Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Contraband Wireless Device NPRM

Download Options

Released: May 1, 2013

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)
Promoting Technological Solutions to Combat
)
GN Docket No. 13-111
Contraband Wireless Device Use in Correctional
)
Facilities
)
)
CellAntenna Corp. Request for Amendment of
)
RM-11430
Section 2.807 of the Commission’s Rules (47
)
C.F.R. § 2.807) to Allow the Use of Radio
)
Frequency Jamming Equipment by Local and
)
State Law Enforcement Agencies and Emergency
)
Response Providers
)
)
Petition of The GEO Group, Inc. for Forbearance
)
ET Docket No. 08-73
from Application of Sections 302, 303, and 333 of )
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
)
and Sections 2.803 and 2.807 of the Commission’s )
Rules to Allow State and Local Correctional
)
Authorities to Prevent Use of Commercial Mobile
)
Radio Services at Correctional Facilities
)
)
CTIA—The Wireless Association Petition for
)
WT Docket No. 10-4
Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Unlawful Sale
)
and Use of Cellular Jammers and Wireless
)
Boosters and Repeaters
)
)
South Carolina Department of Corrections
)
PRM09WT
Request for Authorization of CMRS Jamming
)
Within Correctional Institutions in Order to
)
Improve Public Safety Under Conditions that
)
Protect Legitimate CMRS Users
)
)
Mississippi Department of Corrections Request for )
PRM09WT
Authorization of Managed Access Systems Within )
Correctional Institutions in Order to Improve
)
Public Safety Under Conditions that Protect
)
Legitimate CMRS Users
)
)
Global Tel*Link Corp. Request for Amendment of )
PRM11WT
Sections 22.3(b), 1.931 and Subpart X of the
)
Commission’s Rules and Creation of New Rule(s) )
to Authorize a Plurality of Technical Solutions to
)
Eradicate the Unauthorized Use of Wireless
)
Devices in Correctional Facilities
)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

CellAntenna Corp. Request for Amendment of
)
PRM11WT
Section 20.5 of the Commission’s Rules, 47
)
C.F.R. § 20.5, to Categorically Exclude Service to )
Wireless Devices Located on Local, State, or
)
Federal Correctional Facility Premises
)

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

Adopted: April 29, 2013

Released: May 1, 2013

Comment Date: (30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)
Reply Comment Date: (45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)

By the Commission: Commissioner Pai issuing a statement; Commissioner McDowell not participating.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Heading
Paragraph #
I.
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
II.
BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................4
A.
Contraband Wireless Devices in Correctional Facilities .........................................................4
B.
The Commission’s Role............................................................................................................7
C.
Other Federal Efforts...............................................................................................................10
D.
Current Technologies..............................................................................................................13
1.
Managed access ................................................................................................... 14
2.
Detection.............................................................................................................. 16
3.
Jamming............................................................................................................... 18
E.
Petitions............................................................................................................................. 21
III.
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING.................................................................................. 24
A.
Streamlining Authorization of Leases for Managed Access Systems for Use in
Correctional Facilities....................................................................................................... 24
1.
Overview and Regulatory Environment for Managed Access............................. 26
2.
Proposed Rules to Streamline Managed Access Spectrum Leasing
Procedures............................................................................................................ 36
i.
Streamlined Lease Application Approval and Lease Notification
Processing ............................................................................................... 38
ii.
PMRS Presumption................................................................................. 45
iii.
Compliance with Sections 308, 309, and 310(d) of the Act ................... 47
iv.
Streamlined Special Temporary Authority Request Processing ............. 50
3.
Other Proposals.................................................................................................... 52
B.
Detection ........................................................................................................................... 53
1.
Overview and Regulatory Enviornment for Detection Systems .......................... 53
2.
Disabling Contraband Wireless Devices through Improved Coordination.......... 56
i.
Identifying Contraband Devices ............................................................. 61
ii.
Requesting Termination of Service to Contraband Devices................... 65
2

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

iii.
Action by CMRS Licensess .................................................................... 70
C.
Applicability of Prohibitions on Intercepting and Publishing Communications
and on the Use of Pen Register and Trap and Trace Devices ........................................... 74
D.
Other Technological Solutions.......................................................................................... 77
IV.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS ......................................................................................................... 78
A.
Ex Parte Rules .................................................................................................................. 78
B.
Filing Requirements.......................................................................................................... 79
C.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis........................................................................ 80
D.
Initial Regulatory Felxibility Act Analysis....................................................................... 81
V.
ORDERING CLAUSES ................................................................................................................ 82
APPENDIX – A
APPENDIX – B

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), we take steps to facilitate the
development of multiple technological solutions to combat the use of contraband wireless devices in
correctional facilities nationwide.1 Prisoners’ use of contraband wireless devices to engage in criminal
activity is a serious threat to the safety of prison employees, other prisoners, and the general public.
Through this Notice, we seek to remove barriers to the deployment and viability of existing and future
technologies used to combat contraband wireless devices.
2.
We propose a series of modifications to the Commission’s rules to facilitate spectrum
lease agreements between wireless providers and providers or operators of managed access systems used
to combat contraband wireless devices.2 Those proposed modifications are:
·
Revising the Commission’s rules to immediately process de facto lease agreements or
spectrum manager lease agreements for spectrum used exclusively in managed access
systems in correctional facilities, and streamlining other aspects of the lease application
or notification review process for those managed access systems in correctional facilities.
·
Forbearing, to the extent necessary, from the individualized application review and public
notice requirements of Sections 308, 309, and 310(d) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (the Act), for qualifying managed access leases.3
·
Establishing a presumption that managed access operators provide a private mobile radio
service (PMRS),4 streamlining the process for seeking Special Temporary Authority


1 In this Notice, “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 without
authorization by the correctional authority. We use the phrase “correctional facility” to refer to any facility operated
or overseen by federal, state, or local authorities that houses or holds prisoners for any period of time.
2 See infra Parts II.D.1 and III.A.1 for a description of managed access systems. For purposes of this Notice,
“managed access” and “managed access systems” are used generically to refer to a system or systems used to
combat contraband wireless devices by capturing transmissions to and from wireless devices within correctional
facilities.
3 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 308, 309, 310(d).
3

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

(STA) to operate a managed access system, and seeking comment on whether to establish
a requirement that managed access providers provide notice to nearby households and
businesses prior to activation of a managed access system.
3.
We also propose to require wireless providers to terminate service, if technically feasible,
to a contraband wireless device if an authorized correctional facility official notifies the wireless provider
of the presence of the contraband wireless device within the correctional facility.5 We seek comment on
the elements of the proposed notification and termination process, including who should be authorized to
transmit a termination notification to the wireless provider, the form of such termination notice, and any
safeguards necessary to ensure that service to legitimate wireless devices is not inadvertently terminated.
We seek comment on the implication of our proposals on detection and managed access system operators’
compliance with or liability under Section 705 of the Act and federal law governing the use of pen
registers or trap and trace devices.6 Finally, while we are limiting our proposals to managed access and
detection solutions, we nevertheless invite comment on other technological approaches for addressing the
problem of contraband wireless device usage in correctional facilities.

II.

BACKGROUND

A.

Contraband Wireless Devices in Correctional Facilities

4.
Prisoners in federal, state, and local correctional facilities increasingly use wireless
devices to engage in criminal activity while incarcerated, which poses a serious security challenge to
correctional facility administrators, law enforcement authorities, and the general public.7 For example,
prisoners can use contraband wireless devices “to arrange the delivery of contraband drugs or other goods,
transmit information on prison staff to or from non-inmates, harass witnesses or other individuals, or
potentially coordinate an escape.”8 The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports several
instances of contraband wireless devices being used to conduct criminal activity: an inmate in a federal
correctional facility was caught running an identity-theft ring using a contraband cell phone; a death row
inmate in a Texas facility used a contraband cell phone to threaten a state Senator and his family; an
inmate in a Maryland facility used a contraband cell phone to order the murder of a state witness; and a
New Jersey state inmate used a contraband cell phone to order the murder of his girlfriend who testified
against him at trial.9 These are just a few examples that make clear that prisoner possession of wireless


(...continued from previous page)
4 A PMRS is “neither a commercial mobile radio service nor the functional equivalent of a service that meets the
definition of commercial mobile radio service” and is not subject to common carrier obligations. See 47 C.F.R. §§
20.3, 20.9.
5 See infra Parts II.D.2 and III.B.1 for a description of detection technologies.
6 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) (prohibiting generally, except as authorized under Chapter 119, Title 18 of the U.S. Code, any
person “receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign
communication by wire or radio” from divulging or publishing the “existence, contents, substance, purport, effect,
or meaning” to another person); 18 U.S.C. § 3121 (prohibiting the use of pen register and trap and trace devices
without a court order, subject to several exceptions including when a provider of a communications service obtains
the consent of the user). See also infra Part III.C.
7 See U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Cell Phones Behind Bars
at 1 (December 2009) (NIJ Bulletin), available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/227539.pdf.
8 U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, REPORT TO CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES, BUREAU OF PRISONS:
IMPROVED EVALUATIONS AND INCREASED COORDINATION COULD IMPROVE CELL PHONE DETECTION, GAO-11-893
at 23 (Sept. 2011) (GAO Report), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11893.pdf.
9 Id. at 23-24.
4

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

devices is a serious threat to the safety and welfare of correctional facility employees and the general
public.
5.
Inmate use of contraband wireless devices has grown within the federal and state prison
systems parallel to the growth of wireless device use by the general public.10 In federal institutions and
prison camps, GAO reports that the number of cell phones confiscated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) grew from 1,774 in 2008 to 3,684 in 2010.11 While not all states track or report data on the use of
contraband wireless devices, the data that has been reported demonstrates significant growth. For
example, California correctional officers seized approximately 261 cell phones in 2006; by 2011,
correctional officers discovered more than 15,000 contraband wireless devices.12 Further, a test of an
interdiction technology in two California State prisons detected more than 25,000 unauthorized
communication attempts over an 11 day period in 2011.13 A similar interdiction system permanently
installed in a Mississippi correctional facility reportedly blocked 325,000 communications attempts in the
first month of operation, and as of February 2012, had blocked more than 2 million communications
attempts.14
6.
Congress, the Federal Government, and state and local correctional administrators
recognize the need to address the proliferation of contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities.15 A
number of states are conducting trials and investing in technologies that will enable them to combat
contraband wireless device use in correctional facilities.16 At least 23 states and the District of Columbia
have enacted legislation that officially designates – or allows local authorities to designate – wireless
devices in correctional facilities as contraband, and in some cases provides penalties for possession of
contraband wireless devices within correctional facilities.17


10 See U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION,
CONTRABAND CELL PHONES IN PRISONS: POSSIBLE WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS at 3 (Dec. 2010) (NTIA
Report), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/contrabandcellphonereport_december2010.pdf.
The NTIA Report was issued subsequent to a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on technologies used to combat
contraband cell phone use without negatively affecting other wireless users. See Preventing Contraband Cell Phone
Use in Prisons, 75 Fed. Reg. 26733 (May 12, 2010) (NTIA NOI).
11 GAO Report at 20 tbl.3.
12 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Fact Sheet: Contraband Cell Phones in CDCR Prisons
and Conservation Camps, at 1 (2012) (CDCR Fact Sheet), available at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Contraband-Cell-
Phones/docs/Contraband-Cell-Phone-Fact-Sheet-January-2012.pdf; NTIA Report at 3.
13 CDCR Fact Sheet at 2.
14 Wireless Service Interruptions, GN Docket No. 12-52, Comments of Tecore Networks at 10 (filed Apr. 30, 2012)
(Tecore Wireless Service Interruption Comments). See infra note 18 for a discussion of the Commission’s wireless
service interruption proceeding.
15 See infra Parts II.B-C, D.1.
16 See, e.g., infra Part II.D.1 (describing trials of managed access systems in several states).
17 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2501, 2505 (2010); Ark. Code Ann. § 5-54-119 (2009); Cal. Penal Code § 4575
(2007); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-8-204 (2005); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-174b (2010); 11 Del. C. § 1256 (2008);
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 944.47 (West 2008); O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18 (2008); 720 Ill. Comp. Stat 5/31A-1.1 through 1.2 (2011);
LA. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:402 (2010); Md. Code Ann., Criminal Law § 9-417 (2007); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§
800.283a, 285 (2006); Miss. Code Ann. §§ 47-5-193, 195 (2008); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 212.165 (West 2007); N.C.
Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-258.1 (West 2009); N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 12-44.1-21 (West 2009); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §
5123 (West 2002); Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 57 § 21 (West 2009); R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 11-25-14.1 (West 2011); Tenn.
(continued....)
5

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

B.

The Commission’s Role

7.
The Commission has taken several steps to facilitate efforts by state authorities to address
contraband wireless device use in correctional facilities.18 The Commission has granted special temporary
authorizations and experimental special temporary authorizations to allow testing of managed access
technologies, which utilize wireless base stations located within a correctional facility to capture and block
transmissions to or from unauthorized devices.19 In 2010, the Commission approved spectrum leases
between CMRS providers and a managed access provider for the deployment of a managed access system
in the Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman, Mississippi.20 In 2012, the Commission approved
spectrum leases between CMRS providers and several managed access providers for managed access
system deployments in the Metropolitan Transition Center in Baltimore City, Maryland;21 the Lieber
Correctional Institution in Ridgeville, South Carolina;22 the Stiles Unit in Beaumont, Texas;23 and the


(...continued from previous page)
Code. Ann. § 39-16-201 (2006); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.11 (2011); D.C. Code §§ 22-2603.01-03 (2011); W.
VA. Code § 61-5-8 (2009); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-213 (2007).
18 The Commission is currently in the process of examining issues related to the intentional interruption of wireless
service by government entities for public safety reasons. See Commission Seeks Comment on Certain Wireless
Service Interruptions, GN Docket No. 15-52, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 2177 (2012). The Commission sought
comment on past practices and precedents, the bases for interrupting service, risks of interrupting service, the scope
of and authority to interrupt, and legal constraints on interrupting wireless service. Id. at 2179-82. The Commission
explicitly excluded “practices expressly prohibited by statute or regulation, such as signal jamming” from the scope
of its inquiry. Id. at 2178. Four commenters to that proceeding addressed issues implicated in this proceeding, and
we incorporate those comments into this proceeding. See Wireless Service Interruptions, GN Docket No. 12-52,
Comments of CellAntenna Corp. (filed Apr. 30, 2012) (CellAntenna Wireless Service Interruption Comments);
Wireless Service Interruptions, GN Docket No. 12-52, Comments of Global Tel*Link Corp. (filed Apr. 30, 2012)
(GTL Wireless Service Interruption Comments); Wireless Service Interruptions, GN Docket No. 12-52, Reply
Comments of Global Tel*Link Corp. (filed May 30, 2012) (GTL Wireless Service Interruption Reply Comments);
Wireless Service Interruptions, GN Docket No. 12-52, Comments of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
(filed Apr. 16, 2012) (TDCJ Wireless Service Interruption Comments); Wireless Service Interruptions, GN Docket
No. 12-52, Reply Comments of Tecore Networks (filed May 30, 2012) (Tecore Wireless Service Interruption Reply
Comments); Tecore Wireless Service Interruption Comments.
19 See, e.g., Tecore Government Services, Special Temporary Authorizations, Call Signs WQMH278, WQMH382,
WQMH383, WQMH384, WQMH385, WQMH386, and WQMH387; ShawnTech Communications, Experimental
Special Temporary Authorizations, Call Signs WE9XNZ, WE9XRO, WG2XFD (ShawnTech Experimental STAs);
Screened Images, Experimental Special Temporary Authorization, Call Sign WF9XUR (Screened Images
Experimental STA); Blind Tiger Communications Experimental Temporary Authorization, Call Sign WG9XED
(Blind Tiger Experimental STA). See infra Parts II.D.1 and III.A.1 for a more thorough description of managed
access technologies.
20 Tecore Government Services, Lease IDs L000007637, L000007704, L000007705, L000007706, L000007707,
L000007734, and L000009517 (Tecore Parchman Leases).
21 Tecore Government Services, Lease IDs L000009924, L000009925, L000009926, L000009927, L000009929,
L000009930, L000010050, L000010076, L000010077, L0000010078, L000010079, and L000010080 (Tecore
Baltimore Leases).
22 ShawnTech Communications, Lease IDs L000009174, L000009484, L000009485, L000009486, L000009487,
L000009513, L000009514, L000009515, and L000009516 (ShawnTech Lieber Leases).
23 ShawnTech Communications, Lease IDs L000009813, L000009878, L000010035, L000010038, L000010274,
L000010276, and L000010280 (ShawnTech Stiles Leases).
6

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

McConnell Unit in Beeville, Texas.24 We discuss these trials and deployments in further detail below in
Part II.D.1.
8.
FCC staff has also engaged in extensive outreach regarding the availability of new
technologies to combat contraband wireless devices. This outreach includes regular interaction with state
corrections officials and organizations from across the country, including the American Correctional
Association (ACA) and the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA), equipment and
solution vendors, wireless providers, and federal agency partners including the Department of Justice’s
National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA).
9.
On September 30, 2010, the Commission held a public workshop in partnership with NIJ
and ASCA to discuss technologies currently available to combat contraband wireless device use and to
address the statutory and public policy concerns related to radio signal jamming and managed access.25
The discussion also focused on how to implement available technologies in accordance with the law and
without jeopardizing the wireless service to public safety and law enforcement users.26 This Notice
continues our efforts to examine the Commission’s appropriate role in facilitating the use of various
technical solutions to combat contraband wireless devices.27

C.

