[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 95 (Thursday, May 18, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22742-22761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09885]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 20

[GN Docket No. 13-111; FCC 17-25]


Promoting Technological Solutions To Combat Contraband Wireless 
Device Use in Correctional Facilities

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

[[Page 22743]]


ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission adopts 
rules to streamline the process of deploying contraband wireless device 
interdiction systems in correctional facilities. This action will 
reduce the costs of deploying solutions and ensure that they can be 
deployed more quickly and efficiently. In particular, the Commission 
eliminates certain filing requirements and provides for immediate 
approval of the lease applications needed to operate these systems.

DATES: Effective June 19, 2017, with the exception of: (1) Sec. Sec.  
1.9020(d)(8), 1.9030(d)(8), 1.9035(d)(4), and 20.18(a), which contain 
information collection requirements that require approval by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB), and which the Commission will announce 
by publishing a document in the Federal Register; and (2) Sec. Sec.  
1.9020(n), 1.9030(m), 1.9035(o), 20.18(r), and 20.23(a), which require 
approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and which the 
Commission will announce by publishing a document in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Conway, 
[email protected], of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
Mobility Division, (202) 418-2887. For additional information 
concerning the PRA information collection requirements contained in 
this document, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918 or send an 
email to [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order (Order) in GN Docket No. 13-111, FCC 17-25, released on March 
24, 2017. The complete text of the public notice is available for 
viewing via the Commission's ECFS Web site by entering the docket 
number, GN Docket No. 13-111. The complete text of the public notice is 
also available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 
11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 
12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-
5300, fax 202-488-5563.
    The Commission will send a copy of the Order in a report to be sent 
to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

I. Report and Order

    1. The use of contraband wireless devices in correctional 
facilities to engage in criminal activity poses a significant and 
growing security challenge to correctional facility administrators, law 
enforcement authorities, and the general public.
    2. As a general matter, there are primarily two categories of 
technological solutions currently deployed today in the U.S. to address 
the issue of contraband wireless device use in correctional facilities: 
Managed access and detection. A managed access system (MAS) is a micro-
cellular, private network that typically operates on spectrum already 
licensed to wireless providers offering commercial subscriber services 
in geographic areas that include a correctional facility. These systems 
analyze transmissions to and from wireless devices to determine whether 
the device is authorized or unauthorized by the correctional facility 
for purposes of accessing wireless carrier networks. A MAS utilizes 
base stations that are optimized to capture all voice, text, and data 
communications within the system coverage area. When a wireless device 
attempts to connect to the network from within the coverage area of the 
MAS, the system cross-checks the identifying information of the device 
against a database that lists wireless devices authorized to operate in 
the coverage area. Authorized devices are allowed to communicate 
normally (i.e., transmit and receive voice, text, and data) with the 
commercial wireless network, while transmissions to or from 
unauthorized devices are terminated. A MAS is capable of being 
programmed not to interfere with 911 calls. The systems may also 
provide an alert to the user notifying the user that the device is 
unauthorized. A correctional facility or third party at a correctional 
facility may operate a MAS if authorized by the Commission, and this 
authorization has, to date, involved agreements with the wireless 
providers serving the geographic area within which the correctional 
facility is located, as well as spectrum leasing applications approved 
by the Commission.
    3. Detection systems are used to detect devices within a 
correctional facility by locating, tracking, and identifying radio 
signals originating from a device. Traditionally, detection systems use 
passive, receive-only technologies that do not transmit radio signals 
and do not require separate Commission authorization. However, 
detection systems have evolved with the capability of transmitting 
radio signals to not only locate a wireless devices, but also to obtain 
device identifying information. These types of advanced transmitting 
detection systems also operate on frequencies licensed to wireless 
providers and require separate Commission authorization, also typically 
through the filing of spectrum leasing applications reflecting wireless 
provider agreement.
    4. The Commission has taken a variety of steps to facilitate the 
deployment of technologies by those seeking to combat the use of 
contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities, including 
authorizing spectrum leases between CMRS providers \1\ and MAS 
providers and granting Experimental Special Temporary Authority (STA) 
for testing managed access technologies, and also through outreach and 
joint efforts with federal and state partners and industry to 
facilitate development of viable solutions. In addition, Commission 
staff has worked with stakeholder groups, including our federal agency 
partners, wireless providers, technology providers, and corrections 
agencies, to encourage the development of technological solutions to 
combat contraband wireless device use while avoiding interference with 
legitimate communications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Unless otherwise specifically clarified herein, for purposes 
of this document, we use the terms CMRS provider, wireless provider, 
and wireless carrier interchangeably. These terms typically refer to 
entities that offer and provide subscriber-based services to 
customers through Commission licenses held on commercial spectrum in 
geographic areas that might include correctional facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. On May 1, 2013, the Commission issued the NPRM (78 FR 36469, 
June 18, 2013) in this proceeding in order to examine various 
technological solutions to the contraband problem and proposals to 
facilitate the deployment of these technologies. In the NPRM, the 
Commission proposed a series of modifications to its rules to 
facilitate spectrum leasing agreements between wireless providers and 
providers or operators of a MAS used to combat contraband wireless 
devices.
    6. In the NPRM, the Commission's streamlining proposals were 
focused on spectrum leasing arrangements for MASs. Importantly, as 
technologies evolve, many advanced detection systems have also been 
designed to transmit radio signals typically already licensed to 
wireless providers in areas that include correctional facilities. 
Consequently, operators of these types of advanced detection systems 
require Commission authorization and may also choose to negotiate with 
wireless providers to obtain such authorization through the 
Commission's spectrum

[[Page 22744]]

leasing procedures, similar to a MAS operator. Given the evolution of 
technologies to combat contraband device use and the variety of 
detection systems that could require the same type of authorizations 
that a MAS requires, the streamlined processes we are adopting in this 
document should not be limited to those seeking to deploy a MAS, but 
should also be available to stakeholders seeking to obtain operational 
authority to deploy advanced detection type technologies that transmit 
RF and are subject to Commission authorization to combat contraband 
wireless device use in a correctional facility.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For purposes of the FNPRM, ``contraband wireless device'' 
refers to any wireless device, including the physical hardware or 
part of a device--such as a subscriber identification module (SIM)--
that is used within a correctional facility in violation of federal, 
state, or local law, or a correctional facility rule, regulation, or 
policy. We use the phrase ``correctional facility'' to refer to any 
facility operated or overseen by federal, state, or local 
authorities that houses or holds criminally charged or convicted 
inmates for any period of time, including privately owned and 
operated correctional facilities that operate through contracts with 
federal, state, or local jurisdictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. We will refer to any system that transmits radio communication 
signals comprised of one or more stations used only in a correctional 
facility exclusively to prevent transmissions to or from contraband 
wireless devices within the boundaries of the facility and/or to obtain 
identifying information from such contraband wireless devices as a 
Contraband Interdiction System (CIS). By definition, therefore, the 
streamlined rules we adopt in this document are limited to correctional 
facilities' use, given the important public safety implications in 
combatting contraband wireless device use.
    8. In this document, we adopt rules to facilitate the deployment of 
CISs by streamlining the Commission's processes governing STA requests 
and spectrum leasing arrangements entered into exclusively to combat 
the use of unauthorized wireless devices in correctional facilities. 
Specifically, qualifying spectrum leasing applications or notifications 
for CISs will be subject to immediate processing and disposition; 
parties will not have to separately file amendments to become PMRS (or 
CMRS); and the process for obtaining STA for these systems will be 
streamlined. We believe the revised rules are in the public interest 
and strike the appropriate balance among the need to minimize 
regulatory barriers to CIS deployment, maintain an effective spectrum 
leasing review process, and avoid service disruption to wireless 
devices outside of correctional facilities.

Streamlined Spectrum Leasing Application Approval and Notification 
Processing

    9. Pursuant to our current secondary market rules, licensee lessors 
and their lessees have three spectrum leasing options that each provide 
different rights and responsibilities for the licensee and lessee: 
Long-term (more than one year) de facto transfer spectrum leasing 
arrangements; short-term (less than one year) de facto transfer 
spectrum leasing arrangements; and spectrum manager spectrum leasing 
arrangements (both short-term and long-term). The Commission's rules 
require that the parties to a de facto transfer spectrum leasing 
arrangement file an application for approval of the lease with the 
Commission. Parties to a spectrum manager lease must file a 
notification of the spectrum leasing arrangement with the Commission 
and can commence operations without prior Commission approval after a 
short period. The Commission's rules provide for expedited processing 
(by the next business day) of all categories of spectrum leasing 
applications and notifications. To be accepted for processing, any 
application or notification must be sufficiently complete, including 
information and certifications relating to a lessee's eligibility and 
qualification to hold spectrum, and lessee compliance with the 
Commission's foreign ownership rules. De facto transfer spectrum 
leasing applications must also be accompanied by the requisite filing 
fee.
    10. Long-term de facto transfer spectrum leasing applications and 
spectrum manager leasing notifications must meet three additional 
criteria for immediate approval or processing. First, the lease cannot 
involve spectrum that may be used to provide an interconnected mobile 
voice/and or data service and that would result in a geographic overlap 
with licensed spectrum in which the proposed spectrum lessee already 
holds a direct or indirect interest of 10 percent or more. Second, the 
licensee cannot be a designated entity or entrepreneur subject to 
unjust enrichment requirements and/or transfer restrictions under 
applicable Commission rules. Finally, the spectrum leasing arrangement 
cannot require a waiver of, or declaratory ruling pertaining to, any 
applicable Commission rules.
    11. Significantly, as CIS deployment at a given correctional 
facility will require the system operator to obtain multiple spectrum 
leasing arrangements for the same geographic area (to enable the system 
to prevent contraband wireless devices from accessing any of the 
multiple telecommunications services whose footprint covers the 
facility), no spectrum lease after the first one can be given immediate 
processing under our current rules because each subsequent spectrum 
lease involves spectrum that would necessarily result in a geographic 
overlap (i.e., the area where the correctional facility is located) 
with licensed spectrum in which the operator already holds a direct or 
indirect interest of 10 percent or more (i.e., the interest represented 
by the spectrum lease or leases that the operator had already procured 
from one (or more) of the other carriers whose service area includes 
the correctional facility). Thus, the system operator will be unable to 
meet the first criterion for expedited processing. Without expedited 
processing, approval of most spectrum leasing applications takes at 
least several weeks to a few months from the date of filing, delaying 
deployment of the system.
    12. The record reflects widespread support--across all 
stakeholders--for the proposed rule and procedural modifications to 
streamline the spectrum leasing process for MASs in correctional 
facilities. The carriers generally support the Commission's 
streamlining proposals. AT&T welcomes the proposed modifications to the 
existing spectrum leasing process between wireless carriers and MAS 
vendors and believes the proposed measures will reduce the amount of 
time and resources required to complete a lease. Similarly, Verizon 
supports the Commission's streamlining proposals, noting that the 
changes will benefit the public by speeding approval and deployment of 
managed access and detection systems. CTIA supports the proposals and 
believes that they are targeted, narrowly focused, and will enable a 
more efficient deployment of managed access systems.
    13. Both MAS operators and proponents of detection and termination 
systems acknowledge the benefits that will flow from streamlining the 
spectrum leasing process for MASs. Tecore, for example, notes that the 
procedural rule changes will make a significant difference in reducing 
the time needed for the deployment of a MAS. CellAntenna supports the 
Commission's streamlining proposals as a way to promote the deployment 
of MASs and ease the burden on corrections officials. Likewise, a 
variety of other commenting parties support the Commission's 
streamlining proposals, even if some suggest that additional measures 
are required to make material

