[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 182 (Friday, September 18, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59110-59130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17267]



[[Page 59109]]

Vol. 85

Friday,

No. 182

September 18, 2020

Part III





Federal Communications Commission





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





47 CFR Part 64





Review of Rules and Requirements for Priority Services; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 182 / Friday, September 18, 2020 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 59110]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[PS Docket No. 20-187; FCC 20-97; FRS 16961]


Review of Rules and Requirements for Priority Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks to modernize the 
Commission's rules for the priority services programs by removing 
outdated requirements that may impede the use of internet Protocol-
based technologies. It proposes to amend the Commission's rules to 
reflect the current administrative responsibilities for the priority 
services programs, while eliminating burdensome administrative 
requirements that are no longer needed. It also responds to two 
Petitions for Rulemaking from the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration, on behalf of the Department of Homeland 
Security, requesting the Commission update its priority services rules.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before October 19, 
2020, and reply comments on or before November 17, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 20-187, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

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 [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), PS Docket No. 20-187; FCC 20-97, adopted 
on July 16, 2020, and released on July 17, 2020. The full text of this 
document is available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-97A1.pdf.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. For years, National Security and Emergency Preparedness (NSEP) 
personnel have had access to priority services programs that leverage 
access to commercial communications infrastructure to support national 
command, control, and communications by providing prioritized 
connectivity during national emergencies. This prioritized connectivity 
may consist of prioritized provisioning and restoration of wired 
communications circuits or prioritized communications for wireline or 
wireless calls. These 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.'' 
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) manages these programs 
through contractual agreements with telecommunications providers, 
service providers, and other contractors. However, the Commission also 
has had a long-standing regulatory role with respect to certain 
elements of these programs.
    2. The Commission's rules for the current priority services 
programs 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 adopted these rules for common 
carriers in large part based on a concern that, without them, the non-
discrimination requirement of section 202 of the Communications Act 
would prevent (or at least deter) common carriers from voluntarily 
offering priority treatment. These rules, which were developed when 
communications networks were primarily based on circuit-switched 
technologies, have not been updated to address the advanced 
capabilities of internet Protocol (IP)-based communications supporting 
data as well as voice services, or to enhance the ability of users at 
different priority levels to share network capacity and resources. 
While the concerns that motivated the FCC's decision to adopt priority 
services rules for common carrier offerings do not apply to the 
contractual arrangements for non-common-carriage services, some have 
argued that our rules need to be updated to include IP-based 
communications, and the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA) filed petitions asking the Commission to initiate 
a rulemaking to consider updates to the existing rules.
    3. We initiate this proceeding to determine whether we should 
update and streamline the Commission's priority services rules in light 
of the increase in IP-based technologies since we last examined those 
rules. As a part of our review, we seek comment on proposals submitted 
by NTIA to update the rules for both TSP and WPS. By considering both 
programs in a consolidated proceeding, we seek to promote efficiency 
and facilitate a holistic approach that addresses priority services on 
a platform-neutral basis.

II. Background

    4. There are three priority services programs that support 
prioritized connectivity for NSEP users of telecommunications services. 
At present, the Emergency Communications Division of the Cybersecurity 
and Infrastructure Security Agency, within DHS, manages these programs 
through contractual ``carrier service agreements'' with 
telecommunications providers. However, as described below, some 
elements of these programs are also governed by the Commission's rules.
    5. Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) System. In 1987, the 
National Communications System--then an interagency group of federal 
departments and agencies--petitioned the Commission to adopt 
restoration priority rules. The Commission responded by creating the 
TSP System, which authorizes the ``assignment and approval of 
priorities for provisioning and restoration of common-carrier provided 
telecommunication services'' and ``services which are provided by 
government and/or non-common carriers and are interconnected to common 
carrier services.'' The Commission's TSP rules require service 
providers to prioritize the provisioning and restoration of wired 
communications facilities to ``ensure effective NSEP telecommunication 
services.'' 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 over 2,000 organizations enrolled in TSP 
(e.g., military bases, federal agencies, hospitals) covering 
approximately 300,000 active circuits. Costs associated with TSP are 
governed by tariff or contract and may include a one-time setup fee and 
monthly charges, in

[[Page 59111]]

addition to the actual charges by the service provider related to the 
provisioning or restoration.
    6. The Commission designed the mandatory TSP program 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 
Commission made clear that ``[p]rivate services, i.e., services not 
offered by a common carrier, would not be subject to allegations of 
unreasonable preferences under Title II of the Communications Act and 
therefore would not require the protection of TSP. Indeed, the scope of 
TSP is predicated on the need for a standardized system of issuing 
priorities to common carriers.'' The Commission's TSP rules have not 
been substantively updated since they were initially adopted in 1988.
    7. Wireless Priority Service (WPS). In 1995, the National 
Communications System petitioned the Commission to implement what it 
termed ``Cellular Priority Access Service.'' The Commission responded 
by adopting rules creating a program to provide prioritized voice 
calling for subscribers using Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) 
networks. The Commission's WPS rules permit, but do not require, CMRS 
providers to offer mobile wireless priority services. If a carrier 
elects to offer WPS, it must comply with the Commission's WPS rules, 
which include providing priority service based on five priority levels 
for NSEP users. The five priority levels, which are generally ordered 
from highest to lowest, are: (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.
    8. Like the TSP program, 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 CMRS provider's decision to give NSEP users priority treatment 
might be considered a violation of the Act's non-discrimination 
provisions. Indeed, the Commission noted that compliance with the WPS 
rules would constitute prima facie evidence that such priority 
treatment was lawful under the Communications Act. The Commission's WPS 
rules have not been updated since they were initially adopted in 2000.
    9. Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS). In 1993, 
the Commission received a request from the National Communications 
System requesting prioritization for wireline services. The Commission 
responded to the request in 1995, noting that tariffs had since been 
filed and a new nationwide telephone area code had been established for 
the Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS) program for 
wireline services. GETS provides government officials, first 
responders, and NSEP personnel with ``priority access and prioritized 
processing in the local and long distance segments of the landline 
networks, greatly increasing the probability of call completion.'' 
Eligible users receive access cards and Personal Identification 
Numbers, which are used to initiate priority wireline calls. GETS 
currently operates via contractual arrangements between DHS and service 
providers. GETS is the only priority services program not included in 
the Commission's rules and participation is voluntary.
    10. Federal Agency Administration/Oversight of Priority Services 
Programs. While the National Communications System originated the 
petitions that resulted in the creation of the priority services 
programs, Executive Order 13618 subsequently dissolved the National 
Communications System and transferred most of its functions to DHS, 
which now serves as the Executive Office of the President (EOP) 
designee for NSEP priority communications. DHS is responsible for 
overseeing the ``development, testing, implementation, and sustainment 
of NSEP communications,'' including the priority services programs. DHS 
also maintains an industry-government Joint Program Office that assists 
in the initiation, coordination, restoration, and reconstitution of 
NSEP communications and infrastructure. DHS qualifies new users to 
participate in these programs and issues GETS cards and TSP 
authorization codes. DHS also manages WPS through contract and 
reimbursement mechanisms.
    11. In addition to DHS, other federal departments and agencies are 
responsible for certain administration and oversight functions related 
to the priority services programs. EOP is responsible for ``policy 
coordination, guidance, dispute resolution, and periodic in-progress 
reviews of NSEP telecommunications functions.'' 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. The 
NSEP Communications Executive Committee ``advises and makes policy 
recommendations to the President'' for strategic planning, funding 
requirements, and communications systems requirements. The Office of 
Science and Technology Policy advises the President on ``prioritization 
of the radio spectrum and wired communications that support NSEP 
functions'' and issues an annual memorandum highlighting national 
priorities for NSEP analyses, studies, research, and development.
    12. NTIA Petitions for Rulemaking. NTIA filed two petitions for 
rulemaking on behalf of DHS, requesting that the FCC update its TSP and 
WPS rules to reflect the current operations of those programs, 
incorporate the current Executive Branch governance structure for those 
programs, and address changes in technology and evolving user needs for 
those programs. The first petition, filed in July 2018, sought a 
Commission rulemaking to update the WPS rules. The second petition, 
filed in July 2019, sought to update the TSP rules, and updated NTIA's 
July 2018 WPS petition to reflect revisions to technical standards and 
the provisions of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency 
Act of 2018. The Bureau sought comment on both petitions via public 
notice.
    13. The Commission received several comments in response to the 
public notices. Commenters generally support NTIA's proposal to update 
the TSP rules to reflect the current communications marketplace, and 
support NSEP users having next-generation communications technology. 
However, most commenters express concerns with NTIA's proposal to 
collect data on a provider's performance during a disaster and with the 
proposed rule changes regarding provisioning and restoration 
timeframes. Likewise, commenters generally support NTIA's proposals to 
update the WPS rules, but argue the Commission should employ a light 
touch in developing any new WPS rules and refrain from imposing overly 
burdensome or prescriptive rules that would limit flexibility and 
innovation currently inherent in providers' ability to work with the 
NSEP users and provide services on a contractual basis.

