39770 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[PS Docket No. 20–187; FCC 22–36; FR ID 

92978] 

Review of Rules and Requirements for 

Priority Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) adopts changes to its 

priority services rules to reflect today’s 

marketplace and governance framework 

and to explicitly authorize the 

prioritization of IP-based technologies. 

Specifically, it removes outdated 

language that may cause confusion or 

otherwise impede the use of IP-based 

technologies to support the provision of 

priority services for voice, data, and 

video communications. The 

Commission also amends the rules to 

reflect the current framework for 

administration of priority services by 

the Department of Homeland Security 

while eliminating burdensome and 

unnecessary requirements on service 

providers. 

DATES: The final rule is effective August 

4, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Chris Smeenk, 

Attorney Advisor, Operations and 

Emergency Management Division, 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau, at (202) 418–1630 or 

Chris.Smeenk@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, PS Docket No. 20–187; FCC 

22–36, adopted on May 19, 2022, and 

released on May 20, 2022. The full text 

of this document is available at https:// 

www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-modernizesand-improves-its-priority-services-rules0. To request this document in 

accessible formats for people with 

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

electronic files, audio format, etc.) or to 

request reasonable accommodations 

(e.g., accessible format documents, sign 

language interpreters, CART, etc.), send 

an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

FCC’s Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 

(voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY). 

Paperwork Reduction Act: This 

document does not contain new 

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). 

Congressional Review Act: The 

Commission believes, and the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, concurs that these rules are nonmajor. As such, the rules are non-major 

under the Congressional Review Act, 

U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will 

send a copy of this Report and Order to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Report and Order, we update 

and streamline the Commission’s 

priority services rules. These rules 

enable National Security and Emergency 

Preparedness (NSEP) personnel to 

obtain prioritized connectivity during 

emergency situations by authorizing 

prioritized provisioning and restoration 

of communications facilities and 

prioritized network access for wireless 

communications. The priority services 

programs are used to ‘‘maintain a state 

of readiness [and] to respond to and 

manage any event or crisis . . . [that] 

degrades or threatens the NSEP posture 

of the United States.’’ 

2. The priority services rules have 

long been in need of an update to 

account for changes in technology. The 

Commission’s current rules date back to 

the establishment of the 

Telecommunications Service Priority 

(TSP) System in 1988 and the creation 

of the Priority Access Service (PAS), 

more commonly referred to as Wireless 

Priority Service (WPS), in 2000. These 

rules were originally developed when 

communications networks were 

primarily based on circuit-switched 

technologies. As such, the rules do not 

address the advanced capabilities of 

next-generation communications 

technologies that support data and voice 

services, or the ability of users at 

different priority levels to share network 

capacity and resources. 

3. In this Report and Order, we update 

our priority services rules to reflect 

today’s marketplace and governance 

framework and to authorize explicitly 

the prioritization of next-generation 

technology. Specifically, we remove 

outdated language that may cause 

confusion or otherwise impede the use 

of next-generation technologies to 

support the provision of priority 

services for voice, data, and video 

communications. We also amend the 

rules to reflect the current framework 

for administration of priority services by 

the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) while eliminating burdensome 

and unnecessary requirements on 

service providers. These changes will 

reduce regulatory burdens and make our 

rules flexible enough to accommodate 

changing administrative requirements 

and technological advances related to 

the priority services programs. 

II. Background 

4. For years, NSEP personnel have 

had access to priority services programs 

that support national command, control, 

and communications by providing 

prioritized connectivity over 

commercial communications 

infrastructure during national 

emergencies. Three specific programs 

support prioritized connectivity for 

NSEP users of telecommunications 

services: (1) TSP, (2) WPS, and (3) 

Government Emergency 

Telecommunications Service (GETS), 

which provides prioritization through 

the Public Switched Telephone 

Network. All three programs are 

administered by DHS’s Cybersecurity 

and Infrastructure Security Agency 

(CISA). However, the Commission’s 

rules only apply to TSP and WPS, while 

GETS operates solely via contractual 

arrangements between DHS and service 

providers. 

5. TSP. The Commission’s TSP rules 

require certain service providers to 

prioritize the provisioning and 

restoration of communications facilities 

to ‘‘ensure effective NSEP 

telecommunication services.’’ The TSP 

rules apply, on a mandatory basis, to 

common carrier services and ‘‘services 

which are provided by government 

and/or non-common carriers and are 

interconnected to common carrier 

services.’’ Service providers that are 

covered by the mandatory TSP rules 

must ‘‘maintain and provision and, if 

disrupted, restore facilities and 

services’’ in accordance with the 

prioritization levels outlined in the TSP 

rules. The Commission designed the 

TSP System to provide ‘‘a means by 

which carriers may provide priority 

provisioning or restoration service to a 

user without violating the unreasonable 

preference prohibition of Title II of the 

Communications Act.’’ The TSP System 

‘‘allows the assignment of priority levels 

to any NSEP service’’ across three time 

periods, or stress conditions: (1) 

Peacetime/Crisis/Mobilizations; (2) 

Attack/War; and (3) Post-Attack/ 

Recovery. There are more than 2,000 

organizations enrolled in TSP (e.g., 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39771 

military bases, federal agencies, 

hospitals) covering approximately 

365,000 active circuits. Costs associated 

with TSP are governed by tariff or 

contract and TSP users may be 

responsible for one-time setup fees and 

monthly charges, in addition to the 

actual charges related to provisioning 

and restoration of the service. The 

Commission’s TSP rules have not been 

substantively updated since they were 

initially adopted in 1988. 

6. WPS. The Commission’s WPS rules 

permit, but do not require, commercial 

mobile radio service (CMRS) providers 

to offer mobile wireless priority 

services. If a service provider elects to 

offer WPS, it must comply with the 

Commission’s WPS rules, which 

establish the following five priority 

levels (ordered from highest to lowest): 

(1) Executive Leadership and Policy 

Makers; (2) Disaster Response/Military 

Command and Control; (3) Public 

Health, Safety and Law Enforcement 

Command; (4) Public Services/Utilities 

and Public Welfare; and (5) Disaster 

Recovery. WPS is provided on an 

individual-device basis, with users 

initiating wireless priority calls by 

entering a specified feature code for 

each call in order to activate priority 

treatment for that call. WPS users are 

responsible for commercial wireless 

subscription and equipment costs. One 

of the driving forces behind the FCC’s 

decision to codify WPS rules was a 

concern that, in the absence of such 

rules, a service provider’s decision to 

give NSEP users priority treatment 

might be considered a violation of the 

Act’s non-discrimination provisions. 

There are more than 606,000 authorized 

WPS users across the U.S. and U.S. 

territories. The Commission’s WPS rules 

have not been updated since they were 

initially adopted in 2000. 

7. Developments Since the 

Commission’s Initial Adoption of the 

Priority Services Rules. Both the 

telecommunications marketplace and 

the administrative framework of the 

priority services programs have evolved 

since the Commission adopted its 

priority services rules. Consumers are 

increasingly moving away from legacy 

telephone services that rely on 

traditional time-division multiplexing 

technology, and toward internet 

Protocol (IP)-based and next-generation 

services. Incumbent local exchange 

carriers are increasingly retiring copper 

facilities and replacing them with fiber 

and wireless spectrum-based technology 

that provides greater capacity and 

flexibility to support advanced 

communications services. The 

Commission has actively supported the 

transition from legacy networks to nextgeneration networks, and it has taken 

measures to reduce regulatory barriers 

to this transition. 

8. While the transition from legacy 

network technology to IP-based 

technologies promises greater 

innovation, including for priority 

services programs, it may pose 

transitional challenges for NSEP 

communications that historically have 

relied on functionality found in legacy 

technologies. As carriers replace their 

legacy systems with new technologies 

and platforms, some of the features in 

priority services programs that were 

designed to be used on legacy systems 

will be more difficult and costly to 

maintain and ultimately could be 

rendered inoperable. The Government 

Accountability Office has observed that 

it is a ‘‘challenge . . . that IP networks 

may not support existing 

telecommunications ‘priority’ services, 

which allow key government and 

public-safety officials to communicate 

during times of crisis.’’ Availability of 

priority services only on those 

traditional voice networks may hamper 

the ability of NSEP personnel to make 

effective use of cutting edge emergency 

response tools that rely on IP-supported 

data network availability. 

9. Federal Agency Administration/ 

Oversight of Priority Services Programs. 

Three agencies are primarily responsible 

for the oversight and administration of 

priority services programs—DHS, the 

Executive Office of the President (EOP), 

and the FCC. DHS is responsible for 

‘‘oversee[ing] the development, testing, 

implementation, and sustainment of 

NS/EP communications,’’ including the 

priority services programs. DHS also 

maintains a Joint Program Office that is 

responsible for ‘‘coordination of 

programs that support NS/EP missions, 

priorities, goals, and policy.’’ DHS 

assists organizations with the 

enrollment process and issues TSP 

authorization codes. DHS also manages 

WPS through contract and 

reimbursement mechanisms. EOP is 

responsible for ‘‘[p]olicy coordination, 

guidance, dispute resolution, and 

periodic in-progress reviews’’ of NSEP 

telecommunications functions. Within 

EOP, the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy ‘‘advise[s] the 

President on prioritization of radio 

spectrum and wired communications 

that support NS/EP functions’’ and 

‘‘issue[s] an annual memorandum . . . 

highlighting national priorities for . . . 

analyses, studies, research, and 

development regarding NS/EP 

communications.’’ The FCC, through the 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau, works with DHS to ensure the 

priority services programs operate 

effectively and efficiently. The 

Commission supports DHS in the 

‘‘operation and restoration of critical 

communications systems and services’’ 

by providing information on 

communications infrastructure, service 

outages, and restoration. 

10. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 

Update the TSP and WPS Rules. In July 

2020, the Commission adopted a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

proposing to modernize its priority 

services rules to cover priority treatment 

of voice, data, and video services for 

emergency personnel. The NPRM 

followed two petitions that the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) filed on behalf of 

DHS—one in July 2018 and another in 

July 2019—which asked the 

Commission to update its TSP and WPS 

rules to reflect the current operations of 

the programs, incorporate the current 

Executive Branch governance structure, 

and address changes in technology and 

evolving user needs. The Bureau sought 

comment on both petitions via public 

notice. 

11. In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed to update its priority services 

rules in several key respects. First, it 

proposed to extend the rules to cover 

data, video, and IP-based voice services 

for NSEP personnel. Second, it 

proposed to streamline the rules by 

removing outdated requirements that 

may impede the use of IP-based 

technologies. Third, it proposed to 

amend the rules to reflect current 

administrative responsibilities for the 

priority services programs, while 

eliminating burdensome and 

unnecessary administrative 

requirements. We received nine 

comments and two reply comments in 

response to the NPRM. In addition, 

CISA and the First Responder Network 

Authority (FirstNet) submitted ex parte 

comments in December 2020. The 

comments generally express support for 

updating our priority services rules as 

proposed in the NPRM to reflect today’s 

marketplace and governance framework 

and to account for next-generation 

communications technology. 

III. Discussion 

12. Today, we update and streamline 

our priority services rules, as proposed 

in the NPRM, with certain 

modifications. First, we adopt changes 

that apply to both TSP and WPS, such 

as updating the Commission’s 

responsibilities for the priority services 

programs and clarifying that service 

providers are authorized to offer 

prioritization of next-generation services 

and technologies, including IP-based 

voice, data, and video communications. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
39772 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Second, we adopt specific changes that 

apply only to TSP or WPS. In the TSP 

rules, we expand the list of services that 

are eligible for priority treatment and 

clarify the timing and level of effort 

required for provisioning and restoring 

service. In the WPS rules, we clarify the 

operation of the priority levels and 

expand both the types of services and 

the groups of users that are eligible for 

WPS. As explained below, we find that 

these changes will substantially increase 

the benefits to NSEP users and public 

safety while reducing the regulatory 

costs imposed on providers of priority 

services. 

A. Changes to Priority Services Rules 

13. As noted above, the Commission’s 

priority services rules have not been 

substantively updated since they were 

initially adopted, which has resulted in 

many provisions becoming outdated. In 

this section, we adopt proposals from 

the NPRM to modernize both our TSP 

and WPS rules to ensure they reflect 

current terminology, legal authorities, 

and administrative practices. 

14. Program Administration. We 

adopt the NPRM proposal to amend our 

rules to reflect current responsibilities 

for administering the priority services 

programs. The roles and responsibilities 

of some federal agencies have shifted 

since these rules were originally 

adopted. Likewise, we find that service 

providers and NSEP users, as well as 

other federal agencies, will benefit from 

a description of the Commission’s own 

responsibilities for the programs. 

Accordingly, we adopt the NPRM 

proposal, with minor revisions, to add 

the following language to part 64, 

Appendix A and Appendix B: 

The FCC: Performs such functions as are 

required by law, including: (a) with respect 

to all entities licensed or regulated by the 

FCC: the extension of or change in network 

facilities; the discontinuance, reduction, or 

impairment of interstate services; the control 

of common carrier rates, charges, practices, 

and classifications; the construction, 

authorization, activation, deactivation, or 

closing of radio stations, services, and 

facilities; the assignment of radio frequencies 

to licensees; the investigation of violations of 

FCC rules; and the assessment of 

communications service provider emergency 

needs and resources; and (b) supports the 

continuous operation and restoration of 

critical communications systems and services 

by assisting the Secretary of Homeland 

Security with infrastructure damage 

assessment and restoration, and by providing 

the Secretary of Homeland Security with 

information collected by the FCC on 

communications infrastructure, service 

outages, and restoration, as appropriate. 

15. We also adopt the NPRM proposal 

to eliminate the provisions of part 64, 

Appendix A and Appendix B that 

describe the responsibilities of the 

Executive Office of the President (EOP) 

for the priority services programs. As 

noted in the NPRM, many of these 

responsibilities have since been 

transferred to other federal agencies, 

particularly DHS. In addition, while 

DHS and EOP have important 

responsibilities related to the priority 

services programs, we find it 

unnecessary to describe their functions 

in our rules. 

16. Commenters generally support 

removing portions of the rules that 

describe EOP’s responsibilities because 

Executive Order 13618 transferred most 

of EOP’s functions to other federal 

agencies. CISA is the only commenter 

that opposes this change, contending 

that because EOP ‘‘retains immense 

WPS-related responsibilities’’ and has 

significant influence over TSP and WPS, 

the Commission’s rules should continue 

to describe EOP’s responsibilities. We 

agree with the majority of commenters 

that such description is unnecessary 

because EOP, DHS, and other Executive 

Branch agencies derive their legal 

authority from statutes and executive 

orders—not the Commission’s rules. 

Thus, removing these references from 

our rules will have no legal or practical 

impact on the ability of these agencies 

to perform their functions. In addition, 

specific Executive Branch agency 

responsibilities for priority services 

could change in the future, in which 

case any codification of these 

responsibilities in our rules would 

become outdated and require further 

action by the Commission to update the 

rules. 

17. We also amend Appendix A and 

Appendix B to reflect the actual, current 

administrative responsibilities and 

functions for the TSP and WPS 

programs, consistent with our proposal 

in the NPRM. Commenters generally 

oppose including rules that would 

require service providers to comply 

with ‘‘supplemental regulations and 

procedures’’ established by DHS. For 

example, CTIA asserts that such 

language could allow DHS to 

retroactively alter contracts, which, in 

turn, could ‘‘disrupt the contractual 

bargaining dynamic’’ between DHS and 

service providers. Verizon and T-Mobile 

argue that ‘‘without more explicit 

limitations on DHS’s discretion,’’ such 

requirements ‘‘could risk undermining 

the Commission’s intended light 

regulatory touch . . . as well as service 

providers’ and DHS’s flexibility to 

address novel technical issues.’’ 

Commenters also argue that the 

proposed language could violate the 

Administrative Procedure Act by 

‘‘subjecting participating providers to 

changing obligations without an 

opportunity for notice and comment.’’ 

18. We adopt a dual approach in our 

modifications of the TSP and WPS rules 

that reflects differences in the 

underlying programs. We amend our 

TSP rules (Appendix A, section 5, as 

amended) by replacing the references to 

EOP with DHS and modifying the 

terminology to indicate that DHS issues 

‘‘policies’’ rather than ‘‘regulations’’ for 

TSP. However, we delete the 

corresponding provision in the WPS 

rules (Appendix B, section 3). We 

believe this dual approach is 

appropriate given the differing 

administrative frameworks governing 

TSP and WPS. For TSP, DHS uses 

supplemental documents, including an 

Operations Guide and Service Vendor 

Handbook, to outline the specific 

processes and procedures that TSP 

providers must follow. However, DHS 

does not use these supplemental 

documents for WPS, but rather, outlines 

specific policies and procedures in its 

contractual arrangements with service 

providers. 

