[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59329-59340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19745]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 4

[PS Docket No. 21-346; PS Docket No. 15-80; ET Docket No. 04-35; FCC 
22-50; FR ID 103483]


Disruptions to Communications

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission or FCC) takes steps to improve the reliability and 
resiliency of commercial wireless networks by codifying key provisions 
of the 2016 Wireless Resiliency Cooperative Framework (Framework). The 
Commission mandates key provisions of the Framework for all facilities-
based wireless providers, expands the conditions that trigger its 
activation, adopts testing and reporting requirements, and codifies 
these modifications in a new ``Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative'' 
(MDRI).

DATES: The final rule is effective October 31, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Erika Olsen, Acting Division Chief, Cybersecurity 
and Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau, (202) 418-2868 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].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order (RO), FCC 22-50, adopted June 27, 2022, and released July 6, 
2022. The full text of this document is available by downloading the 
text from the Commission's website at: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-50A1.pdf. When the FCC Headquarters reopens to the 
public, the full text of this document will also be available for 
public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    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 will send a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Synopsis

    1. This document requires that all facilities-based mobile wireless 
providers, including each such signatory to the Framework, comply with 
the MDRI. As explained below, we find that the incremental costs 
imposed on facilities-based mobile wireless providers by these new 
requirements

[[Page 59330]]

will be minimal in many cases and, even when significant, will be far 
outweighed by the nationwide benefits.

A. Mandating the Framework

    2. The Resilient Networks notice of proposed rulemaking (Resilient 
Networks NPRM) (86 FR 61103, November 5, 2021) sought comment on 
whether providers should be required to implement the Framework's 
provisions and, if so, which providers should be subject to the 
requirements. We require that all facilities-based mobile wireless 
providers comply with the MDRI, which, among other elements, codifies 
the Framework's existing provisions. We defer for later consideration 
whether some similar construct to the Mandatory Disaster Response 
Initiative (MDRI) should be extended to entities outside of facilities-
based mobile wireless providers in the manner described in the 
Resilient Networks NPRM. Many commenters address the merits and 
drawbacks of mandating the Framework's provisions for entities beyond 
the wireless industry, but this item addresses requirements for 
facilities-based mobile wireless providers only. We also defer for 
later consideration the proposals in the Resilient Networks NPRM 
related to promoting situational awareness during disasters and 
addressing power outages.
    3. We find it appropriate to apply this requirement to all 
facilities-based mobile wireless providers. We recognize the merits of 
the current Framework and agree with the commenters who argue that its 
provisions would be more effective if they were expanded to include 
entities beyond the Framework's current signatories. We observe that 
the existing Framework, which was developed specifically for use in 
facilities-based mobile wireless networks, would be more effective and 
valuable if extended to all providers operating those types of 
networks.
    4. We make these requirements mandatory for all facilities-based 
mobile wireless providers. No commenter took issue with the 
Commission's authority to require facilities-based mobile wireless 
providers to implement the Framework. A number of commenters agree that 
the Framework's requirements should be mandatory for current 
signatories and other facilities-based mobile wireless providers. Our 
approach in this document is consistent with Verizon's view that the 
Framework ``could apply to all wireless providers,'' AT&T's observation 
that the Framework could be applied to non-Framework signatories who 
are capable of roaming, and Public Knowledge's view that the Framework 
should be extended to at least the entire wireless industry. The 
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) opines that a mandatory 
approach would make reporting more effective and consistent, 
incentivize action from those providers that currently do not undertake 
Framework-like steps in the aftermath of disasters, create more 
accountability, and close a disparity in service for customers based on 
whether their provider follows Framework-like measures or not. Public 
Knowledge believes that by mandating some of the Framework's 
requirements, including those related to entering into roaming 
agreements with other providers, the Commission would lower 
transactional costs faced by small- and medium-size (e.g., regional) 
providers, making their adoption of such requirements more viable. We 
agree with these comments and find that mandating the Framework's 
requirements for a broader segment of the wireless industry, as 
provided by the MDRI we adopt in this document, will 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. We find this to be true even for providers 
that already implement Framework-like steps. The efforts of all 
facilities-based mobile wireless service providers will be standardized 
based on a common set of required actions, thus better informing 
further Commission actions, enhancing resiliency, and better serving 
the public--particularly in times of need.
    5. We reject the views of commenters who opine that codifying the 
Framework's requirements (i.e., in the MDRI) would meaningfully limit 
the variety of solutions providers may implement or investments they 
may otherwise make in their network restoration and recovery efforts, 
e.g., due to fears that the efforts would make them non-compliant with 
these rules. These rules provide baseline actions and assurances that 
facilities-based mobile wireless providers will undertake to ensure 
effective coordination and planning to maintain and restore network 
connectivity around disasters. Nothing in this rule prevents or 
disincentivizes a provider from implementing additional measures that 
exceed the requirements of the MDRI. The record does not identify 
specific scenarios where taking additional steps beyond those required 
by the MDRI would make a provider non-compliant with the rules adopted 
in this document. Nevertheless, in the case that a provider desires to 
implement practices that would improve network resiliency but that, in 
some way, run counter to the rules we adopt in this document, a 
provider may explain these considerations in detail pursuant to the 
Commission's usual rule waiver procedures under 47 CFR 1.3.
    6. In making the MDRI mandatory for all facilities-based mobile 
wireless providers, regardless of their size, we reject the views of 
the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) and NTCA--The Rural 
Broadband Association (NTCA) that smaller providers should be excepted 
from these rules because they need to prioritize work on their own 
networks or lack the resources required for compliance in the midst of 
emergencies. We find that, as a practical matter, such concerns can be 
mitigated. Each of the Framework's provisions involves significant 
preparation and coordination steps to be taken well in advance of, 
rather than in the midst of, an emergency. For example, establishing 
mutual aid agreements, entering into appropriate contractual agreements 
related to roaming, enhancing municipal preparedness, increasing 
consumer readiness and preparing and improving public awareness are 
steps that can be taken in advance of a disaster. Making these advance 
preparations would reduce the resources needed to comply with these 
requirements during an emergency. Moreover, as NTCA notes, small 
wireless providers already generally abide by the underlying principles 
of the Framework. Requiring small providers to take certain actions to 
ensure that their networks remain operational during emergencies will 
have the effect of streamlining and standardizing those efforts, thus 
making coordination with other entities, including other providers, 
more efficient than would be possible absent uniform rules. Indeed, 
signatories to the Framework now have a commendable eight-year track 
record demonstrating how the Framework operates and its benefits 
before, during, and after disaster events, which offers lessons that 
smaller providers can follow. Additionally, the provisions of the MDRI 
are framed in terms of reasonableness and technical feasibility, which 
further mitigates these concerns.
    7. We note that these rules will require that providers negotiate 
roaming agreements, including related testing arrangements, and mutual 
aid provisions. We require that all such negotiations be conducted in 
good faith and note that any disputes will be addressed by the 
Commission on a case-by-case basis. We delegate authority to

