Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 5105 

Illegal Texts available in EB Docket No. 

23–418 at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/ 

search/search-filings. The provider must 

include a certification that it is blocking 

all texts from the number or numbers 

and will continue to do so unless the 

provider learns that the number has 

been reassigned, in which case the 

provider shall promptly notify the 

Enforcement Bureau of this fact and 

include any information it has obtained 

that demonstrates that the number has 

been reassigned. If, at any time in the 

future, the provider determines that the 

number has been reassigned, it shall 

notify the Enforcement Bureau and 

cease blocking. The provider is not 

required to monitor for number 

reassignments. 

■ 6. Effective January 27, 2025, further 

amend § 64.1200 by revising paragraph 

(f)(9) to read as follows: 

§ 64.1200 Delivery restrictions. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(9) The term prior express written 

consent means an agreement, in writing, 

that bears the signature of the person 

called or texted that clearly and 

conspicuously authorizes no more than 

one identified seller to deliver or cause 

to be delivered to the person called or 

texted advertisements or telemarketing 

messages using an automatic telephone 

dialing system or an artificial or 

prerecorded voice. Calls and texts must 

be logically and topically associated 

with the interaction that prompted the 

consent and the agreement must 

identify the telephone number to which 

the signatory authorizes such 

advertisements or telemarketing 

messages to be delivered. 

(i) The written agreement shall 

include a clear and conspicuous 

disclosure informing the person signing 

that: 

(A) By executing the agreement, such 

person authorizes the seller to deliver or 

cause to be delivered to the signatory 

telemarketing calls or texts using an 

automatic telephone dialing system or 

an artificial or prerecorded voice; and 

(B) The person is not required to sign 

the agreement (directly or indirectly) or 

agree to enter into such an agreement as 

a condition of purchasing any property, 

goods, or services. The term ‘‘signature’’ 

shall include an electronic or digital 

form of signature, to the extent that such 

form of signature is recognized as a 

valid signature under applicable Federal 

law or State contract law. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–28832 Filed 1–25–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 4 

[PS Docket Nos. 21–346, 15–80; ET Docket 

No. 04–35; FCC 23–71; FR ID 192559] 

Disruptions to Communications 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission or FCC) addresses the 

Petition for Clarification and Partial 

Reconsideration (Petition) filed by the 

Cellular Telecommunications and 

internet Association (CTIA) and the 

Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) 

(collectively, Petitioners) regarding the 

‘‘Mandatory Disaster Response 

Initiative’’ (MDRI) by extending the 

compliance deadline. 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. 

DATES: The final rule is effective May 1, 

2024. 

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 

Erika.Olsen@fcc.gov or Logan Bennett, 

Attorney-Advisor, Cybersecurity and 

Communications Reliability Division, 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau, (202) 418–7790 or via email at 

Logan.Bennett@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

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 is available by downloading 

the text from the Commission’s website 

at: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/FCC-23-71A1.pdf. 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. The Report and Order adopted the 

MDRI to improve network resilience 

during disasters, aligning with the 

industry-developed Wireless Network 

Resiliency Cooperative Framework. It 

mandated five provisions for facilitiesbased mobile wireless providers, 

including bi-lateral 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 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 (Bureau) determines that such 

review is not required, or (ii) March 30, 

2023, for non-small providers and June 

30, 2023, for small providers. 

2. 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. 

A. Modification of Compliance 

Implementation Timeline 

3. 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
5106 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

distinguish between small and nonsmall providers under the MDRI. 

4. 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 

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. 

5. Relatedly, the Petition seeks 

clarification on three other issues 

impacting timeframes for compliance. 

First, the Petition recites that ‘‘[t]he 

Commission should affirm that, like the 

Resilient Networks Order’s approach to 

mutual aid arrangements, the small 

provider compliance date applies to 

both parties to a RuD arrangement, as 

well as roaming testing, when at least 

one party to an arrangement is a small 

provider.’’ Second, the Petition requests 

that the Commission ‘‘[a]lign the 

definitions of ‘non-small facilitiesbased’ and ‘small facilities-based’ 

wireless providers with the FCC’s 

existing definitions of ‘nationwide’ and 

‘non-nationwide’ wireless providers 

applied in the 9–1–1 context.’’ Third, 

the Petition asks the Commission to 

‘‘[a]ffirm that [OMB] review is required 

for all information collection 

obligations.’’ Petitioners further argue 

that ‘‘giving providers a mere 30 days 

after OMB approval to comply with 

§ 4.17(a) and (b) is unworkable given the 

complexity of executing RuD and 

mutual aid agreements, as well as 

roaming testing. 