19. We do not agree with commenters 

who contend that the updated TSP rule 

would undermine the flexibility of 

service providers and DHS to address 

novel issues. The underlying rule has 

existed since the TSP rules were 

initially adopted and there is no 

indication in the record that it has led 

to imposition of unreasonable 

requirements on service providers or 

otherwise negatively impacted the 

program. Moreover, the rule only 

obligates TSP users and service 

providers to comply with DHS policies 

and procedures that are ‘‘consistent 

with’’ Appendix A. In the unlikely 

event that DHS were to issue policies 

and procedures that are inconsistent 

with Appendix A, the rule does not 

obligate TSP users to comply with them. 

Similarly, we do not believe the 

amended rule violates the APA because 

(1) the DHS policies and procedures are 

largely administrative in nature; and (2) 

if DHS were to issue substantive rules 

without notice and comment, our rule 

does not constrain TSP participants 

from challenging such rules on APA 

grounds. 

20. Terminology. Consistent with our 

expansion of the priority services rules 

to encompass IP-based services, 

discussed below, we adopt our proposal 

to amend Appendix A and Appendix B, 

where appropriate, to include these new 

services and technologies. First, we 

replace certain references to 

‘‘telecommunications services’’ with 

‘‘National Security Emergency 

Preparedness (NSEP) services,’’ a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39773 

broader term that we define to include 

both telecommunications services and 

all IP-based services. We adopt the 

NPRM proposal to amend the definition 

of ‘‘NSEP services’’ in Appendix A as 

follows: 

Telecommunications services or internet 

Protocol-based services which are used to 

maintain a state of readiness or to respond to 

and manage any event or crisis (local, 

national, or international), which causes or 

could cause injury or harm to the population, 

damage to or loss of property, or degrades or 

threatens the NSEP posture of the United 

States. These services fall into two specific 

categories, Emergency NSEP and Essential 

NSEP, and are assigned priority levels 

pursuant to section 8 of this appendix. 

We also adopt the same definition for 

‘‘NSEP services’’ in Appendix B, except 

for the last sentence, which is specific 

to TSP. Further, we define the phrase 

‘‘internet Protocol (IP)-based services,’’ 

as used in the definition of ‘‘NSEP 

services’’ as: ‘‘services and applications 

that feature digital communications 

capabilities and which generally use the 

internet Protocol.’’ These changes will 

ensure that the Commission’s rules 

account for current service offerings and 

other technologies that may someday 

qualify for priority treatment. As 

discussed more fully below, 

commenters support updating our 

priority services rules to expand the 

scope of the services that are eligible for 

priority treatment. 

B. Changes to Telecommunications 

Service Priority Rules 

21. In this section, we adopt many of 

the proposed and requested 

amendments to the Commission’s TSP 

rules in part 64, Appendix A. 

Specifically, we (1) eliminate certain 

outdated references; (2) expand the list 

of services that are eligible for priority 

treatment; (3) update the rules to reflect 

current oversight practices; (4) expand 

the scope of federal employees 

authorized to invoke priority treatment; 

(5) adopt rules to enhance the protection 

of TSP data; and (6) clarify the timing 

and level of effort for provisioning and 

restoring service. Finally, we decline to 

amend our rules to require service 

providers to report provisioning and 

restoration times to DHS. 

22. Outdated Provisions. As a result of 

the changes that have occurred since the 

TSP rules were initially adopted, some 

provisions of the rules have become 

outdated and unnecessary. To address 

this issue, we eliminate section 2 of part 

64, Appendix A, which outlines 

requirements governing the migration of 

circuits from the legacy Restoration 

Priority program and mandating the 

continuation of certain Commission 

orders pending the implementation of 

the TSP program. We also eliminate 

section 10 of Appendix A, which 

specifies procedures for the 

resubmission of circuits that were 

assigned restoration priorities before the 

Commission adopted the TSP rules. 

Commenters support these changes. 

23. Eligible Services. We adopt our 

proposal to maintain the current 

requirement that common carriers must 

offer prioritized restoration and 

provisioning of circuit-switched voice 

communication services. We also adopt 

the NPRM proposal to amend our rules 

to make clear that service providers may 

offer, on a voluntary basis, prioritized 

provisioning and restoration of data, 

video, and IP-based voice services. As 

originally drafted, the TSP rules were 

intended as a regulatory carveout to 

allow common carriers to provide 

telecommunications services, which 

would ordinarily be subject to the nondiscrimination requirements of Section 

202, on a prioritized basis. As such, the 

rules make no mention of the wide array 

of innovative service offerings that are 

currently available to NSEP personnel. 

This rule change makes clear that 

neither the Commission’s rules nor the 

Communications Act preclude TSP 

providers from offering priority 

treatment of voice, data, and video 

services for which provisioning or 

restoration priority levels are requested, 

assigned, and approved in accordance 

with Appendix A. This amendment 

does not alter the regulatory status or 

treatment of the authorized services; to 

the extent that these services are not 

subject to Title II of the 

Communications Act, they are not 

subject to the non-discrimination 

provisions under Section 202 that the 

TSP rules were drafted to protect 

against. We note that the orderly 

administration of the TSP program 

requires that all participants—regardless 

of classification status—follow the same 

set of rules. We therefore make clear 

that service providers who offer TSP 

must comply with the Commission’s 

TSP rules. 

24. Commenters support clarifying 

that IP-based services are eligible for 

TSP. We agree with commenters who 

assert that specific authorization is not 

necessary, but including this provision 

in our rules will prevent confusion 

among providers and NSEP users 

regarding the services that are eligible 

for priority treatment. No commenter 

objects to requiring service providers 

that elect to participate in the TSP 

program with respect to IP-based 

services to comply with the TSP rules. 

25. However, we decline to adopt 

CISA’s request that we require TSP 

service providers to offer prioritized 

provisioning and restoration of data, 

video, and IP-based voice services. 

While there may be potential benefits to 

making such services mandatory, the 

record weighs in favor of those services 

remaining voluntary at this time. First, 

we recognize that not all TSP providers 

may be able to offer prioritization for all 

IP-based services. In addition, because 

the NPRM discussed extending the TSP 

rules to non-common carrier services 

only on a voluntary basis, the record 

lacks sufficient information to evaluate 

the costs and benefits of making TSP 

mandatory for non-common carrier 

services. 

26. Oversight, Industry Engagement, 

and Executive Branch Reporting. We 

adopt the NPRM proposal to eliminate 

references to the TSP System Oversight 

Committee (Oversight Committee) from 

the TSP rules. The Oversight 

Committee, composed of representatives 

from government and industry 

stakeholders, was established to identify 

and review any issues that arose in the 

administration of the TSP program and 

to recommend actions to correct them or 

prevent recurrence. In its petition, 

however, NTIA explained that the 

administration of the TSP program has 

evolved to obviate the need for the 

Oversight Committee. Specifically, 

NTIA notes that the Oversight 

Committee’s role has been gradually 

filled by the Communications 

Information Sharing and Analysis 

Center (Comm ISAC), and that DHS has 

in recent years relied on the Comm 

ISAC to ‘‘exchange information and gain 

advice’’ on issues involving the TSP 

program. Among other advantages, DHS 

explains, the Comm ISAC is able ‘‘to 

address operational concerns in real 

time,’’ instead of waiting for a 

scheduled Oversight Committee 

meeting. 

27. We eliminate the references to the 

Oversight Committee in our rules as 

outdated because the Comm ISAC is 

now fulfilling the Oversight 

Committee’s role. We consider it 

unnecessary to ‘‘adopt rules that allow 

DHS to consult with the [Comm] ISAC,’’ 

as NTIA requests, because DHS does not 

require Commission authorization to 

consult with the Comm ISAC or other 

entities as part of its oversight of the 

TSP program. 

28. NTIA requests that we replace the 

requirement that EOP submit quarterly 

reports to the Commission and 

Oversight Committee with an annual 

report to the Commission, which NTIA 

asserts ‘‘better aligns reporting 

timeframes to meet relevant 

programmatic needs.’’ We agree with 

commenters that some oversight is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
39774 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

needed to ensure accountability and 

compliance with the Commission’s 

rules. We also agree that DHS, as the 

agency primarily responsible for daily 

management and administration of TSP, 

should author reports on ‘‘the 

operational status of and trends in’’ 

TSP. We therefore eliminate the 

provisions of our rules that direct EOP 

to submit quarterly and semi-annual 

reports to the Commission and, instead, 

request that DHS provide information 

regarding TSP in annual reports to the 

Commission. Specifically, we request 

that the annual reports identify (1) 

numbers of requests proceeded for the 

various priority actions, and the priority 

levels assigned; (2) relative percentages 

of services assigned to each priority 

level under each NSEP category and 

subcategory; (3) any apparent serious 

misassignment or abuse of priority level 

assignments; and (4) any existing or 

developing problem, and DHS’s 

recommendations on how it intends to 

address each problem. 

29. Invocation Officials. We adopt our 

proposal to expand the scope of 

individuals who may invoke priority 

treatment for an eligible NSEP service. 

We define an ‘‘invocation official’’ as an 

individual who (1) understands how the 

requested service ties to the 

organization’s NSEP mission; (2) is 

authorized to approve the expenditure 

of funds necessary for the requested 

service; and (3) has operational 

responsibilities for telecommunications 

procurement and/or management within 

the organization. Likewise, we eliminate 

the requirement that the invocation 

official must be designated in writing. 

Prior to this change, the Commission’s 

rules required the individual to be part 

of a narrowly defined class of ‘‘senior 

officials,’’ including agency heads, and 

that such individual be appointed in 

writing in accordance with 

supplemental procedures issued by 

EOP. 

30. We find that these changes will 

make the operation of the TSP program 

more efficient while providing greater 

flexibility for user organizations. These 

actions reflect changes that DHS has 

already made, such as lessening the 

seniority requirement to allow an 

individual who is able to attest to the 

need for priority treatment and to 

obligate funds on behalf of the 

organization to serve as the ‘‘invocation 

official.’’ We find that it is not necessary 

for the ‘‘invocation official’’ to be a 

senior government official, such as the 

head or director of a federal agency, 

because, as NTIA points out, requiring 

senior officials to request TSP 

participation has produced 

‘‘unnecessary delays in the approval 

process given the demands placed on 

senior officials and their often limited 

availability.’’ We are also persuaded by 

NTIA’s claim that the current 

requirements are untenable because 

senior officials typically do not 

‘‘interact[ ] with service providers and 

often lack[ ] direct knowledge of the 

purpose and need for the NS/EP 

service.’’ Commenters support these 

changes. 

31. Protection of TSP Data. We amend 

the TSP rules to enhance the protection 

of TSP data. We agree with NTIA that 

the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive 

information related to TSP circuits, in 

the aggregate, could pose a national 

security risk. We further agree that 

service providers moving certain 

operational, administrative, and 

management functions overseas could 

create additional risk by exposing TSP 

data to companies and individuals 

outside the United States. We likewise 

find merit in the arguments of some 

commenters that factors such as the use 

of firewalls, access controls, and other 

security protocols are more 

consequential than the physical location 

of the servers that house the TSP data. 

Even with respect to the physical 

location of the servers, we note that 

differing laws in foreign jurisdictions 

means that the threat of disclosure— 

through both lawful and unlawful 

means—varies from country to country. 

We conclude that a reasonableness test 

that accounts for the sensitivity of this 

data is preferable to prescriptive rules. 

While a reasonableness test provides 

less of a bright line for compliance, it 

will allow providers greater flexibility to 

manage their networks while respecting 

the confidentiality of this data. We 

therefore amend our rules to strengthen 

the current provision addressing the 

confidentiality of this data. The current 

version of this provision directs service 

providers to ‘‘[n]ot disclose information 

concerning NSEP services they provide 

to those not having a need-to-know or 

[who] might use the information for 

competitive advantage.’’ To this section, 

we add the following language: 

Service providers will take all reasonable 

efforts to secure the confidentiality of TSP 

information from unauthorized disclosure, 

including by storing such information in a 

location and with security safeguards that are 

reasonably designed to protect against lawful 

or unlawful disclosure to company 

employees or service providers without a 

legitimate need for this information, or other 

entities to which the disclosure of this 

information would pose a threat to the 

national security of the United States. Service 

providers will immediately notify the FCC 

and DHS of any attempt to compel the 

disclosure of this information and will 

coordinate with the FCC and DHS prior to 

such disclosure. In emergency situations 

where prior notice is impracticable, service 

providers will notify the FCC and DHS as 

soon as possible, but no later than 48 hours 

after such disclosure, and should accompany 

such notice with an explanation why prior 

notice was not practicable. 

We find that this test strikes the 

appropriate balance between DHS’s 

concerns about the potential national 

security risks posed by the disclosure of 

this data, and the concerns of 

commenters about the shortcomings of a 

more prescriptive approach. We 

therefore conclude that the benefits to 

national security will far exceed the 

minimal costs that service providers 

may incur as a result of these 

requirements. 

32. Provisioning and Restoration 

Timeframes. The Commission’s current 

TSP rules include three subsections that 

address the timeframes that service 

providers must meet to (1) provision 

service; (2) restore service; and (3) meet 

requested service dates for TSP-subject 

facilities. However, each subsection 

specifies a different standard (‘‘best 

efforts,’’ ‘‘as soon as possible,’’ and ‘‘as 

quickly as practicable’’) for the time and 

level of effort required for service 

providers to provision or restore TSP 

facilities. NTIA claims the ‘‘varying and 

ambiguous language’’ in the current 

rules ‘‘has created confusion, 

disagreements, dissatisfaction, and 

unrealistic expectations’’ between users, 

providers, and DHS’s program staff. 

33. We agree with NTIA that replacing 

varying timeframe standards with a 

single standard will eliminate confusion 

and provide more certainty for service 

providers regarding their provisioning 

and restoration responsibilities. We also 

disagree with commenters who argue 

that we should maintain the existing 

standards or ‘‘eliminate the restoration 

timeframes from [the] rules entirely.’’ 

We therefore amend section 6.f of 

Appendix A by replacing the current 

language with the single term 

‘‘promptly’’ to describe TSP service 

providers’ provisioning and restoration 

obligations. Further, we define 

‘‘promptly’’ as meaning ‘‘without 

delay.’’ 

34. In adopting this standard, we 

address two competing sets of concerns 

raised by commenters. On the one hand, 

as NTIA points out, greater clarity and 

certainty regarding provisioning and 

restoration timeframes will reduce 

confusion and provide more concrete 

expectations for NSEP users, service 

providers, and DHS’s program office 

staff. On the other hand, we seek to 

avoid an overly burdensome or 

prescriptive requirement that could, as 

other commenters point out, fail to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39775 

account for the ‘‘variable nature of 

communications outages,’’ and the costs 

and benefits of specific circumstances. 

In general, we agree with commenters 

that the standard for provisioning and 

restoration must provide clarity and 

account for incident specific factors, 

while not placing unreasonable 

demands on service providers. 

35. We find that the ‘‘promptly’’ 

standard best addresses the competing 

interests that are outlined in the record. 

Requiring ‘‘prompt’’ action—and 

defining ‘‘promptly’’ to mean ‘‘without 

delay’’—necessitates that service 

providers move as rapidly as is 

reasonable under the circumstances, 

which establishes a clear and 

enforceable floor for action. However, 

this standard does not mandate specific 

timelines or levels of effort and it allows 

for consideration of variable incidentspecific circumstances in determining 

what speed of response and allocation 

of resources is reasonable. We find the 

‘‘promptly’’ standard preferable to the 

alternative standards proposed by 

commenters, such as ‘‘best efforts,’’ or 

‘‘as soon as possible,’’ which do not 

convey the same sense of urgency and 

are more subjective and susceptible to 

conflicting interpretations. 

36. Reporting Requirements. In the 

NPRM, we sought comment on NTIA’s 

request that we amend our rules to 

require service providers to report 

provisioning and restoration times to 

DHS for TSP circuits in areas covered by 

the activation of the Disaster 

Information Reporting System (DIRS). 