[[Page 59112]]

III. Discussion

    14. Consumers are increasingly moving away from traditional 
telephone services using copper wire transmissions and traditional 
time-division multiplexing technology and towards next-generation 
technologies using a variety of transmission means, including fiber and 
wireless spectrum-based services. USTelecom asserts the ``vast 
majority'' of U.S. consumers have moved from legacy landlines to 
wireless or IP-based alternatives, as evidenced by the fact that since 
the year 2000 the number of landlines has fallen by 157 million. This 
trend is likely to continue, as USTelecom estimates that, by the end of 
2020, 79% of voice connections will be wireless and just 5% will be 
provided through legacy landlines. In addition, USTelecom presents 
evidence that ``the widespread deployment of wired and wireless IP-
based networks'' has fostered greater reliance on voice alternatives 
such as text, email, video chat, and social networking applications. 
The Commission has actively supported the transition from legacy to 
next-generation networks because of the extraordinary benefits of 
advanced communications services, and it has taken measures to reduce 
regulatory barriers to this transition.
    15. While the transition from traditional 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 legacy 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.'' We also need to consider the means to modernize access tools 
for NSEP personnel to reflect today's more technologically advanced 
emergency response regimes. Availability of priority services only on 
those traditional voice networks may hamper the ability of NSEP 
personnel to effectively use cutting edge emergency response tools that 
rely on IP-supported data network availability. Nonetheless, we 
recognize that providers have significant if not complete flexibility 
to provide prioritization similar to that under the TSP and WPS rules 
on a contractual basis.
    16. As we determined when we initially adopted the TSP and WPS 
rules in 1988 and 2000, respectively, the benefits provided by these 
priority services exceed the costs incurred by service providers. The 
NTIA petitions assert that there may be some benefits, if we were to 
expand the scope of TSP and WPS to include IP-based technologies. One 
reason is that, given the nation's increase in population over the past 
20 years, we expect that the benefit from such programs has grown along 
with the population itself. Simply stated, there now are more lives to 
be saved and more infrastructure and homes to be protected. Another 
reason is that technological advances over the past 20 years have 
greatly reduced the costs and complexity of coding specific services, 
messages, and calls for priority treatment.
    17. We expect that if we adopt the proposed rules, consistent with 
our 1988 and 2000 decisions, the benefits of extending these programs 
to include IP-based services would likely exceed the costs incurred by 
service providers. However, NTIA concedes that ``some non-common 
carriers (e.g., some providers of broadband internet access service) 
have chosen to contract, on a voluntary basis, with DHS to provide 
prioritized provisioning and restoration services and the government 
welcomes and appreciates the willingness of those companies to offer 
TSP voluntarily.'' Nothing in our current rules prohibits or impedes 
providers of next-generation services from entering into voluntary 
agreements with DHS that achieve what would be contemplated under these 
rule changes.
    18. We initiate this proceeding to update and streamline our 
priority services rules to remove outdated or other requirements that 
may cause confusion for NSEP personnel and providers and otherwise 
impede the use of IP-based technologies to support the provision of 
priority services for voice, data, and video communications.

A. Proposed Changes to Priority Services Rules

    19. As part of our proposal to streamline and update our priority 
services rules, we propose certain specific rule changes that would 
apply to both TSP and WPS. These proposals are intended to reduce 
regulatory burdens and make our rules flexible enough to respond to 
changing administrative requirements or technological advances that 
affect the priority services programs.
    20. Program Administration. The Commission's priority services 
rules have not been substantively updated since they were initially 
adopted. As a result, some of the authorities, organizations, and 
requirements specified in the Commission's rules are no longer 
accurate. Thus, we propose to amend the Commission's rules to reflect 
the actual, current functions and responsibilities for the priority 
services program, as specified in Executive Order 13618.
    21. We further propose to eliminate the provisions of Part 64, 
Appendix A and Appendix B that describe the responsibilities of the 
Executive Office of the President because Executive Order 13618 
transferred most of its functions to other federal agencies. We seek 
comment on these proposals.
    22. Program Requirements. As a result of the changes in the 
priority services programs that have occurred since the rules were 
initially adopted, some provisions of the rules are outdated and 
unnecessary. These provisions are no longer relevant and, therefore, we 
propose to remove such references from our rules. Specifically, we 
propose to remove sections 2(a)(1), 2(a)(2), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d) of part 
64, Appendix A, which outline 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 propose to remove 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. We seek comment on these proposals. We also seek comment on 
whether any other provisions are outdated or unnecessary and should be 
removed from our rules.
    23. Terminology. The telecommunications industry has drastically 
changed since the priority services rules were first established. 
However, the Commission's rules have not been updated to reflect the 
evolution from circuit-switched technology to IP-based technology. NTIA 
asks the Commission to include definitions to account for new services, 
such as private NSEP services that consist of non-common carrier 
services, and non-traditional services, such as broadband internet 
access and digital video. Further, NTIA asks the Commission to revise 
the rules not only to include current service offerings, but also other 
technologies that may someday qualify for priority treatment. 
Commenters generally agree that NSEP users need next-generation

[[Page 59113]]

communications on a priority basis, but emphasize that ``a contractual 
solution is preferable to a regulatory one.'' Commenters also support 
the flexible approach to including new services and technologies within 
the scope of the priority services rules that is currently available by 
contractual arrangements, and caution that a regulatory approach should 
only be implemented through the notice-and-comment rulemaking process.
    24. We propose to amend part 64, Appendix A and Appendix B to 
include definitions to account for new services and technologies. We 
also propose to amend certain definitions to encompass both 
telecommunications services and all IP-based services. We seek comment 
on these proposals and, alternatively, whether a GETS model would be a 
better approach.

B. Proposed Changes to Telecommunications Service Priority Rules

    25. This section describes proposed changes to various provisions 
of the Commission's TSP rules in part 64, Appendix A. The proposed rule 
changes described below are informed by our careful review of NTIA's 
TSP Petition and the public comments submitted in response to the TSP 
Public Notice.
    26. Scope of the Rules. The Commission's TSP rules have not been 
substantively updated since they were initially adopted in 1988. As 
originally drafted, the rules were intended as a regulatory carveout to 
allow common carriers to provide telecommunications services, which 
would ordinarily be subject to the non-discrimination requirements of 
Section 202, on a prioritized basis. As such, the rules have made no 
mention of the wide array of innovative information service offerings 
that are currently available to NSEP personnel. We propose to maintain 
the current requirement that common carriers must offer prioritized 
restoration and provisioning of circuit-switched voice communication 
services.
    27. We propose additionally to codify the ability of service 
providers, on a voluntary basis, to offer prioritized provisioning and 
restoration of data, video, and IP-based voice services. Therefore, we 
propose to update our rules to authorize priority treatment of all 
voice, data, and video services provided by service providers for which 
provisioning or restoration priority levels are requested, assigned, 
and approved in accordance with Appendix A.
    28. We seek comment on these proposals. Alternately, we note that 
the current TSP rules already allow the TSP System rules to apply to 
``other services'' including ``Government or non-common carrier 
services which are not connected to common carrier provided services 
assigned a priority level.'' Should service providers that elect to 
offer prioritized provisioning and restoration of data, video, and IP-
based voice service be required to comply with the Commission's TSP 
rules or, alternatively, should such priority services operate via 
contractual arrangements between DHS and service providers?
    29. Invocation of NSEP Treatment. Currently, to invoke priority 
treatment for NSEP communications, an authorized federal official 
within, or acting on behalf of, the service user's organization must 
inform TSP service providers and the EOP that NSEP treatment is being 
invoked. The Commission's rules require the ``invocation official'' to 
be a senior government official, such as the head or director of a 
federal agency. However, DHS has determined that 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.'' In addition, DHS 
claims 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 NSEP service.
    30. NTIA asserts that, although the need still exists for an 
authorized individual from the requesting service user organization to 
assume responsibility for validating that the requested service 
satisfies the TSP program's NSEP criteria, this validation does not 
need to be performed by a specified senior official from the 
organization. As such, NTIA asks the Commission to update its TSP rules 
to redefine ``invocation official'' as an individual who (1) 
understands how the requested service ties to the organization's NSEP 
mission, and (2) is authorized to approve the expenditure of funds 
necessary for the requested service. NCTA supports this proposal.
    31. We propose to modify the Commission's rules to allow DHS to 
accept invocation by a federal employee within, or acting on behalf of, 
the service user's organization who can attest to the need for TSP and 
authorize payment to the service provider. Further, we propose to 
eliminate the requirement that the invocation official be designated in 
writing. Both of these proposals 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 seek comment on these proposals.
    32. Oversight and Industry Engagement. Under the Commission's 
current TSP rules, the FCC and EOP each have oversight responsibilities 
for the TSP System. The rules stipulate that the FCC will ``provide 
regulatory oversight of implementation of the NSEP TSP System'' and 
``enforce NSEP TSP System rules and regulations.'' On the other hand, 
the rules stipulate that EOP will test and evaluate the TSP System, 
conduct audits, and establish a TSP System Oversight Committee to 
``identify and review any problems developing in the system and 
recommend actions to correct them or prevent recurrence.''
    33. EOP established a TSP System Oversight Committee (Oversight 
Committee) in accordance with the Commission's rules. However, DHS has 
since ``developed and refined processes and procedures that, in its 
view, obviate the need for a mandatory oversight committee.'' In recent 
years, DHS has increasingly relied upon the members of the 
Communications Information Sharing and Analysis Center to ``exchange 
information and gain advice'' on issues involving the TSP program. DHS 
believes the Communications Information Sharing and Analysis Center is 
a more valuable resource than the Oversight Committee because the 
office within DHS that administers TSP ``directly leverages the 
expertise of members of the Communications Information Sharing and 
Analysis Center to address operational concerns in real time,'' instead 
of waiting for a scheduled Oversight Committee meeting. NTIA asks the 
Commission to eliminate the requirement for an Oversight Committee, 
replace the quarterly reporting obligation with an annual report to the 
Commission, and authorize DHS to consult with the Communications 
Information Sharing and Analysis Center.
    34. Similarly, the Commission originally intended for the Oversight 
Committee to provide oversight of WPS by reviewing any systemic 
problems with the program and recommending corrective actions. However, 
DHS believes the GETS/WPS User Council (User Council) should carry out 
this function because it ``better serves the needs and interests of the 
WPS community.'' The User Council includes WPS points of contact from 
federal, state, local, and Tribal government, industry, and other NSEP 
organizations,