6. 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. 

7. One commenter in particular also 

emphasized the monetary impact on 

rural providers of the current 

compliance timeline, and argues 

extending the timeline for 

implementation would allow for more 

cost-effective compliance. A commenter 

states many of the same concerns, and 

asserts that its own ongoing experience 

has yielded negotiation efforts that 

‘‘significantly exceed[ ] the 

Commission’s . . . estimate’’ and that 

implementation and testing ‘‘requires 

tens of dozens of hours or more of 

dedicated network engineer time for 

each and every potential RuD partner.’’ 

It also expresses concern that timely 

compliance may be a challenge, and 

perhaps contrary to national security 

considerations, where a provider with 

whom an RuD is to be negotiated is 

subject to ‘‘Rip and Replace’’ obligations 

due to the presence of Chinesemanufactured network equipment. 

8. 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. 

9. 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 Reconsidration 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). 

10. 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. 

11. 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 5107 

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 

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. 

12. In setting a single deadline, the 

Order on Reconsideration further finds 

the distinction between small and nonsmall providers is no longer necessary 

to perpetuate for two reasons. First, 

whereas non-small providers were 

originally afforded 6 months (March 30, 

2023) and small providers were afforded 

9 months (June 30, 2023) initially 

providing different compliance dates 

based on provider size, the Report and 

Order contemplated a singular date if 

OMB review were delayed beyond these 

timeframes. As OMB has not yet 

completed its review at the time of the 

Report and Order, the singular date 

contingency had materialized. Second, 

the Order on Reconsideration finds this 

outcome largely consistent with the 

ultimate outcome advocated by 

Petitioners when their requests are 

taken as a whole. That is, if one 

accepted Petitioners’ request to use 

nationwide/non-nationwide distinctions 

for purposes of the MDRI and clarified 

that in all instances where a nationwide 

and non-nationwide provider were 

parties to a negotiation warranted a 

longer compliance timeframe, this 

would result in virtually all negotiations 

being subject to the longer timeframe 

except in those very few instances when 

a nationwide provider is negotiating 

with another nationwide provider. It is 

far simpler, and equally equitable, to 

provide a common timeframe across all 

scenarios. 

13. 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. 

14. 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. 

15. 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. 

16. 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). 

17. 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. 

18. 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. 

19. 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
5108 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

20. 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 

‘‘non-small’’ delineations preferring the 

use of ‘‘nationwide’’ and ‘‘nonnationwide’’ as used in the 911 context 

instead. However, the adoption of a 

unified implementation timeline for all 

providers makes differentiating between 

providers irrelevant. Similarly, their 

request for clarification as to the 

applicable timeframes when parties to 

an RuD arrangement or roaming testing 

include one small and one non-small 

provider is also unnecessary, as all 

providers are subject to the same revised 

compliance date. While the Commission 

also disagrees that the compliance 

timeframes adopted in the Report and 

Order are in any way unclear, and 

therefore that the Commission should 

‘‘reaffirm’’ the applicability of the PRA 

timeframes to particular provisions of 

the rule, the Order on Reconsideration 

grants dispensation to all parties by 

extending the May 1, 2024, compliance 

date to all provisions of § 4.17. (To the 

extent providers have professed 

disagreement or confusion as to the 

applicability of the PRA to a particular 

element of § 4.17, we forbear from 

enforcement action for any violations 

that may have occurred during the 

pendency of the Petition and until the 

new compliance date occurs.) It should 

be noted that § 4.17(e) previously set 

forth a separate compliance date for the 

requirement to enter into mutual aid 

arrangements, but in modifying the 

implementation timing and to provide 

clarity, the Commission finds it most 

logical for all elements of the MDRI to 

have the same timing (see para. 25, 

supra, ‘‘Providers must have mutual aid 

arrangements in place within 30 days of 

the compliance date of the MDRI’’). In 

the Order on Reconsideration, the 

Commission eliminates the distinction 

between the mutual aid arrangement 

requirement and the other requirements 

under the MDRI to provide clarity and 

simplicity for implementation. In doing 

so, the Commission provides a clear 

date to eliminate confusion, give 

providers extra time for implementation 

and provide certainty not only to 

Petitioners and commenters as to the 

scope and timing of their obligations, 

but to the public safety and related 

incident planning and response 

organizations that support communities 

during disasters, and the public that 

relies on these networks. Petitioners’ 

other argument that the entire rule 

implicates PRA shall be resolved 

through the PRA process. 

