commission fully anticipates that the Bureau would similarly employ
additional methods when available and appropriate to the circumstance
to widely disseminate information regarding MDRI activation.
While the Commission agree that it is in the public interest to
broadly publicize MDRI activation, existing pathways are sufficient as
they are now and providers hold the primary responsibility to be aware
of their obligations. As such, the Order on Reconsideration declines to
revise our determination that a Public Notice issued by the Bureau is
appropriate legal notice triggering MDRI obligations. However, to the
extent that DIRS or NORS may be able to provide a relevant vehicle for
the Bureau to provide courtesy MDRI activation notice, the Order on
Reconsideration directs the Bureau to consider its feasibility.
Confidential Treatment of RuDs
Background. The Petitioners ask the Commission to affirm that it
``will treat RuD arrangements provided under Sec. 4.17(d) as
presumptively confidential.'' In particular, Petitioners claim that
presumptive confidentiality for RuDs is appropriate because (1) the
RuDs contain commercially sensitive and proprietary information that
providers customarily treat as confidential; (2) the Commission treats
roaming agreements as presumptively confidential under the existing
data-roaming rules; and (3) the Commission treats analogous information
submissions as presumptively confidential. Blooston Rural Carriers also
favor a presumption of confidentiality. The Order on Reconsideration
agrees, and clarifies that such submissions will be treated as
presumptively confidential.
Discussion. Under the Report and Order, RuDs are not routinely
submitted and are provided to the Commission only on request. As such,
the Commission found it sufficient to consider confidentiality of such
submissions on an ad hoc basis when requested by a submitting party.
Petitioners correctly point out, however, that submissions to the
Commission of data roaming agreements are afforded presumptively
confidential treatment, and they further argue that RuDs may be
incorporated into broader roaming arrangements. (See Reexamination of
Roaming Obligations of Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers and
Other Providers of Mobile Data Services, Second Report and Order, 26
FCC Rcd 5411, 5450, para. 79 (2011) (``[I]f negotiations fail to
produce a mutually acceptable set of terms and conditions, including
rates, the Commission staff may require parties to submit on a
confidential basis their final offers, including price, in the form of
a proposed data roaming contract.'') They also assert that such
treatment for both RuDs and mutual aid agreements would be consistent
with the treatment for outage information supplied under other
provisions of the Commission's part 4 rules. The Order on
Reconsideration concurs that RuD submissions are likely to contain the
same types of sensitive trade secret or commercial and financial
information we have found in other contexts to merit such a
presumption. As such, the Commission reconsiders its prior ad hoc
approach, and will afford a presumption of confidentiality to RuDs
filed with the Commission.
II. Procedural Matters
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Order on Reconsideration does not contain new or substantively
modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore,
it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). This document may contain a non-substantive
and non-material modification of information collection requirements
that are currently pending review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Any such modifications will be submitted to OMB for
review pursuant to OMB's non-substantive modification process.
B. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Resilient Networks
Notice) released in October 2021. The Commission sought public comment
on the proposals in these dockets in the Resilient Networks Notice. No
comments were filed addressing the IRFA. In the Resilient Networks
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed released in July 2022
(Report and Order) the Commission prepared a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) and sought written comments on the FRFA. No
comments were filed addressing the FRFA. In October 2022, the Cellular
Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) and the Competitive
Carriers Association (CCA) (collectively, Petitioners) filed a Petition
for Clarification and Partial Reconsideration (Petition) of the Report
and Order which included issues impacting small entities. Several
parties filed comments in response to the Petition. A summary of the
relevant issues impacting small entities in the Petition, comments and
addressed in the Order on Reconsideration are detailed below. This
Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental FRFA)
reflects actions taken in the Order on Reconsideration, supplements the
FRFA included with the Report and Order, and conforms to the RFA.
[[Page 20867]]
C. Need for, and Objectives of, the Order on Reconsideration
In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules that require
all facilities-based mobile wireless providers to comply with the
Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative (MDRI), which codified the
Wireless Network Resiliency Cooperative Framework (Framework) agreement
developed by the wireless industry in 2016 to provide mutual aid in the
event of a disaster, and expand the events that trigger its activation.
(The Framework commits its signatories to compliance with the following
five prongs: (1) providing for reasonable roaming arrangements during
disasters when technically feasible; (2) fostering mutual aid during
emergencies; (3) enhancing municipal preparedness and restoration; (4)
increasing consumer readiness and preparation, and (5) improving public
awareness and stakeholder communications on service and restoration
status. Under the Report and Order's amended rules, the Mandatory
Disaster Response Initiative incorporates these elements, the new
testing and reporting requirements and will be activated when any
entity authorized to declare Emergency Support Function 2 (ESF-2)
activates ESF-2 for a given emergency or disaster, the Commission
activates the Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS), or the
Commission's Chief of Public Safety and Homeland Security issues a
Public Notice activating the MDRI in response to a state request to do
so, where the state has also either activated its Emergency Operations
Center, activated mutual aid or proclaimed a local state of emergency.)