Other Federal Efforts

10.
Other federal agencies and Congress also recognize the serious problem of contraband
wireless device use in correctional facilities, have studied the problem, and have taken steps to deter such
use. In December 2010, NTIA, pursuant to Congressional direction and in coordination with the
Commission, BOP, and NIJ, issued a report detailing the specific problem of contraband wireless device
use in correctional facilities.28 NTIA believes that “contraband cell phone use by prison inmates to carry
out criminal enterprises is intolerable and demands an effective solution” and “[p]rison officials should
have access to technology to disrupt prison cell phone use in a manner that protects nearby public safety
and Federal Government spectrum users from harmful disruption of vital services, and preserves the rights
of law-abiding citizens to enjoy the benefits of the public airwaves without interference.”29
11.
In 2010, Congress enacted legislation that classified wireless devices as “prohibited
objects” within federal prisons.30 A federal inmate who possesses a wireless device or anyone who


24 ShawnTech Communications, Lease IDs L000009814, L000009877, L000010036, L000010037, L000010038,
L000010275, L000010277, L000010278, and L000010279 (ShawnTech McConnell Leases).
25 An archived video of the workshop, written remarks, presentations, statements, briefing sheet, and a transcript are
available through the Commission’s Website at http://www.fcc.gov/events/workshopwebinar-contraband-cell-
phone-use-prisons. See Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to Hold Workshop/Webinar on Contraband
Cell Phone Use in Prisons, Public Notice (Sept. 13, 2010) (Workshop Public Notice).
26 Workshop Public Notice at 1.
27 The Commission has also undertaken an examination of rates for interstate interexchange inmate calling services.
See Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, FCC 12-167, WC Docket No. 12-375, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
, 27 FCC Rcd 16629 (2012).
28 See NTIA Report at 4.
29 Id. at 1.
30 Cell Phone Contraband Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-225, 124 Stat. 2387 (2010) (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1791).
Other objects that federal prisoners are prohibited from possessing include but are not limited to firearms,
ammunition, weapons, controlled substances, and U.S. or foreign currency. 18 U.S.C. § 1791(d).
7

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

provides a wireless device to an inmate is subject to a possible penalty of up to one year in prison, a fine,
or both.31 According to the bill’s sponsor, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the bill is intended to end criminal
activity perpetrated by prisoners using wireless devices in prisons and “punish those who would profit
from smuggling cell phones and other wireless devices into [U.S.] federal prisons.”32 The legislation also
required GAO to conduct a study of cell phone use by inmates and state and federal efforts to prevent
prisoners or others from smuggling wireless devices into prisons.33 The GAO report, released in
September 2011, examined the proliferation of contraband wireless devices and federal and state efforts to
combat contraband wireless devices,34 and recommended actions for the Attorney General “[t]o help BOP
respond more effectively to contraband cell phone challenges.”35
12.
BOP and NIJ are actively examining solutions to combat contraband wireless devices in
correctional facilities. As NTIA reports: “Over the past 15 years, BOP has evaluated a large number of
cell phone interdiction technologies.”36 NIJ continues to examine solutions to combat contraband wireless
devices, convened a plenary panel as part of its annual conference, and co-sponsored with the Commission
the contraband wireless device webinar in September 2010.37 Additionally, NIJ’s National Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center “assists state, local, tribal, and federal correctional
agencies, as well as law enforcement and criminal justice agencies, in addressing technology needs and
challenges, such as contraband cell phones.”38

D.

Current Technologies

13.
Technological solutions available to correctional facility administrators to combat
contraband wireless devices generally fall into three categories: managed access, detection, and radio
signal jamming.39 Each of these categories is described below. We seek comment on specific proposals
regarding managed access and detection technologies outlined in Part III, and seek comment generally on


31 Pub. L. No. 111-225, sec. 2, 124 Stat. at 2387; 18 U.S.C. § 1791(b)(4). Specifically, whoever “in violation of a
statute or a rule or order issued under a statute, provides to an inmate of a prison a prohibited object, or attempts to
do so; or being an inmate of a prison, makes, possesses, or obtains, or attempts to make or obtain, a prohibited
object; shall be punished as provided in [18 U.S.C. § 1791(b)].” 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a). Section 1791(b) of Title 18
establishes punishments for violations of Section 1791 based on the type of prohibited object involved in the
violation. 18 U.S.C. § 1791(b).
32 Press Release, Senator Dianne Feinstein, House Approves Feinstein Measure to Prohibit Cell Phones in Prisons
(July 21, 2010), available at http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=f6796124-5056-
8059-7669-f0a81a3a664a.
33 Pub. L. No. 111-225, sec. 3, 124 Stat. at 2387-88.
34 See GAO Report at 19-32. The GAO report also examined BOP telephone rates and the impact of a rate reduction
for inmate calls. Id. at 12-18.
35 Id. at 33. The recommended actions include evaluation plans for testing and deploying technologies to combat
contraband wireless devices, such as managed access, detection, and jamming, as described below. Id. at 33-34.
36 NTIA Report at 10. BOP has developed a set of four basic requirements through which it evaluates a given
interdiction technology. BOP requires any technology used to combat contraband wireless devices to “work without
impacting or collecting information from the general public;” “have no legal restrictions;” “work with all cellular
phone protocols;” and have reasonable equipment and installation costs. Id.
37 Id. at 11.
38 GAO Report at 9.
39 See id. at 10; NTIA Report at 1.
8

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

other technological solutions that are consistent with the statutory framework that has limited the use of
jamming technologies.40
1.

Managed Access

14.
Managed access systems are micro-cellular, private networks that analyze transmissions
to and from wireless devices to determine whether the device is authorized or unauthorized for purposes of
accessing public carrier networks.41 Managed access systems utilize base stations that are optimized42 to
capture all voice, text, and data communications within the system coverage area, which would be a
correctional facility in the instant case.43 When a wireless device attempts to connect to the network from
within the coverage area of the managed access system, the system cross-checks the identifying
information of the device against a database that lists wireless devices authorized to operate in the
coverage area.44 Authorized devices are allowed to communicate normally (i.e., transmit and receive
voice, text, and data) with the commercial wireless network,45 while transmissions to or from unauthorized
devices are terminated.46 The managed access system may also provide an alert to the user notifying the
user that the device is unauthorized.47 The systems provide operational flexibility to the correctional
facility administrators by allowing them to disable devices without having to physically remove them.48
15.
A correctional facility or third party at a correctional facility may operate a managed
access system if authorized by the Commission.49 This authorization has to date involved agreements with
the wireless providers serving the geographic area including the correctional facility and lease applications
approved by the Commission.50 A number of deployments and trials have been conducted or are ongoing,
as listed below.


40 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 302a(b)-(c), 333; 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.803(a), 2.807(d).
41 See NTIA Report at 19.
42 See id; CTIA NTIA NOI Comments at 10; Tecore NTIA NOI Comments at 3. The systems are scalable, so it is
possible to deploy a system that covers only a portion of a correctional facility. See Tecore NTIA NOI Comments at
4. This might be preferable due to budgetary constraints or operational need.
43 See AT&T NTIA NOI Comments at 10-11. The systems can also reportedly adapt to accommodate changing
technologies and protocols, such as LTE. See Tecore NTIA NOI Comments at 5-6, 20.
44 NTIA Report at 19; AT&T NTIA NOI Comments at 11; CTIA NTIA NOI Comments at 11. Identifying
information can include phone number, serial number, or subscriber identity module (SIM) information. See AT&T
NTIA NOI Comments at 11; CTIA NTIA NOI Comments at 11.
45 See NTIA Report at 19; CTIA NTIA NOI Comments at 11; MDOC Petition at 6-7; Verizon Wireless NTIA NOI
Comments at 9.
46 See NTIA Report at 19; CTIA NTIA NOI Comments at 11; MDOC Petition at 6-7.
47 See CTIA NTIA NOI Comments at 11; MDOC Petition at 6-7. The system may also route the call to a designated
official point of contact. See MDOC Petition at 6-7.
48 See AT&T NTIA NOI Comments at 13; T-Mobile NTIA NOI Comments at 8-9; Tecore NTIA NOI Comments at
12.
49 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.9001-1.9080. The Commission’s spectrum leasing rules implicated by managed access
systems are discussed in detail infra Part III.A.1.
50 See ShawnTech Lieber Leases; ShawnTech McConnell Leases; ShawnTech Stiles Leases; Tecore Baltimore
Leases; Tecore Parchman Leases.
9

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

·
California. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has
conducted trials of managed access systems at two state prisons.51 Based on the results of
the trials, the California Technology Agency issued an Invitation for Bids for a prime
contractor to provide a pay telephone system for inmates and wards and a managed
access systems in correctional facilities across the state.52 The CDCR awarded the
contract in April 2012 to Global Tel*Link (GTL), and its managed access operator has
received experimental authorization to test a managed access system in nine facilities.53
·
Maryland. The Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
(DPSCS) conducted an in-depth analysis of contraband cell phone interdiction
technologies in 2009.54 Maryland DPSCS conducted trials of various non-jamming
technologies at a decommissioned correctional facility in Jessup, Maryland, and a real-
world study of non-jamming technologies in three commissioned correctional facilities.55
Maryland DPSCS subsequently issued a Request for Proposals for the installation of
managed access and detection systems in all of its prisons, and granted a contract to
Tecore Networks (Tecore) to install a managed access system in the Metropolitan
Transition Center in Baltimore City, Maryland.56


51 See CDCR Fact Sheet at 2.
52 California Technology Agency, Office of Technology Services, Bid #IFB 11-126805 – Inmate Ward Telephone
System and Managed Access System Services (rel. July 20, 2011) (IFB), http://www.dts.ca.gov/stnd/calnet-inmate-
ward.asp. The IFB notes that not all facilities will use a managed access system. Id. Section 1 at 2.
53 Press Release, CDCR, CDCR Awards System-wide Telephone Contract That Will Restrict Cellular Phones in
Prisons (Apr. 16, 2012), available at http://cdcrtoday.blogspot.com/2012/04/cdcr-awards-system-wide-
telephone_16.html; Screened Images Experimental STA. The California Council on Science and Technology
(CCST), an independent organization that advises on science and technology policy in California, released a report
on the efficacy of managed access in May 2012. CAL. COUNCIL ON SCI. AND TECH., THE EFFICACY OF MANAGED
ACCESS SYSTEMS TO INTERCEPT CALLS FROM CONTRABAND CELL PHONES IN CALIFORNIA PRISONS (May 2012)
(CCST Report), available at http://www.ccst.us/publications/2012/2012cell.pdf. The CCST recommended that
alternative interdiction methods be examined before statewide adoption of managed access, including methods to
intercept contraband devices rather than relying on technology to block communications, and recommended that
CDCR conduct a one-year managed access pilot program prior to awarding a managed access contract. CCST
Report at 7, 13-15. CCST also raised several concerns it has regarding managed access, including the lack of
operational experience due to the relative infancy of the technology, the possibility of systems capturing authorized
devices outside of a correctional facility, difficulties in upgrading systems to add new wireless technologies, and the
ability of the systems to capture text and incoming calls in practice. CCST Report at 17-21. Tecore responded to
CCST’s report in its reply comments in the Commission’s wireless service interruption proceeding. See Tecore
Wireless Service Interruption Reply Comments at 11-21. Tecore asserts that the CCST report “reflects the
assessment team’s misunderstanding of the operation of a properly-deployed managed access system.” Tecore
Wireless Service Interruption Reply Comments at 17.
54 See Maryland DPCS, Cell Phone Detection/Jamming Demonstration, available at http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/
media/Cell_phone_detection_flashvideo.shtml.
55 See Maryland DPSCS, Overview of Cell Phone Demonstration (2009), http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/
media/pdf/FinalReport_2008-09-10.pdf; Maryland DPSCS, Non-Jamming Cell Phone Pilot Summary (2010),
available at http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/media/Cell-Phone-Pilot-Summary_Final.pdf.
56 See Maryland DPSCS, Request for Proposals: Cell Phone Interdiction Project Solicitation Number: DPSCS
Q0011008, available at http://collaboration.asca.net/system/assets/attachments/2020/MD_DOC_Cell_Phone_
Detection_RFP_Amended_mb_edits_9_21_2010_2_.pdf?1296010779; Press Release, Maryland DPSCS, Cellular
(continued....)
10

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

·
Mississippi. In 2010, the Mississippi Department of Corrections deployed a managed
access system at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, a maximum security prison in
Parchman, Mississippi.57 In its first month of operation, the system blocked a total of
325,000 call and message attempts, and has prevented more than 2 million calls and text
messages through February 2012.58
·
South Carolina. South Carolina has conducted trials of a managed access system at its
Lieber Correctional Institution in Ridgeville, South Carolina.59 The Commission has
approved several spectrum leases sought by ShawnTech Communications (ShawnTech)
for a permanent installation at the Lieber Correctional Institution, and the system is
operational.60
·
Texas. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice announced in late 2012 that it would
install managed access systems in two state correctional facilities.61 The Commission has
approved a number of spectrum leases for ShawnTech for the managed access
installations.62
2.

Detection

16.
Detection systems are used to detect contraband devices within a correctional facility by
locating, tracking, and identifying radio signals originating from a device.63 Detection systems use
passive, receive-only technology and do not transmit radio signals.64 As stated in the NTIA Report:
For accurate position location in an environment such as within a prison facility, detection
technology triangulates a cell phone signal and requires correctional [facility] staff to physically
search a small area (such as a prison cell) and seize the identified cell phone. This may involve
placing direction-finding antennas or sensors (connected wire-line or wirelessly) to a computer to


(...continued from previous page)
Detection Through Managed Access Coming to Maryland Prison System (rel. Apr. 23, 2012), available at
http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/news_stories/press_releases/20120423a.shtml; Tecore Baltimore Leases.
57 Press Release, Mississippi Department of Corrections, “Operation Cell Block”: Commissioner Epps Shuts Down
Illegal Inmate Cell Phone Usage (Sept. 8, 2010), available at http://www.asca.net/system/assets/attachments
/1535/MS_Illegal_Cell_Phone_Press_Release.pdf?1291917909.
58 Tecore Wireless Service Interruption Comments at 10.
59 See Letter from Leigh Blackwell, Assistant Attorney General, South Carolina Office of the Attorney General, to
Jon Ozmint, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections (Dec. 15, 2010), http://www.scag.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2011/03/ozmint-j-os-9173-12-15-10-use-of-cell-phones-by-inmates-in-scdc.pdf; see also Jessica
Mulholland, Combating Contraband Cell Phones in Prisons, GOVERNING, Nov. 16, 2010, available at
http://www.governing.com/topics/technology/Combating-Contraband-Cell-Phones-in-Prisons.html. See ShawnTech
Experimental STAs.
60 See ShawnTech Lieber Leases.
61 See Mike Ward, Prison Cell Phone Blocking to Start, Postcards: Texas Government and Politics Blog,
Statesman.com (posted Sept. 4, 2012), http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/
austin/politics/entries/2012/09/04/prison_cellphone_blocking_to_s.html/.
62 ShawnTech McConnell Leases; ShawnTech Stiles Leases.
63 NTIA Report at 27.
64 Id.
11

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

identify a cell phone call and locate the origin of the call. Additionally, hand-held cell phone
detectors are able to scan frequencies within correctional facilities and detect the location of the
caller.65
17.
Detection systems can locate a device with an accuracy of within three to five meters.66
Systems are usually capable of detecting across multiple frequencies, and can easily be programmed to add
frequencies.67 Because detection systems rely on passive receive-only technology, they do not pose an
interference threat to wireless operations.68
3.

