Proposed Rule2024-19038
Incarcerated People's Communication Services; Implementation of the Martha Wright-Reed Act; Rates for Interstate 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
September 20, 2024
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks additional comment on establishing permanent rate caps for video incarcerated people's communications services (IPCS) that are just and reasonable, and will fairly compensate IPCS providers, including comment on the video IPCS marketplace and the types of data needed to support its efforts to adopt permanent video IPCS rate caps in the future. It also seeks comment on the possibly of further disaggregating the very small jail rate tier and the types of cost or other data that would identify any additional distinctions within this rate tier. The Commission seeks comment on its authority to address quality of service issues raised in this proceeding and whether it should develop minimum Federal quality of service standards. It again seeks comment on whether to expand the definitions of "Prison" and "Jail" to capture the full universe of confinement facilities and specifically, the costs providers incur in providing service to confinement facilities that are not correctional institutions. It also seeks comment on whether to incorporate into its inactive account rules a requirement that providers allow account holders to designate a third party to receive refunds from IPCS accounts. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on possibly adopting a uniform additive to the IPCS rate caps to account for correctional facility costs.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 183 (Friday, September 20, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 183 (Friday, September 20, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77065-77074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-19038]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[WC Docket Nos. 12-375, 23-62; FCC 24-75; FR ID 237560]
Incarcerated People's Communication Services; Implementation of
the Martha Wright-Reed Act; Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling
Services
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks
additional comment on establishing permanent rate caps for video
incarcerated people's communications services (IPCS) that are just and
reasonable, and will fairly compensate IPCS providers, including
comment on the video IPCS marketplace and the types of data needed to
support its efforts to adopt permanent video IPCS rate caps in the
future. It also seeks comment on the possibly of further disaggregating
the very small jail rate tier and the types of cost or other data that
would identify any additional distinctions within this rate tier. The
Commission seeks comment on its authority to address quality of service
issues raised in this proceeding and whether it should develop minimum
Federal quality of service standards. It again seeks comment on whether
to expand the definitions of ``Prison'' and ``Jail'' to capture the
full universe of confinement facilities and specifically, the costs
providers incur in providing service to confinement facilities that are
not correctional institutions. It also seeks comment on whether to
[[Page 77066]]
incorporate into its inactive account rules a requirement that
providers allow account holders to designate a third party to receive
refunds from IPCS accounts. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on
possibly adopting a uniform additive to the IPCS rate caps to account
for correctional facility costs.
DATES: Comments are due on or before October 21, 2024; and reply
comments are due on or before November 19, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket Nos. 12-375
and 23-62, by either of the following methods:
Electronic filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the
internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS): <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
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. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must
be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Hand-
delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's
Secretary are accepted between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. by the FCC's mailing
contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All
hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.
Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the
building. Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S.
Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class
Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L
Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Meil, Pricing Policy Division
of the Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-7233 or via email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#02717667726a676c2c6f676b6e426461612c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d5a6a1b0a5bdb0bbfbb8b0bcb995b3b6b6fbb2baa3">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), document FCC 24-75,
adopted on July 18, 2024, and released on July 22, 2024, in WC Docket
Nos. 12-375 and 23-62. This summary is based on the public redacted
version of the FCC 24-75 document, the full text of which can be
accessed electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management
System (EDOCS) website at <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/edocs">www.fcc.gov/edocs</a>, or via the FCC's
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>, or
is available at the following internet address: <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-75A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-75A1.pdf</a>.
