Resilient Networks; Disruptions to Communications, 20860-20869 [2024-06092]
Download as PDF
20860
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5737a; 5 U.S.C. 5738;
20 U.S.C. 905(a); E.O. 11609, as amended, 3
CFR, 1971–1975 Comp., p. 586.
6. Amend § 302–9.4 by adding a
sentence to the end of the undesignated
paragraph to read as follows:
■
§ 302–9.4 What are the purposes of the
allowance for transportation of a POV?
* * * For example, your agency may
determine that it is both advantageous
and cost effective to the Government to
allow for transportation of an alternative
fuel POV which would be impractical to
drive a long distance to the new official
station due to vehicle range capability
and fueling availability limitations, but
has practical use once at the new official
station.
■ 7. Revise § 302–9.301(e) to read as
follows:
§ 302–9.301 Under what conditions may
my agency authorize transportation of my
POV within CONUS?
*
*
*
*
*
(e) The distance that the POV is to be
shipped is 600 miles or more. An
exception to the 600-mile or more
distance requirement may be made for
alternative fuel vehicle range capability
and fueling availability limitations.
■ 8. Revise § 302–9.606(f) to read as
follows:
§ 302–9.606 What must we consider in
determining whether transportation of a
POV within CONUS is cost effective?
*
*
*
*
*
(f) The distance that the POV is to be
shipped is 600 miles or more. An
exception to the 600-mile distance
requirement may be made for alternative
fuel vehicle range capability and fueling
availability limitations.
[FR Doc. 2024–06352 Filed 3–25–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–14–P
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
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; withdrawal; reissuance; announcement of compliance
date.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
AGENCY:
The Federal Communications
Commission (Commission or FCC)
published a document in the Federal
Register on January 26, 2024,
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Mar 25, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 James.Wiley@fcc.gov or Logan
Bennett, Attorney-Advisor,
Cybersecurity and Communications
Reliability Division, Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418–
7790 or via email at Logan.Bennett@
fcc.gov. If you have any comments on
the information collection burden
estimates listed below, or how the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Commission can improve the
collections and reduce any burdens
caused thereby, please contact Nicole
Ongele, Federal Communications
Commission, via email to PRA@fcc.gov
and to nicole.ongele@fcc.gov.
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: https://
docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC23-71A1.pdf. This document also
announces that OMB approved the
information collection requirements in
§ 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
PRA@fcc.gov. 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 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 nonmajor 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 § 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
E:\FR\FM\26MRR1.SGM
26MRR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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 forprofit 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 facilitiesbased 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Mar 25, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 facilitiesbased 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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20861
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 nonsmall 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 nonsmall 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
E:\FR\FM\26MRR1.SGM
26MRR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
20862
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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 facilitiesbased’ 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
§ 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Mar 25, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 Chinesemanufactured 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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
[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
E:\FR\FM\26MRR1.SGM
26MRR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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 nonsmall 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Mar 25, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20863
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
E:\FR\FM\26MRR1.SGM
26MRR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
20864
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘non-small’’ delineations preferring the
use of ‘‘nationwide’’ and ‘‘nonnationwide’’ 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 § 4.17. (To the
extent providers have professed
disagreement or confusion as to the
applicability of the PRA to a particular
element of § 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 § 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Mar 25, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 Commissionmaintained 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 facilitiesbased 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
E:\FR\FM\26MRR1.SGM
26MRR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
updates this information. This preexisting tool identifies, on a state-bystate 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 facilitiesbased 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Mar 25, 2024
Jkt 262001
‘‘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 industrywide 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 facilitiesbased 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
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20865
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 facilitiesbased wireless providers.’’ Petitioners
argue that ‘‘it is critical that all facilitiesbased 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
E:\FR\FM\26MRR1.SGM
26MRR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
20866
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Mar 25, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
§ 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 dataroaming 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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
E:\FR\FM\26MRR1.SGM
26MRR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Mar 25, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20867
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
E:\FR\FM\26MRR1.SGM
26MRR1
20868
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Mar 25, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 § 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 facilitiesbased 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 nonsmall 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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 § 0.459 of
the Commission’s rules when filing an
RuD with the Commission when
requested. As discussed above, in the
E:\FR\FM\26MRR1.SGM
26MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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
§ 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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
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
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Mar 25, 2024
Jkt 262001
1302(b); 5 U.S.C. 301, and Executive Order
no. 10530.
