FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
November 23, 2016
The Honorable Ron Wyden
United States Senate
221 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Wyden:
Thank you for your letter concerning recent reports about state and local law
enforcement's use of "cell site simulators" (CSS), also commonly referred to as "Stingrays." I
share your interest in this important topic. The FCC remains committed to protecting the integrity
of the Nation's communications and to ensuring that use of equipment by all parties complies with
U.S. law and FCC regulations.
While the use of CSS devices raises a range of issues, the Commission's responsibilities
under the Communications Act are the authorization and operation of radio frequency
transmitters and the appropriate use of spectrum for non-Federal use (i.e., commercial, private
internal business, personal, and state and local government use). Beginning in 2011, the
Commission granted equipment authorizations for CSS devices. All grants of equipment
authorization are publicly available on the FCC's website. I have attached copies of the grants of
equipment authorization for the devices you identify in your letter. Each of these grants lists the
frequency ranges over which the device operates and the device's maximum power levels. The
potential operating range of each device depends on factors such as the location of the device,
the power level used during actual operation, the local environment, and the type of antenna
connected to the device. Equipment authorizations do not address the non-technical aspects of
CSS device operation, such as whether law enforcement has appropriate court approval for such
operation.
Each of our CSS equipment authorizations includes two important conditions. First,
"[t]he marketing and sale of these devices shall be limited to federal, state, local public safety
and law enforcement officials only." Second, "State and local law enforcement agencies must
advance coordinate with the FBI the acquisition and use of the equipment authorized under this
authorization" (emphasis added). Thus, our equipment authorization expressly contemplated that
use of the equipment by state and local law enforcement would be under the auspices of the FBI.
Notably, the implementation of these conditions does not mention nor did we require a non-
disclosure agreement between a purchaser and the FBI.
The use of CSS devices by federal law-enforcement agencies and by some state law-
enforcement agencies is also limited by each agency's guidelines. In 2015, DO] and DHS
released guidelines regarding federal agencies' use of CSS devices. In addition, California and
Page 2-The Honorable Ron Wyden
other states are exploring legislative limits on CSS use, and the Maryland Court of Special
Appeals has imposed procedural conditions.
As you know, regulatory responsibility for the radio spectrum is divided between the
FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). NTIA
administers spectrum and transmitter authorization for Federal use. Given this divided
responsibility, we have engaged in discussions with our federal partners regarding the
deployment and use of CSS, through the internal FCC task force on CSS that I established in
2014. That engagement is continuing.
As we go forward, I would be happy to make appropriate FCC staff available to you and
your staff for additional discussions regarding our ongoing work on these important issues.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further
assistance.
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
November 23,2016
The Honorable Elizabeth Warren
United States Senate
317 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Warren:
Thank you for your letter concerning recent reports about state and local law
enforcement's use of "cell site simulators" (CSS), also commonly referred to as "Stingrays." I
share your interest in this important topic. The FCC remains committed to protecting the integrity
of the Nation's communications and to ensuring that use of equipment by all parties complies with
U.S. law and FCC regulations.
While the use of CSS devices raises a range of issues, the Commission's responsibilities
under the Communications Act are the authorization and operation of radio frequency
transmitters and the appropriate use of spectrum for non-Federal use (i.e., commercial, private
internal business, personal, and state and local government use). Beginning in 2011, the
Commission granted equipment authorizations for CSS devices. All grants of equipment
authorization are publicly available on the FCC's website. I have attached copies of the grants of
equipment authorization for the devices you identify in your letter. Each of these grants lists the
frequency ranges over which the device operates and the device's maximum power levels. The
potential operating range of each device depends on factors such as the location of the device,
the power level used during actual operation, the local environment, and the type of antenna
connected to the device. Equipment authorizations do not address the non-technical aspects of
CSS device operation, such as whether law enforcement has appropriate court approval for such
operation.
