Rule2025-03142
Incarcerated People's Communications 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
March 12, 2025
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (the Bureaus) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) adopt an Order revising the instructions, reporting templates, and certification form for the annual reports submitted by providers of communications services to incarcerated people and waiving the filing deadline for the 2025 Annual Reports.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 47 (Wednesday, March 12, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 12, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11804-11814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-03142]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[WC Docket Nos. 12-375, 23-62; DA 25-23; FR ID 278652]
Incarcerated People's Communications Services; Implementation of
the Martha Wright-Reed Act; Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling
Services
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final order; filing deadline waiver.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau and the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (the Bureaus) of the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) adopt an Order revising
the instructions, reporting templates, and certification form for the
annual reports submitted by providers of communications services to
incarcerated people and waiving the filing deadline for the 2025 Annual
Reports.
DATES: The April 1, 2025 filing deadline for the 2025 Annual Reports is
waived and is extended to June 2, 2025. The Federal Communications
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing
the date the revisions to the annual reporting requirements, as
described in the final rule published on September 20, 2024, at 89 FR
77244, will be effective.
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#2a595e4f5a424f4404474f43466a4c4949044d455c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="611215041109040f4f0c04080d210702024f060e17">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order,
in WC Docket Nos. 12-375 and 23-62, document DA 25-23, adopted and
released on January 8, 2025. The full text of this document can be
accessed electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management
System (EDOCS) website at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-23A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-23A1.pdf</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>. 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#b9dfdada8c898df9dfdada97ded6cf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90f6f3f3a5a0a4d0f6f3f3bef7ffe6">[email protected]</span></a>, or call the Consumer
and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-
0432 (TTY).
Synopsis
I. Introduction
By this Order, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) and the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) (collectively, the
Bureaus) revise the instructions, reporting templates, and
certification form for the Annual Reports that providers of
incarcerated people's communications services (IPCS) are required to
submit pursuant to the Commission's regulations in 47 CFR part 64. The
revisions the Bureaus implement today primarily incorporate the
expanded Commission authority under the Martha Wright-Reed Just and
Reasonable Communications Act of 2022 (Martha Wright-Reed Act or Act),
and largely adopt the proposals contained in documents released on
August 3, 2023 and September 11, 2024, with certain refinements and
modifications made in response to comments in support of streamlining
reporting obligations. Martha Wright-Reed Act, Public Law 117-338, 136
Stat. 6156; DA 23-656, 88 FR 53850, August 10, 2023 (DA 23-656); DA 24-
918, 89 FR 80449, October 3, 2024 (DA 24-918). The Bureaus' revisions
also reflect the Commission's expanded authority under the Martha
Wright-Reed Act, as well as the reporting requirements proposed in DA
23-656 regarding access to IPCS by persons with communication
disabilities, including access to Telecommunications Relay Service
(TRS).
II. Background
The Commission requires IPCS providers to make annual filings,
which ``enable the Commission and the public to monitor pricing
practices and trends in the IPCS marketplace generally.'' In 2015,
pursuant to delegated authority, WCB created a standardized reporting
template (FCC Form 2301(a)) for the Annual Reports and a related
certification form (FCC Form 2301(b)), as well as instructions to guide
providers through the reporting and certification process. Rates for
Interstate Inmate Calling Services, 80 FR 79135, December 18, 2015. FCC
Form 2301(a) is presently comprised of an Excel template and a Word
template. WCB amended the instructions, reporting templates, and
certification form in 2020 in order to improve the type and quality of
the information collected. Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling
Services, 85 FR 67450, October 23, 2020. In 2022, WCB again amended the
instructions, reporting template, and certification form to reflect the
reforms adopted in the 2021 ICS Order, Rates for Interstate Inmate
Calling Services, 86 FR 40682, July 28, 2021 (2021 ICS Order),
including lower interim rate caps for interstate inmate calling
services (ICS) calls, new interim rate caps for international ICS
calls, and a rate cap structure that requires ICS providers to
differentiate between legally mandated and contractually required site
commissions. Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, 87 FR 47103,
August 2, 2022. The reforms also included expanded consumer disclosure
requirements, as well as new reporting requirements for ICS providers
seeking waiver of the Commission's interstate and international rates.
Subsequent developments required additional changes to the
instructions, reporting template, and certification form. First, in
September 2022, the Commission adopted the 2022 ICS Order, which
included requirements to improve access to communications services for
incarcerated people with communication disabilities and expanded the
scope of the Annual Reports to reflect those new requirements. Rates
for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, 87 FR 75496, December 9, 2022
(2022 ICS Order). Among the numerous reforms, the Commission required
all ICS providers to provide access to all relay services eligible for
TRS Fund support in any facility where broadband is available and where
the average daily population incarcerated in that jurisdiction (i.e.,
in that city, county, state, or the United States) totals 50 or more
persons. The
[[Page 11805]]
Commission also adopted targeted reforms to lessen the financial burden
on incarcerated people and their loved ones when using calling
services.
As part of the 2022 ICS Order, the Commission required ICS
providers to list, at a minimum, for each facility served, the types of
TRS that can be accessed from the facility and the number of completed
calls and complaints for TTY-to-TTY calling, point-to-point American
Sign Language (ASL) video calls, and each type of TRS for which access
is provided. The Commission also eliminated the safe harbor, adopted in
2015, that had exempted providers from any TRS-related reporting
requirements if they either (1) operated in a facility that allowed the
offering of additional forms of TRS beyond those mandated by the
Commission or (2) had not received any complaints related to TRS calls.
A provider that fell within the safe harbor was required to include a
certification from an officer of the company stating which prong(s) of
the safe harbor it had met. The Commission found that the safe harbor
was no longer appropriate given the expanded reporting requirements for
additional forms of TRS, and the importance of transparency regarding
the state of accessible communications in incarceration settings. The
Commission delegated authority to the Bureaus to implement the expanded
reporting obligations and to develop a reporting form that would most
efficiently and effectively elicit the required information.
Second, on January 5, 2023, the President signed into law the
Martha Wright-Reed Act, which expanded the Commission's statutory
authority over communications between incarcerated people and the non-
incarcerated, including ``any audio or video communications service
used by inmates . . . regardless of technology used.'' The new Act also
amended section 2(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
Communications Act), to make clear that the Commission's authority
extends to intrastate as well as interstate and international
communications services used by incarcerated people.
The Act directed the Commission to ``promulgate any regulations
necessary to implement'' the Act, including its mandate that the
Commission establish a ``compensation plan'' ensuring that all rates
and charges for IPCS ``are just and reasonable,'' not earlier than 18
months and not later than 24 months after the Act's January 5, 2023
enactment date. The Act also required the Commission to consider, as
part of its implementation, the costs of ``necessary'' safety and
security measures, as well as ``differences in costs'' based on
facility size, or ``other characteristics.'' It also allowed the
Commission to ``use industry-wide average costs of telephone service
and advanced communications services and the average costs of service
of a communications service provider'' in determining just and
reasonable rates.