B. List of Providers Subject to the MDRI 

21. 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. 

22. Background. Petitioners argue that 

providers need a Commission-generated 

list to ensure they are engaging with all 

other providers for required RuDs, 

mutual aid agreements, and testing of 

roaming under § 4.17. The Petition 

states that a failure to do so frustrates 

both providers and the Commission’s 

goals of the Report and Order and 

creates a challenge to determining 

whether providers have reached 

compliance with the MDRI. In 

particular, they assert that they have 

spent resources on determining 

foreseeable roaming partners using the 

Commission’s estimated number of 

applicable providers as specified in the 

Report and Order, but were only able to 

identify fewer than half of the 63 

providers referenced. 

23. 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.’’ 

24. Discussion. The Commission is 

not persuaded that a Commissionmaintained list specifically for this 

purpose is the most efficient and 

effective means for providers to identify 

those other facilities-based mobile 

wireless providers subject to the MDRI. 

Petitioners assert that they were unable 

to identify a full roster of facilities-based 

mobile providers based on the 

Commission’s estimate that 63 facilitiesbased mobile wireless providers that are 

not signatories to the Wireless 

Resiliency Cooperative Framework 

would be required to undertake certain 

activities to comply with the new rule. 

Specifically, they assert that ‘‘several of 

the Petitioners’ members have worked 

in good faith, and expended resources 

and time, through Petitioners and the 

companies’ established business 

channels, to compile information on the 

relevant points of contact and subject 

matter experts for their respective 

companies and identify contact 

information for all providers subject to 

these new requirements’’ but that they 

‘‘have been able to identify fewer than 

half of the 63 facilities-based providers 

that the Resilient Networks Order 

identifies as subject to the MDRI rules.’’ 

Because they were unable to do so, they 

argue this should obligate the 

Commission to take on the 

responsibility of identifying and 

maintaining a list of providers subject to 

the MDRI. However, the information 

used to provide this estimate in the 

Report and Order is readily available to 

providers. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 5109 

25. 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 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 facilitiesbased mobile wireless providers from 

which it may request, or receive a 

request for aid during emergencies.’’ 

Utilizing the ‘‘Filers by State’’ tool, as 

well as their geographic knowledge of 

their own service area, past 

emergencies, and business 

relationships, it should be similarly 

clear to providers which other providers 

they could potentially receive or request 

aid from during an emergency. 

26. 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. 

27. 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. 

28. Moreover, as the some 

commenters acknowledge, instituting a 

process for Commission collection and 

dissemination of this data may have 

PRA or other privacy implications. The 

Order on Reconsideration finds that this 

effort could unreasonably delay the 

MDRI’s implementation, particularly 

when the alternative is achievable with 

little burden. It is simpler, more 

efficient and more logical that providers 

use existing knowledge of their 

geographic coverage area, geographic 

competitors, and existing business 

relationships to begin implementation 

immediately without the need for undue 

delay by waiting for the Commission to 

re-organize information on an industrywide basis that already exists with the 

providers themselves. 

29. The Commission continues to find 

that the Report and Order requirement 

for each facilities-based mobile wireless 

provider to enter into bilateral roaming 

agreements with all other facilitiesbased mobile wireless providers from 

which it may foreseeably request 

roaming privileges, or that may 

foreseeably request roaming privileges 

from it, when the MDRI is active, to be 

a reasonable basis by which providers 

can identify potential RuD partners. 

And while the Report and Order is clear 

that roaming is foreseeable, without 

limitation, when two providers’ 

geographic coverage areas overlap, we 

refine this explanation to acknowledge 

that radio frequency propagation may 

result in some variables as to coverage 

area contours. In this respect, coverage 

areas in this context overlap where a 

provider ‘‘knows or reasonably should 

have known’’ that its ‘‘as-designed’’ 

network service area overlaps with the 

service area of another provider. For 

instance, a provider should be able to 

reasonably predict which other 

providers may wish to enter into 

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. 

