Home/Federal/Federal Register/2021-21781

Proposed Rule2021-21781

Third Mandatory Data Collection for Inmate Calling Services

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

October 5, 2021

Issuing agencies

Federal Communications Commission

Abstract

The Wireline Competition Bureau and the Office of Economics and Analytics (WCB/OEA) seek comment on the contours and specific requirements of the forthcoming Third Mandatory Data Collection for inmate calling services. WCB/OEA have drafted proposed instructions, a template, and a certification form for the Third Mandatory Data Collection. WCB/OEA seek comment on all aspects of these documents.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 190 (Tuesday, October 5, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 5, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54897-54903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21781]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[WC Docket No. 12-375, DA 21-1192, FRID 51251]

Third Mandatory Data Collection for Inmate Calling Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Solicitation of comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Wireline Competition Bureau and the Office of Economics
and Analytics (WCB/OEA) seek comment on the contours and specific
requirements of the forthcoming Third Mandatory Data Collection for
inmate calling services. WCB/OEA have drafted proposed instructions, a
template, and a certification form for the Third Mandatory Data
Collection. WCB/OEA seek comment on all aspects of these documents.

DATES: Comments are due November 4, 2021. Reply Comments are due
November 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.

[[Page 54898]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Morehead, Pricing Policy
Division of the Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-0696 or via
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#117a7065797463787f743f7c7e637479747075517772723f767e67">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of a document that the
Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau
released on September 22, 2021. A full-text version of the document is
available at the following internet address: <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-1192A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-1192A1.pdf</a>.

I. Introduction and Background

By this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) and the
Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA) (collectively, WCB/OEA) seek
comment on the contours and specific requirements of the forthcoming
Third Mandatory Data Collection for inmate calling services (ICS). In
2020, the Commission sought comment on whether and how the Commission
should proceed with any new data collection. The record demonstrated
the need to ``collect, in a more consistent and directed manner, the
data and information necessary to respond to the various criticisms in
the record about the imperfections and inconsistencies in the data from
the Second Mandatory Data Collection.'' In the 2021 ICS Order, the
Commission directed WCB/OEA to develop a new data collection related to
providers' operations, costs, demand, and revenues. The Commission has
conducted two prior mandatory data collections relating to inmate
calling services in the past eight years--the 2013 First Mandatory Data
Collection and the 2015 Second Mandatory Data Collection. The
Commission explained that it would use the collected data to set
permanent interstate and international ICS provider-related rate caps
that more closely reflect providers' costs of serving correctional
facilities. The Commission also emphasized that the data would enable
it to evaluate and, if warranted, revise the current ancillary service
charge caps.
The Commission delegated authority to WCB/OEA to implement this
Third Mandatory Data Collection, including ``determining and describing
the types of information required related to providers' operations,
costs, demand, and revenues,'' and directed WCB/OEA to develop a
template and instructions for the collection. The draft instructions
and template for the Third Mandatory Data Collection are posted on the
Commission's website and are located at this link: Third Mandatory Data
Collection Instructions. The template consists of a Word document and
Excel spreadsheets. For simplicity, WCB/OEA refer to these respective
portions of the template as the Word template and the Excel template.
The Commission also directed WCB/OEA to consider record suggestions
regarding, among other matters, data granularity, cost allocation, and
specificity in definitions and instructions in designing the data
collection, and ``to require each provider to fully explain and justify
each step of its costing process'' including, where appropriate, ``to
specify the methodology the provider shall use in any or all of those
steps.'' The Commission also directed WCB/OEA to ``incorporate lessons
learned from the two prior data collections to ensure that [the
Commission] collect[s], to the extent possible, uniform cost, demand,
and revenue data from each provider.''