Pursuant to the directive that the Commission implement the new Act
and ensure just and reasonable rates and charges for IPCS, in 2023, the
Commission sought comment on how to interpret the Act's language to
ensure that the Commission implemented the statute in a manner that
fulfilled Congress's directives. Incarcerated People's Communication
Services; Implementation of the Martha Wright-Reed Act; Rates for
Interstate Inmate Calling Services, 88 FR 20804, April 7, 2023 (DA 23-
19). The Commission also reaffirmed and updated its prior delegation of
authority to the Bureaus to modify, supplement, and update the
instructions and templates for the Annual Reports. Incarcerated
People's Communication Services; Implementation of the Martha Wright-
Reed Act; Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, 88 FR 19001,
March 30, 2023. On August 3, 2023, the Bureaus sought comment on
proposed revisions to the instructions and templates for the annual
reports and annual certifications. The Bureaus received comments or
reply comments in response from three IPCS providers.
Third, in July 2024, the Commission adopted the 2024 IPCS Order,
which implemented the expanded authority granted to the Commission by
the Martha Wright-Reed Act. Incarcerated People's Communication
Services; Implementation of the Martha Wright-Reed Act; Rates for
Interstate Inmate Calling Services, 89 FR 77244, September 20, 2024
(2024 IPCS Order). In that Order, the Commission revised its rules by,
inter alia:
<bullet> Adopting permanent rate caps for audio IPCS and interim
rate caps for video IPCS;
<bullet> Adopting new facility tiers for both audio and video IPCS;
<bullet> Prohibiting providers from imposing any ancillary service
charges on IPCS consumers;
<bullet> Prohibiting providers from making site commission payments
associated with IPCS;
<bullet> Allowing providers to offer alternate pricing plans for
IPCS subject to certain conditions;
<bullet> Revising and strengthening existing consumer disclosure
and inactive account requirements; and
<bullet> Revising and strengthening IPCS accessibility requirements
for incarcerated people with disabilities.
We note that, in the 2024 IPCS Order, the Commission adopted the
use of the terms ``incarcerated people's communications services'' and
``IPCS,'' in place of ``inmate calling services'' or ``ICS,'' to refer
to ``the broader range of communications services subject to the
Commission's jurisdiction as a result of the [Martha Wright-Reed]
Act.''
The 2024 IPCS Order also modified the scope and content of the
annual reporting requirements to reflect the reforms adopted under the
Martha Wright-Reed Act. The Commission expanded its annual reporting
and certification requirements to include the full scope of services
and providers now subject to the IPCS rules. The Commission also
eliminated the sections of the annual reporting rules mandating the
reporting of information on ancillary service charges and site
commissions, to reflect the prohibitions of those items adopted in the
2024 IPCS Order. The Commission also retained the rules describing the
reporting requirements concerning TRS and related communications
services, but renumbered them. Finally, the Commission reaffirmed and
updated its prior delegation of authority to the Bureaus to revise the
requirements for the Annual Reports, to reflect the Commission's
expanded authority under the Martha Wright-Reed Act and the other
actions taken in the 2024 IPCS Order, and directed the Bureaus to pay
particular attention to the video IPCS marketplace and the availability
and usage of Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) in exercising this
delegated authority.
Pursuant to this updated delegated authority, the Bureaus released
DA 24-918 seeking to ``expand and refresh the record on revisions to
the Annual Report instructions, templates, and certification form, in
addition to those proposed in DA 23-656, and to implement the
modifications to the annual reporting and certification requirements
adopted by the Commission in the 2024 IPCS Order.'' The Bureaus also
sought comment on ``any additional modifications the Bureaus should
consider to make these forms consistent with the new rules, including
the varied compliance dates adopted in the 2024 IPCS Order'' for the
Commission's rate cap and site commission reforms. The Bureaus received
comments from IPCS providers and public interest advocates.
[[Page 11806]]
III. Discussion
Pursuant to their delegated authority, the Bureaus adopt revised
instructions and templates for the Annual Reports and certifications
for IPCS providers, a link to which is provided in section V below. The
reporting template consists of a Word document and Excel spreadsheets.
For simplicity, this document refers to these respective portions of
the reporting template as the Word template and the Excel template.
These instructions and templates largely follow the proposals in DA 23-
656 and DA 24-918, with revisions to both enhance the value and
usefulness of the Annual Reports and reduce existing or proposed
reporting burdens, while continuing to enable the Commission to monitor
the IPCS marketplace. To that end, the Bureaus expect the detailed
instructions and templates they adopt herein to result in reports that
provide the Commission, its state counterparts, and the public with a
clearer, more complete picture of IPCS providers' service offerings
than was available under prior Annual Reports, while on balance
decreasing reporting burdens on providers. The changes the Bureaus make
to the instructions and templates will bring increased transparency to
IPCS providers' rates, charges, and practices, help ensure compliance
with the Commission's IPCS rules, and allow the Commission to ``monitor
pricing practices and trends in the IPCS marketplace generally.''
A. Overall Structure of the Annual Reporting and Certification
Requirements
Pursuant to their delegated authority, the Bureaus revise the
Annual Report instructions, templates, and certification form to
reflect the Commission's 2022 amendments to the Annual Reports rule and
to include the additional services and providers now subject to the
Commission's authority under the Martha Wright-Reed Act. These revised
instructions and the associated template and certification form will
consolidate and supplant the instructions and template for earlier
iterations of the Annual Report instructions, template, and
certification form. The Bureaus also implement additional improvements
based on their experience reviewing prior Annual Reports, such as
simplifying the collection in some respects and revising the
instructions to facilitate providers' compliance with the collection.
These improvements will make the submitted reports more useful to the
Commission and consumers.
As a general matter, the Bureaus maintain the existing Excel-format
template and Word-format template for the Annual Reports to better
separate providers' data and narrative responses. The Bureaus likewise
retain the certification form with minor revisions.
General Categories of Information Requested. The revised
instructions, like those for prior Annual Reports, require providers to
submit certain types of information related to their operations, IPCS
rates, and disability access, including data regarding their
interstate, intrastate, and international audio and video IPCS rates.
In DA 23-656, the Bureaus proposed to expand the Annual Reports to
collect information regarding video IPCS in light of the Martha Wright-
Reed Act and to implement the expanded reporting obligations for TRS
adopted in the 2022 ICS Order. In response, Securus argued that it was
premature to collect such information, because at that time (i.e.,
September 2023) ``[t]he Commission's codified rules . . . d[id] not
authorize the collection and reporting of this information.'' With
regard to video IPCS, Securus argued that the codified version of Sec.
64.6060 then in effect, was limited to ``inmate calling services'' and
thus did not encompass video services. And with regard to reporting on
TRS obligations, Securus argued that while the 2022 ICS Order
``expanded the reporting obligations in the Annual Report to include
the advanced forms for TRS and point-to-point video, those reporting
rules [had been] delayed indefinitely pending OMB approval.''
In subsequent advocacy in response to DA 24-918, Securus does not
challenge the collection of information regarding video IPCS or TRS. In
the 2024 IPCS Order, the Commission adopted regulations, including
interim rate caps and a per-minute rate requirement, applicable to
video IPCS and explicitly amended the scope and content of Sec.
64.6060 to reflect the expansion of the Commission's jurisdiction over
advanced communications services, including video services. The
Commission also retain[ed] the reporting requirements concerning TRS
and related communications services in Sec. 64.6060(a)(5)-(7), but
renumber[ed] them as Sec. 64.6060(a)(2)-(4). With regard to TRS
reporting, ``Securus supports the current version of the TRS-related
annual reporting revisions as set forth in Sec. 64.6060(a)(2)-(4).''
