5098 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 

www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can 

view this document, as well as all other 

documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Portable Document Format 

(PDF). To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 5 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Investigations. 

Accordingly, part 5 of title 34 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is corrected 

by making the following correcting 

amendments: 

PART 5—AVAILABILITY OF 

INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 5 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, 20 U.S.C. 1221e– 

3, and 20 U.S.C. 3474. 

■ 2. Section 5.40 is amended by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 5.40 Appeals of Adverse Determinations. 

* * * * * 

(b) A requester must submit an appeal 

within 90 calendar days of the date on 

the adverse determination letter issued 

by the Department or, where the 

requester has received no 

determination, at any time after the due 

date for such determination. An appeal 

must be in writing and must include a 

detailed statement of all legal and 

factual bases for the appeal. 

* * * * * 

Alexis Barrett, 

Chief of Staff, Office of the Secretary, 

Department of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2024–01517 Filed 1–25–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 0 and 64 

[CG Docket Nos. 21–402, 02–278, 17–59; 

FCC 23–107; FR ID 194243] 

Targeting and Eliminating Unlawful 

Text Messages, Implementation of the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 

1991, Advanced Methods To Target 

and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) requires terminating 

mobile wireless providers to block text 

messages from a particular number 

following notification from the 

Commission. The Commission also 

codifies that the National Do-Not-Call 

(DNC) Registry’s protections extend to 

text messages. In addition, the 

Commission encourages mobile wireless 

providers to make email-to-text, a major 

source of illegal texts, a service that 

consumers proactively opt into. The 

Commission closes the lead generator 

loophole by requiring comparison 

shopping websites to get consumer 

consent one seller at a time, if prior 

express written consent is required 

under the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act (TCPA), and thus 

prohibits abuse of consumer consent by 

such websites. Finally, the Commission 

adopts a limited waiver to allow 

providers to use the Reassigned 

Numbers Database (RND) to determine 

whether a number that the Commission 

has ordered to be blocked has been 

permanently disconnected. Such waiver 

will help prevent blocking of lawful 

texts from a new subscriber to the 

number. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 26, 

2024, except for the amendment to 47 

CFR 64.1200(s), in instruction 5, which 

is effective July 24, 2024, and the 

amendment to 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(9), in 

instruction 6, which is effective January 

27, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jerusha Burnett of the Consumer Policy 

Division, Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau, at jerusha.burnett@

fcc.gov, 202 418–0526, or Mika Savir of 

the Consumer Policy Division, 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, at mika.savir@fcc.gov or (202) 

418–0384. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Report and Order and Waiver Order, in 

CG Docket Nos. 21–402, 02–278, and 

17–59, FCC 23–107, adopted on 

December 13, 2023, and released on 

December 18, 2023. The full text of this 

document is available online at https:// 

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC23-107A1.pdf. To request this document 

in accessible formats for people with 

disabilities (e.g., Braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format) or to 

request reasonable accommodations 

(e.g., accessible format documents, sign 

language interpreters, CART), send an 

email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

FCC’s Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Commission sent a copy of 

document FCC 23–107 to Congress and 

the Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

This document may contain new or 

modified information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. This document will be 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under 

section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the 

general public, and other Federal 

agencies will be invited to comment on 

the new or modified information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proceeding. 

Synopsis 

1. Mandatory Blocking Following 

Commission Notification. In the Second 

Report and Order, the Commission 

adopts, with some modification, 

proposals in the Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), 

published at 88 FR 21497 on April 11, 

2023. First, the Commission specifically 

requires terminating mobile wireless 

providers to block all text messages 

from a particular number following 

notification from the Commission of 

illegal texts from that number or 

numbers. Upon receipt of such notice, a 

terminating wireless provider must 

block all texts from the number and 

respond to the Commission’s 

Enforcement Bureau indicating that the 

provider has received the notice and is 

initiating blocking. 

2. Under this rule, the Commission’s 

Enforcement Bureau may notify 

terminating providers of illegal texts 

from a number or numbers and such 

Notification of Illegal Texts shall: (1) 

identify the number(s) used to originate 

the illegal texts and the date(s) the texts 

were sent or received; (2) provide the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 5099 

basis for the Enforcement Bureau’s 

determination that the identified texts 

are unlawful; (3) cite the statutory or 

regulatory provisions the illegal texts 

violate; (4) direct the provider receiving 

the notice that it must comply with 47 

CFR 64.1200(s) of the Commission’s 

rules; and (5) provide a point of contact 

to be used by a subscriber to a listed 

number to dispute blocking. The 

Notification of Illegal Texts shall specify 

a reasonable time frame for the notified 

provider to respond to the 

Commission’s Enforcement Bureau and 

initiate blocking. The Enforcement 

Bureau shall publish the Notification of 

Illegal Texts in EB Docket No. 23–418. 