DHS asserts that it is necessary for the 

Commission to impose such reporting 

requirements to enable DHS to obtain 

access to TSP provisioning and 

restoration times and aggregate data so 

that it can compare the data for TSP 

services to similar data for non-TSP 

services. However, most commenters 

oppose NTIA’s request and raise a 

number of arguments for declining to 

adopt additional reporting 

requirements. Some commenters point 

out that requiring service providers to 

report data in the midst of a disaster 

could force them to divert resources 

away from the disaster response efforts. 

Other commenters contend that 

mandatory TSP reporting requirements 

could undercut the effectiveness of 

DIRS because service providers could 

attempt to avoid TSP reporting 

obligations by declining to participate in 

DIRS reporting. Others argue that 

comparing the provisioning and 

restoration times of TSP services and 

non-TSP services is unlikely to produce 

useful or actionable results. Finally, a 

number of commenters raise practical 

concerns with implementing the 

reporting requirements by, for example, 

pointing out that the configuration of 

networks and IT systems may not allow 

for reporting with the granularity 

required to produce such reports. 

37. We decline to adopt reporting 

requirements in our rules. While we 

recognize the potential benefits of 

collecting provisioning and restoration 

data, commenters raise questions about 

the cost, efficacy, and utility of 

reporting requirements, and the record 

does not include sufficient information 

to rebut these objections. Indeed, no 

commenter responded to the concerns 

raised in the record. Only one 

commenter (BRETSA) indicated support 

for the requested rule change, but 

merely noted that requiring data on 

network performance might improve the 

management and operation of the TSP 

program. Moreover, NTIA does not 

propose specific obligations concerning 

the timing and frequency for reporting 

this information, but instead, proposes 

that DHS coordinate with the 

Commission to develop specific data 

requirements and reporting timeframes. 

We believe these details should be 

clarified before the Commission 

establishes new reporting requirements. 

38. Finally, it is unclear whether DHS 

lacks other means to obtain the 

requested information. Some 

commenters contend that DHS may be 

able to obtain this information through 

contractual negotiations with service 

providers. CISA asserts that contractual 

arrangements for TSP do not currently 

exist between DHS and service 

providers and claims that DHS currently 

has no basis on which to establish 

contractual arrangements for TSP. 

However, CISA has not identified any 

legal prohibition that would preclude 

consideration of a contractual approach. 

Nevertheless, recognizing the potential 

value of collecting greater data about 

provisioning and restoration times, 

while we decline to adopt reporting 

requirements today, we encourage 

further dialogue regarding whether an 

appropriate avenue exists for obtaining 

this data that might be responsive to 

concerns raised in the record, whether 

through further changes to our rules or 

through other means. 

C. Changes to Wireless Priority Service 

Rules 

39. With a few exceptions and 

modifications, discussed below, we 

adopt most of the changes to our WPS 

rules proposed in the NPRM. 

Specifically, we (1) update the rules to 

reflect the commonly used name for this 

program; (2) expand the list of services 

eligible for WPS to reflect newer 

technologies, as we did with TSP; (3) 

expand WPS eligibility to include 

additional users; (4) clarify the 

operation of the priority levels to make 

clear that higher priority services take 

precedence over those with lower 

priority; (5) discuss the applicability of 

the WPS rules to the FirstNet network; 

(6) clarify the extent to which 

preemption and degradation may be 

used to facilitate prioritized 

communications; (7) expressly authorize 

priority signaling; and (8) eliminate the 

requirement that priority access must be 

invoked on a per-call basis. Finally, as 

with TSP, we decline to adopt 

additional reporting requirements 

proposed by NTIA. 

40. Program Name. As described 

above, government, industry, and users 

commonly refer to Priority Access 

Service as Wireless Priority Service. To 

reflect the prevailing naming 

convention, we adopt the NPRM 

proposal to replace all references to 

‘‘Priority Access Service’’ with 

‘‘Wireless Priority Service’’ in section 

64.402 and part 64, Appendix B. We 

agree with NTIA that the name Wireless 

Priority Service ‘‘better reflects the 

service’s current requirements and 

capabilities.’’ No commenters directly 

addressed this issue, but T-Mobile 

previously indicated support for 

‘‘updating the language. . . as necessary 

to mitigate any potential confusion and 

enhance clarity.’’ 

41. Eligible Services. We adopt the 

NPRM proposal to amend the WPS rules 

to expressly permit wireless service 

providers, on a voluntary basis, to give 

NSEP personnel priority access to, and 

priority use of, all secure and nonsecure voice, data, and video services 

available over their networks, including 

IP-based services. We also adopt the 

NPRM proposal to eliminate references 

to ‘‘CMRS’’ and, where necessary, 

substitute the term ‘‘wireless’’ to 

describe services, networks, and 

providers. Finally, we retain the current 

requirement that if a service provider 

elects to offer WPS, it must comply with 

the Commission’s WPS rules. 

42. Commenters support amending 

the rules to authorize wireless service 

providers to voluntarily offer priority 

treatment of all voice, data, and video 

services to eligible users. Since the WPS 

rules were initially adopted in 2000, the 

‘‘capacity and capabilities of [wireless] 

networks have expanded immensely’’ 

and wireless service providers are now 

able to offer a wide array of voice, data, 

and video services. The development of 

new technologies has direct 

implications for NSEP users, who 

increasingly rely on these innovative 

services and applications to ‘‘make and 

complete mission-essential 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
39776 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

communications in an efficient and 

effective manner.’’ We find that 

amending our rules to include all voice, 

data, and video services, including IPbased services, will promote 

consistency and prevent confusion 

among service providers. 

43. DHS has interpreted the lack of 

explicit authorization in our rules to 

mean that WPS providers are not 

permitted to offer priority data, video, 

and IP-based voice services. We disagree 

with DHS’s view, and instead agree with 

commenters who assert that while 

specific authorization is not necessary, 

it will prevent confusion among 

providers and NSEP users regarding the 

services that are eligible for priority 

treatment. We believe that by removing 

any uncertainty about the legal 

authority to offer these services, our 

action will facilitate the development of 

new services and capabilities which, in 

turn, will significantly benefit NSEP 

users. 

44. Eligible Users. We adopt the 

NPRM proposal to modify the 

descriptions of priority levels and 

qualifying criteria in Appendix B to 

expand WPS eligibility to additional 

users, particularly those with response 

and restoration roles during emergency 

situations. Specifically, we amend 

Appendix B to include entities from the 

critical infrastructure sectors identified 

in Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)- 

21, and we modify the descriptions of 

priority levels and qualifying criteria to 

allow financial services and hospital 

personnel to qualify for WPS. We also 

remove outdated language that currently 

limits WPS eligibility to ‘‘key 

personnel’’ and individuals in 

‘‘leadership positions’’ and clarify that 

WPS should be made available to all 

NSEP personnel that meet the qualifying 

criteria. 

45. In addition to providing WPS to 

these critical groups, this amendment 

also brings our rules in line with 

developments in the administration of 

the WPS program. While the current 

rules do not include multiple categories 

of NSEP users, such as critical 

infrastructure protection, financial 

services, and hospital personnel, DHS is 

currently assigning priority levels to 

those users. 

46. Commenters generally support 

allowing more groups of NSEP users to 

qualify for WPS, but disagree about the 

process for determining their eligibility 

and priority level assignments. For 

example, AT&T states that the 

Commission should ‘‘specify how 

entities . . . would be incorporated’’ 

into the priority levels, while T-Mobile 

argues that decision should ‘‘continue to 

lie[ ] with DHS.’’ We need not address 

this specific issue in our rules because, 

as described above, we eliminate the 

provisions that describe the 

responsibilities of EOP for the priority 

services programs. However, we expect 

that DHS will continue to make WPS 

eligibility determinations and priority 

level assignments pursuant to Executive 

Order 13618. 

47. Priority Levels. The Commission’s 

WPS rules list five levels of priority, 

with Priority Level 1 being the highest. 

NTIA asks the Commission to amend 

the rules to make explicit that Priority 

Level 1 communications—those made 

by the President of the United States, as 

well as certain executive leaders and 

policymakers—should receive priority 

treatment that exceeds that given to 

users at any other priority level. We 

agree with NTIA’s requested rule 

change, which would make it both 

‘‘explicit and conspicuous’’ that ‘‘the 

nation’s executive leadership receive 

top priority.’’ Commenters generally 

agree that the Commission should 

update its rules to clarify the status of 

Priority Level 1 users. We therefore 

adopt the NPRM proposal and clarify 

that Priority Level 1 exceeds all other 

priority services offered by WPS 

providers. 

48. WPS and FirstNet. In ex parte 

comments, FirstNet notes that 

‘‘[although this proceeding appears 

specifically aimed’’ at WPS and TSP, 

‘‘[FirstNet] wishes to clarify that any 

updates to the FCC’s priority services 

rules should not apply to the distinct, 

unique FirstNet services.’’ FirstNet 

requests that the Commission exclude 

FirstNet services ‘‘from any updates or 

revisions to the Commission’s priority 

services rules and, in particular, that 

FirstNet services not be subject to 

overriding priority or degradation vis-a`- 

vis any other priority services 

offerings.’’ AT&T similarly argues that 

‘‘[a]ccomplishment of the [FirstNet 

Authority’s] mission requires . . . broad 

authority to assign priority levels,’’ and 

states that ‘‘the WPS rules should not 

interfere with the interplay of priority 

levels vis-a`-vis FirstNet and WPS and 

other programs.’’ Verizon asserts that 

the same principle applies to public 

safety services offered by other 

providers, stating that the WPS rules 

‘‘have never been interpreted so 

expansively as to preclude wireless 

providers from offering innovative 

priority and preemption capabilities in 

their separate public safety 

communications offerings.’’ Responding 

to AT&T, T-Mobile asserts that 

providers should not be allowed to 

‘‘pick and choose how users receive 

priority based on their status with a 

particular provider,’’ and urges the 

Commission to ‘‘ensure that all WPS 

subscribers receive priority treatment 

based solely on their WPS status 

regardless of what network they are on, 

including FirstNet.’’ 

49. As FirstNet notes, this proceeding 

is focused on TSP and WPS, and the 

NPRM did not mention or seek 

comment on FirstNet. Nevertheless, in 

light of the comments filed on this 

issue, we believe it is appropriate to 

clarify the relationship between WPS 

and FirstNet. As stated above, the WPS 

rules only apply to service providers 

that voluntarily elect to participate in 

WPS. FirstNet is a separate program 

with distinct statutory authority to 

operate the Nationwide Public Safety 

Broadband Network and to offer 

prioritization to first responders. As 

such, the WPS rules do not apply to 

prioritization within the FirstNet 

network, and FirstNet is therefore not 

required to comply with the WPS rules 

in providing such prioritization to its 

public safety users. However, FirstNet 

may voluntarily elect to participate in 

WPS and, if it chooses to do so, like any 

other WPS participant, its participation 

must be in accordance with the WPS 

rules. Indeed, FirstNet states that it 

offers WPS capability to users that 

request it, and acknowledges that ‘‘[t]o 

the extent a FirstNet subscriber has the 

WPS feature enabled on their FirstNet 

service, the use of that WPS capability 

would be subject to the prevailing WPS 

rules.’’ 

50. Preemption and Degradation. The 

NPRM proposed to authorize 

preemption and degradation for Priority 

Level 1 and 2 voice calls, except for 

public safety emergency (911) calls. 

NTIA requested this clarification based 

on its view that ‘‘[c]urrent WPS rules do 

not permit NS/EP calls to preempt other 

in-progress calls.’’ NTIA asked that the 

Commission amend its rules because 

preemption and degradation are 

‘‘critical priority feature[s] that will 

enable the highest priority NS/EP users 

to communicate and coordinate’’ during 

emergency situations—when 

commercial networks are often the most 

congested.’’ We sought comment on 

NTIA’s requested rule change. 

51. The WPS rules currently permit 

re-ordering of queued (not-yetestablished) call requests based on user 

priority but do not provide for reordering of active (in-progress) calls. 

However, as several commenters point 

out, and as we recognized in the NPRM, 

the lack of explicit authorization does 

not preclude WPS providers from reordering active calls. We similarly find 

that preemption and degradation of 

active calls in support of WPS 

prioritization is not precluded by our 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39777 

rules. To the extent that these 

mechanisms are employed in WPS by 

common carriers subject to Title II, we 

clarify that they are not ‘‘unjust or 

unreasonable’’ practices that violate the 

non-discrimination provision of section 

202. To the extent that these 

mechanisms are used in support of 

NSEP communications outside the 

scope of Title II, they are legally 

permissible. Thus, while expressly 

authorizing priority and preemption in 

the rules may be legally unnecessary, 

we determine that explicit authorization 

will help ensure ‘‘consistent 

interpretation of the rules by WPS 

providers to the ultimate benefit of 

NSEP users.’’ 

52. AT&T expresses concern that 

authorizing preemption and degradation 

only in support of Priority Level 1 and 

2 voice calls might suggest that it is 

prohibited for other priority levels. We 

agree that preemption and degradation 

of lower-priority communications are 

permissible at all WPS priority levels. 

Therefore, we modify the NPRM 

proposed rule to expressly permit, 

voice, data, text, and video 

communications from NSEP users 

assigned to any priority level to preempt 

or degrade other in-progress 

communications, except for public 

safety emergency (911) 

communications. Likewise, we make 

clear that preemption and degradation 

are permitted but not required by our 

rules. We agree with commenters that 

issues related to preemption and 

degradation should be determined via 

contractual arrangements because such 

an approach will give WPS providers 

increased flexibility to update their 

service offerings and determine when 

and how to apply these capabilities. 

53. Priority Signaling. We adopt the 

NPRM proposal to update our WPS 

rules to expressly authorize priority 

signaling to ensure networks can detect 

WPS handset network registration and 

service invocation. Priority signaling is 

an important feature that allows service 

providers to mitigate the risks of 

signaling congestion by ensuring 

‘‘successful WPS handset network 

registration and service invocation.’’ 

While commenters correctly note that 

the Commission’s rules do not prohibit 

priority signaling and that some WPS 

providers already offer it via contractual 

arrangements with DHS, commenters do 

not raise any objections to explicitly 

authorizing priority signaling in our 

rules. We find that this rule change will 

promote clarity and consistency for 

providers and, therefore, adopt the rule 

change as proposed in the NPRM. 

54. Methods of Invocation. We adopt 

the NPRM proposal to eliminate the 

requirement that WPS priority access 

must be invoked on a per-call basis. 

Currently, authorized users invoke 

priority access on a per-call basis by 

dialing a specified feature code before 

each call. We agree with NTIA that 

requiring users to invoke WPS for each 

communication ‘‘hinder[s] efficient 

response’’ during emergency situations. 

Although AT&T argues for maintaining 

the current requirement in order to 

ensure that ‘‘WPS functions smoothly 

for calls that must be transmitted over 

multiple carrier networks,’’ we believe 

that DHS is in the best position to 

ensure interoperability between the 

various networks that carry prioritized 

communications. 

55. We also decline to prescribe other 

specific methods of WPS invocation in 

our rules. We agree with T-Mobile that 

methods of invocation should be 

determined by contractual arrangements 

because such an approach will ensure 

that all WPS providers are ‘‘afforded the 

same flexibility and treatment.’’ 

Commenters support this change 

because it provides greater flexibility for 

service providers to decide how to offer 

WPS services in the manner most 

suitable for their subscribers and 

networks. 

56. Reporting Requirements. We 

decline to amend our rules to require 

service providers to file 

implementation, usage, and 

performance data with DHS. According 

to NTIA, DHS currently collects and 

analyzes data from WPS providers 

detailing ‘‘usage, performance, 

implementation, and supporting 

infrastructure,’’ so that it can assess 

‘‘WPS readiness, usage, and 

performance at all times and all places 

offered, as well as for specific 

geographic areas and times. NTIA 

asserts that the requested rule change is 

necessary to ensure consistency across 

all WPS providers and to formalize the 

process by which providers submit WPS 

data to DHS. 

57. Commenters oppose NTIA’s 

requested rule change, arguing that new 

reporting requirements could inhibit 

providers’ flexibility and ability to 

innovate and duplicate existing 

reporting processes. Notably, the record 

includes minimal responses to those 

objections. Instead, commenters assert 

that DHS should obtain this information 

via contractual arrangement with WPS 

providers. Based on this record and 

consistent with our discussion above 

with respect to TSP reporting, we 

decline to adopt new WSP reporting 

requirements at this time and encourage 

further dialogue on this matter. 