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the TRS requirements
adopted in the 2022 ICS Order. The Bureaus find these actions address
the concerns raised by Securus in connection with DA 23-656.
B. Specific Data and Information Inquiries
1. Definitions
The Bureaus adopt the new and revised definitions in the
instructions that they had proposed in August 2023 with modifications
as discussed below. These new and revised definitions reflect the
Commission's expanded authority over IPCS pursuant to the Martha
Wright-Reed Act. In the 2024 IPCS Order, the Commission revised Sec.
64.6060(a) ``so the annual reporting requirement applies to IPCS
providers, rather than the more limited universe of ICS providers.''
This change ``makes providers of video IPCS and advanced communications
services not previously covered by [the Commission's] IPCS rules
subject to the annual reporting requirement.'' Accordingly, and in
response to comments in the record, the definitions in the instructions
have been revised to ``encompass all IPCS providers offering any type
of IPCS--audio or video, interstate/international or intrastate--
regardless of the technology used to provide the service.'' The Bureaus
agree with ViaPath that ``[a]ll IPCS providers must be subject to the
same set of rules,'' including the annual reporting and certification
obligations. To eliminate any potential doubt, the Bureaus take this
opportunity to emphasize that all providers that meet the Commission's
definition of a ``Provider'' are required to comply with the
Commission's IPCS rules, including the annual reporting and
certification obligations.
Definition of Audio IPCS. Securus points out that ``the definition
of Audio IPCS includes all TRS services, including video relay and
point to point video.'' Securus suggests that the Bureaus ``clarify
that for purposes of reporting rates in tabs C through E [of the Excel
template], the rates exclude any rates associated with TRS.'' Securus
argues that ``[a]bsent this clarification the tabs providing rate
information for Audio IPCS could be misinterpreted as applying to all
TRS services.'' Securus notes that Tab L of the Excel template is used
for reporting billed revenues for TTY-based services. The Bureaus agree
and clarify that in reporting audio IPCS rates in Tabs C and D, the
rates exclude any rates associated with TRS. The Bureaus find that the
proposed Tab E, which collected information on audio IPCS rates above
the Commission's rate cap rules, is rendered unnecessary and
duplicative as a result of their decision to require reporting on a
highest rate charged basis. Accordingly, they have removed Tab E from
the Excel template
[[Page 11807]]
and the related instructions and Word template questions.
Definition of Video IPCS. ViaPath argues that the Bureaus should
revise the definition of ``Video IPCS'' in the instructions such that
certain content-based video programming is treated similarly regardless
of whether it permits one-way or two-way communication. ViaPath argues
that ``some educational or vocational courses allow the incarcerated
person to speak to the professor or interact with other classmates.''
Securus adds that the exclusion of one-way content delivery ``creates
potential confusion regarding the treatment of potential two-way
content programming, such as educational classes.'' In the 2024 IPCS
Order, the Commission found that ``[w]here two or more people can use a
video conferencing service to share information with one another in
real-time, that service is subject to [the Commission's] section 276
authority in the incarceration context'' and that ``[t]his authority
also extends to educational, vocational, or other programming in which
incarcerated people participate in real-time in the incarceration
context.'' The Commission further found that ``entertainment and other
forms of content that are not real-time communications services are not
included in [the Commission's] authority over interoperable video
conferencing.'' Considering the Commission's findings in the 2024 IPCS
Order, which was released after ViaPath filed its 2023 comments, the
Bureaus amend the definition of ``Video IPCS'' in the instructions to
be consistent with that Order. Specifically, for purposes of the Annual
Reports, the Bureaus revise the definition of Video IPCS in the
instructions to exclude entertainment and other forms of content that
are not real-time communications. The Bureaus note that such services
``may, however, be subject to [the Commission's] authority under
section 3(1)(E), which is not limited to real-time communications
services.''
Definition of Safety and Security Measures. In the 2024 IPCS Order,
the Commission determined which safety and security costs are used and
useful in the provision of IPCS and included those costs in the IPCS
rate caps that it established. Given the Commission's determination,
the Bureaus find it unnecessary to collect information on safety and
security measures through the Annual Reports, and therefore delete the
definition of Safety and Security Measures from the instructions they
adopt here. Consequently, the Bureaus find that the concerns raised in
the record regarding this definition are moot.
2. Facilities and Contract Information
The Excel template that the Bureaus adopt today includes a new
worksheet that moves detailed contract and facility information already
collected on multiple worksheets throughout the Excel template to Tab
B. The Bureaus find that collecting this granular information once on a
single worksheet will help ensure consistent facility and contract-
level reporting, and eliminate the need to repeatedly enter such
detailed information on other worksheets throughout the Excel template,
thereby reducing the burden on IPCS providers. Below the Bureaus
address several targeted revisions to the reporting of facility and
contract information in the Excel template consistent with the record.
Excel Template Tab A. Securus argues that ``the number and
breakdown of facilities by type and size will produce numbers that will
be over-inclusive of facilities at which an IPCS Provider provides both
Audio and Video IPCS, Audio IPCS-only, or Video IPCS-only.'' The
Bureaus agree and have revised Tab A to allow IPCS providers to more
accurately report those facilities at which they offer only audio IPCS,
only video IPCS, or both.
Excel Template Tab B. Securus recommends adding columns to Tab B of
the Excel template for providers to report whether they offer audio
IPCS, video IPCS, or both at the facilities they serve. The Bureaus
agree and simplify the recommendation by adding a single column with a
drop-down menu for providers to report the service or services offered.
Excel Template Tabs C through L. Securus also suggests that using
``a numerical contract and facility identifier alone for Tabs C through
L will require a user to constantly go back and forth from Tab B to the
other tabs to identify the applicable contract and facility.'' To
alleviate this concern, Securus suggests that the Commission consider
``some additional contracting or facility data to allow easy reference
from tab to tab'' and ``recommends including under the Contract and
Facility Information columns for the Contracting Authority, Facility
Name and Facility State.'' While providers are welcome to add
additional columns if it helps to ensure the accuracy of their filings,
the Bureaus decline to require providers to report this additional
information in order to minimize the reporting burden on IPCS
providers.
3. Audio and Video IPCS Rates
The Bureaus streamline the reporting of audio and video IPCS rates
as discussed below. In doing so, the Bureaus modify the approach they
proposed in DA 23-656 based on comments in the record arguing that some
of the proposed reporting requirements would be unnecessarily
burdensome. The Bureaus find that the revisions described below
properly balance the need for the Commission to obtain data sufficient
to ensure compliance with its IPCS rules and inform the Commission of
industry trends, while reducing reporting burdens on IPCS providers
where feasible. In addition to these revisions, and to account for the
staggered dates adopted by the Commission for providers' compliance
with the rate cap and site commission reforms adopted in the 2024 IPCS
Order, the Bureaus require IPCS providers to report for each facility,
the date on which each facility became subject to the Commission's new
IPCS rate caps and site commission reforms. The Bureaus address each of
these matters below.