[[Page 59331]]

the Enforcement Bureau to investigate and resolve such disputes.
    8. This rule 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. We clarify that 
roaming is foreseeable, without limitation, when two providers' 
geographic coverage areas overlap. We agree with NTCA that roaming 
agreements should be bilateral to ensure that roaming is implemented 
across the nation on equitable terms and that no provider prevents its 
subscribers from roaming onto the networks of other providers when it 
would be technically feasible to do so during disasters and 
emergencies. We also require that each bilateral roaming agreement be 
executed and in place no later than the compliance date for the MDRI. 
This advance planning will allow, for example, time for the providers 
subject to the agreement to undertake initial testing and confirm that 
the roaming functionality works as intended and/or take remediation 
steps to address technical issues prior to the actual onset of a 
disaster or emergency event, as well as to swiftly implement roaming 
when the MDRI is triggered. Where a disaster can be reasonably 
anticipated, such as in the case of a hurricane, this will also permit 
advance coordination and planning among parties to the roaming under 
disaster arrangement (RuD). It is our expectation that these bilateral 
roaming requirements will increase consumer access to emergency 
communications services in the direst of circumstances, and to the 
maximum extent technically feasible, when life and property are at 
stake.
    9. We find strong support in the record for mandating the roaming 
provision of the Framework in the MDRI. We agree with the Association 
of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) that mandatory roaming 
is critical to ensuring that the public has access to 9-1-1 and other 
avenues of emergency communications, such as web-based services, that 
the public may rely upon for important information during an emergency, 
and with T-Mobile's general view that roaming should be promptly and 
broadly available to other providers on request absent extenuating 
circumstances and that such provisions should be made in anticipation 
of a disaster rather than only after a disaster has struck. We decline 
to adopt at this time T-Mobile's view that roaming should be required 
without permitting the host provider to perform a capacity evaluation. 
Requiring that RuDs be executed prior to disaster provides some 
assurance that issues can be identified and resolved prior to onset of 
the actual disaster event, reducing the chance that consumers will lose 
a life-saving lifeline when it is most needed. We also agree with 
Public Knowledge that providers located in vulnerable areas with less 
infrastructure are the least likely to have adequate roaming agreements 
in place with their neighboring providers absent an appropriate 
requirement.
    10. We find that the roaming provision of the Framework has been 
sufficiently refined through eight years of implementation to provide a 
basis for its adoption in this document. CTIA--The Wireless Association 
(CTIA) observes, for example, that ``[w]ireless stakeholders have been 
developing new practices for enhancing the implementation and 
effectiveness of the Framework's RuD tool based on lessons learned 
during earlier disaster events.'' Further, CTIA offers as lessons 
learned that parties to roaming agreements should use uniform 
terminology throughout the RuD request process, establish provider 
connectivity and roaming terms before disasters occur, and conduct 
``blue skies'' exercises with potential roaming partners. We agree with 
Verizon that roaming is workable, provided there is sufficient 
flexibility in the rules to account for a provider's technical and 
capacity issues, appropriate testing of capabilities, and safeguards to 
prevent opportunistic ``free riding'' roaming from providers who 
leverage another provider's more reliable network rather than invest in 
improving the reliability of their own. Accordingly, we reject AT&T's 
view that requiring roaming would necessarily be counterproductive or 
impair access to emergency services.
    11. The roaming requirement adopted in this document requires 
facilities-based mobile wireless providers to provide for reasonable 
roaming under disaster arrangements (RuDs) when technically feasible, 
where: (i) a requesting provider's network has become inoperable and 
the requesting provider has taken all appropriate steps to attempt to 
restore its own network, and (ii) the provider receiving the request 
(home provider) has determined that roaming is technically feasible and 
will not adversely affect service to the home provider's own 
subscribers, provided that existing roaming arrangements and call 
processing methods do not already achieve these objectives and that any 
new arrangements are limited in duration and contingent on the 
requesting provider taking all possible steps to restore service on its 
own network as quickly as possible. We note that this industry-
developed standard is a flexible one that allows providers to adapt to 
the particular circumstances that each disaster or exigency presents on 
a case-by-case basis. For example, what constitutes ``reasonable 
roaming,'' ``technically feasib[ility]'' and ``adverse[] affect'' will 
typically depend on facts and realities that cannot be determined 
universally in advance of a situation that gives rise to a particular 
MDRI activation. We find it useful, however, to provide clarification 
and basic guidance that would help providers understand what activities 
do meet this standard, where appropriate.
    12. We clarify that ``reasonable roaming'' is roaming that does not 
disturb, but includes compliance with, the Commission's existing 
requirements that voice roaming arrangements be just, reasonable, and 
non-discriminatory, and that data roaming arrangements be commercially 
reasonable. We further clarify that ``technically feasible'' roaming 
for purposes of the Commission's disaster roaming rules requires a host 
provider to permit a requesting provider's customers to roam on the 
host provider's network on all compatible generations of network 
technology that it offers to its own customers. We note that requiring 
that a host provider support roaming regardless of network generation 
will contribute meaningfully to the Commission's objective of 
increasing consumer access to emergency communications services in the 
direst of circumstances, when life and property are at stake. Moreover, 
we find this would provide some measure of technological neutrality, as 
well account for the often-rapid evolution of wireless technology.
    13. We also clarify that ``reasonable roaming'' would include 
providing a means of denying a roaming request in writing to the 
requesting provider, preferably with the specific reasons why roaming 
is infeasible. We believe that this approach would allow the requesting 
provider to evaluate the substance of the reasons so that it can make a 
renewed request at an appropriate time later, if warranted, and will 
create accountability on the part of requesting providers to ensure 
that denials are only issued when the circumstances truly warrant. 
Moreover, this approach, while optional, could help to provide insight 
into modifications that would facilitate a future roaming agreement or 
create a record in the event a dispute arises.