D. Alternative Contract-Based Approach 

for TSP and WPS 

58. The NPRM sought comment on an 

alternative ‘‘light touch’’ approach, 

whereby the current rules for TSP and 

WPS would be eliminated and the 

programs would operate strictly via 

contractual arrangements between DHS 

and service providers. This approach 

would make TSP and WPS 

prioritization resemble GETS, which 

provides prioritization through the 

Public Switched Telephone Network for 

over 330,600 GETS card holders. 

Currently, there are no Commission 

rules for GETS, which operates solely 

via contractual arrangements with DHS. 

59. Most industry commenters prefer 

the ‘‘light touch’’ contractual approach 

to the current rules-based approach. TMobile disagrees, arguing that the 

Commission should ‘‘maintain a limited 

set of rules’’ for TSP and WPS. 

Likewise, CISA argues that eliminating 

the rules would remove the existing 

liability protections for prioritized nonbroadband services and, without such 

protection from liability, carriers would 

be unlikely to offer priority services. 

CISA also asserts that it currently has no 

basis on which to establish contractual 

arrangements with TSP providers. 

60. We decline to adopt a wholly 

contractual scheme for priority services. 

Although a contractual approach could 

provide some benefits, commenters 

have not identified fundamental 

problems or deficiencies in the existing 

rules-based approach. Overall, the 

record indicates that both TSP and WPS 

have functioned without major 

disruption and have expanded under 

the current approach. Given the critical 

role of the priority services programs in 

supporting the NSEP posture of the 

United States, we believe that 

continuing to have baseline rules for 

TSP and WPS will promote continuity 

and consistency in these programs. We 

agree with CISA that the rules provide 

important liability protections for 

service providers and that removing 

these protections could create 

uncertainty regarding liability that 

might discourage providers from 

participating in the programs. Further, a 

strictly contract-based approach could 

impose administrative and cost burdens 

on DHS by requiring it to make 

extensive programmatic changes. In 

sum, we conclude that the potential 

adverse impacts of implementing the 

alternative approach would outweigh 

the potential benefits. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
39778 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

IV. Procedural Matters 

A. Report to Congress 

61. The Commission will send a copy 

of the Report and Order, including this 

FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant 

to the Congressional Review Act. In 

addition, the Commission will send a 

copy of the Report and Order, including 

this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the 

Report and Order and FRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will also be 

published in the Federal Register. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

62. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, as amended (RFA), requires that 

an agency prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis for notice and 

comment rulemakings, unless the 

agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not, 

if promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.’’ Accordingly, 

the Commission has prepared a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

concerning the possible impact of the 

rule changes contained in this Report 

and Order on small entities. The FRFA 

is set forth in Appendix C of the Report 

and Order. 

V. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

63. 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 (NPRM) 

adopted in July 2020. The Commission 

sought written public comment on the 

proposals in the NPRM, including 

comment on the IRFA. No comments 

were filed addressing the IRFA. This 

present Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Final 

Rules 

64. In the Report and Order, the 

Commission updates and streamlines its 

priority services rules. These rules 

facilitate prioritized connectivity to 

National Security and Emergency 

Preparedness (NSEP) personnel during 

emergency situations by authorizing 

prioritized provisioning and restoration 

of communications facilities and 

prioritized network access for wireless 

communications. The priority services 

programs are used to ‘‘maintain a state 

of readiness [and] to respond to and 

manage any event or crisis . . . [that] 

degrades or threatens the NSEP posture 

of the United States.’’ 

65. The Commission takes this action 

because the priority services rules (the 

most recent of which were updated over 

two decades ago) need to be updated to 

account for changes in technology. The 

Commission’s current rules date back to 

the establishment of the 

Telecommunications Service Priority 

(TSP) System in 1988 and the creation 

of the Priority Access Service (PAS), 

more commonly referred to as Wireless 

Priority Service (WPS), in 2000. The 

Commission’s rules were originally 

developed when communications 

networks were primarily based on 

circuit-switched technologies. They do 

not address the advanced capabilities of 

internet Protocol (IP)-based 

communications that support data and 

voice services, or the ability of users at 

different priority levels to share network 

capacity and resources. 

66. The Commission also takes this 

action to address the requests from the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) through the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) to update the 

existing rules and requirements for the 

priority services programs. NTIA filed 

two Petitions for Rulemaking on behalf 

of DHS, requesting that the FCC update 

its TSP and Priority Access Service 

(PAS) rules to address changes in 

technology and evolving user needs for 

these programs. The NPRM sought 

comment on both NTIA petitions as 

well as on the Commission’s proposed 

rule changes. 

67. In the Report and Order, the 

Commission updates its priority 

services rules to reflect today’s 

marketplace and governance framework 

and to explicitly authorize the 

prioritization of next-generation 

technology. For example, the 

Commission removes outdated language 

that could cause confusion and 

otherwise impede the use of IP-based 

technologies to support the provision of 

priority services for voice, data, and 

video communications. The 

Commission also amends its priority 

service rules to reflect current 

administrative responsibilities for the 

priority services programs while 

eliminating burdensome and 

unnecessary requirements on service 

providers. The scope of the changes 

adopted in the Report and Order in 

some instances apply to both TSP and 

WPS, and in other instances apply only 

to TSP or only to WPS. These changes 

are intended to reduce regulatory 

burdens and make our rules flexible 

enough to respond to changing 

administrative requirements or 

technological advances related to the 

priority services programs. We also 

believe that these changes will 

substantially increase the benefits to 

NSEP users and public safety while 

reducing the regulatory costs imposed 

on providers of priority services. 

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Comments in Response to the IRFA 

68. There were no comments filed 

that specifically addressed the proposed 

rules and policies presented in the 

IRFA. 

C. Response to Comments by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration 

69. 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 Small 

Business Administration (SBA) and to 

provide a detailed statement of any 

change made to the proposed rules as a 

result of those comments. 

70. The Chief Counsel did not file any 

comments in response to the proposed 

rules in this proceeding. 

D. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rules Will Apply 

71. 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 ‘‘smallbusiness 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. 

72. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. 

The 700 MHz Guard Band encompasses 

spectrum in 746–747/776–777 MHz and 

762–764/792–794 MHz frequency 

bands. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest 

industry with a SBA small business size 

standard applicable to licenses 

providing services in these bands. The 

SBA small business 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 that operated 

in this industry for the entire year. Of 

this number, 2,837 firms employed 

fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under 

the SBA size standard, the Commission 

estimates that a majority of licensees in 

this industry can be considered small. 

73. According to Commission data as 

of December 2021, there were 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39779 

approximately 224 active 700 MHz 

Guard Band licenses. The Commission’s 

small business size standards with 

respect to 700 MHz Guard Band 

licensees involve eligibility for bidding 

credits and installment payments in the 

auction of licenses. For the auction of 

these licenses, the Commission defined 

a ‘‘small business’’ as an entity that, 

together with its affiliates and 

controlling principals, has average gross 

revenues not exceeding $40 million for 

the preceding three years, and a ‘‘very 

small business’’ an entity that, together 

with its affiliates and controlling 

principals, has average gross revenues 

that are not more than $15 million for 

the preceding three years. Pursuant to 

these definitions, five winning bidders 

claiming one of the small business 

status classifications won 26 licenses, 

and one winning bidder claiming small 

business won two licenses. None of the 

winning bidders claiming a small 

business status classification in these 

700 MHz Guard Band license auctions 

had an active license as of December 

2021. 

74. In frequency bands where licenses 

were subject to auction, the Commission 

notes that as a general matter, the 

number of winning bidders that qualify 

as small businesses at the close of an 

auction does not necessarily represent 

the number of small businesses 

currently in service. Further, the 

Commission does not generally track 

subsequent business size unless, in the 

context of assignments or transfers, 

unjust enrichment issues are implicated. 

Additionally, since the Commission 

does not collect data on the number of 

employees for licensees providing these 

services, at this time we are not able to 

estimate the number of licensees with 

active licenses that would qualify as 

small under the SBA’s small business 

size standard. 

75. Advanced Wireless Services 

(AWS)—(1710–1755 MHz and 2110– 

2155 MHz bands (AWS–1); 1915–1920 

MHz, 1995–2000 MHz, 2020–2025 MHz 

and 2175–2180 MHz bands (AWS–2); 

2155–2175 MHz band (AWS–3); 2000– 

2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz (AWS– 

4)). Spectrum is made available and 

licensed in these bands for the provision 

of various wireless communications 

services. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest 

industry with a SBA small business size 

standard applicable to these services. 

The SBA small business 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 that operated 

in this industry for the entire year. Of 

this number, 2,837 firms employed 

fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under 

the SBA size standard, the Commission 

estimates that a majority of licensees in 

this industry can be considered small. 

76. According to Commission data as 

December 2021, there were 

approximately 4,472 active AWS 

licenses. The Commission’s small 

business size standards with respect to 

AWS involve eligibility for bidding 

credits and installment payments in the 

auction of licenses for these services. 

For the auction of AWS licenses, the 

Commission defined a ‘‘small business’’ 

as an entity with average annual gross 

revenues for the preceding three years 

not exceeding $40 million, and a ‘‘very 

small business’’ as an entity with 

average annual gross revenues for the 

preceding three years not exceeding $15 

million. Pursuant to these definitions, 

57 winning bidders claiming status as 

small or very small businesses won 215 

of 1,087 licenses. In the most recent 

auction of AWS licenses 15 of 37 

bidders qualifying for status as small or 

very small businesses won licenses. 

77. In frequency bands where licenses 

were subject to auction, the Commission 

notes that as a general matter, the 

number of winning bidders that qualify 

as small businesses at the close of an 

auction does not necessarily represent 

the number of small businesses 

currently in service. Further, the 

Commission does not generally track 

subsequent business size unless, in the 

context of assignments or transfers, 

unjust enrichment issues are implicated. 

Additionally, since the Commission 

does not collect data on the number of 

employees for licensees providing these 

services, at this time we are not able to 

estimate the number of licensees with 

active licenses that would qualify as 

small under the SBA’s small business 

size standard. 

78. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission 

nor the SBA has developed a size 

standard for small businesses 

specifically applicable to local exchange 

services. Providers of these services 

include several types of competitive 

local exchange service providers. Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers is the 

closest industry with a SBA small 

business size standard. The SBA small 

business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers classifies 

firms having 1,500 or fewer employees 

as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2017 show that there were 3,054 firms 

that operated in this industry for the 

entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms 

operated with fewer than 250 

employees. Additionally, based on 

Commission data in the 2021 Universal 

Service Monitoring Report, as of 

December 31, 2020, there were 3,956 

providers that reported they were 

competitive local exchange service 

providers. Of these providers, the 

Commission estimates that 3,808 

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. 

79. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA have 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for incumbent 

local exchange carriers. Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers is the 

closest industry with a SBA small 

business size standard. The SBA small 

business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers classifies 

firms having 1,500 or fewer employees 

as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2017 show that there were 3,054 firms 

in this industry that operated for the 

entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms 

operated with fewer than 250 

employees. Additionally, based on 

Commission data in the 2021 Universal 

Service Monitoring Report, as of 

December 31, 2020, there were 1,227 

providers that reported they were 

incumbent local exchange service 

providers. Of these providers, the 

Commission estimates that 929 

providers have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, using the 

SBA’s small business size standard, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of incumbent local exchange carriers 

can be considered small entities. 

80. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. 

The lower 700 MHz band encompasses 

spectrum in the 698–746 MHz 

frequency bands. Permissible operations 

in these bands include flexible fixed, 

mobile, and broadcast uses, including 

mobile and other digital new broadcast 

operation; fixed and mobile wireless 

commercial services (including FDDand TDD-based services); as well as 

fixed and mobile wireless uses for 

private, internal radio needs, two-way 

interactive, cellular, and mobile 

television broadcasting services. 

Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 

(except Satellite) is the closest industry 

with a SBA small business size standard 

applicable to licenses providing services 

in these bands. The SBA small business 

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 that operated in this industry for 

the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 

firms employed fewer than 250 

employees. Thus, under the SBA size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
39780 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

a majority of licensees in this industry 

can be considered small. 

81. According to Commission data as 

of December 2021, there were 

approximately 2,824 active Lower 700 

MHz Band licenses. The Commission’s 

small business size standards with 

respect to Lower 700 MHz Band 

licensees involve eligibility for bidding 

credits and installment payments in the 

auction of licenses. For auctions of 

Lower 700 MHz Band licenses the 

Commission adopted criteria for three 

groups of small businesses. A very small 

business was defined as an entity that, 

together with its affiliates and 

controlling interests, has average annual 

gross revenues not exceeding $15 

million for the preceding three years, a 

small business was defined as an entity 

that, together with its affiliates and 

controlling interests, has average gross 

revenues not exceeding $40 million for 

the preceding three years, and an 

entrepreneur was defined as an entity 

that, together with its affiliates and 

controlling interests, has average gross 

revenues not exceeding $3 million for 

the preceding three years. In auctions 

for Lower 700 MHz Band licenses 

seventy-two winning bidders claiming a 

small business classification won 329 

licenses, 26 winning bidders claiming a 

small business classification won 214 

licenses, and three winning bidders 

claiming a small business classification 

won all five auctioned licenses. 

82. In frequency bands where licenses 

were subject to auction, the Commission 

notes that as a general matter, the 

number of winning bidders that qualify 

as small businesses at the close of an 

auction does not necessarily represent 

the number of small businesses 

currently in service. Further, the 

Commission does not generally track 

subsequent business size unless, in the 

context of assignments or transfers, 

unjust enrichment issues are implicated. 

Additionally, since the Commission 

does not collect data on the number of 

employees for licensees providing these 

services, at this time we are not able to 

estimate the number of licensees with 

active licenses that would qualify as 

small under the SBA’s small business 

size standard. 

83. Narrowband Personal 

Communications Services. Narrowband 

Personal Communications Services 

(Narrowband PCS) are PCS services 

operating in the 901–902 MHz, 930–931 

MHz, and 940–941 MHz bands. PCS 

services are radio communications that 

encompass mobile and ancillary fixed 

communication that provide services to 

individuals and businesses and can be 

integrated with a variety of competing 

networks. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest 

industry with a SBA small business size 

standard applicable to these services. 

The SBA small business 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 that operated 

in this industry for the entire year. Of 

this number, 2,837 firms employed 

fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under 

the SBA size standard, the Commission 

estimates that a majority of licensees in 

this industry can be considered small. 

84. According to Commission data as 

of December 2021, there were 

approximately 4,211 active Narrowband 

PCS licenses. The Commission’s small 

business size standards with respect to 

Narrowband PCS involve eligibility for 

bidding credits and installment 

payments in the auction of licenses for 

these services. For the auction of these 

licenses, the Commission defined a 

‘‘small business’’ as an entity that, 

together with affiliates and controlling 

interests, has average gross revenues for 

the three preceding years of not more 

than $40 million. A ‘‘very small 

business’’ is defined as an entity that, 

together with affiliates and controlling 

interests, has average gross revenues for 

the three preceding years of not more 

than $15 million. Pursuant to these 

definitions, seven winning bidders 

claiming small and very small bidding 

credits won approximately 359 licenses. 

One of the winning bidders claiming a 

small business status classification in 

these Narrowband PCS license auctions 

had an active license as of December 

2021. 

85. In frequency bands where licenses 

were subject to auction, the Commission 

notes that as a general matter, the 

number of winning bidders that qualify 

as small businesses at the close of an 

auction does not necessarily represent 

the number of small businesses 

currently in service. Further, the 

Commission does not generally track 

subsequent business size unless, in the 

context of assignments or transfers, 

unjust enrichment issues are implicated. 

Additionally, since the Commission 

does not collect data on the number of 

employees for licensees providing these 

services, at this time we are not able to 

estimate the number of licensees with 

active licenses that would qualify as 

small under the SBA’s small business 

size standard. 

86. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. 

This service operates on several UHF 

television broadcast channels that are 

not used for television broadcasting in 

the coastal areas of states bordering the 

Gulf of Mexico. Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite) is the closest industry with a 

SBA small business size standard 

applicable to this service. The SBA 

small business 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 that operated in 

this industry for the entire year. Of this 

number, 2,837 firms employed fewer 

than 250 employees. Thus, under the 

SBA size standard, the Commission 

estimates that a majority of licensees in 

this industry can be considered small. 

Additionally, based on Commission 

data, as of December 2021, there was 

one licensee with an active license in 

this service. However, since the 

Commission does not collect data on the 

number of employees for this service, at 

this time we are not able to estimate the 

number of licensees that would qualify 

as small under the SBA’s small business 

size standard. 

