Promoting Technological Solutions To Combat Contraband Wireless Device Use in Correctional Facilities
| Published date | 17 August 2020 |
| Citation | 85 FR 49998 |
| Record Number | 2020-17335 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Federal Communications Commission |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 159 (Monday, August 17, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 159 (Monday, August 17, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49998-50001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17335]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[GN Docket No. 13-111, DA 20-791, FRS 16977]
Promoting Technological Solutions To Combat Contraband Wireless
Device Use in Correctional Facilities
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
(Bureau) seeks to refresh the record on the proposals and questions
raised in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) in
GN Docket No. 13-111, FCC 17-25, released on March 24, 2017, and invite
additional comment on the successes and ongoing challenges of currently
employed solutions and those under further review and development.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before September 16,
2020; and reply comments on or before October 1, 2020.
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 ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
[[Page 49999]]
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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Conway,
[email protected], of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
Mobility Division, (202) 418-2887.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Bureau's Public
Notice in Docket No. 13-111, DA 20-791, released July 28, 2020. The
complete text of the document is available for viewing via the
Commission's ECFS website by entering the docket number, GN Docket No.
13-111.
Ex Parte Rules
This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must: (1) List all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation.
If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's
written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the
presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her
prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant
page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be
found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown
or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be
written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with
section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by
section 1.49(f) of the rules 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.
In the document, the Bureau seeks to refresh the record in this
proceeding that addresses the serious threat of contraband wireless
device use by inmates in correctional facilities. Developing a more
comprehensive and current record will facilitate an evaluation of
potential next steps necessary to eliminate this challenging public
safety problem. Through its March 2017 Further Notice (82 FR 22780) and
Report and Order (R&O), the Commission streamlined the authorization
process for contraband wireless device interdiction systems in
correctional facilities by eliminating certain filing requirements and
providing for immediate approval of lease applications filed to operate
these systems. In the Further Notice, the Commission sought further
comment on a process for wireless providers to disable wireless devices
identified as contraband, on whether to require advanced notice of
wireless provider network changes to solutions providers to maintain
system effectiveness, and on the viability of other technological
solutions.
Since the release of the R&O and Further Notice, the Commission has
conducted substantial outreach and encouraged stakeholder cooperation
in deploying effective technologies. Evolving wireless technologies and
wireless provider networks have necessitated adjustments in the
deployment and maintenance of contraband interdiction systems.
Stakeholders, including wireless providers, contraband device
interdiction solutions providers, and corrections officials, have
gained meaningful experience using various tools to combat contraband
wireless devices. The Bureau's goal is to leverage these experiences to
better facilitate the nationwide deployment of legal and cost-effective
contraband interdiction systems. The Bureau encourages commenters to be
as specific as possible when addressing the below issues.
First, the Bureau seeks to refresh the record on all aspects of the
proposed Commission process that would require the disabling of
contraband wireless devices by wireless providers following
identification. As contraband wireless device use in correctional
facilities continues to be a threat to public safety, despite continued
voluntary efforts to mitigate the problem, would adoption of a rule-
based disabling approach be a more effective, wide-scale solution? The
Bureau seeks additional comment on the specifics of the proposed
disabling rules. CTIA, the Wireless Association (CTIA), recently
reported to the Commission that it has been working successfully, along
with its members companies, on processes in various states using a
model court order, and that wireless providers are in fact ceasing
service to contraband devices pursuant to court orders they have
obtained. Therefore, the Bureau also seeks additional comment on
specific successes and failures associated with obtaining and executing
court orders in the various states where this approach has been
pursued. How many contraband devices have been disabled pursuant to
court orders, and in what jurisdictions? Has the process been overly
burdensome or costly and are there jurisdictions where court orders
cannot be obtained and why not? CTIA also claims that the approach of
disabling contraband devices added to the Stolen Phone Database is
working. The Bureau invites comment from all stakeholders on the
effectiveness of using this database to disable contraband wireless
devices and render them unusable across multiple wireless provider
networks. The Bureau would welcome comment on specific advantages or
disadvantages associated with this approach.
Second, the Bureau seeks to refresh the record on requiring
notification to solutions providers of wireless provider system
technical changes, recognizing that lack of timely notice of wireless
provider system upgrades can render contraband interdiction systems
ineffective. What is the current state of communications between
wireless providers seeking to upgrade networks and solutions providers
that must react to network changes? Have increased coordination efforts
substantially improved the ability of solutions providers to ensure
effective contraband interdiction system deployments, or is Commission
action appropriate to facilitate enhanced communications? CTIA
indicates it has developed a Managed Access System Stakeholder
Checklist that emphasizes the need for vendors, corrections officials,
and wireless providers to establish points of contact to enhance
stakeholder
[[Page 50000]]
communication and coordination on the deployment of future spectrum
bands. Are stakeholders using the Checklist and taking into
consideration, in particular, the technical recommendations? If not,
why not? Are financial considerations a factor? Are there additional
issues that should be added to the Checklist, and is there any action
the Commission could take to facilitate its implementation? Would
further standardization of best practices involving notification of
network changes be beneficial? If so, what type of notice, and what
additional best practices should be included? Relatedly, the Bureau
also seeks comment on the ability of wireless providers to configure
their networks and make system changes to avoid the need for major
contraband interdiction system upgrades. If these network
configurations are achievable, the Bureau seeks comment on whether
wireless providers would, as a matter of best practices, implement them
in areas proximate to correctional facilities or, alternatively,
compensate solutions providers to make contraband interdiction systems
upgrades required to adjust to wireless provider network technical
changes that significantly impact contraband interdiction system
effectiveness. The Bureau understands that this approach has been
adopted internationally and seeks specific comment on whether it has
been successful.