Jamming

18.
Radio signal jamming is the purposeful disruption of electronic devices, equipment, or
systems via radio frequency interference.69 A radio signal jamming device transmits on the same radio
frequencies as wireless devices and base stations, disrupting the communication link between the device
and the network base station, and rendering any wireless device operating on those frequencies unusable.70
When used to disrupt wireless devices, radio signal jammers cannot differentiate between contraband
devices and legitimate devices, including devices making 911 calls.71 Radio signal jammers block all
wireless communications on affected spectrum bands.72
19.
The Act prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio
communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. Government.73
Because radio signal jammers are used to willfully interfere with radio communications of such licensed or
authorized stations, jammers are not permitted under the Commission’s rules.74 Similarly, the
manufacture, importation, marketing, sale, or operation of radio signal jamming devices within the United
States is prohibited, except for the sale to or use by the Federal Government.75


65 Id.
66 See id. at 29; ITT NTIA NOI Comments at 18.
67 NTIA Report at 27-28.
68 Id. at 28.
69 See id. at 13.
70 Id. Interference is caused by “radiation, re-radiation, or reflection of electromagnetic spectrum.” Id.
71 See id. at 14-16.
72 See id. at 14. Radio signal jammers may be unable to block all frequencies that may be used by prisoners,
including Wi-Fi signals. Id.
73 47 U.S.C. § 333.
74 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 2.915(a)(1) (providing, as a required element for granting an application for equipment
certification, that the Commission find that the equipment be “capable of complying with pertinent technical
standards of the rule part(s) under which it is to be operated”); Id. § 2.919 (requiring denial of certification
application if Commission is unable to make the requisite Section 2.915(a) findings). Note that in none of the FCC
rule parts has the Commission authorized the operations of jammers or prescribed technical standards for their
operation. See also 47 U.S.C. § 302a (authorizing Commission to promulgate regulations that govern the
interference potential of devices that are capable of emitting a sufficient amount of RF energy to cause harmful
interference to radio communications); 47 U.S.C. § 333 (prohibiting willful or malicious interference to any radio
communications or any authorized station).
75 See 47 U.S.C §§ 301, 302a(b)-(c), 333; 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.803(a), 2.807(d).
12

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

20.
Aside from the statutory constraints, wireless providers have indicated a preference for
managed access solutions over jamming solutions,76 on the grounds that managed access “can effectively
prevent unauthorized communications without disrupting legitimate users.”77 Wireless providers point to
benefits of managed access over jamming solutions including the coordination and leasing process that
occurs between the managed access provider and relevant licensees, and to system design that utilizes low
power base stations optimized to prevent interference or the unintentional disruption of service to wireless
devices operating legitimately outside of the target facility.78

E.

Petitions

21.
Several entities – including state correctional agencies, equipment manufacturers, and
others – filed petitions seeking Commission action on various issues regarding technological solutions to
combat contraband wireless devices. Some petitioners urge Commission action with respect to the use of
radio signal jammers in state and local correctional facilities.79 In 2007, CellAntenna filed a petition for
rulemaking to allow signal jamming equipment to be sold to and used by emergency response providers,
including state and local law enforcement agencies.80 The GEO Group filed a petition seeking forbearance
from application or enforcement of Sections 302, 303, 333 of the Act and Sections 2.803 and 2.807 of the
Commission’s rules to allow state and local correctional authorities and correctional facility operators to
utilize radio frequency jamming devices to prevent the use of wireless devices in correctional facilities.81


76 See AT&T NTIA NOI Comments at 1-2; CTIA NTIA NOI Comments at 9-13; Sprint Nextel NTIA NOI
Comments at 1; T-Mobile NTIA NOI Comments at 7-9; Verizon Wireless NTIA NOI Comments at 9-10.
77 T-Mobile NTIA NOI Comments at 8. See also AT&T NTIA NOI Comments at 11-12; CTIA NTIA NOI
Comments at 12; Sprint Nextel NTIA NOI Comments at 1; Verizon Wireless NTIA NOI Comments at 9-10.
78 See AT&T NTIA NOI Comments at 11-12; Sprint Nextel NTIA NOI Comments at 1-2; Verizon Wireless NTIA
NOI Comments at 9.
79 Amendment of Section 2.807 of the Commission’s rules (47 C.F.R. § 2.807) to Allow the Use of Radio Frequency
Jamming Equipment by Local and State Law Enforcement Agencies and Emergency Response Providers, Petition
for Rulemaking
, RM-11430 (filed June 5, 2007) (CellAntenna 2007 Petition); Petition for Declaratory Ruling
Regarding the Unlawful Sale and Use of Cellular Jammers and Wireless Boosters and Repeaters, Petition for
Declaratory Ruling
, WT Docket No. 10-4 (filed Nov. 2, 2007) (CTIA Petition); Petition of The GEO Group, Inc for
Forbearance from Application of Sections 302, 303, and 333 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and
Sections 2.803 and 2.807 of the Commission’s Rules to Allow State and Local Correctional Authorities to Prevent
Use of Commercial Mobile Radio Services at Correctional Facilities, Petition for Forbearance, ET Docket No. 08-
73 (filed July 31, 2007) (The GEO Group Petition); Amendment of Sections 22.3(b), 1.931 and Subpart X of the
Commission’s Rules and Creation of New Rules(s) to Authorize a Plurality of Technical Solutions to Eradicate the
Unauthorized Use of Wireless Devices in Correctional Facilities, Petition for Rulemaking, PRM11WT (filed July
20, 2011) (GTL Petition); Request for Authorization of Managed Access Systems Within Correctional Institutions in
Order to Improve Public Safety Under Conditions that Protect Legitimate CMRS Users, Petition for Rulemaking,
PRM09WT (filed Aug. 21, 2009) (MDOC Petition); Letter from Michael W. McManus, Deputy General Counsel,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement
Bureau, FCC (Oct. 22, 2008) (TDCJ Letter); Request for Authorization of CMRS Jamming Within Correctional
Institutions in Order to Improve Public Safety Under Conditions that Protect Legitimate CMRS Users, Petition for
Rulemaking
, PRM09WT (filed Aug. 6, 2009) (SCDC Petition). The SCDC Petition was co-signed by corrections
officials of state and regional prison systems from 31 states and the District of Columbia. SCDC Petition at App.A.
80 CellAntenna 2007 Petition at 3. CellAntenna also filed comments in response to the Commission’s proceeding
examining wireless service interruptions, in which CellAntenna argued the Commission should forbear from
applying Section 333 in order to allow correctional facilities to interrupt contraband wireless devices. CellAntenna
Wireless Service Interruption Comments at 11.
81 The GEO Group Petition at 1. The Commission subsequently informed The GEO Group that because it is not a
telecommunications carrier nor a class of telecommunications carriers the petition would not be deemed granted if
(continued....)
13

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

The South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) seeks rule changes to make wireless devices in
correctional facilities unauthorized devices under the Commission’s rules if their possession is prohibited
by state or local law, arguing that this would circumvent the statutory prohibition against willful and
malicious interference against licensed or authorized stations.82 GTL included a similar request in its
petition, which also seeks rule changes regarding managed access systems as discussed below.83 The
Texas Department of Criminal Justice sent a letter to the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau seeking
information on whether a process exists for it to be certified or permitted by the FCC to purchase and use
radio signal jammers in prisons.84 CTIA—The Wireless Association filed a petition opposing the use of
radio signal jammers and seeking a declaratory ruling that the sale of radio signal jammers, except to
federal users, is unlawful.85
22.
Two petitioners seek rule changes to facilitate the deployment of managed access
systems.86 In 2009, the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) filed a petition for rulemaking to
amend the Commission’s rules to make the possession or use of a radio frequency device in a correctional
facility illegal, and to authorize the operation of managed access systems to prevent unlawful device use.87
More recently, GTL filed a petition seeking to require wireless carriers to agree to technically-feasible
spectrum leases necessary for a managed access system, and other rule changes.88
23.
In September 2011, CellAntenna filed a petition for rulemaking requesting rule changes
that would require wireless carriers to terminate service to unauthorized wireless devices operating within
correctional facilities.89 CellAntenna proposes specific rules providing for a plan of detection and CMRS
provider termination of service to identified contraband wireless devices.90


(...continued from previous page)
the Commission failed to take action within the statutory period for action on petitions for forbearance. Letter from
Julius P. Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, FCC, to Mitchell F. Brecher, Greenberg Traurig,
LLP, ET Docket No. 08-73 (July 31, 2008).
82 SCDC Petition at 12-13.
83 GTL Petition at 19-23; infra Part III.A.3.
84 See TDCJ Letter. TDCJ also filed comments in response to the Commission’s proceeding examining wireless
service interruptions, in which TDCJ argued that “the use of a wireless service managed access solution at a
correctional facility for the purposes of preventing unauthorized wireless service usage from the facility is an
acceptable method of wireless service interruption.” TDCJ Wireless Service Interruption Comments at 1.
85 See CTIA Petition at 6-10. CTIA’s petition also sought a declaration regarding the use of wireless signal boosters,
which the Commission addressed in a separate proceeding. See Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 22, 24, 27, 90 and 95 of
the Commission’s Rules to Improve Wireless Coverage Through the Use of Signal Boosters, WT Docket No. 10-4,
Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 1663 (2013).
86 See MDOC Petition; GTL Petition.
87 MDOC Petition at 11-12.
88 GTL Petition at 9. GTL also urges the Commission to require licensees to provide spectrum to managed access
providers on fair and economical terms in reply comments it filed in response to the Commission’s proceeding
examining wireless service interruptions. See GTL Wireless Service Interruption Reply Comments at 9-12.
89 See Amendment of Section 20.5 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 20.5, to Categorically Exclude Service to
Wireless Devices Located on Local, State, or Federal Correctional Facility Premises, Petition for Rulemaking,
PRM11WT, at 8 (filed Sept. 2, 2011) (CellAntenna 2011 Petition).
90 Id.
14

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

III.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

A.

Streamlining Authorization of Leases for Managed Access Systems for Use in
Correctional Facilities

24.
Managed access systems “permit[] calls by known users (i.e., prison-authorized cell
phone numbers) by handing them off to the network, but prevent others by denying access to the
network.”91 The Commission has previously applied its existing spectrum leasing rules and procedures to
allow the operation of managed access systems by entities that lease the necessary spectrum from spectrum
licensees.92 Nonetheless, for the reasons discussed below, these rules and procedures are sufficiently time-
consuming and complex that they can delay deployment of managed access systems, and therefore
unnecessarily discourage their use. Below we set forth an overview of the existing spectrum leasing rules
and procedures and propose to streamline the Commission’s spectrum leasing rules and processes to
permit the more timely deployment of managed access systems. We seek comment on the proposals
below, including the costs and benefits.
25.
Throughout the Notice, where we seek comment on the costs and benefits of a proposal,
we ask that commenters take into account only those costs and benefits that directly result from the
implementation of the particular rules that could be adopted, including any proposed requirement or
potential alternative requirement. Commenters should identify the various costs and benefits associated
with a particular proposal. Further, to the extent possible, commenters should provide specific data and
information, such as actual or estimated dollar figures for each specific cost or benefit addressed, including
a description of how the data or information was calculated or obtained, and any supporting documentation
or other evidentiary support.
1.

Overview and Regulatory Environment for Managed Access

26.
Managed access providers that have deployed systems have sought licensee consent and
Commission authorization prior to operation of the systems, because they use base stations that transmit
and receive signals on licensed frequencies.93 Thus far, wireless providers and managed access providers
have used spectrum lease agreements to negotiate the transfer of rights and have sought approval or
provided notification of such agreements under the Commission’s spectrum leasing rules.94 This approach
requires negotiation of individual lease agreements with each wireless provider licensed to provide service
where the correctional facility is located, and thus likely requires multiple lease negotiations and lease
approvals or notifications for a single correctional facility. The number of leases is compounded where the
provider seeks to deploy systems in multiple correctional facilities in different geographic locations served
by multiple wireless providers. Additionally, as discussed below, the managed access lessee will likely


91 NTIA Report at 19.
92 See ShawnTech Lieber Leases; ShawnTech McConnell Leases; ShawnTech Stiles Leases; Tecore Baltimore
Leases; Tecore Parchman Leases.
93 See 47 U.S.C. § 301 (requiring a license for the “transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio”);
id. § 310(d) (requiring application to the Commission for the transfer of any rights under a license to another party,
such as a managed access provider).
94 See ShawnTech Lieber Leases; ShawnTech McConnell Leases; ShawnTech Stiles Leases; Tecore Baltimore
Leases; Tecore Parchman Leases; 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.9001-1.9080. An effective managed access solution requires
leasing agreements from all licensees providing service to the target area. GTL Petition at 10-11. The lessee may
be the correctional facility, a local or state agency, a managed access provider, or some other third party.
15

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

seek to modify its regulatory status from commercial mobile radio service (CMRS)95 to PMRS, which
requires additional filings and results in processing delays.
27.
Given the current lease processing challenges and transaction costs involved in the
deployment of managed access systems, we seek to streamline our filing requirements and application
processing mechanisms, particularly with respect to our leasing rules as applied to managed access
systems in correctional facilities. Below is an overview of our current relevant rules and processes
followed by proposed modifications.
28.
Leasing Procedures Applicable to Managed Access. Under current rules, lessees and
licensees have three spectrum lease options: long-term de facto leases, short-term de facto leases, and
spectrum manager leases.96 The leases carry different rights and responsibilities for both the licensee and
the lessee, with de facto leases vesting greater rights and responsibilities in the lessee than spectrum
manager leases.97
29.
The Commission’s rules require that the parties to a de facto lease file an application for
approval of the lease with the Commission.98 Parties to a spectrum manager lease must file a notification
of the lease with the Commission and can commence operations without prior Commission approval after
a short period.99 The Commission’s rules provide for expedited processing (by the next business day) for
short-term de facto lease applications, and for long-term de facto lease applications and spectrum manager
notifications that meet certain conditions.100 To be accepted for processing, any application or notification


95 CMRS is a mobile service that is provided for profit; interconnected; and “available to the public, or to such
classes of eligible users as to be effectively available to a substantial portion of the public;” or the functional
equivalent of CMRS. 47 C.F.R. § 20.3. See also 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(1).
96 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.9020 (spectrum manager lease), 1.9030 (long-term de facto lease), 1.9035 (short-term de facto
lease). See Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary
Markets, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 20604, 20624, 20671, ¶¶ 41,
160 (2003) (First Secondary Market Report and Order).
97 Under a spectrum manager lease, the licensee “is directly and primarily responsible for ensuring the spectrum
lessee’s compliance with the Communications Act and applicable Commission policies and rules.” 47 C.F.R. §
1.9020(b)(1). Under de facto lease arrangements, the licensee “retains de jure control of the license while de facto
control of the leased spectrum is transferred to the spectrum lessee for the duration of the spectrum leasing
arrangement.” Id. §§ 1.9030(a), 1.9035(a). See also id. § 1.9010 (establishing the de facto control standard). Also,
under de facto lease arrangements, the “primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with Commission policies is
transferred to spectrum lessees.” See First Secondary Market Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20664, ¶137; See
also
47 C.F.R. § 1.9030(c)(1).
98 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.9030(a), (e), 1.9035(a), (e).
99 Id. § 1.9020(e)(1). Under general notification procedures, spectrum manager leases for more than one year must
be filed at least 21 days prior to the date of operation. Spectrum manager leases of one year or less must be filed at
least 10 days prior to the date of operation. Id. § 1.9020(e)(1)(ii). We note that under immediate approval
processes, acceptance of the notification will be reflected in ULS on the next business day following the day the
application is filed, and spectrum manager lessees may operate upon acceptance consistent with the terms of the
leasing arrangement. Id. § 1.9020(e)(2)(ii).
100 Id. §§ 1.9020(e)(2), 1.9030(e)(2), 1.9035(e). See Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of
Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
, 19 FCC Rcd 17503, 17512, ¶ 14 n. 42 (2004) (Second Secondary
Market Report and Order
) (“[U]nder the immediate approval process, spectrum leasing parties must submit
qualifying applications and include the requisite filing fees. The [Wireless Telecommunications] Bureau will then
process the application overnight and . . . indicate in our Universal Licensing System (ULS) that the application has
(continued....)
16

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

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.101 De facto applications must also be accompanied by the requisite filing fee.102
30.
Long-term de facto lease applications and spectrum manager notifications must meet
three additional criteria for immediate approval or processing.103 First, the license cannot involve spectrum
that may be used to provide an interconnected mobile 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.”104 Second, the licensee cannot be “a designated entity or entrepreneur subject to
unjust enrichment requirements and/or transfer restrictions under applicable Commission rules.”105
Finally, the lease arrangement cannot “require a waiver of, or declaratory ruling pertaining to, any
applicable Commission rules.”106
31.
Under these rules, managed access systems involving more than one lease will not be
afforded immediate approval or processing for long-term de facto applications or spectrum manager
notifications subsequent to the first approved application or accepted notification. Because lessees of
spectrum used in managed access systems require spectrum leases from multiple carriers covering a
common location, subsequent applications will always be removed from expedited processing because
they will result in a geographic overlap with spectrum held by the lessee that may be used to provide an
interconnected mobile service.107
32.
If a long-term de facto lease application is not subject to immediate approval, the
application is placed on public notice generally within one week of filing108 and petitions to deny may be
filed within 14 days of the initial public notice date.109 The Commission will take action to approve or
deny the lease application or issue another public notice indicating the application will undergo further


