Quiero saber acerca de...

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

44682

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 154 / Friday, August 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID19.
See FCC Announces Closure of FCC
Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20304 March 19, 2020.
https www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format, send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 2024180530 voice, 202
4180432 TTY.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melissa Conway of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, at 202 4182887 or Melissa.Conway@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commissions Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 13111, FCC 2182
adopted July 12, 2021 and released July 13, 2020. The full text of this document, including all Appendices, is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554, or available for viewing via the Commissions ECFS
website by entering the docket number, GN Docket No. 13111. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format, by sending an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or calling the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202 4180530
voice, 202 4180432 TTY.
This proceeding shall continue to be treated as a permit-but-disclose proceeding in accordance with the Commissions ex parte rules 47 CFR
1.1200 through 1.1216. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must 1 list all persons attending or otherwise participating in
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:19 Aug 12, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 presenters written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206b. In proceedings governed by rule 1.49f 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 Commissions ex parte rules.
Synopsis 1. In the SFNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether there have been technological, economic, policy, and/or legal developments sufficient to overcome the variety of challenges presented to the widespread deployment of these technologies and whether and how the Commission can further facilitate these technologies through regulatory next steps. In doing so, the Commission contemplates various approaches to combatting the use of contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities that would each have their own projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. We cannot quantify the cost of compliance with any regulatory next steps and do not know whether small entities will have to hire professionals to comply with any rules that we ultimately adopt. Below we discuss the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements associated with the various approaches in the SFNPRM to combat contraband wireless device use in correctional facilities.
2. The Commission contemplates as a potential solution the creation of quiet zones in and around correctional
PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

facilities where wireless communications are not authorized such that contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities would not be able to receive service from a wireless provider. Quiet zones would require wireless carriers and solution providers to have appropriate engineering capabilities to precisely define quiet zones around the borders of correctional facilities. To understand the cost implications for small and other entities, we seek comment on the potential costs that could be associated with the implementation of quiet zones, including the cost of hardware, software, network integration, engineering, and ongoing maintenance.
The Commission also seeks comment on who should bear the cost of implementing quiet zones, and the potential alternatives to a Commission mandate that might encourage implementation.
3. The SFNPRM seeks comments on the options of geolocation-based denial, also known as geofencing, and a network-based solution. The geolocation-based denial would allow for mobile device software and/or hardware to be used to shut down contraband wireless devices that violate a perimeter surrounding a correctional facility. A geolocation-based solution would require adequate engineering to locate and disable wireless contraband.
Relatedly, a network-based solution would require commercial mobile radio service CMRS licensees to independently identify and disable contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities using their own network elements. Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on whether there have been technological advancements in carriers network engineering that might make it more feasible for entities to implement and comply with network-based geofencing.
If network-based geofencing is selected as the solution for contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities, then the engineering required could have associated costs, including the testing and maintenance necessary to ensure accuracy and ongoing viability. The Commissions request for comment on additional costs that could be associated with the implementation of networkbased geofencing, including software and network integration, should provide insight and allow us to evaluate costs for small and other entities that will be impacted by any future rules we adopt regarding these two potential solutions.
4. This SFNPRM also contemplates the option of using beacon technology to combat the issue of contraband wireless device use in correctional facilities. The
E:FRFM13AUP1.SGM

13AUP1