Each of our CSS equipment authorizations includes two important conditions. First,
"[t]he marketing and sale of these devices shall be limited to federal, state, local public safety
and law enforcement officials only." Second, "State and local law enforcement agencies must
advance coordinate with the FBI the acquisition and use of the equipment authorized under this
authorization" (emphasis added). Thus, our equipment authorization expressly contemplated that
use of the equipment by state and local law enforcement would be under the auspices of the FBI.
Notably, the implementation of these conditions does not mention nor did we require a non-
disclosure agreement between a purchaser and the FBI.
The use of CSS devices by federal law-enforcement agencies and by some state law-
enforcement agencies is also limited by each agency's guidelines. In 2015, DO] and DHS
released guidelines regarding federal agencies' use of CSS devices. In addition, California and
Page 2-The Honorable Elizabeth Warren
other states are exploring legislative limits on CSS use, and the Maryland Court of Special
Appeals has imposed procedural conditions.
As you know, regulatory responsibility for the radio spectrum is divided between the
FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). NTIA
administers spectrum and transmitter authorization for Federal use. Given this divided
responsibility, we have engaged in discussions with our federal partners regarding the
deployment and use of CSS, through the internal FCC task force on CSS that I established in
2014. That engagement is continuing.
As we go forward, I would be happy to make appropriate FCC staff available to you and
your staff for additional discussions regarding our ongoing work on these important issues.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further
assistance. ;;;jJy-~
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
November 23, 2016
The Honorable Tom Udall
United States Senate
531 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Udall:
Thank you for your letter concerning recent reports about state and local law
enforcement's use of "cell site simulators" (CSS), also commonly referred to as "Stingrays." I
share your interest in this important topic. The FCC remains committed to protecting the integrity
of the Nation's communications and to ensuring that use of equipment by all parties complies with
U.S. law and FCC regulations.
While the use of CSS devices raises a range of issues, the Commission's responsibilities
under the Communications Act are the authorization and operation of radio frequency
transmitters and the appropriate use of spectrum for non-Federal use (i.e., commercial, private
internal business, personal, and state and local government use). Beginning in 2011, the
Commission granted equipment authorizations for CSS devices. All grants of equipment
authorization are publicly available on the FCC's website. I have attached copies of the grants of
equipment authorization for the devices you identify in your letter. Each of these grants lists the
frequency ranges over which the device operates and the device's maximum power levels. The
potential operating range of each device depends on factors such as the location of the device,
the power level used during actual operation, the local environment, and the type of antenna
connected to the device. Equipment authorizations do not address the non-technical aspects of
CSS device operation, such as whether law enforcement has appropriate court approval for such
operation.
Each of our CSS equipment authorizations includes two important conditions. First,
"[t]he marketing and sale of these devices shall be limited to federal, state, local public safety
and law enforcement officials only." Second, "State and local law enforcement agencies must
advance coordinate with the FBI the acquisition and use of the equipment authorized under this
authorization" (emphasis added). Thus, our equipment authorization expressly contemplated that
use of the equipment by state and local law enforcement would be under the auspices of the FBI.
Notably, the implementation of these conditions does not mention nor did we require a non-
disclosure agreement between a purchaser and the FBI.
The use of CSS devices by federal law-enforcement agencies and by some state law-
enforcement agencies is also limited by each agency's guidelines. In 2015, DO] and DHS
released guidelines regarding federal agencies' use of CSS devices. In addition, California and
Page 2-The Honorable Tom Udall
other states are exploring legislative limits on CSS use, and the Maryland Court of Special
Appeals has imposed procedural conditions.
As you know, regulatory responsibility for the radio spectrum is divided between the
FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). NTIA
administers spectrum and transmitter authorization for Federal use. Given this divided
responsibility, we have engaged in discussions with our federal partners regarding the
deployment and use of CSS, through the internal FCC task force on CSS that I established in
2014. That engagement is continuing.
As we go forward, I would be happy to make appropriate FCC staff available to you and
your staff for additional discussions regarding our ongoing work on these important issues.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further
assistance. :;;~L
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN November 23, 2016
The Honorable Bernard Sanders
United States Senate
332 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Sanders:
Thank you for your letter concerning recent reports about state and local law
enforcement's use of "cell site simulators" (CSS), also commonly referred to as "Stingrays." I
share your interest in this important topic. The FCC remains committed to protecting the integrity
ofthe Nation's communications and to ensuring that use of equipment by all parties complies with
U.S. law and FCC regulations.