3. Upon receiving the Notification of 

Illegal Texts, the provider must 

promptly begin blocking all texts from 

the identified number(s) within the 

timeframe specified in the Notification 

of Illegal Texts. The provider must 

respond to the Enforcement Bureau, 

including a certification that it is 

blocking texts from the identified 

number(s). If the provider learns that 

some or all of the numbers have been 

reassigned, the provider shall promptly 

notify the Enforcement Bureau of this 

fact and include any information it has 

obtained that demonstrates the number 

has been reassigned. If the provider 

subsequently determines that the 

number has been reassigned, it shall 

notify the Enforcement Bureau and 

cease blocking. In such instances, the 

Commission encourages providers to 

continue to use other available methods 

to protect their customers. Providers are 

not required to monitor whether any 

numbers subject to this blocking 

requirement have been reassigned, but 

are required to notify the Commission 

and cease blocking if the provider learns 

of a number reassignment. 

4. The Commission does not adopt 

any additional protections in case of 

erroneous blocking, but any individual 

or entity that believes its texts are being 

blocked under this rule in error can 

make use of the point of contact 

required under 47 CFR 64.1200(r) of the 

Commission’s rules. If the provider 

determines that blocking should cease, 

it should notify the Enforcement Bureau 

of that finding, including any evidence 

that supports that finding. 

5. This rule shall be effective 180 days 

after publication of this Second Report 

and Order in the Federal Register, to 

allow providers additional time to 

ensure that they are prepared to comply. 

However, the Commission states that 

this rule does not require Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) approval as it falls 

under the exception for collections 

undertaken ‘‘during the conduct of . . . 

an administrative action or investigation 

involving an agency against specific 

individuals or entities.’’ 

6. National Do-Not-Call Registry. The 

Commission adopts the proposal to 

codify the National DNC Registry’s 

existing protections to text messages. 

Texters must have the consumer’s prior 

express invitation or permission before 

sending a marketing text to a wireless 

number in the DNC Registry. The 

Commission previously concluded that 

the national database should allow for 

the registration of wireless telephone 

numbers and that such action will 

further the objectives of the TCPA and 

the Do-Not-Call Act. The Commission’s 

action is consistent with Federal court 

opinions and will both deter illegal texts 

and make DNC enforcement easier. 

7. Email-to-Text Messages. The 

Commission encourages providers to 

make email-to-text an opt-in service as 

a way to reduce the number of 

fraudulent text messages consumers 

receive. Texts originating from email 

addresses, rather than telephone 

numbers, account for a significant 

percentage of fraudulent text messages. 

For example, email-to-text gateways 

enable anyone to send a text message to 

a mobile subscriber in relative 

anonymity. The email-to-text messages 

process allows the sender to be 

anonymous because the text is sent from 

an email account on a computer, not a 

phone number. 

8. Closing the Lead Generator 

Loophole. The Commission makes it 

unequivocally clear that texters and 

callers must obtain a consumer’s prior 

express written consent to robocall or 

robotext the consumer soliciting their 

business. This requirement applies to a 

single seller at a time, on the 

comparison shopping websites that 

often are the source of lead generation. 

Lead-generated communications are a 

large percentage of unwanted calls and 

texts and often rely on flimsy claims of 

consent to bombard consumers with 

unwanted robocalls and robotexts. The 

Commission also requires that the 

consent must be in response to a clear 

and conspicuous disclosure to the 

consumer and that the content of the 

ensuing robotexts and robocalls must be 

logically and topically associated with 

the website where the consumer gave 

consent. 

9. The Commission adopts additional 

protections to further guard against 

consent abuse and protect consumers 

from unwanted robocalls and robotexts. 

First, the one-to-one consent must come 

after a clear and conspicuous disclosure 

to the consenting consumer that they 

will get robotexts and/or robocalls from 

the seller. ‘‘Clear and conspicuous’’ 

means notice that would be apparent to 

a reasonable consumer. In addition, if 

compliance with the Federal Electronic 

Signatures in Global and National 

Commerce Act (the E-Sign Act) is 

required for the consumer’s signature, 

then all the elements of E-Sign must be 

present. 

10. Second, the Commission adopts 

the requirement that robotexts and 

robocalls that result from consumer 

consent obtained on comparison 

shopping websites must be logically and 

topically related to that website. Thus, 

for example, a consumer giving consent 

on a car loan comparison shopping 

website does not consent to get 

robotexts or robocalls about loan 

consolidation. The Commission 

declines to adopt a definition of 

‘‘logically and topically.’’ This rule best 

balances the desire of businesses to 

utilize lead generation services to call 

and text potential customers with the 

need to protect consumers, including 

small businesses, from a deluge of 

unwanted robocalls and robotexts. 

11. The Small Business 

Administration’s Office of Advocacy 

notes that certain small businesses rely 

on purchasing sales leads from lead 

generators; however, the rule adopted 

today only limits sellers, of any size, 

from robocalling or robotexting 

consumers who did not explicitly 

consent to receive such communications 

from a particular seller. Lead generators 

can still conduct business and collect 

and share leads to consumers interested 

in products and services, they just will 

not be able to collect and share the 

consents for telemarketing calls that 

included an artificial or prerecorded 

voice or are made with an automatic 

dialer. Sellers that wish to use robocalls 

and robotexts for such communications 

may still do so—provided they obtain 

consent consistent with the reasonable 

limits codified in the rule. 