C. Notification of MDRI Activation 

30. The Petition requests that the 

Commission ‘‘[e]stablish the process 

that [the Bureau] will use to inform 

facilities-based wireless providers that 

[the] MDRI is active, including by 

providing notice via email to facilitiesbased wireless providers.’’ Petitioners 

argue that ‘‘it is critical that all facilitiesbased wireless providers are 

immediately aware of such an activation 

through automatic electronic 

notifications.’’ They further state that 

the Commission already uses a similar 

process to notify providers of the 

activation of its Disaster Information 

Reporting System (DIRS). As described 

below, we decline to establish a specific 

mechanism to provide direct alerts for 

MDRI activation. Rather, the Order on 

Reconsideration finds the existing 

widely utilized and public notification 

mechanisms sufficient to afford prompt 

notice of MDRI activation. 

31. 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
5110 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

32. 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 ‘‘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.’’ 

33. 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. 

34. 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. 

35. 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. 

D. Confidential Treatment of RuDs 

36. Background. The Petitioners ask 

the Commission to affirm that it ‘‘will 

treat RuD arrangements provided under 

§ 4.17(d) as presumptively 

confidential.’’ In particular, Petitioners 

claim that presumptive confidentiality 

for RuDs is appropriate because (1) the 

RuDs contain commercially sensitive 

and proprietary information that 

providers customarily treat as 

confidential; (2) the Commission treats 

roaming agreements as presumptively 

confidential under the existing dataroaming rules; and (3) the Commission 

treats analogous information 

submissions as presumptively 

confidential. Blooston Rural Carriers 

also favor a presumption of 

confidentiality. The Order on 

Reconsideration agrees, and clarifies 

that such submissions will be treated as 

presumptively confidential. 

37. 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 

38. This document 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 nonsubstantive 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. Congressional Review Act 

39. The Commission has determined, 

and the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), concurs, that this rule is nonmajor under the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission 

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). 

C. Supplemental Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis 

40. 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 5111 

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. 

D. Need for, and Objectives of, the Order 

on Reconsideration 

41. 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.) 

42. 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. 

43. In the Order on Reconsideration, 

in response to Petitioners’ and 

commenters’ request for an extension of 

time for implementing roaming 

arrangements and mutual aid 

agreements, the Commission provided 

an extension for all providers, regardless 

of size, and implement a single, uniform 

compliance date of May 1, 2024, for all 

providers to comply with § 4.17. With 

this extension the Commission 

eliminates the distinction between small 

and non-small providers as previously 

distinguished in the Report and Order. 

Whereas small providers had originally 

been granted a longer timeline of nine 

months for implementation in 

comparison to the six months granted 

for non-small providers in the Report 

and Order, on reconsideration the 

extension we grant will result in all 

providers having almost two years from 

the date of publication of Report and 

Order in the Federal Register to comply 

with the relevant MDRI requirements. 

Further, the extension should allow 

small providers the additional time to 

manage resources and take the other 

necessary steps to meet these 

requirements. Additionally, the 

Commission has and continues to 

encourage large providers to assist small 

providers with the implementation 

process, and believes the rules as 

clarified in the Order on 

Reconsideration continue to take into 

account the unique interests of small 

entities as required by the RFA. 

44. 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. 

E. Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Public Comments in Response to the 

IRFA 

45. 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 facilitiesbased’ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
5112 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

46. 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 

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. 

F. Response to Comments by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration 

47. The Chief Counsel did not file any 

comments in response to the proposed 

rules in this proceeding. 

G. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rules Will Apply 

48. 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. 

49. 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 

adopted 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. 

H. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

50. 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 § 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. 

51. On reconsideration, the 

modifications in the Order on 

Reconsideration did not impact or 

change the cost of compliance analysis 

and estimates for small and other 

providers made in the Report and Order 

and therefore, the Commission does not 

repeat them. As we discussed in the 

initial FRFA in this proceeding, the 

MDRI rules only apply to facilitiesbased mobile wireless providers, which 

included small entities as well as larger 

entities. The Commission has not 

developed a small business size 

standard directed specifically toward 

these entities. However, in our cost 

estimate discussion in the Report and 

Order, we estimated costs based on 

Commission data that there are 

approximately 63 small facilities-based 

mobile wireless providers and these 

entities fit into larger industry categories 

that provide these facilities or services 

for which the SBA has developed small 

business size standards. 

52. The Commission maintains its 

conclusion that the benefits of 

participation by small and other 

providers likely will exceed the costs for 

affected providers to comply with the 

rules adopted in the Report and Order. 

