Proposed Rule2025-21325
Promoting Technological Solutions To Combat Contraband Wireless Device Use in Correctional Facilities
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 26, 2025
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) seeks comment on proposals that would enhance public safety by removing regulatory barriers to the deployment and viability of existing and developing technologies that combat contraband wireless device use in correctional facilities. This document seeks comment on a proposed framework to authorize, for the first time, non-federal operation of radio frequency (RF) jamming solutions in correctional facilities. The Commission seeks to foster a collaborative environment among key stakeholders, including departments of correction, solutions providers, wireless providers, public safety and 911 entities, to explore an expanded range of solutions to a shared problem.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 226 (Wednesday, November 26, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 26, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54248-54266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-21325]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 15, and 90
[GN Docket No. 13-111; FCC 25-65; FR ID 318554]
Promoting Technological Solutions To Combat Contraband Wireless
Device Use in Correctional Facilities
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC
or Commission) seeks comment on proposals that would enhance public
safety by removing regulatory barriers to the deployment and viability
of existing and developing technologies that combat contraband wireless
device use in correctional facilities. This document seeks comment on a
proposed framework to authorize, for the first time, non-federal
operation of radio frequency (RF) jamming solutions in correctional
facilities. The Commission seeks to foster a collaborative environment
among key stakeholders, including departments of correction, solutions
providers, wireless providers, public safety and 911 entities, to
explore an expanded range of solutions to a shared problem.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before December 26,
2025; and reply comments on or before January 12, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments on or
[[Page 54249]]
before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments
may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 13-111, by
any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
<bullet> Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class
Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L
Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> People with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a4c2c7c7919490e4c2c7c78ac3cbd2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5d3d6d6808581f5d3d6d69bd2dac3">[email protected]</span></a> or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#adcec2c0cfccd9cec2c3d9dfcccfccc3c9edcbcece83cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="32515d5f505346515d5c46405350535c56725451511c555d44">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third FNPRM) in GN Docket No.
13-111; FCC 25-65, adopted and released on September 30, 2025. The full
text of this document is available for public inspection online at
<a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-65A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-65A1.pdf</a>.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This document may contain potential new or
revised information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts
any new or modified information collection requirements, they will be
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under
section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other federal
agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information
collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the
Commission seeks specific comment on how it might ``further reduce the
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees.''
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: The Providing
Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, requires
each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a
brief plain language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary
of this Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available at
<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
Ex Parte Status: The proceeding this Third FNPRM initiates shall be
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Synopsis
1. In this Third FNPRM, the Commission proposes to deauthorize, for
purposes of FCC licensing, subscriber operation of contraband wireless
devices and leverage its existing leasing process as a preferred
approach to licensing jamming solutions, thereby providing correctional
officials with additional methods to address a demonstrable public
safety threat. The Commission also proposes and seeks comment on
restrictions that might prove necessary to ensure that jamming
solutions are limited to this targeted use, and to mitigate the risk
that these solutions are deployed in contexts other than a correctional
facility environment.
A. Definition of Jamming Solution
2. The Commission proposes to define the term ``jamming solution''
as ``the deployment of RF transmitter(s) within a correctional facility
to prevent contraband wireless devices from establishing or maintaining
a connection with a network.'' This definition is solely applicable in
the context of combatting contraband wireless devices in correctional
facilities and incorporates the concept that such a solution disrupts a
network connection on affected spectrum bands in a specific geographic
area. We seek comment on this proposed definition and any alternatives
that commenters believe will further this proceeding's goals. To
provide clarity for stakeholders regarding both proposed licensing
frameworks, i.e. leasing and overlay licensing, we propose to
incorporate a definition of a ``jamming solution'': (1) as another type
of contraband interdiction system (CIS) where appropriate to facilitate
leasing arrangements, with certain special provisions solely applicable
to jamming solutions where warranted; and (2) to authorize overlay
licensees to provide such a solution where certain eligibility criteria
are met.
B. Deauthorizing Subscriber Operation of Contraband Wireless Devices
3. The Commission proposes to address the prohibition in section
333 of the Communications Act by deauthorizing subscriber operation of
contraband wireless devices located within a correctional facility.
Specifically, the Commission proposes
[[Page 54250]]
to amend its rules and the rights granted under licenses issued, such
that operations in this specific context would not be authorized by the
Commission within the meaning of section 333. This approach would allow
departments of correction (DOCs) to employ jamming solutions, or other
similar technologies, without violating section 333, and would provide
an additional tool to prevent criminal activity stemming from
unauthorized communications within and to those outside a correctional
facility.
1. Subscriber Authority Rule
4. Under current Commission rules, wireless providers may legally
transmit RF signals within the boundaries of their geographic area
license, including areas within those boundaries where a correctional
facility may be located. Subscribers operating devices in connection
with those licensed services are authorized under that same wireless
provider license pursuant to the Commission's rules. We propose a key
change to the authorization status, as it relates to Commission
licensing, of subscribers operating contraband wireless devices on
commercial wireless networks in correctional facilities, which will
enable the Commission to authorize jamming solutions in a narrow
context in compliance with section 333 of the Act.
5. As a threshold matter, the Commission proposes to amend Sec.
1.903(c) of its rules to create an exception regarding subscriber
operation of a ``contraband wireless device.'' Specifically, the
proposal is to amend the rule to make clear that subscriber contraband
wireless device operation of any fixed or mobile station in the
Wireless Radio Services (WRS) is not authorized by the Commission. As
such operation would not be considered to be licensed or authorized by
or under the Act, there is no statutory protection against willful or
malicious interference by other technologies, such as jamming
solutions, that would be licensed under our proposed process. This
proposal is referred to as the ``deauthorization rule'' or
``deauthorization approach.'' We tentatively conclude that we have the
authority to propose this approach pursuant to section 303 of the Act,
which provides the Commission with expansive powers and duties to make
rules governing wireless operations that are required by the public
convenience, interest, or necessity. We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion, and on our deauthorization approach more generally.
6. The Commission proposes to apply the deauthorization rule to
subscriber operation of a contraband wireless device that is used
within a correctional facility in violation of federal, state, or local
law, or a correctional facility rule, regulation, or policy, and seeks
comment on this approach. This expansive approach is consistent with
the Commission's definition of ``contraband wireless device'' as
applied in our current CIS leasing context. We note, however, that when
adopting the framework permitting DOC officials with an approved CIS to
request that wireless providers disable contraband wireless devices, we
took a narrower view of ``contraband wireless devices'' and limited
disabling of such devices to those ``used in violation of state or
federal criminal statutes.'' We seek comment on whether to apply to our
deauthorization rule the more restrictive approach taken in the CIS
disabling context.
7. We propose to apply the deauthorization rule to subscriber
operations of contraband wireless devices used in ``correctional
facilities,'' as defined in its existing CIS leasing context. Section
1.9003 defines correctional facility as ``any facility operated or
overseen by federal, state, or local authorities that houses or holds
criminally charged or convicted inmates for any period of time,
including privately owned and operated correctional facilities that
operate through contracts with federal, state or local jurisdictions.''
We recognize, however, that the proposed deauthorization rule would
apply broadly to contraband wireless devices located in correctional
facilities that include local facilities, e.g., city or county jails,
often located next to, or relatively near, other government facilities
(e.g., a city hall, courthouse, etc.) or residential areas. This
proximity presents an increased risk of interference to authorized
devices if a jamming solution is not properly engineered, deployed, and
maintained. We seek comment on whether it is necessary to restrict the
application of our deauthorization rule and subsequent authorization of
jamming solutions to a particular type(s) of correctional facility. In
this regard, we also seek comment on the extent to which contraband
devices are used in local facilities, and whether local municipalities
are seeking these particular RF solutions that require extensive
technical expertise to engineer and require associated costs to install
and maintain. Where are states more likely to invest in carefully
deployed, properly engineered and maintained jamming solutions? Should
the Commission consider the security level of the correctional facility
(e.g., minimum, medium, maximum), or the average length of time of
inmate incarceration, in this analysis? Commenters advocating for a
restriction should consider our goal of reaching those facilities where
contraband wireless device use is a serious public safety threat, and
should also address the argument that a properly engineered and
maintained jamming solution is substantially less likely to cause
harmful interference to authorized users, notwithstanding the proximity
issue.
2. Section 316 License Modification
8. Section 316 of the Act states that ``any station license or
construction permit may be modified by the Commission . . . if in the
judgment of the Commission such action will promote the public
interest, convenience and necessity.'' We propose a rule change to
deauthorize certain operations that would be promulgated pursuant to
the Commission's rulemaking authority consistent with the
Administrative Procedure Act. As additional legal support for this
approach, we also propose, pursuant to section 316 of the Act, to
modify any and all licenses affected by the proposed rule change, if
adopted and made effective, that would eliminate authority for WRS
subscribers to operate contraband wireless devices in correctional
facilities. We believe that this proposed modification is within our
authority under the Act, is in the public interest and, given that its
scope is limited to deauthorizing subscriber operation of contraband
wireless devices in correctional facilities, does not result in a
fundamental change to any underlying wireless provider license. We seek
comment on this proposal.
3. Safe Harbor to Proposed Deauthorization Rule
9. The proposed deauthorization rule would make subscriber
operation of any contraband wireless device in a correctional facility
a violation of section 301 of the Act and proposed revised Sec.
1.903(c) of the Commission's rules. Recognizing that wireless providers
might also be liable for continuing to authenticate and provide service
to such devices following deauthorization, we propose to create a safe
harbor, to the extent necessary, for wireless providers that engage in
good faith negotiations with DOCs that are actively seeking an RF
solution to this issue, including a jamming solution.
10. Specifically, we propose a ``safe harbor'' wherein the
Commission would
[[Page 54251]]
not take enforcement action against a wireless provider arguably in
violation of section 301 of the Act for unauthorized operation on its
network of contraband wireless devices in a correctional facility under
the following circumstances. First, the safe harbor would apply to a
wireless provider licensed in a geographic area where no DOC is
actively seeking to implement an RF solution, including jamming, to
combat contraband wireless device use. Second, the proposed safe harbor
would apply to a wireless provider where it actively participates in
good faith negotiations (or has successfully completed such
negotiations) with the DOC/solutions provider that is seeking to lease
spectrum to authorize operation of a CIS, including a jamming solution.
11. We clarify that, under our proposal, where a party actively
seeks authority as lessee for a jamming solution to combat contraband
wireless devices and negotiates in good faith, but a wireless provider
fails to negotiate in good faith, the wireless provider would not be
eligible for the proposed safe harbor. We also clarify that a wireless
provider would not qualify for a safe harbor if it responds to a DOC/
solutions provider request for a jamming solution by indicating that it
is only willing to lease spectrum for a managed access system (MAS) or
detection system deployment. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal, including whether a wireless provider should be eligible for
the proposed safe harbor in the absence of a good faith lease
arrangement, but where it can demonstrate that a DOC's jamming solution
poses an unreasonable risk of interference to authorized subscribers or
otherwise is not technically feasible as sought to be deployed. We also
seek comment on whether to extend the proposed safe harbor to future
instances where a wireless provider actively facilitates the
implementation, at a DOC/solutions provider's request, of an
alternative technological solution, such as geolocation or beacon
technology in the applicable correctional facility.