[[Page 59332]]

    14. By way of example, we further clarify that an RuD that 
specifies that a provider may make a network health assessment within 
four hours post-disaster and activate its roaming functionality within 
three hours of completing the health assessment would generally be 
considered reasonable. In this respect, we agree with AT&T on the 
practicality of these time frames as best practices and note that 
appropriate time frames may depend on a specific scenarios and 
circumstances involved.
    15. We find that the Commission could effectively ensure 
accountability on the part of providers and their compliance with this 
roaming provision, and could do so at minimal cost to providers, if the 
Commission had the ability to request copies of a provider's bilateral 
roaming agreements. We thus require that a provider retain RuDs for a 
period of at least one year after their expiration and supply copies of 
such agreements to the Commission promptly upon Commission request. If 
appropriate, such agreements may be submitted with a request for 
confidential treatment under Sec.  0.459 of the Commission's rules.
    16. This rule requires that each facilities-based mobile wireless 
provider 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. Providers must have mutual aid 
arrangements in place within 30 days of the compliance date of the 
MDRI. This rule also requires providers to commit to engaging in 
necessary consultation where feasible during and after disasters, 
provided that the provider supplying the aid has reasonably first 
managed its own network needs. We find that requiring providers to 
coordinate and collaborate (e.g., to determine ways in which excess 
equipment from one provider can be shared or exchanged with the other) 
has been successful during past disasters and serves the public 
interest during times of emergency. We find that, without this 
provision in place, providers are less likely to fully engage in such 
actions, particularly among providers that do not regularly collaborate 
on other matters (e.g., between a large nationwide provider and 
smaller, rural provider). In arriving at this rule, we note and commend 
some of the nation's largest providers who already engage in this 
coordination on some level among themselves, and we believe that the 
public interest would greatly benefit from such commitments being 
extended to all facilities-based mobile wireless providers.
    17. The MDRI mutual aid requirement is a codification of the 
flexible standard already developed by industry in proposing its 
successful Framework. As such, AT&T's concern that this rule would 
require a provider to grant mutual aid regardless of its own 
circumstances and ATIS's concern that this provision would require a 
provider to work to restore a competitor's network before its own are 
unfounded. Rather, as indicated by the plain language of this rule, a 
provider's obligations apply only if it has ``reasonably first managed 
its own network needs.'' Similarly, because a provider supplying aid 
under this provision would only do so after it has managed its own 
needs, we find USTelecom's concerns that this provision would create 
disincentives for a requesting provider to invest in its own resiliency 
and restoration capabilities are countered by the language of the rule 
itself, and further mitigated by the flexibility that the rules afford 
providers in coming to a reasonable mutual agreement. We similarly 
clarify that nothing in this rule requires that providers share their 
limited fuel or other equipment when they do not have enough of these 
resources to reasonably service their own subscribers' needs first.
    18. Several other provisions of the MDRI track corresponding 
elements of the existing Framework and require that each facilities-
based mobile wireless provider take reasonable measures to: (1) work to 
enhance municipal preparedness and restoration, (2) increase consumer 
readiness and preparation, and (3) improve public awareness and 
stakeholder communications on service and restoration status. The 
Commission declines to address at this time a provision similar to the 
existing Framework's provision that a provider establish a provider/
public safety answering point (PSAP) contact database. The Commission 
is currently examining these issues in its pending 911 Reliability 
proceeding. We find that each of these provisions would enhance public 
safety objectives by tracking the elements of the Framework. We find 
that these actions, taken individually and as a whole, would provide 
significant public safety benefits by reducing the costs borne by both 
wireless providers and public safety entities in responding to and 
recovering from a disaster and by creating information that can be used 
by public officials, including first responders, to enable more 
effective and efficient responses in an emergency. We find that the 
MDRI, as a codification of successful provisions already implemented by 
the nationwide and certain regional providers to date, allows the 
needed flexibility to respond to the individual needs of providers and 
the communities they serve.
    19. We find it in the public interest to supply clarity and 
assurance that providers have complied with as many of the MDRI's 
provisions as practical if they implement, or continue their 
implementation of, corresponding elements of the Framework. 
Accordingly, a provider that files a letter in the dockets associated 
with this proceeding truthfully and accurately asserting, pursuant to 
Sec.  1.16 of the Commission's rules, that it complies with the 
Framework's existing provisions, and has implemented internal 
procedures to ensure that its remains in compliance with these 
provisions, for (i) fostering mutual aid among wireless providers 
during emergencies, (ii) enhancing municipal preparedness and 
restoration by convening with local government public safety 
representatives to develop best practices, and establishing a provider/
PSAP contact database, (iii) increasing consumer readiness and 
preparation through development and dissemination with consumer groups 
of a Consumer Readiness Checklist, and (iv) improving public awareness 
and stakeholder communications on service and restoration status, 
through Commission posting of data on cell site outages on an 
aggregated, county-by-county basis in the relevant area through its 
Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS) will be presumed to have 
complied with the MDRI counterpart provisions at Sec.  4.17(a)(3)(ii) 
through (iv). We clarify that providers that rely on this safe harbor 
provision are representing adherence to these elements of the Framework 
as it was laid out and endorsed by the Commission in October 2016.
    20. Given the new requirements related to testing roaming, however, 
we do not extend this ``safe harbor'' mechanism to these rules 
requiring that providers implement bilateral roaming arrangements 
(Sec.  4.17(a)(3)(i)), test their roaming functionality (Sec.  
4.17(b)), provide reports to the Commission (Sec.  4.17(c)) or retain 
copied of RuDs (Sec.  4.17(d)). Nor we do extend safe harbor to Sec.  
4.17(e), which summarizes an announcement of compliance dates for these 
rules. These four provisions cover important aspects of the Framework 
related to roaming (among other functionality), where there is some 
evidence that the existing Framework has not performed as strongly as

[[Page 59333]]

possible or else new requirements that have no counterpart in the 
existing Framework.

B. Implementing New Testing and Reporting Requirements

    21. In the Resilient Networks NPRM, we sought comment on whether 
each provider should be required to implement annual testing of their 
roaming capabilities and related coordination processes. We adopt the 
requirement that this testing must be performed bilaterally with other 
providers that may foreseeably roam, or request roaming from, a given 
provider including, without limitation, between providers whose 
geographic coverage areas overlap. The first round of such testing, 
i.e., with respect to all other foreseeable providers, must be 
performed no later than the compliance date for the roaming provision 
of the MDRI.
    22. We agree with NTCA that providers should regularly test their 
roaming capabilities and believe that the public interest would be 
served if providers conducted bilateral roaming capabilities testing 
with other providers to ensure that roaming will work expeditiously in 
times of emergencies. We agree with Verizon that testing in advance of 
an actual disaster event is necessary for a provider to best understand 
its network capabilities and ensure that roaming is performed in a way 
that does not compromise its service to its own customers. We find that 
bilateral testing will ensure that providers spend time optimizing, 
debugging and diagnosing their networks well advance of emergencies, 
ensuring that these networks roam as effectively as possible when a 
disaster strikes, ultimately saving lives and property. We find that by 
requiring the testing to be bilateral, each provider will be 
incentivized to take affirmative steps to ensure their own network can 
handle demands indicative of emergency scenarios, diminishing the 
possibility that such a provider would act as a ``free-rider'' when 
disaster strikes.
    23. In the Resilient Networks NPRM, we also sought comment on 
whether providers should submit reports to the Commission, in real time 
or in the aftermath of a disaster, detailing their implementation of 
the Framework's provisions and whether the reports should include 
information on the manner in which the provider adhered to the various 
provisions of the Framework. We adopt this requirement and require that 
providers submit a report detailing the timing, duration and 
effectiveness of their implementation of the MDRI's provisions within 
60 days of when the Bureau, under delegated authority which we grant in 
this document, issues a Public Notice announcing such reports must be 
filed for providers operating in a given geographic area in the 
aftermath of a disaster.
    24. We agree with Free Press that that it is in the public interest 
for providers to submit an ``after-action'' report detailing how their 
networks fared and whether their pre-disaster response plans adequately 
prepared for a disaster and with Next Century Cities that requiring 
providers to submit reports detailing implementation of the Framework's 
provisions would help the Commission gauge the effectiveness of these 
provisions and potential future improvements in furtherance of public 
safety.
    25. We reject the views of Verizon and other commenters who suggest 
that such reports should be filed only annually. We find that such 
reports would be most accurate and useful if they were provided shortly 
after a disaster event has concluded (i.e., by a date specified in a 
Bureau issued public notice). We find that such reports should be filed 
shortly after a disaster event concludes, and not in real time, to 
avoid consuming public safety resources during times of exigency.