II. Overall Structure of the Data Collection

Pursuant to WCB/OEA's delegated authority, WCB/OEA have drafted
proposed instructions, a template, and a certification form for the
Third Mandatory Data Collection. WCB/OEA seek comment on all aspects of
these documents. Do they sufficiently implement the requirements the
Commission articulated for the mandatory data collection in the 2021
ICS Order? If not, what steps should WCB/OEA take to improve the
proposed documents? The Commission's prior data collections have
demonstrated that detailed and specific instructions and templates are
essential to ensure that providers use similar procedures to determine
and report their costs, revenues, and other data. WCB/OEA invite
comment on whether the proposed instructions and template are
sufficiently detailed to accomplish this objective. If not, what
additional instructions, inquiries, or fields should WCB/OEA add?
Conversely, are there any instructions, inquiries, or fields that
should be removed because they are unnecessary to ensure that providers
report uniform and accurate data and other information?

A. Instructions to the Third Mandatory Data Collection

WCB/OEA seek comment on whether the instructions provide sufficient
guidance to ensure that providers use uniform methodologies and report
the required information in a consistent manner. What improvements can
WCB/OEA make to the instructions? Are there any changes that would
clarify the instructions or increase uniformity across providers'
responses, particularly regarding how to report and allocate their
costs? If so, what specific changes should WCB/OEA make? Are there any
definitions that are unclear? Are there any undefined terms WCB/OEA
should define? Is there alternative or additional language that would
minimize ambiguity in any instruction? The proposed instructions also
include many requests that are not specifically described below. WCB/
OEA seek comment on all aspects of the proposed instructions, including
on those requests that WCB/OEA do not address individually in this
document.
Reporting Period. The proposed instructions generally seek data for
each calendar year from 2019 through 2021, but seek cost data only for
calendar year 2021, in part to minimize the burden of responding to
this data collection. Is this the correct period for general data
requests, such as revenues, site commission payments, and calling
minutes? Is cost data only for calendar year 2021 the most relevant to
collect? Would cost data from 2019, on the other hand, provide the most
representative data set, given that the data from 2020 and 2021 will
reflect the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon operations? Should
WCB/OEA adopt a longer or shorter period for any set of requests? If
so, why? Are there any specific known and measurable changes to ICS-
related investments, expenses, revenues, and demand over the next few
years that are not reflected in the data the proposed instructions seek
to collect?
Financial Information. The proposed instructions require providers
to report financial data in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and specify that the carrying value of all assets
shall reflect the results of recent impairment testing that accurately
removes any overstatement of carrying value otherwise recorded in a
provider's book of accounts. Under generally accepted accounting
principles, an asset or asset group is impaired when its carrying
amount, that is, the value reflected on the balance sheet, net of
depreciation or amortization, exceeds its fair market value. In that
case, the value of the impaired asset or asset group is written down
and the reduced value is reflected on the balance sheet and a loss is
recorded on the income statement. Is this the correct approach? If not,
why not? How often do providers test their assets for impairment and
how often are they required to do so under generally accepted
accounting principles? Are additional instructions needed to ensure
that the carrying value of providers' assets is not overstated? If so,
what other instructions should WCB/OEA adopt?

[[Page 54899]]