(...continued from previous page)
been approved.”). Applications and notifications are filed on FCC Form 608, “FCC Application or Notification for
Spectrum Leasing Arrangement.” 47 C.F.R. § 1.913(a)(5).
101 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.9020(e)(2)(i), 1.9030(e)(2)(i), 1.9035(e).
102 Id. §§ 1.9030(e)(1)(i), (e)(2)(i), 1.9035(e)(1). See also id. § 1.9020(e)(1)(i). We note that governmental entities
are not required to pay filing fees. See id. § 1.1116(f) (“For purposes of this exemption a governmental entity is
defined as any state, possession, city, county, town, village, municipal corporation or similar political organization
or subpart thereof controlled by publicly elected or duly appointed public officials exercising sovereign direction
and control over their respective communities or programs.”).
103 Id. §§ 1.9020(e)(2)(i)(A)-(C), 1.9030(e)(2)(i)(A)-(C). All short-term de facto applications are processed via
immediate approval procedures. See id. § 1.9035(e).
104 Id. §§ 1.9020(e)(2)(i)(A), 1.9030(e)(2)(i)(A).
105 Id. §§ 1.9020(e)(2)(i)(B), 1.9030(e)(2)(i)(B).
106 Id. §§ 1.9020(e)(2)(i)(C), 1.9030(e)(2)(i)(C). Short-term de facto lease applications must also meet this
requirement. Id. § 1.9035(e)(1).
107 See id. § 1.9020(e)(2)(i)(A), 1.9030(e)(2)(i)(A).
108 Id. § 1.9030(e)(1)(ii) (explaining the general approval procedures, including for public notice, which are effective
if the applicant does not meet the conditions under Section 1.9030(e)(2) of the Commission’s rules for immediate
approval); First Secondary Market Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20668-69, ¶ 151 n.320 (“The Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau currently expects to list leasing applications on weekly public notices.”).
109 47 C.F.R. § 1.9030(e)(1)(iii).
17

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

review no later than 21 days after the initial public notice date.110 While spectrum manager leases that are
disqualified from immediate processing are not subject to as thorough review as long-term de facto leases,
the licensee is required to file the notification at least 21 days in advance of operation if the lease term
exceeds one year, or ten days if the lease term is for one year or less.111
33.
PMRS Classification of Managed Access. Managed access operators typically lease
spectrum from wireless service providers that offer service on a CMRS basis and are regulated as CMRS
providers under the Act and the Commission’s rules.112 CMRS providers are subject to common carrier
obligations,113 which include the obligation to provide service upon reasonable request, at just, reasonable,
and non-discriminatory rates.114 When a CMRS provider enters into a spectrum lease arrangement with a
managed access provider, the managed access provider is also presumed to be providing CMRS.115
However, because managed access systems are configured to operate solely within the confines of a
correctional facility and are not intended to provide service to the public, they may qualify as PMRS,116
exempting them from common carrier obligations.117 Changing regulatory status requires the managed
access provider to file a separate application for each lease that has been approved. In addition, for leases
in certain services (e.g., Personal Communications Service), the modification application must be placed
on a 30 day public notice.118 The requirement that a separate modification application be filed to change
the regulatory status may therefore further delay deployment of a managed access system.
34.
Special Temporary Authority. The Commission has authority under Section 309(f) of the
Act to grant a STA if it finds “there are extraordinary circumstances requiring temporary operations in the
public interest and that delay in the institution of such temporary operations would seriously prejudice the
public interest.”119 Under current rules, an applicant must file a STA request at least ten days prior to the
applicant’s proposed operation,120 and STA requests for spectrum that is licensed on a market basis – such
as PCS and 700 MHz – must be filed manually.121 Additionally, unless the STA application falls into one
of several exemptions, it must be placed on public notice.122
35.
We seek to facilitate the prompt deployment of managed access systems by reducing
unnecessary filing burdens and barriers to expedited processing, including for modification of the lessee’s


110 Id. § 1.9030(e)(1)(iv)-(v). The Commission has 90 days to take action on an application requiring further review.
Id. § 1.9030(e)(1)(v).
111 Id. § 1.9020(e)(1)(ii).
112 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 20.9.
113 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(1).
114 Id. §§ 201-202.
115 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.9020(d)(6), 1.9030(d)(6), 1.9035(d)(1).
116 See id. §§ 20.3, 20.9.
117 See id. § 20.9.
118 Id. § 20.9(b).
119 47 U.S.C. § 309(f).
120 47 C.F.R. § 1.931(a).
121 Market-based licensees that file STA applications manually also have to file a simultaneous waiver of the
electronic filing requirement. See id. § 1.913(b), (d) (requiring electronic filing, and permitting manual filing of
Form 601 for several wireless services, excluding PCS).
122 Id. § 1.931(a)(2).
18

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

regulatory classification to PMRS and for applications for STA. Through streamlined regulatory
processes, stakeholders will be better equipped to combat the use of contraband wireless devices in
correctional facilities. Below we outline several proposed rule changes that could expedite the lease
application or notification process for managed access systems. We seek comment on the proposed
changes and other proposals on the record.
2.

Proposed Rules to Streamline Managed Access Spectrum Leasing
Procedures

36.
We propose rule and procedural changes to facilitate a streamlined application process
for spectrum leases entered into exclusively to combat the use of unauthorized wireless devices in
correctional facilities, which we believe is in the public interest. The Commission’s rules and procedures
for immediate lease approval or processing were designed to streamline review of those leases that
presumptively do not raise public interest concerns.123 The proposed rules and procedural changes below
are consistent with this intent. Contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities are a threat to the
safety and welfare of correctional facility workers, other prisoners, and the general public,124 and managed
access is an important option in combating their use.125 The proposals we outline below seek to balance
the need to minimize regulatory barriers to deploying managed access systems in correctional facilities
with the need to maintain an effective lease review process and the need to protect legitimate wireless
users. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of the proposed rule and process changes, including the
extent to which they will reduce barriers to the deployment of managed access systems.
37.
We propose to immediately process qualifying lease applications or notifications for
managed access systems in correctional facilities, and to exercise our forbearance authority as necessary to
implement this proposal.126 We also propose to reduce the need for multiple application filings by creating
a presumption that managed access services in correctional facilities are PMRS. Finally, we propose to
streamline the process for seeking STA for managed access operators seeking to use leased spectrum prior
to obtaining a more permanent system authorization.
i.

Streamlined Lease Application Approval and Lease Notification
Processing

38.
We propose to modify the Commission’s rules and procedures to make qualifying leases
for managed access systems in correctional facilities subject to immediate processing and approval.
Specifically, we propose to immediately process long-term de facto lease applications and spectrum
manager notifications for managed access systems, even in cases where grant of multiple 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.127 Under this proposal, grant or acceptance of qualifying managed access leases


123 See Second Secondary Market Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 17512, ¶ 15 (explaining that leases that “do not
potentially raise certain specified public interest concerns” should be granted pursuant to the application and
immediate grant procedures).
124 See supra Part II.A.
125 See supra Part II.D.1.
126 Under existing rules, which would apply to managed access leases as proposed herein, interested parties may
petition for reconsideration of the grant or acceptance within 30 days of the public notice announcing the application
was granted or accepted. 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(f).
127 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.9020(e)(2)(i)(A), 1.9030(e)(2)(i)(A).
19

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

would be indicated the following business day on the Commission’s Universal Licensing System (ULS).128
The accepted lease would then be effective upon the date set forth by the licensee and lessee in the lease
application or notification.129 We seek comment on the specific rule changes necessary to implement this
proposal below.
39.
Completeness Requirement. We propose to require applications or notifications for
managed access leases to meet the completeness standards set forth in our existing spectrum leasing
rules.130 Under our proposed process, licensees and lessees would continue to file Form 608,131 and would
be required to complete all relevant fields and certifications on the form.132 If an application or notification
is sufficiently complete but the responses or certifications raise questions regarding the lessee’s eligibility
or qualification to hold spectrum, we propose that the application or notification will not be eligible for
immediate approval or processing consistent with the Commission’s current processes.133 We seek
comment on this proposal, including on the costs and benefits.
40.
Competition. We propose to immediately process lease applications or notifications for
managed access systems in correctional facilities regardless of whether the approval or acceptance will
result in the lessee holding or having access to geographically overlapping licenses that may be used to
provide an interconnected mobile service.134 Our rules requiring more lengthy case-by-case review of
leases that would result in the lessee holding geographically overlapping spectrum are intended to focus on
leases that “potentially raise competition concerns.”135 In the managed access context, however, we
believe such review is unnecessary because managed access systems intended solely to combat contraband
wireless devices in correctional facilities do not raise the same competitive concerns as multiple licenses
leased in the same geography to provide a CMRS.136 Managed access providers are not offering service to
the public, and will generally contract directly with a correctional facility to be the sole managed access
provider. We seek comment on this proposal and analysis.


128 ULS is the Commission’s online database and filing system for applications and fees for most radio services. See
FCC, ULS, http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/index.htm?job=home. Applications and notifications for leases for managed
access systems would continue to be placed on a weekly information public notice once granted or accepted, as
required under the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.9020(e)(1)(iii), (2)(iii); 1.9030(e)(1)(ii); 1.9030(e)(2)(iii);
1.9035(e)(3).
129 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.9020(f), 1.9030(f) (establishing that the lease is effective in the Commission’s records, and for
application of the leasing rules, upon the date of the lease term as specified in the notification or application).
130 Under the Commission’s current spectrum leasing rules, applications or notifications that are subject to
immediate processing or approval must be “sufficiently complete.” Id. §§ 1.9020(e)(2)(i), 1.9030(e)(2)(i),
1.9035(e).
131 Id. § 1.913(a)(5) (“FCC Form 608 is used by licensees and spectrum lessees . . . to notify the Commission
regarding spectrum manager leasing arrangements and to apply for Commission consent for de facto transfer leasing
arrangements . . . .”). See also FCC Form 608, FCC Application or Notification for Spectrum Leasing Arrangement,
www.fcc.gov/forms.
132 FCC Form 608 at 9-11. Additionally, de facto applications must be accompanied by the requisite filing fee. 47
C.F.R. §§ 1.9030(e), (e)(2), 1.9035(e).
133 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.9020(e)(1), 1.9030(e)(1).
134 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.9020(e)(2)(i)(A), 1.9030(e)(2)(i)(A).
135 Second Secondary Market Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 17516-17, ¶ 25.
136 In the Second Secondary Market Report and Order, the Commission explained that competition policies focused
“on services that could potentially affect the product market for mobile telephony, which includes interconnected
mobile voice and/or data services.” Id. at 17518, ¶ 26.
20

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

41.
Designated Entity/Entrepreneur Eligibility. We also propose to immediately process
lease applications or notifications for managed access systems in correctional facilities regardless of
whether they implicate designated entity rules, affiliation restrictions, unjust enrichment prohibitions, or
transfer restrictions.137 We believe managed access leases do not raise public interest concerns regarding
compliance with these rules that would necessitate a more in depth review of the applications or
notifications. 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,138 and to ensure that “small business participation in spectrum-based
services is not thwarted by transfers of licenses to non-designated entities.”139 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.140 These
rules were crafted under authority to ensure that certain entities have the opportunity to participate in the
provision of wireless service, and to impose transfer disclosures and anti-trafficking restrictions to avoid
unjust enrichment.141 Eliminating this certification for managed access leases covering correctional
facilities does not impact the opportunity of another entity to participate in the provision of wireless
service outside of the correctional facility, and likely will not result in unjust enrichment or transfer
violations. It will similarly not impact the ability of a small business to participate in the provision of
wireless services. We believe managed access lease arrangements implemented to combat contraband
wireless devices in correctional facilities are in the public interest and override any potential marginal
benefit a lessor might gain from leasing spectrum within the limited geographic area of a correctional
facility. We seek comment on this proposal and analysis, and on any costs or benefits of this proposal.
42.
Procedural Requirements. We propose to modify FCC Form 608 to allow managed
access providers and CMRS licensees to identify that a proposed lease is a managed access lease
exclusively for a system in a correctional facility. We also propose to require managed access providers to
attach a written certification to the application or notification explaining the nature of the managed access
system, including the location of the correctional facility, the managed access provider’s relationship to the
correctional facility, and the exact proposed coordinates of the leased spectrum boundaries. The
information and certification on Form 608 will establish that the lease is to be used solely for a managed
access system, and the coordinates will establish the geographic boundaries of the leased area.
43.
As outlined in the Second Secondary Market Report and Order and incorporated into the
Commission’s rules, once a lease application grant or notification acceptance is announced by public
notice, interested parties may petition for reconsideration of the grant or acceptance within 30 days of the
public notice, and the Commission may reconsider the grant or acceptance on its own motion within 40


137 Short-term de facto leases similarly are not reviewed for implication of designated entity rules, affiliation
restrictions, unjust enrichment prohibitions, or transfer restrictions. 47 C.F.R. § 1.9035(e). See also First Secondary
Market Report and Order
, 18 FCC Rcd at 20676, ¶ 176; Second Secondary Market Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd
at 17525, ¶ 44.
138 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2111.
139 Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission’s Rules – Competitive Bidding Procedures; Allocation of Spectrum
Below 5 GHz Transferred from Federal Government Use; 4660-4685 MHz, WT Docket No. 97-82, ET Docket No.
94-32, Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 374, 406, ¶ 52
(1997).
140 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(c)(2); Second Secondary Market Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 17538, ¶ 71. A
controlling interest is an entity or individual with de jure or de facto control over the designated entity. 47 C.F.R. §
1.2110(c)(2).
141 See Second Secondary Market Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 17538, ¶ 71; 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(D)-(E).
21

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

days of the public notice.142 Regarding enforcement mechanisms, the Commission “retains the right to
investigate and terminate any spectrum manager leasing arrangement if it determines, post-notification,
that the arrangement . . . is otherwise in violation of the rules of this chapter, or . . . raises public interest
concerns.”143 The Commission further requires that agreements between licensees and spectrum lessees
concerning spectrum leasing arrangements must contain a provision that the “spectrum lessee must comply
at all times with applicable rules set forth in this chapter and other applicable law and that spectrum leasing
arrangement may be revoked, cancelled, or terminated by the licensee or Commission if the spectrum
lessee fails to comply with the applicable requirements.”144 The Commission has also provided that de
facto
spectrum lessees are issued authorizations that bring them within the scope of the direct forfeiture
procedures under Section 503(b) of the Act.145 Finally, as stated in the Second Secondary Market Report
and Order
, to the extent the Commission determines that any certification made by the licensee or lessee
“is not true, complete, correct, and made in good faith, the Commission will be vigilant in taking
appropriate enforcement action, potentially including forfeitures or termination of the spectrum leasing
arrangement.”146 We seek comment on our proposal to continue to apply these rules to managed access
leases, and whether these protections are sufficient to ensure rule compliance in the context of Commission
authorization of managed access systems deployed to combat contraband phone use, and whether any
additional conditions or alternative mechanisms are required to further the public interest. We also seek
comment on any associated costs or benefits of our proposed approach.
44.
Finally, we seek 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 in
which a managed access system is installed. If so, we seek comment on the form of such notification, for
example, an informational notice on the company’s website, a placard or informational flyer on the doors
of households and businesses within a certain proximity to the correctional facility, or a newspaper
advertisement or other public notice. Additionally, if notification were required, we seek comment on the
methods that managed access vendors should offer to wireless users to contact the managed access
provider to address any impact on nearby consumer wireless services. We also seek comment on how the
appropriate boundary of the notice area would be established, the timeframe for providing notice within
that boundary, and related concerns. Lastly, we seek comment on the costs that would be associated with
notification.
ii.

PMRS Presumption

45.
We propose to amend Section 20.9 of our rules to establish that managed access services
in correctional facilities provided on spectrum leased from CMRS providers shall be presumptively treated
as PMRS. We propose to require the lessee to certify on the application or notification that the leased
spectrum will be used solely for the operation of a managed access system at a correctional facility.
Where managed access operations are confined to a correctional facility and are not intended for provision
of commercial service to the public, we believe that PMRS classification is appropriate under our rules
because the provider is not offering service to the public or a substantial portion of the public.147 Under


142 See Second Secondary Market Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 17520, 17527-28, ¶¶ 31, 49; 47 C.F.R. §§
1.106(f), 1.117.
143 47 C.F.R. § 1.9020(g).
144 Id. § 1.9040(a)(1).
145 Id. § 1.9030(c)(2).
146 Second Secondary Market Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 17521, ¶ 33.
147 47 C.F.R. §§ 20.3, 20.9. As discussed herein, PMRS licensees are not subject to common carrier obligations
applicable to CMRS licensees under the Act.
22

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

this proposal, managed access providers will not need to file a separate application to request PMRS
treatment following approval or acceptance of the lease. The PMRS presumption will apply to all leases of
spectrum used exclusively in managed access systems in correctional facilities, and will be reflected upon
the approval or acceptance of the lease. This proposal is not intended to restrict a lessee’s flexibility to
operate within a chosen regulatory status for which the system qualifies. Therefore, a managed access
lessee would retain the option of applying for CMRS status by including an exhibit to Form 608
demonstrating that the service meets the CMRS definition or is the functional equivalent of CMRS.148 We
seek comment on these proposals, and on any costs or benefits they may impose.
46.
We also seek comment on whether we should apply the Commission’s 911 and enhanced
911 (E911) rules to managed access services that provide access to 911 and E911.149 As a technical
matter, managed access systems can be configured to pass 911 and E911 calls to the appropriate public
safety answering point, regardless of whether the call is made from an unauthorized device.150 Although
managed access services ordinarily qualify as PMRS, and therefore are not subject to the Commission’s
911 and E911 rules,151 we seek comment on whether there are potential benefits to applying some or all of
the Commission’s 911 or E911 rules to a managed access provider operating as a PMRS that transmits 911
or E911 calls on its system.152 We also seek comment on any associated costs or burdens that would be
created by such a requirement.
iii.