12. This rule does not restrain 

comparison shopping, nor does it 

unnecessarily constrain a businesses’ 

ability to rely on leads purchased from 

lead generators. For example, 

consumers may reach out to multiple 

businesses themselves or ask to be 

contacted by businesses only through 

means other than robocalling and 

robotexting. Further, sellers may avail 

themselves of other options for 

providing comparison shopping 

information to consumers, e.g., they 

may initiate calls or texts to consumers 

without using an autodialer or 

prerecorded or artificial voice messages 

or they may use email or postal mail, 

both to provide information and to 

solicit further one-to-one consent to 

robocall or robotext. Nothing in this rule 

restricts the ability of businesses, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
5100 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

including small businesses, from relying 

on leads generated by third-party lead 

generators. 

13. Additionally, even under the 

Commission’s new rule, comparison 

shopping websites can obtain the 

requisite consent for sellers to robocall 

and robotext consumers using easily 

implemented methods. For instance, a 

website may offer a check box list that 

allows the consumer to choose each 

seller that they wish to hear from. 

Alternatively, a comparison shopping 

website may offer the consumer a 

clickthrough link to a business so that 

it may obtain requisite consent from the 

consumer directly. The rule does not 

prohibit websites from obtaining leads 

and merely codifies reasonable limits on 

when those leads allow sellers to use 

robocalls and robotexts to reach 

consumers. 

14. Further, the rule protects callers 

who rely on leads generated by third 

parties by ensuring that such callers 

operate pursuant to legally sufficient 

consent from the consumers. A caller 

who is unable to meet its burden of 

proof in demonstrating that it had valid 

consent to initiate and robocall or 

robotext the individual consumer would 

be liable under the TCPA for making 

such a call. The rule helps callers and 

texters, including small businesses, by 

providing legal certainty as to how to 

meet their burden of proof when they 

have obtained consent via a third-party. 

Businesses relying on such leads will 

have an easier and more certain way to 

demonstrate that they have obtained 

valid consent to call. 

15. In addition, the Commission finds 

that small businesses themselves will 

benefit from the protections adopted. 

Small businesses use comparison 

shopping services when comparison 

shopping for businesses services. The 

prior express written consent 

requirements are not limited to 

residential lines; these requirements 

extend to and protect business phones 

from having their own phones 

inundated with unwanted calls and 

texts. Such calls to these businesses may 

tie up small business phones, annoy 

small business employees, and subject 

them to the same type of fraud as 

consumers generally. 

16. The Commission wants this 

important consumer protection rule to 

be successfully implemented by 

comparison shopping websites and lead 

generators. The Commission is adopting 

a 12 month implementation period to 

make the necessary changes to ensure 

consent complies with the new 

requirement. This implementation 

period will help mitigate some 

challenges to implementation of the 

new rules and such period should 

provide both lead generators and the 

callers that rely on the leads they 

generate ample time to implement our 

new requirements. 

17. The Commission will continue to 

monitor the impact that the rule has on 

small businesses and delegates to the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau authority to conduct outreach 

and education focusing on compliance 

with rules for small business lead 

generators as well as for small business 

lead buyers. The Commission also 

reiterates that the TCPA and existing 

rules already place the burden of proof 

on the texter or caller to prove that they 

have obtained consent that satisfies 

Federal laws and regulations. They may 

not, for example, rely on comparison 

websites or other types of lead 

generators to retain proof of consent for 

calls the seller makes. And, in all cases, 

the consent must be from the consumer. 

‘‘Fake leads’’ that fabricate consumer 

consent do not satisfy the TCPA or the 

Commission’s rules. In addition, the 

consumer’s consent is not transferrable 

or subject to sale to another caller 

because it must be given by the 

consumer to the seller. 

18. The Commission also disagrees 

with the argument that making it 

unequivocally clear that one-to-one 

consent is required for TCPA prior 

express written consent, is arbitrary and 

capricious. The Commission sought 

comment on this issue of consent in the 

FNPRM, published at 88 FR 21497 on 

April 11, 2023, specifically discussed 

the issue of hyperlinks in a comparison 

shopping website, and illustrated the 

problem by describing Assurance IQ, a 

website that purports to enable 

consumers to comparison shop for 

insurance. As the Commission 

explained, the Assurance IQ site sought 

consumer consent for calls and texts 

from insurance companies and other 

various entities, including Assurance 

IQ’s ‘‘partner companies,’’ that were 

listed when accessing a hyperlink on 

the page seeking consent (i.e., they were 

not displayed on the website without 

clicking on the link) and included both 

insurance companies and other entities 

that did not appear to be related to 

insurance. The Commission also sought 

comment on amending the TCPA 

consent requirements to require that 

such consent be considered granted 

only to callers logically and topically 

associated with the website that solicits 

consent and whose names are clearly 

disclosed on the same web page. 

Numerous commenters supported the 

Commission’s proposals. Thus, the 

Commission’s findings in the Second 

Report and Order are reasonably and 

rationally based on the issues for which 

the Commission sought comment and 

the comments filed. 