12. We believe our proposal to establish a safe harbor will address
any potential wireless industry concerns about liability for
deauthorized operations, while also encouraging wireless providers to
work with correctional facilities to combat the problem of contraband
wireless device use. We seek comment on this proposal and on whether
there are additional liability concerns regarding potential
unauthorized transmissions in violation of section 301 and proposed
revised Sec. 1.903(c) of the Commission's rules. Commenters should
specifically describe instances where they believe a wireless provider
should be further shielded from enforcement action, including the costs
and benefits of such an approach. Also, we are not aware of any
instance where a wireless provider directly owned and installed base
stations within a correctional facility to effectively block signals
from its macro-network pursuant to a contract with a DOC. We seek
comment on the prospect of wireless providers engaging directly with
DOCs to install transmitters for the purpose of effectuating a jamming
solution. Should the Commission expand the scope of a prospective safe
harbor to include instances where a wireless provider elects to
directly employ a jamming solution in a correctional facility through a
contract with a DOC?
C. Facilitating the Authorization of Jamming Solutions Under Section
301
1. Authorization of Jamming Solutions
a. Spectrum Leasing
13. The Commission proposes to authorize jamming solutions in
correctional facilities by substantially leveraging its existing
leasing regime used for CIS deployment in correctional facilities. We
seek comment on a proposed definition of ``jamming solution'' to
distinguish it, where relevant, from other CISs. Importantly, however,
we also propose to amend our current definition of CIS by: (1)
incorporating jamming solutions as a type of CIS for purposes of
administrative efficiency and to achieve regulatory harmony across
technologies where feasible and appropriate; and (2) refining the CIS
definition to better describe current CISs that have the capability of
preventing contraband wireless devices from ultimately connecting to a
wireless provider network, while also distinguishing between contraband
and non-contraband wireless devices in the area of CIS operation (e.g.,
MAS).
14. Leasing Arrangement Framework and Types of Leases. Our goal is
to leverage our existing leasing rules used for CIS deployment as much
as possible to reduce regulatory burdens. We therefore seek comment on
the extent to which the part 1 rules require amendment to effectuate
authorization through lease arrangements of transmitters operating on
wireless provider licensed spectrum to deploy jamming solutions in
correctional facilities. Is it necessary to revise any other existing
leasing rules or add new rules to effectuate the authorization of
jamming solutions in correctional facilities?
15. Included Services. We seek comment on the applicability of the
bands currently set forth in our part 1 leasing rules as ``included
services,'' and therefore eligible for leasing, to the deployment of
jamming solutions through lease arrangements. We seek to ensure that
our approach to authorizing leasing arrangements for jamming solutions
in correctional facilities does not inadvertently fail to include a
relevant band deployed in commercial networks, thus creating a
technical loophole for inmates to potentially exploit. Accordingly, we
seek comment on whether additional bands beyond the recognized included
services should be part of our proposed framework. We also seek comment
on whether a particular band or service currently specified as an
included service should be excluded from a jamming solutions leasing
framework and, if so, through what rationale.
16. Although our focus is removing barriers to jamming solutions
that would necessarily be deployed on WRS bands commonly used in
commercial networks, we also seek comment on whether there are bands
not typically included in current CIS leasing arrangements that
commenters believe should nonetheless be considered in authorizing
jamming solutions. For example, should the Commission include any
Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) or Fixed Satellite Service (FSS)
satellite bands that are authorized under part 25? Is there evidence
that those bands, or any other bands not listed in our part 1 leasing
rules as ``included services,'' are currently used in serving
contraband wireless devices and therefore present an issue for DOCs? We
ask that commenters supporting inclusion of other bands for jamming
solutions through leasing arrangements indicate which bands the
Commission should consider as included services, and whether there is a
regulatory bar that must be overcome, address any associated costs, and
describe in detail the need for the operation of jamming technology in
these bands in correctional facilities. We also ask commenters to
consider the international treaty implications of permitting jamming
solutions in satellite bands, specifically the potential for harmful
interference to any foreign spacecraft that may cover the United
States.
17. Eligibility Criteria. We find it in the public interest to
propose eligibility criteria for those seeking authorization to deploy
jamming solutions as a lessee under part 1 of our rules. We believe
that proposing strict eligibility restrictions is vital to ensure that
use of
[[Page 54252]]
jamming solutions is on a limited scale for a very specific public
safety purpose. We also seek comment on whether, in the interest of
maintaining technological neutrality and harmonizing procedures across
CISs, we should require the eligibility criteria set forth below for
all CIS leases.
18. We propose that an entity will be eligible for authorization to
engage in jamming solutions through a leasing arrangement if it is: (1)
a DOC with authority over the correctional facility for which the lease
is sought; or (2) a solutions provider that has entered into a contract
with a DOC with authority over the correctional facility for which the
lease is sought. We also propose that the applicant is required to
provide a certification as an attachment to the FCC Form 608 stating
that the applicant: (1) is eligible for authorization to engage in
jamming solutions; and (2) seeks to deploy equipment that has a valid
part 2 equipment authorization, as discussed below. Should we require,
as a condition of the lease, that the lessee must deploy the specific
equipment in its jamming solution that it certified in its attachment
has a valid part 2 equipment authorization, without substitution or
modification? Should we require that entities seeking authority to
operate transmitters as part of a jamming solution provide proof of the
contractual arrangement with the correctional facility by, for example,
including a copy of the contract with any lease filing? Would it be in
the public interest to require disclosure of any particular lease terms
to the Commission in the application process, subject to any
appropriate protections sought for proprietary information under
current rules?
19. We seek comment on whether to expressly include wireless
provider licensees as entities eligible to provide jamming solutions
through lease arrangements, which in certain circumstances might
include the need to lease spectrum from another wireless provider in
the limited geographic area of a correctional facility to achieve a
comprehensive spectrum solution. Are wireless providers interested in,
independent of leasing to DOCs/solutions providers, directly
participating in resolving this public safety issue by entering into a
contract with a DOC for the purpose of operating a jamming system
within a correctional facility? To the extent wireless provider
licensees seek to operate transmitters that provide jamming solutions,
we seek comment on whether such licensees should be subject to the same
or similar requirements proposed herein for DOCs and solutions
providers that provide jamming solutions.
20. We also seek comment on whether we should consider, as an
eligibility criterion, a geographical component regarding the location
of a correctional facility. For example, should we first take a
measured approach, perhaps limiting eligibility for authorization of
jamming solutions to DOCs/solutions providers seeking jamming solutions
in correctional facilities located in rural areas? Would excluding from
a lease authorization structure arrangements with DOCs/solutions
providers seeking solutions for more densely-populated areas reduce the
potential for harmful interference to authorized devices, given the
challenges presented in managing RF technologies in certain
environments? Are DOCs primarily interested in jamming solutions for
rural facilities, or do they seek to deploy in urban/suburban areas as
well? Should DOCs/solutions providers first be required to demonstrate
that a proposed solution can be sufficiently targeted so as to not
impact authorized users, particularly in a less rural environment? What
are the costs and benefits of taking an incremental approach? If we
were to initially limit eligibility for authorization of jamming
technology to rural correctional facilities, how should it define
``rural,'' given that the Commission has defined this term in different
ways depending on context. If we were to limit eligibility to deploy
jamming solutions based on geographic considerations, how should we
treat suburban areas? To what extent would authorizing jamming
solutions in non-rural areas be problematic, or are DOCs/solutions
providers committed to properly engineering, maintaining, and updating
the network as necessary to avoid causing harmful interference to non-
contraband devices located either within or outside the correctional
facility located in such areas?
21. Good Faith Negotiations. We propose to adopt a good faith
negotiation rule--akin to current Sec. 20.23(a) of the Commission's
rules--that would require wireless providers to engage in good faith
lease negotiations with eligible entities seeking to deploy a jamming
solution in a correctional facility. To ensure wireless provider
cooperation, we proposes to require a wireless provider to engage in
good faith negotiations with a DOC, or with a solutions provider that
has executed a contract with a DOC, that seeks Commission authorization
to deploy a jamming solution in a correctional facility via a leasing
arrangement. If, after a 45-day period, there is no good faith
agreement, the DOC/solutions provider may apply for a non-exclusive
overlay license, as discussed below. Because wireless providers that
fail to negotiate in good faith toward a leasing arrangement would not
be eligible for our proposed safe harbor, the Commission potentially
could take enforcement action for possible unauthorized operation of
contraband wireless devices in a correctional facility in violation of
section 301 of the Act and our proposed amended rule Sec. 1.903(c).
Although below we propose to provide an overlay license fallback
approach to leasing arrangements, we recognize that there may be
instances where stakeholders fail to reach a lease agreement due to the
bad faith of either party. To provide proper incentives for
stakeholders on either side of a transaction, we propose that DOCs and
their contracted solutions providers also are subject to a good faith
negotiation requirement to discourage sham negotiations undertaken to
avoid the Commission-preferred leasing process in favor of directly
seeking what we clearly intend as a fallback overlay authorization.
22. We seek comment on this proposal and whether we should revise
our approach. Are there additional distinguishing factors in play with
respect to negotiating leases for the deployment of jamming solutions,
thus necessitating a negotiation period lengthier than 45 days? We seek
comment on whether and how we should specifically define ``good faith
negotiations'' or elaborate on relevant factors to be considered in
making the determination. Are the same factors relevant for lease
negotiations to operate base station transmitters as part of a jamming
solution? If not, we ask commenters to propose factors for possible
incorporation into a Commission rule. Stakeholders should specifically
address the questions above, as well as provide comments on the costs
and benefits of the proposed approach and any alternatives.
23. Technical Rules. To provide flexibility for stakeholders and
maintain consistency with current CIS leasing approach, we propose to
apply to jamming solutions in correctional facilities our current
secondary markets approach to compliance with technical rules.
Accordingly, an entity seeking to deploy a jamming solution in a
correctional facility would enter into a part 1 leasing arrangement(s)
with a wireless provider to operate on the provider's licensed
frequencies. Under existing leasing rules, a lessee would be subject to
the same technical limits as the lessor, as set forth in band-specific
radio service rules (e.g., complying with
[[Page 54253]]
power limits and out-of-band emission limits to protect adjacent band
licensees). A DOC or solutions provider seeking to use a jamming
solution would therefore be required to comply with a variety of, and
possibly differing, technical rules that are set forth under various
parts of the Commission's rules governing spectrum typically used in
commercial wireless networks, including, for example, parts 22, 24, 27,
30, and 96.
24. As in the current CIS leasing context, we generally believe
that parties to a lease arrangement are best positioned to agree on
technical details that not only comply with the technical limits of
various applicable radio service rule parts, but that address the
potential for harmful interference to a lessor's licensed operations
from the lessee's operations limited to a particular correctional
facility. We seek comment on whether the introduction of jamming
solutions, even when authorized through leasing arrangements negotiated
at arms-length, requires a stricter regulatory framework from a
technical perspective than its current maximum levels set forth across
various service rules to best ensure that authorized wireless devices
are not subjected to harmful interference. We request that commenters
provide detailed analysis in support of any proposed alternative
technical parameters. If such rules are needed, what are appropriate
technical parameters to govern jamming deployments through leasing in a
correctional facility environment? Should we establish more restrictive
technical limits for jamming solutions than those established for
wireless provider commercial operations in flexible use bands? Should
we require a DOC or solutions provider lessee to use narrowly tailored
means to achieve the goal of combatting contraband wireless device use,
which will vary from a technical perspective, depending on the
particular correctional facility? For example, should we prohibit use
of a jamming solution across an entire 5G band(s), some with bandwidths
as large as 100 megahertz, where a jamming solution could be targeted
on the control channel portion of a band? We seek comment on how to
implement a narrowly tailored jamming solution, while balancing the
cost tradeoffs associated with deploying an effective solution that
does not cause harmful interference to authorized users.
25. Further, we seek comment on how DOCs, as the primary advocates
for additional tools to combat contraband wireless device use, intend
to deploy jamming solutions to avoid harmful interference to wireless
provider networks in a manner that accounts for differences in how
commercial wireless networks are deployed, for example, the use of time
division duplexing (TDD) versus frequency division duplexing (FDD).