Synopsis
I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Establishing Permanent Rate Caps for Video Services
1. In the 2024 IPCS Report and Order, published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register, we determine that we do not have a
sufficient record or sufficiently reliable data from the 2023 Mandatory
Data Collection to set permanent rate caps for video IPCS. The
Commission identified anomalies in the video cost data (both industry-
wide and for Securus in particular) that suggest that there is
significant room for growth in this nascent market and that these data
were unlikely to be representative of longer term trends in the video
IPCS market. For these reasons, in the 2024 IPCS Report and Order, we
establish interim rates based on the best data available and delegate
authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) and the Office of
Economics and Analytics (OEA) to conduct an additional mandatory data
collection to obtain updated cost and other data and information from
providers concerning their video IPCS offerings, among other things. We
now seek further comment on establishing permanent rate caps for video
IPCS that are just and reasonable, and will fairly compensate IPCS
providers. We emphasize that we will keep a close eye on developments
in the video IPCS marketplace, including how changes in it affect
people with disabilities. We anticipate receiving detailed information
on those developments as part of the IPCS providers' annual reports
once WCB and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) revise the
requirement for those reports in response to the 2024 IPCS Report and
Order. We also will be receiving detailed information regarding video
IPCS costs and demand and (to the extent practicable) how those costs
might change over time, once WCB and OEA implement the additional data
collection we require today. We ask interested parties to supplement
the record in this proceeding with any information they have regarding
the types of video communications services that providers offer
incarcerated people, the demand for those services, the used and useful
costs providers and facilities incur in the provision of those
services, and other information that might help us set just and
reasonable, and fairly compensatory, permanent rate caps for video
IPCS. While the course of this proceeding, including the Commission's
efforts regarding inmate calling services prior to the enactment of the
Martha Reed-Wright Act, make us acutely aware of all the steps involved
in determining just and reasonable, and fairly compensatory, permanent
rate caps, we intend to move quickly to complete that task with regard
to video IPCS once we have the requisite information.
2. In 2023, the Commission sought comment on how it could best
ensure that the rates and charges for video IPCS are just and
reasonable (88 FR 27850, May 3, 2023). We now invite further comment on
the video IPCS marketplace, including the types of costs incurred by
video IPCS providers and the pricing and other associated practices
under which such providers presently offer video services to
incarcerated people. What types of video communications services are
currently being offered to incarcerated people and what additional
video services are likely to be offered in the near future? Is there a
difference between video communications depending on the technology
used? For example, are kiosks the primary means of video IPCS or are
tablets more prevalent? What role does application-based video IPCS
play in the IPCS market and how is that role likely to change in the
future with increased deployment of tablets? Do providers use third-
party applications, or develop applications internally? Do providers
that develop such applications internally offset their development
costs by selling them to other providers? Are there trends favoring the
use of one technology over the other, for example, in costs,
deployment, or usage? Is there a cost difference between different
types of technologies, whether hardware-based or software-based, or
among different versions of the same types of technologies? Are these
technologies used in different ways? For example, are kiosks used more
commonly for on-site video visitation? Do different hardware or
software platforms entail differences in the manner in which video IPCS
is offered, for example, as to quality of service or the variety of
features offered with the service? Within the categories of safety and
security services that we identify as used and useful in the 2024 IPCS
Report and Order, are any such services or functions particular to
video IPCS that--given the developing nature of the market--are still
in the process of deployment or development?
3. We also seek comment on trends that may characterize the video
IPCS market. What trends are there, if any, in
[[Page 77067]]
the costs of providing video IPCS? Are the substantial investments
providers reported making in video equipment in the 2023 Mandatory Data
Collection continuing or is investment in them trending to more stable,
sustainable levels? Under what circumstances would it be appropriate to
determine that the market has reached a more mature stage, potentially
warranting the adoption of permanent, rather than interim, rates? What
trends are there, if any, in demand for video IPCS? To what extent are
providers' investments in and deployment of video equipment and network
architecture stimulating demand for video IPCS? Are there trends in the
costs of deploying these technologies as they become more widely
available? Are there trends in the relative usage of these technologies
to access video IPCS, including video visitation, versus other services
provided via the same technologies or platforms, such as educational or
entertainment services? How should we measure the relative use of these
technologies among different services? What proportion of equipment and
platform costs are devoted to providing video IPCS as compared to
providing other services? Given the common usage of these equipment and
platforms, what are appropriate methods for allocating costs among
video IPCS, audio IPCS, and other non-IPCS that use the same equipment
and platforms? What trends are there, if any, in providers' investment
in the platforms necessary to support the provision of video IPCS?