[[Page 22745]]

progress in combating contraband wireless devices.
    14. By and large, the corrections community advocates for the use 
of any and all measures to combat contraband wireless devices in 
correctional facilities, including MASs. ACA states that it is 
important that the Commission streamline the application process for 
spectrum lease agreements as much as possible. The Maryland Department 
of Public Safety and Correctional Services supports the Commission's 
proposal to streamline lease authorizations for MASs as a way to reduce 
overall costs and expedite correctional system's ability to procure and 
install these systems. The Minnesota Department of Corrections also 
believes that any simplification of the licensing process will speed 
deployment of MASs and ultimately has a positive impact on public 
safety. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 
echoes this comment regarding increased safety in its comments, 
supporting the proposed streamlining changes in order to aid in more 
expedient deployment, thereby contributing to a safer correctional 
environment for staff, inmates, and the public. The Mississippi 
Department of Corrections also supports any measures to streamline the 
spectrum leasing process for use in correctional facilities.
    15. Consistent with the broad support by commenters for the 
streamlining proposals set forth in the NPRM, we adopt those proposals, 
with certain exceptions. We amend Part 1 rules \3\ as necessary to 
implement the CIS (consisting to date largely of both MAS and advanced 
detection systems) spectrum leasing streamlining proposals. Qualifying 
long-term de facto transfer spectrum leasing applications and spectrum 
manager leasing notifications for CISs will be subject to immediate 
processing and approval, even when the grant of multiple spectrum lease 
applications would result in the lessee holding geographically 
overlapping spectrum rights or where the license involves spectrum 
subject to designated entity unjust enrichment provisions or 
entrepreneur transfer restrictions. Because we determine that 
qualifying spectrum leases for CISs do not raise the potential public 
interest concerns that would necessitate prior public notice or more 
individualized review, we believe that removing this unnecessary layer 
of notice and review is appropriate. At the same time, our modified 
process ensures that granted or accepted spectrum leases will be placed 
on public notice and subject to the Commission's reconsideration 
procedures under rule section 1.106 (47 CFR 1.106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We amend sections 1.9003, 1.9020, and 1.9030 of our rules, 
47 CFR 1.9003 (defining ``Contraband Inerdiction System''), 1.9020 
(spectrum manager leasing arrangements), and 1.9030 (long-term de 
facto transfer leasing arrangements), in order to implement 
immediate processing and approval for CIS leases in correctional 
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Competition. The crux of the Commission's streamlining 
proposals in the NPRM for the spectrum leasing process for systems in 
correctional facilities is its proposal to immediately process spectrum 
lease applications or notifications regardless of whether approval or 
acceptance will result in the lessee holding or having access to 
geographically overlapping licenses. The rationale for eliminating the 
lengthy notice and review process for overlapping spectrum here is 
that, in the CIS context, the typical competition concerns are not 
present because CISs are not providing service to the public and 
generally there is only one CIS provider in a particular correctional 
facility. With the widespread accord of commenters in this proceeding, 
we amend sections 1.9003, 1.9020, and 1.9030 of the Commission's rules 
(47 CFR 1.9003, 1.9020, and 1.9030) to enable the immediate processing 
of spectrum lease applications or notifications for CISs regardless of 
whether the approval or acceptance will result in the lessee holding or 
having access to geographically overlapping licenses.
    17. Designated Entity/Entrepreneur Eligibility. In the NPRM, the 
Commission sought comment on its proposal to immediately process 
spectrum lease applications and notifications for MASs in correctional 
facilities regardless of whether they implicate designated entity 
rules, affiliation restrictions, unjust enrichment prohibitions, or 
transfer restrictions. The Commission suggested, essentially, that 
these type of leases do not implicate the public interest concerns 
regarding compliance with these rules that would require a more 
detailed and time-consuming review of the filings. The Commission's 
unjust enrichment rules and transfer restrictions are designed to 
prevent a designated entity or entrepreneur from gaining from the 
special benefits conferred with the designation by selling or 
transferring the license, and to ensure that small business 
participation in spectrum-based services is not thwarted by transfers 
of licenses to non-designated entities. Further, the Commission's 
affiliation and controlling interests rules for designated entities are 
meant to prevent a non-eligible affiliate of a designated entity from 
gaining through the special benefits conferred with the designation. 
These rules were crafted pursuant to the Communications Act's 
requirement that the auction rules promulgated by the Commission ensure 
that certain designated entities have the opportunity to participate in 
the provision of wireless service, and that these rules contain such 
transfer disclosures and anti-trafficking restrictions as may be 
necessary to prevent unjust enrichment.
    18. After consideration of the record, we find it in the public 
interest to adopt the Commission's proposal to immediately process CIS 
spectrum lease applications, regardless of whether they implicate 
designated entity rules, affiliation restrictions, unjust enrichment 
prohibitions, or transfer restrictions, given that CIS lease 
arrangements, by definition, involve transactions between wireless 
providers and solutions providers or potentially departments of 
corrections, specifically designed to enable correctional institutions 
to interdict wireless devices used illegally on the premises of the 
institution. As such, these spectrum leasing arrangements are not 
readily susceptible to abuse by designated entities who might otherwise 
lease spectrum to ineligible lessees in order to gain some measure of 
unjust enrichment. Moreover, nothing in our expedited processing of CIS 
lease applications will have an adverse impact on the ability of a 
small business to participate in Commission processes to acquire 
spectrum or to provide wireless services. And, in any event, in the 
unlikely case where unjust enrichment obligations are triggered by a 
CIS leasing arrangement, our action today does not insulate a 
designated entity from its obligations to comply with the unjust 
enrichment requirements of the rules; rather, this action only exempts 
the underlying CIS lease application from processing under general 
approval procedures.
    19. Procedural Requirements. In order to effectuate the 
streamlining of the MAS spectrum leasing process, the Commission 
proposed in the NPRM modifications to FCC Form 608--the form used by 
licensees and lessees to notify or apply for authority to enter into 
spectrum leasing arrangements. The purpose of these proposed 
modifications is to enable the Commission to identify managed access 
spectrum leases and subject them to immediate processing and approval, 
where appropriate.
    20. The record does not contain specific comments regarding the 
proposed modifications to FCC Form

[[Page 22746]]

608 to effectuate immediate processing of MAS leases for correctional 
facilities. However, the record reflects significant support for any 
measures necessary to streamline the regulatory process for MASs. 
Consistent with current practice, we expect that spectrum leasing 
parties desiring to avail themselves of our streamlined process for 
CISs will include in their submissions a brief description of their 
system sufficient to enable Commission staff to determine that the 
lease is in fact for a CIS.\4\ Because a change to Form 608 would 
require corresponding changes to ULS, including costly reprogramming 
and additional time to implement, we will instead establish internal 
procedures to ensure that qualified spectrum lease filings for CISs are 
identified and handled according to immediate processing procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ To the extent a lease filing provides sufficient information 
to enable Commission staff to identify and process the request as 
one involving a CIS, the processing may be delayed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. If the spectrum leasing parties submit their lease application 
or notification for a CIS via ULS, and the filing establishes that the 
proposed spectrum lease is for a CIS, is otherwise complete, and the 
payment of any requisite filing fees has been confirmed, then the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) will process the application 
or notification and provide immediate grant or acceptance through ULS 
processing. Approval will be reflected in ULS on the next business day 
after filing the application or notification. Upon receipt of approval, 
spectrum lessees will have authority to commence operations under the 
terms of the spectrum lease, allowing for immediate commencement of 
operations provided that the parties have established the approval date 
as the date the lease commences. Consistent with current procedures, 
the Bureau will place the granted or accepted application or 
notification on public notice and the action will be subject to 
petitions for reconsideration.
    22. Completeness Requirement. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed 
to maintain the completeness standards for spectrum lease notifications 
and applications as they currently exist in the spectrum leasing rules. 
Currently, licensees and lessees file FCC Form 608 and must complete 
all relevant fields and certifications on the form. If a spectrum lease 
application or notification is sufficiently complete, but there exist 
questions as to the lessee's eligibility or qualification to lease 
spectrum based on the responses or certifications, then the application 
or notification is not eligible for immediate processing. We find that 
continuing to require a CIS spectrum lease application to be 
sufficiently complete, contain all necessary information and 
certifications (including those relating to eligibility, basic 
qualifications, and foreign ownership), and include the requisite 
filing fee serves an important public interest purpose and, with no 
record opposition, we adopt the Commission's proposal.

Regulatory Status

    23. PMRS Presumption. When a CIS provider enters into a spectrum 
lease agreement with a wireless carrier with a CMRS regulatory status, 
the regulatory status of the lessor applies to the lessee such that the 
regulatory status of the managed access lessee is CMRS, unless changed, 
and the lessee is subject to common carrier obligations. However, most 
CISs in the correctional facility context qualify as PMRS, which would 
exempt the lessee from common carrier obligations. To change its 
regulatory status from CMRS to PMRS, a CIS lessee must file, for each 
approved lease, separate modification applications that are subject to 
additional public notice periods which, the Commission noted, may 
further delay CIS deployment.
    24. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to amend section 20.9 of 
its rules to establish that managed access services in correctional 
facilities provided on spectrum leased from CMRS providers will be 
presumptively treated as PMRS because the managed access provider is 
not offering service to the public or a substantial portion of the 
public. Under this proposal, the lessee would not need to separately 
file an application requesting PMRS treatment subsequent to spectrum 
lease approval or acceptance. Instead, the PMRS status would 
automatically attach to all spectrum lease applications or 
notifications that indicate that the leased spectrum would be used 
solely for the operation of a CIS in a correctional facility.
    25. There is widespread support for the Commission's proposals to 
streamline the spectrum leasing process for CIS providers, which 
includes the PMRS presumption. The CIS operators specifically note 
their support for the PMRS presumption. For example, Tecore supports 
the presumption and suggests that it will further increase managed 
access deployment by expediting the administrative requirements 
involved with these services. The California Department of Corrections 
and Rehabilitation also directly offers its support of a rule amendment 
to establish the PMRS presumption for MASs in correctional facilities.
    26. We generally agree with commenters that reducing burdens 
associated with CIS operators' compliance with Commission rule section 
20.9, as proposed in the NPRM, is in the public interest. However, we 
note that in 2016, the Commission proposed to eliminate section 20.9 in 
a separate proceeding (CMRS Presumption NPRM) (81 FR 55161, August 18, 
2016). We find it unnecessary at this time to amend section 20.9 of the 
Commission's rules because we can achieve the same goal of reducing 
administrative costs and filing burdens through interim relief, subject 
to Commission action in the CMRS Presumption NPRM proceeding. We 
therefore find good cause to grant a waiver of section 20.9, to the 
extent necessary, so that CIS operators will not be required to file a 
separate modification application to reflect PMRS regulatory status 
subsequent to approval or acceptance of the lease. Rather, the CIS 
operator will be permitted to indicate in the exhibit to its lease 
application whether it is PMRS or CMRS for regulatory status 
purposes,\5\ and the approved or accepted spectrum lease will 
subsequently reflect that regulatory status. This waiver will 
accomplish the shared goal of the Commission and the commenters of 
enabling CIS operators to be treated as PMRS without having to file an 
additional modification application with the Commission, or be subject 
to the 30 day public notice period applicable to certain radio 
services. We believe a waiver at this time will conserve resources and 
reduce burdens on the spectrum leasing parties and Commission staff and 
will expedite overall deployment of CIS in correctional facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Pursuant to our streamlined leasing process, spectrum 
leasing parties seeking a lease for a CIS in a correctional facility 
will include a brief description of the CIS sufficient to enable the 
Commission staff to determine that the lease is in fact for a CIS. 
In this submission, the parties will also identify whether they 
request PMRS or CMRS regulatory status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. 911 and E911. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on 
whether the Commission should apply its 911 and E911 rules to MASs in 
correctional facilities that, if they are presumed to be PMRS, are not 
applicable, since only CMRS licensees are required to comply with 911 
obligations. The Commission also sought comment on the costs and 
benefits of applying some or all of the Commission's 911 and E911 rules 
to a

