80446 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views these as noncontroversial 

submittals and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives such comments, the direct final 

rule will be withdrawn and all public 

comments received will be addressed in 

a subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. Please note 

that if EPA receives adverse comment 

on an amendment, paragraph, or section 

of this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. For additional 

information, see the direct final rule 

which is located in the Rules section of 

this Federal Register. 

Dated: September 27, 2024. 

Debra Shore, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22734 Filed 10–2–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2024–0169; FRL–12202–01– 

OCSPP] 

Sulfentrazone; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or Agency) proposes to 

establish tolerances for residues of 

sulfentrazone in or on corn, pop, grain 

and corn, pop, stover under the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 2, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2024–0169, 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. Do not submit electronically 

any information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Additional 

instructions on commenting or visiting 

the docket, along with more information 

about dockets generally, is available at 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Smith, Director, Registration 

Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; main 

telephone number: (202) 566–1030; 

email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

If you have any questions regarding 

the applicability of this proposed action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

B. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA is proposing to establish 

tolerances for residues of the herbicide 

sulfentrazone in or on Corn, pop, grain 

at 0.15 parts per million (ppm) and 

Corn, pop, stover at 0.3 ppm. EPA had 

previously registered the use of 

sulfentrazone on field corn and 

established tolerances on Corn, field, 

grain at 0.15 ppm, and Corn, field, 

stover at 0.30 ppm. As part of that 

process, the use on popcorn was added 

to the sulfentrazone label (same use 

pattern as field corn), but, in error, 

separate tolerances on Corn, pop, grain 

and Corn, pop, stover were not 

established. EPA is now proposing to 

establish the tolerances required to 

support the use on popcorn and rectify 

this oversight. 

C. What is EPA’s authority for taking 

this action? 

Section 408(e) of the Federal Food, 

Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 

U.S.C. 346a(e), authorizes EPA to 

establish, modify, or revoke tolerances 

or exemptions from the requirement of 

a tolerance on its own initiative. Prior 

to issuing the final regulation, FFDCA 

section 408(e)(2) requires EPA to issue 

a notice of proposed rulemaking for a 

60-day public comment period, unless 

the Administrator for good cause finds 

that it would be in the public interest to 

have a shorter period and states the 

reasons in the rulemaking. 

FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) allows 

EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal 

limit for a pesticide chemical residue in 

or on a food) only if EPA determines 

that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ Section 

408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ‘‘safe’’ 

to mean that ‘‘there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue, including all 

anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and in 

residential settings but does not include 

occupational exposure. Section 

408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to 

give special consideration to exposure 

of infants and children to the pesticide 

chemical residue in establishing a 

tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to infants and children from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue. . . .’’ 

D. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI 

to EPA through email or https://

www.regulations.gov. If you wish to 

include CBI in your comment, please 

follow the applicable instructions at 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets#rules and 

clearly mark the information that you 

claim to be CBI. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When preparing and submitting your 

comments, see the commenting tips at 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to 

achieve environmental justice, the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of any group, including minority and/or 

low-income populations, in the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. To help 

address potential environmental justice 

issues, the Agency seeks information on 

any groups or segments of the 

population who, as a result of their 

location, cultural practices, or other 

factors, may have atypical or 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health impacts or environmental 

effects from exposure to the pesticides 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80447 

discussed in this document, compared 

to the general population. 

II. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 

Determination of Safety 

Consistent with FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the 

available scientific data and other 

relevant information in support of this 

action. EPA has sufficient data to assess 

the hazards of and to make a 

determination on aggregate exposure, 

consistent with FFDCA section 

408(b)(2), for tolerances for residues of 

sulfentrazone on Corn, pop, grain and 

Corn, pop, stover. EPA’s assessment of 

exposures and risks associated with 

establishing these tolerances follows. 

In an effort to streamline its 

publications in the Federal Register, 

EPA is not reprinting sections that 

repeat what has been previously 

published for tolerance actions 

involving the same pesticide chemical. 

Where scientific information concerning 

a particular chemical remains 

unchanged, the content of those sections 

would not vary between the tolerance 

rulemakings, and EPA considers referral 

back to those sections as sufficient to 

provide an explanation of the 

information EPA considered in making 

its safety determination for the new 

rulemaking. 

EPA has previously published several 

tolerance rulemakings for sulfentrazone 

in which EPA concluded, based on the 

available information, that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm would 

result from aggregate exposure to 

sulfentrazone and established tolerances 

for residues of that chemical. EPA is 

incorporating previously published 

sections of those rulemakings that 

remain unchanged, as described further 

in this rulemaking. Specific information 

on the risk assessment conducted in 

support of this action, including on the 

studies received and the nature of the 

adverse effects caused by sulfentrazone, 

can be found in the document titled 

‘‘Sulfentrazone—Human Health Risk 

Assessment for the Establishment of 

Tolerances for Residues in/on Pop Corn 

Commodities’’ which is available in the 

docket for this action at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

Toxicological profile. For a discussion 

of the Toxicological Profile of 

sulfentrazone, see Unit III.A. of the 

rulemaking published in the Federal 

Register of April 13, 2018 (83 FR 15977 

(FRL–9975–77)). 