Third, the Bureau invites further comment on other technological
solutions addressed in the Further Notice, including quiet zones,
network-based solutions, and beacon technology. The Bureau seeks to
refresh the record on any developments for these and any other
technological solutions, and the regulatory steps the Commission should
take to facilitate the development and deployment of these new
technologies. The Bureau requests focused comment on the state of
carrier network solutions, or the concept of ``geofencing'' in the
contraband wireless device context. The Bureau seeks to update the
record on whether there have been technical developments making such an
approach a feasible solution to identifying the location of, and
ultimately terminating, contraband wireless devices. The Bureau seeks
comment on whether the Commission should require wireless providers to
not exceed a specific signal strength in the proximity of a
correctional facility, or to minimize or remove service-quality signals
entirely in the proximity of a facility. For example, should the
Commission require a wireless provider to treat the walls of a
correctional facility (or some subset of such facilities) the same as
the edge of the license areas? The Bureau also seeks to refresh the
record on what network modifications, if any, would be required to
track and identify contraband devices on carrier networks to a
sufficient degree of location accuracy, and at what cost. Should the
Commission require wireless carriers to use existing and future network
capabilities to accomplish detection and disabling of contraband
devices? What advances in location technology could enable carriers to
accurately locate contraband devices in correctional facilities for
disabling? Are there technical, privacy, legal, or other considerations
that are relevant to this approach?
Fourth, the Bureau notes that the evolution of wireless technology
from 2G to widespread 3G/4G and ultimately 5G deployments requires
continued managed access system upgrades to maintain long-term
effectiveness. The Bureau understands that many managed access system
solutions depend largely on forcing contraband devices from 3G/4G to 2G
services, which carriers are rapidly phasing out, and current network
security issues can prevent these systems from capturing calls made
from 5G phones. In April 2019, CTIA and the Association of State
Correctional Administrators submitted a Task Force Status Report that
described next generation managed access system solutions as ``MAS
Evolved.'' The report recommended that wireless providers establish
roaming agreements with solutions providers for network security
reasons to enable newer generation services on managed access system
networks. The Bureau understands that a key feature of a MAS Evolved
solution involves use of roaming agreements allowing a MAS Evolved
system to block calls by preventing authentication on the network, and
enabling newer generation services on managed access system networks
where calls are captured without forcing the devices down to 2G.
The Bureau seeks comment on how this approach can be more
effective, less complex, easier to manage, and less costly to implement
when compared to a more traditional managed access system deployment.
If full roaming partners, can solutions providers leverage their small
cell deployments to create a virtual fence and enhance the ability to
identify and block contraband phones? Would this approach lead to a
greater diversity in types and areas of contraband interdiction system
deployments? What steps can the Commission take to facilitate the
widespread implementation of MAS Evolved as a solution? The Bureau
seeks comment on how the wireless providers are working with vendors to
promote MAS Evolved and how the Commission can support these efforts.
Would a standardized template roaming agreement improve the
effectiveness of MAS deployments and encourage expansion? The Bureau
seeks focused comment on the status of the development and execution of
roaming agreements in order to promote MAS Evolved solutions. The
Bureau requests that commenters be specific regarding how many states
and how many correctional facilities have been involved in testing or
deploying MAS Evolved solutions. In addition to the execution of
roaming agreements, are there 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?
Are there specific approaches or other examples of which the Commission
should be aware? How can the Commission further support these efforts?
Are there specific steps the Commission can take to help coordinate
stakeholder efforts? Are there other voluntary actions that
stakeholders have taken in order to promote MAS Evolved?
Fifth, given the development of newer technologies and applications
for addressing contraband device use, the Bureau seeks comment on
whether the leasing rules adopted in 2017 remain effective in
facilitating spectrum use agreements between wireless providers and
solutions providers. Should the Commission revise these rules or
implement further streamlining initiatives in its secondary markets
processes? The Bureau recognizes that, for budgetary reasons, some
correctional facilities are seeking more mobile solutions with less
reliance on permanent fixed deployments. Should the Commission amend
its rules or update its licensing policies/databases to better
accommodate these newer solutions and if so, how?
Sixth, the Bureau notes that the Commission has not pursued
regulatory action on jamming technologies by state or local entities
given the prohibition against willful or malicious interference in
section 333 of the Communications Act, as amended. The Bureau
recognizes that limited testing of jamming technologies has occurred
with federal oversight, consistent with the statute, and the Commission
continues to support efforts to obtain more data on this type of
solution when tested in authorized environments. As a
[[Page 50001]]
substantial number of corrections officials continue to seek a
``jamming'' solution or its equivalent, the Bureau does seek comment,
however, on the potential for wireless providers to voluntarily deploy
base stations in the vicinity of a correctional facility that would, in
effect, result in the blocking of their own signals in all or part of a
correctional facility, thereby not resulting in a violation of section
333. Would such a solution be feasible in certain areas of the country
and at what cost? Wireless providers presumably have all relevant
information about the radiofrequency signal environment surrounding a
correctional facility they serve. Accordingly, would this type of
wireless provider-driven approach alleviate concerns regarding
difficulties in coordinating communications with third party solutions
providers and the associated need for contraband interdiction system
upgrades?
Federal Communications Commission.
Amy Brett,
Chief of Staff, Competition and Infrastructure Policy Division,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2020-17335 Filed 8-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
