Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 154 / Friday, August 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules 44681 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) and that this proposed rule does 

not contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4), because the EPA is 

required to grant requests by states for 

voluntary reclassifications, and such 

reclassifications in and of themselves do 

not impose any federal 

intergovernmental mandate, and 

because tribes are not subject to 

implementation plan submittal 

deadlines that apply to states as a result 

of reclassifications. 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000) requires the EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in Executive 

Order 13175 to include regulations that 

have ‘‘substantial direct effects on one 

or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’ Four 

Indian tribes have areas of Indian 

country located within the boundaries 

of the Sacramento Metro ozone 

nonattainment area, and there are no 

areas of Indian country located in the 

Eastern Kern and Western Nevada ozone 

nonattainment areas. The EPA 

implements federal CAA programs, 

including reclassifications, in these 

areas of Indian country within the 

boundaries of the Sacramento Metro 

area, consistent with our discretionary 

authority under sections 301(a) and 

301(d)(4) of the CAA. The EPA has 

concluded that this proposed rule might 

have tribal implications for the purposes 

of Executive Order 13175 but would not 

impose substantial direct costs upon the 

tribes, nor would it preempt Tribal law. 

As discussed in Section III of this 

document, this proposed rule does not 

affect the implementation of NSR or title 

V programs in these areas of Indian 

country, nor does it affect projects 

proposed in these areas of Indian 

country that require federal permits, 

approvals, or funding under the EPA’s 

general conformity rule. None of the 

affected tribes would be required to 

submit an implementation plan as a 

result of this reclassification. 

The EPA contacted tribal officials 

early in the process of developing this 

proposed rule to provide an opportunity 

to have meaningful and timely input 

into its development. On December 11, 

2020, we sent letters to leaders of the 

four tribal governments representing the 

areas of Indian country in the 

nonattainment area offering 

government-to-government consultation 

and seeking input on how we could best 

communicate with the tribes on this 

rulemaking effort. No tribes requested 

government-to-government consultation 

on this action. 

Executive Order 12898 establishes 

federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main 

provision directs federal agencies, to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. This 

reclassification action does not provide 

the EPA with the discretionary authority 

to address disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects with 

practical, appropriate, and legally 

permissible methods under Executive 

Order 12898. 

This proposed action also does not 

have federalism implications because it 

does not have substantial direct effects 

on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, nor on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This 

proposed action does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. 

This proposed rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because the EPA 

interprets Executive Order 13045 as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of Executive Order 

13045 has the potential to influence the 

regulation. 

As this proposal would set a deadline 

for the submittal of CAA required plans 

and information, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. This proposed rule does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, National parks, Ozone, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: July 13, 2021. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16446 Filed 8–12–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 20 

[GN Docket No. 13–111; FCC 21–82; FR ID 

39501] 

Promoting Technological Solutions To 

Combat Contraband Wireless Device 

Use in Correctional Facilities 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission or FCC) takes further steps 

to facilitate the deployment and 

viability of technological solutions used 

to combat contraband wireless devices 

in correctional facilities. The Second 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(SFNPRM) seeks further comment on 

the relative effectiveness, viability, and 

cost of additional technological 

solutions to combat contraband phone 

use in correctional facilities previously 

identified in the record. 

DATES: Interested parties may file 

comments on or before September 13, 

2021, and reply comments on or before 

October 12, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by GN Docket No. 13–111, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS): http:// 

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

• Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 


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 COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020). 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/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 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Conway of the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility 

Division, at (202) 418–2887 or 

Melissa.Conway@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

in GN Docket No. 13–111, FCC 21–82 

adopted July 12, 2021 and released July 

13, 2020. The full text of this document, 

including all Appendices, is available 

for inspection and copying during 

normal business hours in the FCC 

Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554, or available for 

viewing via the Commission’s ECFS 

website by entering the docket number, 

GN Docket No. 13–111. Alternative 

formats are available for people with 

disabilities (Braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format), by 

sending an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or 

calling the Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 

(voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY). 

This proceeding shall continue to be 

treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules (47 CFR 

1.1200 through 1.1216). Persons making 

ex parte presentations must file a copy 

of any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within two business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule § 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

Synopsis 

1. In the SFNPRM, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether there have 

been technological, economic, policy, 

and/or legal developments sufficient to 

overcome the variety of challenges 

presented to the widespread 

deployment of these technologies and 

whether and how the Commission can 

further facilitate these technologies 

through regulatory next steps. In doing 

so, the Commission contemplates 

various approaches to combatting the 

use of contraband wireless devices in 

correctional facilities that would each 

have their own projected reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements. We cannot quantify the 

cost of compliance with any regulatory 

next steps and do not know whether 

small entities will have to hire 

professionals to comply with any rules 

that we ultimately adopt. Below we 

discuss the projected reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements associated with the 

various approaches in the SFNPRM to 

combat contraband wireless device use 

in correctional facilities. 