4. Additional Mandatory Data Collection. In the 2024 IPCS Report
and Order, we direct staff to conduct an additional mandatory data
collection to obtain updated data on video IPCS and the IPCS industry
in general. We seek comment on the types of data that would be most
helpful for the Commission to collect to support its efforts to adopt
permanent video IPCS rate caps in the future. We invite comment on any
changes the Commission should consider making to the 2023 Mandatory
Data Collection as it considers developing the additional data
collection. Are there any types of data that the Commission should
consider adding to that collection to ensure it meets the Commission's
needs? We also seek comment on the relative benefits and burdens that
collecting additional data would entail. Finally, we seek comment on
the appropriate timeframe in which to conduct this data collection to
ensure that the data we receive reflect a sufficiently mature video
IPCS market to be suitable as the basis for setting permanent video
IPCS rate caps.
B. Further Disaggregating the Very Small Jail Tier
5. In the 2024 IPCS Report and Order, we establish five rate cap
tiers based on facility type and size, based on the best evidence
available, in both the record and the data provided in the 2023
Mandatory Data Collection, reflecting the factors driving providers'
costs. Of the four size tiers for jails, the smallest size tier (i.e.,
for those jails with an average daily population of less than 100)
makes up approximately half of all jails for which we had available
data. Given the relative share of jail facilities comprising this tier,
we recognize that there may be additional distinctions within this tier
that are not effectively captured by the available data and that the
number of facilities in this tier, of necessity, limits the granularity
of the analysis for this smallest jail tier. For example, certain small
providers that serve very small jails failed to submit data in response
to the 2023 Mandatory Data Collection that we found to be reliable and
therefore excluded from our analysis. Although we find that the
available data are sufficiently robust for setting permanent audio rate
caps at the tiers we adopt in the 2024 IPCS Report and Order, obtaining
more reliable data from these providers may establish a better more
comprehensive understanding of the costs of serving this smallest tier
of jails. Commenters suggest that the smallest facilities are subject
to particularly high costs, due to, for example, more frequently being
located in rural areas. Accordingly, we seek comment on the types of
cost or other data that would be most helpful for the Commission to
collect from providers serving this tier of facilities to ascertain
whether, and if so how, to further disaggregate this tier to capture
any variability that may exist within segments of this tier. Are there
any particular types of data that the Commission should consider adding
to our subsequent data collection to ensure that it meets the
Commission's needs in this regard? We also seek comment on, if the data
suggests that this tier should be further disaggregated, how to do so
in a manner that accurately reflects providers' costs, but also
minimizes the burden on providers to administer or on consumers to
understand.
C. Quality of Service
6. Many commenters raise concerns in the record regarding the
quality of IPCS. Dropped calls, lack of enough communications devices
at facilities, frozen video screens, and other technological
shortcomings are ongoing challenges for incarcerated people and their
loved ones. As an initial matter, we seek comment on scope of the
Commission's authority to address quality of service issues related to
these communications services, including to establish and enforce
service quality rules or standards for the provision of IPCS. The
Commission long has relied on its section 201(b) authority to address
traffic delivery and call completion concerns. In addition, the
Commission has recognized that ``[a]n inherent part of any rate setting
process is not only the establishment of the rate level and rate
structure, but the definition of the service or functionality to which
the rate will apply.'' We thus believe that quality of service
considerations are within the purview of our establishment of a
compensation plan to ensure just and reasonable rates for IPCS under
section 276(b)(1)(A). Do commenters agree that our traditional sources
of statutory authority over these communications and providers--
sections 276 and 201--convey jurisdiction for the regulation of service
quality? Are there alternative statutory provisions on which we could
rely to regulate the service quality of IPCS? Does the source of our
authority differ depending on the type of communication, i.e., audio or
video IPCS?