[[Page 59114]]

and a representative from each of the WPS (and GETS) service providers. 
DHS leverages the User Council to ``seek and receive advice'' on WPS 
program needs. NTIA asks the Commission to replace references to the 
Oversight Committee with references to the GETS/WPS User Council.
    35. AT&T agrees that the Commission should make administrative 
changes to the TSP rules to reflect existing practices and oversight 
responsibilities. However, NCTA disagrees with NTIA's proposal to 
eliminate the Oversight Committee for the TSP program. While AT&T 
defers to NTIA/DHS on the entity that should provide oversight of the 
TSP program, AT&T and Verizon stress that some authority must remain in 
place to preserve opportunities for meaningful collaboration between 
industry stakeholders and program administrators and to ensure the 
program is administered in accordance with the appropriate rules and 
regulations. No commenters addressed NTIA's proposal to replace the 
Oversight Committee for WPS with the GETS/WPS User Council. We propose 
to eliminate the reference to the Oversight Committee within the 
priority services rules, and instead recognize the flexibility that DHS 
requires to engage the appropriate segments of industry and oversee the 
program effectively so long as some measure of oversight remains. We 
seek comment on this proposal, and we seek further comment on NTIA's 
requested rule changes.

C. Proposed Changes to Wireless Priority Service Rules

    36. This section describes proposed changes to various provisions 
of the Commission's WPS rules in part 64, Appendix B. The proposed rule 
changes described below are informed by our careful review of NTIA's 
WPS Petition and the public comments submitted in response to the 
Public Notices.
    37. Priority Levels. The Commission's WPS rules include five 
priority levels, which are used ``as a basis for all [WPS] 
assignments.'' The rules indicate that Priority Level 1 communications, 
which are reserved for the President of the United States and other 
executive leadership and policy makers, occupy the highest priority 
level in WPS. DHS, however, is concerned that the rules do not 
expressly stipulate that users assigned to that category must receive 
the highest priority in relation to all other users, including those 
using non-WPS priority services offered through individual service 
contracts. While that is the existing practice, DHS believes it should 
be ``explicit and conspicuous'' in the Commission's rules. NTIA 
requests that we update our rules accordingly. Verizon supports NTIA's 
request. We propose to amend the description of Priority Level 1 to 
clarify that it exceeds all other priority services offered by WPS 
providers. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on 
how the different priority levels used by various priority services 
programs should interrelate for network management purposes.
    38. Preemption and Degradation. Preemption is the process of 
terminating lower priority communications in favor of higher priority 
communications. Degradation is the process of reducing the quality of 
lower priority communications in favor of higher priority 
communications. NTIA asserts that 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. The 
Commission's WPS rules currently permit re-ordering of queued (not-yet-
established) call requests based on user priority, but do not provide 
for re-ordering of active (in-progress) calls. NTIA requests changes to 
the Commission's rules affirmatively to allow Priority Level 1 and 2 
voice calls, if necessary, to preempt or degrade other in-progress 
calls, except for public safety emergency (911) calls.
    39. Some commenters disagree with NTIA's assertion that the 
Commission's WPS rules do not allow for preemption of in-progress 
calls. AT&T argues that ``[n]othing in the Communications Act or the 
Commission's rules prohibits WPS providers from offering . . . 
preemption of voice and data services in their private contractual 
arrangements with WPS users.'' Verizon agrees with AT&T and points out 
that both companies ``openly provide competitive service offerings with 
priority and preemption capabilities via their respective public safety 
networks and services.'' AT&T suggests that rather than updating the 
current WPS rules as NTIA proposes, the Commission should consider 
issuing a declaratory ruling to clarify WPS providers' rights and 
obligations under the current rules. In contrast, TechFreedom agrees 
with NTIA that the WPS rules do not allow providers to terminate or 
degrade ongoing calls or data communications, but asserts that 
additional data and information are needed to properly evaluate NTIA's 
proposal.
    40. Although the current WPS rules do not provide for re-ordering 
of active (in-progress) calls, we agree with AT&T and Verizon that the 
rules do not prohibit preemption. However, we recognize that the lack 
of explicit language authorizing preemption has led to varying 
interpretations of the rules by WPS providers. Thus, we propose to 
update our rules to expressly authorize Priority Level 1 and 2 voice 
calls, when necessary, to preempt or degrade other in-progress calls, 
except for public safety emergency (911) calls.
    41. We seek comment on this proposal. Specifically, we ask 
commenters to address whether or how our rules should reflect the 
potential need for preemption during periods of significant congestion. 
How would service providers determine whether the amount of congestion 
was significant enough to warrant preemption? Would the burdens of 
preemption outweigh the benefits? We also seek comment on whether call 
degradation, on a standalone basis, would ensure successful transport 
of NSEP communications. In other words, is it necessary to allow both 
preemption and degradation of in-progress communications? Is 
degradation more, less, or equally cost-effective when compared to 
preemption? We also seek comment on whether the TSP approach to 
preemption/degradation could provide a framework for WPS. The TSP rules 
expressly allow service providers to preempt or interrupt service to 
non-NSEP users and to preempt lower priority users as necessary to 
provide or restore service. Should similar parameters govern WPS?
    42. Eligible Services. Since the WPS rules were adopted in 2000, 
the ``capacity and capabilities of [wireless] networks have expanded 
immensely.'' As a result, wireless service providers are now able to 
offer a wide array of voice, data, and video services which, in turn, 
has ``spawned a multitude of communications applications (e.g., email, 
video calls, web browsing).'' The development of new technologies has 
direct implications for NSEP users, who increasingly rely on the 
innovative services and applications to ``make and complete mission-
essential communications in an efficient and effective manner.'' Thus, 
DHS has intimated that NSEP requirements for WPS do not already include 
priority data and video services, in addition to voice services. Based 
on this reading of our rules, NTIA requests that we update our rules to 
allow the provision of next-generation voice, data, and video services 
by wireless service providers on a priority basis. Commenters highlight 
that the existing regulatory framework allows for priority wireless 
service to be contractually arranged, and provides flexibility for DHS 
and WPS

[[Page 59115]]

providers to negotiate the services and capacities that will be 
offered.
    43. We propose to amend our 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 non-secure 
voice, data, and video services available over their networks. We seek 
comment on this proposal. What innovative services and applications do 
NSEP users need for mission-critical communications? Do wireless 
service providers currently face legal or regulatory obstacles to 
voluntarily providing prioritized voice, data, and video services on 
their wireless networks?
    44. Eligible users. Under the current rules, WPS priority 
assignments ``should only be requested for key personnel and those 
individuals in national security and emergency response leadership 
positions.'' As such, the current language excludes multiple categories 
of NSEP users, such as critical infrastructure protection, financial 
services, and hospital personnel. However, the Homeland Security Act of 
2002 created the ability for critical infrastructure protection 
personnel to ``meet the qualifying criteria'' for WPS, and DHS is 
currently assigning hospital personnel to Priority Level 3 and 
financial services personnel to Priority Level 4. NTIA requests that we 
update our WPS rules to include these communities of NSEP users. 
Verizon supports NTIA's request.
    45. We propose 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 propose to allow 
entities from any of the 16 critical infrastructure sectors identified 
in Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)-21 to qualify for WPS. Further, 
we propose to modify the descriptions of priority levels and qualifying 
criteria in Appendix B to allow eligible financial services and 
hospital personnel to qualify for WPS. We seek comment on these 
proposals. Should the Commission determine which entities qualify for 
each priority level, or should that function be completed by DHS? How 
should the priority level assignments for each of the entities from the 
16 critical infrastructure sectors be determined? How should 
eligibility for financial services and hospital personnel be 
determined?
    46. Priority Signaling. As stated in the Commission's rules, WPS 
``provides the means for NSEP telecommunications users to obtain 
priority access to available radio channels when necessary to initiate 
emergency calls.'' However, recent emergency situations have 
demonstrated that ``WPS effectiveness can be compromised by the effects 
of signaling congestion that prevent successful WPS handset network 
registration and service invocation.'' NTIA requests that we update our 
rules ``to make clear that WPS service providers can provide priority 
signaling.'' AT&T argues that NTIA's requested rule change is 
unnecessary because WPS providers already offer priority signaling via 
contractual arrangements with DHS.
    47. Although the Commission's rules do not expressly authorize 
priority signaling, we agree with AT&T that it is currently permitted 
in the context of WPS. To promote consistency and prevent confusion 
among providers, we propose to update our WPS rules to expressly 
authorize priority signaling to ensure networks are able to detect WPS 
handset network registration and service invocation. We seek comment on 
this proposal.
    48. Methods of Invocation. As described above, the WPS rules allow 
authorized users to invoke priority access on a per call basis by 
dialing a specified feature code before each call. However, NTIA 
believes the requirement that WPS must be invoked for each 
communication ``hinder[s] efficient response'' during emergency 
situations, in that vital time may be lost when users must dial that 
code for every priority call. To address this problem, NTIA requests 
that we update the WPS rules to allow for a ``variety of arrangements'' 
available under current technical standards and capabilities for WPS 
invocation, including ``always on'' for certain WPS authorized users. 
T-Mobile supports this proposal because it would provide greater 
flexibility for service providers to decide how to offer WPS services 
in the manner most suitable for their subscribers and networks.
    49. We propose to amend our rules to eliminate the requirement that 
priority access must be invoked on a per call basis. We decline to 
propose specific methods of WPS invocation because DHS could address 
that issue via contractual arrangements with service providers. We seek 
comment on this proposal. Do commenters agree with our approach of not 
requiring specific methods of invocation?
    50. Program Name. As described above, government, industry, and 
users commonly refer to Priority Access Service as Wireless Priority 
Service. According to NTIA, the name Wireless Priority Service more 
accurately reflects the service's current requirements and 
capabilities.'' To reflect the prevailing naming convention, NTIA 
requests that we amend Part 64, Appendix B to replace all references to 
Priority Access Service with Wireless Priority Service in Appendix B to 
reflect the current naming convention. We propose to make the changes 
that NTIA requests to Appendix B and to make a similar change to 
section 64.402 of the Commission's rules. We seek comment on these 
proposals.