WCB/OEA seek comment on whether providers maintain sufficient
records to enable them to respond fully to the data collection. If not,
what additional steps should WCB/OEA take to ensure that the Commission
has sufficient information to set reasonable permanent provider-related
rate caps for interstate and international ICS and to revise the
current ancillary service change caps? Should WCB/OEA adopt workarounds
that would provide reasonable proxies for any financial data that
providers are unable to report and, if so, what workarounds should WCB/
OEA specify?
Cost Allocation. WCB/OEA propose several steps for providers to
follow in allocating their costs among various services, as set forth
in the proposed instructions. What refinements, if any, should WCB/OEA
make to the proposed cost allocation methodology? Is there an
alternative methodology that would better ensure that providers
allocate their costs in a manner consistent with how they are incurred?
If so, what is that methodology and why would it produce more accurate
results than the proposed method? Are there additional allocation steps
or instructions that would result in greater uniformity in providers'
cost allocation procedures or greater accuracy in the cost allocation
results? Do all or most providers routinely track certain data in the
normal course of operating their businesses that should be used to
develop allocators for particular costs or groups of costs? Are there
additional steps WCB/OEA should take to ensure that each provider will
directly assign its investments and expenses to the extent possible?
Similarly, are there additional steps WCB/OEA can take to ensure that
each provider will allocate shared and common investments and expenses
in a cost-causative manner?
Response Granularity. WCB/OEA propose that all providers submit
data both at the company-wide level and for each correctional facility
in which the provider offered calling services during the reporting
period. WCB/OEA seek comment on this approach. Assuming WCB/OEA should
require providers to report data on a facility-level basis, how should
WCB/OEA require providers that track costs only on a contract level to
respond? Are the cost allocation procedures set forth in the
instructions sufficient to enable these providers to allocate costs
down to the facility and, if not, what additional procedures should
WCB/OEA require? Are there any additional data WCB/OEA should seek that
would help ensure that providers allocate costs to facilities in a
manner that more accurately reflects how such costs are incurred? How
and to what degree should a provider document or explain the way it
derives facility-level costs?
The proposed instructions give providers the option of reporting
their investment and expense data for ICS and related ancillary
services without separating them into interstate and intrastate
components or, if they prefer, to perform that separation prior to
reporting their data. This approach reflects the fact that WCB/OEA are
unaware of any material cost differences between providing interstate
and intrastate calling services based on the record in this proceeding
to date. Is that understanding correct? Are there any data for which a
separation into interstate and intrastate components would be helpful
in determining the costs providers incur solely in providing interstate
and international calling services and related ancillary services?

B. Template

WCB/OEA propose to require providers to submit the requisite data
using a reporting template, to be filed through the Commission's
electronic comment filing system (ECFS). The proposed template consists
of a Word document (Appendix A to the instructions) for responses
requiring narrative information and Excel spreadsheets (Appendix B to
the instructions) for responses that require specific numbers or
information. WCB/OEA seek suggestions for improvements WCB/OEA can make
to the template. Is there an alternative organization that would reduce
any perceived burdens? Are there other organizational or substantive
improvements WCB/OEA can make to the reporting requirements? Are there
inquiries WCB/OEA should add to the templates? Are there inquiries WCB/
OEA should eliminate? If so, why? Do any questions require
clarification?

III. Specific Inquiries

General Categories of Information Requested. The proposed
instructions require providers to submit certain types of information
related to their operations, costs, demand, and revenues. Are the
categories of data described in sufficient detail in the proposed
instructions? Are there additional categories or subcategories of
information WCB/OEA should require providers to submit, in order to
gather accurate, consistent, and sufficiently disaggregated data? Is
there additional information that would help quantify the relative
financial importance of different products and services in each
provider's business portfolio or ICS operations? Is there additional
information WCB/OEA could seek to facilitate a thorough accounting of
the providers' investments, particularly to distinguish investments in
intangible assets that were created internally from investments in
intangible assets and goodwill generated by acquisitions or asset
purchases? If so, how should WCB/OEA draw this distinction and how
should any distinctions be reflected in the development of permanent
rate caps? Is there additional information WCB/OEA should seek to help
thoroughly account for a provider's recurring capital expenses or
recurring operating expenses? Should customer deposits be subtracted
from the provider's net investment in assets, the base upon which an
allowable rate of return is calculated? Do customer deposits represent
non-investor-supplied capital? Does the provider pay interest on the
outstanding customer deposit balance? Is the provider able to earn a
return on the outstanding customer deposit balance? Are there
additional subcategories of data WCB/OEA should seek that will enable
the Commission to better estimate providers' costs of serving
individual correctional facilities?
Demand for Interstate and International Calling Services. WCB/OEA
propose to seek information on providers' demand for interstate and
international calling services by requiring providers to report billed
minutes, unbilled minutes, average daily population, number of
telephones installed, and the number of kiosks installed. Are there
other types of data that would provide a more accurate picture of
demand such as the number of beds, or the rate of new account
generation, at a particular facility? For example, would the rates of
new account generation or account termination serve as accurate proxies
for demand, or otherwise reflect cost drivers that could be used to
better allocate provider costs? Could a measure of demand other than
minutes be used as the unit of sale for the permanent rate caps? If
providers do not know the average daily population of certain
facilities they serve, what data could they report to provide a
reasonable proxy for average daily population in those instances? What
impact has the COVID-19 pandemic had on the cost of providing and the
demand for intrastate, interstate, and international calling services?
Do providers expect that impact to persist?
Data for Jails with Fewer than 1,000 ADP. The Commission explained
in the 2021 ICS Order that ``[a]lthough in some places WCB/OEA use the
term `smaller jails' to refer to facilities with average

