Disruptions to Communications

<RULE> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION <CFR>47 CFR Part 4</CFR> <DEPDOC>[PS Docket Nos. 21-346, 15-80; ET Docket No. 04-35; FCC 23-71; FR ID 192559]</DEPDOC> <SUBJECT>Disruptions to Communications</SUBJECT> <HD SOURCE="HED">AGENCY:</HD> Federal Communications Commission. <HD SOURCE="HED">ACTION:</HD> Final rule. <SUM> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUMMARY:</HD> 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. </SUM> <EFFDATE> <HD SOURCE="HED">DATES:</HD> The final rule is effective May 1, 2024. </EFFDATE> <FURINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:</HD> 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 <E T="03">Erika.Olsen@fcc.gov</E> or Logan Bennett, Attorney-Advisor, Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-7790 or via email at <E T="03">Logan.Bennett@fcc.gov.</E> </FURINF> <SUPLINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:</HD> 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: <E T="03">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-71A1.pdf.</E> <HD SOURCE="HD1">Synopsis</HD> <HD SOURCE="HD1">I. Introduction</HD> 1. The <E T="03">Report and Order</E> adopted the MDRI to improve network resilience during disasters, aligning with the industry-developed Wireless Network Resiliency Cooperative Framework. It mandated five provisions for facilities-based mobile wireless providers, including bi-lateral Roaming under Disaster arrangements (RuDs), mutual aid agreements, municipal preparedness, consumer readiness, and public communication. In particular, the <E T="03">Report and Order</E> 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 <E T="03">Report and Order</E> 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 <E T="03">Report and Order.</E> 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 <E T="03">Report and Order.</E> <HD SOURCE="HD2">A. Modification of Compliance Implementation Timeline</HD> 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 <E T="03">Order on Reconsideration</E> 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 <E T="03">Report and Order</E> in the <E T="04">Federal Register</E> 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 <E T="03">Order on Reconsideration</E> also eliminates the need to continue to distinguish between small and non-small providers under the MDRI. 4. <E T="03">Background.</E> 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 <E T="03">Resilient Networks Order'</E> s approach to mutual aid arrangements, the small provider compliance date applies to both parties to a RuD arrangement, as well as roaming testing, when at least one party to an arrangement is a small provider.” Second, the Petition requests that the Commission “[a]lign the definitions of `non-small facilities-based' and `small facilities-based' wireless providers with the FCC's existing definitions of `nationwide' and `non-nationwide' wireless providers applied in the 9-1-1 context.” Third, the Petition asks the Commission to “[a]ffirm that [OMB] review is required for all information collection obligations.” Petitioners further argue that “giving providers a mere 30 days after OMB approval to comply with § 4.17(a) and (b) is unworkable given the complexity of executing RuD and mutual aid agreements, as well as roaming testing. 6. <E T="03">Comments.</E> 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 Chinese-manufactured network equipment. 8. As to the <E T="03">Report and Order'</E> 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 an ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Preview showing 10k of 63k characters. Full document text is stored and available for version comparison. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━