[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 154 (Friday, August 13, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44681-44683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16463]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[GN Docket No. 13-111; FCC 21-82; FR ID 39501]


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission or FCC) takes further steps to facilitate the deployment 
and viability of technological solutions used to combat contraband 
wireless devices in correctional facilities. The Second Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (SFNPRM) seeks further comment on the relative 
effectiveness, viability, and cost of additional technological 
solutions to combat contraband phone use in correctional facilities 
previously identified in the record.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before September 13, 
2021, and reply comments on or before October 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 13-111, 
by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS): http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
     Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

[[Page 44682]]

     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Conway of the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, at (202) 418-2887 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 13-111, FCC 21-
82 adopted July 12, 2021 and released July 13, 2020. The full text of 
this document, including all Appendices, is available for inspection 
and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 
45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554, or available for viewing via the 
Commission's ECFS website by entering the docket number, GN Docket No. 
13-111. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities 
(Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an 
email to [email protected] or calling the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
    This proceeding shall continue to be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules (47 CFR 1.1200 through 1.1216). Persons making ex parte 
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a 
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days 
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the 
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations 
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list 
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at 
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data 
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the 
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data 
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, 
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide 
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, 
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or 
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of 
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to 
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule Sec.  
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule Sec.  1.49(f) or for which 
the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, 
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the 
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and 
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, 
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize 
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Synopsis

    1. In the SFNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether there 
have been technological, economic, policy, and/or legal developments 
sufficient to overcome the variety of challenges presented to the 
widespread deployment of these technologies and whether and how the 
Commission can further facilitate these technologies through regulatory 
next steps. In doing so, the Commission contemplates various approaches 
to combatting the use of contraband wireless devices in correctional 
facilities that would each have their own projected reporting, 
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. We cannot quantify 
the cost of compliance with any regulatory next steps and do not know 
whether small entities will have to hire professionals to comply with 
any rules that we ultimately adopt. Below we discuss the projected 
reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements associated 
with the various approaches in the SFNPRM to combat contraband wireless 
device use in correctional facilities.
    2. The Commission contemplates as a potential solution the creation 
of ``quiet zones'' in and around correctional facilities where wireless 
communications are not authorized such that contraband wireless devices 
in correctional facilities would not be able to receive service from a 
wireless provider. Quiet zones would require wireless carriers and 
solution providers to have appropriate engineering capabilities to 
precisely define quiet zones around the borders of correctional 
facilities. To understand the cost implications for small and other 
entities, we seek comment on the potential costs that could be 
associated with the implementation of quiet zones, including the cost 
of hardware, software, network integration, engineering, and ongoing 
maintenance. The Commission also seeks comment on who should bear the 
cost of implementing quiet zones, and the potential alternatives to a 
Commission mandate that might encourage implementation.
    3. The SFNPRM seeks comments on the options of geolocation-based 
denial, also known as geofencing, and a ``network-based solution.'' The 
geolocation-based denial would allow for mobile device software and/or 
hardware to be used to shut down contraband wireless devices that 
violate a perimeter surrounding a correctional facility. A geolocation-
based solution would require adequate engineering to locate and disable 
wireless contraband. Relatedly, a ``network-based solution'' would 
require commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) licensees to 
independently identify and disable contraband wireless devices in 
correctional facilities using their own network elements. Therefore, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether there have been technological 
advancements in carriers' network engineering that might make it more 
feasible for entities to implement and comply with network-based 
geofencing. If network-based geofencing is selected as the solution for 
contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities, then the 
engineering required could have associated costs, including the testing 
and maintenance necessary to ensure accuracy and ongoing viability. The 
Commission's request for comment on additional costs that could be 
associated with the implementation of network-based geofencing, 
including software and network integration, should provide insight and 
allow us to evaluate costs for small and other entities that will be 
impacted by any future rules we adopt regarding these two potential 
solutions.
    4. This SFNPRM also contemplates the option of using beacon 
technology to combat the issue of contraband wireless device use in 
correctional facilities. The

[[Page 44683]]

Commission seeks comment on the potential advancements in beacon 
technology that would allow beacon software to be installed on mobile 
devices remotely (e.g., through a software update). If the Commission 
is found to have the authority to require entities to install the 
software on devices, then this approach could require related 
compliance requirements. Relatedly, the Commission seeks comment on how 
beacon technology could ensure that authorized users (e.g., 
correctional officers) are still able to use their devices. This 
requirement could impose recordkeeping and compliance requirements for 
entities such as wireless providers and mobile device manufacturers 
that must implement beacon technology via hardware and/or software 
changes to mobile devices for all users. We raise inquiries and seek 
information on the cost and implementation timing for beacon 
technology, specifically as compared to managed access systems (MAS) or 
advanced detection, and who should bear these costs. In addition, we 
request information on the various types of costs for entities 
associated with this type of technology, including hardware, software, 
network integration, engineering, ongoing maintenance, etc., which is 
germane to our analysis of any regulatory next steps and could impact 
the nature and type of recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance 
obligations that may result in this proceeding.
    5. The Commission also seeks further comment on potential 
regulatory steps that might be necessary to ensure that MAS maintains 
effectiveness as wireless technology evolves from 2G to widespread 3G/
4G and ultimately 5G deployments. We note that the commenters on the 
July 2020 Refresh Public Notification (85 FR 49999, August 17, 2020) 
largely agree that MAS Evolved will be even more effective than 
existing MAS systems. In this SFNPRM, we seek further comment on steps 
the Commission could take to facilitate MAS deployments. Depending on 
the comments, it is possible that the Commission could mandate roaming 
agreements between wireless carriers and solutions providers in the 
corrections context given the vital public safety concerns, which would 
impact small entities. It is also possible that the Commission could 
implement other approaches that could be developed by the wireless 
providers and/or the vendors to add features or services and help 
defray the cost of MAS deployments and operations. Lastly, the 
Commission could revise the previously streamlined leasing rules in the 
correctional facility context to facilitate further Contraband 
Interdiction System (CIS) deployments nationwide. Each of these 
potential rule changes could require additional recordkeeping and 
reporting from entities that seek to deploy MAS Evolved solutions.

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-16463 Filed 8-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P