[[Page 54900]]

daily populations less than 1,000, that usage is not meant to imply
that such jails are small in any absolute sense.'' In the 2021 ICS
Order, the Commission observed that the record then before it did not
``allow [it] to reasonably set permanent or even new interim interstate
rate caps for jails with less than 1,000 average daily population.''
What types of data would provide a more accurate picture of the costs
providers incur in serving such jails? What are the specific factors
that differentiate the costs associated with serving such jails from
the costs of serving larger jails? What data should WCB/OEA collect to
analyze those factors? What are the one-time costs that providers incur
to initiate service for a newly incarcerated person in such jails as
compared to larger jails? Should WCB/OEA require providers to
separately report these one-time costs? If so, what are the appropriate
one-time cost categories? The record suggests that higher turnover in
jails with less than 1,000 ADP may affect providers' and facilities'
costs. How should providers be required to report turnover data, and
how can WCB/OEA analyze those data to identify the impact of turnover
on provider and facility costs, or to distinguish between them? Are
there additional data WCB/OEA can request that would help the
Commission quantify and evaluate the effect of turnover?
Site Commissions. WCB/OEA propose to require that providers
separately identify the amounts of (1) legally mandated, (2)
contractually prescribed, (3) monetary, and (4) in-kind site commission
payments. Are there other categories of information WCB/OEA should seek
regarding site commissions? How should providers submit information
concerning in-kind payments? For example, should WCB/OEA require
providers to describe their in-kind payments in detail and assign them
a dollar value? In the 2021 ICS Order, the Commission observed that the
record did not allow it to ``determine on a permanent basis whether and
what portion of [site commission] payments are legitimately related to
the cost'' of providing inmate calling service.'' What types of
information should WCB/OEA seek to help make this determination? Should
WCB/OEA, for example, require providers to explain whether they agree
to pay site commission on ICS calls to get footholds in facilities
where they can offer non-ICS products and services that will not be
subject to site commission payments obligations? If so, how can WCB/OEA
ensure that providers allocate their site commission payments between
their ICS-related operation and those other operations in a cost-
causative manner?
Security Services. As the Commission explained in 2021, to
determine whether any costs associated with security services should be
recovered through ICS rates, it first must be able to determine whether
any of those costs are directly related to the provision of ICS and
distinguish them from other security costs incurred by correctional
institutions. To facilitate this determination, the proposed
instructions would require providers to report security costs in
connection with the providers' ICS-related and non-ICS-related
operations. Are there other data WCB/OEA should seek concerning such
costs? What categories of security costs are properly considered
directly related to ICS? What categories are not? How should WCB/OEA
require providers to separate and report security costs which are
legitimately or directly related to ICS from general facility security
costs? Should WCB/OEA require providers to specify whether any such
cost is incurred by the ICS provider or the facility? In 2021, the
Commission observed that there is record evidence suggesting that some
of the security and surveillance functions described by the National
Sheriffs' Association as being performed by correctional facility staff
appear to duplicate some of the security functions that providers
report as costs. Are there any other data WCB/OEA could collect that
would assist the Commission in determining whether security costs are
directly or legitimately related to the provision of ICS? Should WCB/
OEA collect specific data about security costs that may not be directly
or legitimately related to the provision of ICS, such as costs incurred
to monitor and record every call made by an incarcerated person?
Ancillary Service Charges. WCB/OEA propose to require providers to
report revenues and disaggregated costs incurred for ancillary
services. WCB/OEA seek comment on this proposal, as reflected in the
instructions. In the 2021 ICS Order, the Commission observed that the
existing record did not allow it to ``adjust [the] caps on ancillary
service fees beyond the new cap on fees for single-call services and
third-party financial transaction fees.'' The instructions for the
Second Mandatory Data Collection required certain ancillary service
revenues to be reported separately, but providers were not required to
report their ancillary service costs separately from other inmate
calling services costs. Further, providers were not required to
separately report costs relating to any specific ancillary service. The
Commission found that there was ``no reliable way to exclude ancillary
service costs from [the] provider-related rate caps calculations at
this time.'' By consequence, the Commission allowed such costs to
``remain as part of the industry costs'' used in the calculations for
the interim rate caps. What other revenue or disaggregated cost data
should WCB/OEA seek to enable the Commission to evaluate and, if
warranted, revise the current ancillary service charge caps and/or
isolate and exclude ancillary service costs from any future
calculations related to per-minute rate caps?
In the 2021 ICS Order, the Commission identified ``confusion among
industry stakeholders regarding the relationship between the automated
payment fee and third-party financial transaction fees as they relate
to credit card processing fees.'' To determine how credit card
processing works in relation to these two ancillary services, WCB/OEA
propose to require providers to report the total amount of revenues
derived from charging automated payment fees and third-party
transaction fees, to report the amount of that total that is credit
card processing separately, and specify whether the provider, an
affiliate, or a third party performs the processing. Do commenters
agree with this approach? If not, how should WCB/OEA require providers
to report credit card processing revenues embedded in revenues derived
from these two ancillary service charges?
The Commission also expressed concern about ``the adverse effect of
revenue-sharing arrangements between calling service providers and
third-party financial institutions'' in the context of ancillary
services. To assist the Commission in understanding the prevalence and
effect of such agreements, WCB/OEA propose to require providers to
identify revenue-sharing agreements related to ancillary services and
the revenues shared under those agreements. What other information
should WCB/OEA seek on revenue-sharing agreements?
Additional Data. Beyond the foregoing, are there other types of
data WCB/OEA should require providers to submit to ensure that WCB/OEA
fully capture the costs of providing ICS? Are there additional data
that may enable the Commission to better understand the costs ICS
providers and correctional facilities incur in connection with ICS? How
should any such data be compiled and used to ensure that direct and
shared and common costs are assigned