87. Rural Radiotelephone Service. 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

have developed a small business size 

standard specifically for small 

businesses providing Rural 

Radiotelephone Service. Rural 

Radiotelephone Service is radio service 

in which licensees are authorized to 

offer and provide radio 

telecommunication services for hire to 

subscribers in areas where it is not 

feasible to provide communication 

services by wire or other means. A 

significant subset of the Rural 

Radiotelephone Service is the Basic 

Exchange Telephone Radio System 

(BETRS). Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite), is the closest 

applicable industry with a SBA small 

business size standard. The SBA small 

business size standard for Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite) classifies firms having 1,500 or 

fewer employees as small. For this 

industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2017 show that there were 2,893 firms 

that operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 

250 employees. Thus, under the SBA 

size standard, the Commission estimates 

that the majority of Rural 

Radiotelephone Services firm are small 

entities. Based on Commission data as 

of December 27, 2021, there were 

approximately 119 active licenses in the 

Rural Radiotelephone Service. The 

Commission does not collect 

employment data from these entities 

holding these licenses and therefore we 

cannot estimate how many of these 

entities meet the SBA small business 

size standard. 

88. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39781 

may affect small entities that are not 

easily categorized at present. We 

therefore describe here, 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 

Small Business Administration’s (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 32.5 million 

businesses. 

89. 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. 

90. 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 that 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, we 

estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall 

into the category of ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

91. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. 

The upper 700 MHz band encompasses 

spectrum in the 746–806 MHz bands. 

Upper 700 MHz D Block licenses are 

nationwide licenses associated with the 

758–763 MHz and 788–793 MHz bands. 

Permissible operations in these bands 

include flexible fixed, mobile, and 

broadcast uses, including mobile and 

other digital new broadcast operation; 

fixed and mobile wireless commercial 

services (including FDD- and TDDbased services); as well as fixed and 

mobile wireless uses for private, 

internal radio needs, two-way 

interactive, cellular, and mobile 

television broadcasting services. 

Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 

(except Satellite) is the closest industry 

with a SBA small business size standard 

applicable to licenses providing services 

in these bands. The SBA small business 

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 that operated in this industry for 

the entire year. Of that number, 2,837 

firms employed fewer than 250 

employees. Thus, under the SBA size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

a majority of licensees in this industry 

can be considered small. 

92. According to Commission data as 

of December 2021, there were 

approximately 152 active Upper 700 

MHz Band licenses. The Commission’s 

small business size standards with 

respect to Upper 700 MHz Band 

licensees involve eligibility for bidding 

credits and installment payments in the 

auction of licenses. For the auction of 

these licenses, the Commission defined 

a ‘‘small business’’ as an entity that, 

together with its affiliates and 

controlling principals, has average gross 

revenues not exceeding $40 million for 

the preceding three years, and a ‘‘very 

small business’’ an entity that, together 

with its affiliates and controlling 

principals, has average gross revenues 

that are not more than $15 million for 

the preceding three years. Pursuant to 

these definitions, three winning bidders 

claiming very small business status won 

five of the twelve available licenses. 

93. In frequency bands where licenses 

were subject to auction, the Commission 

notes that as a general matter, the 

number of winning bidders that qualify 

as small businesses at the close of an 

auction does not necessarily represent 

the number of small businesses 

currently in service. Further, the 

Commission does not generally track 

subsequent business size unless, in the 

context of assignments or transfers, 

unjust enrichment issues are implicated. 

Additionally, since the Commission 

does not collect data on the number of 

employees for licensees providing these 

services, at this time we are not able to 

estimate the number of licensees with 

active licenses that would qualify as 

small under the SBA’s small business 

size standard. 

94. Wireless Communications 

Services. Wireless Communications 

Services (WCS) can be used for a variety 

of fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and 

digital audio broadcasting satellite 

services. Wireless spectrum is made 

available and licensed for the provision 

of wireless communications services in 

several frequency bands subject to Part 

27 of the Commission’s rules. Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite) is the closest industry with a 

SBA small business size standard 

applicable to these services. The SBA 

small business 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 that operated in 

this industry for the entire year. Of this 

number, 2,837 firms employed fewer 

than 250 employees. Thus, under the 

SBA size standard, the Commission 

estimates that a majority of licensees in 

this industry can be considered small. 

95. The Commission’s small business 

size standards with respect to WCS 

involve eligibility for bidding credits 

and installment payments in the auction 

of licenses for the various frequency 

bands included in WCS. When bidding 

credits are adopted for the auction of 

licenses in WCS frequency bands, such 

credits may be available to several types 

of small businesses based average gross 

revenues (small, very small and 

entrepreneur) pursuant to the 

competitive bidding rules adopted in 

conjunction with the requirements for 

the auction and/or as identified in the 

designated entities section in Part 27 of 

the Commission’s rules for the specific 

WCS frequency bands. 

96. In frequency bands where licenses 

were subject to auction, the Commission 

notes that as a general matter, the 

number of winning bidders that qualify 

as small businesses at the close of an 

auction does not necessarily represent 

the number of small businesses 

currently in service. Further, the 

Commission does not generally track 

subsequent business size unless, in the 

context of assignments or transfers, 

unjust enrichment issues are implicated. 

Additionally, since the Commission 

does not collect data on the number of 

employees for licensees providing these 

services, at this time we are not able to 

estimate the number of licensees with 

active licenses that would qualify as 

small under the SBA’s small business 

size standard. 

97. Wireless Telephony. Wireless 

telephony includes cellular, personal 

communications services, and 

specialized mobile radio telephony 

carriers. The closest applicable industry 

with a SBA small business size standard 

is Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). The size 

standard for this industry under SBA 

rules is that a business is small if it has 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
39782 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

1,500 or fewer employees. For this 

industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2017 show that there were 2,893 firms 

that operated for the entire year. Of this 

number, 2,837 firms employed fewer 

than 250 employees. Additionally, 

based on Commission data in the 2021 

Universal Service Monitoring Report, as 

of December 31, 2020, there were 407 

providers that reported they were 

engaged in the provision of cellular, 

personal communications services, and 

specialized mobile radio services. Of 

these providers, the Commission 

estimates that 333 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. 

98. Wireless Resellers. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA have 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for Wireless 

Resellers. The closest industry with a 

SBA small business size standard is 

Telecommunications Resellers. The 

Telecommunications Resellers industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

purchasing access and network capacity 

from owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications and they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. Under the SBA size standard 

for this industry, a business is small if 

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

Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 

1,386 firms in this industry provided 

resale services during that year. Of that 

number, 1,375 firms operated with 

fewer than 250 employees. Thus, for 

this industry under the SBA small 

business size standard, the majority of 

providers can be considered small 

entities. 

99. 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 2021 

Universal Service Monitoring Report, as 

of December 31, 2020, there were 797 

providers that reported they were 

engaged in the provision of wireless 

services. Of these providers, the 

Commission estimates that 715 

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. 

100. 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. 

E. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

101. The rule changes adopted in the 

Report and Order will impose new and/ 

or modified reporting, recordkeeping, 

and other compliance obligations on 

some small entities and other providers. 

At this time, the Commission cannot 

quantify the cost of compliance or 

determine whether small entities will 

have to hire professional assistance to 

comply with the updated Priority 

Services Rules. However, because our 

approach to the rule changes adopted in 

this proceeding has been to take a 

flexible approach rather than adopting 

prescriptive rules and reporting 

requirements, we do not believe the 

compliance obligations for small entities 

will impose any significant costs or 

burdens. 

102. Telecommunications Service 

Priority. The Commission’s TSP rules 

require certain service providers to 

prioritize the provisioning and 

restoration of communications facilities 

to ‘‘ensure effective NSEP 

telecommunication services.’’ The TSP 

rules apply, on a mandatory basis, to 

common carrier services and ‘‘services 

which are provided by government and/ 

or non-common carriers and are 

interconnected to common carrier 

services.’’ Offering TSP is mandatory for 

wireline telecommunications providers, 

regardless of size. All service providers 

that are requested to provide NSEP 

prioritization which is paid for by the 

user not the provider, must offer it. 

Service providers that offer these 

services must also ‘‘maintain and 

provision and, if disrupted, restore 

facilities and services’’ in accordance 

with the prioritization levels outlined in 

the TSP rules. 

103. Under the amended rules 

adopted in the Report and Order, small 

entities and other service providers that 

offer NSEP priority service must: (1) 

promptly, which we define as ‘‘without 

delay’’, provide NSEP service when 

requested, at the priority level 

contracted for; (2) restore NSEP services 

which suffer outage or are reported as 

unusable or otherwise in need of 

restoration, before non-NSEP services, 

based on restoration priority level 

assignments; (3) respond to NSEP 

provisioning requests of authorized 

users and/or other service providers, 

and (4) cooperate with other service 

providers involved in provisioning or 

restoring a portion of an NSEP service 

by honoring provisioning or restoration 

priority level assignments. 

104. Small entities and other services 

providers are also subject to enhanced 

data protection requirements to prevent 

the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive 

information relating to TSP circuits. The 

rules we adopt in the Report and Order 

require small entities and other service 

providers to take all reasonable efforts to 

secure the confidentiality of TSP 

information that they maintain from 

unauthorized disclosure. Such efforts 

include storing this information in a 

location and with security safeguards 

that are reasonably designed to protect 

against lawful or unlawful disclosure to 

company employees or service 

providers without a legitimate need for 

this information, or other entities to 

which the disclosure of this information 

would pose a threat to the national 

security of the United States. Service 

providers are required to immediately 

report any attempts that are made to 

compel the disclosure of this 

information to the Commission and 

DHS and to coordinate with the FCC 

and DHS prior to such disclosure. In 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39783 

emergency situations where providing 

prior notice is impracticable, service 

providers are required notify the FCC 

and DHS as soon as possible, but no 

later than 48 hours after such 

disclosure, and should an explanation 

why prior notice was not practicable 

when such notice is provided. 

105. Requiring providers to take 

reasonable efforts will allow providers 

greater flexibility to manage their 

networks while respecting the 

confidentiality of this data. We believe 

a reasonableness test that accounts for 

the sensitivity of the data is preferable 

to prescriptive rules. We also believe 

that while small entities and other 

providers will incur costs for our 

enhanced TSP data protection rules, 

these costs will be minimal and the 

benefits to national security will far 

exceed the costs that service providers 

may incur as a result of these 

requirements. 

106. Wireless Priority Service. Small 

and other wireless service providers are 

not required to offer WPS. The 

Commission’s WPS rules permit, but do 

not require providers to offer mobile 

wireless priority services. Providers that 

offer WPS, offer the service pursuant to 

contractual arrangements with service 

users who like TSP users pay for the 

service and equipment costs. Providers 

that offer WPS, must also abide by the 

WPS rules promulgated by the 

Commission. Wireless service providers 

offering WPS must offer Priority Levels 

1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. Priority Level 1 

communications which are those made 

by the President of the United States, as 

well as certain other executive leaders 

and policymakers must be given the 

highest priority by WPS providers in 

relation to all other carrier-provided 

services. 

F. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

107. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant specifically 

small business alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its approach, 

which may include the following four 

alternatives (among others): (1) the 

establishment of differing compliance or 

reporting requirements or timetables 

that take into account the resources 

available to small entities; (2) the 

clarification, consolidation, or 

simplification of compliance or 

reporting requirements under the rule 

for such small entities; (3) the use of 

performance, rather than design, 

standards, and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for such small entities. 

108. In the Report and Order, the 

Commission removed existing 

regulatory burdens, and declined to 

adopt several of the actions requested by 

NTIA, and in comments in response to 

the NPRM, that would have 

significantly increased the economic 

burden on small entities. As a 

preliminary matter, in updating and 

streamlining its priority services rules 

with adoption of rules applying to both 

TSP and WPS (e.g., updating the 

Commission’s responsibilities for the 

priority services programs and clarifying 

that service providers are authorized to 

offer prioritization of next-generation 

services and technologies, including IPbased voice, data, and video 

communications), the Commission 

created greater efficiencies by 

combining rules applicable to both TSP 

and WPS service providers to the extent 

that it was possible. The Commission 

believes creating this greater efficiency 

could lower compliance costs for small 

entities. 

109. The Commission’s approach in 

this proceeding was to provide small 

entities and other service providers 

flexibility, evidenced for example by its 

adoption of the reasonableness test 

requiring service providers to take all 

reasonable efforts to protect the 

confidentiality of TSP data, rather than 

imposing prescriptive requirements on 

small entities and other service 

providers which could have increased 

their compliance costs. The Commission 

also considered but ultimately did not 

adopt recordkeeping and reporting rules 

that would have place a significant 

financial burden on small entities. 

Specifically, if adopted the proposed 

rules would have created additional 

reporting burdens on by requiring NSEP 

service providers (both TSP and WPS) 

to report to DHS provisioning and 

restoration times for TSP circuits in 

areas covered by the activation of the 

Disaster Information Reporting System 

(DIRS), and to aggregate data that would 

allow DHS to compare the data for TSP 

and WPS services to similar data for 

non-TSP and non-WPS services. Instead 

of ultimately adopting this proposal, the 

Commission suggested that DHS enter 

into voluntary contractual arrangements 

with NSEP service providers, including 

small entities, to acquire the necessary 

data and information. The Commission 

believes the potential benefit of such 

reporting requirements was outweighed 

by questions of cost, efficacy, and the 

utility of these requirements, and 

therefore declined to adopt these 

provisions in the final rules. 

110. The Commission also declined to 

adopt an alternative approach to the 

TSP and WPS requirements which 

would have had the Commission 

essentially completely remove itself 

from the priority services field—the 

‘‘GETS model’’ approach. This approach 

would make TSP and WPS 

prioritization resemble the whollycontractual Government Emergency 

Telecommunications Service (GETS). 

The GETS program, for which the 

Commission does not have rules, 

provides prioritization through the 

Public Switched Telephone Network for 

over 330,600 GETS card holders and 

operates solely via contractual 

arrangements with DHS. Because of the 

critical role of the priority services 

programs in supporting the NSEP 

posture of the United States, the 

Commission believes that NSEP rules 

remain necessary to establish baseline 

standards for these programs. The 

Commission notes that eliminating the 

rules would remove the liability 

protections for service providers which 

could discourage small entities and 

other service providers from 

participating in the programs. The 

Commission also notes that the 

elimination of the TSP rules would end 

the mandatory nature of the program for 

common carriers, thereby making 

participation in TSP completely 

voluntary for all service providers, 

which we find is not in the public 

interest. Accordingly, the Commission 

did not adopt this proposed approach. 

VI. Ordering Clauses 

111. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(n), 201–205, 

251(e)(3), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 

303(r), 307, 308(a), 309(a), 309(j), 316, 

332, 403, 615(a)(1), 615(c), and 706 of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, codified at 47 U.S.C. 151, 

154(i)–(j) & (n), 201–205, 251(e)(3), 254, 

301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 308(a), 

309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 606, 

615(a)(1), 615(c); and Executive Order 

13618, this Report and Order is 

adopted. 

112. It is further ordered that part 64 

of the Commission’s rules is amended, 

as set forth in Appendix A and 

Appendix B, effective thirty (30) days 

after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

113. It is further ordered that the 

Office of the Managing Director, 

Performance Evaluation and Records 

Management, shall send a copy of this 

Report & Order 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). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
39784 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 

Communications, Communications 

common carriers, Communications 

equipment, Computer technology, 

Emergency preparedness, internet, 

Priority access, Priority services, 

Provisioning, Radio, Restoration, 

Telecommunications, Telephone. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as 

follows: 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 64 

continues 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. 

■ 2. Revise § 64.402 to read as follows: 

§ 64.402 Policies and procedures for the 

provision of Wireless Priority Service by 

wireless service providers. 

Wireless service providers that elect 

to provide Wireless Priority Service to 

National Security and Emergency 

Preparedness personnel shall provide 

Wireless Priority Service in accordance 

with the policies and procedures set 

forth in appendix B to this part. 