C. Expanding Activation Triggers

    26. In the Resilient Networks NPRM, the Commission recognized 
circumstances where mutual aid or other support obligations could have 
been implemented, but were not warranted or provided because the 
Framework's activation triggers were not met. The Commission applauded 
the Framework but sought to expand its reach by working with providers 
to revisit the conditions that trigger activation of the Framework. 
Commenters generally agreed that new triggers for Framework activation 
are appropriate. Verizon identified that ``[a]uthorizing the Chief of 
the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to activate the 
Framework based on [Emergency Support Function 2] ESF-2 or DIRS'' could 
be the right approach.
    27. We find that the public interest supports a rule that the MDRI 
is triggered when either ESF-2 or DIRS is activated, or when the Chief 
of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau announces that the 
MDRI is activated in response to a request received from a state in 
conjunction with the state activating its Emergency Operations Center, 
activating mutual aid, or proclaiming a local state of emergency. As 
such, we delegate to the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau the authority to issue a public notice effectuating the MDRI 
under these circumstances, and to prescribe any mechanisms for 
receiving such a request.
    28. We agree with those commenters who argue that the Framework's 
current activation criterion, which only applies when both ESF-2 and 
DIRS are activated, is too narrow. CTIA and Verizon agree that 
Framework elements could be helpful during events not currently covered 
by the Framework and are open to considering other activation triggers 
to help ensure cooperative efforts during disasters impacting 
communications networks. (Knowledge and CTIA point out that the current 
stringent activation requirements prevent consumers from receiving the 
benefits of the Framework like mutual aid and roaming arrangements 
because there are many disasters and events would not reach the dual 
ESF-2/DIRS trigger, such as the recent California power shutoffs and 
wildfires for which ESF-2 was not activated. CTIA states that they are 
committed to working with the Commission to consider other objective 
activation triggers.) Certain events like wildfires are not expressly 
covered by the Framework and have the potential to occur more 
frequently than other covered events like hurricanes. Next Century 
Cities (NCC) explains that DIRS is typically activated before an 
anticipated major emergency or following an unpredicted disaster but 
ESF-2 is only activated under specific circumstances when the 
Department of Homeland Security or FEMA has identified that a 
significant impact to the nation's communications infrastructure has 
occurred or is likely to occur. These two programs differ in activation 
requirements, meaning that the Framework is not always activated even 
during critical disaster events and the Commission is not always able 
to collect vital communications outage data. We agree with NCC's and 
Public Knowledge's recommendation that the Framework would be more 
effective if it were activated when either DIRS or ESF-2 is activated 
and if it remained active until the emergency has ceased and network 
disruption has been resolved. Further, we agree with Verizon's 
suggestion that the Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau should be able to activate the Framework based on ESF-2 or DIRS, 
or when a state experiences events such as FEMA-recognized or declared 
disasters, events that could affect a significant geographic area, or 
events that could result in outages for a

[[Page 59334]]

significant duration and have the potential to impact multiple 
providers. The activation criteria for the MDRI incorporates these 
views.
    29. We disagree with those commenters, including the CCA and NTCA, 
who think a codified version of the Framework cannot incorporate 
remedies and procedures for a variety of differing disasters and 
emergencies. We agree that the current Framework offers flexibility to 
address various challenges brought on by differing disasters in 
differing locations, and we note that the MDRI will allow for the same 
flexibility and offer even more benefits and restorative efforts with a 
wider range of activation triggers. CTIA argues that the beneficial 
elements of the Framework outweigh the doubts and points out the 
Framework's success in advancing wireless resiliency over the past few 
years. Recognizing the merits of the Framework and building upon it in 
the MDRI will also better incorporate the uniqueness of individual 
disasters by offering additional circumstances in which the obligations 
would be triggered.