The Report and Order also implemented new requirements for testing
of roaming capabilities and MDRI performance reporting to the
Commission. These actions were taken to improve the reliability,
resiliency, and continuity of communications networks during
emergencies. Further, the requirements uniformized the nation's
response efforts among facilities-based mobile wireless providers who
prior to the Report and Order, implemented the Framework on a voluntary
basis. Recent weather events and other natural disasters such as
Hurricane Ida, hurricanes and earthquakes in Puerto Rico, severe winter
storms in Texas, and hurricane and wildfire seasons generally, continue
to demonstrate the continued susceptibility of the United States'
communications infrastructure to disruption during such events.
Accordingly, the Commission's adoption of the MDRI requirements in the
Report and Order sought to implement the appropriate tools to promote
public safety, improve reliability of the telecommunications
infrastructure during emergency events, improve provider accountability
as well as increase Commission awareness.
In the Order on Reconsideration, in response to Petitioners' and
commenters' request for an extension of time for implementing roaming
arrangements and mutual aid agreements, the Commission provided an
extension for all providers, regardless of size, and implement a
single, uniform compliance date of May 1, 2024 for all providers to
comply with Sec. 4.17. With this extension the Commission eliminates
the distinction between small and non-small providers as previously
distinguished in the Report and Order. Whereas small providers had
originally been granted a longer timeline of nine months for
implementation in comparison to the six months granted for non-small
providers in the Report and Order, on reconsideration the extension we
grant will result in all providers having almost two years from the
date of publication of Report and Order in the Federal Register to
comply with the relevant MDRI requirements. Further, the extension
should allow small providers the additional time to manage resources
and take the other necessary steps to meet these requirements.
Additionally, the Commission has and continues to encourage large
providers to assist small providers with the implementation process,
and believes the rules as clarified in the Order on Reconsideration
continue to take into account the unique interests of small entities as
required by the RFA.
The Order on Reconsideration also furthers the Commission's efforts
to address the findings of the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
concerning wireless network resiliency. As we discussed in the Report
and Order, in 2017, the GAO, in conjunction with its review of federal
efforts to improve the resiliency of wireless networks during natural
disasters and other physical incidents, released a report recommending
that the Commission should improve its monitoring of industry efforts
to strengthen wireless network resiliency. The GAO's conclusion that
more robust measures and a better plan to monitor the Framework would
help the FCC collect information on the Framework and evaluate its
effectiveness resulted in several inquiries and investigations by the
Bureau to better understand and track the output and effectiveness of
the Framework, and other voluntary coordination efforts that promote
wireless network resiliency and situational awareness during and after
weather events and other emergencies. (Following Hurricane Michael, for
example, the Bureau issued a report on the preparation and response of
communications providers finding three key reasons for prolonged
outages during that event: insufficiently resilient backhaul
connectivity; inadequate reciprocal roaming arrangements; and lack of
coordination between wireless service providers, power crews, and
municipalities.) The Commission's actions on reconsideration to move
forward with the MDRI requirements adopted the Report and Order
continue to further the Commission's monitoring, oversight and efforts
to improve wireless network resiliency by the industry.
D. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
There were no comments filed that specifically address the proposed
rules and policies in the IRFA. However, as we mention above, in
response to the final rules adopted in the Report and Order, the CTIA
and CCA Petition and comments were filed involving issues impacting
small entities. Specifically, the Petitioners requested that the
Commission align the definitions of `non-small facilities-based' and
`small facilities-based' mobile wireless providers with the
Commission's existing definitions of `nationwide' and `non-nationwide'
wireless providers applied in the 9-1-1 context, clarify the small
provider compliance date applies when parties to a negotiation include
one small and one non-small provider, and extend the deadline for
implementing the new MDRI requirements for small and other wireless
providers. Regarding these requests, the compliance deadline extension
adopted in the Order on Reconsideration negated the need for the
Commission to rule on the other two requests.
Petitioners also requested that the Commission publish and maintain
a list of providers subject to the MDRI, provide direct, individual
notification to providers when the MDRI is activated, and treat as
confidential on a presumptive basis provider Roaming under Disaster
arrangements (RuDs). In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission
determined that only confidential treatment on a presumptive basis for
provider RuDs is warranted and decline to adopt further revisions.
Specifically, the Commission declined
[[Page 20868]]
to adopt the Petitioners' and commenters' other requests first finding
that having the Commission maintain and publish a list is neither an
efficient or effective way for providers to identify other facilities-
based wireless providers who are subject to the MDRI. Second, the
Commission continue to maintain the view that awareness of MDRI
activation is the responsibility of providers, and having the Bureau
issue notice via a Public Notice is sufficient.
E. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration
The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the
proposed rules in this proceeding.
F. 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. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. 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 SBA.
As noted above, a FRFA was incorporated in the Report and Order. In
the FRFA, the Commission described in detail the small entities that
might be significantly affected by the Report and Order. Accordingly,
in this Supplemental FRFA, the Commission incorporated by reference
from the Report and Order the descriptions and estimates of the number
of small entities that might be impacted by the Order on
Reconsideration.
G. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
The requirements from the Report and Order the Commission upholds
on reconsideration in today's Order on Reconsideration will impose new
or modified reporting, recordkeeping and/or other compliance
obligations on small entities. The rules require all facilities-based
mobile wireless providers to make adjustments to their restoration and
recovery processes, including contractual arrangements and public
outreach processes, to account for MDRI. The mutual aid, roaming,
municipal preparedness and restoration, consumer readiness and
preparation, and public awareness and stakeholder communications
provisions codified and implement the flexible standard in voluntary
Framework developed by the industry. In accordance with the Safe Harbor
provision we adopted in the Report and Order, pursuant to Sec. 1.16 of
the Commission's rules providers maintain the ability to file a letter
in the any of dockets associated with this proceeding asserting that
they are in compliance with the Framework's existing provisions, and
have implemented internal procedures to ensure that it remains in
compliance with the provisions. Further, small and other providers
remain obligated to comply with the provision from the Report and Order
that expands the events that trigger its activation and that require
providers test and report on their roaming capabilities to ensure that
the MDRI is implemented effectively and in accordance with the
Commission's rules.
On reconsideration, the modifications in the Order on
Reconsideration did not impact or change the cost of compliance
analysis and estimates for small and other providers made in the Report
and Order and therefore, the Commission does not repeat them. As we
discussed in the initial FRFA in this proceeding, the MDRI rules only
apply to facilities-based mobile wireless providers, which included
small entities as well as larger entities. The Commission has not
developed a small business size standard directed specifically toward
these entities. However, in our cost estimate discussion in the Report
and Order, we estimated costs based on Commission data that there are
approximately 63 small facilities-based mobile wireless providers and
these entities fit into larger industry categories that provide these
facilities or services for which the SBA has developed small business
size standards.
The Commission maintains its conclusion that the benefits of
participation by small and other providers likely will exceed the costs
for affected providers to comply with the rules adopted in the Report
and Order. As recommended in the Report and Order, the Commission
encourages non-small providers to assist smaller providers who may not
have present aid and roaming arrangements. The Commission also
acknowledges concerns commenters that smaller and more rural providers
may not have the same resources or time to commit to implementation of
the MDRI and the Petition's concern that smaller providers might need
to hire additional staff or spend limited resources on external support
to execute these arrangements and manage them in an ongoing manner, but
the Commission believes granting an extension of time for compliance
allows providers of all sizes the necessary timeline for achieving
implementation, even on an individualized basis for each agreement that
needs to be arranged. The Order on Reconsideration also maintains that
the substantial benefits attributable to improving resiliency in
emergency situations and the significant impact that is likely to
result in the health and safety of the public during times of natural
disasters, or other unanticipated events that could impair the
telecommunications infrastructure and networks, cannot be overstated.
H. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to provide, ``a description of the steps
the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on
small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and
legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule
and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule
considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was
rejected.''
The Commission took several steps in the Order on Reconsideration
that should minimize the economic impact of compliance with the Report
and Order for small entities. On reconsideration the Commission granted
an extension of time for small entities to comply with all of the
provisions of the MDRI. The Order on Reconsideration adopted a uniform
compliance date for all providers which results in approximately twenty
months (almost two full years) from the Federal Register publication to
implement the requirements. This extension accounts for the resource
concerns expressed by Petitioners, while maintaining the important role
the MDRI requirements play in facilitating the ability of the American
public to call for help, and receive emergency information and/or
assistance during natural disasters, and other emergency situations.
The Commission also granted a presumption of confidentiality for filed
RuDs which eliminates the additional step for small entities of having
to submit a request for confidential treatment under Sec. 0.459 of the
Commission's rules when filing an RuD with the Commission when
requested. As discussed above, in the
[[Page 20869]]
Order on Reconsideration the Commission considered the other
alternatives in the Petitioners' request for clarification and/
reconsideration and we declined to adopt any of those approaches. The
Commission was not persuaded that the increased Commission involvement,
expenditure of Commission resources, and the undue delay in
implementing the MDRI which would have occurred had we adopted the
alternatives requested by Petitioners and commenters was in the public
interest, or outweighed the benefits of moving forward with the MDRI
requirements as adopted in the Report and Order.
III. Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
4(n), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 251(e)(3), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307,
309(a), 316, 332, 403, 405, 615a-1, and 615c of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j) & (n), 201(b), 214(d),
218, 251(e)(3), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 316, 332,
403, 405, 615a-1, and 615c, and Sec. 1.429 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.429, that this Order on Reconsideration is adopted.
It is further ordered that part 4 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
part 4, is amended as set forth in the Appendix of the Order on
Reconsideration, and that such rule amendments shall be effective 30
days after publication in the Federal Register.
It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing Director,
Performance Program Management, shall send a copy of this Order on
Reconsideration in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 4
Communications equipment, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 4 as follows:
PART 4--DISRUPTIONS TO COMMUNICATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 34-39, 151, 154, 155, 157, 201, 251, 307,
316, 615a-1, 1302(a), and 1302(b); 5 U.S.C. 301, and Executive Order
no. 10530.
0
2. Amend Sec. 4.17 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 4.17 Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative.
* * * * *
(e) Compliance with the provisions of this section is required
beginning May 1, 2024.
[FR Doc. 2024-06092 Filed 3-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 26, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.