While the use of CSS devices raises a range of issues, the Commission's responsibilities
under the Communications Act are the authorization and operation of radio frequency
transmitters and the appropriate use of spectrum for non-Federal use (i.e., commercial, private
internal business, personal, and state and local government use). Beginning in 2011, the
Commission granted equipment authorizations for CSS devices. All grants of equipment
authorization are publicly available on the FCC's website. I have attached copies of the grants of
equipment authorization for the devices you identify in your letter. Each of these grants lists the
frequency ranges over which the device operates and the device's maximum power levels. The
potential operating range of each device depends on factors such as the location of the device,
the power level used during actual operation, the local environment, and the type of antenna
connected to the device. Equipment authorizations do not address the non-technical aspects of
CSS device operation, such as whether law enforcement has appropriate court approval for such
operation.
Each of our CSS equipment authorizations includes two important conditions. First,
"[t]he marketing and sale of these devices shall be limited to federal, state, local public safety
and law enforcement officials only." Second, "State and local law enforcement agencies must
advance coordinate with the FBI the acquisition and use of the equipment authorized under this
authorization" (emphasis added). Thus, our equipment authorization expressly contemplated that
use of the equipment by state and local law enforcement would be under the auspices of the FBI.
Notably, the implementation of these conditions does not mention nor did we require a non-
disclosure agreement between a purchaser and the FBI.
The use of CSS devices by federal law-enforcement agencies and by some state law-
enforcement agencies is also limited by each agency's guidelines. In 2015, DO] and DHS
released guidelines regarding federal agencies' use of CSS devices. In addition, California and
Page 2-The Honorable Bernard Sanders
other states are exploring legislative limits on CSS use, and the Maryland Court of Special
Appeals has imposed procedural conditions. .
As you know, regulatory responsibility for the radio spectrum is divided between the
FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). NTIA
administers spectrum and transmitter authorization for Federal use. Given this divided
responsibility, we have engaged in discussions with our federal partners regarding the
deployment and use of CSS, through the internal FCC task force on CSS that I established in
2014. That engagement is continuing.
As we go forward, I would be happy to make appropriate FCC staff available to you and
your staff for additional discussions regarding our ongoing work on these important issues.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further
assistance.
~k£-L
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
November 23,2016
The Honorable Jeff Merkley
United States Senate
313 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Merkley:
Thank you for your letter concerning recent reports about state and local law
enforcement's use of "cell site simulators" (CSS), also commonly referred to as "Stingrays." I
share your interest in this important topic. The FCC remains committed to protecting the integrity
of the Nation's communications and to ensuring that use of equipment by all parties complies with
U.S. law and FCC regulations.
While the use of CSS devices raises a range of issues, the Commission's responsibilities
under the Communications Act are the authorization and operation of radio frequency
transmitters and the appropriate use of spectrum for non-Federal use (i.e., commercial, private
internal business, personal, and state and local government use). Beginning in 2011, the
Commission granted equipment authorizations for CSS devices. All grants of equipment
authorization are publicly available on the FCC's website. I have attached copies of the grants of
equipment authorization for the devices you identify in your letter. Each of these grants lists the
frequency ranges over which the device operates and the device's maximum power levels. The
potential operating range of each device depends on factors such as the location of the device,
the power level used during actual operation, the local environment, and the type of antenna
connected to the device. Equipment authorizations do not address the non-technical aspects of
CSS device operation, such as whether law enforcement has appropriate court approval for such
operation.