D. Cost-Benefit Summary

    30. In the Resilient Networks NPRM, the Commission generally sought 
information on costs and benefits of requiring providers to implement 
provisions of the Framework, including mandating some or all of the 
Framework, and tentatively concluded that the benefits exceeded the 
costs for doing so. We affirm that tentative conclusion as to 
facilities-based mobile wireless providers.
    31. No commenter provides a detailed quantitative analysis of costs 
or benefits, though some commenters provide qualitative views. For 
example, Public Knowledge opines that mandating the Framework, 
particularly the roaming provision of the Framework, would lower 
transaction costs for smaller providers while also providing benefits 
to the nation's network resiliency and emergency response. CPUC notes 
that the benefits of ensuring heightened network resiliency are likely 
to increase in the coming years as the number of weather and climate 
disaster events continues to increase. On the other hand, AT&T, CCA, 
and USTelecom, among others, argue that mandating the Framework would 
create harms, rather than benefits, because it would remove flexibility 
in providers' disaster recovery approaches and, as a result, would lead 
to worse public safety outcomes. CCA further argues that some 
providers, including small providers, may lack the resources necessary 
to adopt a mandatory regime. As discussed below, we find that the 
incremental costs to the nation's facilities-based mobile wireless 
providers for codifying the Framework in the MDRI rules will be minimal 
in many cases and, even when significant, will be far outweighed by 
nationwide benefits.
    32. We find that Framework signatories are unlikely to incur 
significant one-time implementation costs to comply with the MDRI 
because they already implement actions aligned with the Framework's 
steps and, in some cases, take significant additional actions as part 
of their existing business practices. AT&T, for example, cites multiple 
examples evidencing that it and other signatories commonly invoke the 
Framework's provisions and notes it has extended roaming privileges to 
other wireless providers during numerous events in which the 
Framework's activation criteria were not triggered. AT&T notes that it 
has universally allowed roaming on its network when it has had 
capacity, including by non-Framework signatories, and believes the same 
to be true of other signatories. Verizon notes that it has already 
voluntarily entered into bilateral roaming agreements with AT&T, T-
Mobile, and some mid-sized and smaller providers that pertain to 
disaster scenarios. Other wireless providers, or their industry groups, 
provide numerous examples of how providers are already investing 
significant time and resources into complying with the Framework 
provisions, even when they are not signatories or bound to the 
Framework's terms, to enhance their networks' resiliency. Given these 
efforts, we find it reasonable to conclude that the one-time 
implementation costs imposed on Framework signatories to implement 
uniform procedures to comply with the MDRI will be minimal. We note for 
clarity that any framework signatory that qualifies as a small entity 
under the definition is afforded additional time for compliance with 
these rules compared to non-small entities.
    33. We find that regional and local entities will incur one-time 
implementation costs to transition from their existing processes to new 
processes to comply with the MDRI. As noted in the record, regional and 
local facilities-based mobile wireless providers already accrue costs 
to implement steps similar to those described in these rules. For 
example, ACA Connects notes that its members (which are small regional 
or local entities) have ``developed plans outlining specific actions to 
be performed at specific preparatory stages (e.g., at 72, 48 or 24 
hours in advance of an impending storm),'' including typically by 
``identify[ing] service restoration priorities[,] coordinat[ing] 
extensively within their companies to ensure all available resources 
are brought to bear effectively and that customers (both residential 
and enterprise) are kept informed of service impacts and progress in 
restoring outages[,] and coordinat[ing] with first responders, power 
companies, and fellow communications providers in their service area.'' 
ACA Connects notes that its members currently ``readily coordinate and 
share information with local, State and Federal authorities, as well as 
other communications providers and power companies.'' ACA Connects 
further notes that this sort of information exchange ``allows for a 
more efficient and coordinated restoration effort'' and enables 
providers to ``continually update their plans based on `lessons 
learned' from previous events.'' Similarly, NTCA notes that small 
wireless providers ``certainly abide'' by the underlying principles of 
the Framework--i.e., even if they do not follow the Framework's 
specific requirements as mandated by these rules. Given these efforts, 
we believe that the total setup costs for regional and local providers 
to implement the MDRI will be limited.
    34. Specifically, we estimate that the nation's regional and local 
facilities-based mobile wireless providers that are not current 
Framework signatories will incur total initial setup costs of 
approximately $945,000 based on our estimate of 63 such providers each 
spending 50 hours of time on legal services at $107/hour, 50 hours of 
time on software development at $87/hour, and 100 hours of time on 
public relations and outreach activities at $53/hour. These setup costs 
enable the regional and local providers to update or revise their 
existing administrative and technical processes to conform to processes 
required by these rules, including those related to roaming 
arrangements, fostering mutual aid, enhancing municipal preparedness, 
increasing consumer readiness, and improving public awareness and 
shareholder communications on service and restoration status.
    35. Commenters have provided no evidence, as requested in the 
Resilient Networks NPRM, of any significant additional recurring costs. 
Nevertheless, the industry will incur an annual recurring cost, imposed 
by the new testing and reporting requirements. We find, however, that 
these costs are likely mitigated for a number of reasons. The 
incremental costs of testing are lessened to the extent that 
facilities-based

[[Page 59335]]

providers already engage in regular assessments of their roaming 
capabilities with their roaming partners. Moreover, we find that these 
cost increases will be substantially offset, over the long term, by the 
lowering of transaction costs. Under our new rules, a provider's 
bilateral roaming agreements with other providers will contain similar 
elements in key provisions and these details will no longer need to be 
determined on a partner-by-partner basis, thus reducing transaction 
costs. The setup and recurring costs also will be substantially offset 
by the network's increase in economic efficiency as providers start 
sharing more of their unused capacity and idle equipment during 
disasters and other emergencies. Finally, because our requirement for 
providers to issue reports detailing the timing, duration and 
effectiveness of their implementation of the MDRI first entails a 
Public Notice specifying the providers and geographic area affected, 
the recurring costs for reporting purposes will be limited to instances 
where the Commission sees a legitimate need to require such reports.
    36. We agree with Public Knowledge that there are significant 
benefits in requiring providers to coordinate preparation for disasters 
and with Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. 
(TDI) that the benefits of adopting a mandatory approach, as in this 
rule, would be widespread, including by increasing access to critical 
information by individuals in the deaf, hard of hearing, and deafblind 
communities. Further, CTIA testified at the Commission's 2021 virtual 
Field Hearing on improving the resiliency and recovery of 
communications networks during disasters that the Framework is a 
``collaborat[ive] . . . jumpstart[ ] [to] response and recovery'' and 
allows for continuous growth through lessons learned during 
``increasing severity and frequency of disasters'' allowing for the 
development of ``best practices [to] strengthen our networks, our 
response, and our performance for everyone who relies on wireless 
during emergencies.'' Moreover, we find that the benefits attributable 
to improving facilities-based mobile wireless network resiliency in the 
context of emergency situations is substantial and will promote the 
health and safety of residents during times of natural disaster or 
other unanticipated events that impair telecommunications 
infrastructure.
    37. While it would be impossible to quantify the precise financial 
value of these health and safety benefits, we note that the value of 
these benefits would have to exceed the implementation cost of less 
than $1 million, together with the annual recurring costs imposed by 
the new testing and reporting requirements, to outweigh the total cost 
of compliance. This reasoning is an example of a ``breakeven analysis'' 
recommended by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) 
in cases where precise quantification and monetization of benefits is 
not possible. In light of the record reflecting large benefits to 
consumers and other communities, we find that the total incremental 
costs imposed on the nation's facilities-based mobile wireless 
providers by these new requirements will be minimal in many cases and, 
even when significant, will be far outweighed by the nationwide 
benefits.