19. Text Message Authentication and 

Spoofing. The Commission does not 

adopt at this time caller ID 

authentication requirements for text 

messaging. 

20. Summary of Benefits and Costs. 

The Commission’s conservative estimate 

of the total loss from unwanted and 

illegal texts is $16.5 billion annually, 

which reflects both a substantial 

increase in the number of spam texts in 

recent years (the nuisance cost), and an 

increase in financial losses due to text 

scams. The Commission estimates the 

nuisance cost of spam texts to be five 

cents per text. This cost is multiplied by 

225.7 billion spam texts sent annually 

and the result is $11.3 billion in total 

nuisance cost. In addition, the 

Commission estimates financial losses 

due to text scams to be $5.2 billion. 

Further, the total loss from unwanted 

and illegal calls is relevant for the 

Commission’s consideration of the 

benefit generated by closing the lead 

generator loophole. The harm of 

unwanted and illegal calls is at least 

$13.5 billion annually. 

21. The Commission expects the 

actions in the Order will impose 

minimal costs on mobile wireless 

providers and comparative shopping 

websites. Nothing in the record 

demonstrates that requiring terminating 

providers to block texts when notified 

by the Commission of illegal texts 

would impose significant costs on 

mobile wireless providers. The 

Commission expects that terminating 

providers aim to minimize texts that 

subject their customers to nuisance and 

receiving notifications from the 

Commission would assist in that effort 

and help providers improve customer 

satisfaction. With respect to the action 

codifying that text messages are covered 

by the National DNC Registry’s 

protections, the Commission sees no 

additional cost to providers. 

22. The Commission notes that the 

new rules do not prohibit comparison 

shopping websites, only the use of 

robocalls and robotexts without one-toone consent. The Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) Office of 

Advocacy notes that small businesses 

have stated that the proposal to require 

sellers to obtain consent to robocall or 

robotext from one consumer at a time 

could increase costs significantly for 

small businesses that both buy and sell 

sales leads, but the SBA did not offer 

any evidence to support this contention 

and did not address the benefit to both 

consumers and to small businesses in 

having a reduction of unwanted calls 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 5101 

and texts. This new rule makes it 

unequivocally clear that prior express 

written consent under the TCPA must 

be to one seller at a time, but does not 

prevent small businesses from buying 

and selling leads nor does it prevent 

small businesses from contacting 

consumers. The Commission observes 

that the rule is especially helpful for 

small business owners who are 

incentivized to answer all incoming 

calls because each call may be from a 

potential customer and are unable to 

ignore calls from unfamiliar numbers. In 

addition, this requirement will help 

small businesses because it will provide 

legal certainty as to how callers and 

texters can demonstrate valid consent 

when that consent was obtained via a 

third party. 

23. The Commission’s decision to 

make unequivocally clear that prior 

express written consent under the TCPA 

must be one-to-one consent may raise 

costs for some businesses that use 

robocalling, including those that fall 

under the definition of small businesses; 

however, no party has presented any 

specific data to substantiate such 

possible additional costs. Further, the 

benefits of making it unequivocally 

clear that one-to-one consent is required 

for prior express written consent under 

the TCPA, will accrue to millions of 

individuals and businesses, including 

small businesses, and will outweigh any 

such costs to those businesses currently 

using multi-party ‘‘consent’’ for 

robocalls and robotexts. Any effort to 

create an exception for particular 

businesses, including small businesses, 

has the potential to undermine the 

effectiveness and intent of the policy, 

which is to provide consumers 

(including small businesses) the ability 

to determine when and how they are 

contacted in a transparent manner. 

24. The Commission sees very little 

cost to providers as a result of the 

encouragement to make email-to-text an 

opt-in service. Providers who do not 

take up this option will incur no 

additional cost and, for those providers 

who do so, the benefits of making emailto-text an opt-in service, e.g., more 

satisfied customers, outweighs the costs 

of setting up an opt-in program and 

marketing it to their subscribers. 

Similarly, closing the lead generator 

loophole so that prior express written 

consent can only be given directly from 

a consumer to a single seller-caller at a 

time will result in only small additional 

costs for comparative shopping websites 

and should lead to greater customer 

satisfaction that may benefit such 

websites. 

25. Based on the analysis of the 

anticipated benefits and costs discussed 

above, the Commission believes the 

benefits of the rules adopted in the 

Report and Order significantly outweigh 

their costs. Even if these rules eliminate 

only a small share of unwanted and 

illegal texts and calls, the benefits 

would be substantial, given the 

magnitude of the likely losses from such 

texts and calls. 