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

47.
In the Second Secondary Market Report and Order the Commission exercised
forbearance in order to immediately process, without public notice or prior Commission review or consent,
de facto leases that met eligibility and use restrictions but not did require a waiver or declaratory ruling and
did not raise issues regarding competition, designated entity or entrepreneurship restrictions, or other
public interest concerns.153 We propose to extend that forbearance in order to immediately process de
facto
leases for managed access systems in correctional facilities that do not raise concerns with use and


148 The lessee can continue to utilize the existing mechanism in the Commission’s rules for rebutting the
presumption that a mobile service does not meet the CMRS definition through a petition for declaratory ruling. 47
C.F.R. § 20.9(a)(ii).
149 See 47 C.F.R. § 20.18.
150 See NTIA Report at 21-22; MDOC Petition at 7; AT&T NTIA NOI Comments at 11; Sprint Nextel NTIA NOI
Comments at 1; Tecore NTIA NOI Comments at 11; T-Mobile NTIA NOI Comments at 8; Verizon Wireless NTIA
NOI Comments at 10. But see Enterprise Electronics NTIA NOI Comments at 5 (arguing that despite the ability of
managed access systems to provide 911 and E911 access to contraband devices, inmates will abuse the service and
should not be granted access).
151 Section 20.18 of the Commission’s rules applies to CMRS providers that “[o]ffer real-time, two way switched
voice service that is interconnected with the public switched network; and [u]tilize an in-network switching facility
that enables the provider to reuse frequencies to accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls.” 47 C.F.R. §
20.18(a). The Commission’s spectrum leasing rules impose varying E911 obligations for the licensee and lessee
depending on the type of lease. In long-term de facto lease arrangements, the lessee is required to meet the
Commission’s E911 requirements to the same extent that the licensee is, “insofar as the spectrum lessee’s operations
are encompassed within the E911 obligations.” Id. § 1.9030(d)(8). In spectrum manager leases, the licensee retains
any E911 obligations that apply to the leased spectrum. Id. § 1.9020(d)(8). In short-term de facto leases, the
licensee retains any E911 obligations with respect to the leased spectrum, and the lessee is not required to comply
with any E911 obligations. Id. § 1.9035(d)(4).
152 See id. § 20.18.
153 Second Secondary Market Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 17512-13, 17521-23, ¶¶ 15, 34-37.
23

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

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, we propose
to forbear from the applicable prior public notice requirements and individualized review requirements of
Sections 308, 309, and 310(d) of the Act.154
48.
Section 10 of the Act authorizes the Commission to forbear from applying any regulation
or provision of the Act to a telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service, or any class of
telecommunications carriers or telecommunications services, if:
(1) enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary to ensure that the charges,
practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with that
telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are
not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2) enforcement of such regulation or
provision is not necessary for the protection of consumers; and (3) forbearance from
applying such provision or regulation is consistent with the public interest.155
In the Second Secondary Market Report and Order the Commission found that the forbearance prongs
were met for de facto leases that did not raise concerns with eligibility and use restrictions, foreign
ownership restrictions, designated entity or entrepreneur restrictions, competition concerns, or other public
interest concerns.156 The Commission based its decision on its finding that even lease applications that
were not immediately processed were not reviewed for the impact on the practices or charges of the
providers, and therefore forbearance would have no impact on practices or charges.157 Further, it found
that a more thorough application review for leases qualifying for immediate approval was not necessary to
protect consumers because the Commission had concluded that it would only immediately approve
applications that did not raise public interest concerns.158 Finally, the Commission concluded that
forbearance from public notice and individualized Commission review were in the public interest because
leases that did not raise public interest concerns would be approved quickly, reducing transaction costs,
speeding time to market of services, improving spectrum access and efficiency, and increasing consumers’
access to advanced wireless services.159
49.
We seek comment on whether the statutory forbearance requirements are met for our
proposal to forbear from applying the individualized review and public notice provisions of Section 308,
309, and 310(d) of the Act for de facto managed access leases that do not raise concerns with eligibility
and use restrictions or foreign ownership restrictions, and that do not require a waiver or declaratory ruling
with respect to a Commission rule. For the reasons discussed in the Second Secondary Market Report and
Order
, we believe that managed access leases also generally qualify for the forbearance granted to all de
facto
leases.160 Further, we believe that the statutory forbearance requirements are met for de facto
managed access leases that comply with the necessary immediate approval procedures in our rules, but
also involve leases of spectrum in the same geographic area or involve designated entity unjust enrichment


154 47 U.S.C. §§ 308, 309, 310(d).
155 47 U.S.C. § 160(a).
156 Second Secondary Market Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 17512-13, ¶ 15.
157 Id. at 17522, ¶ 35.
158 Id. at 17522-23, ¶ 36.
159 Id. at 17523, ¶ 37.
160 Id. at 17522-23, ¶¶ 35-37.
24

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

provisions and transfer restrictions. As described supra, these systems necessarily require overlapping
spectrum in the same geographic area and likely do not run counter to the intent and purpose behind our
rules governing unjust enrichment or transfer restrictions.161 We believe there is an overriding public
interest in preventing prisoners from using wireless devices to further a criminal enterprise from within
correctional facilities, which necessitates a streamlined application review process for spectrum leases for
managed access systems in correctional facilities. We seek comment on this analysis.
iv.

Streamlined Special Temporary Authority Request Processing

50.
Finally, we propose to streamline the process for a managed access provider to obtain
STA to operate a managed access system in a correctional facility prior to obtaining a more permanent
authorization. We propose to exempt managed access providers seeking STAs for a managed access
system in correctional facilities from the requirement that they file the STA application ten days prior to
operation.162 We also propose to process STA requests for managed access systems in correctional
facilities without prior public notice. Further, we propose to make changes to ULS to electronically
process STA applications for market based licenses, such as PCS. Under this process, applicants would
still be required to meet all of the existing requirements to be granted STA.163 Additionally, applicants
would be required to attach an exhibit to the application explaining the nature of the managed access
system, including the location of the correctional facility, the applicant’s relationship to the correctional
facility, and the exact coordinates of the spectrum boundaries.164 We also propose to modify FCC Form
601, which is used to apply for STAs, to allow an applicant to identify that the application is being filed for
a managed access system in a correctional facility. This will allow the application to be removed from
ordinary processing and entered into expedited processing.
51.
We seek comment on the extent to which the expedited STA process proposed above will
facilitate the deployment of managed access systems. In light of our proposals to expedite processing and
approval for qualifying managed access leases, we do not anticipate that managed access providers will
ordinarily require STAs prior to the grant of a lease application or acceptance of a lease notification.
However, to the extent a managed access operator needs to test the system or operate on an emergency
basis prior to obtaining approval or acceptance of a lease, this proposed streamlined process may serve to
expedite the entire deployment timeframe. We seek comment on this analysis and proposal, and any costs
it may impose or benefits it may generate.
3.

Other Proposals

52.
GTL and MDOC separately filed petitions for rulemaking seeking various rule changes to
expedite the deployment of managed access systems,165 and Tecore filed comments in another proceeding


161 See supra Part III.A.2.i.
162 See id. § 1.931(a).
163 See id. (establishing that applications “must contain complete details about the proposed operation and the
circumstances that fully justify and necessitate the grant of STA”).
164 We propose to require that applicants for immediate lease application approval or notification processing include
the same exhibit in the lease application or notification. See supra Part III.A.2.i.
165 See generally GTL Petition; MDOC Petition. GTL proposes rule changes that would expedite the lease
negotiation process, impose network upgrade notification obligations on licensees, set limits on the amount of “over-
coverage” by managed access systems, and protect E911 in areas where managed access systems operate. GTL
Petition at 9. MDOC seeks rule changes to allow state and local government entities to obtain site-based licenses for
managed access systems on a coordinated secondary basis to licensee use of the licensed spectrum. MDOC Petition
at 11.
25

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

outlining several rule and procedural changes it also believes are necessary to expedite managed access
lease processing and system deployment.166 We seek comment generally on these proposals and the extent
to which they may be incorporated into the lease processing and approval proposals outlined above.167

B.

Detection

1.

Overview and Regulatory Environment for Detection Systems

53.
In addition to our proposals regarding streamlining the lease application process for
managed access systems, we also seek comment on proposals to facilitate the deployment of detection
systems. Detection systems are another method used by correctional facility administrators or operators to
meet the joint objectives of discovering and disabling contraband wireless devices without interfering with
legitimate wireless users.168 Detection systems generally identify the location of a contraband wireless
device through triangulation,169 and can be accurate to within a few meters.170 The systems are highly
scalable – they can expand coverage with new sensors, and can detect signals across many frequency
bands.171 Detection system operators do not require a FCC license or FCC authorization.172 As detection
systems are passive and can only approximate the location of a contraband device, correctional facility
employees must search for and physically confiscate the identified contraband device to terminate
operations.173 This potentially increases the cost and reduces the effectiveness of these systems and
unnecessarily threatens the safety of correctional facility workers.174
54.
In September 2011, CellAntenna filed a petition for rulemaking requesting rule changes
that would require wireless carriers to terminate service to unauthorized wireless devices operating in
correctional facilities discovered by a detection system.175 CellAntenna argues that detection systems are
superior to managed access and jamming systems because detection systems do not threaten to cause


166 See generally Tecore Wireless Service Interruption Comments. Tecore urges the Commission to make rule
changes to create a scheme that would authorize the installation of a managed access system either by a relevant
licensee or through a spectrum lease with a relevant state or local agency or designated third party. Id. at 46-50.
167 We note that we will incorporate these petitions into the record established pursuant to this Notice through GN
Docket No. 13-111.
168 See CTIA NTIA NOI Comments at 17; ITT NTIA NOI Comments at 3; Sprint NTIA NOI Comments at 2; T-
Mobile NTIA NOI Comments at 9-10.
169 See NTIA Report at 27; BINJ NTIA NOI Comments at 7; Enterprise Electronics NTIA NOI Comments at 8.
170 See ITT NTIA NOI Comments at 18; NTIA Report at 29.
171 See ITT NTIA NOI Comments at 8; BINJ NTIA NOI Comments at 4; Berkley Varitronics NTIA NOI Comments
at 5.
172 See NTIA Report at 30. The equipment itself, however, may need Commission certification before it can be
marketed and sold. See 47 C.F.R. § 15.101(a) (listing unintentional radiators as equipment that shall be authorized
under the Commission’s rules, including several types of receivers).
173 See CellAntenna 2011 Petition at 7 (“[T]he ensuing physical searches are time (and resource) consuming and can
be dangerous for correctional personnel.”); ITT NTIA NOI Comments at 5 (“The drawback to detection is that
someone has to take an action to retrieve the phone.”).
174 CellAntenna 2011 Petition at 7; GTL NTIA NOI Comments at 3-4; ITT NTIA NOI Comments at 5. Even if
identified contraband devices are not confiscated, however, detection systems are capable of gathering a large amount
of data about contraband wireless devices, including the number of transmissions, the times of day they are used, and
the length of use. See BINJ NTIA NOI Comments at 7; CTIA NTIA NOI Comments at 14.
175 See CellAntenna 2011 Petition at 7-8.
26

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

interference with carrier networks.176 CellAntenna also believes its proposal will remedy the need to
physically confiscate contraband wireless devices, a clear drawback of current detection systems.177
CellAntenna proposes a three step plan. First, the correctional facility identifies unauthorized wireless
devices within the facility; second, the warden transmits the identifying information of the contraband device
to the appropriate CMRS provider via email or fax; and third, the CMRS provider sends a SMS message to
the unauthorized device notifying the user that the device is unauthorized and suspends service to the device
within one hour of receiving notice from the warden.178
55.
CellAntenna also proposes a new rule to hold harmless CMRS providers from violation of
a law or regulation when the provider terminates service to a device if the provider acted in good faith to
terminate service in reliance on a warden’s notice and took immediate action to reinstate suspended service if
“presented with compelling evidence contradicting the Warden’s notice.”179 As discussed below, we seek
comment on CellAntenna’s proposal, including any costs or benefits of the proposal.
2.

Disabling Contraband Wireless Devices through Improved Coordination

56.
Consistent with CellAntenna’s proposal, we propose to require CMRS licensees to
terminate180 service to contraband devices within correctional facilities pursuant to a qualifying request from
an authorized party. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of this proposal.
57.
We note the nexus between this proposal and the wireless industry’s recent voluntary
commitment to take steps to help deter smartphone thefts and protect consumer data.181 Under the
commitment, participating wireless providers will work to implement and deploy database solutions using
unique smartphone identification numbers to prevent stolen smartphones from being activated or from
receiving service.182 The commitment represents a significant recognition of the public interest benefits of
deterring unauthorized use of wireless devices and the feasibility of a technological solution that can uniquely
identify a stolen device and terminate service to the device.183
58.
Similar technological solutions could be used to combat the serious problem of contraband
wireless device use in correctional facilities, for example by enhancing the effectiveness of detection
technologies through CMRS provider termination of service to identified contraband devices. Detection
systems arguably have the least impact on legitimate wireless users relative to other technical approaches to


176 Id. at 6-7.
177 Id. at 6-9.
178 Id. at 8.
179 Id. at 10.
180 CellAntenna refers to the “suspension” of service under its proposal. Id. at 8.
181 See CTIA Consumer Info, U.S. Wireless Industry Steps to Help Deter Smartphone Thefts and Protect Consumer
Data (Wireless Industry Commitment), available at http://www.ctia.org/consumer_info/safety/index.cfm/AID/
12084.
182 Id. As announced, the commitment only applies to GSM and LTE smartphones. See id.
183 See id. Chairman Genachowski, in remarks delivered at a press conference announcing the initiative, noted that
similar database solutions were operating in the United Kingdom and other countries. See Julius Genachowski,
Chairman, FCC, Prepared Remarks on Stolen Cell Phones Initiative (Apr. 10, 2012), available at http://hraunfoss.
fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-313512A1.pdf.
27

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

combating contraband wireless device use in correctional facilities,184 but their overall effectiveness is limited
by the inability of the system operator to terminate service to detected devices. Detection-based interdiction
technology is more effective when combined with carrier termination of service to identified contraband
devices by all CMRS providers covering a given correctional facility. If a single CMRS provider whose
coverage area includes a correctional facility does not terminate service to contraband devices identified in
the facility, the demand for contraband devices that can receive service from that provider will likely
dramatically increase. When all CMRS providers terminate service to unauthorized devices pursuant to
authenticated requests, detection systems can transform from a solution that can only identify wireless
devices to a powerful solution that can lead to the termination of service without physical intervention, and
without a significant impact on legitimate wireless users. We seek comment on this analysis. We also seek
comment on the possible effectiveness of voluntary carrier participation in an industry wide effort to
terminate service to contraband wireless devices.
59.
In addition to the proposals to facilitate managed access or detection systems discussed
above, we also propose to adopt several elements of the CellAntenna proposal to require CMRS providers to
terminate service to identified contraband wireless devices. We seek comment below on the specific
information that the correctional facility must transmit to the provider to effectuate termination, timing for
carrier termination, methods of authenticating a termination request, and other issues. We also seek comment
on the costs and benefits on each of the proposals discussed below.185 In particular, we seek comment on the
specific cost burdens that a carrier would face in establishing the reporting mechanisms, technical upgrades,
if any, operational enhancements, and personnel training necessary to handle requests for termination. In
addition, to the extent that carriers incur such costs to support requests for termination, we seek comment on
mechanisms by which carriers could recoup the initial and ongoing expense of complying with a requirement
to terminate service to contraband devices, including cost sharing mechanisms with correctional facilities.
60.
We believe the Commission has authority under Section 303 to require CMRS providers
to terminate service to contraband wireless devices.186 Under Section 303(b), the Commission is required
to “[p]rescribe the nature of the service to be rendered by each class of licensed stations and each station
within any class.”187 Additionally, Section 303(d) requires the Commission to “[d]etermine the location of
classes of stations or individual stations,”188 and Section 303(h) grants the Commission the “authority to
establish areas or zones to be served by any station.”189 When tied together with Section 303(r), which
requires the Commission to “[m]ake such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and
conditions, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter,”190
and Section 4(i), which authorizes the Commission to “perform any and all acts, make such rules and


184 Wireless detection systems do not transmit radio frequencies and therefore do not pose a risk of interference to
other wireless users. NTIA Report at 28; CellAntenna 2011 Petition at 6-7.
185 As established in the previous Part, when we seek comment on a proposal, we ask commenters to take into
account the costs and benefits that flow directly from the particular rules or proposals, including potential alternative
requirements. We further ask commenters to be specific, to the extent possible, by including estimated dollar
figures or any other supporting documentation or evidentiary support. See supra ¶ 25.
186 See 47 U.S.C. § 303.
187 47 U.S.C. § 303(b). See also Cellco Partnership v. FCC, 700 F.3d 534, 542-43 (D. C. Cir. 2012) (upholding
Commission’s roaming rules for mobile data providers, broadly reading phrase “prescribe the nature of the service
to be rendered” to mean “lay[ ] down a rule about ‘the nature of the service to be rendered’”).
188 47 U.S.C. § 303(d).
189 Id. § 303(h).
190 Id. § 303(r).
28

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary in the execution
of its functions,”191 we believe that these provisions empower the Commission to implement this proposal.
We seek comment on this analysis.
i.