Interstate and Intrastate Audio and Video IPCS. In DA 23-656, the
Bureaus proposed to require IPCS providers to submit interstate and
intrastate IPCS rates for audio services across a number of categories,
including: (i) highest 15-minute rate; (ii) highest year-end 15-minute
rate; and (iii) average per-minute rate. The Bureaus also proposed
using the same reporting approach for video IPCS because ``providers
are already familiar with the[ ] reporting categories for audio IPCS''
such that ``using the same rate reporting approach for video IPCS will
help minimize burdens associated with reporting this additional
information regarding their video services.''
Some commenters contend that the proposed categories of rate data
would be unnecessarily burdensome. ViaPath argues that the burden
imposed by the proposed categories of rate data is not justified given
the limited utility of the resulting data. ViaPath also notes that it
``does not maintain historical rate data in 15-minute increments.'' To
reduce the burden, ViaPath suggests that the Bureaus only require
providers to report the highest per-minute rate charged at a facility
during the calendar year and eliminate the need for providers to
calculate 15-minute increments. Securus contends that the collection of
rate data ``can be significantly streamlined without impairing the
ability of the Commission to obtain meaningful information.'' It argues
that the Bureaus should ``require providers
[[Page 11808]]
to identify their per-minute rate for each facility and the cost of a
15-minute call'' and suggests that the Bureaus ``abandon requiring the
highest year-end rates as those seldom differ and the relevance of that
information is unclear.'' Securus also notes that ``the current
template is outdated as most providers no longer charge separate rates
for the first minute of a call and remaining minutes.''
The Bureaus agree with ViaPath that ``the highest per-minute rate
charged at the facility during the calendar year . . . will confirm
whether an IPCS provider is in compliance with the Commission's rate
cap rules in effect at that time.'' Accordingly, the Bureaus streamline
the proposed rate categories to require IPCS providers only to report
their highest per-minute audio and video IPCS rates at each facility
for the calendar year. The Bureaus eliminate the need to report rate
information in 15-minute intervals, to calculate an average per-minute
rate, and to report the first minute rate and the rate for additional
minutes. Nothing in the record indicates that reporting interstate and
intrastate audio and video IPCS rates in 15-minute intervals or
requiring the calculation of an average per-minute rate is necessary to
ensure compliance with the Commission's rules. And, as ViaPath notes,
these calculations may be ``laborious'' for certain providers.
Furthermore, as Securus notes, most providers no longer charge separate
rates for the first minute of a communication and remaining minutes,
rendering this information of little utility in determining compliance
with the Commission's IPCS rate caps. To the extent a provider charges
a different first minute rate and that rate is higher than the rate for
subsequent minutes, that first minute rate would be reported as the
highest per-minute rate for that facility. The Bureaus are therefore
persuaded that streamlining the reporting in this way should provide
the Commission with information sufficient to determine providers'
compliance with its IPCS rules while reducing reporting burdens on IPCS
providers.
With regard to the reporting of video IPCS rates, Securus also
argues that the proposed Excel template for reporting video IPCS rates
is ``unsuited to supply meaningful rate information to the
Commission.'' Securus explains that Tab F of the proposed Excel
template ``recognizes that providers' unit of sale of Video IPCS may
not be per-minute rates but per-session rates.'' But, Securus contends
that the worksheet ``requires providers to enter the cost of the
session as if it was 15 minutes, no matter the actual unit of sale.''
Securus suggests that the Commission ``have a method to enter per
session rate information or other alternatives to per minute billing
that a provider may have been using.'' Securus also suggests that the
``Commission should consider providing separate tabs to reflect the
different ways that providers charge for video services.''
The Bureaus find that their approach to the reporting of video IPCS
rate data in the instructions and Excel template is consistent with
reforms subsequently adopted in the 2024 IPCS Order and therefore moots
the concerns Securus raised in 2023. For video IPCS rates, the Bureaus
require IPCS providers to begin reporting those data as of November 19,
2024, which is the date on which the 2024 IPCS Order became effective,
including the requirement to offer video IPCS on a per-minute basis.
Because the Bureaus do not require providers to report their IPCS video
rates prior to the date on which they were required to begin offering
that service on a per-minute basis, the Bureaus decline to adopt the
proposed instructions or Excel template that would enable providers to
account for potential alternatives to per-minute rate structures that
IPCS providers may have been using prior to the effective date of the
2024 IPCS Order.
The Bureaus also adjust the reporting of interstate and intrastate
audio and video IPCS rates. For calendar year 2024, during which no
intrastate rate caps were in effect, the Bureaus require IPCS providers
to separately report their highest per-minute interstate and intrastate
rates except to the extent that a provider's interstate and intrastate
rates were the same, in which case they need not report separately for
each jurisdiction. To further assist providers in determining whether
they must report separate interstate and intrastate audio and video
IPCS rates, the Bureaus include a question in each tab of the Excel
template in which they seek interstate and intrastate rate data asking
whether the provider's interstate and intrastate audio and video IPCS
rates were the same. If so, the instructions make clear that the
provider need not fill in any duplicate or repetitive entries in that
tab. The Bureaus take a similar approach in connection with
international IPCS, as discussed below.
Finally, Securus suggests that the Bureaus ``eliminate the
facility-rate in light of the changes in the 2024 IPCS Order,'' which
eliminated site commissions. The Bureaus agree and remove that
requirement from the instructions and Excel template.
International Audio and Video IPCS. The Bureaus adjust the
instructions and reporting templates to streamline the reporting of
international audio and video IPCS rates, consistent with the record.
Securus notes that the ``current template requires (on a per-facility
basis) identification of international calls by destination, and then
the highest, first and additional minute rates and maximum and average
termination charge by [q]uarter.'' Securus suggests that the ``highly
disaggregated nature of the international rate reporting is thus highly
burdensome and requires reporting of insignificant detail.'' To
streamline the reporting of international rate information, Securus
recommends that the Excel template have two tabs: one for facility
information and a second for termination charges. The first tab would
initially ask if a facility allows international calling. A ``no''
answer would eliminate the need for further reporting of international
rate data for that facility. Another question would ask whether the
interstate portion of the international rate is the same as the
applicable interstate rate. A ``yes'' answer would mean the provider
would not need to report further information regarding the interstate
portion of the international rate, while a ``no'' answer would be
subject to further explanation in the Word template. Another column
would determine whether any rates are above the applicable rate caps
and would require specifying rates only if the provider indicates that
a rate is above the rate cap. In the second tab, providers would report
their average quarterly termination charges for each international
destination. In connection with video IPCS, Securus suggests the
addition of a preliminary question asking whether the provider offers
international video IPCS. If a provider answers ``no,'' then there
would be no need to complete that relevant tab. Finally, Securus
suggests that the Bureaus clarify the proposed requirement to explain
how IPCS providers market video IPCS to consumers, including any
bundles.
The Bureaus adopt a modified version of Securus's proposal, which
they find will substantially streamline the reporting of international
audio and video IPCS rates while at the same time providing the
Commission with sufficient data with which to determine compliance with
its IPCS rules and monitor industry trends. As an initial matter, the
Bureaus adopt Securus's proposal that they request quarterly
international termination data by destination rather than by facility.
This change will eliminate the need for providers to provide data on
each international destination at each facility.
[[Page 11809]]
The Bureaus ask two preliminary questions in the Excel template
about whether IPCS providers offer international audio or video IPCS.