D. Other Rule Changes Requested by DHS/NTIA

    51. In addition to the proposed rule changes discussed above, DHS 
and NTIA request other rule changes that would impose new requirements 
on TSP and WPS providers. However, some commenters object that these 
rule changes would increase regulatory burdens on service providers by 
increasing the costs of complying with the Commission's priority 
services rules.
    52. Protection of TSP Data. Federal, state, local, Tribal, and 
territorial governments, and other authorized organizations use the TSP 
System to ``protect mission-essential communications at their primary 
places of operation, as well as at locations designed to maintain 
continuity of operations. . . and continuity of government.'' NTIA 
notes that the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information related 
to TSP circuits, in the aggregate, could pose a national security risk. 
In addition, NTIA asserts 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. The TSP rules direct service 
providers to ``not disclose information concerning NSEP services they 
provide to those not having a need-to-know or might use the information 
for competitive advantage,'' but the rules do not require service 
providers to take affirmative steps to prevent or detect the 
unauthorized disclosure of TSP data or to eliminate the risk of TSP 
data being managed offshore. NTIA requests that we update the TSP rules 
to address these issues. Commenters generally agree that the Commission 
should strengthen the TSP rules to prevent unauthorized access to 
sensitive TSP data. However, some commenters raise concerns regarding 
NTIA's proposal to prevent TSP data from being managed offshore.
    53. We seek further comment on NTIA's requested rule changes and 
the means by which the Commission's rules

[[Page 59116]]

could be strengthened. What is the ideal method to achieve the goal of 
maintaining data security without sacrificing service providers' 
flexibility to manage TSP data? We also seek comment on NTIA's 
assertion that service providers moving certain TSP functions overseas 
could create additional security risks. Do commenters agree with NTIA? 
If so, what actions should the Commission take to address this issue? 
What are the potential implications of creating distinctions between 
onshore and offshore operations?
    54. Provisioning and Restoration Timeframes. The Commission's 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 mandates a different standard 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. As such, NTIA recommends the 
Commission replace the current language with the single term 
``promptly'' to describe TSP service providers' provisioning and 
restoration obligations.
    55. Commenters raise concerns with NTIA's requested rule changes. 
For example, some commenters assert that NTIA's proposal to require TSP 
service providers to ``promptly'' provision or restore service by 
allocating ``all resources necessary'' could place unreasonable demands 
on service providers. Further, commenters argue that the word 
``promptly'' itself does not offer meaningful clarity because the term 
is no more specific than the similarly ambiguous phrases in the current 
rules. Commenters also assert that any rule changes should account for 
the contextual nature of restoration efforts and take incident-specific 
factors into consideration.
    56. We seek further comment on NTIA's requested rule changes 
relating to restoration timeframes. We ask commenters to address the 
threshold question of whether provisioning and restoration timeframes 
should be the same. Considering that provisioning and restoration 
consist of different activities, do they require different timeframes? 
Do commenters agree with NTIA that we should replace the current 
language with the single term ``promptly''? Is ``promptly'' 
sufficiently unambiguous, or will it lead to confusion and uncertainty? 
To the extent commenters believe ``all resources'' is unreasonable, 
what would they propose as an alternate standard? How can our rules 
ensure flexibility for carriers to address event-specific circumstances 
and resource demands? Should we incorporate language to address 
external circumstances (e.g., those ``beyond the service provider's 
control'')? Commenters should address any potential costs or burdens 
related to NTIA's requested rule changes. As an alternative approach, 
should we eliminate the restoration timeframes from our rules? Would 
such an approach give DHS the flexibility necessary to establish 
restoration standards through contractual agreements with service 
providers?
    57. Reporting Requirements. Executive Order 13618 directs DHS to 
ensure the priority services programs operate effectively and meet the 
needs of NSEP users ``under all circumstances, including conditions of 
crisis or emergency.'' DHS considers performance data related to 
disaster operations to be ``essential to determining the 
effectiveness'' of the priority services programs.
    58. NTIA requests the Commission amend its TSP rules to require 
service providers to report to DHS provisioning and restoration times 
for TSP circuits in areas covered by the activation of the Disaster 
Information Reporting System (DIRS). Specifically, DHS believes that 
such reporting obligations would give it access to TSP provisioning and 
restoration times and aggregate data that would allow it to compare the 
data for TSP services to similar data for non-TSP services. 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.
    59. NTIA also requests the Commission amend its WPS rules to 
require service providers to file implementation, usage, and 
performance data with DHS so that it can assess the program's 
readiness, usage, and performance at all times and all places offered, 
and for specific geographic areas and times. DHS currently collects and 
analyzes data from WPS providers detailing ``usage, performance, 
implementation, and supporting infrastructure,'' but it does not 
receive consistent information from all providers. NTIA asserts the 
proposed requirement is necessary to ensure consistency across all WPS 
providers and to formalize the process by which providers submit WPS 
data to DHS.
    60. Commenters object to NTIA's request to add reporting 
requirements to the TSP and WPS rules. With regard to TSP, commenters 
argue that requiring service providers to report TSP restoration times 
to DHS should be limited to post-disaster reporting so that service 
providers need not divert resources away from the disaster response 
efforts. Some commenters suggest that comparing the provisioning and 
restoration times of TSP services and non-TSP services is unlikely to 
produce useful results. 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. Commenters also point out 
practical implementation concerns with NTIA's proposals.
    61. Some commenters also oppose NTIA's WPS proposal, arguing that 
imposing performance data reporting requirements could inhibit 
providers' flexibility and ability to innovate. Instead, commenters 
favor contractual solutions that they believe would permit providers 
the flexibility to customize offerings based on their specific network 
characteristics. T-Mobile raises concerns regarding the highly 
sensitive nature of the WPS data and argues that service providers 
should work with DHS and other federal agencies to determine the 
``appropriate information disclosure'' rather that the Commission 
``codifying what data should be shared.''
    62. We seek further comment on NTIA's request to add reporting 
requirements to the TSP and WPS rules. Does NTIA's proposed approach 
strike an appropriate balance between the potential costs/burdens of 
compliance and the potential benefits to NSEP users? What costs/burdens 
(in time and expense) would service providers encounter? What public 
safety and/or national security benefits would result? Would the 
benefits outweigh the costs? We also seek comment on whether it is 
necessary for the Commission to adopt rules-based requirements or 
whether DHS could obtain the same information through contractual 
negotiations with service providers. Is there an alternative method by 
which DHS could assess the effectiveness of the priority services 
programs during crisis or emergency situations? Finally, we seek 
comment on whether any reporting requirements should include 
restrictions on DHS's ability to use or share commercially sensitive 
data.

[[Page 59117]]