[[Page 22747]]

managed access provider regulated as PMRS.
    28. Comment varied concerning the implications of a PMRS 
presumption on 911 services. By and large, the comments generally 
suggest agreement that MASs should have the capability to route 911 
calls to the appropriate public safety answering point (PSAP), and that 
the correctional facility, managed access operator, and/or the local 
PSAP should be involved in making the routing decision regarding a 
specific correctional facility. Tecore recommends that a MAS must 
support direct handling of E911 emergency calls with direct routing to 
the PSAP. In support of this proposal, Tecore reasons that the 
Commission has imposed standards in other situations where public 
safety and welfare have been involved. Indeed, Tecore explains that 
MASs can actually facilitate public safety services because they have 
the ability to complete 911 calls in a way that provides important 
public safety data while otherwise restricting service. ShawnTech also 
believes that MASs must include the ability to support emergency 
calling to the appropriate PSAPs, but that the agency should set the 
rules and policies for the facility so as to either enable or disable 
the emergency calling features.
    29. CTIA and the wireless carriers, in contrast, do not take a firm 
stance one way or the other regarding the obligation of a managed 
access operator to comply with 911 obligations. CellAntenna, however, 
argues that MASs should not be required to complete 911 calls because 
911 access remains available by landline and assistance is available to 
corrections officers through internal communications. In fact, 
CellAntenna states that allowing 911 calls from unauthorized wireless 
devices in correctional facilities holds the potential for harassment 
of PSAPs and there is no reason to permit any 911 calls from wireless 
devices originating within a correctional facility. Similarly, ACA 
states that any and all cell phone signals originating from inside a 
correctional facility--including E-911--are illegal signals.
    30. Some commenters suggest that emergency calls should be 
delivered to the PSAP unless the specific PSAP concludes that emergency 
calls coming from a particular facility should be blocked. This 
recommendation appears in GTL's original petition, which states that 
the local PSAP operator is in the best position to determine whether 
blocking particular area 911 calls is in the public interest. MSS 
acknowledges that there is no general solution to the problem of the 
role of 911 in MASs and recommends that the Commission allow PSAP 
operators and MAS operators to negotiate on a case-by-case basis 
regarding the handling of E911 calls.
    31. We agree with commenters that delivering emergency calls to 
PSAPs facilitates public safety services and generally serves the 
public interest, and acknowledge the overriding importance of ensuring 
availability of emergency 911 calls from correctional facilities. We 
also act based on our long-standing recognition of the important role 
that state and local public safety officials play in the administration 
of the 911 system. We thus amend Commission rule section 20.18 (47 CFR 
20.18) to require CIS providers regulated as PMRS to route all 911 
calls to the local PSAP. At the same time, we recognize that, based on 
extensive experience assessing local community public safety needs, 
PSAPs should be able to inform the CIS provider that they do not wish 
to receive 911 calls from a given correctional facility, and CIS 
providers must abide by that request. We agree with commenters that 
this approach is warranted given the reported increased volume of PSAP 
harassment through repeated inmate fraudulent 911 calls. We clarify 
that CIS providers are not subject to the 911 routing requirement to 
the extent that they deploy a technology only to obtain identifying 
information from a contraband wireless device, and not to capture a 
call from a correctional facility that will either be terminated or 
forwarded to a serving carrier's network based on contraband status. 
Verizon raised a concern that CMRS licensees could be deemed in 
violation of our spectrum leasing rules addressing E911 compliance 
responsibility when a PSAP requests that a CIS provider not pass E911 
calls from a correctional facility. Pursuant to amended rule section 
20.18, the CIS provider, and not the CMRS licensee, is responsible for 
passing through E911 calls to the PSAP, unless the PSAP indicates it 
does not want to receive them.
    32. We clarify the respective roles of CMRS licensees and CIS 
providers with regard to E911 call pass-through obligations by amending 
our spectrum leasing rules, specifically, sections 1.9020 (spectrum 
manager leasing arrangements), 1.9030 (long-term de facto transfer 
leasing arrangements), and 1.9035 (short-term de facto transfer leasing 
arrangements), to reflect that a CIS lessee is responsible for passing 
through E911 calls, unless the PSAP declines them, pursuant to amended 
rule section 20.18(r). Although Verizon requested this rule amendment 
only for spectrum manager leasing arrangements under section 
1.9020(d)(8), we adopt a similar amendment for short-term and long-term 
de facto transfer spectrum leasing arrangements under sections 
1.9030(d)(8) and 1.9035(d)(4) in order to provide clarification for all 
possible types of CIS leasing arrangements to which the E911 
obligations in amended rule section 20.18(r) apply.
    33. Further, we find it appropriate to delay the effectiveness of 
the 911 call forwarding requirement and related leasing rule amendments 
addressing E911 call responsibilities until no earlier than 270 days 
after the publication of this document in the Federal Register. We 
anticipate this will provide CIS operators and local PSAPs a sufficient 
opportunity to determine whether routing of 911 calls is appropriate, 
if there is no current agreement. We also anticipate that wireless 
providers and CIS operators may use this period to update current 
contractual provisions addressing 911 call routing issues, if 
necessary.
    34. We find this overall approach to 911 call forwarding to be 
consistent with the Commission's guidance clarifying that our 911 rules 
requiring mobile wireless carriers to forward all wireless 911 calls to 
PSAPs, without respect to the call validation process, does not 
preclude carriers from blocking fraudulent 911 calls from non-service 
initialized phones pursuant to applicable state and local law 
enforcement procedures. Again, we note that CIS operators are often 
required to pass through 911 and E911 calls through contracts with 
wireless provider lessors. Overall, we believe that the ability to make 
an emergency call and access emergency services, to the extent these 
are available in a correctional facility, is in the public interest, 
and our amended rule ensures this continued access, where appropriate, 
subject to PSAP discretion to not accept 911 calls.

Streamlined Special Temporary Authority Request Processing

    35. In deploying CISs to combat contraband wireless device use in 
correctional facilities, a spectrum leasing arrangement with relevant 
wireless carriers as approved by the Commission is the appropriate 
mechanism for long-term CIS operation. However, in certain 
circumstances, there may be a justifiable need for emergency temporary 
authorization for system testing, where special temporary authority may 
be appropriate. Pursuant to existing rules, a CIS provider that seeks 
STA for its proposed operations must file such a request at least 10 
days prior to the applicant's proposed

[[Page 22748]]

operation. Unless the STA application is exempt, it must be placed on 
public notice. Certain STA applications must also be filed manually.
    36. As an additional measure designed to expedite the deployment of 
MASs in correctional facilities, the Commission proposed to exempt 
managed access providers seeking an STA for a MAS in a correctional 
facility from the requirement that they file the application 10 days 
prior to operation. Further, the Commission proposed to process an STA 
request without prior public notice and modify FCC Form 601 so that 
applicants would be able to identify that the application is being 
filed for a MAS in a correctional facility. Finally, the Commission 
proposed to modify ULS to electronically process STA applications for 
market-based licenses. Pursuant to the proposed streamlined STA 
procedures, the Commission also noted that applicants would still be 
required to satisfy all of the existing STA application requirements to 
be granted STA.
    37. The carriers generally support the Commission's proposal to 
streamline the STA request process and agree that the proposed changes 
should expedite approval and deployment of MASs. Verizon supports the 
STA proposals, but questions whether the proposal would change the 
Commission's existing practice of verifying consent from the CMRS 
licensee prior to STA approval. Accordingly, Verizon requests that the 
Commission clarify through a rule modification that STA requests must 
include consent letters from each affected CMRS licensee prior the STA 
approval. CTIA also supports the STA streamlining proposals, but only 
so long as the existing requirement to obtain and demonstrate carrier 
consent continues to apply. Like Verizon, CTIA seeks a rule 
modification that makes explicit the carrier consent requirement in the 
STA process. This clarification in the rules, they claim, would not 
impose any additional burden in the process because consent letters are 
already part of the existing process.
    38. One commenter, ShawnTech, does not support the Commission's 
proposal to modify the STA process to allow for expedited processing 
without prior public notice. Rather, without explaining its reasoning, 
ShawnTech states its preference for the existing process. In contrast, 
CellBlox supports the proposal to streamline the STA approval process 
for MASs in correctional facilities without prior public notice.
    39. After consideration of the record, we conclude that 
streamlining the STA process will facilitate the deployment of CISs, 
along with our adoption of the Commission's other streamlining 
proposals for expediting and encouraging spectrum leasing for CISs. The 
record includes significant support for any measures necessary to 
implement streamlining as a general matter, some broad support 
specifically for STA streamlining, and unsupported opposition to STA 
streamlining from one commenter. We believe that given the expedited 
CIS leasing process for full system deployment adopted herein, CIS 
operators will not generally need to rely on the modified STA process. 
However, we seek to streamline our rules wherever possible and provide 
options for obtaining expedited STA for short term emergency operations 
that qualify for temporary authority under our rules. Because 
qualifying CIS spectrum leasing arrangements will be subject to 
immediate processing pursuant to our revised rules, we will also 
conform our STA application rules for CIS operations to expedite 
processing.
    40. Therefore, we adopt the Commission's proposal and amend section 
1.931 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.931) to exempt CIS providers 
seeking STA for a CIS from the requirement that they file the 
application 10 days prior to operation. We will process qualifying STA 
requests for CISs on an expedited basis and without prior public 
notice. However, for the same cost and resource-based reasons specified 
for not amending Form 608 for leases, we also find it unnecessary to 
modify Form 601 in order to achieve our streamlining goal of immediate 
processing of STAs for CISs. In the same way that we intend to process 
lease applications and notifications--i.e., establishing internal 
procedures to ensure that qualified filings are identified and handled 
according to immediate processing procedures--we similarly intend to 
process STAs. Staff will review the STA filing and assess whether it is 
for a CIS in order to reliably determine whether the filing is subject 
to immediate processing.\6\ We note that these STA applicants will 
continue to be required to comply with all existing requirements to be 
granted STA, including our practice of requiring applicants to file 
letters of consent from the CMRS carriers involved.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ To the extent an STA filing provides insufficient 
information to enable Commission staff to identify and process the 
request as one involving a CIS, the processing may be delayed.
    \7\ However, pursuant to this document, WTB may issue an STA to 
an entity seeking to deploy a CIS in a correctional facility without 
carrier consent if, after a 45 day period, WTB determines that a CIS 
provider has negotiated a lease agreement in good faith, and the 
CMRS licensee has not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to make the changes 
necessary to electronically process STA applications for market-based 
licenses (e.g., PCS and 700 MHz). The record lacks comment on this 
issue. However, as a result of the Commission's flexible licensing 
policies in many services permitting the siting of facilities anywhere 
within the geographic license area, we have determined that very few 
applications are filed by market-based licensees seeking special 
temporary authority for a specific site location. Accordingly, while 
our rules mandate electronic filing for virtually all applications, 
because there are so few of them, ULS is not programmed to receive STA 
applications for spectrum licensed on a market basis. Such applications 
are currently filed manually along with a request for waiver of the 
electronic filing requirement. We will continue at this time to permit 
manual filing of an application for STA for CIS operation in a 
correctional facility, noting that the proposed electronic processing 
of STA applications necessitates substantial and costly changes to our 
ULS software and certain database updates that are not currently in 
place. To further streamline our filing processes and reduce filing 
burdens, we find good cause to grant a waiver of the electronic filing 
requirement under section 1.913 of the Commission's rules, so that 
market-based licensees seeking STA for CIS operation in a correctional 
facility are not required to request a waiver of the requirement with 
their manual applications. We also anticipate that our streamlining 
changes adopted today for processing lease applications for CIS 
authority in correctional facilities will reduce the number of requests 
for temporary authority using STA application procedures.
    42. In response to the carriers' suggestion that we modify the 
Commission's rules to make carrier consent explicit in the STA approval 
process, we find it unnecessary to modify our rules because, even under 
our streamlined process, we will maintain our current policy that STA 
requests for CISs must be accompanied by carrier consent. STA 
applications will still be required to meet all the existing 
requirements to be granted STA.