7. Assuming the Commission has statutory bases to address service
quality issues, we seek comment on whether the Commission should
develop minimum Federal quality of service standards. If Federal
standards are warranted, how should such standards or rules be
developed? Should there be different standards or rules for different
types of facilities or providers? Should the Commission establish the
same or different standards for audio and video IPCS? Are there
technical considerations that may warrant different standards for video
services, or for different types of video services? How would the
Commission monitor and enforce such standards? Similarly, are there
service quality issues caused by factors beyond the control of the IPCS
provider, such as broadband congestion or network failures? If so, how
would Federal standards account for these factors?
8. We also seek comment on the types of service quality issues that
should be addressed by any Federal standards. Should the standards
simply address the most common issues reported in the record or attempt
to cover any issue that materially impacts the communication service?
If the Commission adopted service quality standards, how would
[[Page 77068]]
such standards be monitored and enforced and through what procedures?
Under what circumstances, if any, should the standards require refunds
to IPCS consumers?
9. Finally, are there any existing service quality standards or
regulations in the IPCS marketplace today? To the extent that parties
support adoption of Federal service quality standards, we anticipate
that existing standards or regulations might provide a model for
Federal efforts. Do prison and jail facilities currently have rules or
regulations in place to address the service quality of IPCS? Do
contracts between correctional institutions and providers include
service quality standards, and, if so, what kinds of standards and what
type of metrics for monitoring such standards are included? Have states
adopted any regulations designed to address service quality of
communications in correctional facilities? Parties should address these
and any additional issues related to the service quality of IPCS.
D. Expanding the Definitions of Prisons and Jails
10. In the 2024 IPCS Report and Order, we modify the definition of
``Jail'' to encompass all immigration detention facilities, but we
decline, at this time, to further expand the definitions of ``Prison''
and ``Jail'' in our rules, as requested by some parties, to capture the
full universe of confinement facilities such as civil commitment,
residential, group and nursing facilities. Several commenters support
expanding the definition of ``Jail'' to cover civil commitment
facilities, residential facilities, group facilities, and nursing
facilities in which people with disabilities, substance abuse problems,
or other conditions are routinely detained. In both 2022 and 2023, the
Commission sought comment on modifying the definitions of ``Jail'' and
``Prison'' in its rules ``to ensure that they capture the full universe
of confinement facilities.'' In addition, the Commission sought comment
in 2022 on its authority to apply the inmate calling services rules,
``including those addressing communication disabilities, to these
facilities.'' Although we agree that individuals in these facilities
should benefit from the protections of just and reasonable rate caps
and other consumer protection rules that we adopt here, we conclude
that the Commission lacks sufficient information and data to address
the requests. For this reason, we seek further comment on the costs
providers incur in providing service to confinement facilities that are
not correctional institutions.
11. Some parties contend that the definition of payphone service in
section 276 of the Communications Act is, in pertinent part, limited to
payphone service provided ``in correctional institutions'' and does not
extend to confinement facilities that allegedly are not
``correctional'' in nature. Others assert that the protections of our
rules should be extended to benefit individuals in confinement
facilities generally. We seek comment on whether our statutory
authority under section 276 can be interpreted to extend to confinement
facilities. Are there other sources of statutory authority that would
allow us to extend our regulations to cover these facilities?
12. Some parties contend that IPCS regulations should only apply to
``corrections-type communications systems'' because the various types
of confinement facilities may not have the same cost characteristics as
correctional facilities. We seek comment on whether confinement
facilities outside the scope of facilities historically encompassed by
our rules have cost characteristics that are substantially similar to
the facilities our rules traditionally have addressed. Do confinement
facilities make available communications services and impose similar
types of usage restrictions as correctional facilities? Parties
addressing these issues should detail any cost and service differences,
and how such differences might result in different rate caps for non-
correctional confinement facilities.
E. Treatment of Unused Balances In IPCS Accounts
13. In the 2024 IPCS Report and Order, we adopt permanent rules
designed to ensure that IPCS account holders receive refunds of any
unused funds in their accounts once the accounts are deemed inactive.