26. Legal Authority. The Commission 

relies on the TCPA to adopt rules 

applicable to mobile wireless text 

messaging providers, including the text 

blocking requirement. First, the TCPA 

gives the Commission authority over the 

unsolicited text messages within the 

scope of the Order. The TCPA, in 

relevant part, restricts certain autodialed 

calls to wireless telephone numbers 

absent the prior express consent of the 

called party. The Commission has found 

that, for the purposes of the TCPA, texts 

are included in the term ‘‘call.’’ Because 

the Commission has authority to 

regulate certain text messages under the 

TCPA, particularly messages sent using 

an autodialer and without the consent of 

the called party, the Commission has 

legal authority to require providers to 

block text messages that violate the 

TCPA. The TCPA also provides 

authority for the consent requirements 

and the codification that text messages 

are covered by the National DNC 

Registry. The DNC restrictions have long 

applied to wireless phones and the 

Commission and courts have long held 

that text messages are calls under the 

TCPA. Further, the Commission is 

codifying that text messages are 

included in the National DNC Registry’s 

protections—a position that the 

Commission and several courts have 

previously taken—not expanding the 

National DNC Registry’s restrictions. 

27. To the extent that the Commission 

may direct providers to block texts 

where an autodialer has not been used, 

the Commission further finds authority 

under section 251(e)(1) of the 

Communications Act. Section 251(e)(1) 

provides the Commission with 

independent jurisdiction to prevent the 

abuse of North American Numbering 

Plan (NANP) resources, regardless of the 

classification of text messaging. 

Requiring blocking of a particular 

number that has sent known illegal texts 

will help ensure that entities sending 

illegal texts cannot continue to abuse 

NANP resources to further their illegal 

schemes. Although NANP numbers are 

used for routing calls on the public 

switched telephone network (PSTN), the 

authority granted in section 251(e)(1) of 

the Act is not restricted to voice calls 

routed via the PSTN. Rather, section 

251(e)(1) is a clear grant of authority 

‘‘over those portions of the North 

American Numbering Plan that pertain 

to the United States’’ and the underlying 

technology does not change the fact that 

the numbers in question are portions of 

the NANP that pertain to the United 

States. The Commission exercises its 

section 251(e)(1) authority to prevent 

the abuse of NANP resources by sending 

illegal texts, regardless of whether the 

number is spoofed. This is consistent 

with the Commission’s approach in 

calling, where the Commission has 

found that authority under this section 

does not hinge on whether a call is 

spoofed. The Commission also finds 

authority under Title III of the Act to 

adopt these measures. Title III 

‘‘endow[s] the Commission with 

‘expansive powers’ and a 

‘comprehensive mandate to ‘‘encourage 

the larger and more effective use of 

radio in the public interest.’’ ’ ’’ Section 

303 of the Act grants the Commission 

authority to establish operational 

obligations for licensees that further the 

goals and requirements of the Act if 

such obligations are necessary for the 

‘‘public convenience, interest, or 

necessity’’ and are not inconsistent with 

other provisions of law. In particular, 

section 303(b) authorizes the 

Commission to ‘‘[p]rescribe the nature 

of the service to be rendered by each 

class of licensed stations and each 

station within each class,’’ and that is 

what the notice requirement and 

blocking rule addresses here. In 

addition, sections 307 and 316 of the 

Act allow the Commission to authorize 

the issuance of licenses or adopt new 

conditions on existing licenses if such 

actions will promote public interest, 

convenience, and necessity. The 

Commission finds that the requirements 

adopted for mobile wireless providers 

after they are on notice of illegal text 

messages are necessary to protect the 

public from illegal text messages and 

that such a requirement is in the public 

interest. 

28. Waiver Order. The Commission 

adopts a waiver, sua sponte, for a period 

of 12 months, to commence on the 

effective date of 47 CFR 64.1200(s) of 

the Commission’s rules, specifically to 

allow mobile wireless providers to 

access the Reassigned Numbers 

Database to determine whether a 

number has been permanently 

disconnected since the date of the 

illegal text described in the Notification 

of Illegal Texts. The Commission 

delegates authority to the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau to extend 

the term of this waiver, if needed. The 

Commission’s rules require providers 

ensure the efficient use of telephone 

numbers by reassigning a telephone 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
5102 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

number to a new consumer after it is 

disconnected by the previous 

subscriber; however, when a number is 

reassigned, callers may inadvertently 

reach the new consumer who now has 

the reassigned number (and may not 

have consented to calls from the calling 

party). To mitigate these occurrences, 

the Commission established a single, 

comprehensive database to contain 

reassigned number information from 

each provider that obtains NANP U.S. 

geographic numbers, which enables any 

caller to verify whether a telephone 

number has been reassigned before 

calling that number. The use of the RND 

to determine if a number has been 

disconnected following a Notification of 

Illegal Texts is outside of the original 

scope of the RND which is available 

only to callers who agree in writing that 

the caller (and any agent acting on 

behalf of the caller) will use the 

database solely to determine whether a 

number has been permanently 

disconnected since a date provided by 

the caller for the purpose of making 

lawful calls or sending lawful texts. The 

Commission may waive its rules for 

good cause shown. Good cause for a 

waiver may be found if special 

circumstances warrant a deviation from 

the general rule and such deviation will 

serve the public interest. The 

Commission finds that permitting 

providers to access the RND for the 

purpose of determining if a number has 

been permanently disconnected after 

the date of an illegal text described in 

a Notification of Illegal Texts would 

prevent erroneous blocking of text 

messages (if the number had been 

reassigned) and is good cause to grant 

this waiver, sua sponte. The 

Commission therefore adopts a waiver, 

sua sponte, for a period of 12 months, 

to commence on the effective date of 47 

CFR 64.1200(s) of the Commission’s 

rules, specifically for accessing the RND 

to determine whether a number has 

been permanently disconnected since 

the date of the illegal text described in 

the Notification of Illegal Texts. 