Each of our CSS equipment authorizations includes two important conditions. First,
"[t]he marketing and sale of these devices shall be limited to federal, state, local public safety
and law enforcement officials only." Second, "State and local law enforcement agencies must
advance coordinate with the FBI the acquisition and use of the equipment authorized under this
authorization" (emphasis added). Thus, our equipment authorization expressly contemplated that
use of the equipment by state and local law enforcement would be under the auspices of the FBI.
Notably, the implementation of these conditions does not mention nor did we require a non-
disclosure agreement between a purchaser and the FBI.
The use of CSS devices by federal law-enforcement agencies and by some state law-
enforcement agencies is also limited by each agency's guidelines. In 2015, DOJ and DHS
released guidelines regarding federal agencies' use of CSS devices. In addition, California and
Page 2-The Honorable Jeff Merkley
other states are exploring legislative limits on CSS use, and the Maryland Court of Special
Appeals has imposed procedural conditions.
As you know, regulatory responsibility for the radio spectrum is divided between the
FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). NTIA
administers spectrum and transmitter authorization for Federal use. Given this divided
responsibility, we have engaged in discussions with our federal partners regarding the
deployment and use of CSS, through the internal FCC task force on CSS that I established in
2014. That engagement is continuing.
As we go forward, I would be happy to make appropriate FCC staff available to you and
your staff for additional discussions regarding our ongoing work on these important issues.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further
assistance.
Tk£[
Tom Wheeler
-. -- ~. ----------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
November 23,2016
The Honorable Edward 1. Markey
United States Senate
255 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Markey:
Thank you for your letter concerning recent reports about state and local law
enforcement's use of "cell site simulators" CCSS), also commonly referred to as "Stingrays." I
share your interest in this important topic. The FCC remains committed to protecting the integrity
of the Nation's communications and to ensuring that use of equipment by all parties complies with
U.S. law and FCC regulations.
While the use of CSS devices raises a range of issues, the Commission's responsibilities
under the Communications Act are the authorization and operation of radio frequency
transmitters and the appropriate use of spectrum for non-Federal use (i.e., commercial, private
internal business, personal, and state and local government use). Beginning in 2011, the
Commission granted equipment authorizations for CSS devices. All grants of equipment
authorization are publicly available on the FCC's website. I have attached copies of the grants of
equipment authorization for the devices you identify in your letter. Each of these grants lists the
frequency ranges over which the device operates and the device's maximum power levels. The
potential operating range of each device depends on factors such as the location of the device,
the power level used during actual operation, the local environment, and the type of antenna
connected to the device. Equipment authorizations do not address the non-technical aspects of
CSS device operation, such as whether law enforcement has appropriate court approval for such
operation.
Each of our CSS equipment authorizations includes two important conditions. First,
"[t]he marketing and sale of these devices shall be limited to federal, state, local public safety
and law enforcement officials only." Second, "State and local law enforcement agencies must
advance coordinate with the FBI the acquisition and use of the equipment authorized under this
authorization" Cemphasis added). Thus, our equipment authorization expressly contemplated that
use of the equipment by state and local law enforcement would be under the auspices of the FBI.
Notably, the implementation of these conditions does not mention nor did we require a non-
disclosure agreement between a purchaser and the FBI.
The use of CSS devices by federal law-enforcement agencies and by some state law-
enforcement agencies is also limited by each agency's guidelines. In 2015, DO] and DHS
released guidelines regarding federal agencies' use of CSS devices. In addition, California and
Page 2-The Honorable Edward J. Markey
other states are exploring legislative limits on CSS use, and the Maryland Court of Special
Appeals has imposed procedural conditions.
As you know, regulatory responsibility for the radio spectrum is divided between the
FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). NTIA
administers spectrum and transmitter authorization for Federal use. Given this divided
responsibility, we have engaged in discussions with our federal partners regarding the
deployment and use of CSS, through the internal FCC task force on CSS that I established in
2014. That engagement is continuing.
As we go forward, I would be happy to make appropriate FCC staff available to you and
your staff for additional discussions regarding our ongoing work on these important issues.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further
assistance.