E. Alternative Approach: Applying the GETS Model to TSP and WPS

    63. As an alternative to the proposals described above, we seek 
comment on whether the goals of this proceeding could be achieved by 
replacing the current rules-based approach to priority services with a 
``light-touch'' regulatory framework for all priority services 
programs. Under this alternative approach, all service providers, on a 
voluntary basis, may offer prioritized restoration and provisioning of 
voice, data, and video services to authorized users. Likewise, all 
service providers, on a voluntary basis, would be authorized to give 
NSEP personnel priority access to, and priority use of, all voice, 
data, and video services available over their networks. Details could 
be negotiated and administered by DHS via contract. We seek comment on 
whether there are currently any legal or regulatory barriers to this 
alternative approach and how to transition to such an approach should 
we adopt it.
    64. We seek comment on whether trends in the current public safety 
marketplace may favor adoption of a light-touch regulatory approach. We 
note that in contrast to TSP and WPS, GETS has operated on a 
contractual basis without FCC rules or regulations. Nonetheless, would 
this alternative approach require any changes to FCC rules, or could 
providers and DHS freely begin operating under this approach without 
further FCC action? This approach appears to have been successful: DHS 
recently found that GETS call completion rates exceeded their target 
rates for every fiscal year between 2015 and 2018 (the most recent year 
for which data is available).
    65. Likewise, the recent roll out of the First Responder Network 
Authority (FirstNet) suggests that priority services programs can 
operate effectively in a market-driven environment. Congress 
established FirstNet in 2012 to ``ensure the deployment and operation 
of a nationwide, broadband network for public safety communications.'' 
FirstNet offers service priority and preemption, which allow first 
responders to communicate over an ``always-on'' network. Public safety 
entities using FirstNet can boost their priority levels during 
emergency situations ``to ensure first responder teams stay connected'' 
even when networks are congested. AT&T describes preemption as an 
``enhanced'' form of priority service because it ``shifts non-emergency 
traffic to another line,'' which ensures NSEP users' communications are 
successfully completed. According to AT&T, priority and preemption 
support voice calls, ``text messages, images, videos, location 
information, [and] data from apps . . . in real time.'' In the first 
half of 2019, the monthly levels of device connections to FirstNet 
``outperformed expectations at approximately 196% of projected 
targets.'' In May 2019, ``a majority of agencies and nearly 50% of 
FirstNet's total connections were new subscribers (not AT&T 
migrations).'' These trends suggest that first responders recognize the 
benefits of prioritization, preemption, and other innovative features 
that enhance public safety communications. We seek comment on the 
extent to which first responders and providers have already availed 
themselves of the option to offer prioritized of information services, 
such as data and video services.
    66. We note that other service providers have recently begun 
offering their own priority services options to compete with FirstNet. 
For example, Verizon offers priority and preemption services through 
its public safety private core. In addition, public safety users ``have 
access to several . . . enhanced services,'' including Mobile Broadband 
Priority Service and data preemption. These services ``provide public 
safety users priority service for data transmissions'' by giving users 
priority over commercial users during periods of heavy network 
congestion and '' reallocat[ing] network resources from commercial 
data/internet users to first responders'' if networks reach full 
capacity.
    67. Similarly, U.S. Cellular offers ``enhanced data priority 
services for first responders and other emergency response teams.'' The 
company uses a ``dedicated broadband LTE network that separates 
mission-critical data from commercial and consumer traffic,'' ensuring 
that NSEP personnel ``have access to vital services'' during emergency 
situations. In addition to prioritizing network access, U.S. Cellular 
uses preemption ``to automatically and temporarily reallocate lower 
priority network resources to emergency responders so they can stay 
connected during emergencies or other high-traffic events.''
    68. Based on these recent industry trends, we seek comment on 
whether a light-touch regulatory approach to all priority services 
would be sufficient to meet the needs of NSEP users. We also seek 
comment on the potential consequences of adopting such an approach. To 
what extent would it enhance competition and facilitate the development 
of innovative service offerings for use by NSEP personnel? What would 
be the overall impacts on public safety communications? Would DHS be 
able to use contractual provisions to make the programmatic changes it 
seeks in the TSP and WPS petitions? What impact, if any, would the 
light-touch approach have on DHS's ability to manage priority services 
programs and the Commission's ability to satisfy its responsibilities 
under Executive Order 13618? Would a minimum level of FCC regulation be 
necessary to provide a ``backstop'' for the priority services programs?

IV. Procedural Matter

    69. Ex Parte Presentations. This proceeding shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy 
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must: (1) List all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
    70. Comment Filing Procedures. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 
of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415,

[[Page 59118]]

1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or 
before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments 
may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System 
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 
63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one active 
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (Mar. 19, 2020) available 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
     During the time the Commission's building is closed to the 
general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers 
need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
    71. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
    72. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex 
parte submissions will be available via ECFS. Documents will be 
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the 
FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th 
Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC. These documents will also be 
available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in 
ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
    73. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
of the policies and actions considered in this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM). The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B. Written public 
comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be identified with a 
separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA 
and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    74. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking contains proposed new or modified information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.
    75. Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy 
of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). Written public 
comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as 
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines in the NPRM. 
The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 
published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    2. In the NPRM, we propose changes to, and seek comment on, our 
telecommunications priority access rules which include the 
Telecommunications Services Priority (TSP) program and Wireless 
Priority Service (WSP), established in 1988 and 2000 respectively. 
These rules which are currently limited to voice communications, were 
established when communications networks were primarily based on 
circuit-switched technologies and have not been updated to address 
newer communications technologies. We note in the NPRM, that ``[t]he 
Commission has observed that consumers are increasingly moving away 
from traditional telephone services provided over copper wires and 
towards next-generation technologies using a variety of transmission 
means, including fiber, and wireless spectrum-based services.'' Indeed, 
most American consumers have moved from legacy landlines to wireless or 
internet-based alternatives, evidenced by the number of legacy 
landlines dropping by 160 million since 2000--a trend that is likely to 
continue.
    3. The need for, and objective of, the proposed rules is to update 
our priority services requirements to take into account newer forms of 
both content (e.g., video, data) and transmission (e.g., IP-based), and 
to ensure that such programs operate effectively in today's IP-based 
network environment, particularly since priority services programs are 
used by National Security and Emergency Preparedness (NSEP) personnel. 
Accordingly, in the NPRM we propose modifications to our rules to 
address next generation networks, technologies and services. In 
particular, we propose to expand the scope of the priority services 
rules to include current and future technologies by replacing specific 
and limited terms with more

[[Page 59119]]

general and neutral terms. Such actions should make our rules flexible 
enough to apply to all forms of communication technologies that may be 
used in NSEP communications.
    4. To enhance regulatory efficiency and reduce the burden on 
service providers by making it easier to identify and comply with the 
applicable priority service rules, we propose to simplify, streamline 
and, to the extent possible, consolidate our priority service rules 
into a single appendix in part 64 of the Commission's rules. Under our 
proposal, the amended appendices would continue to differentiate 
between the priority services programs.
    5. Finally, the NPRM addresses 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 
Bureau sought comment on both petitions via public notice. Accordingly, 
the rule changes prescribed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are 
informed by a careful review of NTIA's Petitions for Rulemaking and the 
public comments submitted in response to the public notices.

B. Legal Basis

    6. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 
4(j), 4(n), 201-205, 251(e)(3), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 
309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615(a)(1), and 615(c) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 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.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    7. 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 proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    8. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, 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 SBA's 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 30.7 
million businesses.
    9. 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 2018, there were 
approximately 571,709 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.
    10. 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.''
1. Telecommunications Service Providers
a. Wireless Telecommunications Providers
    11. Pursuant to 47 CFR 9.10(a), the Commission's 911 service 
requirements are only applicable to Commercial Mobile Radio Service 
(CMRS) ``[providers], excluding mobile satellite service operators, to 
the extent that they: (1) Offer real-time, two way switched voice 
service that is interconnected with the public switched network; and 
(2) Utilize an in-network switching facility that enables the provider 
to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber 
calls. These requirements are applicable to entities that offer voice 
service to consumers by purchasing airtime or capacity at wholesale 
rates from CMRS licensees.''
    12. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note 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. Also, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in 
the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are 
implicated.
    13. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' category 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. Establishments providing internet services or 
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for All Other 
Telecommunications, which consists of all such firms with annual 
receipts of $35 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau 
data for 2012 shows that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the 
entire year. Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual receipts less 
than $25 million and 42 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to 
$49,999,999. Thus, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All 
Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected by our action can 
be considered small.

[[Page 59120]]

    14. AWS Services (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)). For the AWS-1 bands, the 
Commission has 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. 
For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although we do not know for certain which entities 
are likely to apply for these frequencies, we note that the AWS-1 bands 
are comparable to those used for cellular service and personal 
communications service. The Commission has not yet adopted size 
standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands but proposes to treat both AWS-2 
and AWS-3 similarly to broadband PCS service and AWS-1 service due to 
the comparable capital requirements and other factors, such as issues 
involved in relocating incumbents and developing markets, technologies, 
and services.
    15. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs). 
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these 
service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers and under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that 
year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. 
Based on these data, the Commission concludes that the majority of 
Competitive LECS, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other 
Local Service Providers, are small entities. According to Commission 
data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision 
of either competitive local exchange services or competitive access 
provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 
1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that 
they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to 
have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 carriers have reported that 
they are Other Local Service Providers. Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees. Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data, 
the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local 
exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service 
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.
    16. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest 
applicable NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 
Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate 
that 3,117 firms operated the entire year. Of this total, 3,083 
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are 
small businesses that may be affected by our actions. According to 
Commission data, one thousand three hundred and seven (1,307) Incumbent 
Local Exchange Carriers reported that they were incumbent local 
exchange service providers. Of this total, an estimated 1,006 have 
1,500 or fewer employees. Thus using the SBA's size standard the 
majority of Incumbent LECs can be considered small entities.
    17. Narrowband Personal Communications Services. Two auctions of 
narrowband personal communications services (PCS) licenses have been 
conducted. To ensure meaningful participation of small business 
entities in future auctions, the Commission has adopted a two-tiered 
small business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and 
Order. Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41 
licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. A ``small 
business'' is 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 an entity that, 
together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross 
revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. 
The SBA has approved these small business size standards.
    18. 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. The closest applicable SBA size standard is for 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), which is an 
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. U.S. Census Bureau data in 
this industry for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for 
the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or 
fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus, 
under this SBA category and the associated small business size 
standard, the majority of Offshore Radiotelephone Service firms can be 
considered small. There are presently approximately 55 licensees in 
this service. However, the Commission is unable to estimate at this 
time the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the 
SBA's small business size standard for the category of Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).
    19. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and 
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a small business size 
standard for this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 shows that 841 establishments operated in this 
industry in that year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with 
fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated with between 
1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or 
more employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of 
manufacturers in this industry are small.
    20. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a 
size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone 
Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is 
the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS). The closest 
applicable SBA size standard is for Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except Satellite), which is an entity employing no more than 
1,500 persons. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show 
that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had 
employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the 
associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
Rural Radiotelephone Services firm are small entities. There are 
approximately 1,000 licensees in the

[[Page 59121]]

Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there 
are 1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone 
Service that may be affected by the rules and policies proposed herein.
    21. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for 
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite 
uses. The Commission defined ``small business'' for the wireless 
communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross 
revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a 
``very small business'' as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 
million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved 
these small business size standards. In the Commission's auction for 
geographic area licenses in the WCS there were seven winning bidders 
that qualified as ``very small business'' entities, and one that 
qualified as a ``small business'' entity.
    22. 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 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or 
more. Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications 
carriers (except satellite) are small entities.
    23. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, 
personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio 
telephony carriers. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under the SBA small 
business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show 
that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees and 12 firms had 1000 
employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated size 
standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of these entities 
can be considered small. According to Commission data, 413 carriers 
reported that they were engaged in wireless telephony. Of these, an 
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 
1,500 employees. Therefore, more than half of these entities can be 
considered small.
    24. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard 
Band Order, the Commission adopted size standards for ``small 
businesses'' and ``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining 
their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and 
installment payments. A small business in this service is an entity 
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has 
average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding 
three years. Additionally, a very small business is 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. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. An 
auction of 52 Major Economic Area licenses commenced on September 6, 
2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 
96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small 
businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz 
Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001 and closed on 
February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to 
three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a 
total of two licenses.
    25. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted 
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of 
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding 
credits. 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. 
A ``very small business'' is defined as 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. 
Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small 
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) 
licenses--``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding 
three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of 
740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license 
in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on August 
27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses 
available for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders. 
Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small 
business or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A 
second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and 
included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area 
licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small 
business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed 
entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses. On July 26, 2005, the 
Commission completed an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band 
(Auction No. 60). There were three winning bidders for five licenses. 
All three winning bidders claimed small business status.
    26. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. An auction of 700 MHz 
licenses commenced January 24, 2008, and closed on March 18, 2008, 
which included: 176 Economic Area licenses in the A-Block, 734 Cellular 
Market Area licenses in the B-Block, and 176 EA licenses in the E-
Block. Twenty winning bidders, claiming small business status (those 
with attributable average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million 
and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years) won 49 
licenses. Thirty-three winning bidders claiming very small business 
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do 
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) won 325 licenses.
    27. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and 
Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz 
licenses. On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 in 
which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for 
licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block, 
and one nationwide license in the D Block. The auction concluded on 
March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business 
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do 
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five 
licenses.

[[Page 59122]]

    28. Wireless Resellers. The SBA has not developed a small business 
size standard specifically for Wireless Resellers. The SBA category of 
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest NAICS code category for 
wireless 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; they do not operate transmission facilities and 
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included 
in this industry. Under the SBA's size standard, such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 
2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services for the entire 
year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. 
Thus, under this category and the associated small business size 
standard, the majority of these resellers can be considered small 
entities. According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported that 
they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, 
an estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of Wireless Resellers are small 
entities.
b. Equipment Manufacturers
    29. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and 
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a small business size 
standard for this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 shows that 841 establishments operated in this 
industry in that year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with 
fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated with between 
1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or 
more employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of 
manufacturers in this industry can be considered small.
    30. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing. This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing 
semiconductors and related solid state devices. Examples of products 
made by these establishments are integrated circuits, memory chips, 
microprocessors, diodes, transistors, solar cells and other 
optoelectronic devices. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing, which 
consists of all such companies having 1,250 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 862 establishments 
that operated that year. Of this total, 843 operated with fewer than 
1,000 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms 
in this industry can be considered small.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    31. The NPRM proposes and seeks comment on changes to Commission 
rules related to priority access services that may affect reporting, 
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for small entities, if 
adopted. Specifically, regarding TSP, service providers would be 
required to have policies and procedures in place to prevent and detect 
the unauthorized disclosure of TSP data, and report provisioning and 
restoration times for TSP circuits in areas covered by the activation 
of the Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS). Service providers 
would also be required to report provisioning and restoration times, 
and aggregate data that would allow the DHS to compare the data for TSP 
services to similar data for non-TSP services. Additionally, non-common 
carriers that voluntarily provide TSP-like services would be required 
to abide by the rules currently contained in Appendix A of part 64 of 
the Commission's rules.
    32. Regarding PAS, Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers 
that offer priority access service (PAS providers) to NSEP users would 
be required to allow Priority Level 1 and 2 voice calls, if needed, to 
preempt or degrade in-progress public communications and provision 
next-generation voice, data, and video services on a priority basis. 
Priority Level 1 exceeds all other priority services offered by PAS 
providers. PAS providers would also be required to provide priority 
signaling to ensure networks are able to detect PAS handset network 
registration and service invocation; would be subject to additional 
methods of invocating PAS priority treatment for NSEP communications; 
and would be subject to DHS specific requirements to ensure PAS 
providers meet the survivability of NSEP communications, as required in 
Executive Order 13618. In addition, PAS providers would be required to 
file implementation and performance data with DHS so that DHS can 
assess the program's readiness, usage, and performance at all times and 
in all places offered, and for specific geographic areas and times.
    33. We note that NTIA seeks substantial reporting and record-
keeping requirements regarding the TSP and PAS programs. For TSP, NTIA 
asks that service providers report to DHS provisioning and restoration 
times for TSP circuits in areas covered by the activation of the 
Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS), on belief that such 
reporting obligations would give it access to TSP provisioning and 
restoration times and aggregate data that would allow it to compare the 
data for TSP services to similar data for non-TSP services. NTIA also 
requests the Commission amend its WPS rules to require service 
providers to file implementation, usage, and performance data with DHS 
so that it can assess the program's readiness, usage, and performance 
at all times and all places offered, and for specific geographic areas 
and times. We are not prepared to propose the requests as rules, until 
we have a better understanding of the balance between the costs to 
providers and the benefits to DHS as program administrator.
    34. If the Commission ultimately determines that it will adopt the 
rules proposed in the NPRM, small entities may need to hire engineers, 
consultants, or other professionals to comply with the rules generally, 
and the rules noted above specifically (i.e., related to reporting and 
recordkeeping). At this time the Commission cannot, however, quantify 
the cost of compliance with the potential rule changes and obligations 
that may result in this proceeding. In our discussion of the proposals 
in the NPRM, we specifically seek comments from the parties in the 
proceeding addressing the costs and benefits of our proposed actions. 
We expect the information we receive in the comments to help the 
Commission identify and evaluate relevant matters for small entities, 
including any compliance costs and burdens that may result from the 
matters raised in the NPRM.

[[Page 59123]]

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    35. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed 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.
    36. The Commission has taken steps and considered alternatives that 
could minimize the economic impact on small entities as a result of the 
proposals and matters upon which we seek comments in the NPRM; we 
believe, for example, that something as straight-forward as proposing 
to remove the requirement that an agency's TSP ``invocation official'' 
must be at or near the top of an agency's management hierarchy can 
lower costs for small entities. Similarly, our proposal to amend our 
PAS rules to authorize additional methods of invoking priority 
treatment for NSEP communications will most likely have an effect of 
lowering costs.
    37. We note that our proposal does not currently seek adoption of 
several of the rule changes requested by NTIA and DHS, on belief that 
these rule changes would increase regulatory burdens on service 
providers/providers by increasing the costs of complying with the 
Commission's priority services rules. Further, we believe that 
considering a ``light touch'' regulatory framework and amending the 
Commission's priority services rules would enhance regulatory 
efficiency and reduce the burdens on small entities and other service 
providers by making it easier to identify and comply with the 
applicable rules.
    38. Next, we raise the issue of rule waivers in light of the 
importance of end-to-end support of priority services in an IP-based 
network environment and seek comment on how the Commission might 
consider requests for waiver of its rules should our proposals be 
adopted. To the extent waivers are allowed, in order to determine what 
criteria should the Commission consider in determining whether there is 
good cause for waiver, we ask among other things, whether the size of 
the carrier should be a consideration. We also ask whether we should 
use our existing waiver rules which small entities may already be 
familiar with or adopt new requirements. New requirements have the 
potential to be less rigorous than the current rules. Another 
alternative upon which we seek comment that could be of particular 
benefit to small entities is whether and what type of mechanism should 
there be for extending the allowable time to achieve compliance with 
any rules adopted in this proceeding.
    39. Finally, as a general matter, the Commission seeks comment on 
the minimum benefit expected to result from the policy changes we 
propose, and on the costs that NSEP providers would incur in order to 
achieve compliance. To assist in evaluating the economic impact on 
small entities, the Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits 
of the proposed rules and any alternatives raised in the NPRM that will 
accomplish our goal of protecting life and property through the 
provisioning of NSEP communications services, while tailoring 
implementation of our proposals to minimize compliance costs and any 
potential burdens. The Commission is particularly interested in how the 
proposed rules on requiring service providers to have policies and 
procedures in place to prevent and detect the unauthorized disclosure 
of TSP data; requiring those providers to report provisioning and 
restoration times for TSP circuits in areas covered by the activation 
of the DIRS; and requiring PAS providers to file implementation and 
performance data with DHS so that DHS can assess the program's 
readiness, usage, and performance at all times and all places offered, 
and for specific geographic areas and times, will affect, and 
economically impact, small entities. While we believe there would be 
little adverse economic impact on small entities and other service 
providers because most of the proposed rule changes are administrative 
in nature, the Commission seeks to understand, with a degree of 
specificity, how complying with the proposed rules (were they to be 
adopted) would impact small entities. The Commission expects to 
consider more fully the economic impact on small entities following its 
review of comments filed in response to the NPRM, including costs and 
benefits analyses. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed in 
this proceeding will shape the final alternatives it considers, the 
final conclusions it reaches, and any final actions it ultimately takes 
in this proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may 
occur on small entities.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    40. None.