Identifying Contraband Devices

61.
We seek to ensure that service is terminated only to contraband devices operated within a
correctional facility and not lawful subscriber devices possibly operating in close proximity to a correctional
facility. Existing detection technologies are reportedly capable of accurately identifying the location of
unauthorized wireless devices in a correctional facility within several meters,192 with reportedly little or no
risk of identifying legitimate wireless devices outside of the facility.193 Each sensor in a detection system can
be physically positioned to detect wireless transmissions within a certain path, and can determine the
approximate distance between the sensor and the detected device.194 The unknown location of the
contraband device is determined by “measuring the distances from the point of [the] unknown location . . . to
three or more points of known location.”195 Detection providers can increase accuracy by positioning
multiple sensors with overlapping zones of detection.196 Software analyzes the data from the sensors to
generate coordinates used to identify the approximate location of the device, which can then be displayed
using a geographic information system depicting the location of the device on a floor plan or some other map
of the facility.197
62.
Detection systems can reportedly identify wireless devices in various states of use,
including when a wireless device places or receives a call, sends or receives a text message, or sends or
retrieves data.198 When a device attempts to connect to the network, CellAntenna asserts that detection
systems can identify specific information about the device, including the service provider, electronic serial
number (ESN), mobile identification number (MIN), international mobile equipment identifier (IMEI), or the
international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI).199 According to CellAntenna, when this unique identifying
information is transmitted to the device’s CMRS provider, the CMRS provider could identify the device in its
systems by its ESN, MIN, IMEI, or IMSI and terminate service to the device.200 We seek comment on this
technical analysis and on any safeguards that may be necessary to protect against the unlikely event that an
authorized device outside of the correctional facility is detected. We also seek comment on the costs and
benefits of any proposed safeguards.
63.
While the Commission does not directly license the operation of detection systems, we
seek comment on the appropriate criteria that must be met by an entity requesting that a carrier terminate
service to a contraband device in a correctional facility identified by a detection system. In its petition,


191 Id. § 154(i).
192 See ITT NTIA NOI Comments at 18; NTIA Report at 29.
193 BINJ NTIA NOI Comments at 2 (“Cell phone detection systems do not pose a threat to legitimate cell phone use
by the general public outside the prison.”).
194 See Enterprise Electronics NTIA NOI Comments at 10.
195 TruePosition NTIA NOI Comments at 2.
196 See NTIA Report at 29.
197 See Enterprise Electronics NTIA NOI Comments at 8; BINJ NTIA NOI Comments at 2.
198 See BINJ NTIA NOI Comments at 8; Enterprise Electronics NTIA NOI Comments at 7-8.
199 CellAntenna 2011 Petition at 7.
200 See id.
29

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

CellAntenna proposes that the Commission provide generally that if a CMRS carrier receives notice from
a correctional facility official that a “wireless device is operating within the confines of the correctional
facility, it shall suspend service to the identified device.”201
64.
We note that CellAntenna does not directly propose that a suspension request be limited
to information acquired only from passive detection-based systems, but CellAntenna’s petition appears to
be premised upon use of its detection technology to capture the information necessary to request wireless
provider action.202 In the interest of technological neutrality, we seek comment on whether contraband
wireless devices identified by CellAntenna’s technology and other technologies, including managed access
systems discussed herein, have the requisite characteristics, including accuracy, to identify contraband
wireless devices for purposes of service termination while avoiding incorrect identification of legitimate
devices. Should the Commission establish minimum performance standards for detection systems that must
be met in order for the system operator to transmit a request to a carrier to terminate service to an identified
contraband device? Should the standards be based on a measure of accuracy in terms of identifying only
unauthorized contraband devices within a correctional facility? If so, should the measure of accuracy be
dependent on the location of the facility, e.g. urban versus rural? How would we verify that an entity meets
such a standard? Should the Commission set such a standard or encourage carriers, detection equipment
manufacturers or operators, and correctional facility officials to establish voluntary standards? Is there a
threshold beyond which gains in accuracy are disproportional to the cost of achieving increased accuracy?
Alternatively, to the extent that detection equipment requires FCC certification, the Commission could
impose technical accuracy standards through the equipment certification process.203 We seek comment on
these alternatives, and on the costs and benefits of these alternatives.
ii.

Requesting Termination of Service to Contraband Devices

65.
Under our proposal, after the detection system identifies a contraband device, an authorized
correctional facility official would be permitted to request termination of service to the device by the CMRS
provider after providing relevant information. In its petition, CellAntenna proposes that the Commission
permit a warden to transmit termination requests (or a Notice of Contraband Wireless Device) via email or
fax.204 We seek comment on this proposal. Would correctional facilities have greater operational flexibility
if an authorized agent were able to make the formal termination request? What criteria should be used to
determine the correctional facility personnel that should be authorized to make a termination request? Would
such criteria be an adequate safeguard against the transmission of inaccurate information to a carrier?
66.
CellAntenna proposes that the Commission require the warden to include the ESN, MIN,
IMEI, or IMSI in a notice to terminate service to identified wireless devices sent to a carrier.205 Do different
carriers and different wireless technologies require different information to identify and terminate service to a
device? Do resellers of wireless service require different or additional information to identify and terminate


201 Id. at 10.
202 Id. at 10-11.
203 47 U.S.C. § 302a(a) (“The Commission may, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity,
make reasonable regulations governing the interference potential of devices which in their operation are capable of
emitting radio frequency energy by radiation, conduction, or other means . . . .”); 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(a) (establishing
that except as provided elsewhere in the Commission’s rules, “no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease
(including advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering
for sale or lease, any radio frequency device” unless it has been authorized or otherwise meets Commission rules).
204 CellAntenna 2011 Petition at 8.
205 Id. at 10.
30

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

service to a wireless device? Must resellers take additional steps to terminate service? Do the requirements
differ for small wireless providers relative to large wireless providers? Are all types of detection equipment
and detection systems capable of capturing the identical suite of information?
67.
We also seek comment on any other electronic or other means in addition to email and fax
that would be an acceptable way for a correctional facility to transmit a termination request, including
through an automated system. Should we require an email or fax to be on a specific form that would include
certain information, in addition to the necessary identification information of the contraband wireless device,
to help ensure authenticity and accuracy of the request? Or is it sufficient for the correctional facility to
transmit a list of the necessary identifying information of all contraband devices, along with some type of
authentication such as an official signature? What costs are associated with establishing a transmission
mechanism, in particular any secure facilities required for transmission, and who should bear the cost of
setting them up and maintaining them?
68.
Detection systems can operate continuously, detecting contraband devices regardless of the
time of day.206 We seek to provide flexibility to detection or related technology providers, correctional
facilities, and carriers to develop systems that most effectively and efficiently terminate service to contraband
wireless devices. With that in mind, we recognize that multiple termination requests may be received any
hour of the day. We seek comment on estimates of the costs if the proposals outlined herein were adopted.
Should we establish set intervals or times at which a correctional facility or detection provider can transmit
batch termination requests to a carrier? Is it relevant if both the carrier and correctional facility have
automated systems for requesting termination and terminating service to contraband wireless devices? What
is the appropriate balance between a correctional facility’s need to have contraband service terminated
promptly and a wireless provider’s interest in ensuring that the request is authenticated and accurate in order
to prevent wrongful service termination? Are there specific issues we should consider with respect to
processing termination requests by small or rural CMRS providers? What role could the database being
developed by the wireless industry to identify and terminate service to stolen smartphones play in this
process?207 Could participating wireless providers reduce implementation costs by relying on existing
technologies and processes?
69.
Correctional facility officials need to be able to timely transmit the termination requests to a
carrier representative that is authorized to terminate the service or to an automated system that is designed to
handle and process such requests. As with the correctional facility operator’s need to ensure the termination
request is accurate, the carrier needs to ensure that it terminates service only to the identified contraband
devices. Should we require carriers to identify an authorized individual or individuals to whom all
termination requests should be submitted? Is there a specific operational unit within a carrier to which all
termination requests should be routed? We seek comment on ways that a correctional facility with a
detection system will be able to identify the appropriate individual or group within a carrier to transmit
termination requests. Alternatively, is there a common interface that could be used to automate the
transmission and processing of the termination request?208 We also seek comment on the best means for a
carrier to acknowledge receipt of a termination request. Should the carrier be required to confirm receipt of a
termination request through the same means they received the request? Are there specific statements or
information – such as the time received or the agent that received the request – that must be included in a


206 ITT NTIA NOI Comments at 5.
207 See Wireless Industry Commitment.
208 To the extent that a commenter proposes an existing technology or technology in development to automate this
process, we seek specific information on the system design, operation, effectiveness, cost, and any other relevant
information.
31

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

confirmation of receipt of a termination request? Could confirmation that termination occurred within any
set timeframe be sufficient? Finally, we seek comment on any other possible requirements to ensure that
termination requests are accurately transmitted, received, and confirmed, including the cost and benefits of
any possible requirement.
iii.

Action by CMRS Licensees

70.
Action by a CMRS provider to terminate service to a contraband wireless device is the
primary component of this proposal. As noted, we seek comment generally on the costs and benefits of such
an approach. We also seek comment on whether small or rural CMRS providers would be disproportionately
affected by this requirement. As discussed in detail below, we seek comment on the processes that a carrier
might need to implement to terminate service to unauthorized devices, and on the costs associated with
implementing such processes.
71.
We recognize the need for adequate safeguards in this process to ensure that legitimate
wireless devices are not misidentified and that legitimate wireless users do not have their service terminated
through, for example, clerical error. We therefore generally seek comment on the costs for a carrier,
correctional facility, or third party detection provider to implement procedures and technologies to ensure
that disruption of service to legitimate wireless users is minimized or prevented. In its petition, CellAntenna
proposes a rule change that would effectively insulate a carrier from any legal liability for violation of any
law or regulation for terminating service to an identified unauthorized device so long as “its action to suspend
service was taken in good faith reliance on a Warden’s notice; and if presented with compelling evidence
contradicting the Warden’s notice, the Carrier took immediate action to reinstate the suspended service.”209
We seek comment on this proposal, including whether such a rule is necessary and the specific impact on
carriers in the absence of such a rule. We note that that wireless carriers currently have substantial flexibility
regarding the terms and conditions in their end user licensing agreements and that such agreements may
already include a provision reserving the right to suspend or terminate service for use that violates
government rules or the right to terminate service for a governmental reason.210
72.
CellAntenna’s proposal would further require carriers to “send a warning to the identified
contraband device by [SMS] that the device is operating illegally.”211 We seek comment on this proposal and
whether there are alternative intermediate steps that are necessary to provide notice to a device user that
service is being terminated to the device. If we require the carrier to send a SMS message as CellAntenna
proposes, would it be necessary or feasible to provide a vehicle through which the user of the alleged
contraband device could demonstrate that the pending termination is in error? For example, the text
message could include a phone number that the end user could call to prevent the mistaken termination of
the service. Are there other intermediary steps a carrier could take to attempt to confirm that service is
being terminated to a contraband device and not a legal device? Are there any costs associated with
sending such notification and, if so, who should bear them?
73.
CellAntenna proposes to require the carrier to suspend service to the device within one hour
after receipt of notification.212 We recognize that prompt action to terminate service to a contraband device is


209 CellAntenna 2011 Petition at 10.
210 See, e.g., My Verizon Wireless Customer Agreement, available at http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/support/
customer-agreement (updated Feb. 19, 2012) (explaining that it can “temporarily limit [the customer’s] Service for
any operational or governmental reason” and that it may limit, suspend, or end service for a use that violates
“prohibitions promulgated by any U.S. governmental agency”).
211 CellAntenna 2011 Petition at 8.
212 Id.
32

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

important, because any delay leaves that device in the hands of a prisoner who may utilize the device for
criminal purposes, and it may continue to pose a threat to correctional facility staff, other prisoners, and the
general public.213 However, a more lengthy time interval may be needed between the identification of a
contraband device and the termination of service to that device.214 We seek comment on what interval is
appropriate. Would some carriers, for example small or rural providers, require additional time relative to
larger carriers? Does the time period affect the cost of compliance with these proposals?

C.

Applicability of Prohibitions on Intercepting and Publishing Communications and
on the Use of Pen Register and Trap and Trace Devices

74.
Background. Section 705 of the Act generally prohibits, except as authorized under
Chapter 119, Title 18 of the U.S. Code, any person “receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or
assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio” from divulging or
publishing the “existence, contents, substance, purport, effect or meaning thereof” to another person other
than through authorized channels.215 Additionally, Chapter 206, Title 18 of the U.S. Code generally
prohibits the use of pen register and trap and trace devices without a court order,216 subject to several
exceptions including where a provider of a communications service obtains the consent of the user.217
75.
Discussion. We seek comment on the extent to which providers or operators of managed
access or detection systems comply with Section 705 if they divulge or publish the existence of a
communication for the purpose of operating the system, and whether such providers or operators are
entitled to receive communications under Section 705.
76.
As described in this Notice, managed access and detection systems work by electronically
identifying contraband devices and terminating or blocking service to or from such devices.218 We seek
comment on whether any of the proposals regarding detection and managed access systems would implicate
the pen registers and trap and trace devices chapter of Title 18 of the U.S. Code.219 To the extent that a
proposal would implicate that chapter, could the consent exception220 nevertheless permit operation of a
device?


213 See supra Part II.A.
214 See CellAntenna 2011 Petition at 8.
215 47 U.S.C. § 605(a). Further, it provides as relevant herein: “No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or
assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any
information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. . . .” Id.
216 18 U.S.C. §§ 3121-3127. A pen register is a device or process that “records or decodes dialing, routing, addressing,
or signaling information transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is
transmitted.” Id. § 3127(3). A trap and trace device is a device or process that captures an incoming electronic
impulse that identifies the “originating number or other dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information
reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or electronic communication.” Id. § 3127(4). As defined, neither a
pen register nor trap and trace device captures the contents of any communication. Id. § 3127(3)-(4).
217 Id. § 3121(b)(3).
218 We note, however, that these systems could be used to facilitate wiretaps. See CTIA NTIA NOI Comments at
12; Tecore NTIA NOI Comments at 14; T-Mobile NTIA NOI Comments at 8-9.
219 See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3121-3127.
220 See id. § 3121(b)(3).
33

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

D.

Other Technological Solutions

77.
Although we do not propose any measures beyond those designed to facilitate the use and
improve the efficacy of managed access and detection systems for addressing the problem of contraband
wireless devices in correctional facilities, we invite comment on other technological solutions, whether
discussed in previously filed documents summarized herein, or set out in comments filed in response to
this Notice. Commenters proposing alternative solutions not described in this Notice should provide
specific descriptions of any technology currently available or in development that may be used to combat
contraband wireless devices, and how these technologies differ from those described herein. For any
alternative solution, commenters should also address whether their proposed technology requires
Commission approval or authorization, specifically identify any Commission rules or processes they
believe may hinder the development or deployment of such technology, explain the source of the
Commission’s authority for authorizing such solution, and discuss whether there are any statutory bars or
impediments – most significantly Section 333’s sweeping prohibition against interference – that would
preclude use of the technology or render it infeasible.221 Finally, commenters should identify the costs
and benefits of any proposed rule or process changes.

IV.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

A.

Ex Parte

Rules

78.
The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding
in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.222 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a
copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business
days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1)
list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter’s written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte
meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that
proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in
this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules.

B.

Filing Requirements

79.
Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the


221 See 47 U.S.C. § 333 (“No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio
communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States
Government.”).
222 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 et seq.
34

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing
System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
§
Commenting parties may file comments in response to this Notice in GN Docket No. 13-111;
interested parties are not required to file duplicate copies in the additional dockets listed in the
caption of this Notice.
§
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the
ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
§
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each
filing. Generally 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. Note that while multiple dockets are listed in the caption of this Notice, commenters are
only required to file copies in GN Docket No. 13-111.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
§
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary
must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
§
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority
Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
§
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th
Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille,
large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

C.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

80.
This Notice contains proposed new information collection requirements. The
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and
Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information collection requirements contained in
this document, as required by Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520) (PRA). If the Commission adopts any new or revised information collection requirement, the
Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the
requirement, as required by the PRA. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it
might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.”223


223 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4).
35

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

D.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

81.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,224 the Commission has prepared an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities
of the policies and rules proposed in the Notice. The analysis is found in Appendix B. We request written
public comment on the analysis. Comments must be filed in accordance with the same deadlines as
comments filed in response to the Notice and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them
as responses to the IRFA. The Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, will send a copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

V.