2. The Commission contemplates as a 

potential solution the creation of ‘‘quiet 

zones’’ in and around correctional 

facilities where wireless 

communications are not authorized 

such that contraband wireless devices in 

correctional facilities would not be able 

to receive service from a wireless 

provider. Quiet zones would require 

wireless carriers and solution providers 

to have appropriate engineering 

capabilities to precisely define quiet 

zones around the borders of correctional 

facilities. To understand the cost 

implications for small and other 

entities, we seek comment on the 

potential costs that could be associated 

with the implementation of quiet zones, 

including the cost of hardware, 

software, network integration, 

engineering, and ongoing maintenance. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

who should bear the cost of 

implementing quiet zones, and the 

potential alternatives to a Commission 

mandate that might encourage 

implementation. 

3. The SFNPRM seeks comments on 

the options of geolocation-based denial, 

also known as geofencing, and a 

‘‘network-based solution.’’ The 

geolocation-based denial would allow 

for mobile device software and/or 

hardware to be used to shut down 

contraband wireless devices that violate 

a perimeter surrounding a correctional 

facility. A geolocation-based solution 

would require adequate engineering to 

locate and disable wireless contraband. 

Relatedly, a ‘‘network-based solution’’ 

would require commercial mobile radio 

service (CMRS) licensees to 

independently identify and disable 

contraband wireless devices in 

correctional facilities using their own 

network elements. Therefore, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

there have been technological 

advancements in carriers’ network 

engineering that might make it more 

feasible for entities to implement and 

comply with network-based geofencing. 

If network-based geofencing is selected 

as the solution for contraband wireless 

devices in correctional facilities, then 

the engineering required could have 

associated costs, including the testing 

and maintenance necessary to ensure 

accuracy and ongoing viability. The 

Commission’s request for comment on 

additional costs that could be associated 

with the implementation of 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 154 / Friday, August 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules 44683 

Commission seeks comment on the 

potential advancements in beacon 

technology that would allow beacon 

software to be installed on mobile 

devices remotely (e.g., through a 

software update). If the Commission is 

found to have the authority to require 

entities to install the software on 

devices, then this approach could 

require related compliance 

requirements. Relatedly, the 

Commission seeks comment on how 

beacon technology could ensure that 

authorized users (e.g., correctional 

officers) are still able to use their 

devices. This requirement could impose 

recordkeeping and compliance 

requirements for entities such as 

wireless providers and mobile device 

manufacturers that must implement 

beacon technology via hardware and/or 

software changes to mobile devices for 

all users. We raise inquiries and seek 

information on the cost and 

implementation timing for beacon 

technology, specifically as compared to 

managed access systems (MAS) or 

advanced detection, and who should 

bear these costs. In addition, we request 

information on the various types of 

costs for entities associated with this 

type of technology, including hardware, 

software, network integration, 

engineering, ongoing maintenance, etc., 

which is germane to our analysis of any 

regulatory next steps and could impact 

the nature and type of recordkeeping, 

reporting, and compliance obligations 

that may result in this proceeding. 

5. The Commission also seeks further 

comment on potential regulatory steps 

that might be necessary to ensure that 

MAS maintains effectiveness as wireless 

technology evolves from 2G to 

widespread 3G/4G and ultimately 5G 

deployments. We note that the 

commenters on the July 2020 Refresh 

Public Notification (85 FR 49999, 

August 17, 2020) largely agree that MAS 

Evolved will be even more effective 

than existing MAS systems. In this 

SFNPRM, we seek further comment on 

steps the Commission could take to 

facilitate MAS deployments. Depending 

on the comments, it is possible that the 

Commission could mandate roaming 

agreements between wireless carriers 

and solutions providers in the 

corrections context given the vital 

public safety concerns, which would 

impact small entities. It is also possible 

that the Commission could implement 

other approaches that could be 

developed by the wireless providers 

and/or the vendors to add features or 

services and help defray the cost of 

MAS deployments and operations. 

Lastly, the Commission could revise the 

previously streamlined leasing rules in 

the correctional facility context to 

facilitate further Contraband 

Interdiction System (CIS) deployments 

nationwide. Each of these potential rule 

changes could require additional 

recordkeeping and reporting from 

entities that seek to deploy MAS 

Evolved solutions. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16463 Filed 8–12–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS