FCC Seeks Comment on CTIA/CCA Wireless Resiliency Petition for Reconsideration

On November 17, 2022 the FCC released a Public Notice seeking comment on CTIA and Competitive Carrier Association’s (collectively “Petitioners”) Petition for Clarification and Partial Reconsideration of the Commission’s Resilient Networks Report and Order. Petitioners request the following:

  1. A Commission Created List of Facilities-Based Mobile Wireless Providers Subject to the MDRI: Petitioners ask the FCC to publish and regularly update a list of the facilities-based mobile wireless providers to which MDRI obligations apply.  Petitioners note that providers are required to enter into Roaming under Disaster (“RuD”) arrangements and test resiliency with all “foreseeable” providers, but despite efforts to determine all 64 providers the FCC noted were subject to the Order, Petitioners have only been able to identify fewer than half.  Without a definitive list, providers will be unable to determine whether they are complying with the Commission’s rules and requirements.
  2. To Extend the Deadlines to Enter Bilateral RuD and Mutual-Aid Arrangements and Test Roaming Capabilities: Petitioners ask the FCC to reconsider the deadlines established for carriers to comply with the Resilient Networks Report and Order.  Petitioners ask that the deadline for non-small facilities-based wireless providers be extended to 12 months (from six) and that the deadline for small facilities-based wireless providers be extended to 18 months (from nine).  Petitioners allege that the current deadlines do not account for the complexity of negotiating and executing the required arrangements and will likely cause disturbances to existing arrangements, at odds with FCC policy with regard to these sorts of agreements.  Petitioners also ask the FCC to confirm that if a small carrier is a party to the agreements, then the small carrier deadline applies to both parties.
  3. To Align MDRI Definitions of Facilities-Based Providers with Existing and Well-Understood Definitions:  Petitioners ask the FCC to apply the 911 definitions for nationwide and non-nationwide providers to the MDRI context, as opposed to “small facilities-based” and “non-small facilities-based” definitions.  Petitioners argue that the “small facilities-based” provider definition is too narrow and fails to recognize the burden the MDRI will place on providers that may have more than 1,500 or more employees.
  4. To Establish a Process to Notify Providers of MDRI Activation Quickly and Efficiently: The Resilient Networks Report and Order instructs the Bureau to issue a public notice announcing that the MDRI is activated and prescribe mechanisms to receive such a request.  Petitioners request that the FCC base its notice procedures surrounding activation of the MDRI on the practice currently employed for activating DIRs.  This would involve providing notice via email from Bureau staff to designated points of contact at the providers.
  5. To Clarify that the Document Retention and Collection Obligations Are Subject to OMB Approval and are Afforded Confidentiality: Petitioners ask the FCC to clarify that the new recordkeeping requirements are subject to OMB approval and that the compliance dates take effect after OMB approval has been announced.  Additionally, Petitioners ask the FCC to clarify that should the Commission request a RuD agreement, the agreement will be treated as presumptively confidential.

Oppositions will be due 15 days after the Notice is published in the Federal Register and replies will be due 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired.

Please Contact Us if you have any questions.

Recent Posts

January 26, 2023 Weekly Wireless Wrap-Up

Good afternoon from Washington, DC!  Below you will find this week’s Wireless Wrap-Up, your update on the wireless telecommunications regulatory landscape, important wireless decisions, and

Read More