ORDERING CLAUSES

82.
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 this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking IS ADOPTED.
83.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 301, and 303 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303, and
Sections 1.2 and 1.407 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2, 1.407, the petitions listed in the
caption of this proceeding are GRANTED to the extent indicated herein, and otherwise DENIED.
84.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary


224 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.
36

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

APPENDIX A

Proposed rules

The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend Parts 1 and 20 of Title 47 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) as set forth below:
PART 1—Practice and Procedure
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, 225, 303(r), and
309.
2. Section 1.931 is amended by amending paragraph (a)(1) and adding a new paragraph (a)(2)(v) as
follows:
§ 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
managed access system, as defined in section 1.9003 of this chapter (47 CFR 1.9003), may be
received one day prior to the desired date of operation. Requests for STA must be accompanied
by the proper filing fee.
(2) Grant without Public Notice. * * * * *
* * * * *
(v) The STA is for operation of a station used in a managed access system, as defined in part
1.9003 of this chapter (47 CFR 1.9003).
3. Section 1.9003 is amended by inserting the following after the paragraph beginning Long-term de
facto transfer leasing arrangement
and before the paragraph beginning Private commons:
§ 1.9003 Definitions
* * * * *
37

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

Managed access system. A managed access system is a system comprised of one or more stations
operating under a license, or lease arrangement entered into exclusively for the operation of such
system, and is used in a correctional facility exclusively to prevent transmissions to or from
unauthorized wireless devices within the boundaries of the facility.
4. Section 1.9020 is amended by revising the introductory language of paragraph (e)(2), redesignating
current paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (e)(2)(iii) as (e)(2)(iii) and (e)(2)(iv), respectively, and adding new
paragraph (e)(2)(ii), to read as follows:
§ 1.9020 Spectrum manager leasing arrangements
* * * * *
(e) Notifications regarding spectrum manager leasing arrangements.
(1) * * *
(2) Immediate processing procedures. Notifications that meet the requirements of paragraph
(e)(2)(i) of this section, and notifications for managed access systems as defined in section 1.9003
of this chapter that meet the requirements of paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section, qualify for the
immediate processing procedures.
(i) * * *
(ii) A lessee of spectrum used in a managed access system qualifies for these immediate
processing procedures if the notification is 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.
* * * * *
5. Section 1.9030 is amended by revising the introductory language of paragraph (e)(2), redesignating
current paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (e)(2)(iii) and paragraphs (e)(2)(iii) and (e)(2)(iv), respectively, and
adding new paragraph (e)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
§ 1.9030 Long-term de facto transfer leasing arrangements
* * * * *
(e) Applications for long-term de facto transfer leasing arrangements.
(1) * * *
(2) Immediate processing procedures. Applications that meet the requirements of paragraph
(e)(2)(i) of this section, and notifications for managed access systems as defined in section 1.9003
of this chapter that meet the requirements of paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section, qualify for the
immediate approval procedures.
(i) * * *
38

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

(ii) A lessee of spectrum used in a managed access system qualifies for these immediate approval
procedures if the notification is 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.
* * * * *
PART 20—Commercial Mobile Radio Services
6. The authority citation for Part 20 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 201, 251–254, 301, 303, 316 and 332 unless otherwise
noted.
7. Section 20.9 is amended by revising the introductory language of paragraph (b), and adding paragraph
(b)(3), to read as follows:
§ 20.9 Commercial mobile radio service
(a) * * *
* * * * *
(b) Except as set forth in paragraph (d) of this section, licensees of a Personal Communications
Service or applicants for a Personal Communications Service license, and VHF Public Coast
Station geographic area licensees or applicants, and Automated Maritime Telecommunications
System (AMTS) licensees or applicants, proposing to use any Personal Communications Service,
VHF Public Coast Station, or AMTS spectrum to offer service on a private mobile radio service
basis must overcome the presumption that Personal Communications Service, VHF Public Coast,
and AMTS Stations are commercial mobile radio services.
* * * * *
(d)(i) A service provided over a managed access system, as defined in section 1.9003 of this
chapter (47 CFR 1.9003) is presumed to be a private mobile radio service
(ii) A party providing service over a managed access system, as defined in section 1.9003 of this
chapter (47 CFR 1.9003), may seek to overcome the presumption that such service is a private
mobile radio service by attaching a certification to a lease application or notification certifying
that the mobile service in question meets the definition of commercial mobile radio service, or the
mobile service in question is the functional equivalent of a service that meets the definition of a
commercial mobile radio service. The party may also seek to overcome the presumption through
the process set forth in paragraph (a)(14)(ii) of this section.
8. Section 20.22 is added to read as follows:
39

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

§ 20.21 Service termination upon notice of an unauthorized user
CMRS providers are required to terminate service to any device identified by a qualifying
authority as unauthorized within the confines of a correctional facility.
40

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

APPENDIX B

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 the
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this
Notice. Written comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice. The Commission will send a copy
of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA).2 In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
Federal Register.3

A.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

2.
The rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) are necessary to
improve the viability of different technologies used to combat contraband wireless devices in correctional
facilities. Prisoners can use contraband wireless devices “to arrange the delivery of contraband drugs or
other goods, transmit information on prison staff to or from non-inmates, harass witnesses or other
individuals, [and] potentially coordinate an escape.”4 The use of contraband wireless devices by inmates
has grown within the U.S. prison system parallel to the growth of wireless device use by the general
public.5 For example, GAO reports that the number of confiscated cell phones has grown from 1,774 in
2008 to 3,684 in 2010.6 A test of wireless device interdiction technology in two California State prisons
detected over 25,000 unauthorized communication attempts over an 11 day period in 2011.7 Further, an
interdiction system permanently installed in a Mississippi correctional facility reportedly blocked 325,000
communications attempts in the first month of operation, and as of February 2012, had blocked over 2
million communications attempts.8 It is clear that prisoner possession of wireless devices is a serious
threat to the safety and welfare of correctional facility employees and the general public.
3.
The proposed rules seek to improve the viability of technologies that detect wireless
devices in correctional facilities and that can block transmissions to or from unauthorized wireless devices
in correctional facilities. First, the Commission proposes to streamline the process for approving or
accepting spectrum lease applications or notifications for spectrum leases entered into for managed access


1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2 See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
3 See id.
4 U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, REPORT TO CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES, BUREAU OF PRISONS:
IMPROVED EVALUATIONS AND INCREASED COORDINATION COULD IMPROVE CELL PHONE DETECTION, GAO-11-893
at 23 (Sept. 2011) (GAO Report), http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11893.pdf.
5 See NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, CONTRABAND CELL PHONES IN
PRISONS: POSSIBLE WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS 1 (Dec. 2010) (NTIA Report), available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/contrabandcellphonereport_december2010.pdf.
6 GAO Report at 22.
7 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Fact Sheet: Contraband Cell Phones in CDCR Prisons
and Conservation Camps, at 1 (2012), available at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Contraband-CellPhones/docs/Contraband
-Cell-Phone-Fact-Sheet-January-2012.pdf.
8 Wireless Service Interruptions, GN Docket No. 12-52, Comments of Tecore Networks at 10 (filed Apr. 30, 2012)
(Tecore Wireless Service Interruption Comments).
41

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

systems used in correctional facilities under its leasing procedures in Part 1 of its rules. Second, the
Commission proposes to require commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers to terminate service
to contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities that have been identified by a detection system.
While not proposing any rule or process changes with respect to other possible wireless device
interdiction technologies, the Commission does seek comment on other possible solutions.
4.
The Commission proposes to process all spectrum leases for managed access systems
overnight, with the approval or acceptance posted to the universal licensing system the following business
day after filing. The Commission proposes to modify FCC Form 608 to allow lessees of spectrum to
identify that the lease is for a managed access system in a correctional facility, and to require managed
access lessees to attach a certification to the application explaining the nature of the managed access
system, including the location of the correctional facility, the lessee’s relationship to the correctional
facility, and the exact coordinates of the leased spectrum boundaries. The certification and selection on
Form 608 will establish a presumption that the leased spectrum will be used for a managed access system,
and the coordinates will establish the geographic boundaries of the lease area. The Commission proposes
to forbear from applying Sections 308, 309, and 310(d) to the extent necessary to implement these
proposals.
5.
Managed access leases are proposed to be processed overnight if the application or
notification is sufficiently complete under existing Commission rules, and if the application or
notification does not seek a waiver or a declaratory ruling with respect to a Commission rule. Unlike
other leases, the Commission proposes to immediately process qualifying leases for managed access
systems if they result in the lessee holding or having access to licenses in the same geographic area that
could be used to provide an interconnected mobile service. The Commission seeks comment on whether
it should require managed access lessees to provide notice to households in the surrounding area that the
managed access system will be activated.
6.
The Commission proposes to create a presumption that managed access systems are
private mobile radio systems (PMRS), which are not subject to common carrier requirements under the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), or the Commission’s rules. The Commission also
proposes to streamline the process for seeking Special Temporary Authority (STA) for managed access
providers by allowing all managed access providers, regardless of the STA filing rules governing the
underlying service, to seek and receive STA one day prior to operation.
7.
With respect to detection systems, the Commission proposes to require CMRS providers
to terminate service to unauthorized wireless devices located in correctional facilities, and identified by a
detection or similar system. Currently, detection systems require physical interdiction to disable a found
unauthorized wireless device. This proposal would create process through which a correctional facility
administrator could transmit identifying information of detected unauthorized wireless devices to the
appropriate CMRS provider, who would then terminate service to the device.9 The Commission seeks
comment on the identifying information detections systems can capture, the processes for authenticating a
termination request, timing for termination, confirmation of termination, and other related issues.

B.

Legal Basis

8.
The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the Notice is contained in
sections 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.


9 As used in the Notice, a wireless device includes the physical hardware, such as a phone, as well as components of
the hardware, such as subscriber identification module (SIM).
42

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

C.

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

9.
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of
the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.10 The RFA generally
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”11 In addition, the term “small business” has the
same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act.12 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.13
10.
Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.5 million small
businesses, according to the SBA.14
11.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 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.15 According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 3,188 firms in this category,
total, that operated for the entire year.16 Of this total, 3144 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and 44 firms had employment of 1000 employees or more.17 Thus, under this size standard,
the majority of firms can be considered small.
12.
Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to interexchange services. The closest
applicable size standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.18 According to Commission data,
359 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of
interexchange services.19 Of these 359 companies, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees and
42 have more than 1,500 employees.20 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
interexchange service providers are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the
Notice.


10 See 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).
11 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
12 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small
Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies
“unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after
opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the
activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
13 See 15 U.S.C. § 632.
14 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf
(accessed Dec. 2010).
15 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
16 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 5, “Establishment and Firm
Size: Employment Size of Firms for the United States: 2007 NAICS Code 517110” (issued Nov. 2010).
17 See id.
18 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
19 See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
20 See id.
43

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

13.
Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category
of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees.21 According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported that they are engaged in
the provision of local resale services.22 Of these, an estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees and
two have more than 1,500 employees.23 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
local resellers are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Notice.
14.
Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of
Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees.24 According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the
provision of toll resale services.25 Of these, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 24 have
more than 1,500 employees.26 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers
are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Notice.
15.
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. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees.27 According to Commission data, 284 companies reported that their
primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of other toll carriage.28 Of these, an
estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees and five have more than 1,500 employees.29 Consequently,
the Commission estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities that may be affected by the
rules and policies adopted pursuant to the Notice.
16.
800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers.30 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.31 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.32 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
7,867,736.33 We do not have data specifying the number of these subscribers that are not independently


21 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
22 See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
23 See id.
24 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
25 See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
26 See id.
27 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
28 See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
29 See id.
30 We include all toll-free number subscribers in this category, including those for 888 numbers.
31 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
32 See Trends in Telephone Service at Tables 18.7-18.10.
33 See id.
44

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

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.
17.
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, the SBA has
recognized wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category.34 Prior to that time, such
firms were within the now-superseded categories of Paging and Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications.35 Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business
to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.36 For this category, census data for 2007 show that there
were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.37 Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or
fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or more.38 Similarly, according to
Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony,
including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio
(SMR) Telephony services.39 Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have
more than 1,500 employees.40 Consequently, the Commission estimates that approximately half or more
of these firms can be considered small. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of
wireless firms can be considered small.
18.
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 average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years.41 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.42 These standards defining “small entity” in the context of broadband PCS auctions have
been approved by the SBA.43 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


34 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
35 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517211 Paging”;
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.; U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517212
Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications”; http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.
36 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210. The now-superseded, pre-2007 C.F.R. citations were 13 C.F.R. §
121.201, NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).
37 U.S. Census Bureau, Subject Series: Information, Table 5, “Establishment and Firm Size: Employment Size of
Firms for the United States: 2007 NAICS Code 517210” (issued Nov. 2010).
38 Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of
1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “100 employees or more.”
39 See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
40 See id.
41 See generally Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission’s Rules – Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding
and the Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap
, WT Docket No. 96-59, GN Docket No. 90-314, Report
and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824 (1996); see also 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b)(1).
42 See generally Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission’s Rules – Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding
and the Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap
, WT Docket No. 96-59, GN Docket No. 90-314, Report
and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824 (1996); see also 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b)(2).
43 See, e.g., Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act – Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-
253, Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5532 (1994).
45

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

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.44 In 1999, the Commission re-
auctioned 347 C, E, and F Block licenses.45 There were 48 small business winning bidders. In 2001, the
Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in Auction 35.46 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.47 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 71.48 Of the 14 winning
bidders, six were designated entities.49 In 2008, the Commission completed an auction of 20 Broadband
PCS licenses in the C, D, E and F block licenses in Auction 78.50
19.
Advanced Wireless Services. In 2008, the Commission conducted the auction of
Advanced Wireless Services (“AWS”) licenses.51 This auction, which as designated as Auction 78,
offered 35 licenses in the AWS 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (“AWS-1”). The AWS-1
licenses were licenses for which there were no winning bids in Auction 66. That same year, the
Commission completed Auction 78. A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that
exceeded $15 million and did not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (“small business”)
received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid. A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues
that did not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (“very small business”) received a 25
percent discount on its winning bid. A bidder that had combined total assets of less than $500 million and
combined gross revenues of less than $125 million in each of the last two years qualified for entrepreneur
status.52 Four winning bidders that identified themselves as very small businesses won 17 licenses.53
Three of the winning bidders that identified themselves as a small business won five licenses.
Additionally, one other winning bidder that qualified for entrepreneur status won 2 licenses.


44 See FCC News, Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, No. 71744 (rel. Jan. 14, 1997). See also
Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Installment Payment Financing for Personal Communications
Services (PCS) Licensees
, WT Docket No. 97-82, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 16436 (1997).
45 See “C, D, E, and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 6688 (WTB 1999).
46 See “C and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced,” Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd
2339 (2001).
47 See “Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 58,” Public Notice,
20 FCC Rcd 3703 (2005).
48 See “Auction of Broadband PCS Spectrum Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 71,”
Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 9247 (2007).
49 Id.
50 See Auction of AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Licenses Rescheduled For August 13, 3008, Notice of Filing
Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments and Other Procedures For Auction 78, Public Notice, 23
FCC Rcd 7496 (2008) (“AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Procedures Public Notice”).
51 See AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Procedures Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 7496. Auction 78 also included an
auction of Broadband PCS licenses.
52 Id. at 23 FCC Rcd at 7521-22.
53 See “Auction of AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 78,
Down Payments Due September 9, 2008, FCC Forms 601 and 602 Due September 9, 2008, Final Payments Due
September 23, 2008, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period”, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 12749 (2008).
46

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

20.
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.54 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.55 The SBA has approved these small
business size standards for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR Services.56 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 1996.57 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.58 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.59 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.60
21.
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.61 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.62 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.
22.
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 1500
or fewer employees.63 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.
23.
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


54 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.810, 90.814(b), 90.912.
55 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.810, 90.814(b), 90.912.
56 See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, FCC (Aug. 10, 1999) (Alvarez Letter 1999).
57 “FCC Announces Winning Bidders in the Auction of 1,020 Licenses to Provide 900 MHz SMR in Major Trading
Areas: Down Payments due April 22, 1996, FCC Form 600s due April 29, 1996,” Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 18599
(WTB 1996).
58 Id.
59 See “Correction to Public Notice DA 96-586 ‘FCC Announces Winning Bidders in the Auction of 1020 Licenses
to Provide 900 MHz SMR in Major Trading Areas,’” Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 18,637 (WTB 1996).
60 See “Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).
61 See “800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Service General Category (851-854 MHz) and Upper Band
(861-865 MHz) Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced,” Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 17162 (WTB 2000).
62 See “800 MHz SMR Service Lower 80 Channels Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced,” Public Notice,
16 FCC Rcd 1736 (WTB 2000).
63 See generally 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
47

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

provisions such as bidding credits.64 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.65 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.66 Additionally, the Lower 700 MHz Band had a third category of small
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (“MSA/RSA”) licenses, identified as “entrepreneur”
and 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.67 The SBA approved these small
size standards.68 The Commission conducted an auction in 2002 of 740 Lower 700 MHz Band licenses
(one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license in each of the six Economic Area Groupings
(EAGs)). Of the 740 licenses available for auction, 484 licenses were sold to 102 winning bidders.69
Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small business or entrepreneur status
and won a total of 329 licenses.70 The Commission conducted a second Lower 700 MHz Band auction in
2003 that included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area licenses.71 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.72 In 2005, the Commission completed an
auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz Band, designated Auction 60. There were three winning
bidders for five licenses. All three winning bidders claimed small business status.73
24.
In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 MHz band in the 700
MHz Second Report and Order. 74 The 700 MHz Second Report and Order revised the band plan for the
commercial (including Guard Band) and public safety spectrum, adopted services rules, including
stringent build-out requirements, an open platform requirement on the C Block, and a requirement on the
D Block licensee to construct and operate a nationwide, interoperable wireless broadband network for


64 See Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), GN Docket
No. 01-74, Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 1022 (2002) (Channels 52-59 Report and Order).
65 See Channels 52-59 Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1087-88 para. 172.
66 See id.
67 See id. at 1088 para. 173.
68 See Alvarez Letter 1999.
69 See “Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 17272 (WTB 2002).
70 Id.
71 See “Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 11873 (WTB 2003).
72 See id.
73 “Auction of Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 60, Down
Payments due August 19, 2005, FCC Forms 601 and 602 due August 19, 2005, Final Payment due September 2,
2005, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period,” Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 13424 (WTB 2005).
74 Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 06-150, Revision of the
Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-
102, Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephone
, Biennial Regulatory
Review – Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless
Radio Services, Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper700 MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part
27 of the Commission’s Rules
, Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband Interoperable Public Safety Network in the
700 MHz Band, Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State,
and Local Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010
, WT Docket Nos. 96-86, 01-309,
03-264, 06-169, PS Docket No. 06-229, Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289 (2007) (700 MHz Second
Report and Order
).
48

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

public safety users.75 An auction of A, B and E block licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band was held in
2008.76 Twenty winning bidders claimed 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).
Thirty three winning bidders claimed very small business status (those with attributable average annual
gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years). In 2011, the Commission
conducted Auction 92, which offered 16 Lower 700 MHz band licenses that had been made available in
Auction 73 but either remained unsold or were licenses on which a winning bidder defaulted. Two of the
seven winning bidders in Auction 92 claimed very small business status, winning a total of four
licenses.77
25.
Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the
Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz band licenses.78 In 2008, the Commission
conducted Auction 73 in which C and D block licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available.79
Three winning bidders claimed very small business status (those with attributable average annual gross
revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years).
26.
Satellite Telecommunications. Since 2007, the SBA has recognized satellite firms within
this revised category, with a small business size standard of $15 million.80 The most current Census
Bureau data are from the economic census of 2007, and we will use those figures to gauge the prevalence
of small businesses in this category. Those size standards are for the two census categories of “Satellite
Telecommunications” and “Other Telecommunications.” Under the “Satellite Telecommunications”
category, a business is considered small if it had $15 million or less in average annual receipts.81 Under
the “Other Telecommunications” category, a business is considered small if it had $25 million or less in
average annual receipts.82
27.
The first category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily
engaged in providing point-to-point 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.”83 For this category, Census Bureau data


75 Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 06-150, Revision of the
Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems,
CC Docket No. 94-
102, Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephone, WT Docket No. 01-
309, Biennial Regulatory Review – Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize Various
Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services,
WT Docket No. 03-264, Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper700
MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules,
WT Docket No. 06-169,
Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, PS Docket No.
06-229, Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State, and Local
Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010,
WT Docket No. 96-86, Second Report and
Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289 (2007) (“700 MHz Second Report and Order”).
76 See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 4572 (WTB 2008).
77 See “Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 92, Down Payments
and FCC Forms 601 and 602 Due August 11, 2011, Final Payments Due August 25, 2011, Ten-Day Petition to Deny
Period,” Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 10,494 (WTB 2011).
78 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15,289.
79 See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 4572 (2008).
80 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517410.
81 Id.
82 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517919.
83 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications”.
49

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

for 2007 show that there were a total of 512 firms that operated for the entire year.84 Of this total, 464
firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 18 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.85
Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that
might be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Notice.
28.
The second category of Other Telecommunications “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.”86 For this category, Census
Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,383 firms that operated for the entire year.87 Of
this total, 2,346 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million.88 Consequently, we estimate that the
majority of Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.
29.
Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this
category to include: “establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing communications equipment
(except telephone apparatus, and radio and television broadcast, and wireless communications
equipment).”89 In this category, the SBA deems a business manufacturing other communications
equipment to be small if it has 750 or fewer employees.90 For this category of manufacturers, Census data
for 2007 show that there were 452 establishments that operated that year. Of the 452 establishments, 4
had 500 or greater employees. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that a substantial majority of the
manufacturers of equipment used to provide interoperable and other video-conferencing services are
small.91
30.
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “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.”92 The SBA has
developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless


84 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517410.
85 See id. An additional 38 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more.
86 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517919 Other Telecommunications”,
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517919.HTM.
87 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517919.
88 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 5, “Establishment and Firm
Size: Employment Size of Firms for the United States: 2007 NAICS Code 517919” (issued Nov. 2010).
89 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, 334290 Other communications equipment manufacturing,
http://www.census.gov/econ/industry/def/d334290.htm.
90 13 C.F.R. 121.201, NAICS Code 334220.
91 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=100&;-
ds_name=EC0731SG3&-_lang=en.
92 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definition: 334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, http://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=334220&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search.
50

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

Communications Equipment Manufacturing which is: all such firms having 750 or fewer employees.93
According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 939 establishments in this category that
operated for part or all of the entire year. Of this total, 17 had 1,000 or more employees and 27 had 500 or
more employees.94 Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
31.
Engineering Services. The Census Bureau defines this category to include:
“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.”95 The
SBA deems engineering services firms to be small if they have $4.5 million or less in annual receipts,
except military and aerospace equipment and military weapons engineering establishments are deemed
small if they have $27 million or less an annual receipts.96 According to Census Bureau data for 2007,
there were 58,391 establishments in this category that operated the full year. Of the 58,391
establishments, 5,943 had $5 million or greater in receipts and 2,892 had $10 million or more in annual
receipts. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that a majority of engineering service firms are small.97
32.
Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System Instrument
Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category to include “establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing direction, navigation, guidance, aeronautical, and nautical systems and instruments.”98
The SBA deems Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical and Instrument
Manufacturing firms to be small if they have 750 or fewer employees.99 According to Census Bureau
data for 2007, there were 647 establishments in operation in that year. Of the 647 establishments, 36 had
1,000 or more employees, and 50 had 500 or more employees. Accordingly, the Commission estimates
that a majority of firms in this category are small.100
33.
Security Guards and Patrol Services. The Census Bureau defines this category to
include “establishments primarily engaged in providing guard and patrol services.”101 The SBA deems
security guards and patrol services firms to be small if they have $18.5 million or less in annual
receipts.102 According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 9,198 establishments in operation the
full year. Of the 9,198 establishments, 355 had greater than $10 million in annual receipts. Accordingly,
the Commission estimates that a majority of firms in this category are small.103


93 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 334220.
94 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=100&;-
ds_name=EC0731SG3&-_lang=en.
95 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions: 541330 Engineering Services, http://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=541330&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search.
96 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 541330.
97 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-ds_name=EC0754SSSZ1&-_lang=en.
98 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definition: 334511 Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical,
and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing, http://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=334511&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search.
99 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334511.
100 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=100&;-
ds_name=EC0731SG3&-_lang=en.
101 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definition: 561612 Security Guards and Patrol Services,
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=561612&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search
102 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 561612.
103 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&;-
ds_name=EC0756SSSZ1&-_lang=en.
51

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

34.
All Other Support Services. The Census Bureau defines this category to include
“establishments primarily engaged in providing day-to-day business and other organizations support
services.”104 The SBA deems all other support services firms to be small if they have $7 million or less in
annual receipts.105 According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 14,539 establishments in
operation the full year. Of the 14,539 establishments, 273 had $10 million or more in annual receipts, and
639 had $5 million or greater in annual receipts. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that a majority
of firms in this category are small.106

D.

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

35.
In this Notice, the Commission seeks public comment rule changes to improve the
viability of technologies used to combat contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities. The rules
are prospective in that they only apply if an entity avails itself of managed access or detection
technologies. There are two classes of small entities that may be impacted; providers of wireless services,
and providers or operators of managed access or detection systems used in correctional facilities.107
36.
The proposed rules streamline the process for leasing spectrum to be used in a managed
access system in correctional facilities, and require CMRS providers to terminate service to identified
contraband wireless devices. With respect to rule changes to streamline the spectrum leasing process for
managed access systems, the proposed rules do not directly impose any new recordkeeping requirements.
To the extent that filing a form seeking approval or providing notification of a lease entered into for a
managed access system is a reporting requirement, the proposed rules streamline reporting requirements.
37.
Under current rules, the licensee and lessee of spectrum must file Form 608 seeking
approval or providing notification of a lease. Due to existing leasing rules intended to protect
competition, any lease notification or application for a managed access system filed after the first will
likely result in a protracted application or notification review, because subsequent applications or
notifications will be for spectrum covering identical geographic areas that could be used to provide an
interconnected mobile service.108
38.
The Commission’s proposed rule changes streamline the application review process by
allowing entities to certify that the application or notification is for a managed access system in a state or
local correctional facility. The proposed rules will require entities to attach a new certification explaining
the nature of the managed access system, including the location of the correctional facility, the lessee’s
relationship to the correctional facility, and the exact coordinates of the leased spectrum boundaries.
While this may qualify as a reporting requirement, absent the rule lessees would still be required to
identify the specific coordinates of the leased spectrum area in an attachment to Form 608. Therefore, to
the extent this qualifies as a reporting requirement, the impact is neutral, if not positive.
39.
The proposed rules will streamline the filing requirements for managed access providers
that seek to modify the lease to indicate that the service offering is a PMRS. Under current processes, the
lessee is presumed to be offering the same services as the licensee, and in managed access leases, the


104 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definition: 561990 All Other Support Services, http://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=561990&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search.
105 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 561990.
106 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=1000&;-
ds_name=EC0756SSSZ1&-_lang=en.
107 In some instances, these rules may directly impact a state or local agencies that manage and oversee correctional
facilities.
108 See Part III.A.1 of the Notice for a more detailed discussion of the current spectrum leasing process under the
Commission’s rules.
52

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

lessor likely provides a CMRS. Therefore, to modify the service offering to PMRS, the lessee must first
file a lease application, and once the lease application is approved, it has to file to modify the lease to
establish that the service is PMRS. Under the proposal in the Notice, managed access leases would
presumptively be PMRS, thereby eliminating the need to file a modification.
40.
The Notice also seeks comment on whether to require the managed access provider to
provide notice to the households or businesses surrounding a correctional facility prior to activating the
system. If the Commission adopts this requirement, it would be a new obligation that would consume
some level of resources to identify the relevant households or businesses, generate a notice letter, mail the
letter, and provide staff for any possible responses to the letter.
41.
The proposed rules governing detection systems may impose new recordkeeping
requirements and will impose new compliance requirements for CMRS providers and operators of
detection systems. The proposed rules will require CMRS providers to terminate service to identified
contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities. To the extent that any correctional facility installs
and operates a system that can identify the relevant information necessary to terminate service to an
identified contraband wireless device – therefore triggering CMRS providers’ obligations – CMRS
providers would have to implement some type of internal process to terminate service to the contraband
devices. This will likely require the allocation of resources to create the system, including some level of
additional staffing necessary to meet the obligations under this requirement.
42.
Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on the process for transmitting termination
requests, including how the information that must be included in a termination request. It is possible that
an outgrowth of the questions asked and responses received could result in specific requirements for the
form in which the request is transmitted, including the type of information that is required. This may also
require some level of recordkeeping to ensure that service to contraband devices, and not to legitimate
devices, is terminated. To the extent the rules do impose these requirements, they will be necessary to
ensure that legitimate wireless users are not impacted by operation of the system, which should be the
minimum performance objective for any detection system. Therefore, while a specific form in which the
termination request must be transmitted may impose some compliance or recordkeeping obligations, they
are a necessary predicate for the operation of a detection system.

E.

Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered

43.
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 rules for such small
entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of
the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”109
44.
The proposed rules govern systems and technologies that are not widely deployed in the
marketplace. To date, only two managed access system that have received Commission authorization or
approval are operational. Similarly, while there are detection systems in active use in correctional
facilities, there are no current rules that require CMRS providers to terminate service to contraband
devices identified by detection systems.
45.
The Commission seeks comment on the impact of some of its proposals, specifically
with respect to the proposal to require CMRS providers to terminate service to identified contraband
wireless devices, on small businesses. Commenters are asked whether small entities face any special or


109 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)–(c)(4).
53

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

unique issues with respect to terminating service to devices, and whether they would require additional
time to take such action.
46.
Historically, the Commission’s license applications are not modified for small entities,
and the Commission does not propose to do so in this Notice for our proposed modification of Form 608
for managed access leases. Sections 308, 309, and 310(d) of the Act require the Commission to
determine whether licensing transactions are in the public interest. This analysis requires the same type
of information regardless of the size of the entity.
47.
The Notice, while it discusses at length the general design of managed access and
detection systems, does not directly require or propose to require any specific design standard. However,
the Notice does ask whether a specific performance standard may be necessary to ensure the accuracy of
detection systems. The Notice asks whether the standard should differ between rural and urban areas, or
between large and small detection system providers or operators.
48.
Finally, the Notice does not propose any exemption for small entities. The Commission
finds an overriding public interest in preventing the illicit use of contraband wireless devices by prisoners
to perpetuate criminal enterprises, and a strong public interest obligation for the transfer of spectrum
rights. Managed access providers must meet the necessary filing requirements for the Commission to
meet its obligations under the Act. Further, to the extent that a small entity could be exempt from the
proposed service termination requirement, it would reduce the overall effectiveness of a detection system.
If inmates discover that a wireless provider whose service area includes the correctional facility does not
terminate service to found devices within the facility, inmates will accordingly use only that service.

F.

Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules

49.
The Notice seeks comment on the application and relevance of Section 705 of the Act
and Title 18 of the U.S. Code.
54

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-58

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI

Re:
Promoting Technological Solutions to Combat Contraband Wireless Device Use in Correctional
Facilities
, GN Docket No. 13-111.
Late last year, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to explore whether we
should take action to ensure that rates for interstate interexchange inmate calling services are just and
reasonable.1 In that item, we noted that allowing prisoners to maintain regular contact with their family
members can help reduce recidivism.2
But while authorized phone calls placed by those who are incarcerated can produce real benefits,
unauthorized phone calls between prisoners and their associates on the outside can be quite dangerous.
Take the case of Patrick Byers. In mid-2007, Byers was being held in a Baltimore detention center
awaiting trial on a murder charge. Unfortunately, like many of the inmates in that facility, Byers had
access to a contraband cell phone. With his trial only 8 days away, Byers used that cell phone to order the
murder of Carl Lackl, whom Byers’ associates then killed on his front lawn.3 Lackl, a 38 year-old father,
was the prosecution’s key witness to the crime—an innocent man who suffered the sad serendipity of
being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Unfortunately, stories like this one are not uncommon,4 so it’s not an exaggeration to say that
preventing prisoners from making unauthorized phone calls can save lives. Today’s item is an important
step towards achieving that goal. I look forward to reviewing the record that will be compiled in response
to our Notice and hope that we will act quickly to crack down on inmates’ use of contraband wireless
devices.


1 See Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, WC Docket No. 12-375, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27
FCC Rcd 16629 (2012).
2 Id. at 16631–32, 16646, paras. 3–4, 48, & n.155.
3 Tricia Bishop, Murder on Call, Baltimore Sun (Apr. 26, 2009), available at http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-
04-26/news/bal-te.md.murder26apr26_1_marcus-antwan-pearson-trial-witness-patrick-byers.
4 See, e.g., Feds: 25 Charged in Scheme to Smuggle Drugs, Cellphones into Baltimore Jail Facility, Washington
Post (Apr. 23, 2013) (“BGF has become the dominant gang at the prison complex, where members used the
contraband cellphones to arrange drug smuggling and sexual encounters as well as to warn of investigations and
order assaults and murders, according to the court documents.”), available at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/feds-25-charged-in-scheme-to-smuggle-drugs-cellphones-into-baltimore-jail-
facility/2013/04/23/ae12dfd4-ac7c-11e2-9493-2ff3bf26c4b4_story.html; Indictment, U.S. v. White et al., at 10 (D.
Md.) (Criminal No. ELH-13-0151, Apr. 1, 2013) (“The availability of contraband cell phones was the crucial device
to link and coordinate all BGF criminal activity inside and outside the prison facilities.”).
55

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.