V. Ordering Clause

    41. 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, that this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket No. 20-187 is adopted.

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.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

0
1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 
226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 262, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 
616, 620, 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. 
P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.

0
2. Revise Sec.  64.402 to read as follows:


Sec.  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.
0
3. Revise appendix A to Part 64 to read as follows:

[[Page 59124]]

Appendix A to Part 64--Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) System 
for National Security Emergency Preparedness (NSEP)

1. Purpose and Authority

    a. This appendix establishes policies and procedures and assigns 
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 (RP) 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(o), 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 606 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, codified at 47 U.S.C. 151, 
154(i)-(j), (n) & (o), 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; Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, codified at 
47 U.S.C 1302; 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. 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. Together, this appendix and the regulations and procedures 
issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) establish one 
uniform system of priorities for provisioning and restoration of 
NSEP telecommunications services and internet Protocol-based 
services both before and after invocation of the President's war 
emergency powers. In order that government and industry resources 
may be used effectively under all conditions, a single set of rules, 
regulations, and procedures is necessary, and they must be applied 
on a day-to-day basis to all NSEP services so that the priorities 
they establish can be implemented at once 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. 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.
    e. 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.
    f. NSEP treatment refers to the provisioning of a specific NSEP 
service before others based on the provisioning priority level 
assigned by DHS.
    g. Priority action means assignment, revision, revocation, or 
revalidation by DHS of a priority level associated with an NSEP 
service.
    h. 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.
    i. 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.
    j. Private NSEP services include non-common carrier 
telecommunications services.
    k. 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.
    l. Public switched NSEP services include those NSEP services 
using public switched networks.
    m. Reconciliation means the comparison of NSEP service 
information and the resolution of identified discrepancies.
    n. 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.
    o. 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.
    p. 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.
    q. 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.
    r. Service identification refers to the information uniquely 
identifying an NSEP service to the service provider and/or service 
user.
    s. 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.
    t. Service provider refers to any person, association, 
partnership, corporation, organization, or other entity (including 
government organizations) that offers to supply any equipment, 
facilities, or services (including customer premises equipment and 
wiring) or combination thereof. The term includes resale carriers, 
prime contractors, subcontractors, and interconnecting carriers.
    u. Spare circuits or services refers to those not being used or 
contracted for by any customer.
    v. 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.
    w. Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) system user refers 
to any individual, organization, or activity that interacts with the 
NSEP TSP System.

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 must offer prioritized provisioning and 
restoration of circuit-switched 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,

[[Page 59125]]

    (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. 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 the NSEP TSP System 
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 Post-
Attack/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 post-attack 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.

5. Responsibilities

    a. The FCC will:
    (1) Provide regulatory oversight of implementation of the NSEP 
TSP System.
    (2) Enforce NSEP TSP System rules and regulations, which are 
contained in this appendix.
    (3) Act as final authority for approval, revision, or 
disapproval of priority actions by DHS and adjudicate disputes 
regarding either priority actions or denials of requests for 
priority actions by DHS, until superseded by the President's war 
emergency powers under section 706 of the Communications Act.
    (4) Perform such functions as are required by law and Executive 
Order 13618, including:
    (a) With respect to all entities licensed or regulated by the 
FCC: The extension, discontinuance, or reduction of common carrier 
facilities or 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 
pertinent law; and the assessment of communications service provider 
emergency needs and resources; and
    (b) support 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.
    (5) Function (on a discretionary basis) as a sponsoring Federal 
organization. (See section 5(b) below.)
    b. Sponsoring Federal organizations will:
    (1) Review and decide whether to sponsor foreign, state, and 
local government and private industry (including service providers) 
requests for priority actions. Federal organizations will forward 
sponsored requests with recommendations for disposition to DHS. 
Recommendations will be 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.
    (4) Comply with any regulations and procedures supplemental to 
and consistent with this appendix which are issued by DHS.
    c. Service users will:
    (1) Identify services requiring priority level assignments and 
request and justify priority level assignments in accordance with 
this appendix and any supplemental regulations and procedures issued 
by DHS that are consistent 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-to-end 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) Be prepared 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.
    (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 National Coordinating Center (see section 
2(d) of this appendix) 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 any regulations and procedures supplemental to 
and consistent with this appendix that are issued by DHS.
    d. Non-federal service users, in addition to responsibilities 
prescribed above in section 6(d), will 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 will:
    (1) When NSEP treatment is invoked by service users, provision 
NSEP services before non-NSEP services, based on priority level 
assignments made by DHS. Provisioning will require service providers 
to:
    (a) Allocate resources to ensure best efforts to provide NSEP 
services by the time required. When limited resources constrain 
response capability, providers will address conflicts for resources 
by:
    (i) Providing NSEP services in order of provisioning priority 
level assignment (i.e., ``E'', ``1'', ``2'', ``3'', ``4'', or 
``5'');
    (ii) Providing Emergency NSEP services (i.e., those assigned 
provisioning priority level ``E'') in order of receipt of the 
service requests;

[[Page 59126]]

    (iii) Providing Essential NSEP services (i.e., those assigned 
priority levels ``1'', ``2'', ``3'', ``4'', or ``5'') 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 the Executive 
Office of the President (EOP) for resolution.
    (b) Comply with NSEP service requests by:
    (i) Allocating resources necessary to provide Emergency NSEP 
services as soon as possible, dispatching outside normal business 
hours when necessary;
    (ii) Ensuring best efforts to meet 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
    (iii) Seeking NCC assistance as authorized under the NCC Charter 
(see section 1.3, NCC Charter, dated October 9, 1985).
    (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. (Note: 
For broadband or multiple service facilities, restoration is 
permitted even though it might result in restoration of services 
assigned no or 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 (i.e., ``1'', ``2'', ``3'', ``4'', or 
``5'') by:
    (a) Allocating available resources to restore NSEP services as 
quickly as practicable, dispatching outside normal business hours to 
restore services assigned priority levels ``1'', ``2'', and ``3'' 
when necessary, and services assigned priority level ``4'' and ``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 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 from ``1'' through ``5,'' when use of patching and/
or rerouting will hasten restoration;
    (d) Seeking NCC assistance authorized under the NCC Charter; and
    (e) Referring any conflicts which cannot be resolved (to the 
mutual satisfaction of service providers and users) to EOP 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, as detailed in 
section 5(e)(1), (2), and (3).
    (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 any regulations or procedures supplemental to 
and consistent with this appendix that are issued by DHS and 
reviewed by the FCC.
    (12) Ensure that at all times a reasonable number of public 
switched network services are made available for public use.
    (13) Not disclose information concerning NSEP services they 
provide to those not having a need-to-know or might use the 
information for competitive advantage.
    (14) 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. 
``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. The sequence in which existing services may be preempted to 
provision NSEP services assigned a provisioning priority level ``E'' 
or restore NSEP services assigned a restoration priority level from 
``1'' through ``5'':
    (1) Non-NSEP services: If suitable spare services are not 
available, then, based on the considerations in this appendix and 
the service provider's best judgment, non-NSEP services will be 
preempted. After ensuring a sufficient number of public switched 
services are 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 or non-NSEP services are 
available, then 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 a provisioning priority of ``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 
actions to DHS in the format and following the procedures prescribed 
by DHS.

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. A priority level assignment made by 
DHS will serve as DHS's recommendation to the FCC. Until the 
President's war emergency powers are invoked, priority level 
assignments must be approved by the FCC. However, service providers 
are ordered to implement any priority level assignments that are 
pending FCC approval. 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

[[Page 59127]]

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, user, 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, and (2) 
is authorized by the organization to approve the expenditure of 
funds necessary for the requested service.

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. DHS will act on the 
appeal within 90 days of receipt. Service users and sponsoring 
Federal organizations may only then appeal directly to the FCC. 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 of ``1,'' ``2,'' ``3,'' ``4,'' and ``5'' may 
be assigned for provisioning and/or restoration of Essential NSEP 
services. However, for Emergency NSEP services, a priority level 
``E'' is assigned for provisioning. A restoration priority level 
from ``1'' through ``5'' may be assigned if an Emergency NSEP 
service also qualifies for such a restoration priority level under 
the Essential NSEP category.
    (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. 
Priority levels will normally be assigned only for the first time 
period. These assigned priority levels will apply through the onset 
of any attack, but it is expected that they would later be revised 
by surviving authorized resource managers within DHS based upon 
specific facts and circumstances arising during the Attack/War and 
Post-Attack/Recovery time periods.
    (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 provisioning 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 a restoration priority level ``5'' for a 30-day 
period. Such 30-day restoration priority level assignments will be 
revoked automatically unless extended for another 30-day period. A 
notice of any such revocation will be sent to service providers.
    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 of 
``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 a 
priority level ``E'' for provisioning.)
    (1) National security leadership. This subcategory will be 
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 service, supporting other 
NSEP functions.
    (ii) Presidential communications service critical to continuity 
of government and national leadership during crisis situations.