~~L
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
November 23, 2016
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
United States Senate
437 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Leahy:
Thank you for your letter concerning recent reports about state and local law
enforcement's use of "cell site simulators" (CSS), also commonly referred to as "Stingrays." I
share your interest in this important topic. The FCC remains committed to protecting the integrity
of the Nation's communications and to ensuring that use of equipment by all parties complies with
U.S. law and FCC regulations.
While the use of CSS devices raises a range of issues, the Commission's responsibilities
under the Communications Act are the authorization and operation of radio frequency
transmitters and the appropriate use of spectrum for non-Federal use (i.e., commercial, private
internal business, personal, and state and local government use). Beginning in 2011, the
Commission granted equipment authorizations for CSS devices. All grants of equipment
authorization are publicly available on the FCC's website. I have attached copies of the grants of
equipment authorization for the devices you identify in your letter. Each of these grants lists the
frequency ranges over which the device operates and the device's maximum power levels. The
potential operating range of each device depends on factors such as the location of the device,
the power level used during actual operation, the local environment, and the type of antenna
connected to the device. Equipment authorizations do not address the non-technical aspects of
CSS device operation, such as whether law enforcement has appropriate court approval for such
operation.
Each of our CSS equipment authorizations includes two important conditions. First,
"[t]he marketing and sale of these devices shall be limited to federal, state, local public safety
and law enforcement officials only." Second, "State and local law enforcement agencies must
advance coordinate with the FBI the acquisition and use of the equipment authorized under this
authorization" (emphasis added). Thus, our equipment authorization expressly contemplated that
use of the equipment by state and local law enforcement would be under the auspices of the FBI.
Notably, the implementation of these conditions does not mention nor did we require a non-
disclosure agreement between a purchaser and the FBI.
The use of CSS devices by federal law-enforcement agencies and by some state law-
enforcement agencies is also limited by each agency's guidelines. In 2015, DOJ and DHS
released guidelines regarding federal agencies' use of CSS devices. In addition, California and
Page 2-The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
other states are exploring legislative limits on CSS use, and the Maryland Court of Special
Appeals has imposed procedural conditions.
As you know, regulatory responsibility for the radio spectrum is divided between the
FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). NTIA
administers spectrum and transmitter authorization for Federal use. Given this divided
responsibility, we have engaged in discussions with our federal partners regarding the
deployment and use of CSS, through the internal FCC task force on CSS that I established in
2014. That engagement is continuing.
As we go forward, I would be happy to make appropriate FCC staff available to you and
your staff for additional discussions regarding our ongoing work on these important issues.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further
assistance.
-i2dL
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN November 23,2016
The Honorable Martin Heinrich
United States Senate
303 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Heinrich:
Thank you for your letter concerning recent reports about state and local law
enforcement's use of "cell site simulators" (CSS), also commonly referred to as "Stingrays." I
share your interest in this important topic. The FCC remains committed to protecting the integrity
of the Nation's communications and to ensuring that use of equipment by all parties complies with
U.S. law and FCC regulations.
While the use of CSS devices raises a range of issues, the Commission's responsibilities
under the Communications Act are the authorization and operation of radio frequency
transmitters and the appropriate use of spectrum for non-Federal use (i.e., commercial, private
internal business, personal, and state and local government use). Beginning in 2011, the
Commission granted equipment authorizations for CSS devices. All grants of equipment
authorization are publicly available on the FCC's website. I have attached copies of the grants of
equipment authorization for the devices you identify in your letter. Each of these grants lists the
frequency ranges over which the device operates and the device's maximum power levels. The
potential operating range of each device depends on factors such as the location of the device,
the power level used during actual operation, the local environment, and the type of antenna
connected to the device. Equipment authorizations do not address the non-technical aspects of
CSS device operation, such as whether law enforcement has appropriate court approval for such
operation.