Should we require those seeking to deploy jamming solutions to adjust
their technical parameters based on the specific technology the
wireless providers use to provide a signal that covers a correctional
facility? To what extent should we adopt technical rules applicable to
jamming solutions that distinguish between the potential for harmful
interference in bands using FDD versus those using TDD? Or, in a
leasing scenario, should any such distinctions be addressed solely
through leasing arrangements and the underlying contractual agreements
between wireless providers and solutions providers? Are specific
measures needed to prevent harmful interference to a wireless
provider's base stations in a TDD context, for example taking into
consideration the desired v. undesired signal levels in a TDD pattern?
Should we require, in a TDD context, synchronization between a
solutions provider deploying a jamming solution and the wireless
provider offering service to an area that includes a correctional
facility to avoid unwanted transmissions during the wireless provider's
base station transmit timeslot? Are different considerations raised
where a jamming solution is deployed in bands using FDD and seeks to
cause interference to the contraband wireless device's ability to
receive a base station's downlink transmissions?
26. To minimize the risk of harmful interference to authorized
users, should we set specific limits on: radiated power (e.g., limiting
transmitter output power to 1-watt or 5-watt maximum) or power spectral
density per band, out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits, field strength
limit at a correctional facility boundary, power flux density (PFD)
limit measured at a certain point from a transmitter, and/or Signal to
Interference Noise Ratio (SINR) at the boundary of proposed jamming
operations? Are more stringent restrictions required, in particular PFD
or OOBE limits, in order to protect authorized operations outside of
the boundary of the leased service area and users of immediately
adjacent or nearby frequency bands? If so, what are the appropriate
limits? If we impose more restrictive limits, would the efficacy of the
jamming solution be compromised? Would providers of jamming solutions
find it necessary to internalize a guard band to comply with our
technical rules? Would adopting stricter limitations on transmitter
power levels in an effort to help prevent harmful interference to
authorized users, potentially resulting in a substantial increase in
the number of transmitters required to be deployed, drive up the cost
of deploying and maintaining a jamming solution? Conversely, if DOCs/
solutions providers seek to deploy a jamming solution that operates
band-wide with multiple licensees within a band, are there any current
technical rules or policies in any of the included services that might
hinder operation of a jamming solution across the band that might
require revision? Should any of our technical rules be more permissive
to foster an effective jamming solution in the limited context of
correctional facilities?
27. We seek comment on whether technical parameters should vary
depending on various factors including, but not limited to: whether the
deployment is in a rural, suburban, or urban location; the size of the
correctional facility and the topography of the surrounding area; the
materials used in constructing the facility; and the proximity of
wireless provider networks in the area, including the proximity of
wireless provider service to residential/office locations, highways,
and the corresponding strength of those RF signals entering the
correctional facility. We also seek comment on how to adequately
protect public safety communications from harmful interference
potentially caused by jamming solutions. Are there appropriate
technical measures, including filters, that could protect first
responder communications near correctional facilities that deploy a
jamming solution? What agreements should be in place to prevent
interference to public safety communications? In addition, we seek
comment on whether additional measures would need to be in place to
protect first responder and priority communications using commercial
wireless spectrum, such as FirstNet, Verizon's Frontline, and T-
Mobile's T-Priority. Are there other spectrum bands that support public
safety communications that might require specific protection against
potential harmful interference from jamming solutions?
28. We also seek comment on the potential effect of jamming
solutions on the public's ability to receive Wireless Emergency Alerts
(WEA), which federal, state, Tribal, territorial, and local officials
rely on to send critical notifications concerning emergencies. Could
the use of jamming solutions by
[[Page 54254]]
correctional officials prevent the wireless providers that participate
in WEA (Participating CMS Providers) from delivering WEAs in or near
facilities employing jamming solutions? Would this result in
Participating CMS Providers being unable to comply with the
Commission's WEA rules, including its geographic accuracy requirements?
Do emergency managers have concerns that the use of jamming solutions
would put the public at risk? If the use of jamming solutions did
prevent the delivery of WEAs, what effect could this have on the safety
of correctional officials, prisoners, and other individuals during
emergencies?
29. Solutions Providers with Existing Lease Arrangements for CIS
Operation. We seek comment on whether we should permit solutions
providers with existing CIS leases that seek authority for jamming
operations to file a lease modification application, rather than file a
new FCC Form 608 for a spectrum manager or de facto transfer leasing
arrangement. If so, what information or certification should we require
to be filed with the modification application to support the lessee's
eligibility to engage in jamming operations? We ask commenters to
discuss the pros and cons of this approach, and to provide any other
proposals on ways in which an existing leasing arrangement could be
modified to reflect authorization of a newly proposed jamming solution.
30. Immediate Approval Procedures. We also seek comment on whether
leases for the operation of jamming systems, consistent with our
approach to CISs, should be subject to the Commission's immediate
approval procedures. We seek to seek to harmonize its CIS leasing rules
to accommodate jamming solutions within the framework where feasible.
As its proposed revised definition of CIS in the leasing rules would
include jamming solutions, qualifying leases for jamming solutions in
correctional facilities would be subject to immediate processing and
approval. We seek comment on whether this is the appropriate approach
for these types of lease applications. We also seek comment on whether
there is a compelling reason to exclude leasing arrangements for
jamming solutions from immediate processing procedures. Commenters
supporting such an exclusion are requested to provide details regarding
why an application for lease of spectrum for deployment of a jamming
solution, if otherwise complete and meeting the Commission's
requirements, would necessitate lengthier Commission review than that
of current CIS lease arrangements subject to expedited processing.
31. Regulatory Status. We believe that a Private Mobile Radio
Service (PMRS) presumption is most applicable to eligible DOCs/
solutions provider entities seeking to deploy jamming solutions, which
we understand are not intended to provide a service that meets the
Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) definition. We therefore seek
comment on applying the PMRS presumption to all spectrum leasing
arrangements entered into for the provision of jamming solutions,
unless the lessee includes an exhibit to its lease application
indicating that it is CMRS for regulatory status purposes, thereby
aligning the treatment of regulatory status for jamming solutions with
other CIS operations, e.g., MAS and detection systems.
32. 911-Related Leasing Rules. We seek comment on the possible
effects on wireless emergency/911 calls and public safety
communications of the deployment of jamming solutions in correctional
facilities. Our understanding is that jamming solutions block calls on
all affected frequencies and, unlike MAS, are unable to allow 911 calls
to be transmitted to a PSAP. We seek comment on whether it is in fact
technically infeasible for the operator of any type of jamming solution
to satisfy, under any circumstances, the 911-related requirements in
part 1 and Sec. 9.10 of the Commission's rules. Commenters citing a
technical inability to comply with these rules should describe which
particular requirements are not feasible and why. We ask that
commenters provide details regarding any scenario where a jamming
system, including any type of system under development, could be
deployed in a correctional facility in a way that permits the
transmission of 911 calls to a PSAP.
33. We seek comment from stakeholders on how emergency calls from
wireless devices are addressed today in a correctional facility
environment. We are aware that some state DOC officials have indicated
that correctional facilities typically do not allow any calls from
within, including emergency calls. In contrast, we seek comment as to
how 911 calls are routed today if made from an authorized phone that
might be used, for example, by counsel during visitation or by a vendor
serving the premises that requires emergency services. Are such calls
routed to a local PSAP or to internal DOC personnel, including perhaps
internal DOC firefighting and/or medical personnel? Are such calls
handled differently if made from an inmate using a contraband wireless
device? To what extent have PSAPs opted to not receive calls from
correctional facilities regardless of whether the source of the call is
authorized by the correctional facility?
34. Based on the record in this proceeding, including our
assumption that current jamming solutions are not capable of permitting
impacted calls to reach a PSAP, we seek comment on the prospect of not
applying the Commission's 911 and E911 rules to entities that have
entered into leasing arrangements for the provision of jamming
solutions in correctional facilities, if ultimately regulated as PMRS,
whether it be a DOC directly or through its contracted solutions
provider. To the extent jamming solutions are included in the proposed
revised definition of CIS, we seek comment on whether it is necessary
to modify existing leasing rules related to the provision of 911
service in the context of CIS leasing. Finally, we seek comment on how
to treat a CMRS wireless provider, for 911 regulatory purposes, that
opts to deploy base stations as part of a jamming solution, if the
developing record indicates wireless provider interest in participating
at that direct level to address this public safety issue. If so, what
rule revisions are necessary to reflect the apparent technical
limitations of jamming solutions, if deployed directly by wireless
providers, with respect to passage of 911 calls to PSAP?
35. Interference-Related Leasing Rules. We seek comment on leasing
rules and the issue of potential interference to non-contraband,
authorized devices within a correctional facility and/or interference
to authorized devices outside of the correctional facility perimeter.
We seek comment on whether to retain the existing hierarchy of
responsibility in the context of a proposed framework that would
authorize jamming solutions in correctional facilities. Does our
proposal to permit jamming solutions in such a limited context warrant
revisions to Commission rules relating to interference resolution? In
the case of a spectrum manager lease under the proposed jamming
authorization framework, is it practical and appropriate for direct
responsibility and accountability to apply to the licensee/lessor,
where unwanted harmful interference would likely be to the licensee/
lessor's authorized subscribers? Commenters seeking a rule revision are
requested to address how this risk differs from that currently existing
with deployment of transmitters for MAS and
[[Page 54255]]
detection systems. Should we specify in the jamming solutions context
that the lessee is primarily responsible for interference resolution
caused by its jamming operations?
36. Community Notification. We seek comment on whether we should
apply the current CIS community notification requirement to deployments
of jamming solutions, to the extent that jamming solutions are proposed
to be included within a revised definition of CIS for purposes of part
1 leasing arrangements. We also seek comment on whether the existing
notification requirement has been effective in contributing to
corrective action by DOCs in cases, if any, where users outside of the
correctional facility were negatively impacted. Conversely, are there
relevant DOC security reasons for not mandating such a notification
requirement, or perhaps eliminating the current notification
requirement applicable to CIS? Is it in the public interest to continue
to require inherently sensitive information regarding the status of CIS
deployments, specifically focused on preventing contraband wireless
device use, to be made publicly available, where inmates potentially
are able to obtain real-time updated deployment information on a per-
facility basis nationwide?
37. Notification to Solutions Providers of Wireless Provider
Technical Changes. We seek comment on applying to wireless providers
the advance notification rule applicable to wireless providers and MAS
lessees to assist jamming system operators in maintaining the
effectiveness of jamming solutions deployed in a correctional facility.
What are the costs and benefits of applying our current notification
structure to jamming solutions? Are there differences in the operation
of MAS compared to jamming solutions that would necessitate amendments
to our current advance notification criteria?
38. Length of Lease. We seek comment on whether to apply the
current part 1 lease term requirements to leasing arrangements for
jamming solutions. Although we seek to provide regulatory flexibility
where feasible, we seek comment on whether a revised approach is
warranted here, given the contractual collaboration between solutions
providers implementing jamming solutions and DOCs. For example, should
we amend our rules to specify that the length of the lease for the
provision of jamming services may only be as long as the length of the
contractual arrangement with the applicable DOC, with possible
extensions? What are the costs and benefits of such a restriction?
Should we strengthen our approach to CISs generally and revise current
rules to take this approach for MAS and detection systems?
39. Subleasing. In the proposed framework, an eligible entity--
whether a lessee DOC or lessee solutions provider under contract--would
be implementing jamming solutions to combat contraband device use in a
specific correctional facility. Under this framework, we believe that
the ability to sublease to a third party would raise practical and
technical issues, particularly with respect to system security,
oversight of operations, and increased risk of harmful interference.