[[Page 59128]]

    (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 those minimum additional NSEP 
services 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 the minimum number of 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 the minimum number of 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.
    d. Limitations. Priority levels will be assigned only to the 
minimum number of NSEP services required to support an NSEP 
function. Priority levels will not normally be assigned to backup 
services on a continuing basis, absent additional justification, 
e.g., a service user specifies a requirement for physically diverse 
routing or contracts for additional continuity-of-service features. 
EOP may also establish limitations upon the relative numbers of 
services which may be assigned any restoration priority level. These 
limitations will not take precedence over laws or executive orders. 
Such limitations shall not be exceeded absent waiver by EOP.
    e. Non-NSEP services. Services in the non-NSEP category will be 
those which do not meet the criteria for either Emergency NSEP or 
Essential NSEP.
0
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 policies and procedures and 
outlines responsibilities for the Wireless Priority Service (WPS) to 
support the needs for National Security Emergency Preparedness 
(NSEP) personnel and other authorized users. WPS authorizes priority 
treatment to certain domestic telecommunications services and 
internet Protocol-based services for which provisioning 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(o), 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 606 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, codified at 47 U.S.C. 151, 
154(i)-(j), (n) & (o), 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; Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, codified at 
47 U.S.C 1302; 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.
    c. This appendix is intended to be read in conjunction with 
regulations and procedures that the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) issues to implement the responsibilities assigned in section 5 
of this appendix, or for use in the event this appendix is 
superseded by the President's emergency war powers. Together, this 
appendix and the regulations and procedures issued by DHS establish 
one uniform system of wireless priority access service both before 
and after invocation of the President's emergency war powers.

2. Definitions

    As used in this appendix:
    1. Authorizing agent refers to a Federal or State entity that 
authenticates, evaluates, and makes recommendations to DHS regarding 
the assignment of wireless priority access service levels.
    2. Service provider means an FCC-licensed wireless service 
provider. The term does not include agents of the licensed provider 
or resellers of wireless service.
    3. Service user means an individual or organization (including a 
service provider) to whom or which a priority access assignment has 
been made.
    4. The following terms have the same meaning as in Appendix A to 
part 64, as amended:
    (a) Assignment;
    (b) Government;
    (c) National Coordinating Center for Communications (NCC);
    (d) National Security Emergency Preparedness (NSEP) services 
(excluding the last sentence);
    (e) Reconciliation;
    (f) Revalidation;
    (g) Revision;
    (h) Revocation;
    (i) Telecommunications services (excluding the last sentence).

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 7 of this appendix.
    b. Eligible services. Wireless service providers may, on a 
voluntary basis, offer

[[Page 59129]]

prioritized provisioning of voice, data, and video services. 
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 priority 1 and 2 voice calls may preempt 
or degrade other in-progress calls, if necessary. NSEP users are 
authorized to use priority signaling to ensure networks are able to 
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 decided to 
provide such service. WPS priorities 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 will:
    1. Provide regulatory oversight of the implementation of WPS.
    2. Enforce WPS rules and regulations.
    3. Act as final authority for approval, revision, or disapproval 
of priority assignments by DHS by adjudicating disputes regarding 
either priority assignments or the denial thereof by DHS until 
superseded by the President's war emergency powers under Section 706 
of the Communications Act.
    4. Perform such functions as are required by law and Executive 
Order 13618, including:
    (a) With respect to all entities licensed or regulated by the 
FCC: The extension, discontinuance, or reduction of common carrier 
facilities or 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 
pertinent law; and the assessment of communications service provider 
emergency needs and resources; and
    (b) support 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 will:
    1. Identify themselves as authorizing agents and their 
respective communities of interest (State, Federal Agency) to DHS. 
State authorizing agents will provide a central point of contact to 
receive priority requests from users within their state. Federal 
authorizing agents will 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 7 of this appendix. As a guide, WPS 
authorizing agents should request the lowest priority level that is 
applicable and the minimum number of wireless services required to 
support an NSEP function. When appropriate, the authorizing agent 
will recommend approval or deny 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 
the service user and vice versa. Information will include WPS 
requests and assignments, reconciliation and revalidation 
notifications, and other information.
    5. Participate in reconciliation and revalidation of WPS 
information at the request of DHS.
    6. Comply with any regulations and procedures supplemental to 
and consistent with this appendix that are issued by DHS.
    7. Disclose content of the WPS database only to those having a 
need-to-know.
    c. Service users will:
    1. Determine the need for and request WPS assignments in a 
planned process, not waiting until an emergency has occurred.
    2. Request WPS assignments for the lowest applicable priority 
level and minimum number of wireless services necessary to provide 
NSEP management and response functions during emergency/disaster 
situations.
    3. Initiate WPS requests through the appropriate authorizing 
agent. DHS will make final approval or denial of WPS requests and 
may direct service providers to remove WPS if appropriate. (Note: 
State and local government or private users will apply for WPS 
through their designated State government authorizing agent. Federal 
users will apply for WPS through their employing agency. State and 
local users in states where there has been no designation will be 
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 will serve as the 
authorizing agent.)
    4. Submit all correspondence regarding WPS to the authorizing 
agent.
    5. Invoke WPS only when congestion blocks network access and the 
user must establish communications to fulfill an NSEP mission. Calls 
should be as brief as possible to afford service to other NSEP 
users.
    6. Participate in reconciliation and revalidation of WPS 
information at the request of the authorizing agent or DHS.
    7. Request discontinuance of WPS when the NSEP qualifying 
criteria used to obtain WPS is no longer applicable.
    8. Pay service providers as billed for WPS.
    9. Comply with regulations and procedures that are issued by the 
DHS which are supplemental to and consistent with this appendix.
    d. Service providers who offer any form of wireless priority 
access service for NSEP purposes will provide that service in 
accordance with this appendix. As currently described in the 
Priority Access and Channel Assignment Standard (IS-53-A), service 
providers will:
    1. Provide WPS levels 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 only upon receipt of an 
authorization from DHS and remove WPS for specific users at the 
direction of DHS.
    2. Ensure that WPS system priorities supersede any other NSEP 
priority which may be provided.
    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 content of the NSEP WPS database only to those 
having a need-to-know or who will not use the information for 
economic advantage.
    7. Comply with regulations and procedures supplemental to and 
consistent with this appendix that are issued by DHS.
    8. Ensure that at all times a reasonable amount of wireless 
spectrum is made available for public use.
    9. Notify DHS and the service user if WPS is to be discontinued 
as a service.
    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. 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. DHS will act on the appeal 
within 90 days of receipt. If a dispute still exists, 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.

7. 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, priority one 
being the highest. The five priority levels are:
    1. Executive Leadership and Policy Makers.
    Users who qualify for the Executive Leadership and Policy Makers 
priority will be assigned priority one. A limited number of 
technicians who are essential to restoring wireless networks shall 
also receive this highest priority treatment. Users assigned to 
priority one receive the highest priority in relation to all other 
carrier-provided services. Examples of those eligible include:

[[Page 59130]]

    (i) The President of the United States, the Secretary of 
Defense, selected military leaders, and the minimum number of senior 
staff necessary to support these officials;
    (ii) State governors, lieutenant governors, cabinet-level 
officials responsible for public safety and health, and the minimum 
number of senior staff necessary to support these officials; and
    (iii) Mayors, county commissioners, and the minimum number of 
senior staff to support these officials.
    2. Disaster Response/Military Command and Control.
    Users who qualify for the Disaster Response/Military Command and 
Control priority will be assigned priority two. Individuals eligible 
for this priority include personnel key to managing the initial 
response to an emergency at the local, state, regional and federal 
levels. Personnel selected for this priority should be 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. 
Examples of those eligible include:
    (i) Federal emergency operations center coordinators, e.g., 
Manager, National Coordinating Center for Communications, National 
Interagency Fire Center, Federal Coordinating Officer, Federal 
Emergency Communications Coordinator, Director of Military Support;
    (ii) State emergency Services director, National Guard 
Leadership, State and Federal 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 priority will be assigned priority three. 
Eligible for this priority are individuals who direct operations 
critical to life, property, and maintenance of law and order 
immediately following an event. Examples of those eligible include:
    (i) Federal law enforcement command;
    (ii) State police leadership;
    (iii) Local fire and law enforcement command;
    (iv) Emergency medical service leaders;
    (v) Search and rescue team leaders;
    (vi) Emergency communications coordinators; and
    (vii) Hospital personnel.
    4. Public Services/Utilities and Public Welfare.
    Users who qualify for the Public Services/Utilities and Public 
Welfare priority will be assigned priority four. Eligible for this 
priority are those users whose responsibilities include managing 
public works and utility infrastructure damage assessment and 
restoration efforts and transportation to accomplish emergency 
response activities. Examples of those eligible include:
    (i) Army Corps of Engineers leadership;
    (ii) Power, water and sewage and communications utilities;
    (iii) Transportation leadership; and
    (iv) Financial services personnel.
    5. Disaster Recovery.
    Users who qualify for the Disaster Recovery priority will be 
assigned priority five. Eligible for this priority are those 
individuals responsible for managing 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 those eligible include:
    (i) Medical recovery operations leadership;
    (ii) Detailed damage assessment leadership;
    (iii) Disaster shelter coordination and management; and
    (iv) Critical Disaster Field Office support personnel.
    b. These priority levels were selected to meet the needs of the 
emergency response community and provide priority access for the 
command and control functions critical to management of and response 
to national security and emergency situations, particularly during 
the first 24 to 72 hours following an event. Priority assignments 
should only be requested for key personnel and those individuals in 
national security and emergency response leadership positions. WPS 
is not intended for use by all emergency service personnel.

8. Limitations

    WPS will be assigned only to the minimum number of wireless 
services required to support an NSEP function. Executive Office of 
the President may also establish limitations upon the relative 
numbers of services that may be assigned WPS or the total number of 
WPS users in a service area. These limitations will not take 
precedence over laws or executive orders. Limitations established 
shall not be exceeded.

[FR Doc. 2020-17267 Filed 9-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P