Each of our CSS equipment authorizations includes two important conditions. First,
"[t]he marketing and sale of these devices shall be limited to federal, state, local public safety
and law enforcement officials only." Second, "State and local law enforcement agencies must
advance coordinate with the FBI the acquisition and use of the equipment authorized under this
authorization" (emphasis added). Thus, our equipment authorization expressly contemplated that
use of the equipment by state and local law enforcement would be under the auspices of the FBI.
Notably, the implementation of these conditions does not mention nor did we require a non-
disclosure agreement between a purchaser and the FBI.
The use of CSS devices by federal law-enforcement agencies and by some state law-
enforcement agencies is also limited by each agency's guidelines. In 2015, DO] and DHS
released guidelines regarding federal agencies' use of CSS devices. In addition, California and
Page 2-The Honorable Martin Heinrich
other states are exploring legislative limits on CSS use, and the Maryland Court of Special
Appeals has imposed procedural conditions.
As you know, regulatory responsibility for the radio spectrum is divided between the
FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). NTIA
administers spectrum and transmitter authorization for Federal use. Given this divided
responsibility, we have engaged in discussions with our federal partners regarding the
deployment and use of CSS, through the internal FCC task force on CSS that I established in
2014. That engagement is continuing.
As we go forward, I would be happy to make appropriate FCC staff available to you and
your staff for additional discussions regarding our ongoing work on these important issues.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further
assistance.
i2k£L
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
November 23,2016
The Honorable Al Franken
United States Senate
309 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Franken:
Thank you for your letter concerning recent reports about state and local law
enforcement's use of "cell site simulators" (CSS), also commonly referred to as "Stingrays." I
share your interest in this important topic. The FCC remains committed to protecting the integrity
ofthe Nation's communications and to ensuring that use of equipment by all parties complies with
U.S. law and FCC regulations.
While the use of CSS devices raises a range of issues, the Commission's responsibilities
under the Communications Act are the authorization and operation of radio frequency
transmitters and the appropriate use of spectrum for non-Federal use (i.e., commercial, private
internal business, personal, and state and local government use). Beginning in 2011, the
Commission granted equipment authorizations for CSS devices. All grants of equipment
authorization are publicly available on the FCC's website. I have attached copies of the grants of
equipment authorization for the devices you identify in your letter. Each of these grants lists the
frequency ranges over which the device operates and the device's maximum power levels. The
potential operating range of each device depends on factors such as the location of the device,
the power level used during actual operation, the local environment, and the type of antenna
connected to the device. Equipment authorizations do not address the non-technical aspects of
CSS device operation, such as whether law enforcement has appropriate court approval for such
operation.
Each of our CSS equipment authorizations includes two important conditions. First,
"[t]he marketing and sale of these devices shall be limited to federal, state, local public safety
and law enforcement officials only." Second, "State and local law enforcement agencies must
advance coordinate with the FBI the acquisition and use of the equipment authorized under this
authorization" (emphasis added). Thus, our equipment authorization expressly contemplated that
use of the equipment by state and local law enforcement would be under the auspices of the FBI.
Notably, the implementation of these conditions does not mention nor did we require a non-
disclosure agreement between a purchaser and the FBI.
The use of CSS devices by federal law-enforcement agencies and by some state law-
enforcement agencies is also limited by each agency's guidelines. In 2015, DO] and DHS
released guidelines regarding federal agencies' use of CSS devices. In addition, California and
Page 2-The Honorable Al Franken
other states are exploring legislative limits on CSS use, and the Maryland Court of Special
Appeals has imposed procedural conditions.
As you know, regulatory responsibility for the radio spectrum is divided between the
FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). NTIA
administers spectrum and transmitter authorization for Federal use. Given this divided
responsibility, we have engaged in discussions with our federal partners regarding the
deployment and use of CSS, through the internal FCC task force on CSS that I established in
2014. That engagement is continuing.
As we go forward, I would be happy to make appropriate FCC staff available to you and
your staff for additional discussions regarding our ongoing work on these important issues.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further
assistance.