Accordingly, we propose to not allow subleasing under the proposed
jamming framework and seek comment on this proposal and on whether we
should clarify in our rules that subleasing is not permitted for any
CIS in the interest of harmonizing our leasing rules across
technologies.
40. Construction Attribution. Due to the nature of jamming
solutions deployed to prevent ``service'' in a limited public safety-
related circumstance, we propose to not allow a licensee/lessor(s) to
rely on its lessee(s) deployment of a jamming solution for purposes of
satisfying the performance requirements of the underlying license. We
seek comment on this proposal, and whether we should clarify in our
rules that such construction attribution is not permitted for any CIS.
41. ECIP Holding Period Exception. In July 2022, the Commission
established the Enhanced Competition Incentive Program (ECIP), which
among other things, modified the Commission's leasing rules to provide
incentives for stakeholders to engage in qualifying transactions that
make spectrum available in rural areas for advanced wireless services.
In this regard, the Commission adopted several measures to protect the
integrity of ECIP, including a five-year holding period during which
licensees cannot further partition, disaggregate, assign, or lease
licenses assigned through ECIP. The Commission, however, adopted an
exception to the holding period for lease arrangements involving CIS
providers, deeming CIS deployment in correctional facilities as vital
to public safety. Because leasing arrangements entered into for the
provision of jamming solutions would likewise promote public safety, we
propose to apply the exception to the ECIP holding period for lease
arrangements involving providers of jamming solutions in correctional
facilities. We seek comment on this proposal.
b. Non-Exclusive Overlay Licensing
42. We propose, as a method of last resort, an authorization path
for jamming solutions in correctional facilities available only when
parties fail to reach a leasing arrangement negotiated in good faith.
In such cases, we propose to permit eligible entities to directly apply
for an overlay license, provided certain conditions are met, to
increase flexibility for jamming solutions in correctional facilities
and to incentivize market-based solutions in the first instance. We
believe that an overlay construct is an appropriate mechanism for
authorizing jamming solutions where DOCs/solutions providers seek lease
arrangements in good faith, but the wireless provider is unwilling to
enter into the leasing arrangement on a good faith basis.
43. Statutory Authority and Mutual Exclusivity. Consistent with the
proposed deauthorization rule, we believe that a non-exclusive overlay
licensing approach complies with section 333 of the Act, as the overlay
licensee would be licensed to transmit under section 301 of the Act and
would be permitted to cause interference to the operations of
subscribers using contraband wireless devices that are no longer
authorized under the wireless provider's license. We also believe that
a non-exclusive, eligibility-based licensing approach is consistent
with its statutory authority under section 309(j) of the Act. We seek
comment on an overlay licensing approach that would not result in
receipt of mutually exclusive applications requiring resolution through
competitive bidding. Under the proposal, absent a good faith leasing
arrangement, DOCs/solutions providers would be eligible to receive an
overlay license to operate on the identical spectrum used in that
geographic area by the relevant wireless provider, effectively
resulting in spectrum sharing. We therefore propose, pursuant to
section 316 of the Act, to modify any and all licenses affected by
overlay licensing for jamming solutions, if adopted and made effective,
which would eliminate the wireless providers' exclusive use rights to
their licensed spectrum in certain limited geographic areas. We seek
comment on this proposed modification as applied in the overlay
licensing construct.
44. In addition, we seek comment on an approach that would permit
more than one applicant to serve a given correctional facility, at a
DOC's option, which also results in spectrum sharing in the defined
geographic area and the
[[Page 54256]]
absence of mutual exclusivity. We seek comment on implementing an
approach whereby applications for new overlay licenses would be placed
in a processing ``queue'' and would be reviewed and processed in the
order in which they are filed.
45. Overlay Licensing Through Part 90. Currently, wireless
providers that provide service across several spectrum bands to
contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities are regulated
through service and technical rules set forth in a number of rule
parts, for example, parts 22, 24, 27, 30, 90, and 96. Providers of
jamming solutions must necessarily transmit on bands used to provide
commercial wireless service to counteract contraband wireless device
use in correctional facilities. For administrative ease, we propose to
adopt a new, standalone subpart within part 90 of the Commission's
rules to address the use of overlay licenses for jamming solutions in
correctional facilities, and we seek comment on this proposal. We
propose to define ``jamming solution'' in a new part 90 subpart in the
same way as proposed in the leasing rules, and we seek comment on
whether there is any reason not to mirror, for overlay licensing
purposes, the language ultimately adopted in the leasing construct.
(i) Overlay Licensing and Operating Rules
46. Eligibility Restrictions. To effectuate an overlay licensing
framework, we propose to limit eligibility to apply for an overlay
license to DOCs with authority over the correctional facility for which
authority to operate a jamming solution is sought and solutions
providers that have entered into a contract with a DOC with authority
over the correctional facility for which authority to operate a jamming
solution is sought. We also propose that, to be eligible to seek an
overlay license for a jamming solution: (1) the entity must have
attempted to negotiate a lease arrangement with the relevant wireless
provider in good faith; and (2) the wireless provider must have acted
in bad faith during the negotiation process resulting in no lease
arrangement.
47. Further, we recognize that there may be a fact-specific
circumstance where a mix of Commission authorization vehicles for
jamming solutions may be necessary. For example, a solutions provider
may be able to negotiate lease arrangements with two wireless providers
for a given correctional facility, but unable to reach a good faith
agreement with a third wireless provider serving that same geographic
area. In such a case, we believe it is in the public interest to permit
the solutions provider to apply for an overlay authorization for bands/
specific frequencies at a given correctional facility for which it has
not reached a good faith leasing arrangement, so as to prevent an
incomplete spectrum solution in that correctional facility. We seek
comment generally on these proposed eligibility restrictions, and on
whether we should consider any other eligibility restrictions and/or
entry criteria in an overlay licensing model.
48. Overlay Licensing Bands. We seek comment on whether, in an
overlay licensing framework, we should limit the authorization of
jamming solutions to those bands typically used by wireless providers
to provide commercial service to subscribers, identified as ``included
services'' in the leasing context. We seek comment on the inclusion of
each band (or block within a band), currently set forth as an included
service in its leasing rules, in the proposed overlay license
framework. We seek comment on whether the authorization of jamming
operations by issuing non-exclusive overlay licenses in bands currently
licensed to wireless providers would require an amendment to Sec.
2.106 of the U.S. Table of Allocations, including potentially the
addition of a table footnote applicable to relevant bands.
49. License Area. We seek comment on a licensing model in which the
overlay license area would be confined to the geographic area affected
by the proposed subscriber operation deauthorization rule, so as to
comply with section 333 of the Act. We seek comment on permitting an
applicant, most likely a solutions provider, to seek authority to
transmit in a geographic area that is based upon its agreement with a
DOC, which could involve the entire area within the perimeter of a
correctional facility or a defined smaller area within the correctional
facility. We seek comment on the necessary information and level of
detail that should be provided to the Commission in describing the
requested license area, for example, the name and address of the
facility, the exact coordinates of the leased spectrum boundaries, or a
shapefile reflecting the requested area. We also seek comment on the
appropriate mechanism by which this information should be provided to
the Commission.
50. License Term/Renewal. We seek comment on the appropriate
license term if we implement our overlay license proposal. Commercial
wireless provider licensees seek certainty and flexibility in
implementing their networks and clearly benefit from a 10-year (or in
some bands a 15-year) term, for administrative certainty and planning
purposes. We seek comment on whether we should issue an overlay license
for a shorter period, noting that the Commission has granted shorter
license terms in other bands as a means to manage and ensure periodic
reevaluation of possible interference issues. Should the initial
license term mirror the contractual terms with a DOC for each
individual facility to ensure the license authorization does not exceed
the jamming solutions provider's contract with the correctional
facility? Similarly, we seek comment on the appropriate term to apply
for any subsequent license renewal.
51. We also seek comment on how to address compliance with the
Commission's renewal standard at the end of any license term. We seek
comment on whether to require overlay licensees for jamming operations
to make a ``renewal showing'' consistent with the WRS rules, for
instance, certifying that it is operating consistent with its
authorization to operate at specific correctional facilities with which
the licensee continues to have a contract to perform jamming
operations. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of imposing a
renewal requirement for these licensees and invite commenters to submit
alternate proposals for the appropriate license terms and renewal
showings.
52. Regulatory Status. We seek comment on applying the PMRS
presumption--similar to the regulatory status that we seek comment on
for leasing arrangements--to any overlay licenses issued for the
provision of jamming operations as discussed herein. Would applying
this presumption to eligible entities in the overlay license model help
align with the services to be provided, which are not intended to
provide CMRS service as defined in the statute and our rules?
53. Secondary Market Transactions. We seek comment on allowing
overlay licensees for jamming solutions to engage in secondary market
transactions only where the licensee is engaging in a transfer of
control of the licensee, and not permitting assignment, partitioning,
or disaggregation to another party. We likewise seek comment on not
permitting overlay licensees to lease the non-exclusively licensed
spectrum, which is not permitted under current secondary markets rules.
Are such limitations necessary in the jamming solutions overlay
context, where different considerations may be relevant, including that
the request for
[[Page 54257]]
authority would be limited a relatively small service area of a
correctional facility, and that such authority would be available only
to entities that meet strict eligibility requirements as a DOC or
solutions provider following the failure of good faith leasing
negotiations? Or should we permit alienability conditioned upon the
assignee, for example, making a showing that it too meets all
underlying requirements to be an overlay licensee in this specific,
limited context? Commenters should address the costs and benefits of
these potential limitations and any alternatives that we should
consider.
54. 911 Call Transmission Requirements. We seek comment on whether
to refrain from applying the Commission's 911 and E911 rules to PMRS
overlay licensees authorized to provide jamming solutions in
correctional facilities. We seek comment on whether there are
considerations in the overlay license context that are different from
considerations in the leasing context with regard to the treatment of
911 for jamming operations. We ask stakeholders to discuss whether it
is technically feasible for a licensee that deploys any type of jamming
solution to satisfy the requirements in Sec. 9.10 of the Commission's
rules, and if not, which particular requirements are not feasible and
why.
55. Performance Requirements. Due to the nature of jamming
operations, we believe it unnecessary to impose performance
requirements on the overlay licensee, and seek comment on this
proposal. Although we believe that operation through an overlay license
in satisfaction of a contract with a correctional facility for public
safety purposes meets our goal of ensuring spectrum usage, we seek
comment on whether an overlay licensee should be required to meet some
form of construction obligation.
(ii) Technical Parameters for Overlay Licenses
56. We seek detailed comment on the specific technical requirements
that we should apply to an overlay license for jamming solutions in
correctional facilities. Commenters are requested to provide technical
details and analysis in support of any recommended action, including an
evaluation of the impact of their proposals on other radio services.
Among other issues, these studies and analyses should address how
entities seeking to deploy jamming solutions plan to protect co- and
adjacent channel, geographically proximate licensees, and also protect
out-of-band spectral neighbors from harmful interference. Additionally,
commenters should compare their recommendations to the technical
requirements applicable to existing licensees as authorized under the
pertinent service rules. We seek comment on the challenges and issues
that stakeholders have experienced when testing or deploying jamming
technology and welcomes the results of technical studies and analyses.
57. We also seek comment on how our proposal to authorize jamming
solutions through an overlay license might impact non-contraband
devices located within a correctional facility. These include so-called
``white-listed devices'' approved for use by select correctional
facility personnel (i.e., administrators, corrections staff, on-
premises vendors, contractors, medical personnel). We seek detailed
comment as to how correctional facilities and solutions providers with
which they contract intend to deploy jamming solutions, while limiting
the impact to only contraband devices within a correctional facility.
