[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