As recommended in the Report and 

Order, the Commission encourages nonsmall providers to assist smaller 

providers who may not have present aid 

and roaming arrangements. The 

Commission also acknowledges 

concerns commenters that smaller and 

more rural providers may not have the 

same resources or time to commit to 

implementation of the MDRI and the 

Petition’s concern that smaller providers 

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. 

I. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

53. 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.’’ 

54. 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 5113 

reconsideration the Commission granted 

an extension of time for small entities to 

comply with all of the provisions of the 

MDRI. The Order on Reconsideration 

adopted a uniform compliance date for 

all providers which results in 

approximately twenty months (almost 

two full years) from the Federal Register 

publication to implement the 

requirements. This extension accounts 

for the resource concerns expressed by 

Petitioners, while maintaining the 

important role the MDRI requirements 

play in facilitating the ability of the 

American public to call for help, and 

receive emergency information and/or 

assistance during natural disasters, and 

other emergency situations. The 

Commission also granted a presumption 

of confidentiality for filed RuDs which 

eliminates the additional step for small 

entities of having to submit a request for 

confidential treatment under § 0.459 of 

the Commission’s rules when filing an 

RuD with the Commission when 

requested. As discussed above, in the 

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 

52. 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) and (j), 

154(n), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 251(e)(3), 

301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 

316, 332, 403, 405, 615a–1, and 615c, 

and § 1.429 of the Commission’s rules, 

47 CFR 1.429, that this Order on 

Reconsideration is adopted. 

53. It is further ordered that Part 4 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR part 4, 

is amended as set forth in the Appendix, 

and that such rule amendments shall be 

effective 30 days after publication in the 

Federal Register. 

54. 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 

Airports, Communications common 

carriers, 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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 4.17 by revising paragraph 

(e) to read as follows: 

§ 4.17 Mandatory Disaster Response 

Initiative. 

* * * * * 

(e) Compliance with the provisions of 

this section is required beginning May 

1, 2024, or 30 days following 

publication of an announcement that 

OMB review is completed, whichever 

occurs later. The Commission will 

revise this section once the compliance 

date is established. 

[FR Doc. 2023–28834 Filed 1–25–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 227 

Docket No. FRA–2009–0044, Notice No. 

2] 

RIN 2130–AC14 

Emergency Escape Breathing 

Apparatus Standards 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: FRA is amending its 

regulations related to occupational noise 

exposure in three ways. First, in 

response to a congressional mandate, 

FRA is expanding those regulations to 

require that railroads provide an 

appropriate atmosphere-supplying 

emergency escape breathing apparatus 

to every train crew member and certain 

other employees while they are 

occupying a locomotive cab of a freight 

train transporting a hazardous material 

that would pose an inhalation hazard in 

the event of release during an accident. 

Second, FRA is changing the name of 

this part of its regulations from 

‘‘Occupational Noise Exposure’’ to 

‘‘Occupational Safety and Health in the 

Locomotive Cab’’ to reflect the 

additional subject matter of this final 

rule and to make other conforming 

amendments. Third, FRA is removing 

the provision stating the preemptive 

effect of this part of FRA’s regulations 

because it is unnecessary. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

26, 2024. The incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this rule 

is approved by the Director of the 

Federal Register as of March 26, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Watson, Occupational Safety 

and Health Manager, Office of Railroad 

Safety, telephone 202–493–9544, email: 

michael.watson@dot.gov or Richard 

Baxley, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the 

Chief Counsel, telephone: 202–853– 

5053, email: richard.baxley@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Abbreviations and Terms Used in This 

Document 

AAR—Association of American Railroads 

AIHA—American Industrial Hygiene 

Association 

ANSI—American National Standards 

Institute 

ASLRRA—American Short Line and Regional 

Railroad Association 

BLET—Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 

and Trainmen 

BNSF—BNSF Railway Company 

BRS—Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen 

BS—British Standards Institution 

CEN—European Committee for 

Standardization 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

CO2—carbon dioxide 

DOT—U.S. Department of Transportation 

EEBA—emergency escape breathing 

apparatus 

EN—European standard 

FRA—Federal Railroad Administration 

FRSA—the former Federal Railroad Safety 

Act of 1970, repealed and reenacted as 

positive law primarily at 49 U.S.C. ch. 201 

HMIS—Hazardous Materials Information 

System 

IDLH—immediate danger to life or health or 

immediately dangerous to life or health 

IFRA—Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

ISEA—International Safety Equipment 

Association 

ISO—International Organization for 

Standardization 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1