Commenters that propose particular techniques to address this issue
should also indicate whether their proposal should be incorporated into
our technical rules and, if so, provide specific requirements.
58. Power Limits. We seek comment on the appropriate power limits
that should be applied to jamming operations in correctional facilities
under an overlay license. We seek comment on whether we should apply
the power limits applicable to each band in the respective service
rules or, in the alternative, implement a uniform power limit for
overlay jamming operations. Is there a way to regulate power limits
that does not unnecessarily constrain jamming technological
advancements, while also allowing for successful operations in a manner
that does not create harmful interference to authorized users in widely
deployed commercial bands? Should we adopt varying power levels for
overlay licenses based on bands in operation, as is done for CMRS
licenses today? Should we permit higher power levels in certain
geographic areas, such as rural areas, with significantly less power
available for jamming solutions operating in non-rural areas? Should we
establish power limits for overlay licensee operation based on the size
of the correctional facility at issue? Should we apply the power
spectral density (PSD) model to transmitters deployed as part of a
jamming solution? What are the costs and benefits of taking this
approach, which has been implemented to achieve parity amongst varying
technologies in the commercial services? Commenters advocating for
higher power should also address how much more power they believe is
necessary to effectively serve correctional facilities in rural areas,
and provide comment on how we should define rural areas in this
specific context.
59. Further, should we also generally require overlay licensees to
use narrowly tailored means in implementing a jamming solution, which
will vary from a technical perspective depending on the particular
correctional facility? For example, should we prohibit use of jamming
technology across an entire 5G band(s) where a jamming solution could
be targeted on the control channel portion of a band, which would
require less overall radiated power and potentially reduce the risk of
harmful interference to authorized devices? Should we require licensees
to adjust their technical parameters contingent on what technology the
wireless provider is using in the particular correctional facility, for
example, deployments in FDD or TDD bands?
60. Field Strength Limit and Market Boundaries. We seek comment on
whether we should adopt a new, uniform field strength or power flux
density limit that will apply to jamming overlay licensees, if
commenters believe that existing field strength limits set forth in the
Commission's rule parts governing commercial wireless services are not
sufficient to protect co-channel adjacent market users. We seek comment
on whether modified or additional technical protections are required,
as well as the costs and benefits of any alternative approach.
61. Intermodulation Interference. We seek comment on the likelihood
of jamming operations causing intermodulation interference and what
technical solutions, if any, are available to mitigate such
interference during the design of a jamming solution. We also seek
comment on what methods could mitigate such interference, should it
occur after a jamming solution is installed and operating.
62. Interference Resolution Procedures. We seek comment on whether
to implement strict responsibility for eliminating harmful interference
to authorized devices. Should operators utilizing jamming technologies
be required to respond to every complaint of interference to an
authorized in-band or adjacent band licensee with full cooperation and
utmost diligence to abate objectionable interference in the shortest
practicable time? In addition, we seek comment on the appropriate
obligations of an
[[Page 54258]]
operator using jamming solutions following receipt of a complaint of
harmful interference to a non-contraband wireless device. Should such
an operator be required to immediately shut down all operations until
it can ensure that the interference issue has been resolved? Would such
an obligation unintentionally allow inmates or other stakeholders to
circumvent a jamming solution?
63. We seek comment on whether we should adopt standardized
procedures for reporting any such harmful interference and implementing
a solution. For example, should we require overlay licensees to
establish some type of common electronic means of receiving initial
notification of harmful interference complaints from in-band and
adjacent band licensees? If so, what information should we require in a
complaint? Should we also impose a response time on the overlay
licensee? We seek comment on whether we should require overlay
licensees receiving an initial notification of harmful interference to
perform a timely analysis and identification of the harmful
interference, including, whenever necessary, an immediate on-site
visit. We ask stakeholders to discuss whether we should consider
alternatives or additions to the interference resolution mechanisms
discussed.
64. RF Exposure. We propose to require jamming solutions to comply
with the RF exposure rules set forth in Sec. Sec. 1.1307, 2.1091, and
2.1093 of the Commission's rules that outline exposure limits,
equipment authorization requirements, and other regulatory requirements
that are based on the type of device, how it is deployed or used, the
power of its transmissions, and the proximity of its antenna and
radiating structures to a person's body. Are there additional
provisions we should implement for transmitters utilizing jamming
technology? We also seek comment on whether to prohibit any
transmitters implementing a jamming solution that are designed to be
deployed where the radiating structure(s) is/are within 20 centimeters
of the user or other persons, as defined for portable devices in Sec.
2.1093(b) of the Commission's rules.
65. Canadian and Mexican Border Coordination. We seek comment on
whether compliance with existing bilateral agreements is sufficient in
the context of overlay licensing for jamming solutions, or whether
additional limits on transmissions are required to prevent harmful
interference to operations across international borders. If commenters
believe that additional protections (e.g., stricter limits, larger
coordination distances, or other technical criteria) are required in
this regard, we ask for specific technical comments.
66. Other Technical Requirements and Limitations. We seek comment
on how other current technical limits for operations in bands commonly
used to provide commercial wireless service should be applied to
jamming operations in correctional facilities in an overlay licensing
framework. For example, should we apply the existing frequency
stability, duty cycle, synchronization requirements, and other limits
that apply to CMRS base stations and devices, as set forth in the
service rules for the respective band of operation, to jamming
solutions? If existing technical limits are insufficient to protect
against harmful interference, commenters should offer specific limits,
with a justification of why those limits are needed and an analysis of
how they might impact in-band and adjacent band authorized operations
in the bands under consideration. We also seek comment on the
applicability to jamming operations of various coordination,
notification, and other rules currently applicable to 800 MHz cellular
terrestrial base stations to protect public safety operations.
67. Other Licensing and Operational Rules. We seek comment on
whether there are any other relevant service rules that we should
consider including in an overlay licensing framework for jamming
solutions. We invite comment on the costs and benefits associated with
authorizing jamming solutions and ask that commenters provide detailed
technical and economic data to support their suggestions. We seek
comment on whether there are other studies, standards, efforts, or
analyses that we should consider in this proceeding. We also invite
comment on other possible approaches to authorizing jamming solutions
in correctional facilities.
(iii) Application Process and Procedures
68. We propose and seek comment on a multi-step application process
that includes: (1) submission of an application with supporting
information demonstrating that the licensee is prepared to deploy an
effective jamming solution without causing harmful interference to
authorized devices; (2) Commission review of the application and, where
in the public interest, an initial grant of a conditional overlay
license; (3) satisfaction of the condition of the license grant through
on-site testing; and (4) provision of final Commission authority to
operate at the facility following successful testing.
69. As an initial step, we propose that an eligible entity seeking
an overlay license would be required to submit an FCC Form 601 in ULS
that provides: administrative information, a certification regarding
its eligibility, a certification that it seeks to deploy equipment as
part of a jamming solution with a valid part 2 equipment authorization,
a brief description of its jamming solution, the requested technical
parameters, the proposed service area and geographic boundaries of the
requested license area, and a showing as to how the proposed system
will not cause harmful interference to authorized devices. We seek
comment regarding what specific additional information should be
required to be filed along with the application. Should we require an
applicant to file an attachment to its FCC Form 601 sufficiently
demonstrating that it attempted to negotiate in good faith, that the
wireless provider acted in bad faith during the negotiation process,
and that as a result, the parties were unable to enter into a lease
agreement? We seek comment on what would constitute a sufficient
demonstration of bad faith in the exhibit. Regarding service area,
should we require that the applicant submit the name and address of the
facility, the specific services to be provided and frequency bands
requested, and the service area requested for the overlay license,
including specific coordinates and/or map? Should the application
include, as an attachment, a copy of the applicant's contract with the
DOC to provide jamming services at the particular correctional
facility? Alternatively, would it be sufficient for the applicant to
provide a certification that a contract with a DOC exists to provide
jamming services at the facility? We propose to require an applicant to
include a declaration consistent with Sec. 1.16 of the Commission's
rules that its application contains truthful and accurate information.
Finally, the application would be required to be accompanied by the
requisite filing fee, and we propose to treat an overlay license
application for jamming solutions as site-based for application fee
purposes, given that the area of operation is limited to a specific
correctional facility (e.g., the perimeter of the facility). We seek
comment on each of these proposals, including related costs and
benefits.
70. Following the initial grant of an overlay license for a jamming
solution, as a condition of the grant, we propose that a DOC/solutions
provider perform on-site testing at the correctional facility
[[Page 54259]]
to demonstrate that the system will function as expected and within the
boundaries of the overlay license service area, protecting authorized
users both within and outside the boundaries from harmful interference.
We seek comment on the nature of wireless provider participation in the
testing and what details the conditional licensee will be required to
provide the Commission following the testing.
71. We seek comment on what information conditional licensees must
provide to the Commission to show successful testing and how such
information should be provided. Following the filing and Commission
approval of the on-site test results, we propose that a jamming
solutions provider would be authorized to begin jamming operations. We
seek comment on whether, and how often, we should require an overlay
licensee to re-test the effectiveness of its system, particularly where
technical or operational details of the deployment change in response
to wireless provider network adjustments. We seek comment on the costs,
benefits, and burdens to potential stakeholders of requiring a jamming
solutions provider to obtain conditional authorization, test, and
provide test results to the Commission for approval before commencing
jamming operations, and of potentially requiring the relevant wireless
providers to be part of the solution through mandatory involvement in
the on-site testing process, and if so, to what extent.
72. We seek comment on whether there are alternatives to the
proposed overlay licensing mechanism that would authorize jamming
solutions where good faith leasing agreements cannot be reached.
Commenters should include detailed descriptions of their proposals and
should discuss the costs and benefits of the approach.
2. Authorizing Jamming Solutions on Other Spectrum
73. We seek comment on whether contraband devices operating in
other radio services, such as part 25, or on unlicensed spectrum are a
substantial issue in correctional facilities and, if so, on the
appropriate means to authorize jamming solutions to address this issue.
a. Unlicensed Operations Under Part 15
74. Part 15 Equipment. We seek comment on whether inmate use of Wi-
Fi in a contraband wireless device is a current or anticipated problem
in correctional facilities and ask stakeholders to specifically
describe the nature of the problem, if any. Commenters should also
discuss in detail the types of current or future technologies that are
available to block, interfere with, or de-authenticate Wi-Fi
transmissions; how the Commission should facilitate the authorization
of those technologies; and whether any of these technologies include
functions that might enable certain Wi-Fi devices to communicate, while
blocking others located in the same limited geographic area. We also
seek comment on whether correctional facilities are relying on any
unlicensed devices essential for facility operation, such as wireless
security cameras, and how these devices can be protected while jamming
contraband Wi-Fi devices.
75. Framework for Deauthorization of Contraband Part 15 Devices and
Authorizing Part 15 Jamming Solutions. If we determine that jamming
solutions should be authorized to cause interference to contraband
wireless devices operating on unlicensed spectrum, such as those that
communicate using Wi-Fi, we seek comment on the appropriate
deauthorization approach to permit such action consistent with section
333 of the Act. We seek comment on whether the definition of a
contraband wireless device in Sec. 1.9003 of our leasing rules is
broad enough to cover unlicensed devices, such that a cross-reference
to the Sec. 1.9003 definition in part 15 is sufficient, or whether we
would need to replicate this definition within part 15 to ensure that
it is applicable to unlicensed devices. With respect to deauthorization
of contraband wireless devices operating on part 15 spectrum, is it
necessary to adopt a part 15 provision expressly prohibiting the
operation of such devices under part 15? Alternatively, is a rule
change unnecessary to comply with section 333 of the Act because part
15 devices already operate without any protection from interference
that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station? We
seek comment on these issues.