~k£-l
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
November 23,2016
The Honorable Chris Coons
United States Senate
127A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Coons:
Thank you for your letter concerning recent reports about state and local law
enforcement's use of "cell site simulators" (CSS), also commonly referred to as "Stingrays." I
share your interest in this important topic. The FCC remains committed to protecting the integrity
of the Nation's communications and to ensuring that use of equipment by all parties complies with
U.S. law and FCC regulations.
While the use of CSS devices raises a range of issues, the Commission's responsibilities
under the Communications Act are the authorization and operation of radio frequency
transmitters and the appropriate use of spectrum for non- Federal use (i. e., commercial, private
internal business, personal, and state and local government use). Beginning in 2011, the
Commission granted equipment authorizations for CSS devices. All grants of equipment
authorization are publicly available on the FCC's website. I have attached copies of the grants of
equipment authorization for the devices you identify in your letter. Each of these grants lists the
frequency ranges over which the device operates and the device's maximum power levels. The
potential operating range of each device depends on factors such as the location of the device,
the power level used during actual operation, the local environment, and the type of antenna
connected to the device. Equipment authorizations do not address the non-technical aspects of
CSS device operation, such as whether law enforcement has appropriate court approval for such
operation.
Each of our CSS equipment authorizations includes two important conditions. First,
"[t]he marketing and sale of these devices shall be limited to federal, state, local public safety
and law enforcement officials only." Second, "State and local law enforcement agencies must
advance coordinate with the FBI the acquisition and use of the equipment authorized under this
authorization" (emphasis added). Thus, our equipment authorization expressly contemplated that
use of the equipment by state and local law enforcement would be under the auspices of the FBI.
Notably, the implementation of these conditions does not mention nor did we require a non-
disclosure agreement between a purchaser and the FBI.
The use of CSS devices by federal law-enforcement agencies and by some state law-
enforcement agencies is also limited by each agency's guidelines. In 2015, DO] and DHS
released guidelines regarding federal agencies' use of CSS devices. In addition, California and
Page 2-The Honorable Chris Coons
other states are exploring legislative limits on CSS use, and the Maryland Court of Special
Appeals has imposed procedural conditions.
As you know, regulatory responsibility for the radio spectrum is divided between the
FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). NTIA
administers spectrum and transmitter authorization for Federal use. Given this divided
responsibility, we have engaged in discussions with our federal partners regarding the
deployment and use of CSS, through the internal FCC task force on CSS that I established in
2014. That engagement is continuing.
As we go forward, I would be happy to make appropriate FCC staff available to you and
your staff for additional discussions regarding our ongoing work on these important issues.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further
assistance.
~kiL
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
November 23,2016
The Honorable Sherrod Brown
United States Senate
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Brown:
Thank you for your letter concerning recent reports about state and local law
enforcement's use of "cell site simulators" (CSS), also commonly referred to as "Stingrays." I
share your interest in this important topic. The FCC remains committed to protecting the integrity
of the Nation's communications and to ensuring that use of equipment by all parties complies with
U.S. law and FCC regulations.
While the use of CSS devices raises a range of issues, the Commission's responsibilities
under the Communications Act are the authorization and operation of radio frequency
transmitters and the appropriate use of spectrum for non-Federal use (i. e., commercial, private
internal business, personal, and state and local government use). Beginning in 2011, the
Commission granted equipment authorizations for CSS devices. All grants of equipment
authorization are publicly available on the FCC's website. I have attached copies of the grants of
equipment authorization for the devices you identify in your letter. Each of these grants lists the
frequency ranges over which the device operates and the device's maximum power levels. The
potential operating range of each device depends on factors such as the location of the device,
the power level used during actual operation, the local environment, and the type of antenna
connected to the device. Equipment authorizations do not address the non-technical aspects of
CSS device operation, such as whether law enforcement has appropriate court approval for such
operation.