Compliance With Sections 308, 309, and 310(d) of the Act

    43. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to extend that forbearance 
authority in order to immediately

[[Page 22749]]

process de facto transfer spectrum leasing applications for MASs in 
correctional facilities that do not raise concerns with use and 
eligibility restrictions, that do not require a waiver or declaratory 
ruling with respect to a Commission rule, but that do involve leases of 
spectrum in the same geographic area or involve designated entity 
rules, affiliation restrictions, unjust enrichment prohibitions, and 
transfer restrictions. Specifically, the Commission proposed to forbear 
from the applicable prior public notice requirements and individualized 
review requirements of sections 308, 309, and 310(d) of the Act (47 
U.S.C. 308, 309, 310(d)). The Commission sought comment in the NPRM on 
whether the statutory forbearance requirements are met for its 
forbearance proposal.
    44. We hereby exercise our forbearance authority in order to 
implement the streamlining proposals adopted in this document for de 
facto transfer CIS spectrum leases and STAs. We conclude that CIS 
leases also generally qualify for the forbearance granted to all de 
facto transfer spectrum leases. We find that the statutory forbearance 
requirements are met for qualifying de facto transfer CIS spectrum 
leases that involve leases of spectrum in the same geographic area or 
involve designated entity unjust enrichment provisions and transfer 
restrictions. CISs necessarily involve overlapping spectrum in the same 
geographic area and likely are not contrary to the intent and purpose 
behind our rules governing unjust enrichment or transfer restrictions. 
We also find that the statutory forbearance requirements are met for 
STA applications for CIS providers that comply with the necessary 
expedited processing procedures in our rules. No commenter opposed our 
proposal that a streamlined approval process for CIS leases and STAs 
would facilitate technologies used to prevent inmates from using 
contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities.

Standardization of the Leasing Process

    45. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on additional 
proposals, such as rule or procedural changes that could expedite the 
spectrum leasing process and thereby encourage and facilitate the 
deployment of MASs in correctional facilities. In response, some 
commenters suggest that the Commission consider additional mandates to 
facilitate managed access implementation by standardizing the leasing 
process and/or the leases themselves. The main proponent of lease 
standardization, Tecore, requests that, failing forthcoming voluntary 
cooperation among the carriers, the Commission should mandate that 
carriers enter into lease agreements on commercially reasonable terms 
and conditions upon reasonable request; that a shot clock be in place 
to ensure that final agreements are executed between the managed access 
provider and all area carriers in a reasonable time; that leased access 
to spectrum be provided free of charge by the carrier; and that a model 
lease agreement be established and approved by the Commission with 
standard terms and conditions. Tecore claims that the model lease would 
eliminate lengthy negotiation processes.
    46. In its comments, MSS reiterates GTL's proposal from its 
original petition that the Commission should require CMRS carriers to 
agree to managed access leases of their spectrum if technically 
feasible in a specific installation without undue harm to legitimate 
CMRS uses. MSS supports a mandate that would require carriers to enter 
into leases for MASs because of the need for all carriers in the 
relevant area to sign a lease, not just the major carriers. In other 
words, having the major carriers onboard to execute reasonable leases 
is not sufficient because they do not control all of the CMRS licenses 
near correctional facilities. MSS contends that all CMRS carriers must 
agree to the leases necessary to implement managed access on reasonable 
financial terms in order for this solution to be successful, and this 
agreement requires a Commission mandate in order to be a reasonable 
expectation. ACA agrees with MSS, and GTL in its original petition, 
that the Commission should implement requirements that all CMRS 
carriers must agree to managed access leases of their spectrum if 
technically feasible in a specific installation.
    47. The thrust of the carriers' opposition to model leases, 
standardization of the process, and mandatory leasing is their belief 
that the Commission should not interfere with the carriers' spectrum 
rights and the business relationships between the carriers and the 
managed access providers, and that the proposals would be unnecessarily 
burdensome. In opposing the lease mandates proposed by Tecore and 
others to further facilitate MAS implementation through mandatory 
standardization, Verizon notes that the record lacks evidence of 
particular problems with deployment of MASs that would merit the 
Commission's imposition of mandatory solutions. Specifically, Verizon 
discusses the fact that the lease negotiation process has become easier 
and quicker as time passes, and that Verizon uses the same template in 
all of its lease agreements with managed access providers so that it is 
relatively easy for vendors to become familiar with the terms and 
conditions and negotiate subsequent agreements. In addition, Verizon 
notes that it does not charge fees for managed access leasing.
    48. CTIA also discusses the lack of evidence necessary to justify 
Commission mandates interfering with the business relationships between 
carriers and managed access providers. In that regard, CTIA believes 
that a shot clock, for example, is unnecessary and potentially harmful, 
noting what it describes as the strong record of cooperation between 
carriers and managed access providers. CTIA indicates that a shot clock 
could even be harmful because the lease for an initial deployment may 
necessarily and appropriately take longer for testing and evaluation, 
while subsequent deployments are often quicker such that a shot clock 
for later leases would be unnecessary. CTIA believes that, lacking any 
evidence of problems with the system, a rule regarding fees charged to 
lease spectrum or the adoption of a model lease would be an 
inappropriate and unnecessary intrusion into private business 
negotiations.
    49. Although the record does not indicate a material, persistent 
problem with the MAS lease negotiation process between managed access 
operators and the major CMRS licensees, we emphasize that the 
effectiveness of CIS deployment requires all carriers in the relevant 
area of the correctional facility to execute a lease with the CIS 
provider, not only large carriers that have commented in this 
proceeding, but also smaller carriers that have not. Even if the major 
CMRS licensees negotiate expeditiously and in good faith, if one CMRS 
licensee in the area fails to engage in lease negotiations in a 
reasonable time frame or at all, the CIS solution will not be 
effective. Therefore, while some carriers have been cooperative, it is 
imperative that all CMRS licensees be required to engage in lease 
negotiations in good faith and in a timely fashion. We agree with 
Tecore that at least some baseline requirements should be in place to 
ensure that lease agreements with reasonable terms can be executed with 
all area carriers in a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, we adopt a rule 
requiring that CMRS licensees negotiate in good faith with entities 
seeking to deploy a CIS in a correctional facility. Upon receipt of a 
good faith request by an entity seeking to deploy a CIS in a 
correctional facility, a CMRS licensee must negotiate in good

[[Page 22750]]

faith toward a lease agreement. If, after a 45 day period, there is no 
agreement, CIS providers seeking STA to operate in the absence of CMRS 
licensee consent may file a request for STA with WTB, with a copy 
served at the same time on the CMRS licensee, accompanied by evidence 
demonstrating its good faith, and the unreasonableness of the CMRS 
licensee's actions, in negotiating an agreement. The CMRS licensee will 
then be given 10 days in which to respond. If WTB then determines that 
the CIS provider has negotiated in good faith, yet the CMRS licensee 
has not negotiated in good faith, WTB may issue STA to the entity 
seeking to deploy the CIS, notwithstanding lack of accompanying CMRS 
licensee consent. WTB will consider evidence of good faith negotiations 
on a case-by-case basis. In comparable contexts, the Commission has 
provided examples of factors to be considered when determining whether 
there is good faith. Here, such factors might also include whether the 
parties entered into timely discussions while providing appropriate 
points of contact, whether a model lease with reasonable terms was 
offered, etc. Further, the Commission may take additional steps as 
necessary to authorize CIS operations should we determine there is 
continued lack of good faith negotiations toward a CIS lease agreement.
    50. We recognize that, to date, cooperation has largely existed 
among a majority of CMRS licensees and CIS providers in obtaining 
authorizations for CIS deployment. However, we reiterate that lack of 
cooperation of even a single wireless provider in a geographic area of 
a correctional facility can result in deployment of a system with 
insufficient spectral coverage, subject to abuse by inmates in 
possession of contraband wireless devices operating on frequencies not 
covered by a lease agreement. We do not believe that adopting this 
minimal requirement is unduly burdensome, but rather ensures that the 
public interest is served through deployment of robust CISs less 
subject to circumvention. We encourage all CMRS licensees to actively 
cooperate with CIS providers to simplify and standardize lease 
agreements and the negotiation process as much as possible and pursuant 
to reasonableness standards, and we commend carriers that have 
developed template lease agreements for CIS deployment. ShawnTech 
supports the current process of managed access providers working 
closely with the carriers to develop closer and more successful working 
relationships in order to properly implement managed access technology. 
We support the establishment of best practices with regard to CIS lease 
terms and conditions, but we intend to continue monitoring the CIS 
leasing process and may take additional action if needed.
    51. FCC Authorization of MAS. In its comments, Boeing argues that 
spectrum leases are unnecessary for MAS and that the Commission should 
permit the operation of MASs in correctional facilities without 
spectrum lease agreements or carrier consent. To support its argument 
for direct licensing, Boeing explains that the Commission has authority 
to authorize wireless operations on a secondary basis in the public 
interest which, in this case, is the need to neutralize contraband 
wireless devices in correctional facilities.
    52. The carriers strongly oppose this proposal and consider it 
without merit and irrelevant, arguing that there is no basis for the 
Commission to adopt a different licensing model where there is no 
evidence that the current leasing process has failed to result in 
successful implementation of MAS. Given the Commission's proposals to 
streamline the leasing process and the significant benefits of carrier 
involvement in order to conduct necessary technical review and 
coordination, the carriers strongly oppose Boeing's proposal as an 
unnecessary intrusion on licensees' exclusive-use spectrum rights.
    53. As a general matter, we agree that carrier participation in the 
spectrum leasing process contributes significantly to the successful 
implementation of a CIS. One benefit of carrier involvement in CIS 
deployment is coordination and involvement in the process of testing 
CIS accuracy. We believe that our adoption of streamlined spectrum 
leasing rules for CISs in correctional facilities, with the involvement 
and cooperation among the CMRS licensees and the CIS operators, will 
contribute greatly to the successful deployment of CISs and the effort 
to combat the contraband wireless device problem. We find it 
unnecessary at this time to adopt a direct licensing approach to CISs 
without spectrum lease agreements or carrier consent.
    54. ``Lead Application'' Proposal. Taking the Commission's 
proposals to streamline the spectrum leasing process for MAS a step 
further, AT&T puts forward its ``lead'' application proposal whereby 
the first lease entered into between a CMRS carrier and a certain MAS 
provider becomes the ``lead'' application and, once approved, the 
carrier would only be required to amend that lease to add any new call 
signs, coordinates for the new license area, and any other required 
data, for subsequent leases with the same MAS provider. AT&T claims 
that this process would not only conserve time, effort, and expense 
when a carrier enters into an identical lease with a certain MAS 
provider multiple times in different locations, but also continue to 
provide the information the Commission needs in order to track the 
leases. Verizon suggests that AT&T's proposal has merit and could 
expedite the lease agreement process. However, Verizon recognizes that 
in order for the proposal to be successful, the Commission would have 
to not only amend ULS to enable carriers to modify FCC Form 608 
subsequent to lease approval, but also account for the fact that the 
carrier's licensee at one location may be different in name from the 
entity licensed in another location.
    55. Through today's adoption of streamlined rules providing for 
immediate processing of spectrum leasing applications for CISs in 
correctional facilities, we substantially achieve the benefits AT&T 
seeks through its ``lead'' application proposal, without requiring 
either far-reaching revisions to our long-standing secondary markets 
rules or, as Verizon suggests, additional costly FCC Form and ULS 
system changes. For example, with our streamlined processing rule 
changes, AT&T will be able to seek immediate Commission approval for 
CIS spectrum leases by providing virtually the identical information in 
a lease that it would include in each and every amendment to a 
previously approved ``lead application,'' e.g., the coordinates of the 
added facility and call sign identifying the relevant leased spectrum. 
We note that our rules do not prevent a wireless provider from entering 
into contracts with CIS operators to account for future proposed 
operation in multiple states, and then filing spectrum leasing 
applications with the Commission with the basic identifying 
information, tantamount to the requested filing of an ``amendment,'' 
when deployment is contemplated. We believe that the rules adopted in 
this document to streamline the leasing process for CISs strike the 
appropriate balance between removing regulatory burdens and maintaining 
the required Commission oversight of these leases to ensure compliance 
with the Communications Act and our rules. We believe that our existing 
licensing and leasing procedures, as streamlined herein, will greatly 
facilitate stakeholder efforts to expedite the deployment of CISs in 
correctional facilities.