[[Page 54901]]

or allocated in the most cost-causative manner? What data should WCB/
OEA collect concerning international calling costs to isolate those
costs and to eliminate the risk of double counting?
Are there other issues WCB/OEA should consider regarding the data
WCB/OEA propose to collect? Should WCB/OEA seek data on the marketing
and sale of inmate calling services, such as contracts by which
correctional facilities purchase calling services on behalf of
incarcerated persons at fixed monthly rates? If so, what data should
WCB/OEA ask for? For example, should WCB/OEA direct providers to
identify in narrative responses the terms of any bulk-purchasing
arrangements they have with correctional facilities? ``Bulk
purchasing'' in this context refers to the purchase by a correctional
facility of ICS at fixed monthly rates or other similar arrangements
such as unlimited calling plans at fixed rates. What data should WCB/
OEA ask for from providers that enter into service arrangements, such
as GTL's contract with San Francisco, whereby incarcerated people
receive free telephone service?

IV. Miscellaneous

In the 2021 ICS Order, the Commission delegated to WCB/OEA the
authority to ``require providers to submit any additional information
that they deem necessary to help the Commission formulate permanent
rate caps or to revise [the] rules governing ancillary service
charges.'' WCB/OEA propose to require all providers to submit audited
financial statements or reports, or similar documentation, for the
relevant reporting period, to the extent they have been produced in the
ordinary course of business. Are there other reports or documentation
WCB/OEA should seek? Should WCB/OEA require providers to provide copies
of all or a random sample of their ICS contracts to assist Commission
staff in verifying or crosschecking data submitted in response to the
Third Mandatory Data Collection?
Separately, in the 2021 ICS Order, the Commission reasoned that the
benefits of conducting a third data collection ``far outweigh any
burden on providers'' given the ``adverse impact that unreasonably high
rates and ancillary services charges have on incarcerated people and
those family and loved ones they call.'' While WCB/OEA do not revisit
this general finding, WCB/OEA do seek to maximize the benefits of this
data collection while minimizing the costs to the extent WCB/OEA can.
WCB/OEA therefore seek comment on whether these proposals will meet the
Commission's objectives in requiring the data collection. If not, what
additional questions should WCB/OEA ask to ensure the Commission has
all the data it needs to set permanent rate caps, evaluate ancillary
service fees, and adjust the caps for those fees, if necessary?
Conversely, are there ways that WCB/OEA could minimize the burden on
providers while still ensuring WCB/OEA collect all the data the
Commission needs to meet its goals? If so, what specific changes do
commenters propose in this regard? WCB/OEA also seek to ensure that
smaller providers are not disproportionately burdened by this data
collection, while recognizing that data from smaller providers is
critical to the Commission's ratemaking process going forward. Do
commenters have suggestions as to how WCB/OEA can get the information
WCB/OEA need from smaller providers in a less burdensome way? If so,
how?
In the 2021 Order, the Commission eliminated the separate interim
rate cap that had applied to interstate collect calls, an action that
reflected a record establishing that collect calls now play only a
limited role in the inmate calling services marketplace and that there
is at most a relatively small difference between the costs of providing
collect and non-collect inmate calling services calls. Consistent with
that Commission action, the proposed instructions do not differentiate
among debit, prepaid, and collect calls. WCB/OEA seek comment on
whether the instructions should distinguish among these call types. If
so, why and for which specific components of the proposed data
collection?
Finally, as part of the Commission's continuing effort to advance
communications equity for all, including people of color and others who
have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely
affected by persistent poverty and inequality, WCB/OEA invite comment
on any equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be
associated with the upcoming Third Mandatory Data Collection. Section 1
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, provides that the
Commission ``regulat[es] interstate and foreign commerce in
communication by wire and radio so as to make [such service] available,
so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin,
or sex.'' WCB/OEA define the term ``equity'' consistent with Executive
Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial
treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to
underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as
Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian
Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of
religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer
(LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural
areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty
or inequality. Specifically, WCB/OEA seek comment on how these
proposals for that collection may promote or inhibit advances in
diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.

V. Procedural Matters

Filing of Comments and Replies. Pursuant to sections 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 before the dates
indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System. See FCC,
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
(May 1, 1998). The Protective Order issued in this proceeding permits
parties to designate certain material as confidential. Filings that
contain confidential information should be appropriately redacted and
filed pursuant to the procedure described therein.
<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. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express,
and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC
20554.
<bullet> Effective March 19, 2020, and pending additional
information, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger
delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect

[[Page 54902]]

the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission
of COVID-19.
Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise
summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments
and reply comments must also comply with section 1.49 and all other
applicable sections of the Commission's rules. WCB/OEA direct all
interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the date
of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. All
parties are encouraged to use a table of contents, regardless of the
length of their submission. WCB/OEA also strongly encourage parties to
track the organization set forth in the WCB/OEA document and the
instructions in order to facilitate the internal review process.
People with Disabilities. WCB/OEA ask that requests for
accommodations be made as soon as possible in order to allow the agency
to satisfy such requests whenever possible. Send an email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#55333636606561153336367b323a23">[email&#160;protected]</a> or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202) 418-0530.
Ex Parte Presentations. This proceeding 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 the 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 section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. As
required by the RFA, the Commission has prepared a Supplemental Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in the WCB/OEA document. The Commission requests written
public comments on the Supplemental IRFA. Comments must be identified
as responses to the Supplemental IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments provided in this Notice. The Commission will
send a copy of the WCB/OEA document, including this Supplemental IRFA,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA). In addition, summaries of the WCB/OEA document and the
Supplemental IRFA will be published in the Federal Register.
Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. The WCB/OEA document
contains new or modified information collection requirements subject to
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It 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.
Contemporaneously with the publication of this Notice in the Federal
Register, WCB/OEA will publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking
comment pursuant to the PRA on the information collection requirements
for the Mandatory Data Collection in the 2021 ICS Order and this Public
Notice. WCB/OEA will consider comments submitted in response to both
Federal Register notices in finalizing this information collection for
submission to OMB. In addition, WCB/OEA note that pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198; see 44
U.S.C. 3506(4), WCB/OEA previously sought comment on how the Commission
will further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Additional Information. For further information, please contact
Erik Raven-Hansen, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy
Division, at (202) 418-1532 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2742554e4c0955465142490a4f46495442496741444409404851">[email&#160;protected]</a>, or Peter
Bean, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, at (202)
418-0786 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7404110011065a1611151a341217175a131b02">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Please copy
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b9d4d8d7ddd8cdd6cbc0ddd8cdd8dad6d5d5dcdacdd0d6d7f9dfdada97ded6cf">[email&#160;protected]</a> on any email correspondence.