We invite comment on whether to incorporate into those rules a
requirement that providers allow account holders to designate a family
member or other individual as an additional person eligible to receive
refunds. We ask that commenters address the relative benefits and
burdens of such a measure. We also ask how we might tailor such a
measure to facilitate timely refunds without unduly burdening
providers. Should we, for example, require providers to give account
holders the opportunity to provide their designees' contact
information, including residential addresses, phone numbers, and email
addresses? Should we specify, in addition, that a designee receive any
inactivity and refund notices that would be provided to the account
holder and be allowed to request refunds on the account holder's
behalf?
F. Uniform Additive To Account for Correctional Facility Costs
14. We seek comment on whether we should adopt a uniform additive
to our IPCS rate caps to account for correctional facility costs. In
the 2024 IPCS Report and Order, we permit IPCS providers to reimburse
correctional facilities for the used and useful costs they may incur in
allowing access to IPCS. Some commenters express concern that the
reimbursement we permit may be difficult for IPCS providers to
implement, particularly in determining which costs are used and useful
for purposes of reimbursement. As an alternative, some commenters
propose the use of an ``explicit additive to the rate caps for audio
and video IPCS.'' Under this proposal, rather than permit IPCS
providers and correctional facilities to negotiate for reimbursement
under our current audio and video IPCS rates caps, the Commission would
adopt a uniform facility cost additive. One commenter suggests that
this approach ``would properly account for the security needs of
facilities (and corresponding costs caused by making IPCS available)''
and would ``help to ensure the continued widespread availability of
IPCS.'' We seek comment on this proposal, including the extent to which
an additive would be a reasonable method to ensure that correctional
facilities are able to recover the used and useful costs they incur in
making IPCS available. Is such an additive preferable to the freely-
negotiated reimbursement we allow in the 2024 IPCS Report and Order?
Why or why not? Would a uniform additive allow correctional facilities
to better adapt to the IPCS rate structure the Commission adopts in the
2024 IPCS Report and Order? Why or why not?
15. We seek broad comment on the contours of any possible rate
additive. In particular, we seek comment on the appropriate amount of a
rate additive for used and useful correctional facility costs. One
commenter suggests that $0.02 could be established as a maximum cost
recovery amount. This would be consistent with the approach the
Commission took for prisons and jails with average daily populations of
1,000 or more in the 2021 ICS Order (86 FR 40682, July 28, 2021). Pay
Tel's outside consultant, estimates, on the basis of an informal survey
of 30 correctional facilities with average daily populations below
1,000 that the average used and useful costs may be $0.08 per minute.
Which data should the Commission rely on in determining
[[Page 77069]]
the appropriate additive and why? To the extent commenters believe more
data are needed, should the Commission seek those data through an
additional data collection? How can we ensure that we receive reliable
data on correctional facilities' used and useful costs for purposes of
establishing a rate additive? Obtaining reliable correctional facility
cost data has been a perennial problem in these proceedings. In 2021,
the Commission sought comment on how to obtain reliable correctional
facility data (86 FR 40416, July 28, 2021). The Commission also sought
facility cost data in the 2023 Mandatory Data Collection. As we explain
above, however, commenters have not provided updated facility cost
data. Finally, we invite comment on how the Commission should implement
a rate additive within the zones of reasonableness determined in the
2024 IPCS Report and Order.
G. Effect on Small Entities
16. We seek comment on the effect that our proposals to adopt
permanent video IPCS rate caps, quality of service rules, and expanded
definitions of ``Prison'' and ``Jail'' in our rules would have on small
entities, and whether any rules that we adopt should apply differently
to small entities. We seek input on the effect, if any, on small
entities of any other issues upon which we inquire in this document. We
also seek comment on how we should take into account the impact on
small businesses and, in particular, any disproportionate impact or
unique burdens that small businesses may face, in effectuating the
questions and proposals in this document. Parties should also address
any alternative proposals that would minimize the burdens on small
businesses.