The first is in Tab C, where providers are instructed to indicate if
they offer international audio IPCS at each facility they serve. If a
provider answers ``no'' for a given facility then the provider is not
required to complete the international audio IPCS information in Tab D
for that facility. Then in Tab E, providers are instructed to indicate
whether they offer international video IPCS at each facility they
serve. If the answer is ``no'' for a given facility then the provider
is not required to complete the international video IPCS information in
Tab F for that facility. Cumulatively, if a provider does not offer any
international video IPCS at any facility it serves, that provider will
not be required to complete the Excel Tab F for international video
IPCS. The Bureaus find that these preliminary questions will help to
streamline the reporting of international rate information as Securus
suggests.
To streamline reporting obligations in connection with
international audio IPCS, the Bureaus instruct providers to indicate
whether the rate for the interstate portion of the international rate
is the same as the applicable interstate rate the provider charges. If
the provider answers ``yes,'' the instructions explain that the IPCS
provider does not need to report its highest interstate per-minute
rates in Tab D for each calendar quarter. This question reduces the
need for providers to enter the same information twice. If a provider
answers ``no'' the Bureaus have included a Word template question
directing providers to explain how the interstate portion of its
international rate differed from its interstate rate. The Bureaus then
direct providers to report termination charges on a quarterly basis for
each international destination, as suggested by Securus. Because the
streamlined reporting obligations the Bureaus adopt today seek the
highest per-minute rates providers charge, the Bureaus need not include
a column in the Excel template asking IPCS providers to indicate
whether they charge rates above the applicable rate caps. In obtaining
the highest per-minute rate, the Commission should have sufficient
information to determine if there are rates being charged that are
above the applicable caps.
To streamline reporting obligations in connection with
international video IPCS, the Bureaus adopt a similar reporting
structure as for international audio IPCS, however with additional
questions intended to more accurately capture the development,
deployment, and marketplace practices for video IPCS. The Bureaus
include a question in Tab F asking whether a provider's international
video IPCS rates are the same as its interstate video rates. As
indicated in the revised instructions, a provider should select ``yes''
only if its interstate rates are the same as its international video
IPCS rates and if the provider does not charge or pass through
termination charges for completing international video IPCS
communications. If a provider selects ``yes,'' it will not be required
to report its highest interstate per-minute rates in Tab F as the
Commission will have collected interstate video rates in a separate
tab. To account for scenarios in which providers may charge different
rates for the interstate portion of an international video IPCS
communication and interstate rates for video IPCS, the Bureaus ask a
similar ``yes'' or ``no'' question as with audio IPCS and direct
providers to respond in the Word template to explain any differences.
In a similar vein, the Bureaus include an additional question in Tab F,
which directs providers to indicate whether they impose international
termination charges for video IPCS. If a provider does not impose
international termination charges for video IPCS, then they are not
required to report their quarterly average termination charges.
Finally, the Bureaus decline to require IPCS providers to explain
how they market video IPCS to consumers, including any bundles, as
originally proposed. The Bureaus find that gathering such data is
unnecessary due to the rules the Commission adopted in the 2024 IPCS
Order, which require providers to offer rates for video IPCS on a per-
minute basis. Separately, the Bureaus find that the information they
direct providers to provide related to any alternate pricing plans
offered in addition to per-minute video IPCS covers how those services
are marketed differently. Thus, Securus's request that the Bureaus
clarify what ``bundling'' means is moot.
Compliance Dates. In the 2024 IPCS Order, the Commission adopted
staggered compliance dates for its new audio and video IPCS rate caps
and the elimination of site commission payments. These compliance dates
range from January 1, 2025 to April 1, 2026. Thus, starting in 2025,
there may be periods during which some IPCS providers are not subject
to the Commission's new IPCS rate caps and prohibition on the payment
of site commissions associated with IPCS. To enhance the Commission's
ability to monitor compliance with its new rate caps and site
commission reforms, the Bureaus require IPCS providers to provide, for
each facility subject to these reforms as of the end of the reporting
period in question, the date by which it was required to comply with
the Commission's new rate caps and site commission reforms, beginning
with the 2026 Annual Reports. The Bureaus have therefore added a column
in Tab B of the Excel template in which to report this information. For
purposes of the 2025 Annual Reports (providing information for calendar
year 2024), however, the Bureaus do not require IPCS providers to
provide compliance dates. Identifying the compliance date applicable to
each facility is critical to ascertaining providers' compliance with
the applicable rate cap and site commission rules. Providers are not
required to report compliance dates prospectively; they are only
required to report compliance dates that occur either during or prior
to the reporting period in question.
4. Ancillary Service Charges
The Bureaus streamline the reporting of ancillary service charges
by requiring providers to indicate in the Excel template whether they,
or any subcontractors they use, assessed ancillary service charges in
connection with audio and/or video IPCS during the reporting period
following the effective date of the prohibition on such charges. If a
provider answers ``yes,'' the instructions direct them to complete a
Word template question explaining those charges. If a provider answers
``no,'' then nothing further is required. This is consistent with
Securus's suggestion that the Bureaus add a preliminary question to the
tabs seeking information on ancillary service charges asking whether
the provider imposed ancillary service charges with respect to video
IPCS.
At the same time, the Bureaus decline to fully eliminate separate
reporting for ancillary services as Securus requests. As is well
documented throughout these proceedings, ancillary service charges have
been the center of discussion around potential abuses which ultimately
result in furthering the economic burdens faced by the incarcerated and
their friends, families, and loved ones. While the Commission
eliminated separate ancillary service charges in the 2024 IPCS Order,
the Annual Reports are used to monitor compliance with the Commission's
rules, including prohibitions such as those now in effect for ancillary
service charges. The Bureaus therefore eliminate existing ancillary
service
[[Page 11810]]
charge reporting obligations and instead require providers to respond
to the streamlined instructions as described above. The Bureaus find
that the burden of completing the ``yes'' or ``no'' question for 2024
and in subsequent years should be minimal, and will help the Commission
continue to monitor compliance with its rules. In this case, the 2025
Annual Reports will require the submission of calendar year 2024 data,
during which IPCS providers could charge separately for their ancillary
services until November 19, 2024, the effective date of the
Commission's IPCS reforms concerning ancillary services in the 2024
IPCS Order.
5. Site Commissions
The Bureaus take the same approach with site commissions that they
take with ancillary service charges by requiring providers to indicate
in the Excel template whether they paid site commissions associated
with audio and/or video IPCS during the reporting period. If a provider
answers ``yes,'' the instructions direct them to complete a Word
template question explaining those charges. If a provider answers
``no,'' then nothing further is required. This is a significant
reduction from the site commissions reporting initially proposed,
which, among other things, would have required IPCS providers to: (1)
report their average total monthly site commission payments on a
facility-by-facility basis; (2) separate those payments between legally
mandated and contractually prescribed site commission payments; (3)
subdivide both types of payments between monetary and in-kind payments;
and (4) within those subdivisions, to report the portions of the
payments that were either fixed or variable.