■ 3. Revise appendix A to part 64 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 64— 

Telecommunications Service Priority 

(TSP) System for National Security 

Emergency Preparedness (NSEP) 

1. Purpose and Authority 

a. This appendix establishes rules, policies, 

and procedures and outlines responsibilities 

for the National Security Emergency 

Preparedness (NSEP) Telecommunications 

Service Priority (TSP) System. The NSEP TSP 

System authorizes priority treatment to 

certain telecommunications services and 

internet Protocol-based services, including 

voice, data, and video services, for which 

provisioning or restoration priority levels are 

requested, assigned, and approved in 

accordance with this appendix. 

b. This appendix is issued pursuant to 

sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(n), 201–205, 251(e)(3), 

254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 308(a), 

309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a–1, 615c, 

and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, codified at 47 U.S.C. 151, 

154(i)–(j), (n), 201–205, 251(e)(3), 254, 301, 

303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 308(a), 309(a), 

309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a–1, 615c, 606; and 

Executive Order 13618. These authorities 

grant to the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) the authority over the 

assignment and approval of priorities for 

provisioning and restoration of 

telecommunications services and internet 

Protocol-based services (NSEP services). 

Under section 706 of the Communications 

Act, this authority may be superseded, and 

the mandatory provisions of this section may 

be expanded to include non-common carrier 

telecommunications services, by the war 

emergency powers of the President of the 

United States. 

c. This appendix establishes rules for 

provisioning and restoration of NSEP 

services both before and after invocation of 

the President’s war emergency powers. The 

rules, regulations, and procedures outlined in 

this appendix must be applied on a day-today basis to all NSEP services that are 

eligible for TSP so that the priorities they 

establish can be implemented when the need 

arises. 

2. Definitions 

As used in this appendix: 

a. Assignment means the designation of 

priority level(s) for a defined NSEP 

telecommunications service or internet 

Protocol-based service for a specified time 

period. 

b. Audit means a quality assurance review 

in response to identified problems. 

c. Government refers to the Federal 

government or any foreign, state, county, 

municipal or other local government agency 

or organization. Specific qualifications will 

be supplied whenever reference to a 

particular level of government is intended 

(e.g., ‘‘Federal government,’’ ‘‘state 

government’’). ‘‘Foreign government’’ means 

any sovereign empire, kingdom, state, or 

independent political community, including 

foreign diplomatic and consular 

establishments and coalitions or associations 

of governments (e.g., North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (NATO), Southeast Asian 

Treaty Organization (SEATO), Organization 

of American States (OAS), and government 

agencies or organization (e.g., Pan American 

Union, International Postal Union, and 

International Monetary Fund)). 

d. Internet Protocol-based services refers to 

services and applications that feature digital 

communications capabilities and which 

generally use the internet Protocol. 

e. Invocation Official refers to an 

individual who (1) understands how the 

requested service ties to the organization’s 

NSEP mission; (2) is authorized to approve 

the expenditure of funds necessary for the 

requested service; and (3) has operational 

responsibilities for telecommunications 

procurement and/or management within the 

organization. 

f. National Coordinating Center for 

Communications (NCC) refers to the joint 

telecommunications industry-Federal 

government operation that assists in the 

initiation, coordination, restoration, and 

reconstitution of NSEP telecommunications 

services or facilities. 

g. National Security Emergency 

Preparedness (NSEP) services, or ‘‘NSEP 

services,’’ means telecommunications 

services or internet Protocol-based services 

which are used to maintain a state of 

readiness or to respond to and manage any 

event or crisis (local, national, or 

international), which causes or could cause 

injury or harm to the population, damage to 

or loss of property, or degrades or threatens 

the NSEP posture of the United States. These 

services fall into two specific categories, 

Emergency NSEP and Essential NSEP, and 

are assigned priority levels pursuant to 

section 8 of this appendix. 

h. NSEP treatment refers to the 

provisioning of a specific NSEP service 

before others based on the provisioning 

priority level assigned by DHS. 

i. Priority action means assignment, 

revision, revocation, or revalidation by DHS 

of a priority level associated with an NSEP 

service. 

j. Priority level means the level that may 

be assigned to an NSEP service specifying the 

order in which provisioning or restoration of 

the service is to occur relative to other NSEP 

and/or non-NSEP telecommunications 

services. Priority levels authorized by this 

appendix are designated highest to lowest: E, 

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, for provisioning and 1, 2, 

3, 4, and 5, for restoration. 

k. Priority level assignment means the 

priority level(s) designated for the 

provisioning and/or restoration of a specific 

NSEP service under section 8 of this 

appendix. 

l. Private NSEP services include noncommon carrier telecommunications 

services. 

m. Promptly means without delay. 

n. Provisioning means the act of supplying 

service to a user, including all associated 

transmission, wiring, and equipment. As 

used herein, ‘‘provisioning’’ and ‘‘initiation’’ 

are synonymous and include altering the 

state of an existing priority service or 

capability. 

o. Public switched NSEP services include 

those NSEP services using public switched 

networks. 

p. Reconciliation means the comparison of 

NSEP service information and the resolution 

of identified discrepancies. 

q. Restoration means the repair or 

returning to service of one or more services 

that have experienced a service outage or are 

unusable for any reason, including a 

damaged or impaired facility. Such repair or 

returning to service may be done by patching, 

rerouting, substitution of component parts or 

pathways, and other means, as determined 

necessary by a service provider. 

r. Revalidation means the re-justification 

by a service user of a priority level 

assignment. This may result in extension by 

DHS of the expiration date associated with 

the priority level assignment. 

s. Revision means the change of priority 

level assignment for an NSEP service. This 

includes any extension of an existing priority 

level assignment to an expanded NSEP 

service. 

t. Revocation means the elimination of a 

priority level assignment when it is no longer 

valid. All priority level assignments for an 

NSEP service are revoked upon service 

termination. 

u. Service identification refers to the 

information uniquely identifying an NSEP 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39785 

service to the service provider and/or service 

user. 

v. Service user refers to any individual or 

organization (including a service provider) 

supported by an NSEP service for which a 

priority level has been requested or assigned 

pursuant to section 7 or 8 of this appendix. 

w. Service provider refers to a provider of 

telecommunications services or internet 

Protocol-based services. The term includes 

resale carriers, prime contractors, 

subcontractors, and interconnecting carriers. 

x. Spare circuits or services refers to those 

not being used or contracted for by any 

customer. 

y. Sponsoring Federal organization refers 

to a Federal agency that determines eligibility 

for participation in the TSP Program for nonFederal (state, local, tribal, and foreign 

governments and private sector) 

organizations. A sponsor can be any Federal 

agency with which a non-Federal user may 

be affiliated. The sponsoring Federal agency 

ensures the service supports an NSEP 

function and merits TSP participation. 

z. Telecommunications services means the 

offering of telecommunications for a fee 

directly to the public, or to such classes of 

users as to be effectively available directly to 

the public, regardless of the facilities used. 

3. Scope 

a. Service providers. 

(1) This appendix applies to the provision 

and restoration of certain 

telecommunications services or internet 

Protocol-based services for which priority 

levels are requested, assigned, and approved 

pursuant to section 8 of this appendix. 

(2) Common carriers and providers of any 

services that are interconnected to common 

carrier services must offer prioritized 

provisioning and restoration of circuitswitched voice communication services. Any 

service provider may, on a voluntary basis, 

offer prioritized provisioning and restoration 

of data, video, and IP-based voice services. 

b. Eligible services. The NSEP TSP System 

and procedures established by this appendix 

authorize priority treatment to the following 

domestic services (including portions of U.S. 

international services offered by U.S. service 

providers) for which provisioning or 

restoration priority levels are requested, 

assigned, and approved in accordance with 

this appendix: 

(1) Common carrier services which are: 

(a) Interstate or foreign 

telecommunications services, 

(b) Intrastate telecommunications services 

inseparable from interstate or foreign 

telecommunications services, and intrastate 

telecommunications services to which 

priority levels are assigned pursuant to 

section 8 of this appendix. 

(2) Services which are provided by 

government and/or non-common carriers and 

are interconnected to common carrier 

services assigned a priority level pursuant to 

section 8 of this appendix. 

c. Control services and orderwires. The 

NSEP TSP System and procedures 

established by this appendix are not 

applicable to authorize priority treatment to 

control services or orderwires owned by a 

service provider and needed for provisioning, 

restoration, or maintenance of other services 

owned by that service provider, e.g., the 

signaling path(s) or control plane services 

used by a service provider’s technical staff to 

control, coordinate, and direct network 

operations. Such control services and 

orderwires shall have priority provisioning 

and restoration over all other services 

(including NSEP services) and shall be 

exempt from preemption. However, the NSEP 

TSP System and procedures established by 

this appendix are applicable to control 

services or orderwires leased by a service 

provider. 

d. Other services. The NSEP TSP System 

may apply, at the discretion of and upon 

special arrangements by service users 

involved, to authorize priority treatment to 

the following services: 

(1) Government or non-common carrier 

services which are not connected to common 

carrier provided services assigned a priority 

level pursuant to section 8 of this appendix. 

(2) Portions of U.S. international services 

which are provided by foreign 

correspondents. (U.S. service providers are 

encouraged to ensure that relevant operating 

arrangements are consistent to the maximum 

extent practicable with the NSEP TSP 

System. If such arrangements do not exist, 

U.S. service providers should handle service 

provisioning and/or restoration in 

accordance with any system acceptable to 

their foreign correspondents which comes 

closest to meeting the procedures established 

in this appendix.) 

4. Policy 

The NSEP TSP System is the regulatory, 

administrative, and operational system 

authorizing and providing for priority 

treatment, i.e., provisioning and restoration, 

of NSEP services. As such, it establishes the 

framework for service providers to provision, 

restore, or otherwise act on a priority basis 

to ensure effective NSEP services. The NSEP 

TSP System allows the assignment of priority 

levels to any NSEP service across three time 

periods, or stress conditions: Peacetime/ 

Crisis/Mobilizations, Attack/War, and PostAttack/Recovery. Although priority levels 

normally will be assigned by DHS and 

retained by service providers only for the 

current time period, they may be preassigned 

for the other two time periods at the request 

of service users who are able to identify and 

justify in advance, their wartime or postattack NSEP requirements. Absent such 

preassigned priority levels for the Attack/War 

and Post-Attack/Recovery periods, priority 

level assignments for the Peacetime/Crisis/ 

Mobilization period will remain in effect. At 

all times, priority level assignments will be 

subject to revision by the FCC or (on an 

interim basis) DHS, based upon changing 

NSEP needs. No other system of service 

priorities which conflicts with the NSEP TSP 

System is authorized by this appendix. 

5. Responsibilities 

a. The FCC: 

(1) Provides regulatory oversight of the 

NSEP TSP System. 

(2) Enforces NSEP TSP System rules and 

regulations which are contained in this 

appendix. 

(3) Performs such functions as are required 

by law, including: 

(a) with respect to all entities licensed or 

regulated by the FCC: the extension of or 

change in network facilities; the 

discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of 

interstate services; the control of common 

carrier rates, charges, practices, and 

classifications; the construction, 

authorization, activation, deactivation, or 

closing of radio stations, services, and 

facilities; the assignment of radio frequencies 

to licensees; the investigation of violations of 

FCC rules; and the assessment of 

communications service provider emergency 

needs and resources; and 

(b) supports the continuous operation and 

restoration of critical communications 

systems and services by assisting the 

Secretary of Homeland Security with 

infrastructure damage assessment and 

restoration, and by providing the Secretary of 

Homeland Security with information 

collected by the FCC on communications 

infrastructure, service outages, and 

restoration, as appropriate. 

(4) Functions (on a discretionary basis) as 

a sponsoring Federal organization. (See 

section 5.b below.) 

b. Sponsoring Federal organizations: 

(1) Review and decide whether to sponsor 

foreign, state, and local government and 

private industry (including service providers) 

requests for priority actions. Federal 

organizations forward sponsored requests 

with recommendations for disposition to 

DHS. Such recommendations are based on 

the categories and criteria in section 10 of 

this appendix. 

(2) Forward notification of priority actions 

or denials of requests for priority actions 

from DHS to the requesting foreign, state, and 

local government and private industry 

entities. 

(3) Cooperate with DHS during 

reconciliation, revalidation, and audits. 

c. Service users: 

(1) Identify services requiring priority level 

assignments and request and justify priority 

level assignments in accordance with this 

appendix. 

(2) Request and justify revalidation of all 

priority level assignments at least every three 

years. 

(3) For services assigned priority levels, 

ensure (through contractual means or 

otherwise) availability of customer premises 

equipment and wiring necessary for end-toend service operation by the service due date, 

and continued operation; and, for such 

services in the Emergency NSEP category, by 

the time that providers are prepared to 

provide the services. Additionally, designate 

the organization responsible for the service 

on an end-to-end basis. 

(4) Prepare to accept services assigned 

priority levels by the service due dates or, for 

services in the Emergency NSEP category, 

when they are available. 

(5) Pay providers any authorized costs 

associated with services that are assigned 

priority levels. 

(6) Report to providers any failed or 

unusable services that are assigned priority 

levels. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
39786 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(7) Designate a 24-hour point-of-contact for 

matters concerning each request for priority 

action and apprise DHS thereof. 

(8) Upon termination of services that are 

assigned priority levels, or circumstances 

warranting revisions in priority level 

assignment (e.g., expansion of service), 

request and justify revocation or revision. 

(9) When NSEP treatment is invoked under 

section 8(c) of this appendix, within 90 days 

following provisioning of the service 

involved, forward to the Priority Services 

Program Office complete information 

identifying the time and event associated 

with the invocation and regarding whether 

the NSEP service requirement was 

adequately handled and whether any 

additional charges were incurred. 

(10) Cooperate with DHS during 

reconciliation, revalidation, and audits. 

(11) Comply with DHS policies and 

procedures that are consistent with this 

appendix. 

d. Non-federal service users, in addition to 

responsibilities described above in section 

5.c, obtain a sponsoring Federal organization 

for all requests for priority actions. If unable 

to find a sponsoring Federal organization, a 

non-federal service user may submit its 

request, which must include documentation 

of attempts made to obtain a sponsor and 

reasons given by the sponsor for its refusal, 

directly to DHS. 

e. Service providers: 

(1) When NSEP treatment is invoked by 

service users, provision NSEP services before 

non-NSEP services, based on priority level 

assignments made by DHS. Service providers 

must: 

(a) Promptly provide NSEP services. When 

limited resources constrain response 

capability, providers will address conflicts 

for resources by: 

(i) Providing NSEP services in order of 

provisioning priority level assignment, from 

highest (‘‘E’’) to lowest (‘‘5’’); 

(ii) Providing Emergency NSEP services 

(i.e., those assigned provisioning priority 

level ‘‘E’’) in order of receipt of the service 

requests; 

(iii) Providing Essential NSEP services that 

have the same provisioning priority level in 

order of service due dates; and 

(iv) Referring any conflicts which cannot 

be resolved (to the mutual satisfaction of 

service providers and users) to DHS for 

resolution. 

(b) Comply with NSEP service requests by: 

(i) Promptly providing Emergency NSEP 

services, dispatching outside normal 

business hours when necessary; 

(ii) Promptly meeting requested service 

dates for Essential NSEP services, negotiating 

a mutually (authorized user and provider) 

acceptable service due date when the 

requested service due date cannot be met; 

and 

(2) Restore NSEP services which suffer 

outage or are reported as unusable or 

otherwise in need of restoration, before nonNSEP services, based on restoration priority 

level assignments. (Note: For broadband or 

multiple service facilities, restoration is 

permitted even though it might result in 

restoration of services assigned to lower 

priority levels along with, or sometimes 

ahead of, some higher priority level services.) 

Restoration will require service providers to 

restore NSEP services in order of restoration 

priority level assignment’’) by: 

(a) Promptly restoring NSEP services by 

dispatching outside normal business hours to 

restore services assigned Priority Level 1, 2, 

or 3, when necessary, and services assigned 

Priority Level 4 or 5 when the next business 

day is more than 24 hours away; 

(b) Restoring NSEP services assigned the 

same restoration priority level based upon 

which service can be first restored. (However, 

restoration actions in progress should not 

normally be interrupted to restore another 

NSEP service assigned the same restoration 

priority level); 

(c) Patching and/or rerouting NSEP 

services assigned restoration priority levels 

when use of patching and/or rerouting will 

hasten restoration; and 

(d) Referring any conflicts which cannot be 

resolved (to the mutual satisfaction of service 

providers and users) to DHS for resolution. 