H. Digital Equity and Inclusion
17. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance
digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with
disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any
equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be
associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. Section 1 of
the Communications Act 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.'' Specifically, we seek
comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in
diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well as the scope
of the Commission's relevant legal authority. The term ``equity'' is
used here 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.
I. OPEN Government Data Act
18. We also seek comment on whether any of the information proposed
to be collected in this would constitute ``data assets'' for purposes
of the OPEN Government Data Act and, if so, whether such information
should be published as ``open Government data assets''?
II. Procedural Matters
19. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this document. The Commission requests written public
comments on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided in this
document. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including the
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and the IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
20. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Analysis. This document
may contain new or modified information collection(s) subject to the
PRA. If the Commission adopts any new or modified information
collection requirements, they will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the
PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to
comment on the new or modified information collection requirements
contained in this proceeding. In addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific comment on how
we might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
21. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent
with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law
118-9, a summary of the FNPRM will be available on <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
22. OPEN Government Data Act. The OPEN Government Data Act,
requires agencies to make ``public data assets'' available under an
open license and as ``open Government data assets,'' i.e., in machine-
readable, open format, unencumbered by use restrictions other than
intellectual property rights, and based on an open standard that is
maintained by a standards organization. This requirement is to be
implemented ``in accordance with guidance by the Director'' of the OMB.
The term ``public data asset'' means ``a data asset, or part thereof,
maintained by the Federal Government that has been, or may be, released
to the public, including any data asset, or part thereof, subject to
disclosure under [the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)].'' A ``data
asset'' is ``a collection of data elements or data sets that may be
grouped together,'' and ``data'' is ``recorded information, regardless
of form or the media on which the data is recorded.'' We seek comment
in the FNPRM on whether any of the information proposed to be collected
would constitute ``data assets'' for purposes of the OPEN Government
Data Act and, if so, whether such information should be published as
``open Government data assets.''
23. Comment Period and Filing Procedures. 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 in the DATES section of this document. All filings
must refer to WC Docket Nos. 23-62 and 12-375. The Protective Order
issued in this proceeding permits parties to designate certain material
as confidential. Filings which contain confidential information should
be appropriately redacted, and filed pursuant to the procedure
described therein.
24. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using
the internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing
System (ECFS): <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>. See
[[Page 77070]]
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
(1998).
25. 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.
26. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
27. Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. by the
FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or
fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering
the building.
28. Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S.
Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
29. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority
Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.
30. 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 Sec. 1.49 and all other
applicable sections of the Commission's rules. We 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. We also strongly encourage parties to track the
organization set forth in the FNPRM in order to facilitate our internal
review process.
31. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall 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).
32. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
33. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#60060303555054200603034e070f16"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b4d48481e1b1f6b4d4848054c445d">[email protected]</span></a> or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
34. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be publicly available online via ECFS.
III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
35. As required by the RFA, the Commission has prepared this IRFA
of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the
policies and rules proposed in this document. Written public comments
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments. The
Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
In addition, the FNPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
36. The Commission seeks additional comment on establishing
permanent rate caps for video incarcerated people's communications
services (IPCS) that are just and reasonable, and will fairly
compensate IPCS providers. Specifically, the Commission requests that
parties supplement the record with additional information on the video
IPCS marketplace, including the types of video communications services
that providers offer incarcerated people, the demand for those
services, the used and useful costs providers and facilities incur in
the provision of those services, and other information that might help
us set just and reasonable, and fairly compensatory, permanent rate
caps for video IPCS. It also requests comment on the types of data that
would be most helpful for the Commission to collect to support its
efforts to adopt permanent video IPCS rate caps.
37. The Commission also seeks comment on quality of service issues
that have been raised in this proceeding. This includes comment on the
Commission's legal authority to address quality of service issues and
whether it should develop minimal quality of service standards. It
seeks comment on the types of service quality issues that should be
addressed and whether there should be different standards or rules for
different types of facilities or providers.