Providers may access the RND for this 

purpose in the same manner as they 

would to determine whether a number 

has been permanently disconnected 

since a date provided by the caller for 

the purpose of making lawful calls or 

sending lawful texts. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

29. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as 

amended, an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 

incorporated in the FNPRM, published 

at 88 FR 21497, on April 11, 2023. The 

Federal Communications Commission 

(Commission) sought written public 

comment on the proposals in the 

FNPRM, including comment on the 

IRFA. The Commission received no 

comments in response to the IRFA. This 

present Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. 

30. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Second Report and Order. The Second 

Report and Order continues the 

Commission’s efforts to stop the 

growing tide of unwanted and illegal 

texts by building on the text blocking 

requirements from the first Text 

Blocking Order, 88 FR 21497 (April 11, 

2023). While mobile wireless providers 

voluntarily block a significant number 

of unwanted and illegal texts, many of 

these harmful texts still reach 

consumers. The Second Report and 

Order requires terminating mobile 

wireless providers to block texts from a 

particular source following notification 

from the Commission; codifies that the 

National DNC Registry protections 

apply to text messages; encourages 

mobile service providers to make emailto-text an opt-in service; and revises the 

definition of prior express written 

consent making clear that consent must 

be to one seller at a time, and the seller 

must be logically and topically related 

to the content of the website on which 

consent is obtained. 

31. Summary of Significant Issues 

Raised by Public Comments in Response 

to the IRFA. There were no comments 

filed that specifically addressed the 

proposed rules and policies presented 

in the IRFA. 

32. Response to Comments by the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. Pursuant to 

the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, 

which amended the RFA, the 

Commission is required to respond to 

any comments filed by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, and 

to provide a detailed statement of any 

change made to the proposed rules as a 

result of those comments. 

33. The Chief Counsel did not file 

comments in response to the proposed 

rules in this proceeding; however, the 

Chief Counsel filed an ex parte letter on 

December 1, 2023. The SBA contends 

that small businesses have stated that 

the proposal to require sellers to obtain 

consent to call or text from one 

consumer at a time could increase costs 

significantly for small businesses that 

both buy and sell sales leads. The SBA 

did not offer any evidence to support 

this contention and did not address the 

benefit to consumers and to small 

businesses in having a reduction of 

unwanted calls and texts. 

34. This rule makes it unequivocally 

clear that prior express written consent 

under the TCPA must be to one seller 

at a time, but does not prevent small 

businesses from buying and selling 

leads or prevent small businesses from 

contact with consumers. The 

requirements for prior express written 

consent for the telemarketing calls 

covered by the TCPA will also protect 

business phones from the floods of 

unwanted prerecorded telemarketing 

calls. This is especially helpful for small 

business owners who are incentivized to 

answer all incoming calls because each 

call may be from a potential customer 

and they are unable to ignore calls from 

unfamiliar numbers. In addition, this 

requirement will help small businesses 

because it will provide legal certainty as 

to how callers and texters can 

demonstrate valid consent when that 

consent was obtained via a third party. 

35. The Commission acknowledges 

that the decision to make unequivocally 

clear that prior express written consent 

under the TCPA must be one-to-one 

consent may raise costs for some 

businesses, including those that fall 

under the definition of small businesses, 

in that direct consent between a 

consumer and a seller requires more 

labor and administration than a blanket 

authorization for affiliated companies to 

contact an individual. However, the 

benefits of this policy, which accrue to 

millions of individuals and businesses, 

including small businesses, outweigh 

the costs to those businesses currently 

benefiting from multi-party ‘‘consent.’’ 

Over time, it may be possible for 

technological solutions to lower the 

costs to businesses for seeking one-toone prior express written consent and 

maintaining consent records. Any effort 

to create an exception for particular 

businesses, including small businesses, 

has the potential to undermine the 

effectiveness and intent of the policy, 

which is to provide consumers 

(including small businesses) the ability 

to determine when and how they are 

contacted in a transparent manner. 

36. 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 and policies 

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) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 5103 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

37. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. The Commission’s actions, 

over time, may affect small entities that 

are not easily categorized at present. 

The Commission therefore describes, at 

the outset, three broad groups of small 

entities that could be directly affected 

herein. First, while there are industry 

specific size standards for small 

businesses that are used in the 

regulatory flexibility analysis, according 

to data from the SBA Office of 

Advocacy, in general a small business is 

an independent business having fewer 

than 500 employees. These types of 

small businesses represent 99.9% of all 

businesses in the United States, which 

translates to 33.2 million businesses. 