76. We seek comment on the appropriate authorization framework for
jamming solutions using part 15 spectrum. In lieu of leasing, should we
require an operator of a jamming solution intended to prevent
unlicensed contraband device use to obtain a part 90 overlay license
for authorization to operate such equipment? Should such a license be a
separate part 90 authorization for part 15 spectrum use or should it be
combined with a more expansive part 90 overlay license that covers a
mix of licensed bands, as well as the bands most commonly used by
unlicensed devices? Are there other alternatives available to license
transmissions for which current operations are authorized on an
unlicensed basis? Further, should we take an approach analogous to the
procedures proposed herein for licensed operations, where an entity (if
acting on behalf of a DOC) seeking such a license would certify that
it: (1) has entered into a contractual agreement with a DOC that
requires the solutions provider to block or otherwise deny access to
unlicensed (e.g., Wi-Fi transmissions); and (2) is proposing to use
equipment that has part 2 equipment authorization? We seek comment on
the appropriate licensing requirements for jamming solutions intended
to prevent unlicensed devices from communicating and to what extent
amendments are needed to parts 15 and 90.
77. Some stakeholders have expressed a belief that transmitting
devices that are fully intended to cause harmful interference could
arguably operate on commercial bands within the current part 15 rules
if their power levels are sufficiently low. We propose that the
Commission will not certify transmitter(s) intended for use as part of
a jamming solution under part 15 of the rules. Are there other
safeguards we should put in place to achieve the same result? We seek
comment on these proposals.
78. Technical Requirements. Unlicensed operation is permitted under
part 15 rules in multiple frequency bands. We seek comment on the
specific bands for which it should authorize jamming solutions for
unlicensed devices. Should the rules be flexible to permit jamming
solutions for any band where unlicensed devices can operate, which
would also include the same bands on which services allocated in the
frequency allocation table operate, or only the most commonly used
unlicensed bands? How can the Commission ensure that jamming solutions
adequately protect unauthorized incumbent users operating on spectrum
shared with unlicensed operations?
79. We seek comment on what technical rules should apply to jamming
solutions that are intended to prevent unlicensed devices from
communicating. We also seek comment on whether a jamming solution
operator should comply either fully or in-part with the existing part
15 rules for each band in which it operates. Or should the technical
rules for jamming solutions be specific to jamming solutions? We seek
comment on the specific rules that either should or should not apply in
each band of interest, as well as relevant interference analyses to
demonstrate how authorized incumbent users can be protected if a
jamming solution is
[[Page 54260]]
operating nearby and on the same or adjacent spectrum bands.
80. We also seek comment on what interference protection
obligations jamming solutions should have with respect to unlicensed
device operations that are permitted either within or near a
correctional facility. We seek comment on whether the general rule
requiring unlicensed devices to accept interference from authorized
devices should be amended when such interference is caused by a jamming
solution and whether, in such instances, the jamming solution operator
should be obligated to adjust its system to ensure that interference to
such unlicensed, yet authorized, operations is remedied. We request
that commenters provide relevant interference analyses supporting the
co-existence between jamming solutions and non-contraband unlicensed
devices or justifications for requiring non-contraband unlicensed
devices to have to accept interference from a jamming solution.
b. Part 25 Spectrum
81. We seek comment on whether contraband devices that operate
using part 25 (satellite communications) spectrum is a current or
anticipated problem in correctional facilities. We ask stakeholders to
specifically describe the nature of the problem and to discuss in
detail the types of technologies, whether current or potentially under
development, that can block or interfere with part 25 authorized
transmissions. How should the Commission facilitate the authorization
of those technologies, and do any of these technologies include
functions that enable network connections for authorized devices that
might be located in a correctional facility? How can these technologies
protect other satellite services, including international satellite
systems, from harmful interference? Finally, if we determine that we
should deauthorize contraband wireless device satellite communications
currently authorized under part 25, we seek comment on the appropriate
approach to authorizing jamming solutions in the relevant bands.
3. Transmitters Used To Enable Jamming Solutions
a. Part 2 Equipment Authorization
82. We propose to apply our current procedures to eligible entities
for equipment certification regarding equipment to be used as part of a
jamming solution in correctional facilities. Specifically, we propose
to require entities to comply with existing part 2, subpart J,
equipment authorization procedures for certification of equipment used
as part of a jamming solution that would be authorized for operation
pursuant to our part 1 leasing rules, a part 90 overlay license, or a
combination thereof. This would require that RF equipment associated
with jamming solutions must be shown to comply with a variety of, and
possibly differing, technical rules under various parts of the
Commission's rules governing spectrum typically used in commercial
wireless networks, including, for example, parts 22, 24, 27, 30, and
96. Because the equipment could also potentially be used under a part
90 overlay license, it would necessarily require a part 90 equipment
certification. Importantly, we propose that the Commission will not
certify such transmitters under part 15 of the rules to ensure the
authorization of jamming solutions does not result in the production,
marketing, and sale of unlicensed low-power, hand-held jamming solution
devices. We seek comment on this proposal.
83. We seek comment on whether the application requirements of
current Commission rule Sec. Sec. 2.911 and 2.1033 are appropriate in
this case or whether specific requirements should be added, modified,
or considered inapplicable. We believe that a transmitter used for
jamming solutions would fall within Sec. 2.1033(e), which applies to a
``composite system that incorporates devices subject to certification
under multiple rule parts.'' Commenters should target any proposals
regarding this rule to the specific issues associated with approving
jamming solutions and not generally comment on equipment authorization
procedures that could apply to any device. Further, should the testing
of equipment used to provide jamming solutions include a method to
ensure that it does not operate in any unauthorized bands (not just the
bands adjacent to those for which it seeks authorization)? Finally, we
propose to include jamming solutions equipment on the ``Pre-approval
Guidance List,'' thus requiring a TCB to process the application in
coordination with the Commission in accordance with the Commission's
rules.
84. Are any additional procedures necessary to ensure the
equipment's ability to comply with the Commission's technical rules? We
seek comment on the costs and benefits of applying existing procedures
to certifying equipment to transmitters that can be deployed as part of
a jamming solution in a correctional facility. We also seek comment on
ways the Commission can facilitate, encourage, or require the
production of these devices within the United States or United States
allied countries. Are there specific actions we should take to mitigate
any national security risks posed by jamming solutions that use
equipment produced by foreign adversaries or other entities that have
been determined to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security
of the United States or the security and safety of United States
persons?
85. Operation of Equipment Used for Jamming Solutions Prior to
Equipment Authorization. We seek comment on whether we should amend
Sec. 2.805 to specify that jamming solutions may not be operated for
testing purposes, unless and until equipment authorization is obtained.
Alternatively, should we adopt more flexible rules to permit testing of
jamming solutions prior to equipment authorization, but only through
one of two methods: (1) special temporary authority granted by the
Bureau; or (2) experimental license granted by OET pursuant to part 5
of the Commission's rules? What are the costs and benefits of either of
these approaches or any suggested alternatives?
b. Marketing, Labeling, and Importation of Equipment Used for Jamming
Solutions
86. We seek comment on whether we should limit the marketing of
transmitters intended for use in jamming solutions directly to DOCs and
solutions providers that contract to provide jamming solutions within a
correctional facility. If so, what rule changes would be required to
limit the marketing of transmitters in this way? What are stakeholders'
concerns, challenges, or cost considerations associated with limiting
the marketing of transmitters to these entities? Further, should we
adopt a specific rule in its marketing rules? Such a rule could set
forth the compliance requirements that apply to the responsible party
associated with the part 2 equipment certification. If we adopt such a
rule, should applicants be required to address compliance with the rule
requirements by including a compliance plan in any certification
application submitted to a TCB? Should all marketing include clear
disclosures that such equipment can only be sold to DOC or solutions
provider lessees or overlay licensees for the provision of jamming
solutions in correctional facilities? Should specific language be
required for the disclosure? Should the marketer be required to verify
and retain documentation that any sale is only to a DOC or solutions
provider lessee or licensee?
[[Page 54261]]
87. To ensure compliance with any marketing restriction that we
might adopt, we seek comment on the need for a number of potential
requirements the Commission could put on manufacturers dealing with
tracking jamming equipment, reporting, and rule enforcement. We also
seek comment on whether labeling requirements are necessary, including
e-labeling.
88. In addition, we ask whether we should exclude equipment used to
provide jamming solutions from exceptions for importing and marketing
RF devices prior to equipment authorization, or apply significantly
more restrictive limits, while permitting such pre-equipment
authorization importation. Alternatively, rather than restricting
importation, should we require that equipment intended for use in a
jamming solution be manufactured or assembled in the United States to
simplify efforts by our federal partners to interdict equipment
imported into the United States intended for use outside of the
correctional facility context? Should we restrict distribution of
equipment intended for use in a jamming solution, such that the
equipment may only be shipped directly from the manufacturer to a DOC
or solutions provider lessee or licensee?
89. We seek comment on whether it is in the public interest to
require manufacturers to employ some type of locking mechanism, if
technically feasible, that would prevent any non-eligible entities from
using such a transmitter outside of the correctional facilities
context. If so, we seek detailed comment on how to accomplish this
goal. We seek comment on whether there are other conditions that might
be appropriate to prevent transmitters authorized for correctional
facility use from being diverted to uses outside of the intended
locations and purposes.
4. Other Implementation Issues
90. Phased Implementation. We seek comment on a phased
implementation of jamming solutions, such as a pilot program in
controlled environments, or an initial restriction to, for example,
facilities located in rural areas that might pose an even lower risk of
harmful interference. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of
phased implementation and on whether this would ultimately help reduce
the risk of harmful interference, or whether it would inhibit
manufacturers from developing equipment at scale. We also seek comment
on appropriate parameters for phased implementation. For example, what
is the optimal duration of any such program to draw accurate and
valuable conclusions? How should eligible facilities be chosen? Should
we prioritize facilities with a greater volume of contraband devices?
Can such a program be limited in a way that allows us to proceed
cautiously while providing the benefits of representative sampling?
91. Consumer Complaints. We recognize that the public might benefit
from specific processes for communicating complaints of harmful
interference from jamming solutions. Do wireless providers have
effective contacts at correctional facilities or jamming solutions
providers that they can work with to resolve issues if they receive
complaints from the public? Should the Commission require that
correctional facilities and solutions providers establish and publicize
a phone number or dedicated email address for complaints from the
public or that providers can use when an issue arises? Would the
Commission's existing complaints mechanism adequately enable affected
persons to file complaints about signal jamming in and around
correctional facilities? We also seek comment on our authority to serve
complaints on DOCs and/or jamming solutions providers noting that,
under our lead proposal, such entities would be operating as lessees on
spectrum licensed to common carrier wireless providers. How might the
Commission use complaint data to track challenges, resolution, and any
consumer issues that might arise from jamming? Is such tracking needed?
D. Facilitating Other Handset-Centric Technologies
92. We seek comment on whether there are other device-based
solutions that should be considered for inclusion in the proposed
deauthorization framework in addition to jamming solutions. In the
context of the proposed deauthorization framework, we invite commenters
to refresh the record specifically on the feasibility of geofencing, or
geolocation-based denial (and if feasible, whether the Commission
should consider mandating that wireless providers eliminate
unauthorized devices within correctional facility perimeters), and
beacon technology, including whether there have been technological,
economic, or policy developments affecting the deployment of these
technologies, and whether the Commission can play a role in promoting
these tools. We seek comment on specific rules that we should amend or
adopt, if any, to promote the use of these technologies as tools
available to combat contraband wireless devices in correctional
facilities.