38. The Commission again seeks comment on revisions to its
definitions of ``Prison'' and ``Jail,'' and specifically, the costs
providers incur in providing service to confinement facilities that are
not correctional institutions. The Commission also seeks comment on
whether its statutory authority under section 276 can be interpreted to
extend to confinement facilities. Finally, the Commission seeks comment
on possibly obtaining additional data about serving very small jails,
the possible designation of a third party to receive refunds from IPCS
accounts and possibly adopting a uniform additive to the IPCS rate caps
to account for correctional facility costs.
B. Legal Basis
39. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2,
4(i)-(j), 201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j),
201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, 403, and 617 and the Martha Wright-
Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act of 2022, Public Law 117-
338, 136 Stat 6156 (2022).
[[Page 77071]]
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
40. 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 proposed rule revisions, if adopted. 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. 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.
41. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the
outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent
99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2
million businesses.
42. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were
approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were
90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of
this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county,
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000
and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts)
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on
the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least
48,724 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
43. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text,
sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a
variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including Voice
over internet Protocol (VoIP) services, wired (cable) audio and video
programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By
exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution
services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are
included in this industry. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also
referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local service providers.
44. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
45. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
46. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services
include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry
with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local
service providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers
that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have
1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business
size standard, most of these providers can be considered small
entities.
47. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on
[[Page 77072]]
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2021, there were 1,212 providers that reported they were
incumbent local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the
Commission estimates that 916 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local exchange
carriers can be considered small entities.
48. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services.
Providers of these services include several types of competitive local
exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021,
there were 3,378 providers that reported they were competitive local
service providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that
3,230 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the
SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be
considered small entities.
49. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for
Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated
with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data
in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31,
2021, there were 127 providers that reported they were engaged in the
provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 109 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry
can be considered small entities.
50. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have
developed a small business size standard specifically for Local
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with an
SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs)
are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 207
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of local
resale services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 202
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
51. Toll Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have
developed a small business size standard specifically for Toll
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with an
SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission
facilities and infrastructure. MVNOs are included in this industry. The
SBA small business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry
provided resale services for the entire year. Of that number, 1,375
firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2021, there were 457 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of toll services. Of these providers, the
Commission estimates that 438 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.
52. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers,
or toll resellers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest
industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that
operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021,
there were 90 providers that reported they were engaged in the
provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 87 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.
53. Payphone Service Providers (PSPs). Neither the Commission nor
the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for
payphone service providers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest
industry with an SBA small business size standard. The
Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged
in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications;
they do not operate transmission facilities and
[[Page 77073]]
infrastructure. MVNOs are included in this industry. The SBA small
business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers classifies a
business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry provided
resale services for the entire year. Of that number, 1,375 firms
operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2021, there were 36 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these providers, the
Commission estimates that 32 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.
54. Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Providers.
Telecommunications relay services enable individuals who are deaf, hard
of hearing, deafblind, or who have a speech disability to communicate
by telephone in a manner that is functionally equivalent to using voice
communication services. Internet-based TRS connects an individual with
a hearing or a speech disability to a TRS communications assistant
using an internet Protocol-enabled device via the internet, rather than
the public switched telephone network. Video Relay Service (VRS), one
form of internet-based TRS, enables people with hearing or speech
disabilities who use sign language to communicate with voice telephone
users over a broadband connection using a video communication device.
Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS) another form of
internet-based TRS, permits a person with hearing loss to have a
telephone conversation while reading captions of what the other party
is saying on an internet-connected device. A third form of internet-
based TRS, internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay), permits an
individual with a hearing or a speech disability to communicate in text
using an internet Protocol-enabled device via the internet, rather than
using a text telephone (TTY) and the public switched telephone network.
Providers must be certified by the Commission to provide VRS and IP CTS
and to receive compensation from the TRS Fund for TRS provided in
accordance with applicable rules. Analog forms of TRS, text telephone
(TTY), Speech-to-Speech Relay Service, and Captioned Telephone Service,
are provided through state TRS programs, which also must be certified
by the Commission.
55. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small
business size standard specifically for TRS Providers. All Other
Telecommunications is the closest industry with an SBA small business
size standard. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and VoIP services, via
client-supplied telecommunications connections are included in this
industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry
classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in
this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039
had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on Commission data there
are 14 certified internet-based TRS providers and two analog forms of
TRS providers. The Commission however does not compile financial
information for these providers. Nevertheless, based on available
information, the Commission estimates that most providers in this
industry are small entities.
56. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of
internet services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or VoIP services, via client-
supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this
industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry
classifies firms with annual receipts of $40 million or less as small.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in
this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039
had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the
Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
57. Establishing Permanent Rate Caps for Video IPCS. The Commission
seeks comments on establishing permanent video IPCS rates, including
updated marketplace and cost data. To the extent that permanent video
IPCS rate caps are lower than the interim rate caps and apply to all
types of facilities (including jails with average daily populations
below 1,000) as detailed in the 2024 IPCS Report and Order, IPCS video
providers (including any smaller entities) must comply with the new
rate caps.
58. Compliance with Quality of Service Rules. The Commission seeks
comment on adopting quality of service rules for IPCS. It also seeks
comment on whether there should be different standards or rules for
different types of facilities or providers. Thus, IPCS providers that
are small entities may be subject to any quality of service rules
ultimately adopted by the Commission.
59. Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Certification. The 2024 IPCS
Report and Order directs staff to conduct an additional mandatory data
collection to obtain updated data on video IPCS and the IPCS industry
in general. The Commission seeks comment on the types of data that
would be most helpful for it to collect to support its efforts to adopt
permanent video IPCS rate caps that are just and reasonable to
consumers, as well as ensuring fair compensation to providers. To the
extent the Commission imposes a new mandatory data collection,
providers of all sizes must maintain and report their cost data in
accordance with the Commission's rules. The Commission also seeks
comments on revising its definitions of ``Prison'' and ``Jail'' to
capture the full universe of confinement facilities. To the extent the
Commission expands these definitions as proposed, providers of
communication services to these facilities may be subject to the
Commission's regulations. We anticipate the information we receive in
comments including where requested, cost and benefit analyses, will
help the Commission identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters
for small entities, including compliance costs and other burdens that
may result from the proposals and inquiries we make herein.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
60. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
alternatives that could minimize impacts to small entities 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
[[Page 77074]]
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.
61. The Commission seeks comments on establishing permanent rate
caps for video IPCS. Data are sought from providers servicing different
facility types and sizes, and information on how small providers
serving jails, which may be smaller, higher-cost facilities, and larger
prisons, which often benefit from economies of scale, can recover their
legitimate IPCS costs related to video communications services.
62. The Commission seeks comment on adopting quality of service
standards for IPCS including whether there should be different
standards or rules for different types of facilities or providers. The
Commission seeks information on the impact such rules may have on IPCS
providers for smaller facilities. The Commission seeks comment on the
costs providers incur in providing service to confinement facilities of
all sizes that are not correctional institutions. Specifically, whether
non-correctional confinement facilities have cost characteristics that
are substantially similar to correctional facilities.
63. The Commission seeks comment on whether any of the burdens
associated the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements
described above can be minimized for small entities and whether any of
the costs associated with the proposals in this summary document can be
alleviated for small entities. The Commission will consider the
economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in
response to this summary and this IRFA, in reaching its final
conclusions and promulgating rules in this proceeding.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
64. None.
IV. Ordering Clauses
65. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(j), 201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276,
403, and 716 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, 403, and 617,
and the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act of
2022, Public Law 117-338, 136 Stat 6156 (2022), the FNPRM is adopted.
66. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures
set forth in Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the FNPRM on
or before 30 days after publication of a summary of the FNPRM in the
Federal Register and reply comments on or before 60 days after
publication of a summary of the FNPRM in the Federal Register.
67. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of the FNPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-19038 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 20, 2024.
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.