Securus argues that because of the Commission's elimination of site
commissions in the 2024 IPCS Order, ``information regarding them for
the 2024 calendar year will not provide relevant data points.'' The
Bureaus disagree. While it is true that the Commission eliminated site
commission payments associated with IPCS in the 2024 IPCS Order,
compliance with that requirement is not required until January 1, 2025
at the earliest and April 1, 2026 at the latest. Thus, for calendar
year 2024, IPCS providers were permitted to pay site commissions. And
due to the staggered compliance dates with respect to the elimination
of site commissions, there likely will be periods in 2025 and 2026 in
which some IPCS providers will still be paying site commissions. The
Bureaus thus find it appropriate to collect information about
providers' site commission payments, as described above. After all of
the compliance dates have passed and the prohibition on site
commissions is in effect for all IPCS contracts, the burden of
completing the yes or no question should be minimal and the providers'
responses will help the Commission to monitor compliance with its site
commission rule.
6. Disability Access and Related Considerations
The revised instructions modify providers' reporting obligations
regarding the provision of TTY-based TRS and TTY-to-TTY calling for
incarcerated people with hearing and speech disabilities, including any
ancillary service charges that providers have assessed for or in
connection with TTY-based calls. Consistent with the Bureaus' proposal
and the 2022 ICS Order, providers are no longer required to report the
number of dropped calls for TTY-based TRS or TTY-to-TTY calling, but
are still required to report the number of calls and number of
complaints related to TTY-based TRS and TTY-to-TTY calling. As the
Commission explained in the 2024 IPCS Order, the Commission had
determined in the 2022 ICS Order ``that it was no longer necessary to
collect data on dropped calls,'' and so adopted corresponding
modifications to 47 CFR 64.6060(a)(5)-(7). However, at the time the
Commission adopted the 2024 IPCS Order, the changes to those paragraphs
``ha[d] not yet gone into effect,'' as the Commission declined to
``seek Paperwork Reduction Act review by the Office of Management and
Budget until an order is released adopting any changes'' to the annual
reporting forms. Consequently, in the 2024 IPCS Order, the Commission
retained the revised reporting requirements adopted in the 2022 ICS
Order, but renumbered them as section 64.6060(a)(2)-(4).
Further, the revised instructions and the Excel template reflect
the 2022 reforms to the Commission's rules. As noted above, this
modification is consistent with the changes adopted in the 2024 IPCS
Order, which incorporated the modifications to the annual reporting
requirements adopted in the 2022 ICS Order. The ``Disability Access''
worksheet of the Excel template requires providers to report, on a
facility-by-facility basis, for each of the six kinds of TRS authorized
by the Commission, (1) whether the service was available for use at the
facility during the reporting period, (2) the number of calls made
using the service, and (3) the number of complaints regarding the
service. The same information is now collected for point-to-point ASL
video service and for TTY-to-TTY calling. TRS and the various kinds of
TRS are defined in section 64.601 of the Commission's rules. The six
kinds of TRS are: Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP
CTS); Internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay); Speech-to-Speech
Relay Service (STS); Traditional (TTY-Based) TRS; Video Relay Service
(VRS); and Non-Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (Non-IP
CTS).
Securus argues that the Commission should eliminate the columns
seeking information regarding ancillary services in connection with
TTY-based TRS or TTY-to-TTY calling, including the jurisdiction column.
The Bureaus find that Securus's proposal would result in eliminating
reporting of ancillary service charges associated with disability
access entirely, leaving the Commission without the ability to monitor
compliance. The Bureaus recognize, however, that the reporting of this
information presents a significant burden on providers and the
resulting data is of limited utility for the Commission. Accordingly,
the Bureaus adopt less burdensome reporting instructions for ancillary
service charges associated with billed TTY-to- TTY calling or TTY-based
TRS that are similar to those used for such charges associated with
audio IPCS and video IPCS. Providers need only respond to a ``yes'' or
``no'' question and complete a narrative response in the Word template
if they assessed ancillary service charges associated with billed TTY-
to-TTY calling or TTY-based TRS after November 19, 2024. The reporting
structure the Bureaus adopt for this category of information mirrors
the same structure they adopt for audio IPCS and video IPCS for the
period following the Nov. 19, 2024 effective date; the Bureaus instruct
providers to report if they charge any associated ancillary service
charges after the prohibition took effect, and if so, require them to
report additionally in the Word template.
ViaPath expresses concern about the availability of certain
information in connection with TRS-related calls. ViaPath explains that
while ``IPCS providers can report the types of TRS available in each
facility, they may not have access to information regarding the number
of TRS-related calls or complaints.'' This is because ``[d]eployment of
advanced TRS capability in correctional facilities cannot be
accomplished without a third-party TRS provider.'' ViaPath suggests
that the third-party TRS provider is ``the appropriate entity from
which to obtain
[[Page 11811]]
information regarding the number of disability access communications in
a correctional facility and any associated complaints.'' The
Commission's IPCS rules apply to IPCS providers, not third-party TRS
providers. IPCS providers must make all necessary contractual and
technical arrangements for ensuring access to TRS, and such
arrangements should include access to necessary data for ensuring the
requirements for access and use of TRS are met. Given IPCS providers'
obligations under the Commission's rules to ensure access to TRS, and
the fact that TRS providers cannot provide their service without
coordinating with IPCS providers, the Bureaus find that IPCS providers
are in the best position to obtain and to report this information. To
the extent they cannot, they are free to explain why they cannot do so
in the Word template for the Commission's consideration.
7. Other Issues
Revenue, Cost, Usage, or Similar Data for Video IPCS. The Bureaus
decline to collect data regarding the costs, revenues, usage or other
similar categories of data for video IPCS through the Annual Reports.
One commenter suggests that the Commission require the reporting of a
wide range of data designed to determine the costs associated with
video IPCS, including cost, revenue, and usage data for all services
provided on kiosks or tablets and data regarding the safety and
security costs specific to the provision of video IPCS. Another
commenter similarly argues that the Commission should require IPCS
providers to submit, among other things, information about the use of
kiosks and tablets for video calling and the breakdown between fixed
and variable costs of providing IPCS. However, even to the extent that
the Bureaus might find it appropriate to expand the Annual Reports to
collect such data, it is not clear at this time that the benefit of
collecting such data in this context would outweigh the burden it would
impose, given, for example, the developing nature of the video IPCS
market. Indeed, cost of service issues for video IPCS await further
consideration by the Commission following the additional mandatory data
collection that the Commission required in the 2024 IPCS Order, and
review of the record being developed in response to the request for
comment accompanying the 2024 IPCS Order. Incarcerated People's
Communication Services; Implementation of the Martha Wright-Reed Act;
Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, 89 FR 77065, September
20, 2024. In these circumstances, the Bureaus find that the better
course is to collect revenue, cost, usage, and similar data for video
IPCS through the upcoming mandatory data collection, where, for
example, they can provide detailed instructions on how providers should
calculate their costs of providing video IPCS and any safety and
security measures specific to the provision of video IPCS. Thus, the
Bureaus decline to require reporting of such information in the Annual
Reports at this time.
Quality of Service. For similar reasons, the Bureaus also decline
to request quality of service data in the annual reports as some
commenters suggest. This, too, is an issue pending further
consideration by the Commission and is thus inappropriate for inclusion
in the annual reporting requirements at this time.