Next, the type of small entity described 

as a ‘‘small organization’’ is generally 

‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field.’’ The 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a 

revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to 

delineate its annual electronic filing 

requirements for small exempt 

organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 

2020, there were approximately 447,689 

small exempt organizations in the U.S. 

reporting revenues of $50,000 or less 

according to the registration and tax 

data for exempt organizations available 

from the IRS. Finally, the small entity 

described as a ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction’’ is defined generally as 

‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts, with a population of 

less than fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census 

Bureau data from the 2017 Census of 

Governments indicate there were 90,075 

local governmental jurisdictions 

consisting of general purpose 

governments and special purpose 

governments in the United States. Of 

this number, there were 36,931 general 

purpose governments (county, 

municipal, and town or township) with 

populations of less than 50,000 and 

12,040 special purpose governments— 

independent school districts with 

enrollment populations of less than 

50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 

U.S. Census of Governments data, the 

Commission estimates that at least 

48,971 entities fall into the category of 

‘‘small governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

38. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). This industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

operating and maintaining switching 

and transmission facilities to provide 

communications via the airwaves. 

Establishments in this industry have 

spectrum licenses and provide services 

using that spectrum, such as cellular 

services, paging services, wireless 

internet access, and wireless video 

services. The SBA size standard for this 

industry classifies a business as small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 

there were 2,893 firms in this industry 

that operated for the entire year. Of that 

number, 2,837 firms employed fewer 

than 250 employees. Additionally, 

based on Commission data in the 2022 

Universal Service Monitoring Report, as 

of December 31, 2021, there were 594 

providers that reported they were 

engaged in the provision of wireless 

services. Of these providers, the 

Commission estimates that 511 

providers have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, using the 

SBA’s small business size standard, 

most of these providers can be 

considered small entities. 

39. All Other Telecommunications. 

This industry is comprised of 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing specialized 

telecommunications services, such as 

satellite tracking, communications 

telemetry, and radar station operation. 

This industry also includes 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing satellite terminal stations and 

associated facilities connected with one 

or more terrestrial systems and capable 

of transmitting telecommunications to, 

and receiving telecommunications from, 

satellite systems. Providers of internet 

services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or Voice 

over internet Protocol (VoIP) services, 

via client-supplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry. The SBA small business size 

standard for this industry classifies 

firms with annual receipts of $35 

million or less as small. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2017 show that there 

were 1,079 firms in this industry that 

operated for the entire year. Of those 

firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than 

$25 million. Based on this data, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ 

firms can be considered small. 

40. Description of Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 

Compliance Requirements for Small 

Entities. The Second Report and Order 

includes new or modified reporting, 

recordkeeping, and compliance 

requirements for small and other 

entities. This includes requiring 

terminating mobile wireless providers to 

block texts from a particular number or 

numbers following notification from the 

Commission. Providers must promptly 

begin blocking the identified texts if 

illegal, and respond to the notice. If the 

provider is unable to block further texts 

from that number because it has learned 

that the number has been reassigned the 

provider should promptly notify the 

Enforcement Bureau. If the provider 

determines at a later date that the 

number has been reassigned, it should 

notify the Enforcement Bureau, and 

cease blocking. Providers that fail to 

comply may be subject to enforcement 

penalties, including monetary forfeiture. 

41. The Second Report and Order also 

codifies that the National DNC Registry 

protections apply to text messages, and 

encourages mobile service providers to 

make email-to-text an opt-in service. 

Additionally, it revises our definition of 

prior express written consent making 

clear that consent must be only to one 

single seller-caller from one single 

consumer at a time, and the seller must 

be logically and topically related to the 

content of the website on which consent 

is obtained. Small entities may comply 

with the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act (TCPA) and contact 

consumers by obtaining consent from 

the consumer to one seller at a time. The 

Commission expects that small and 

other providers already taking 

significant measures to block illegal 

texts and will not find it burdensome to 

comply with these new obligations. Any 

such burdens would be far outweighed 

by the benefits to consumers from 

blocking text messages that are highly 

likely to be illegal. 

42. Steps Taken to Minimize 

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.’’ 

43. In the Second Report and Order, 

the Commission adopted text blocking 

rules modeled after the call blocking 

rules, but modified the new rules to 

account for the differences in the 

technology and delivery of text 

messages, and adopted requirements 

similar to those service providers were 

already familiar with to reduce any 

additional burdens. For example, a 

terminating provider will be required to 

block text messages only after it has 

received notice from the Commission’s 

Enforcement Bureau. Second, text 

blockers are not required to block traffic 

‘‘substantially similar’’ to the traffic the 

Enforcement Bureau identifies to avoid 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
5104 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

blocking on content analysis, which 

could lead to over blocking. This 

modification will reduce concerns about 

liability for blocking incorrectly, as well 

as potential burdens if the Commission 

adopted a more expansive rule. The 

Commission found that commenters 

made general assertions, but offered no 

compelling evidence that they 

consistently block all traffic the 

Enforcement Bureau might identify. 