VI. Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) and the Office of
Economics and Analytics (OEA) (collectively, WCB/OEA) have prepared
this Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental
IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in the WCB/OEA document. WCB/OEA
request written public comments on this Supplemental IRFA. Comments
must be identified as responses to the Supplemental IRFA and must be
filed by the deadlines for comments provided in this Public Notice. The
Commission will send a copy of the WCB/OEA document, including this
Supplemental IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Public Notice and the
Supplemental IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Data Collection

In this document, WCB/OEA seek comment on the contours and specific
requirements of the forthcoming Third Mandatory Data Collection for
inmate calling services (ICS). In 2020, the Commission sought comment
on whether and how the Commission should proceed with any new data
collection. In the 2021 ICS Order, the Commission adopted a new data
collection requirement. The Commission determined that this data
collection would enable it to adopt permanent interstate and
international rate caps, protect consumers against unjust and
unreasonable ancillary service charges, and improve its continuing
review of the inmate calling services marketplace.
Pursuant to their delegated authority, WCB/OEA have drafted
proposed instructions and a template for the Third Mandatory Data
Collection and are issuing the WCB/OEA document to seek comment on all
aspects of these documents.

B. Legal Basis

The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the
WCB/OEA document is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(j), 201(b), 218,
220, 276, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 201(b), 218, 220, 276, and 403.

[[Page 54903]]

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Third Mandatory Data Collection Will Apply

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 Third Mandatory Data Collection. The RFA generally
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory
definition of a small business applies ``unless an agency, after
consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes
one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the
activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the
Federal Register.'' 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses were incorporated in a 2020
document and the 2021 ICS Order. In those analyses, the Commission
described in detail the small entities that might be affected.
Accordingly, in this document, for the Supplemental IRFA, WCB/OEA
hereby incorporate by reference the descriptions and estimates of the
number of small entities from these previous Regulatory Flexibility
Analyses.

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

The WCB/OEA document seeks comments on the specifics of the Third
Mandatory Data Collection to ensure calling services rates, charges,
and practices are just and reasonable. The Third Mandatory Data
Collection requires ICS providers to submit, among other things, data
and other information on calls, demand, operations, company and
contract information, information about facilities served, revenues,
site commission payments, and ancillary fees.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
include the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) The
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for such small
entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and
(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for
such small entities.'' WCB/OEA will consider all of these factors when
WCB/OEA receive substantive comment from the public and potentially
affected entities.
The Third Mandatory Data Collection is a one-time request and does
not impose a recurring obligation on providers. Because the
Commission's 2021 ICS Order requires all ICS providers to comply with
the mandatory data collection, the collection will affect smaller as
well as larger ICS providers. The Commission has taken steps to ensure
that the data collection template is competitively neutral and not
unduly burdensome for any set of providers. Additionally, the WCB/OEA
document asks whether there are ways of minimizing the burden of the
data collection on providers while still ensuring that the Commission
collects all the data needed to meet its goals.
WCB/OEA will consider the economic impact on small entities, as
identified in comments filed in response to the WCB/OEA document and
this Supplemental IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and
finalizing the instructions and the template for the Third Mandatory
Data Collection.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules

None.

Federal Communications Commission.
Daniel Kahn,
Associate Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2021-21781 Filed 10-4-21; 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>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on October 5, 2021.

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.