Payments from IPCS Providers to Correctional Facilities. One
commenter argues that the Bureaus should request data on payments from
IPCS providers to correctional agencies for used and useful costs they
incur in the provision of IPCS as a means to better understand whether
the Commission should adopt a uniform rate additive to account for used
and useful correctional facility costs. As noted above, collecting what
is in effect data on the costs incurred by correctional agencies to
provide IPCS is beyond the scope of the Annual Reports, which are
focused primarily on providers' rate data and compliance with
Commission rules. The more appropriate setting for determining whether
to collect such data would be in the context of the upcoming mandatory
data collection. The Bureaus therefore decline to seek such information
in the context of the Annual Reports at this time.
Audited Financial Statements. The Bureaus also decline to require
IPCS providers to submit audited financial statements as part of their
Annual Reports. The Wright Petitioners note that IPCS providers were
required to submit audited financial statements as part of the 2023
Mandatory Data Collection. They argue that the financial statements
``contain important information that can be helpful to the Commission's
ongoing efforts to ensure that IPCS rates are just and reasonable and
providers are fairly compensated.'' ViaPath argues that ``[w]hile such
information may have been appropriate for a Mandatory Data Collection
to allow the Commission to review revenues, costs and expenses, such
information is not needed to ensure compliance with the Commission's
IPCS rules.'' The Bureaus agree that requiring audited financial
statements, while appropriate in the context of a data collection to
determine the costs of service, are not necessary for the Commission to
determine compliance with its IPCS rules in the Annual Reports or to
monitor trends in the industry.
Excel Template and Certification Form. The Excel template the
Bureaus adopt includes other minor changes designed to help reduce
burdens and minimize provider error when completing the worksheets. For
instance, the template includes ``drop-down'' menus for data entry when
there are only a few answer options. It also includes new cell
formatting that restricts the data that can be entered (e.g., numbers
vs. text), which should help prevent inadvertent errors when completing
the forms. For the worksheets that include rates paid for IPCS calls to
international destinations, the Bureaus now require providers to enter
their international destinations only once for each worksheet, instead
of repeating this information multiple times on each worksheet. The
Bureaus likewise adopt other minor updates to the certification form
(e.g., inserting the word ``Authorized'' before ``Officer'').
C. Extension of Filing Deadline
On their own motion, the Bureaus waive section 64.6060(a) of the
Commission's rules for the limited purpose of granting a one-time
extension of the filing deadline for the 2025 IPCS Annual Reports from
April 1, 2025 to Monday, June 2, 2025. Generally, the Commission's
rules may be waived for good cause shown. In evaluating whether good
cause exists for waiver of its rules, the Commission considers whether
the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the
public interest. The Commission may also take into account concerns of
hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy on
an individual basis. Waiver of the Commission's rules is therefore only
appropriate if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the
general rule, and such deviation will serve the public interest.
The Bureaus find good cause to waive section 64.6060(a) of the
Commission's rules to extend the deadline for filing the 2025 IPCS
Annual Reports to June 2, 2025. Under the Commission's rules, Annual
Reports are due April 1 of each year. However, the Annual Reports that
are due in 2025 will be the first Annual Reports for which IPCS
providers will be required to use the revised instructions, templates,
and certification forms adopted herein reflecting the Commission's
expanded authority over IPCS pursuant to the Martha Wright-
[[Page 11812]]
Reed Act. The Annual Reports ``enable the Commission to monitor and
track trends in the IPCS marketplace, increase provider transparency,
and ensure compliance with the Commission's rules.'' It is therefore
vital that the Commission receive complete and accurate data to ensure
IPCS rates are just and reasonable and IPCS providers are fairly
compensated. Considering these objectives, the Bureaus find good cause
to waive the Commission's rules and extend the deadline for filing the
2025 Annual Reports. Doing so will make it more likely that the
Commission receives complete and accurate data enabling it to monitor
IPCS providers' compliance with the Commission's IPCS rules. At the
same time, given the timing of the release of this Order and the
additional delay involved in obtaining approval by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of this
revised data collection, extending the April 1 deadline to June 2, 2025
should give providers sufficient time to compile their data submissions
using the revised instructions, templates, and certification forms.
D. Effective Date and Implementation Date
Because this Order imposes new or modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), its
effective date will be dependent upon approval by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). After such review, the Bureaus will
publish a document in the Federal Register establishing the date of
such publication as the effective date of the requirements adopted in
this Order.
IV. Procedural Matters
Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. As required
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the
Bureaus have prepared a Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) relating to this Order. The RFA has been amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA),
Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). The SBREFA was
enacted as Title II of the Contract with America Advancement Act of
1996 (CWAAA). The Supplemental FRFA is set forth in section V below.
Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. The Order contains new or
modified information collection requirements subject to the PRA. It
will be submitted to OMB for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA.
OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to
comment on the new or modified information collection requirements
contained in this proceeding. In addition, the Bureaus note that
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198; see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Bureaus previously sought
specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees. The Bureaus have assessed the effects of the
requirements for Annual Reports and certifications on small business
concerns, including those having fewer than 25 employees, and find that
to the extent such entities are subject to those requirements, any
further reduction in the burden of the collection would be inconsistent
with the objectives behind the collection.
Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is non-major
under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission
will send a copy of this Order to the Government Accountability Office
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
V. Annual Reporting and Certification Instructions and Templates
The instructions and templates for the Annual Report and
certification form are available at this link: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/annual-report-instructions">https://www.fcc.gov/document/annual-report-instructions</a>.
VI. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), a Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(Supplemental IRFA) was incorporated in DA 23-656, released in August
2023. The RFA has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). The Wireline Competition
Bureau (WCB) and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB)
(collectively, the Bureaus) sought written public comment on the
proposals in DA 23-656 and DA 24-918, including comments on the
Supplemental IFRA. No comments were filed addressing the Supplemental
IRFA. The Bureaus received comments and reply comments on the proposals
in DA 23-656 from Securus Technologies, LLC (Securus), Global Tel*Link
Corporation D/B/A ViaPath Technologies (ViaPath), and Pay Tel
Communications, Inc. (Pay Tel). These comments are addressed herein.
The Bureaus received comments and reply comments on proposals in DA 24-
918 from Securus, ViaPath, the Wright Petitioners, Worth Rises, Pay
Tel, and the United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry. This
Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental FRFA)
conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Order
In the 2022 ICS Order, the Commission adopted requirements that
necessitated further changes to the Annual Reporting instructions,
reporting templates, and certification form. These requirements improve
access to communications services for incarcerated people with
communication disabilities by, for example, requiring IPCS providers to
list, at a minimum, for each facility served, the types of TRS that can
be accessed from the facility and the number of completed calls and
complaints for TTY-to-TTY calling, point-to-point American Sign
Language (ASL) video calls, and each type of TRS for which access is
provided. The Commission also eliminated the safe harbor, adopted in
2015, that had exempted providers from any TRS-related reporting
requirements if they either (1) operated in a facility that allowed the
offering of additional forms of TRS beyond those mandated by the
Commission or (2) had not received any complaints related to TRS calls.
A provider that fell within the safe harbor was required to include a
certification from an officer of the company stating which prong(s) of
the safe harbor it had met. The Commission found that the safe harbor
was no longer appropriate given the expanded reporting requirement for
additional forms of TRS, and the importance of transparency regarding
the state of accessible communications in incarceration settings. The
Commission delegated authority to the Bureaus to implement the expanded
reporting obligations and to develop a reporting form that will most
efficiently and effectively elicit the required information.