(3) Respond to provisioning requests of 

authorized users and/or other service 

providers, and to restoration priority level 

assignments when an NSEP service suffers an 

outage or is reported as unusable, by: 

(a) Ensuring that provider personnel 

understand their responsibilities to handle 

NSEP provisioning requests and to restore 

NSEP service; 

(b) Providing a 24-hour point-of-contact for 

receiving provisioning requests for 

Emergency NSEP services and reports of 

NSEP service outages or unusability; and 

(c) Seeking verification from an authorized 

entity if legitimacy of a priority level 

assignment or provisioning request for an 

NSEP service is in doubt. However, 

processing of Emergency NSEP service 

requests will not be delayed for verification 

purposes. 

(4) Cooperate with other service providers 

involved in provisioning or restoring a 

portion of an NSEP service by honoring 

provisioning or restoration priority level 

assignments, or requests for assistance to 

provision or restore NSEP services. 

(5) All service providers, including resale 

carriers, are required to ensure that service 

providers supplying underlying facilities are 

provided information necessary to 

implement priority treatment of facilities that 

support NSEP services. 

(6) Preempt, when necessary, existing 

services to provide an NSEP service as 

authorized in section 6 of this appendix. 

(7) Assist in ensuring that priority level 

assignments of NSEP services are accurately 

identified ‘‘end-to-end’’ by: 

(a) Seeking verification from an authorized 

Federal government entity if the legitimacy of 

the restoration priority level assignment is in 

doubt; 

(b) Providing to subcontractors and/or 

interconnecting carriers the restoration 

priority level assigned to a service; 

(c) Supplying, to DHS, when acting as a 

prime contractor to a service user, 

confirmation information regarding NSEP 

service completion for that portion of the 

service they have contracted to supply; 

(d) Supplying, to DHS, NSEP service 

information for the purpose of reconciliation; 

(e) Cooperating with DHS during 

reconciliation; and 

(f) Periodically initiating reconciliation 

with their subcontractors and arranging for 

subsequent subcontractors to cooperate in the 

reconciliation process. 

(8) Receive compensation for costs 

authorized through tariffs or contracts by: 

(a) Provisions contained in properly filed 

state or Federal tariffs; or 

(b) Provisions of properly negotiated 

contracts where the carrier is not required to 

file tariffs. 

(9) Provision or restore only the portions of 

services for which they have agreed to be 

responsible (i.e., have contracted to supply), 

unless the President’s war emergency powers 

under section 706 of the Communications 

Act are in effect. 

(10) Cooperate with DHS during audits. 

(11) Comply with DHS policies or 

procedures that are consistent with this 

appendix. 

(12) Ensure that at all times a reasonable 

number of public switched network services 

are made available for public use. 

(13) Do not disclose information 

concerning NSEP services they provide to 

those not having a need-to-know or that 

might use the information for competitive 

advantage. 

(14) Take all reasonable efforts to secure 

the confidentiality of TSP information from 

unauthorized disclosure, including by storing 

such information in a location and with 

security safeguards that are reasonably 

designed to protect against lawful or 

unlawful disclosure to company employees 

or service providers without a legitimate 

need for this information, or other entities to 

which the disclosure of this information 

would pose a threat to the national security 

of the United States. Service providers will 

immediately notify the FCC and DHS of any 

attempt to compel the disclosure of this 

information and will coordinate with the 

FCC and DHS prior to such disclosure. In 

emergency situations where prior notice is 

impracticable, service providers will notify 

the FCC and DHS as soon as possible, but no 

later than 48 hours after such disclosure, and 

should accompany such notice with an 

explanation why prior notice was not 

practicable. 

(15) Comply with all relevant Commission 

rules regarding TSP. 

6. Preemption of Existing Services 

When necessary to provision or restore 

NSEP services, service providers may 

preempt services they provide as specified 

below. ‘‘Service user’’ as used in this section 

means any user of a telecommunications 

service or internet Protocol-based service, 

including both NSEP and non-NSEP services. 

Prior consent by a preempted user is not 

required. 

a. Existing services may be preempted to 

provision NSEP services assigned Priority 

Level E or restore NSEP services assigned 

Priority Level 1 through 5 according to the 

following sequence: 

(1) Non-NSEP services: If suitable spare 

services are not available, non-NSEP services 

will be preempted. After ensuring a sufficient 

number of public switched services are 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39787 

available for public use, based on the service 

provider’s best judgment, such services may 

be used to satisfy a requirement for 

provisioning or restoring NSEP services. 

(2) NSEP services: If no suitable spare 

services or non-NSEP services are available, 

existing NSEP services may be preempted to 

provision or restore NSEP services with 

higher priority level assignments. When this 

is necessary, NSEP services will be selected 

for preemption in the inverse order of 

priority level assignment. 

(3) Service providers who are preempting 

services will ensure their best effort to notify 

the service user of the preempted service and 

state the reason for and estimated duration of 

the preemption. 

b. Service providers may, based on their 

best judgment, determine the sequence in 

which existing services may be preempted to 

provision NSEP services assigned Priority 

Level 1 through 5. Preemption is not subject 

to the consent of the user whose service will 

be preempted. 

7. Requests for Priority Assignments 

All service users are required to submit 

requests for priority assignments to DHS in 

the format and following the procedures that 

DHS prescribes. 

8. Assignment, Approval, Use, and 

Invocation of Priority Levels 

a. Assignment and approval of priority 

levels. Priority level assignments will be 

based upon the categories and criteria 

specified in section 10 of this appendix. After 

invocation of the President’s war emergency 

powers, these requirements may be 

superseded by other procedures issued by 

DHS. 

b. Use of priority level assignments. 

(1) All provisioning and restoration 

priority level assignments for services in the 

Emergency NSEP category will be included 

in initial service orders to providers. 

Provisioning priority level assignments for 

Essential NSEP services, however, will not 

usually be included in initial service orders 

to providers. NSEP treatment for Essential 

NSEP services will be invoked and 

provisioning priority level assignments will 

be conveyed to service providers only if the 

providers cannot meet needed service dates 

through the normal provisioning process. 

(2) Any revision or revocation of either 

provisioning or restoration priority level 

assignments will also be transmitted to 

providers. 

(3) Service providers shall accept priority 

levels and/or revisions only after assignment 

by DHS. 

Note: Service providers acting as prime 

contractors will accept assigned NSEP 

priority levels only when they are 

accompanied by the DHS designated service 

identification (i.e., TSP Authorization Code). 

However, service providers are authorized to 

accept priority levels and/or revisions from 

users and contracting activities before 

assignment by DHS when service providers, 

users, and contracting activities are unable to 

communicate with either the FCC or DHS. 

Processing of Emergency NSEP service 

requests will not be delayed for verification 

purposes. 

c. Invocation of NSEP treatment. To invoke 

NSEP treatment for the priority provisioning 

of an NSEP service, an authorized federal 

employee within, or acting on behalf of, the 

service user’s organization must make a 

declaration to concerned service provider(s) 

and DHS that NSEP treatment is being 

invoked. An authorized invocation official is 

one who (1) understands how the requested 

service ties to the organization’s NSEP 

mission; (2) is authorized to approve the 

expenditure of funds necessary for the 

requested service; and (3) has operational 

responsibilities for telecommunications 

procurement and/or management within the 

organization. 

9. Appeal 

Service users or sponsoring Federal 

organizations may appeal any priority level 

assignment, denial, revision, revocation, 

approval, or disapproval to DHS within 30 

days of notification to the service user. The 

appellant must use the form or format 

required by DHS and must serve the FCC 

with a copy of its appeal. Service users and 

sponsoring Federal organizations may only 

appeal directly to the FCC after DHS action 

on the appeal. Such FCC appeal must be filed 

within 30 days of notification of DHS’s 

decision on appeal. Additionally, DHS may 

appeal any FCC revisions, approvals, or 

disapprovals to the FCC. All appeals to the 

FCC must be submitted using the form or 

format required. The party filing its appeal 

with the FCC must include factual details 

supporting its claim and must serve a copy 

on DHS and any other party directly 

involved. Such party may file a response 

within 20 days, and replies may be filed 

within 10 days thereafter. The Commission 

will not issue public notices of such 

submissions. The Commission will provide 

notice of its decision to the parties of record. 

Any appeals to DHS that include a claim of 

new information that has not been presented 

before for consideration may be submitted at 

any time. 

10. Categories, Criteria, and Priority Levels 

a. General. NSEP TSP System categories 

and criteria, and permissible priority level 

assignments, are defined and explained 

below. 

(1) The Essential NSEP category has four 

subcategories: National Security Leadership; 

National Security Posture and U.S. 

Population Attack Warning; Public Health, 

Safety, and Maintenance of Law and Order; 

and Public Welfare and Maintenance of 

National Economic Posture. Each subcategory 

has its own criteria. Criteria are also shown 

for the Emergency NSEP category, which has 

no sub-categories. 

(2) Priority Levels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 may be 

assigned for provisioning and/or restoration 

of Essential NSEP services. However, for 

Emergency NSEP services, Priority Level E is 

assigned for provisioning, and Priority Levels 

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 may be assigned for 

restoration of Emergency NSEP services. 

(3) The NSEP TSP System allows the 

assignment of priority levels to any NSEP 

service across three time periods, or stress 

conditions: Peacetime/Crisis/Mobilization, 

Attack/War, and Post-Attack/Recovery. It is 

expected that priority levels may be revised 

within the three time periods by surviving 

authorized resource managers within DHS 

based upon specific facts and circumstances. 

(4) Service users may, for their own 

internal use, assign sub-priorities to their 

services assigned priority levels. Receipt of 

and response to any such sub-priorities is 

optional for service providers. 

(5) The following paragraphs provide a 

detailed explanation of the categories, 

subcategories, criteria, and priority level 

assignments, beginning with the Emergency 

NSEP category. 

b. Emergency NSEP. Services in the 

Emergency NSEP category are those new 

services so critical as to be required to be 

provisioned at the earliest possible time, 

without regard to the costs of obtaining them. 

(1) Criteria. To qualify under the 

Emergency NSEP category, the service must 

meet criteria directly supporting or resulting 

from at least one of the following NSEP 

functions: 

(a) Federal government activity responding 

to a Presidentially declared disaster or 

emergency as defined in the Disaster Relief 

Act (42 U.S.C. 5122). 

(b) State or local government activity 

responding to a Presidentially declared 

disaster or emergency. 

(c) Response to a state of crisis declared by 

the National Command Authorities (e.g., 

exercise of Presidential war emergency 

powers under section 706 of the 

Communications Act.) 

(d) Efforts to protect endangered U.S. 

personnel or property. 

(e) Response to an enemy or terrorist 

action, civil disturbance, natural disaster, or 

any other unpredictable occurrence that has 

damaged facilities whose uninterrupted 

operation is critical to NSEP or the 

management of other ongoing crises. 

(f) Certification by the head or director of 

a Federal agency, commander of a unified/ 

specified command, chief of a military 

service, or commander of a major military 

command, that the service is so critical to 

protection of life and property or to NSEP 

that it must be provided immediately. 

(g) A request from an official authorized 

pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. and 

18 U.S.C. 2511, 2518, 2519). 

(2) Priority Level Assignment. 

(a) Services qualifying under the 

Emergency NSEP category are assigned 

Priority Level E for provisioning. 

(b) After 30 days, assignments of Priority 

Level E for Emergency NSEP services are 

automatically revoked unless extended for 

another 30-day period. A notice of any such 

revocation will be sent to service providers. 

(c) For restoration, Emergency NSEP 

services may be assigned priority levels 

under the provisions applicable to Essential 

NSEP services (see section 10(c)). Emergency 

NSEP services not otherwise qualifying for 

restoration priority level assignment as 

Essential NSEP may be assigned Priority 

Level 5 for a 30-day period. Such 30-day 

restoration priority level assignment will be 

revoked automatically unless extended for 

another 30-day period. A notice of any such 

revocation will be sent to service providers. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
39788 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

c. Essential NSEP. Services in the Essential 

NSEP category are those required to be 

provisioned by due dates specified by service 

users, or restored promptly, normally 

without regard to associated overtime or 

expediting costs. They may be assigned 

Priority Level 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 for both 

provisioning and restoration, depending 

upon the nature and urgency of the 

supported function, the impact of lack of 

service or of service interruption upon the 

supported function, and, for priority access 

to public switched services, the user’s level 

of responsibility. Priority level assignments 

will be valid for no more than three years 

unless revalidated. To be categorized as 

Essential NSEP, a service must qualify under 

one of the four following subcategories: 

National Security Leadership; National 

Security Posture and U.S. Population Attack 

Warning; Public Health, Safety and 

Maintenance of Law and Order; or Public 

Welfare and Maintenance of National 

Economic Posture. (Note: Under emergency 

circumstances, Essential NSEP services may 

be recategorized as Emergency NSEP and 

assigned Priority Level E for provisioning.) 

(1) National security leadership. This 

subcategory is strictly limited to only those 

NSEP services essential to national survival 

if nuclear attack threatens or occurs, and 

critical orderwire and control services 

necessary to ensure the rapid and efficient 

provisioning or restoration of other NSEP 

services. Services in this subcategory are 

those for which a service interruption of even 

a few minutes would have serious adverse 

impact upon the supported NSEP function. 

(a) Criteria. To qualify under this 

subcategory, a service must be at least one of 

the following: 

(i) Critical orderwire, or control services, 

supporting other NSEP functions. 

(ii) Presidential communications service 

critical to continuity of government and 

national leadership during crisis situations. 

(iii) National command authority 

communications service for military 

command and control critical to national 

survival. 

(iv) Intelligence communications service 

critical to warning of potentially catastrophic 

attack. 

(v) Communications service supporting the 

conduct of diplomatic negotiations critical to 

arresting or limiting hostilities. 

(b) Priority level assignment. Services 

under this subcategory will normally be 

assigned Priority Level 1 for provisioning and 

restoration during the Peace/Crisis/ 

Mobilization time period. 

(2) National security posture and U.S. 

population attack warning. This subcategory 

covers additional NSEP services that are 

essential to maintaining an optimum defense, 

diplomatic, or continuity-of-government 

postures before, during, and after crises 

situations. Such situations are those ranging 

from national emergencies to international 

crises, including nuclear attack. Services in 

this subcategory are those for which a service 

interruption ranging from a few minutes to 

one day would have serious adverse impact 

upon the supported NSEP function. 

(a) Criteria. To qualify under this 

subcategory, a service must support at least 

one of the following NSEP functions: 

(i) Threat assessment and attack warning. 

(ii) Conduct of diplomacy. 

(iii) Collection, processing, and 

dissemination of intelligence. 

(iv) Command and control of military 

forces. 

(v) Military mobilization. 

(vi) Continuity of Federal government 

before, during, and after crises situations. 

(vii) Continuity of state and local 

government functions supporting the Federal 

government during and after national 

emergencies. 

(viii) Recovery of critical national 

functions after crises situations. 

(ix) National space operations. 

(b) Priority level assignment. Services 

under this subcategory will normally be 

assigned Priority Level 2, 3, 4, or 5 for 

provisioning and restoration during 

Peacetime/Crisis/Mobilization. 

(3) Public health, safety, and maintenance 

of law and order. This subcategory covers 

NSEP services necessary for giving civil alert 

to the U.S. population and maintaining law 

and order and the health and safety of the 

U.S. population in times of any national, 

regional, or serious local emergency. These 

services are those for which a service 

interruption ranging from a few minutes to 

one day would have serious adverse impact 

upon the supported NSEP functions. 

(a) Criteria. To qualify under this 

subcategory, a service must support at least 

one of the following NSEP functions: 

(i) Population warning (other than attack 

warning). 

(ii) Law enforcement. 

(iii) Continuity of critical state and local 

government functions (other than support of 

the Federal government during and after 

national emergencies). 

(vi) Hospitals and distributions of medical 

supplies. 

(v) Critical logistic functions and public 

utility services. 

(vi) Civil air traffic control. 

(vii) Military assistance to civil authorities. 

(viii) Defense and protection of critical 

industrial facilities. 

(ix) Critical weather services. 

(x) Transportation to accomplish the 

foregoing NSEP functions. 

(b) Priority level assignment. Service under 

this subcategory will normally be assigned 

Priority Levels 3, 4, or 5 for provisioning and 

restoration during Peacetime/Crisis/ 

Mobilization. 

(4) Public welfare and maintenance of 

national economic posture. This subcategory 

covers NSEP services necessary for 

maintaining the public welfare and national 

economic posture during any national or 

regional emergency. These services are those 

for which a service interruption ranging from 

a few minutes to one day would have serious 

adverse impact upon the supported NSEP 

function. 

(a) Criteria. To qualify under this 

subcategory, a service must support at least 

one of the following NSEP functions: 

(i) Distribution of food and other essential 

supplies. 