[[Page 22751]]

Community Notification

    56. In connection with streamlining the managed access spectrum 
lease notification and application process, the Commission sought 
comment on whether managed access operators should be encouraged or 
required to provide notification to households and businesses in the 
vicinity of the correctional facility at which a MAS is installed, as 
well as associated details and costs of any such notification. The 
record reflects a mixed reaction, even among managed access operators.
    57. AT&T strongly supports giving notice to the surrounding 
community to inform users of the potential for accidental call 
blocking. One managed access operator, Tecore, agrees that the 
Commission should require notification of the households and businesses 
in the general vicinity of a correctional facility where a MAS is in 
place. Tecore supports this recommendation by reasoning that the public 
should be aware of a MAS because they are a measure of national 
security, and further, the notification can serve to limit the 
liability of the carriers, the institutions, and the managed access 
operators with the general public. Tecore suggests a standard method of 
notification such as a Web site posting, public notice in a common 
area, or signs on the grounds, and cautions the Commission against any 
specific notification requirements that may be burdensome or 
counterproductive. The Florida Department of Corrections specifically 
supports required notification, with the burden for notification on the 
facility, the managed access provider, and local carriers.
    58. In the same vein, NENA: The 9-1-1 Association, believes that 
managed access operators should be required to undertake extensive 
public education campaigns directed toward businesses and households 
regarding the potential for call blocking at the borders of the 
systems' service areas before the systems become operational. The 
campaign would include mailings, door-hangers, and media campaigns. 
Similarly, AICC suggests not only that households and businesses 
located within a reasonable proximity to the correctional facility be 
provided prior written notice (as well as annual notifications), but 
also that the alarm industry and local alarm companies should receive 
prior written notice before a MAS is tested or put into service.
    59. On the other hand, some managed access providers contend that 
the notification requirement is unnecessary. ShawnTech does not support 
a notification requirement, stating that to date we have not had any 
issues with our secure private coverage area exceeding beyond the 
correctional facilities' secure fenced area. ShawnTech suggests that, 
in the unlikely event that there is an issue that could affect the 
local businesses or households, the parties involved will 
collaboratively agree on a course of action to remedy the situation. 
Similarly, CellBlox believes that a notification requirement is 
unnecessary and places an undue burden on the managed access provider 
because properly regulated systems do not bleed over into the 
community. Boeing recommends that the Commission refrain from adopting 
any community notification requirements because they are unnecessary 
given the technical and procedural requirements already in place. 
Boeing explains that such notification requirements would unnecessarily 
establish additional barriers of cost and will delay the deployment of 
MAS systems without benefit, because there is no evidence of a 
substantial risk of misidentification of legitimate devices.
    60. A goal of this proceeding is to expedite the deployment of 
technological solutions to combat the use of contraband wireless 
devices, not to impose unnecessary barriers to CIS deployment. 
Consistent with that goal, we find that a flexible and community-
tailored notification requirement for certain CISs outweighs the 
minimal burden of notification and furthers the public interest. After 
careful consideration of the record, we will require that, 10 days 
prior to deploying a CIS that prevents communications to or from mobile 
devices, a lessee must notify the community in which the correctional 
facility is located, and we amend our spectrum leasing rules to reflect 
this requirement. We agree with commenters that support notification of 
the surrounding community due to the potential for accidental call 
blocking and the public safety issues involved. The notification must 
include a description of what the system is intended to do, the date 
the system is scheduled to begin operating, and the location of the 
correctional facility. Notification must be tailored to reach the 
community immediately adjacent to the correctional facility, including 
through local television, radio, Internet news sources, or community 
groups, as may be appropriate. We note that this notification 
obligation does not apply for brief tests of a system prior to 
deployment. By giving the CIS operators flexibility to tailor the 
notification to the specific community, we expect that the notification 
costs and burdens will be minimal. However, we remind licensees that 
the operation of a CIS is limited to the specific lease parameters as 
detailed in the applicable spectrum lease authorization and that we 
will strictly enforce any violation of the Commission's interference 
protection rules as they apply to the area in the vicinity of the 
correctional facility.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

    61. In the NPRM, the Commission acknowledged that spectrum leasing, 
STA, and other rules and processes related to the deployment of MASs 
could be time-consuming and cumbersome and sought specific comment on 
the costs and benefits of proposals to streamline those rules and 
procedures. After careful consideration of the record, we believe that 
the rules we adopt in this document will significantly reduce the time 
and resources needed to complete spectrum leases for CISs and speed the 
adoption and deployment of such systems in correctional facilities. 
More rapid adoption of CIS systems will increase public safety by 
reducing criminal activity coordinated in or through correctional 
facilities, while allowing such facilities to reduce the amount of 
staff time and resources dedicated to detecting and confiscating 
contraband cell phones.
    62. The rules we adopt in this document are designed to minimize 
costs while maximizing public benefits. The benefits of these rules are 
discussed at length throughout this document. And for some of the rule 
changes, we anticipate that there will be little or no costs imposed on 
the public, given that the revisions are to make compliance easier. For 
instance, expediting processing of qualifying leases for CISs, 
exempting CIS providers seeking an STA from the requirement that they 
file the application 10 days prior to operation, and waiving our rules 
to eliminate certain CIS operator filings regarding regulatory status 
changes will all significantly reduce regulatory compliance costs while 
speeding up CIS deployment. To the extent that these revisions might 
impose costs on taxpayers, we have minimized those costs as well. For 
instance, rather than making costly changes to Form 601, Form 608, or 
ULS, we instead will implement a manual processing system that can be 
in place more quickly, and with minimal impact on Commission resources.
    63. At the same time, however, we acknowledge that some of the rule 
changes we make here will impose some

[[Page 22752]]

costs on wireless providers and CIS operators. In particular, the 
requirements regarding 911 calls, community notification, as well as 
negotiation in good faith will require some effort and resources. In 
the NPRM, the Commission specifically asked for comment on the costs 
and benefits of all of the proposals presented, requesting that 
commenters provide specific data, such as actual or estimated dollar 
figures, for each proposal. Commenters did not, however, provide any 
detailed or concrete cost estimates, and therefore we must rely to some 
extent here on our general understanding and prediction of likely costs 
in making this cost-benefit assessment. We anticipate that adopting a 
rule to require that CIS providers operating as PMRS route 911 calls to 
PSAPs, unless PSAPs do not wish to receive 911 calls from a specific 
correctional facility, is likely to impose minimal costs. It is our 
understanding that pass through capability already generally exists in 
CISs, and we note that such requirements are already reflected in many 
leasing arrangements. We therefore believe that the public benefits of 
this requirement will exceed compliance costs. Requiring CMRS licensees 
to negotiate in good faith with entities seeking to deploy a CIS will 
impose only the cost of conducting negotiations, and given that a 
carrier's leasing terms may well become standardized fairly quickly, 
this burden seems minimal. In any event, because the lack of 
cooperation of even one wireless provider can seriously degrade the 
effectiveness of a CIS, we conclude that the small cost of negotiating 
will be easily outweighed by the public benefit of ensuring that CISs 
can be put into place. Finally, we find that the burden of requiring 
community notification of the implementation of certain CISs will be 
minimized by permitting the flexibility to tailor the notification to 
the potentially impacted community.

Ombudsperson

    64. In order to assist CIS operators and CMRS licensees in 
complying with their regulatory obligations, we intend to designate a 
single point of contact at the Commission to serve as the ombudsperson 
on contraband wireless device issues. The ombudsperson's duties may 
include, as necessary, providing assistance to CIS operators in 
connecting with CMRS licensees, playing a role in identifying required 
CIS lease filings for a given correctional facility, facilitating the 
required Commission filings, thereby reducing regulatory burdens, 
resolving issues that may arise during the leasing process, and 
potentially transmitting qualifying request for disabling to wireless 
providers. The ombudsperson will also conduct outreach and maintain a 
dialogue with all stakeholders on the issues important to furthering a 
solution to the problem of contraband wireless device use in 
correctional facilities. Finally, the ombudsperson will maintain a Web 
page, in conjunction with WTB, with a list of active CIS operators and 
locations where CISs have been deployed. With this appointment, we 
ensure continued focus on this important public safety issue and 
solidify our commitment to combating the problem. We direct WTB to 
release a public notice within one week of adoption of the Order naming 
the ombudsperson and providing contact information.

II. Procedural Matters

Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    65. This document contains new information collection requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, 
and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new 
information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In 
addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we 
previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    66. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 
603-604) as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) was incorporated in the NPRM. The Commission sought written 
public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the 
IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This present FRFA 
conforms to the RFA.
    67. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order. In this 
document, the Commission adopts rules to facilitate the deployment of 
different technologies used to combat contraband wireless devices in 
correctional facilities nationwide. Inmates have used contraband 
wireless devices to order hits, run drug operations, operate phone 
scams, and otherwise engage in criminal activity. It is clear that 
inmate possession of wireless devices is a serious threat to the safety 
and welfare of correctional facility employees, other inmates, and the 
general public.
    68. This document reduces regulatory burdens for those seeking to 
expeditiously deploy Contraband Interdiction Systems (CISs), such as 
managed access systems or detection systems, which are used in 
correctional facilities to detect and block transmissions to or from 
contraband wireless devices or to obtain identifying information from 
these devices. The Commission streamlines the process for approving or 
accepting spectrum lease applications or notifications for spectrum 
leases entered into for CISs. The Commission grants a waiver for CISs 
reducing certain regulatory status filing requirements. Additionally, 
this document establishes requirements designed to ensure that 
agreements among CMRS licensees and CIS providers are negotiated 
expeditiously, while also adequately preserving licensees' exclusive 
spectrum rights.
    69. In response to widespread support--across all stakeholders--for 
the proposed rule and procedural modifications to streamline the CIS 
leasing process, the Commission establishes rule changes to process all 
spectrum leases for CIS overnight, with the approval or acceptance 
posted to the Universal Licensing System the following business day 
after filing. The Commission finds that nothing in the expedited 
processing of CIS lease applications will have an adverse impact on the 
ability of a small businesses to participate in Commission processes to 
acquire spectrum or to provide wireless services and maintains the 
requirement to comply with unjust enrichment obligations where 
applicable.
    70. In this document, the Commission grants a waiver of section 
20.9 of the Commission's rules, to the extent necessary, so that CIS 
operators will not be required to file a separate modification 
application to receive private mobile radio system (PMRS) regulatory 
status. Instead, when a CIS operator submits the exhibit to its lease 
application stating that it is a CIS, it will be permitted to also 
indicate wither it is PMRS, and the approved or accepted spectrum lease 
will subsequently reflect that regulatory status.
    71. Regulated as PMRS, CIS operators would no longer be obligated 
to comply with the Commission's common carrier 911 and E911 rules 
applicable to CMRS licensees. However, acknowledging the overriding 
importance of ensuring availability of emergency 911 calls from 
correctional facilities, subject to evaluation by the local public 
safety