E. Timelines for Compliance

    38. We set a compliance date for these rules at the later of (i) 30 
days after the Bureau issues a Public Notice announcing that OMB has 
completed review of any new information collection requirements 
associated with this document or (ii) nine months after the publication 
of this document for small facilities-based mobile wireless providers 
and six months after the publication of this document in the Federal 
Register for all other (i.e., not small) facilities-based mobile 
wireless providers. We adopt the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 
standard, which classifies a provider in this industry as small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. We require a provider have each bilateral 
roaming agreement, as described in Sec.  4.17(a)(3)(i), executed and in 
place no later than its associated compliance date, have mutual aid 
arrangements, as described in Sec.  4.17(a)(3)(ii), in place within 30 
days of its associated compliance date, and perform a complete first 
round of testing, as described in Sec.  4.17(b), no later than its 
associated compliance date. We note for clarity that the compliance 
date associated with a small facilities-based mobile wireless providers 
applies for the requirements of Sec.  4.17(a)(3)(ii) when at least one 
party to the mutual aid arrangement is a small facilities-based mobile 
wireless provider. We further note that finalization of arrangements 
under Sec.  4.17(a)(3)(ii) will be required 30 days after compliance 
with the other provisions of Sec.  4.17. To the extent that a new 
facilities-based mobile wireless service provider subsequently 
commences service, it is required to comply with these provisions 30 
days following commencement of service. As reflected at Sec.  4.17(e), 
we direct the Bureau to issue a Public Notice that announces the 
compliance dates for all facilities-based mobile wireless providers 
upon obtaining OMB approval of the new information collection 
requirements associated with this document.
    39. These rules require that facilities-based mobile wireless 
providers take steps to update their processes to implement our MDRI, 
which codifies many of the Framework's provisions. We find that 
providers will require only a modest amount of time to adjust their 
processes to comply with these rules because, as noted above, they 
already implement actions closely aligned with the Framework's steps 
and, in some cases, take significant additional actions as part of 
their existing practices. For instance, AT&T and a non-Framework 
signatory roamed on each other's networks for months after disaster 
Hurricane Maria. Signatories to the Wireless Network Resiliency 
Cooperative Framework implemented it immediately and, when hurricane 
season arrived six months later, the signatories demonstrated their 
implementation by voluntarily reporting in DIRS. In addition, we find 
that these changes must be made expeditiously given recent observations 
of network failures during disasters. As small and large providers, or 
their industry groups, have emphasized that they could implement the 
Framework immediately, or else take Framework-like measures already, we 
believe that this time range provides sufficient time for providers to 
implement any changes and make any necessary arrangements.

I. Procedural Matters

    40. 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 
Resilient Networks; Amendments to part 4 of the Commission's Rules 
Concerning Disruptions to Communications; New part 4 of the 
Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications notice of 
proposed rulemaking (Resilient Networks NPRM) released in October 2021. 
The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the 
Resilient Networks NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments 
were filed addressing the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
    41. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. These rules may constitute 
new or modified information collection requirements. All such new or 
modified information collection requirements will be submitted to the 
Office of

[[Page 59336]]

Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). OMB, the general public, and 
other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on any new or 
modified information collection requirements contained in this 
proceeding. In addition, we note that, pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission previously sought, but did 
not receive, specific comment on how the Commission might further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees. The Commission does not believe that any 
new information collection requirements will be unduly burdensome on 
small businesses. Applying these new information collection 
requirements will promote public safety response efforts, to the 
benefit of all size governmental jurisdictions, businesses, equipment 
manufacturers, and business associations by providing better 
situational information related to the Nation's network outages and 
infrastructure status.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Final Rules

    42. In this document, the Commission adopts rules that require all 
facilities-based mobile wireless providers to comply with the Mandatory 
Disaster Response Initiative (MDRI), which codifies the Wireless 
Network Resiliency Cooperative Framework (Framework), an agreement 
developed by the wireless industry in 2016 to provide mutual aid in the 
event of a disaster, and expands the events that trigger its 
activation. The document also implements new requirements for testing 
of roaming capabilities and MDRI performance reporting to the 
Commission. These actions will improve the reliability, resiliency, and 
continuity of communications networks during emergencies. This action 
uniformizes the Nation's response efforts among facilities-based mobile 
wireless providers who, prior to these rules, implemented the Framework 
on a voluntary basis. 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 these 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.
    43. The rules in this document also address findings of the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) concerning wireless network 
resiliency. In 2017, the Government Accountability Office (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 found that the number of wireless 
outages attributed to a physical incident--a natural disaster, 
accident, or other manmade event, such as vandalism--increased from 189 
in 2009 to 1,079 in 2016. The GAO concluded 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, and that 
such steps could help the FCC decide if further action is needed. In 
light of prolonged outages during several emergency events in 2017 and 
2018, and in parallel with the GAO recommendations, the Public Safety 
and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) conducted several inquiries and 
investigations 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 these hurricanes and other emergencies.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Comments in Response to the 
IRFA

    44. There were no comments filed that specifically address the 
proposed rules and policies in the IRFA.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    45. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the 
proposed rules in this proceeding.

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Which the 
Rules Will Apply

    46. 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.
    47. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions may, over time, affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly 
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size 
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of 
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having 
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 
99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 32.5 
million businesses.
    48. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or 
less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small 
exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were 
approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting 
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data 
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
    49. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there 
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose

[[Page 59337]]

governments in the United States. Of this number there were 36,931 
General purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) 
with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose 
governments--independent school districts with enrollment of less than 
50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, 
we estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of 
``small governmental jurisdictions.''
    50. The rules adopted in this document apply only to facilities-
based mobile wireless providers, which include 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 below in section E, we estimate costs 
based on Commission data that there are approximately 63 small 
facilities-based mobile wireless providers. As described below, these 
entities fit into larger industry categories that provide these 
facilities or services for which the SBA has developed small business 
size standards.
    51. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the 
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 797 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 715 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    52. We note that while facilities-based mobile wireless providers 
fall into this industry description, in assessing whether a business 
concern qualifies as ``small'' under the above SBA size standard, 
business (control) affiliations must be included. Another element of 
the definition of ``small business'' requires that an entity not be 
dominant in its field of operation. An additional element of the 
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be 
independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is 
difficult at times to assess these criteria and its estimates of small 
businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent. We 
are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would 
establish whether a specific facilities-based mobile wireless provider 
impacted by this document is dominant in its field of operation. 
Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply 
for this industry description is therefore possibly over-inclusive and 
thus may overstate the number of small entities that might be affected 
by our action.
    53. Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications 
Services (WCS) can be used for a variety of fixed, mobile, 
radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite services. 
Wireless spectrum is made available and licensed for the provision of 
wireless communications services in several frequency bands subject to 
part 27 of the Commission's rules. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business 
size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size 
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire 
year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. 
Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a 
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    54. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to 
WCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in 
the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in 
WCS. When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in 
WCS frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of 
small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small, and 
entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in 
conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified 
in the designated entities section in part 27 of the Commission's rules 
for the specific WCS frequency bands.
    55. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    56. The requirements in this document will impose new or modified 
reporting, recordkeeping and/or other compliance obligations on small 
entities. The rules adopted in this document 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 adopted in the Order are a codification of the flexible 
standard already developed by the industry in proposing its voluntary 
Framework. The new provision that expands the events that trigger its 
activation and that require providers test and report on their roaming 
capabilities will ensure that the MDRI is implemental effectively and 
in accordance with the Commission's rules, and the new requirements 
related to testing and reporting will ensure that roaming is performed 
effectively with the aim of saving life and property.
    57. The roaming requirement adopted by the Commission requires 
facilities-based mobile wireless providers to provide for reasonable 
roaming under disaster arrangements (RuDs) when technically feasible, 
where: (i) a requesting provider's network has become inoperable and 
the requesting provider has taken all appropriate steps to attempt to 
restore its own network, and (ii) the provider receiving the request 
(home provider) has determined that roaming is technically feasible and 
will not adversely affect service to the home provider's own 
subscribers, provided that existing roaming arrangements and call 
processing methods do not already achieve these objectives and that any 
new arrangements are limited in duration