Each of our CSS equipment authorizations includes two important conditions. First,
"[t]he marketing and sale of these devices shall be limited to federal, state, local public safety
and law enforcement officials only." Second, "State and local law enforcement agencies must
advance coordinate with the FBI the acquisition and use of the equipment authorized under this
authorization" (emphasis added). Thus, our equipment authorization expressly contemplated that
use of the equipment by state and local law enforcement would be under the auspices of the FBI.
Notably, the implementation of these conditions does not mention nor did we require a non-
disclosure agreement between a purchaser and the FB1.
The use of CSS devices by federal law-enforcement agencies and by some state law-
enforcement agencies is also limited by each agency's guidelines. In 2015, DOJ and DHS
released guidelines regarding federal agencies' use of CSS devices. In addition, California and
Page 2-The Honorable Sherrod Brown
other states are exploring legislative limits on CSS use, and the Maryland Court of Special
Appeals has imposed procedural conditions.
As you know, regulatory responsibility for the radio spectrum is divided between the
FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). NTIA
administers spectrum and transmitter authorization for Federal use. Given this divided
responsibility, we have engaged in discussions with our federal partners regarding the
deployment and use of CSS, through the internal FCC task force on CSS that I established in
2014. That engagement is continuing.
As we go forward, I would be happy to make appropriate FCC staff available to you and
your staff for additional discussions regarding our ongoing work on these important issues.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further
assistance.
TkiL
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
November 23, 2016
The Honorable Tammy Baldwin
United States Senate
717 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Baldwin:
Thank you for your letter concerning recent reports about state and local law
enforcement's use of "cell site simulators" (CSS), also commonly referred to as "Stingrays." I
share your interest in this important topic. The FCC remains committed to protecting the integrity
of the Nation's communications and to ensuring that use of equipment by all parties complies withu.s. law and FCC regulations.
While the use of CSS devices raises a range of issues, the Commission's responsibilities
under the Communications Act are the authorization and operation of radio frequency
transmitters and the appropriate use of spectrum for non-Federal use (i.e., commercial, private
internal business, personal, and state and local government use). Beginning in 2011, the
Commission granted equipment authorizations for CSS devices. All grants of equipment
authorization are publicly available on the FCC's website. I have attached copies of the grants of
equipment authorization for the devices you identify in your letter. Each of these grants lists the
frequency ranges over which the device operates and the device's maximum power levels. The
potential operating range of each device depends on factors such as the location of the device,
the power level used during actual operation, the local environment, and the type of antenna
connected to the device. Equipment authorizations do not address the non-technical aspects of
CSS device operation, such as whether law enforcement has appropriate court approval for such
operation.
Each of our CSS equipment authorizations includes two important conditions. First,
"[t]he marketing and sale of these devices shall be limited to federal, state, local public safety
and law enforcement officials only." Second, "State and local law enforcement agencies must
advance coordinate with the FBI the acquisition and use of the equipment authorized under this
authorization" (emphasis added). Thus, our equipment authorization expressly contemplated that
use of the equipment by state and local law enforcement would be under the auspices of the FBI.
Notably, the implementation of these conditions does not mention nor did we require a non-
disclosure agreement between a purchaser and the FBI.
The use of CSS devices by federal law-enforcement agencies and by some state law-
enforcement agencies is also limited by each agency's guidelines. In 2015, DO] and DHS
released guidelines regarding federal agencies' use of CSS devices. In addition, California and
Page 2-The Honorable Tammy Baldwin
other states are exploring legislative limits on CSS use, and the Maryland Court of Special
Appeals has imposed procedural conditions.
As you know, regulatory responsibility for the radio spectrum is divided between the
FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). NTIA
administers spectrum and transmitter authorization for Federal use. Given this divided
responsibility, we have engaged in discussions with our federal partners regarding the
deployment and use of CSS, through the internal FCC task force on CSS that I established in
2014. That engagement is continuing.
As we go forward, I would be happy to make appropriate FCC staff available to you and
your staff for additional discussions regarding our ongoing work on these important issues.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if! can be of any further
assistance.
-ilk£-L
Tom Wheeler