E. Further Facilitating and Streamlining the Authorization of Current
CIS Technology
93. We seek comment to refresh the record on potential steps the
Commission could take to ensure that MAS maintains effectiveness as
technology evolve and facilitate MAS deployments. We invite
stakeholders to refresh the record on the question of whether it should
make any changes to rules in parts 1 and 20 to further streamline the
current CIS leasing process. We also seek comment on whether we should
amend any procedures in Sec. 20.23, in particular, to further
streamline the CIS Phase 1 and Phase 2 processes or make changes to the
disabling process.
F. Other Technological Solutions
94. We seek comment generally on whether there are other
technologies currently available or under development that could be
used in correctional facilities to combat contraband devices. If so,
what steps could the Commission take to facilitate deployment of those
technologies? We also seek comment on whether there are other studies,
standards, efforts, or analyses regarding the effectiveness of CISs or
other related solutions that we should consider in this proceeding.
G. Costs and Benefits
95. The benefits of the proposed rule amendments include reduced
criminal activity resulting from inmates' use of contraband wireless
devices, which can impact the safety of prison officials and employees,
the prison population, and members of the general public. The costs of
the proposed rule amendments include the need for considerable
stakeholder cooperation and a commitment, particularly from DOCs, to
make the expenditures necessary to ensure that jamming solutions are
installed, deployed, and maintained in such a manner as to avoid
harmful interference to non-contraband devices located outside a
correctional facility, as well as non-contraband devices that might be
permitted within a particular correctional facility, depending on state
or local law or policies (e.g., devices used by vendors, attorneys, or
medical personnel). We seek comment on all costs and benefits
associated with adopting the proposals, accompanied by specific data
and analysis supporting claimed costs and benefits.
[[Page 54262]]
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
96. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for
notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies
that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' Accordingly, the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) concerning potential rule and policy changes contained in this
Third FNPRM. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B of the Third FNPRM.
The Commission invites the general public, in particular small
businesses, to comment on the IRFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
97. In the Third FNPRM, the Commission aims to strengthen public
safety through the removal of regulatory barriers to the deployment and
viability of existing and developing technologies that can assist the
ability of correctional facilities to stem the use of contraband
wireless devices in correctional facilities, which can be used to
engage in criminal activity. The proposals contained in the Third FNPRM
build upon prior Commission actions and seek to meet our objectives of
expanding the scope of technical options available to corrections
officials, while simultaneously fostering a collaborative environment
among key stakeholders, including DOCs, solutions providers, and
wireless providers. To achieve these goals, the Commission seeks
comment on a broad range of potential actions intended to help
eliminate a continuing public safety threat, reduce regulatory burdens,
and also continue the growth of currently deployed technologies,
commonly known as CISs, while ensuring that the Commission's rules
evolve to afford consistent regulatory treatment across technologies,
some of which are operated by small entities.
98. As a first step, the Third FNPRM proposes to deauthorize
subscriber operation of contraband wireless devices in correctional
facilities. The proposed deauthorization rule is intended to facilitate
the use of jamming solutions consistent with section 333 of the Act and
is a key step towards permitting corrections officials to engage with
wireless providers to use jamming solutions or other technologies in
the limited context of combatting contraband wireless devices in
correctional facilities. The Commission's lead licensing proposal would
involve the participation of wireless providers, so as to help prevent
harmful interference to legitimate users, a long-standing wireless
industry concern.
99. In addition, the proposed approach ensures that a contraband
wireless device located in a correctional facility would not be
considered, for purposes of section 301 of the Act, a ``station
licensed or authorized by or under [the] Act'' and, therefore, would
not be afforded protection against willful or malicious interference by
other technologies, such as jamming solutions, that have been approved
under our proposed process. The Third FNPRM proposes to apply the
deauthorization rule to subscriber operation of a contraband wireless
device that is used in a correctional facility in violation of federal,
state, or local law, or a correctional facility rule, regulation, or
policy, consistent with the approach that the Commission took in prior
decisions to facilitate CISs. The Third FNPRM also seeks comment on
only applying a jamming solutions approach to a narrower group of
correctional facilities (e.g., only those located in jurisdictions that
impose criminal penalties for possessing or using contraband wireless
devices, or for delivering or attempting to deliver those devices to
prison inmates).
100. Recognizing that the proposed deauthorization rule would make
operation of any contraband wireless device a violation of section 301
of the Act and revised Sec. 1.903(a) of the Commission's rules, the
Third FNPRM also proposes to create a ``safe harbor'' wherein the
Commission would take no enforcement action against a wireless
provider, to the extent it might be liable, for unauthorized operation
of contraband wireless devices in a correctional facility if certain
conditions exist. Specifically, the proposed safe harbor would apply to
(1) wireless providers licensed in a geographic area where no DOC is
actively seeking to implement a technology solution, including jamming,
to combat contraband devices; and (2) any wireless provider that is
actively participating in good faith negotiations (or has successfully
completed such negotiations) with the DOC/solutions provider that is
seeking to lease spectrum to authorize operation of a CIS solution,
including jamming.
101. The Third FNPRM also seeks to establish the framework whereby
correctional facilities or solution providers that contract with them
can become authorized to deploy an expanded range of technological
solutions to combat contraband wireless devices. The Commission's lead
proposal in the Third FNPRM is to authorize jamming solutions in
correctional facilities by applying its existing secondary markets
framework. The Commission's goal and expectation is that wireless
providers will reach agreement with DOCs and solutions providers on
lease terms for authorized jamming solutions, in the same way that
parties have, to date, successfully negotiated in good faith for CIS
deployments. The Third FNPRM seeks comment on, among other things, the
types of leases parties may wish to utilize, eligibility criteria,
including whether wireless providers should be required to provide
jamming technology directly to correctional facilities, and a
requirement for good faith negotiations.
102. As a method of last resort, in cases where parties fail to
reach a good faith leasing arrangement, the Commission proposes to
permit eligible entities to directly apply for a non-exclusive overlay
license to deploy a jamming solution in a correctional facility
provided certain conditions are met. The Third FNPRM seeks comment on a
variety of issues related to the framework for issuing a last resort
overlay license, including licensing and operating rules, license term
and renewal, application procedures, and technical parameters of the
overlay licenses. The Third FNPRM also seeks comment on other issues
related to the deployment of jamming solutions. For example, the
Commission seeks comment on authorizing jamming solutions on Wi-Fi
spectrum and part 25 satellite spectrum, in order to ensure that that
the proposed authorization framework is broad enough to include all
spectrum that may be used to communicate with contraband wireless
devices.
103. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on possible measures
to ensure that jamming solutions are limited solely to correctional
facilities. For example, the Third FNPRM proposes an express
prohibition against certifying any transmitter utilizing jamming
solutions pursuant to part 15 of the Commission's rules and against the
operation of such equipment under part 15 to ensure that the proposed
deauthorization framework does not result in low-power, hand-held
jamming devices being produced, marketed, and sold in the United States
for use on a part 15 unlicensed basis. The Commission also seeks
comment on the appropriate procedures for the certification of
equipment used to provide jamming solutions in correctional facilities,
and on the extent to which it is necessary to specifically limit the
marketing and sale of such
[[Page 54263]]
transmitters directly to DOCs and solutions providers that contract
with them to provide jamming solutions.
104. Given the novelty of the proposed framework, the Commission
also seeks comment on a phased implementation of jamming solutions,
such as a pilot program in controlled environments, or an initial
restriction to, for example, facilities located in rural areas that
might pose an even lower risk of harmful interference. The Commission
requests specific comment on the costs and benefits of a phased
implementation, as well as appropriate parameters for a phased
approach. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether the
public would benefit from specific processes for communicating
complaints of harmful interference from jamming solutions, beyond
processes currently in place.
105. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether there are
other device-based solutions that should be considered for inclusion in
the proposed deauthorization framework in addition to jamming
solutions. In the context of the proposed deauthorization framework,
the Third FNPRM invites commenters to refresh the record specifically
on the feasibility of geofencing, or geolocation-based denial (and if
feasible, whether the Commission should consider mandating that
wireless providers eliminate unauthorized devices within correctional
facility perimeters), and beacon technology, whether there have been
technological, economic, or policy developments affecting the
deployment of these technologies, and whether the Commission can play a
role in promoting these tools.
B. Legal Basis
106. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2,
4(i), 4(j), 301, 302, 303, 307-310, 319, 324, and 332 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
154(j), 301, 302a, 303, 307-310, 319, 324, and 332, and Sec. 1.411 of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.411.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
107. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as under the Small
Business Act. In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act.'' A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
108. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups
of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In
general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than
500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all
businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million
businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are not-for-profit
enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant
their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-
profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have
fewer than 500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental jurisdictions''
are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty
thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we
estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
109. The actions taken in the Third FNPRM will apply to small
entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-
digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and
corresponding SBA size standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent small
Regulated industry (NAICS NAICS code SBA size Total firms Small firms firms in
classification) standard industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radio and Television 334220 1,250 employees. 656 624 95.12
Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equip
Manufacturing.
Other Communications Equipment 334290 750 employees... 321 310 96.57
Manufacturing.
Wireless Telecommunications 517112 1,500 employees. 2,893 2,837 98.06
Carriers (except Satellite).
Telecommunications Resellers.. 517121 1,500 employees. 1,386 1,375 99.21
Satellite Telecommunications.. 517410 $47 million..... 275 242 88.00
All Other Telecommunications.. 517810 $40 million..... 1,079 1,039 96.29
Engineering Services.......... 541330 $34 million..... 37,462 34,803 92.90
Facilities Support Service.... 561210 $47 million..... 1,922 1,783 92.77
Security Guards and Patrol 561612 $47 million..... 76 76 100.00
Services.
All Other Support Services.... 561990 $16.5 million... 9,615 9,350 97.24
Correctional Institutions..... 922140 No SBA Size 1,677 813 48.48
Standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
110. Based on currently available U.S. Census data regarding the
estimated number of small firms in each identified industry, we
conclude that the adopted rules will impact a substantial number of
small entities. Where available, we provide additional information
regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the above
identified industries, and information for other affected entities, as
follows.
[[Page 54264]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 Universal service monitoring report telecommunications SBA size standard (1,500 employees)
service provider data (data as of December 2023) -----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------- Total number
FCC Form 499A Small firms Percent small
Affected entity filers entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toll Resellers.................................................. 411 398 96.84
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)......... 585 498 85.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
111. Experimental Radio Service (Other Than Broadcast). Neither the
SBA nor the Commission have developed a size standard for this
industry. Experimental Radio Service is a service in which radio waves
are employed for purposes of experimentation in the radio art or for
purposes of providing essential communications for research projects
that could not be conducted without the benefit of such communications.
The majority of experimental licenses are issued to companies such as
Motorola and Department of Defense contractors such as Northrop Grumman
and Lockheed Martin. Large businesses such as these are the primary
applicants for such licenses and may have as many as 200 licenses at
one time. For the purposes of this regulatory flexibility analysis,
using the SBA's Office of Advocacy's general definition that a small
business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees,
the Commission estimates that 30 percent of applications, will be
awarded to small entities. The Commission processes approximately 1,000
applications a year for experimental radio operations. About half, or
500 of these are renewals and the other half are for new licenses. We
do not have adequate information to predict precisely how many of these
are from small entities. However, based on the above figures we
estimate that as many as 300 of these applications could be from small
entities and could potentially be impacted.
D. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
112. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of
proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
113. In the Third FNPRM, the Commission seeks public comment on a
potential framework that would increase the RF options that DOCs could
utilize to combat contraband wireless device use in correctional
facilities. There are three classes of small entities that might be
impacted: correctional facilities, solutions providers, and providers
of wireless services. For all of these entities, the Commission first
proposes to leverage its existing leasing rules applicable to CISs as
much as possible to reduce regulatory burdens and continue expedited
processing for these important solutions. With this intent in mind, the
Third FNPRM seeks comment on the extent to which the Commission's rules
require amendment to effectuate authorization through lease
arrangements of transmitters operating on wireless provider licensed
commercial spectrum to deploy jamming solutions in correctional
facilities. Small and other entities are encouraged to comment on any
potential regulatory burdens or costs incurred in connection with these
proposals, if adopted. We also encourage suggestions from small and
other entities on ways in which the Commission may minimize any
required information collections, while ensuring that all parties meet
the desired goals of providing an additional tool toward combating
contraband wireless device use, and that only non-authorized devices
are impacted.
E. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
114. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any
significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish
the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any
significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is
required to include alternatives such as: ``(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for 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.''
115. As discussed above, in the Third FNPRM, the Commission seeks
public comment on a proposed framework that seeks to increase the RF
options that DOCs could utilize to better combat contraband wireless
device use. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on several
regulatory alternatives that might reduce impacts on small entities.
For example, the Commission seeks to leverage its current licensing
process and existing leasing rules applicable to CISs, which small and
other correctional facilities and/or solution providers that contract
with correctional facilities have successfully used for more than a
decade, rather than creating a completely new paradigm. Many entities
that may be interested in participating in the framework proposed in
the Third FNPRM may already be engaged in the process of combatting
contraband wireless devices by the processes currently available,
specifically for CISs. By leveraging the Commission's current spectrum
leasing rules, small entities--be they solutions providers, or even the
DOCs, as well as wireless providers--will already be familiar with the
processes, thereby decreasing any new regulatory burdens and, by
extension, minimizing significant economic impact to such entities. The
Commission also seeks comment on the alternative of a phased
implementation of jamming solutions, such as a pilot program in
controlled environments, or an initial restriction to, for example,
facilities located in rural areas that might pose an even lower risk of
harmful interference. The Commission requests specific comment on the
costs and benefits of a phased implementation, as well as appropriate
parameters for a phased approach.
116. The Third FNPRM also proposes a safe harbor for wireless
providers to avoid potential liability for unauthorized operation of
subscriber devices that fall within the proposed deauthorization rule,
as well as direct jamming solution authorization mechanisms. The safe
harbor will provide wireless providers with assurance that they will
not be subject to enforcement action, provided they
[[Page 54265]]
either: have not received a specific request to lease their spectrum to
support the authorization of a jamming solution or, if they have
received such a request, they negotiated a good faith leasing
arrangement with a DOC or its contracted solutions provider.
117. The Commission invites comment on its proposed deauthorization
rule and framework for facilitating the authorization of jamming
solutions. Through these comments, the Commission seeks to develop
final rules that combat the exigent public safety concerns of
contraband wireless device use in correctional facilities, while also
minimizing economic and other compliance burdens on small and other
entities to the greatest extent possible.
118. To clarify and simplify compliance and reporting requirements
for impacted small and other entities, the Third FNPRM also invites
comment regarding the prospective needs of the entities and the various
approaches that can be taken to accommodate those needs in both a
leasing arrangement and in a direct overlay licensing approach. In so
doing, the Commission invites small and other entities to help inform
on any necessary clarifications and/or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements that should be incorporated in the final rules.
Receiving input from small entities will allow the Commission, to the
extent feasible, to better consider options that could minimize the
impact for these entities.
119. Finally, the Commission finds an overriding public interest in
preventing the illicit use of contraband wireless devices by
incarcerated people to perpetuate criminal enterprises and therefore
does not propose any exemptions for small entities from the potential
solutions discussed in the Third FNPRM. If small entities were to be
exempted from the selected approach, it is likely that the overall
effectiveness of the solution would be reduced which is not consistent
with, and is contrary to, the Commission's overarching goal of
eliminating the use of contraband wireless devices in correctional
facilities. Small and other entities have the opportunity to provide
comments on technological, economic, policy, and/or legal developments
sufficient to overcome the potential challenges presented by widespread
deployment of the various options discussed in the Third FNPRM to
combat wireless contraband use in correctional facilities. Importantly,
the Third FNPRM gives small entities the ability to submit cost-benefit
analyses, comments on economic and other challenges they may face with
the potential solutions that have been discussed, and the opportunity
to suggest other alternatives for the Commission to consider in any
final rules that it may adopt.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
120. None.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Communications, Radio,
Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 15
Communications equipment, Radio.
47 CFR Part 90
Administrative practice and procedure, Communications,
Communications equipment, Radio, Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1, 15, and 90
as follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 47
U.S.C. 1754, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 1.903 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.903 Authorization required.
* * * * *
(c) Subscribers. Authority for subscribers to operate mobile or
fixed stations in the Wireless Radio Services, except for certain
stations in the Rural Radiotelephone Service and except for any fixed
or mobile station that is considered a contraband wireless device, as
defined in Sec. 1.9003 of this chapter, is included in the
authorization held by the licensee providing service to them.
Subscribers are not required to apply for, and the Commission does not
accept, applications from subscribers for individual mobile or fixed
station authorizations in the Wireless Radio Services, and individual
authorizations for contraband wireless devices are not permitted.
Individual authorizations are required to operate rural subscriber
stations in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, except as provided in
Sec. 22.703 of this chapter. Individual authorizations are required
for end users of certain Specialized Mobile Radio Systems as provided
in Sec. 90.655 of this chapter. In addition, certain ships and
aircraft are required to be individually licensed under parts 80 and 87
of this chapter. See Sec. Sec. 80.13 and 87.18 of this chapter.
0
3. Section 1.9003 is amended by revising the definition of ``Contraband
Interdiction System'' and by adding the definition of ``Jamming
Solution'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 1.9003 Definitions
Contraband Interdiction System. A Contraband Interdiction System is
a system that transmits radio communication signals comprised of one or
more stations used only in a correctional facility to: provide a
jamming solution, subject to the special provisions of Sec. 1.9041 of
this chapter; prevent transmissions to or from contraband wireless
devices within the boundary of the facility, while being capable of
distinguishing transmissions from contraband and non-contraband
wireless devices; and/or obtain identifying information from a
contraband wireless device.
* * * * *
Jamming Solution. A Jamming Solution is the deployment of RF
transmitter(s) within a correctional facility to prevent contraband
wireless devices from establishing or maintaining a connection with a
network.
* * * * *
0
4. Add Sec. 1.9041 to read as follows:
Sec. 1.9041 Special provisions relating to spectrum leasing
arrangements for a jamming solution in correctional facilities.
(a) Eligibility criteria. An entity seeking to engage in spectrum
leasing as a lessee under this section may do so if it is a department
of corrections with authority over the correctional facility for which
the lease is sought, or a solutions provider that has entered into a
contract with a department of corrections with authority over the
correctional facility for which the lease is sought.
(b) Application requirements. An entity seeking to engage in
spectrum leasing as a lessee under this section must provide a
certification as an attachment to FCC Form 608 stating that the entity:
(1) Meets the eligibility criteria; and
(2) Seeks to deploy equipment with a valid equipment authorization
under part 2 of this chapter.
[[Page 54266]]
(c) Subleasing. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. Sec.
1.9020(l) and 1.9030(k), a spectrum lessee authorized to provide a
jamming solution may not sublease spectrum usage rights.
(d) Construction/performance requirements. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Sec. Sec. 1.9020(d)(5)(i) and 1.9030(d)(5)(i), a
licensee may not attribute to itself the build-out or performance
activities of its spectrum lessee(s) providing a jamming solution for
purposes of complying with any applicable performance or build-out
requirement.
(e) Good faith negotiations. CMRS licensees must negotiate in good
faith with entities seeking to deploy a jamming solution in a
correctional facility. Upon receipt of a good faith request by such an
entity, a CMRS licensee must negotiate toward a lease agreement. If,
after a 45-day period, there is no agreement, the entity seeking to
operate a jamming solution in the absence of CMRS licensee consent may
file an application for a part 90 non-exclusive overlay license for a
jamming solution on FCC Form 601, as described in Sec. 90.1403 of this
chapter, accompanied by evidence demonstrating its good faith, and the
lack of good faith on the part of the CMRS licensee(s), in negotiating
a lease arrangement.
PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
0
5. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and
549.
0
6. Section 15.5 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.5 General conditions of operation.
* * * * *
(e) Operation of devices as part of a jamming solution, as defined
in Sec. 1.9003 of this chapter, is prohibited under this part, even
under power levels that comply with the limits set forth in this part.
Any jamming solution must be authorized pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.9041
or 90.1401, or a combination thereof, of this chapter.
0
7. Section 15.201 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 15.201 Equipment authorization requirement.
* * * * *
(e) An intentional radiator intended for use as part of a jamming
solution, as defined in Sec. 1.9003 of this chapter, is not eligible
for certification under part 15 pursuant to the Commission's part 2,
subpart J Equipment Authorization Procedures.
PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
0
8. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7),
1401-1473.
0
9. Add subpart AA, consisting of Sec. Sec. 90.1401 and 90.1403, to
read as follows:
Subpart AA Regulations Governing the Licensing of Jamming
Solutions.
Sec.
90.1401 Eligibility.
90.1403 Application requirements.
Sec. 90.1401 Eligibility.
An entity is eligible to apply for an overlay license for the
provision of a jamming solution (as defined in Sec. 1.9003 of this
chapter) under this subpart if it:
(a) Is a department of corrections with authority over the
correctional facility for which authority to implement a jamming
solution therein is sought, or is a solutions provider that has entered
into a contract with a department of corrections with authority over a
correctional facility for which authority to implement a jamming
solution therein is sought; and
(b) Meets the good faith negotiation requirements specified in
Sec. 1.9041(e) of this chapter.
Sec. 90.1403 Application requirements.
(a) Jamming overlay license application requirements. An overlay
license applicant seeking authority to provide a jamming solution in a
correctional facility must apply using FCC Form 601 in the Commission's
Universal Licensing System (ULS) in accordance with part 1, subpart F
of this chapter. All modifications or renewals of licenses and
associated waiver requests must also be filed on FCC Form 601 in the
Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS) in accordance with part
1, subpart F. The entity seeking an overlay license under this section
must provide with its FCC Form 601 the following information:
(1) A certification regarding its eligibility as specified in Sec.
90.1401;
(2) A certification that it seeks to deploy equipment as part of a
jamming solution with a valid equipment authorization under part 2 of
this chapter;
(3) A description of the jamming solution to be deployed at the
correctional facility demonstrating that the applicant is prepared to
deploy a solution that does not interfere with authorized devices,
including technical parameters, and the service area associated with
the proposed operations; and
(4) A declaration in accordance with Sec. 1.16 of this chapter.
(b) Authorization of jamming solutions. An overlay license for a
jamming solution in a correctional facility is deemed effective only
after the following actions are completed:
(1) Conditional grant of an overlay license application for the
specified geographic area;
(2) Satisfaction of the condition(s) of the overlay license
following on-site testing at the correctional facility demonstrating to
the Commission, through the filing of a certification, that the system
functions as expected and within the licensed area, protecting
authorized users within and outside the correctional facility from
harmful interference; and
(3) Grant of final Commission authority to provide a jamming
solution at the correctional facility following successful on-site
testing.
[FR Doc. 2025-21325 Filed 11-25-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 26, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.