[[Page 59338]]

and contingent on the requesting provider taking all possible steps to 
restore service on its own network as quickly as possible. In this 
document, we also require facilities-based mobile wireless providers 
to: (1) 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, (2) have each 
bilateral roaming agreement executed and in place no later than the 
compliance date for the roaming provision of the MDRI, and (3) make 
copies their bilateral roaming agreements available to the Commission 
promptly upon Commission request.
    58. Pursuant to the ``safe harbor'' provision we adopt in this 
document, a provider may file a letter in the dockets associated with 
this proceeding which truthfully and accurately asserts pursuant to 
Sec.  1.16 of the Commission's rules, that the provider is in 
compliance with the Framework's existing provisions, and has 
implemented internal procedures to ensure that it remains in compliance 
with the provisions for: (i) fostering mutual aid among wireless 
providers during emergencies, (ii) enhancing municipal preparedness and 
restoration by convening with local government public safety 
representatives to develop best practices, and establishing a provider/
PSAP contact database, (iii) increasing consumer readiness and 
preparation through development and dissemination with consumer groups 
of a Consumer Readiness Checklist, and (iv) improving public awareness 
and stakeholder communications on service and restoration status, 
through Commission posting of data on cell site outages on an 
aggregated, county-by-county basis in the relevant area through its 
DIRS will be presumed to have complied with the MDRI counterpart 
provisions at Sec.  4.17(a)(3)(ii) through (iv). The ``safe harbor'' 
mechanism adopted in the rules does not apply to the requirements that 
providers implement bilateral roaming arrangements (Sec.  
4.17(a)(3)(i)), test their roaming functionality (Sec.  4.17(b)) 
provide reports to the Commission (Sec.  4.17(c)), or retain RuDs 
(Sec.  4.17(d)). Providers that make a ``safe harbor'' filing are 
representing adherence to these elements of the Framework as laid out 
and endorsed by the Commission in October 2016.
    59. Small and other regional and local facilities-based mobile 
wireless providers that are not current Framework signatories will 
incur one-time implementation costs to transition from their existing 
processes to new processes to comply with the MDRI. The Commission 
estimates that the Nation's regional and local facilities-based mobile 
wireless providers as a whole will incur one-time total initial setup 
costs of $945,000 to implement the requirements of this document and 
may require professionals in order to comply. We base our estimate on 
63 such providers each spending 50 hours of time on legal services at 
$107/hour, 50 hours of time on software development at $87/hour, and 
100 hours of time on public relations and outreach activities at $53/
hour, to update or revise their existing administrative and technical 
processes to conform, to processes their record keeping and other 
compliance requirements to those required by this rule, including those 
related to roaming arrangements, fostering mutual aid, enhancing 
municipal preparedness, increasing consumer readiness and improving 
public awareness and shareholder communications on service and 
restoration status.
    60. Facilities-based providers in the industry may also incur an 
annual recurring cost, imposed by the new testing and reporting 
requirements and determined that these costs are likely to be mitigated 
for a number of reasons. The incremental costs of testing are lessened 
to the extent that facilities-based providers already engage in regular 
assessments of their roaming capabilities with their roaming partners. 
Moreover, these cost increases will be substantially offset, over the 
long term, by the lowering of transaction costs. Under our new rules, a 
provider's bilateral roaming agreements with other providers will 
contain similar elements in key provisions and these details will no 
longer need to be determined on a partner-by-partner basis, thus 
reducing transaction costs. The setup and recurring costs also will be 
substantially offset by the network's increase in economic efficiency 
as providers start sharing more of their unused capacity and idle 
equipment during disasters and other emergencies.
    61. Finally, because our requirement for providers to issue reports 
detailing the timing, duration and effectiveness of their 
implementation of the MDRI first entails a Public Notice specifying the 
providers and geographic area affected, we anticipate recurring costs 
to be limited to instances where the Commission sees a legitimate need 
to require such reports. We set compliances dates for these rules as 
the later of (1) 30 days after the Office of Management and Budget 
completes review of such requirements pursuant to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act or the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau 
determines that such review is not required, or (2) nine months after 
publication of this document in the Federal Register for facilities-
based mobile wireless service providers with 1,500 or fewer employees 
and six months after publication of this document in the Federal 
Register for all other facilities-based mobile wireless service 
providers, except that compliance with paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of Sec.  
4.17 will not be required until 30 days after the compliance date for 
the other provisions of the section. The Commission has directed the 
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to announce the compliance 
dates Sec.  4.17 by subsequent Public Notice and to cause the section 
to be revised accordingly.
    62. We conclude that the benefits of participation by small 
entities and other providers likely will exceed the costs for affected 
providers to comply with the rules adopted in this document. The 
benefits attributable to improving resiliency in the context of 
emergency situations is substantial and may have significant positive 
effects on the abilities of these entities to promote the health and 
safety of residents during times of natural disaster or other 
unanticipated events that impair telecommunications infrastructure.

F. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    63. 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.''
    64. The actions taken by the Commission in this document were 
considered to be the least costly and minimally burdensome for small 
and other entities impacted by the rules. The Commission took a number 
of actions in this document to minimize any significant economic impact 
on small entities and considered several alternatives. For example, 
this document's requirements are only applicable to facilities-based 
mobile wireless providers and thus other small entity providers that 
may be capable of roaming are not subject to the adopted provisions. In 
addition, several of the adopted requirements are based on or