On January 5, 2023, the President signed into law the Martha
Wright-Reed Act, which expanded the Commission's statutory authority
over communications between incarcerated people and the non-
incarcerated, including ``any audio or video communications service
used by inmates . . . regardless of technology used.'' The new Act also
amends section 2(b) of the Communications Act of 1934,
[[Page 11813]]
as amended (the Communications Act), to make clear that the
Commission's authority extends to intrastate as well as interstate and
international communications services used by incarcerated people.
The Act directs the Commission to ``promulgate any regulations
necessary to implement'' the Act, including its mandate that the
Commission establish a ``compensation plan'' ensuring that all rates
and charges for IPCS ``are just and reasonable,'' not earlier than 18
months and not later than 24 months after the Act's January 5, 2023
enactment date. The Act also requires the Commission to consider, as
part of its implementation, the costs of ``necessary'' safety and
security measures, as well as ``differences in costs'' based on
facility size, or ``other characteristics.'' It also allows the
Commission to ``use industry-wide average costs of telephone service
and advanced communications services and the average costs of service
of a communications service provider'' in determining just and
reasonable rates.
Pursuant to the directive that the Commission implement the new Act
and establish just and reasonable rates for IPCS services, the
Commission released DA 23-19, seeking comment on how to interpret the
Act's language to ensure that the Commission implements the statute in
a manner that fulfills Congress's intent. The Commission also
reaffirmed and updated its prior delegation of authority to the Bureaus
to revise the instructions and reporting templates for the Annual
Reports. Specifically, the Commission delegated to the Bureaus
authority to modify, supplement, and update the instructions and
templates for the Annual Reports. On August 3, 2023, in DA 23-656, the
Bureaus sought comment on proposed revisions to the instructions and
templates for the Annual Reports and annual certifications. In
response, the Bureaus received comments from providers, public interest
advocates, and other interested parties.
In July 2024, the Commission adopted the 2024 IPCS Order, which
implemented the expanded authority granted to the Commission by the
Martha Wright-Reed Act. In that Order, the Commission revised its rules
by, inter alia:
<bullet> Adopting permanent rate caps for audio IPCS and interim
rate caps for video IPCS;
<bullet> Adopting new facility tiers for both audio and video IPCS;
<bullet> Prohibiting providers from imposing any ancillary service
charges on IPCS consumers;
<bullet> Prohibiting providers from making site commission payments
associated with IPCS;
<bullet> Allowing providers to offer alternate pricing plans for
IPCS subject to certain conditions;
<bullet> Revising and strengthening existing consumer disclosure
and inactive account requirements; and
<bullet> Revising and strengthening IPCS accessibility requirements
for incarcerated people with disabilities.
The 2024 IPCS Order also modified the scope and content of the
Annual Reports to reflect the reforms adopted under the Martha Wright-
Reed Act. The Commission expanded its annual reporting and
certification requirements to include the full scope of services and
providers now subject to the IPCS rules. The Commission also eliminated
the sections of the annual reporting rules mandating the reporting of
information on ancillary service charges and site commissions, to
reflect the prohibition of those items adopted in the 2024 IPCS Order.
The Commission also retained the rules describing the reporting
requirements concerning TRS and related communications services, but
renumbered them. Finally, the Commission reaffirmed and updated its
prior delegation of authority to the Bureaus to revise the Annual
Reports, to reflect the Commission's expanded authority under the
Martha Wright-Reed Act and the other actions taken in the 2024 IPCS
Order, and directed that the Bureaus pay particular attention to the
video IPCS marketplace and the availability and usage of
Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) in exercising this delegated
authority.
Pursuant to this delegated authority, the Bureaus released DA 24-
918 seeking to ``expand and refresh the record on revisions to the
Annual Report instructions, templates, and certification form, in
addition to those proposed in DA 23-656, and to implement the
modifications to the annual reporting and certification requirements
adopted by the Commission in the 2024 IPCS Order.'' The Bureaus also
sought comment on ``any additional modifications the Bureaus should
consider to make these forms consistent with the new rules, including
the varied compliance dates adopted in the 2024 IPCS Order.'' The
Bureaus received comments from IPCS providers, public interest
advocates, and other interested parties. Pursuant to its delegated
authority, the Bureaus have prepared updates to the annual reporting
and certification templates and is issuing the Order to adopt all
aspects of these documents.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the
proposed rules and policies in the Supplemental IRFA.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration
Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the
RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA),
and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed
rules as a result of those comments.
The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the
proposed rules in this proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
Annual Report and Certification Requirements 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 annual report and certification requirements. 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. 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 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was incorporated in DA 23-656. In
this analysis, the Bureaus described in detail the small entities that
might be affected. Accordingly, in this Order, for the Supplemental
FRFA, the Bureaus hereby incorporate by reference the descriptions and
estimates of the number of small entities from these previous
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses.
[[Page 11814]]
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
The annual report and certification requirements direct IPCS
providers to submit, among other things, data and other information on
IPCS rates, communications, demand, operations, company and contract
information, information about facilities served, revenues, site
commission payments, and ancillary fees and to certify as to their
compliance with relevant Commission rules. The Bureaus estimate that
approximately 35 IPCS providers will be subject to this reporting
requirement and it will take each provider approximately 160 hours to
complete the annual report. The Bureaus also estimate that it will take
each IPCS provider approximately 5 hours to review and certify its
submission.
F. 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.''
The annual reporting and certification requirements impose a
recurring obligation on providers. Because the Commission requires all
IPCS providers to submit Annual Reports and certifications, the
collection will affect smaller as well as larger IPCS providers. The
Bureaus have taken steps to ensure that the reporting template is
competitively neutral and not unduly burdensome for any set of
providers and have considered the economic impact on small entities, as
identified in comments filed in response to DA 23-656 and DA 24-918, in
finalizing the instructions and reporting templates for the annual
reports and certifications. In response to the comments, the Bureaus
have refined and streamlined certain aspects of the instructions and
reporting templates, including significantly reducing audio and video
rate reporting requirements and eliminating detailed site commission
and ancillary service charge reporting requirements. These
modifications avoid unduly burdening responding providers while
ensuring that providers have sufficiently detailed and specific
instructions to respond to the data collection and that the Commission
will continue to have access to the data necessary to monitor industry
trends and industry compliance with its rules.
G. Report to Congress
The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this
Supplemental FRFA, in a report a report to be sent to Congress pursuant
to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In
addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this
Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. A copy of the Order, and Supplemental FRFA (or
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.
VII. Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(j), 155(c), 201(b), 218, 220, 276,
and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
152, 154(i)-(j), 155(c), 201(b), 218, 220, 276, and 403, and the
authority delegated pursuant to Sec. Sec. 0.91, 0.201(d), and 0.291 of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 0.201(d), 0.291, this Order is
adopted.
It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(j), 155(c), 201(b), 218, 220, 276, and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j),
155(c), 201(b), 218, 220, 276, and 403, and the authority delegated
pursuant to Sec. Sec. 0.91, 0.201(d), 0.291, and 1.3 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 0.201(d), 0.291, 1.3, the April 1,
2025 filing deadline for the 2025 Annual Reports is waived and is
extended to June 2, 2025.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Order, including the Supplemental Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Lynne Engledow,
Deputy Chief, Pricing and Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2025-03142 Filed 3-11-25; 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 March 12, 2025.
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.