[[Page 22753]]

answering point (PSAP), the Commission finds the public interest is 
best served by requiring CIS providers operating as PMRS to route 911 
calls to the PSAP. Therefore, the Commission amends its rules to 
require CIS providers regulated as PMRS to transmit all wireless 911 
calls to the PSAP, unless the PSAP informs the CIS provider that it 
does not wish to receive the calls.
    72. As an additional measure designed to expedite the deployment of 
managed access and detection systems in correctional facilities, the 
Commission also amends section 1.931 of the Commission's rules to 
exempt CIS providers seeking a Special Temporary Authority (STA) for a 
CIS from the requirement that they file the application 10 days prior 
to operation. The Commission will process STA requests for CISs on an 
expedited basis and without prior public notice, but finds it 
unnecessary to modify Form 601 in order to achieve these streamlining 
goals.
    73. In order to ensure cooperation among CIS providers and CMRS 
carriers--both large and small--the Commission will require that CMRS 
licensees negotiate in good faith with entities seeking to deploy a CIS 
in a correctional facility. Upon receipt of a good faith request by a 
CIS provider, a CMRS licensee will have 45 days to negotiate a lease 
agreement in good faith. If, after that 45-day period, there is no 
agreement, CIS providers seeking STA to operate in the absence of CMRS 
licensee consent may file a request for STA with the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), with a copy served at the same time on 
the CMRS licensee, accompanied by evidence demonstrating its good 
faith, and the unreasonableness of the CMRS licensee's actions, in 
negotiating an agreement. The CMRS licensee will then be given 10 days 
to respond. If WTB then determines that the CIS provider has negotiated 
in good faith, yet the CMRS licensee has not negotiated in good faith, 
WTB may issue an STA to the entity seeking to deploy the CIS, 
notwithstanding the lack of accompanying CMRS licensee consent. We will 
consider evidence of good faith negotiations on a case-by-case basis, 
and may take additional steps as necessary to authorize CIS operations 
should we determine there is continued lack of good faith negotiations 
toward a CIS lease agreement.
    74. As a further safeguard to minimize the potential impact of CIS 
implementation on surrounding areas, the Commission amends its leasing 
rules to require that, 10 days prior to deploying a CIS that prevents 
communications to or from mobile devices, a lessee must notify the 
community in which the correctional facility is located. The 
notification must include a description of what the system is intended 
to do, the date the system is scheduled to begin operating, and the 
location of the correctional facility. Notification must be tailored to 
reach the community immediately adjacent to the correctional facility, 
including through local television, radio, internet news sources, or 
community groups, as may be appropriate. We note that this notification 
obligation does not apply for brief tests of a system prior to 
deployment. The Commission believes the adopted notification 
requirement strikes the appropriate balance between avoiding overly 
burdensome or costly requirements and promoting cooperation and 
coordination necessary to effectively implement CIS.
    75. Finally, in order to assist CIS operators and CMRS licensees in 
complying with their regulatory obligations, the Commission intends to 
designate a single point of contact at the Commission to serve as the 
ombudsperson on contraband wireless device issues. The ombudsperson's 
duties may include, as necessary, providing assistance to CIS operators 
in connecting with CMRS licensees, playing a role in identifying 
required CIS lease filings for a given correctional facility, 
facilitating the required Commission filings, thereby reducing 
regulatory burdens, and resolving issues that may arise during the 
leasing process. The ombudsperson, in conjunction with WTB, will also 
maintain a Web page with a list of active CIS operators and locations 
where CIS has been deployed. With this appointment, the Commission 
ensures continued focus on this important public safety issue and 
solidifies our commitment to combating the problem.
    76. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in 
Response to IRFA. There were no comments raised that specifically 
addressed the proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA. 
Nonetheless, the agency considered the potential impact of the rules 
proposed in the IRFA on small entities and reduced the compliance 
burden for all small entities in order to reduce the economic impact of 
the rules enacted herein on such entities.
    77. Response to Comments by Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 
2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to 
any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of 
any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments.
    78. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the 
proposed rules in this proceeding.
    79. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to provide a 
description of--and where feasible, an estimate of--the number of small 
entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA.
    80. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of 
approximately 28.8 million small businesses, according to the SBA.
    81. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating 
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure 
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, 
sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission 
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of 
technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired 
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a 
variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP 
services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and 
wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments 
providing satellite television distribution services using facilities 
and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry. The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such companies 
having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 shows that 
there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size 
standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.

[[Page 22754]]

    82. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a definition for Interexchange Carriers. The closest 
NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers and the 
applicable small business size standard under SBA rules consists of all 
such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 
2012 indicates that 3,117 firms operated during that year. Of that 
number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. According to 
internally developed Commission data, 359 companies reported that their 
primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of 
interexchange services. Of this total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of interexchange service providers are small entities that may 
be affected by the rules adopted.
    83. The SBA has not developed a small business size standard 
specifically for Local Resellers. The SBA category of 
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest NAICs code category for 
local 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 size standard, such a business is small 
if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 show that 
1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 
1,341 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 and two have more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local 
resellers are small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted.
    84. Toll Resellers. The SBA has not developed a small business size 
standard specifically for the category of Toll Resellers. The SBA 
category of Telecommunications Resellers is the closest NAICs code 
category for toll 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 size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census data 
for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that 
year. Of that number, 1,341 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, 881 carriers have reported that 
they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of these, an 
estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 24 have more than 1,500 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
toll resellers are small entities that may be affected by the rules 
adopted.
    85. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable 
to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do 
not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator 
service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service 
carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under 
SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers and the applicable 
small business size standard under SBA rules consists of all such 
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 
indicates that 3,117 firms operated during that year. Of that number, 
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. According to Commission 
data, 284 companies reported that their primary telecommunications 
service activity was the provision of other toll carriage. Of these, an 
estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees and five have more than 
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most Other 
Toll Carriers are small entities that may be affected by the rules and 
policies adopted.
    86. 800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers. Neither the Commission 
nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically 
for 800 and 800-like service (toll free) subscribers. The appropriate 
size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications 
Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. The most reliable source of information 
regarding the number of these service subscribers appears to be data 
the Commission collects on the 800, 888, 877, and 866 numbers in use. 
According to our data, as of September 2009, the number of 800 numbers 
assigned was 7,860,000; the number of 888 numbers assigned was 
5,588,687; the number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,721,866; and the 
number of 866 numbers assigned was 7,867,736. We do not have data 
specifying the number of these subscribers that are not independently 
owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are 
unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of 
toll free subscribers that would qualify as small businesses under the 
SBA size standard. Consequently, we estimate that there are 7,860,000 
or fewer small entity 800 subscribers; 5,588,687 or fewer small entity 
888 subscribers; 4,721,866 or fewer small entity 877 subscribers; and 
7,867,736 or fewer small entity 866 subscribers.
    87. 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 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.
    88. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband 
personal communications service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six 
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held 
auctions for each block. The Commission defined ``small entity'' for 
Blocks C and F as an entity that has

[[Page 22755]]

average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous 
calendar years. For Block F, an additional classification for ``very 
small business'' was added and is defined as an entity that, together 
with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 
million for the preceding three calendar years. These standards 
defining ``small entity'' in the context of broadband PCS auctions have 
been approved by the SBA. No small businesses, within the SBA-approved 
small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A 
and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities 
in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business 
bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks 
D, E, and F. In 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 347 C, E, and F Block 
licenses. There were 48 small business winning bidders. In 2001, the 
Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses 
in Auction 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified 
as ``small'' or ``very small'' businesses. Subsequent events, 
concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, 
resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for 
grant. In 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 188 C block 
licenses and 21 F block licenses in Auction 58. There were 24 winning 
bidders for 217 licenses. Of the 24 winning bidders, 16 claimed small 
business status and won 156 licenses. In 2007, the Commission completed 
an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction 71. Of 
the 14 winning bidders, six were designated entities. In 2008, the 
Commission completed an auction of 20 Broadband PCS licenses in the C, 
D, E and F block licenses in Auction 78.
    89. Advanced Wireless Services. 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.
    90. Specialized Mobile Radio. The Commission awards small business 
bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (``SMR'') 
geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to entities 
that had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the three 
previous calendar years. The Commission awards very small business 
bidding credits to entities that had revenues of no more than $3 
million in each of the three previous calendar years. The SBA has 
approved these small business size standards for the 800 MHz and 900 
MHz SMR Services. The Commission has held auctions for geographic area 
licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction was 
completed in 1996. Sixty bidders claiming that they qualified as small 
businesses under the $15 million size standard won 263 geographic area 
licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR auction for the upper 
200 channels was conducted in 1997. Ten bidders claiming that they 
qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 
38 geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz 
SMR band. A second auction for the 800 MHz band was conducted in 2002 
and included 23 BEA licenses. One bidder claiming small business status 
won five licenses.
    91. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses 
for the General Category channels was conducted in 2000. Eleven bidders 
won 108 geographic area licenses for the General Category channels in 
the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small businesses under the $15 
million size standard. In an auction completed in 2000, a total of 
2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz 
SMR service were awarded. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed small 
business status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all three 
auctions, 40 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR 
band claimed status as small business.
    92. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR 
licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in 
the 800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide 800 
MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation 
authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of 
no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. In 
addition, we do not know how many of these firms have 1,500 or fewer 
employees. We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the 
remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by 
small entities, as that small business size standard is approved by the 
SBA.
    93. 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

[[Page 22756]]

three winning bidders claimed small business status.
    94. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 
MHz band. 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.
    95. 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.
    96. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms 
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other 
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by 
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of 
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' The category 
has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average 
annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau 
data for 2012 show that there were a total of 333 firms that operated 
for the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of 
less than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of 
satellite telecommunications providers are small entities.
    97. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' category is comprised of establishments that are 
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 gross 
annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, U.S. 
Census data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for 
the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual 
receipts of less than $25 million. Thus, a majority of ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected by the rules adopted 
can be considered small.
    98. Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing. This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing 
communications equipment (except telephone apparatus, and radio and 
television broadcast, and wireless communications equipment). Examples 
of such manufacturing include fire detection and alarm systems 
manufacturing, Intercom systems and equipment manufacturing, and 
signals (e.g., highway, pedestrian, railway, traffic) manufacturing. 
The SBA has established a size standard for this industry as 750 
employees or less. Census data for 2012 show that 383 establishments 
operated in that year. Of that number, 379 operated with less than 500 
employees. Based on that data, we conclude that the majority of Other 
Communications Equipment Manufacturers are small.
    99. 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 size standard for 
this industry of 750 employees or less. U.S. Census data for 2012 show 
that 841 establishments operated in this industry in that year. Of that 
number, 819 establishments operated with less than 500 employees. Based 
on this data, we conclude that a majority of manufacturers in this 
industry is small.
    100. Engineering Services. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in applying physical laws and principles of 
engineering in the design, development, and utilization of machines, 
materials, instruments, structures, process, and systems. The 
assignments undertaken by these establishments may involve any of the 
following activities: Provision of advice, preparation of feasibility 
studies, preparation of preliminary and final plans and designs, 
provision of technical services during the construction or installation 
phase, inspection and evaluation of engineering projects, and related 
services. The SBA deems engineering services firms to be small if they 
have $15 million or less in annual receipts, except military and 
aerospace equipment and military weapons engineering establishments are 
deemed small if they have $38 million or less an annual receipts. 
According to U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012, there were 49,092 
establishments in this category that operated the full year. Of the 
49,092 establishments, 45,848 had less than $10 million in receipts and 
3,244 had $10 million or more in annual receipts. Accordingly, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of engineering service firms are 
small.
    101. Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and 
Nautical System Instrument Manufacturing. This U.S. industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing search, detection, 
navigation, guidance, aeronautical, and nautical systems and 
instruments. Examples of products made by these establishments are 
aircraft instruments (except engine), flight recorders, navigational 
instruments and systems, radar systems and equipment, and sonar systems 
and equipment. The SBA has established a size standard for this 
industry of 1,250 employees or less. Data from the 2012 Economic Census 
show 588 establishments operated during that year. Of that number, 533 
establishments operated with less than 500 employees. Based on this 
data, we conclude that the majority of manufacturers in this industry 
are small.
    102. Security Guards and Patrol Services. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this category to include ``establishments primarily engaged in 
providing guard and patrol services.'' The SBA deems security guards 
and patrol services firms to be small if they