[[Page 59339]]

incorporate industry-developed standards, and utilize and are 
consistent with existing Commission requirements. In developing the 
requirement that facilities-based mobile wireless providers provide 
reasonable roaming under disaster arrangements (RuDs) when technically 
feasible, for instance, we define ``reasonable roaming'' as roaming 
that does not disturb, but includes compliance with, the Commission's 
existing requirements that voice roaming arrangements be just, 
reasonable, and non-discriminatory, and that data roaming arrangements 
be commercially reasonable. Consistency with existing industry 
standards and Commission requirements increase the likelihood that 
small entities already have processes and procedures in place to 
facilitate compliance with the rules we adopt in this document and may 
only incur increment costs which will minimize the impact for these 
entities.
    65. Some commenters supported an alternative view that all small 
providers should be excepted from the rules adopted in this document 
because they need to prioritize work on their own networks or else 
generally lack the resources required for compliance in the midst of 
emergencies. Upon consideration of this position the Commission 
determined that these concerns can be mitigated because the Framework's 
provisions such as establishing mutual aid agreements, enhancing 
municipal preparedness, increasing consumer readiness and preparing and 
improving public awareness are preparation and coordination can and 
should be taken well in advance of, rather than in the midst of an 
emergency. Likewise, securing the appropriate contractual agreements 
related to roaming is an obligation that should be completed prior to 
an emergency event. Further and notably, some commenters indicated that 
small mobile wireless providers already generally abide by the 
underlying principles of the Framework. Given that such efforts are 
already in place or in progress, we believe that the total setup costs 
for small regional and local providers to implement the MDRI will be 
limited. Moreover, requiring small providers to take actions adopted in 
this document to ensure their networks remain operational during 
emergencies will have the effect of streamlining and standardizing 
those efforts, thereby making coordination with other entities, 
including other providers, more efficient than would be possible if 
small providers were not subject to uniform rules. Small providers are 
also affording an additional measure of time to comply with adopted 
rules, requiring compliance within nine months (rather than the six 
month afforded other providers).
    66. Lastly, we considered whether providers should submit reports 
to the Commission, in real time or in the aftermath of a disaster 
detailing their implementation of the Framework's provisions and 
whether the reports should include information on the manner in which 
the provider adhered to the various provisions of the Framework. We 
declined to adopt a real-time submission reporting requirement, and 
instead required that providers submit a report detailing the timing, 
duration and effectiveness of their implementation of the MDRI's 
provisions within 60 days of when the Bureau, under delegated 
authority, issues a Public Notice announcing such reports must be filed 
for providers operating in a given geographic area in the aftermath of 
a disaster. In light of our decision to examine ways to standardize and 
streamline the reporting processes for providers in the further notice 
of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM), published elsewhere in this issue of 
the Federal Register, we did not mandate a timeline for compliance with 
the reporting requirements, therefore small entities will not be 
immediately impacted by the requirements.

II. Ordering Clauses

    67. Accordingly it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
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, the Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket Nos. 21-346 and 15-80 and ET 
Docket No. 04-35 is hereby adopted.
    68. It is further ordered that the amended Commission rules as set 
forth in Sec.  4.17 Are Adopted, effective 30 days after publication in 
the Federal Register. Compliance with the rules adopted in document 
will not be required until the later of (i) 30 days after the Public 
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issues a Public Notice announcing 
completion of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review of any new 
information collection requirements associated with this document or 
(ii) nine months after the publication of this document in the Federal 
Register for facilities-based mobile wireless providers with 1500 or 
fewer employees and six months after the publication of this document 
in the Federal Register for all other facilities-based mobile wireless 
providers. For the purposes of the provisions of Sec.  4.17(a)(3)(ii), 
compliance will be required 30 days after the compliance date for all 
other provisions, and the compliance date for a small facilities 
facilities-based mobile wireless provider will apply when at least one 
party to the mutual aid arrangement is a small facilities-based mobile 
wireless provider. The Commission directs the Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau to announce the compliance dates by subsequent 
Public Notice and to cause 47 CFR 4.17 to be revised accordingly.
    69. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of the Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.
    70. It is further ordered that the Office of Managing Director, 
Performance Evaluation and Records Management, shall send a copy of the 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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

    Airports, Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Regulations

    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. Add Sec.  4.17 to read as follows:

[[Page 59340]]

Sec.  4.17  Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative.

    (a) Facilities-based mobile wireless providers are required to 
perform, or have established, the following procedures when:
    (1) Any entity authorized to declare Emergency Support Function 2 
(ESF-2) activates ESF-2 for a given emergency or disaster;
    (2) The Commission activates the Disaster Information Reporting 
System (DIRS); or
    (3) The Commission's Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau issues a Public Notice activating the Mandatory 
Disaster Response Initiative 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:
    (i) Provide for reasonable roaming under disaster arrangements 
(RuDs) when technically feasible, where:
    (A) A requesting provider's network has become inoperable and the 
requesting provider has taken all appropriate steps to attempt to 
restore its own network; and
    (B) The provider receiving the request (home provider) has 
determined that roaming is technically feasible and will not adversely 
affect service to the home provider's own subscribers, provided that 
existing roaming arrangements and call processing methods do not 
already achieve these objectives and that any new arrangements are 
limited in duration and contingent on the requesting provider taking 
all possible steps to restore service on its own network as quickly as 
possible;
    (ii) Establish mutual aid arrangements with other facilities-based 
mobile wireless providers for providing aid upon request to those 
providers during emergencies, where such agreements address the sharing 
of physical assets and commit to engaging in necessary consultation 
where feasible during and after disasters, provided that the provider 
supplying the aid has reasonably first managed its own network needs;
    (iii) Take reasonable measures to enhance municipal preparedness 
and restoration;
    (iv) Take reasonable measures to increase consumer readiness and 
preparation; and
    (v) Take reasonable measures to improve public awareness and 
stakeholder communications on service and restoration status.
    (b) Providers subject to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this 
section are required to perform annual testing of their roaming 
capabilities and related coordination processes, with such testing 
performed bilaterally with other providers that may foreseeably roam, 
or request roaming from, the provider during times of disaster or other 
exigency.
    (c) Providers subject to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this 
section are required to submit reports to the Commission detailing the 
timing, duration, and effectiveness of their implementation of the 
Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative's provisions in this section 
within 60 days of when the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau 
issues a Public Notice announcing such reports must be filed for 
providers operating in a certain geographic area in the aftermath of a 
disaster.
    (d) Providers subject to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this 
section are required retain RuDs for a period of at least one year 
after their expiration and supply copies of such agreements to the 
Commission promptly upon Commission request.
    (e)(1) This section may contain information collection and/or 
recordkeeping requirements. Compliance with this section will not be 
required until this paragraph (e) is removed or contains compliance 
dates, which will not occur until the later of:
    (i) 30 days after the Office of Management and Budget completes 
review of such requirements pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act or 
the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau determines that such 
review is not required; or
    (ii) June 30, 2023 for facilities-based mobile wireless service 
providers with 1,500 or fewer employees and March 30, 2023 for all 
other facilities-based mobile wireless service providers, except that 
compliance with paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section will not be 
required until 30 days after the compliance date for the other 
provisions of this section.
    (2) The Commission directs the Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau to announce the compliance dates for this section by subsequent 
Public Notice and notification in the Federal Register and to cause 
this section to be revised accordingly.

[FR Doc. 2022-19745 Filed 9-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P