44. In the Second Report and Order, 

the Commission also modified the prior 

express written consent requirement for 

TCPA consent to protect consumers 

while preserving the ability of 

comparison shopping websites to 

provide consumers with comparison 

shopping opportunities. This rule 

revision does not change the 

longstanding requirement that callers, 

including small businesses, must have 

consent from the called party, to comply 

with the TCPA. This modification 

makes it unequivocal that one-to-one 

consent is required under the 

Commission’s TCPA consent rules. 

Such a requirement should not burden 

small entities that use lead generators to 

reach out to potential customers, 

because websites, including comparison 

shopping websites, can use a variety of 

means for collecting one-to-one consent 

for sellers to comply with the consent 

rule. For example, a website may offer 

a consumer a check box list that allows 

the consumer to specifically choose 

each individual seller that they wish to 

hear from or may offer the consumer a 

clickthrough link to a specific business 

so that the business itself may gather 

express written consent from the 

consumer directly. A website publisher 

could also reach out to a consumer for 

consent after the consumer has provided 

certain requested information and the 

site has subsequently selected a specific 

seller or sellers to contact the consumer. 

45. The adopted modification does 

not prohibit comparison shopping 

websites from obtaining leads through 

valid consent and provides 

opportunities for such sites to obtain 

leads for potential callers (including 

small businesses) and texters. Further, 

this rule modification should help small 

businesses in reducing the number of 

unwanted and illegal calls and texts 

they receive, particularly if they cannot 

screen calls from unknown numbers. 

This rule modification best balances the 

needs of businesses, including small 

businesses, to utilize lead generation 

services to make calls to potential 

buyers with protecting consumers from 

a deluge of unwanted robocalls and 

robotexts. This will also help callers and 

texters, including small businesses, by 

providing legal certainty as to how to 

meet their burden of proof when they 

have obtained consent via a third party. 

Further, callers and texters may avail 

themselves of other options for 

providing comparison shopping 

information to consumers, e.g., 

manually dialed or non-prerecorded or 

artificial voice calls or texts, email, or 

information displayed directly on the 

third party website. 

46. Report to Congress. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

Second Report and Order, including this 

FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act. In addition, the Commission will 

send a copy of the Second Report and 

Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. 

List of Subjects 

47 CFR Part 0 

Communications common carriers, 

Telecommunications. 

47 CFR Part 64 

Communications common carriers, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Telecommunications, 

Telephone. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0 and 

64 as follows: 

PART 0—COMMISSION 

ORGANIZATION 

Subpart A—Organization 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 0 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 

155, 225, and 409, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Effective March 26, 2024, amend 

§ 0.111 by revising paragraph (a)(27) to 

read as follows: 

§ 0.111 Functions of the Bureau. 

(a) * * * 

(27) Identify suspected illegal calls 

and illegal texts and provide written 

notice to voice service or mobile 

wireless providers. The Enforcement 

Bureau shall: 

(i) Identify with as much particularity 

as possible the suspected traffic or texts; 

(ii) Cite the statutory or regulatory 

provisions the suspected traffic appear 

to violate or illegal texts violate; 

(iii) Provide the basis for the 

Enforcement Bureau’s reasonable belief 

that the identified traffic or the 

determination that the illegal texts are 

unlawful, including any relevant 

nonconfidential evidence from credible 

sources such as the industry traceback 

consortium or law enforcement 

agencies; and 

(iv) Direct the voice service provider 

receiving the notice that it must comply 

with § 64.1200(n)(2) of the 

Commission’s rules or direct the mobile 

wireless provider receiving the notice 

that it must comply with 47 CFR 

64.1200(s). 

* * * * * 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

■ 3. Effective March 26, 2024, the 

authority citation for part 64 is revised 

to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 

202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 

228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 276, 

403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401–1473, 

unless otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115–141, Div. 

P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091. 

Subpart L—Restrictions on 

Telemarketing, Telephone Solicitation, 

and Facsimile Advertising 

§ 64.1200 [Amended] 

■ 4. Effective March 26, 2024, amend 

§ 64.1200 in paragraph (e) by adding ‘‘or 

text messages’’ after the word ‘‘calls’’. 

■ 5. Effective July 24, 2024, further 

amend § 64.1200 by adding paragraph 

(s) to read as follows: 

§ 64.1200 Delivery restrictions. 

* * * * * 

(s) A terminating mobile wireless 

provider must, upon receipt of a 

Notification of Illegal Texts from the 

Commission through its Enforcement 

Bureau, take the actions described in 

this paragraph (s), including, when 

required, blocking all texts from the 

identified number or numbers. The 

Enforcement Bureau will issue a 

Notification of Illegal Texts that 

identifies the number(s) used and the 

date(s) the texts were sent or received; 

provides the basis for the Enforcement 

Bureau’s determination that the 

identified texts are unlawful; cites the 

statutory or regulatory provisions the 

identified texts violate; directs the 

provider receiving the notice that it 

must comply with this section; and 

provide a point of contact to be used by 

a subscriber to a listed number to 

dispute blocking. The Enforcement 

Bureau’s Notification of Illegal Texts 

shall give the identified provider a 

reasonable amount of time to comply 

with the notice. The Enforcement 

Bureau shall make the Notification of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
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