[[Page 22757]]

have $18.5 million or less in annual receipts. According to U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012, there were 8,742 establishments in operation the 
full year. Of the 8,842 establishments, 8,276 had less than $10 million 
while 466 had more than $10 million in annual receipts. Accordingly, 
the Commission estimates that a majority of firms in this category are 
small.
    103. All Other Support Services. This U.S. industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in providing day-to-day business and 
other organizational support services (except office administrative 
services, facilities support services, employment services, business 
support services, travel arrangement and reservation services, security 
and investigation services, services to buildings and other structures, 
packaging and labeling services, and convention and trade show 
organizing services). The SBA deems all other support services firms to 
be small if they have $11 million or less in annual receipts. According 
to U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012, there were 11,178 establishments 
in operation the full year. Of the 11,178 establishments, 10,886 had 
less than $10 million while 292 had greater than $10 million in annual 
receipts. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that a majority of 
firms in this category are small.
    104. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities. The projected reporting, 
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements resulting from this 
document will apply to all entities in the same manner, consistent with 
the approach we adopted in the NPRM. The rule modifications, taken as a 
whole, should have a beneficial, if any, reporting, recordkeeping, or 
compliance impact on small entities because all CMRS licensees and CIS 
providers will be subject to reduced filing burdens and recordkeeping. 
We also expect this document to better enable all CMRS licensees and 
CIS operators, no matter their size, to effectively coordinate and 
deploy systems to combat the use of contraband wireless devices in 
correctional facilities.
    105. The primary changes are as follows: (1) We revise our rules to 
enable the immediate processing of lease applications or notifications 
for CISs regardless of whether the approval or acceptance will result 
in (a) the lessee holding or having access to geographically 
overlapping licenses, or (b) a license involving spectrum subject to 
designated entity unjust enrichment provisions or entrepreneur transfer 
restrictions; (2) we grant a waiver of Section 20.9 to CISs; (3) we 
amend our rules to require CISs to route 911 calls to the local PSAP, 
unless the PSAPs does not wish to receive the calls, and to clarify 
that where a lessee is a CIS provider, the licensee that leases the 
spectrum to the CIS provider is not responsible for compliance with 
E911 obligations; (4) we exempt CIS providers seeking an STA from the 
requirement that they file the application 10 days prior to operation; 
(5) we provide 45 days for lease agreement negotiations between CMRS 
licensees and CIS operators, plus a 10 day response period, after which 
the Commission may issue an STA to the CIS operator; (6) we require CIS 
operators to provide notice to surrounding communities 10 days prior to 
deployment; and (7) we designate a single point of contact at the 
Commission to serve as the ombudsperson on contraband wireless device 
issues. With these reforms, we achieve the important public interest 
goal of combatting the use of contraband wireless devices in 
correctional facilities nationwide by reducing regulatory burdens for 
those seeking to expeditiously deploy CISs.
    106. For small entities operating CISs at correctional facilities, 
the rules and processes adopted in this document eliminate several 
barriers to CIS deployment. The Commission adopts rules that cut down 
on the time it takes to process lease agreements and STAs, so that CIS 
providers can deploy their systems rapidly. Rather than requiring CIS 
providers to file additional forms demonstrating they will be operating 
as a CIS in order to receive expedited processing, the Commission 
instead implements its own internal procedures for identifying those 
qualifying applications and processing the request immediately. The 
Commission implements similar internal procedures for identifying STA 
requests for CISs as exempt from the requirement that they file the 
application 10 days prior to operation, thereby providing for immediate 
processing without imposing new or additional filing burdens on CIS 
operators. With the waiver of section 20.9, we have also eliminated the 
previous requirement that CIS operators file a separate modification 
application to request PMRS treatment, thereby conserving resources and 
reducing burdens on spectrum leasing parties.
    107. The community notification requirement adopted in this 
document will require small entity CIS operators to provide notice to 
the surrounding community 10 days prior to deployment of the system, 
which must include a description of what the system is intended to do, 
the date the system is scheduled to begin operating, and the location 
of the correctional facility. CIS operators must tailor the 
notification in the most effective way to reach the potentially 
impacted community and are able to choose the means of communication 
that is most appropriate for the particular community. By giving the 
CIS operators flexibility to tailor the notification to the specific 
community, we expect that the notification costs and burdens will be 
minimal, and would not require small entities to hire additional staff.
    108. We recognize that smaller CMRS licensees may have less 
experience with CISs and fewer resources to provide for expedient and 
effective lease negotiations within the 45 day period we impose. 
However, given that the success of CIS deployment requires all carriers 
in the relevant area of the correctional facility to execute a lease 
with the CIS provider, we believe the minimal requirement that CMRS 
licensees negotiate in good faith is not unduly burdensome. By 
potentially granting an STA to the entity requesting a CIS deployment 
in the absence of carrier consent, we allow for any necessary emergency 
testing and evaluation until such time as the parties can conclude 
negotiations and submit the applicable lease applications.
    109. Small entities seeking to deploy CISs in correctional 
facilities will not incur additional or significant compliance burdens 
as a result of this document. We maintain the current Forms 601 and 608 
required for lease filings and provide for expedited processing without 
imposing any additional filing requirements. We reduce filing burdens 
by waiving section 20.9 for CIS operators, thereby eliminating the need 
to file a separate modification application to request PMRS treatment. 
While we create a requirement that CISs route 911 and E911 calls to 
local PSAPs, we permit PSAPs at their discretion to indicate they do 
not wish to receive 911 calls. We note that CIS operators are often 
required to pass through 911 and E911 calls, either by contracts with 
wireless provider lessors or pursuant to a state's requirements, and 
believe the local PSAPs are in the best position to determine emergency 
call procedures in the public interest.
    110. The Commission believes that applying the same rules equally 
to all entities in this context promotes fairness. The Commission does 
not believe that the costs and/or administrative burdens associated 
with the rules will unduly burden small entities. In fact, the 
revisions adopted by the Commission should benefit small

[[Page 22758]]

entities by reducing certain administrative burdens while 
simultaneously giving the flexibility necessary to facilitate the 
deployment of CIS to correctional facilities nationwide.
    111. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. 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 and reporting requirements under the rule for 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 
small entities.''
    112. In order to minimize the economic impact on small entities, 
the rules provide for streamlined leasing and STA application and 
notification processes, limited notification requirements, and flexible 
standards for lease negotiations and contractual obligations. While we 
considered several other proposals in the record that may have resulted 
in greater compliance burdens on small entities, we strike a balance 
between achieving our goals of combatting contraband wireless devices 
in correctional facilities and minimizing the costs and regulatory 
burdens of the adopted rules.
    113. First, by adopting the 911 and E911 requirements for CISs 
subject to the discretion of PSAPs, we provide flexibility and avoid 
unnecessary burdens on CIS operators to deliver emergency calls where 
PSAPs would rather they be blocked. In order to avoid duplicitous 
burdens on both CIS operators and the CMRS providers from which they 
lease spectrum, we amend our rules to clarify that the burden to pass 
on calls or messages to the PSAP is on the CIS operator, not the CMRS 
provider.
    114. Second, we take steps to limit the economic impact of the 
requirement that CIS operators provide advance notification to 
surrounding communities 10 days prior to deploying their systems by 
allowing flexibility for CIS operators to tailor notice to the specific 
community. The goal of this proceeding is to expedite the deployment of 
technological solutions to combat the use of contraband wireless 
devices, not to impose unnecessary barriers to CIS deployment. However, 
we also recognize the importance to safeguard against the potential for 
accidental call blocking and the public safety issues involved. 
Therefore, we adopt a flexible notice requirement, rather than more 
specific requirements suggested in the record. For instance, we forego 
a proposed requirement that operators be required to undertake 
extensive public education campaigns that would include mailings, door-
hangers, and media campaigns directed toward surrounding businesses and 
households, as well as the alarm industry and local alarm companies. 
Instead of creating an overly burdensome or potentially 
counterproductive requirement, we believe a flexible requirement 
tailored to the specific area of deployment strikes a reasonable 
balance between minimizing costs for CIS operators and reducing the 
likelihood of negative impact on the surrounding community.
    115. Third, the good faith lease negotiation requirement we adopt 
today seeks to strike a balance between expediting the leasing process 
and protecting the exclusive spectrum rights of CMRS providers. The 
Commission notes that the effectiveness of CIS deployment requires all 
carriers in the relevant area of the correctional facility to execute a 
lease with the CIS provider, not only large carriers that commented in 
this proceeding, but also smaller carriers that did not. The Commission 
considered and rejected proposals by certain commenters to require 
carriers to create standard industry-wide lease agreements, adopt 
specific pricing standards for managed access leases, and implement a 
shot clock at the beginning of the leasing process, after which 
spectrum leases would automatically be granted. While these proposals 
would have decreased regulatory burdens on CIS providers by decreasing 
the time and costs of obtaining spectrum leases for their systems, the 
Commission favored an alternative that allowed for more flexible lease 
negotiations and protected the spectrum rights of CMRS providers--both 
large and small. By adopting a good faith negotiation period, after 
which the Commission may grant a CIS provider a STA, rather than a 
spectrum lease, if the CMRS provider has not negotiated in good faith, 
today's Order ensures that CIS can be deployed quickly, while also 
protecting CMRS providers' control over their spectrum rights. The 
Commission believes this approach limits the burdens on small 
entities--both CIS operators and CMRS providers--who have limited 
resources to negotiate and enter into spectrum lease agreements.
    116. Finally, in order to assist CIS operators and CMRS licensees, 
particularly small entities with limited resources to devote to 
compliance with regulatory obligations, this document announces the 
Commission's intention to designate a single point of contact at the 
Commission to serve as the ombudsperson on contraband wireless device 
issues. The ombudsperson's duties may include, as necessary, providing 
assistance to CIS operators in connecting with CMRS licensees, playing 
a role in identifying required CIS lease filings for a given 
correctional facility, facilitating the required Commission filings, 
thereby reducing regulatory burdens, and resolving issues that may 
arise during the leasing process. The ombudsperson will also conduct 
outreach and maintain a dialogue with all stakeholders on the issues 
important to furthering a solution to the problem of contraband 
wireless device use in correctional facilities. Finally, the 
ombudsperson, in conjunction with WTB, will maintain a Web page with a 
list of active CIS operators and locations where CIS has been deployed. 
With this appointment, we ensure continued focus on this important 
public safety issue and solidify our commitment to combating the 
problem.

Report to Congress

    117. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including the 
FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. 
In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including 
the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA (5 U.S.C. 
603(a)).