2. Amend § 4.17 by revising paragraph
(e) to read as follows:
■
§ 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
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
48 CFR Parts 212, 213, 223, and 252
[Docket DARS–2023–0028]
RIN 0750–AK98
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement: Replacement
of Fluorinated Aqueous Film-Forming
Foam (DFARS Case 2020–D011)
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
DoD is adopting as final, with
changes, an interim rule amending the
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
Supplement (DFARS) to implement a
section of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
that prohibits DoD procurement of
fluorinated aqueous film-forming foam
containing in excess of one part per
billion of perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances after October
1, 2023, unless an exemption applies.
DATES: Effective March 26, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Johnson, telephone 202–913–
5764.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
DoD published an interim rule in the
Federal Register at 88 FR 67604 on
September 29, 2023, to implement
section 322(b), (c), and (d) of the
National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 (Pub.
L. 116–92). Section 322 prohibits DoD
procurement of fire-fighting agent
containing in excess of one part per
billion of perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) after
October 1, 2023, unless an exemption
applies. One respondent submitted a
public comment in response to the
interim rule.
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
II. Discussion and Analysis
DoD reviewed the public comment in
the development of the final rule. A
discussion of the comment and the
changes made to the rule as a result of
those comments is provided, as follows:
A. Summary of Significant Changes
From the Interim Rule
There are no significant changes from
the interim rule based on the public
comments.
B. Analysis of Public Comments
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
PO 00000
20869
Sfmt 4700
1. Exemption for Ocean-Going Vessels
Comment: The respondent
recommended the exemption for
procurement of aqueous film-forming
foam (AFFF) for use solely on oceangoing vessels be removed from the final
rule.
Response: The respondent’s
recommendation cannot be accepted
because removing the exemption for
procurement of AFFF for use solely on
ocean-going vessels from the final rule
would be inconsistent with
implementing section 322. The
exemption for use on ocean-going
vessels is explicitly stated in section
322.
2. Use of the Term ‘‘PFAS’’
Comment: The respondent suggested
the rule consistently use the term
‘‘PFAS’’ in the context of the statutory
prohibition.
Response: Concur. The rule employs
the term ‘‘perfluoroalkyl substances and
polyfluoroalkyl substances,’’ in
accordance with the language of section
322, which is also referred to as
‘‘PFAS.’’
3. Out-of-Scope Comments
Comment: The respondent suggested
manufacturers of PFAS-containing firefighting agents would face technical
challenges when transitioning to
manufacture of PFAS-free fire-fighting
agents. The respondent also:
• Opined on the cleanup and
remediation of PFAS spills.
• Suggested use of PFAS-containing
fire-fighting agents should be
criminalized.
• Suggested continued use of PFAScontaining fire-fighting agents in
accordance with MIL–PRF–24385F(SH)
would hamper military recruitment.
• Provided written materials that
describe the dangers of PFAS exposure
both to humans, particularly fire
fighters, and to the environment and
that document the transition of various
entities away from use of fluorinated
fire-fighting agents.
Response: These comments do not
directly relate to implementation of
E:\FR\FM\26MRR1.SGM
26MRR1
Agencies
[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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 [email protected] or
Logan Bennett, Attorney-Advisor, Cybersecurity and Communications
Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202)
418-7790 or via email at [email protected]. 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 [email protected] and to
[email protected].
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: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-71A1.pdf. 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 [email protected]. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] 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