(ii) Maintenance of national monetary, 

credit, and financial systems. 

(iii) Maintenance of price, wage, rent, and 

salary stabilization, and consumer rationing 

programs. 

(iv) Control of production and distribution 

of strategic materials and energy supplies. 

(v) Prevention and control of 

environmental hazards or damage. 

(vi) Transportation to accomplish the 

foregoing NSEP functions. 

(b) Priority level assignment. Services 

under this subcategory will normally be 

assigned Priority Levels 4 or 5 for 

provisioning and restoration during 

Peacetime/Crisis/Mobilization. 

■ 4. Revise appendix B to part 64 to read 

as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 64—Wireless 

Priority Service (WPS) for National 

Security and Emergency Preparedness 

(NSEP) 

1. Purpose and Authority 

a. This appendix establishes rules, policies, 

and procedures and outlines responsibilities 

for the Wireless Priority Service (WPS), 

previously called Priority Access Service 

(PAS), to support the needs of National 

Security Emergency Preparedness (NSEP) 

personnel. WPS authorizes priority treatment 

to certain domestic telecommunications 

services and internet Protocol-based services 

(NSEP services) for which priority levels are 

requested, assigned, and approved in 

accordance with this appendix. 

b. This appendix is issued pursuant to 

sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(n), 201–205, 251(e)(3), 

254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 308(a), 

309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a–1, 615c, 

and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, codified at 47 U.S.C. 151, 

154(i)–(j), (n), 201–205, 251(e)(3), 254, 301, 

303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 308(a), 309(a), 

309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a–1, 615c, 606; and 

Executive Order 13618. Under section 706 of 

the Communications Act, this authority may 

be superseded by the war emergency powers 

of the President of the United States. 

2. Definitions 

As used in this appendix: 

a. Authorizing agent refers to a Federal or 

State entity that authenticates, evaluates, and 

makes recommendations to DHS regarding 

the assignment of priority levels. 

b. Service provider (or wireless service 

provider) refers to a provider of a wireless 

communications service or internet Protocolbased service, including commercial or 

private mobile service. The term includes 

agents of the licensed provider and resellers 

of wireless service. 

c. Service user means an individual or 

organization to whom or which a priority 

access assignment has been made. 

d. The following terms have the same 

meaning as in Appendix A to part 64, as 

amended: 

(1) Assignment; 

(2) Government; 

(3) internet Protocol-based services; 

(4) National Coordinating Center for 

Communications (NCC); 

(5) National Security Emergency 

Preparedness (NSEP) services (excluding the 

last sentence); 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39789 

(6) Reconciliation; 

(7) Revalidation; 

(8) Revision; 

(9) Revocation. 

3. Scope 

a. Applicability. This appendix applies to 

the provision of WPS by wireless service 

providers to users who qualify under the 

provisions of section 6 of this appendix. 

b. Eligible services. Wireless service 

providers may, on a voluntary basis, give 

eligible users priority access to, and priority 

use of, all secure and non-secure voice, data, 

and video services available over their 

networks. Providers that elect to offer these 

services must comply with all provisions of 

this appendix. 

4. Policy 

WPS provides the means for NSEP users to 

obtain priority wireless access to available 

radio channels when necessary to initiate 

emergency communications. It does not 

preempt public safety emergency (911) calls, 

but it may preempt or degrade other inprogress voice calls. NSEP users are 

authorized to use priority signaling to ensure 

networks can detect WPS handset network 

registration and service invocation. WPS is 

used during situations when network 

congestion is blocking NSEP call attempts. It 

is available to authorized NSEP users at all 

times in markets where the service provider 

has voluntarily elected to provide such 

service. Priority Levels 1 through 5 are 

reserved for qualified and authorized NSEP 

users, and those users are provided access to 

radio channels before any other users. 

5. Responsibilities 

a. The FCC: 

(1) Provides regulatory oversight of WPS. 

(2) Enforces WPS rules and regulations, 

which are contained in this appendix. 

(3) Acts as final authority for approval, 

revision, or disapproval of priority 

assignments by DHS and adjudicates 

disputes regarding priority assignments and 

denials of such requests by DHS, until 

superseded by the President’s war emergency 

powers under Section 706 of the 

Communications Act. 

(4) Performs such functions as are required 

by law, including: 

(a) with respect to all entities licensed or 

regulated by the FCC: the extension of or 

change in network facilities; the 

discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of 

interstate services; the control of common 

carrier rates, charges, practices, and 

classifications; the construction, 

authorization, activation, deactivation, or 

closing of radio stations, services, and 

facilities; the assignment of radio frequencies 

to licensees; the investigation of violations of 

FCC rules; and the assessment of 

communications service provider emergency 

needs and resources; and 

(b) supports the continuous operation and 

restoration of critical communications 

systems and services by assisting the 

Secretary of Homeland Security with 

infrastructure damage assessment and 

restoration, and by providing the Secretary of 

Homeland Security with information 

collected by the FCC on communications 

infrastructure, service outages, and 

restoration, as appropriate. 

b. Authorizing agents: 

(1) Identify themselves as authorizing 

agents and their respective communities of 

interest to DHS. State authorizing agents 

provide a central point of contact to receive 

priority requests from users within their 

state. Federal authorizing agents provide a 

central point of contact to receive priority 

requests from Federal users or Federally 

sponsored entities. 

(2) Authenticate, evaluate, and make 

recommendations to DHS to approve priority 

level assignment requests using the priorities 

and criteria specified in section 6 of this 

appendix. When appropriate, authorizing 

agents recommend approval or denial of 

requests for WPS. 

(3) Ensure that documentation is complete 

and accurate before forwarding it to DHS. 

(4) Serve as a conduit for forwarding WPS 

information from DHS to service users and 

vice versa. Such information includes WPS 

requests and assignments, reconciliation and 

revalidation notifications, and other relevant 

information. 

(5) Participate in reconciliation and 

revalidation of WPS information at the 

request of DHS. 

(6) Disclose content of the WPS database 

only to those having a need-to-know. 

c. Service users: 

(1) Determine the need for and request 

WPS assignments in accordance with the 

processes and procedures established by 

DHS. 

(2) Initiate WPS requests through the 

appropriate authorizing agent. DHS approves 

or denies WPS requests and may direct 

service providers to remove WPS if 

appropriate. (Note: state and local 

government and private users apply for WPS 

through their designated state government 

authorizing agent. Federal users apply for 

WPS through their employing agency. State 

and local users in states where there has been 

no designation are sponsored by the Federal 

agency concerned with the emergency 

function as set forth in Executive Order 

12656. If no authorizing agent is determined 

using these criteria, DHS serves as the 

authorizing agent.) 

(3) Submit all correspondence regarding 

WPS to the authorizing agent. 

(4) Participate in reconciliation and 

revalidation of WPS information at the 

request of the authorizing agent or DHS. 

(5) Request discontinuance of WPS when 

the NSEP qualifying criteria used to obtain 

WPS is no longer applicable. 

(6) Pay service providers as billed for WPS. 

d. Service providers: 

(1) Provide WPS only upon receipt of an 

authorization from DHS and remove WPS for 

specific users at the direction of DHS. 

(2) Ensure that WPS Priority Level 1 

exceeds all other priority services offered by 

WPS providers. 

(3) Designate a point of contact to 

coordinate with DHS regarding WPS. 

(4) Participate in reconciliation and 

revalidation of WPS information at the 

request of DHS. 

(5) As technically and economically 

feasible, provide roaming service users the 

same grade of WPS provided to local service 

users. 

(6) Disclose information regarding WPS 

users only to those having a need-to-know or 

who will not use the information for 

economic advantage. 

(7) Ensure that at all times a reasonable 

amount of wireless spectrum is made 

available for public use. 

(8) Notify DHS and the service user if WPS 

is to be discontinued as a service. 

(9) Comply with all relevant Commission 

rules regarding WPS. 

e. An appropriate body identified by DHS 

will identify and review any systemic 

problems associated with the WPS system 

and recommend actions to correct them or 

prevent their recurrence. 

6. WPS Priority Levels and Qualifying 

Criteria 

a. The following WPS priority levels and 

qualifying criteria apply equally to all users 

and will be used as a basis for all WPS 

assignments. There are five levels of NSEP 

priorities, with Priority Level 1being the 

highest. The five priority levels are: 

(1) Executive Leadership and Policy 

Makers. 

Users who qualify for the Executive 

Leadership and Policy Makers category will 

be assigned Priority Level 1. A limited 

number of technicians who are essential to 

restoring wireless networks shall also receive 

this highest priority treatment. Users 

assigned to Priority Level 1 receive the 

highest priority in relation to all other 

priority services offered by WPS providers. 

Examples of users who are eligible for 

Priority Level 1 include: 

(i) The President of the United States, the 

Secretary of Defense, selected military 

leaders, and the staff who support these 

officials; 

(ii) State governors, lieutenant governors, 

cabinet-level officials responsible for public 

safety and health, and the staff who support 

these officials; and 

(iii) Mayors, county commissioners, and 

the staff who support these officials. 

(2) Disaster Response/Military Command 

and Control. 

Users who qualify for the Disaster 

Response/Military Command and Control 

category will be assigned Priority Level 2. 

This priority level includes individuals who 

manage the initial response to an emergency 

at the Federal, state, local, and regional 

levels. Personnel selected for this priority 

level are responsible for ensuring the 

viability or reconstruction of the basic 

infrastructure in an emergency area. In 

addition, personnel essential to continuity of 

government and national security functions 

(such as the conduct of international affairs 

and intelligence activities) are also included 

in this priority level. Examples of users who 

are eligible for Priority Level 2 include 

personnel from the following categories: 

(i) Federal emergency operations center 

coordinators, e.g., Chief, Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau (FCC); Manager, 

National Coordinating Center for 

Communications; National Interagency Fire 

Center, Federal Coordinating Officer, Director 

of Military Support; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
39790 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(ii) State emergency services directors, 

National Guard leadership, Federal and state 

damage assessment team leaders; 

(iii) Federal, state and local personnel with 

continuity of government responsibilities; 

(iv) Incident command center managers, 

local emergency managers, other state and 

local elected public safety officials; and 

(v) Federal personnel with intelligence and 

diplomatic responsibilities. 

(3) Public Health, Safety and Law 

Enforcement Command. 

Users who qualify for the Public Health, 

Safety, and Law Enforcement Command 

category will be assigned Priority Level 3. 

This priority level includes individuals who 

conduct operations critical to life, property, 

and maintenance of law and order 

immediately following an emergency event. 

Examples of users who are eligible for 

Priority Level 3 include personnel from the 

following categories: 

(i) Federal law enforcement; 

(ii) State police; 

(iii) Local fire and law enforcement; 

(iv) Emergency medical services; 

(v) Search and rescue; 

(vi) Emergency communications; 

(vii) Critical infrastructure protection; and 

(viii) Hospital personnel. 

(4) Public Services/Utilities and Public 

Welfare. 

Users who qualify for the Public Services/ 

Utilities and Public Welfare category will be 

assigned Priority Level 4. This priority level 

includes individuals who manage public 

works and utility infrastructure damage 

assessment and restoration efforts and 

transportation to accomplish emergency 

response activities. Examples of users who 

are eligible for Priority Level 4 include 

personnel from the following categories: 

(i) Army Corps of Engineers; 

(ii) Power, water, and sewage; 

(iii) Communications; 

(iv) Transportation; and 

(v) Financial services. 

(5) Disaster Recovery. 

Users who qualify for the Disaster 

Recovery category will be assigned Priority 

Level 5. This priority level includes 

individuals who manage a variety of recovery 

operations after the initial response has been 

accomplished. These functions may include 

managing medical resources such as 

supplies, personnel, or patients in medical 

facilities. Other activities such as 

coordination to establish and stock shelters, 

to obtain detailed damage assessments, or to 

support key disaster field office personnel 

may be included. Examples of users who are 

eligible for Priority Level 5 include personnel 

from the following categories: 

(i) Medical recovery; 

(ii) Detailed damage assessment; 

(iii) Emergency shelter; and 

(iv) Joint Field Office support personnel. 

b. These priority levels were selected to 

meet the needs of NSEP users who manage 

and respond to national security and public 

safety emergency situations, particularly 

during the first 24 to 72 hours following an 

event. 

c. The entities listed above are examples of 

the groups of users who may qualify for each 

priority level. The lists are non-exhaustive; 

other users may qualify for WPS, including 

those from the critical infrastructure sectors 

identified in Presidential Policy Directive 21. 

However, specific eligibility determinations 

and priority level assignments are made by 

DHS. 

7. Appeal 

Service users and authorizing agents may 

appeal any priority level assignment, denial, 

revision, or revocation to DHS within 30 days 

of notification to the service user. If a dispute 

still exists following DHS action, an appeal 

may then be made to the FCC within 30 days 

of notification of DHS’s decision. The party 

filing the appeal must include factual details 

supporting its claim and must provide a copy 

of the appeal to DHS and any other party 

directly involved. Involved parties may file a 

response to the appeal made to the FCC 

within 20 days, and the initial filing party 

may file a reply within 10 days thereafter. 

The FCC will provide notice of its decision 

to the parties of record. Until a decision is 

made, the service will remain status quo. 

8. Preemption or Degradation of Existing 

Services 

Service providers may preempt or degrade 

in-progress voice, data, text, and video 

communications from NSEP users assigned 

to any priority level, except for public safety 

emergency (911) communications, when 

necessary to prioritize eligible WPS 

communications. 

a. Service providers are not required to 

offer preemption or degradation. 

b. Preemption and degradation are 

authorized for all five priority levels. 

c. Preemption and degradation are not 

subject to the consent of the user whose 

service will be preempted or degraded. 

9. Priority Signaling 

Service providers may offer priority 

signaling to ensure networks can detect WPS 

handset registration and service invocation. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14155 Filed 7–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 21–155; RM–11900; DA 22– 

660; FR ID 93699] 

Television Broadcasting Services 

Medford, Oregon. 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On April 16, 2021, the Media 

Bureau, Video Division (Bureau) issued 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) in response to a petition for 

rulemaking filed by KTVL Licensee, 

LLC (the Petitioner), the licensee of 

KTVL(TV), channel 10, Medford, 

Oregon, requesting the substitution of 

channel 16 for channel 10 at Medford in 

the Table of Allotments. The Bureau is 

now amending FCC regulations to make 

this change. 

DATES: Effective July 5, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 

418–1647 or Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed rule was published at 86 FR 

25979 on May 12, 2021. The Petitioner 

filed comments in support of the 

petition reaffirming its commitment to 

apply for channel 16. theDove Media, 

Inc. (theDove), the licensee of low 

power television station KDSO–LP, 

channel 16, Medford, Oregon, filed 

comments in opposition to the 

rulemaking petition and a 

counterproposal. On June 22, 2022, the 

Video Division of the Bureau approved 

a Joint Request for Approval of 

Settlement Agreement whereby theDove 

requested dismissal of its Opposition 

with prejudice, and the Petitioner 

agreed to reimburse theDove in an 

amount not to exceed $23,420 as 

reimbursement for costs related to 

theDove’s acquisition and construction 

of a displacement facility on channel 26 

at Medford. The parties also agreed that 

KTVL would not begin operations on 

channel 16 until KDSO–LP commenced 

operations on channel 26. The Video 

Division approved the Joint Request for 

Approval of Settlement Agreement and 

dismissed theDove’s opposition by letter 

dated June 22, 2022. 

The Petitioner states that the 

Commission has recognized that VHF 

channels have certain propagation 

characteristics which may cause 

reception issues for some viewers, that 

the reception of VHF signals require 

larger antennas relative to UHF 

channels, and that studies suggest a 

large variability in the performance of 

indoor antennas, with most performing 

poorly or not so well receiving VHF 

channels, compared to UHF channels. 

Petitioner further states that the Station 

has received numerous complaints from 

viewers unable to receive the Station’s 

over-the-air signal, despite being able to 

receive signals from other local stations. 

In addition, the Petitioner states while 

the proposed channel 16 noise limited 

contour does not completely encompass 

the channel 10 noise limited contour, 

KTVL is a CBS affiliate and there are 

two other CBS affiliated stations that 

serve all but 9,355 persons in the noise 

limited contour loss area.1 The 

Petitioner also submitted an analysis, 

using the Commission’s TVStudy 

software analysis program, 

demonstrating that after taking into 

account service provided by other CBS 

stations, all of the population located 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1