Congressional Review Act

    118. The Commission will send a copy of the Order to Congress and 
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A)).

III. Ordering Clauses

    119. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 
310, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 302a, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, and 332, 
the Order in GN Docket No. 13-111 is adopted.
    120. It is further ordered that the Order shall be effective 30 
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.

[[Page 22759]]

    121. It is further ordered that parts 1 and 20 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR parts 1 and 20, are amended as specified in Appendix A of 
the Order, effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, 
with the exception of: (1) Amended rule Sec. Sec.  1.9020(d)(8), 
1.9030(d)(8), 1.9035(d)(4), and 20.18(a), 47 CFR 1.9020(d)(8), 
1.9030(d)(8), 1.9035(d)(4), and 20.18(a), as specified in paragraph 122 
below; and (2) Sec. Sec.  1.9020(n), 1.9030(m), 1.9035(o), 20.18(r), 
and 20.23(a), which shall become effective after the Commission 
publishes a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval 
under the PRA and the relevant effective date.
    122. It is further ordered that amended rule sections 1.9020(d)(8), 
1.9030(d)(8), 1.9035(d)(4), and 20.18(a), 47 CFR 1.9020(d)(8), 
1.9030(d)(8), 1.9035(d)(4), and 20.18(a), as specified in Appendix A of 
the Order, shall become effective the later of: 270 days after the 
publication of this document in the Federal Register or the 
Commission's publication of the document described in paragraph 121 
above. In either case, the Commission will publish a document in the 
Federal Register announcing such approval and the effective date.
    123. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section 801(a)(1)(A) 
of the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), the Commission 
shall send a copy of the Order to Congress and to the Government 
Accountability Office.
    124. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of the Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1 and 20

    Administrative practice and procedure, Communications common 
carriers, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Telecommunications.


Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1 and 20 as follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

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

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79, et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 
155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 310, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 
1452, and 1455.


0
2. Amend Sec.  1.931 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
0
b. Removing the ``or'' at the end of paragraph (a)(2)(iii);
0
c. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(2)(iv) and adding 
``; or'' in its place; and
0
d. Adding paragraph (a)(2)(v).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  1.931  Application for special temporary authority.

    (a) Wireless Telecommunications Services. (1) In circumstances 
requiring immediate or temporary use of station in the Wireless 
Telecommunications Services, carriers may request special temporary 
authority (STA) to operate new or modified equipment. Such requests 
must be filed electronically using FCC Form 601 and must contain 
complete details about the proposed operation and the circumstances 
that fully justify and necessitate the grant of STA. Such requests 
should be filed in time to be received by the Commission at least 10 
days prior to the date of proposed operation or, where an extension is 
sought, 10 days prior to the expiration date of the existing STA. 
Requests received less than 10 days prior to the desired date of 
operation may be given expedited consideration only if compelling 
reasons are given for the delay in submitting the request. Otherwise, 
such late-filed requests are considered in turn, but action might not 
be taken prior to the desired date of operation. Requests for STA for 
operation of a station used in a Contraband Interdiction System, as 
defined in Sec.  1.9003, will be afforded expedited consideration if 
filed at least one day prior to the desired date of operation. Requests 
for STA must be accompanied by the proper filing fee.
    (2) * * *
    (v) The STA is for operation of a station used in a Contraband 
Interdiction System, as defined in Sec.  1.9003.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  1.9003 by adding definitions for ``Contraband 
Interdiction System,'' ``Contraband wireless device,'' and 
``Correctional facility'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  1.9003  Definitions.

    Contraband Interdiction System. Contraband Interdiction System is a 
system that transmits radio communication signals comprised of one or 
more stations used only in a correctional facility exclusively to 
prevent transmissions to or from contraband wireless devices within the 
boundaries of the facility and/or to obtain identifying information 
from such contraband wireless devices.
    Contraband wireless device. A contraband wireless device is any 
wireless device, including the physical hardware or part of a device, 
such as a subscriber identification module (SIM), that is used within a 
correctional facility in violation of federal, state, or local law, or 
a correctional facility rule, regulation, or policy.
    Correctional facility. A correctional facility is any facility 
operated or overseen by federal, state, or local authorities that 
houses or holds criminally charged or convicted inmates for any period 
of time, including privately owned and operated correctional facilities 
that operate through contracts with federal, state, or local 
jurisdictions.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  1.9020 by revising paragraphs (d)(8) and (e)(2) 
introductory text, redesignate paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (iii) as 
(e)(2)(iii) and (iv), and adding paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (n) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  1.9020  Spectrum manager leasing arrangements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (8) E911 requirements. If E911 obligations apply to the licensee 
(see Sec.  20.18 of this chapter), the licensee retains the obligations 
with respect to leased spectrum. However, if the spectrum lessee is a 
Contraband Interdiction System (CIS) provider, as defined in Sec.  
1.9003, then the CIS provider is responsible for compliance with Sec.  
20.18(r) regarding E911 transmission obligations.
    (e) * * *
    (2) Immediate processing procedures. Notifications that meet the 
requirements of paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, and notifications 
for Contraband Interdiction Systems as defined in Sec.  1.9003 that 
meet the requirements of paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section, qualify 
for the immediate processing procedures.
* * * * *
    (ii) A lessee of spectrum used in a Contraband Interdiction System 
qualifies for these immediate processing procedures if the notification 
is

[[Page 22760]]

sufficiently complete and contains all necessary information and 
certifications (including those relating to eligibility, basic 
qualifications, and foreign ownership) required for notifications 
processed under the general notification procedures set forth in 
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, and must not require a waiver of, 
or declaratory ruling pertaining to, any applicable Commission rules.
* * * * *
    (n) Community notification requirement for certain contraband 
interdiction systems. 10 days prior to deploying a Contraband 
Interdiction System that prevents communications to or from mobile 
devices, a lessee must notify the community in which the correctional 
facility is located. The notification must include a description of 
what the system is intended to do, the date the system is scheduled to 
begin operating, and the location of the correctional facility. 
Notification must be tailored to reach the community immediately 
adjacent to the correctional facility, including through local 
television, radio, Internet news sources, or community groups, as may 
be appropriate. No notification is required, however, for brief tests 
of a system prior to deployment.

0
5. Amend Sec.  1.9030 by revising paragraphs (d)(8) and (e)(2) 
introductory text, redesignate paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (iii) as 
(e)(2)(iii) and (iv), and adding paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (m) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  1.9030  Long-term de facto transfer leasing arrangements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (8) E911 requirements. To the extent the licensee is required to 
meet E911 obligations (see Sec.  20.18 of this chapter), the spectrum 
lessee is required to meet those obligations with respect to the 
spectrum leased under the spectrum leasing arrangement insofar as the 
spectrum lessee's operations are encompassed within the E911 
obligations. If the spectrum lessee is a Contraband Interdiction System 
(CIS) provider, as defined in Sec.  1.9003, then the CIS provider is 
responsible for compliance with Sec.  20.18(r) regarding E911 
transmission obligations.
    (e) * * *
    (2) Immediate approval procedures. Applications that meet the 
requirements of paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, and applications 
for Contraband Interdiction Systems as defined in Sec.  1.9003 that 
meet the requirements of paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section, qualify 
for the immediate approval procedures.
* * * * *
    (ii) A lessee of spectrum used in a Contraband Interdiction System 
qualifies for these immediate approval procedures if the application is 
sufficiently complete and contains all necessary information and 
certifications (including those relating to eligibility, basic 
qualifications, and foreign ownership) required for applications 
processed under the general application procedures set forth in 
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, and must not require a waiver of, 
or declaratory ruling pertaining to, any applicable Commission rules.
* * * * *
    (m) Community notification requirement for certain contraband 
interdiction systems. 10 days prior to deploying a Contraband 
Interdiction System that prevents communications to or from mobile 
devices, a lessee must notify the community in which the correctional 
facility is located. The notification must include a description of 
what the system is intended to do, the date the system is scheduled to 
begin operating, and the location of the correctional facility. 
Notification must be tailored to reach the community immediately 
adjacent to the correctional facility, including through local 
television, radio, Internet news sources, or community groups, as may 
be appropriate. No notification is required, however, for brief tests 
of a system prior to deployment.

0
6. Amend Sec.  1.9035 by revising paragraph (d)(4) and adding paragraph 
(o) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.9035  Short-term de facto transfer leasing arrangements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) E911 requirements. If E911 obligations apply to the licensee 
(see Sec.  20.18 of this chapter), the licensee retains the obligations 
with respect to leased spectrum. A spectrum lessee entering into a 
short-term de facto transfer leasing arrangement is not separately 
required to comply with any such obligations in relation to the leased 
spectrum. However, if the spectrum lessee is a Contraband Interdiction 
System (CIS) provider, as defined in Sec.  1.9003, then the CIS 
provider is responsible for compliance with Sec.  20.18(r) regarding 
E911 transmission obligations.
* * * * *
    (o) Community notification requirement for certain contraband 
interdiction systems. 10 days prior to deploying a Contraband 
Interdiction System that prevents communications to or from mobile 
devices, a lessee must notify the community in which the correctional 
facility is located. The notification must include a description of 
what the system is intended to do, the date the system is scheduled to 
begin operating, and the location of the correctional facility. 
Notification must be tailored to reach the community immediately 
adjacent to the correctional facility, including through local 
television, radio, Internet news sources, or community groups, as may 
be appropriate. No notification is required, however, for brief tests 
of a system prior to deployment.

PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

0
7. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 
222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 
309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 610, 615, 615a, 615b, 615c, unless 
otherwise noted.


0
8. Amend Sec.  20.18 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (r) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  20.18  911 Service.

    (a) Scope of section. Except as described in paragraph (r) of this 
section, the following requirements are only applicable to CMRS 
providers, excluding mobile satellite service (MSS) 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.
* * * * *
    (r) Contraband Interdiction System (CIS) requirement. CIS providers 
regulated as private mobile radio service (see Sec.  20.3) must 
transmit all wireless 911 calls without respect to their call 
validation process to a Public Safety Answering Point, or, where no 
Public Safety Answering Point has been designated, to a designated 
statewide default answering point or appropriate local emergency 
authority pursuant to Sec.  64.3001 of this chapter, provided that 
``all wireless 911 calls'' is defined as ``any call initiated by a 
wireless user dialing 911 on a phone using a compliant radio frequency 
protocol of the serving carrier.'' This requirement shall not apply if 
the Public Safety Answering Point or emergency authority

[[Page 22761]]

informs the CIS provider that it does not wish to receive 911 calls 
from the CIS provider.

0
9. Section 20.23 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  20.23  Contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities.

    (a) Good faith negotiations. CMRS licensees must negotiate in good 
faith with entities seeking to deploy a Contraband Interdiction System 
(CIS) in a correctional facility. Upon receipt of a good faith request 
by an entity seeking to deploy a CIS in a correctional facility, a CMRS 
licensee must negotiate toward a lease agreement. If, after a 45 day 
period, there is no agreement, CIS providers seeking Special Temporary 
Authority (STA) to operate in the absence of CMRS licensee consent may 
file a request for STA with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
(WTB), accompanied by evidence demonstrating its good faith, and the 
unreasonableness of the CMRS licensee's actions, in negotiating an 
agreement. The request must be served on the CMRS licensee no later 
than the filing of the STA request, and the CMRS licensee may file a 
response with WTB, with a copy served on the CIS provider at that time, 
within 10 days of the filing of the STA request. If WTB determines that 
the CIS provider has negotiated in good faith, yet the CMRS licensee 
has not negotiated in good faith, WTB may issue STA to the entity 
seeking to deploy the CIS, notwithstanding lack of accompanying CMRS 
licensee consent.
    (b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2017-09885 Filed 5-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P