Toxicological points of departure/ 

Levels of concern. For a summary of the 

Toxicological Points of Departure/ 

Levels of Concern used for the safety 

assessment of sulfentrazone, see Unit 

III.B. of the rulemaking published in the 

Federal Register of September 12, 2014 

(79 FR 54620 (FRL–9915–47)). 

Exposure assessment. Much of the 

exposure assessment remains 

unchanged from the rulemaking 

published in the April 13, 2018, 

rulemaking, see Unit III.C., although the 

new exposure assessment incorporates 

the additional dietary exposure from the 

proposed tolerances. 

In conducting both the acute and 

chronic dietary exposure assessments, 

EPA used the Dietary Exposure 

Evaluation Model, Food Consumption 

Intake Database (DEEM–FCID, ver.4.02), 

which incorporates consumption data 

from United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey, What We 

Eat in America, NHANES/WWEIA; 

2005–2010. As to residue levels in food, 

EPA assumed tolerance-level residues, 

100 percent crop treated (PCT), and EPA 

default processing factors. EPA has 

concluded that sulfentrazone does not 

pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, 

a dietary exposure assessment for the 

purpose of assessing cancer risk is 

unnecessary. 

Anticipated residue and percent crop 

treated information. EPA did not use 

anticipated residue or PCT information 

in the dietary assessment for 

sulfentrazone. Tolerance-level residues 

and 100 PCT were assumed for all food 

commodities. 

Drinking water and non-occupational 

exposures. For a summary of the 

drinking water numbers used, see Unit 

III.C.2. of the April 13, 2018, 

rulemaking. An acute estimated 

drinking water concentration (EDWC) of 

134 parts per billion (ppb) and a chronic 

EDWC of 98 ppb were used in the acute 

and chronic dietary exposure 

assessments, respectively. 

Sulfentrazone is currently registered 

for the following uses that could result 

in residential exposures: Residential 

home lawns/turf and recreational turf, 

such as golf courses. For a summary of 

the assumptions used for residential 

exposures, see Unit III.C.3. of the April 

13, 2018, rulemaking. 

The recommended adult residential 

exposure scenario for use in the 

aggregate assessment reflects short-term 

dermal exposure from applications to 

turf via backpack sprayer. The 

recommended residential exposure 

scenario for use in the combined shortand intermediate-term aggregate 

assessment for children ages 1 to 2 years 

old reflects dermal and hand-to-mouth 

exposures from post-application 

exposure to turf applications. 

Cumulative exposure. Section 

408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, 

when considering whether to establish, 

modify, or revoke a tolerance, the 

Agency consider ‘‘available 

information’’ concerning the cumulative 

effects of a particular pesticide’s 

residues and ‘‘other substances that 

have a common mechanism of toxicity.’’ 

Unlike other pesticides for which EPA 

has followed a cumulative risk approach 

based on a common mechanism of 

toxicity, EPA has not made a common 

mechanism of toxicity finding as to 

sulfentrazone and any other substances. 

For the purposes of this action, 

therefore, EPA has not assumed that 

sulfentrazone has a common mechanism 

of toxicity with other substances. 

Safety factor for infants and children. 

EPA continues to conclude that there is 

reliable data showing that the safety of 

infants and children would be 

adequately protected if the Food Quality 

Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor were 

reduced from 10X to 1X. The reasons for 

that decision are articulated in Unit 

III.D. of the April 13, 2018, rulemaking. 

Aggregate risks and determination of 

safety. EPA determines whether acute 

and chronic dietary pesticide exposures 

are safe by comparing dietary exposure 

estimates to the acute populationadjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic 

population-adjusted dose (cPAD). Short- 

, intermediate-, and chronic-term 

aggregate risks are evaluated by 

comparing the estimated total food, 

water, and residential exposure to the 

appropriate points of departure to 

ensure that an adequate margin of 

exposure (MOE) exists. 

Acute dietary (food and drinking 

water) risks are below the Agency’s 

level of concern of 100% of the aPAD; 

the risk estimate is 1.1% of the aPAD for 

all infants less than 1-year-old and 6.4% 

of the aPAD for females 13 to 49 years 

old, the population groups with the 

highest risk estimate. Chronic dietary 

(food and drinking water) risks are 

below the Agency’s level of concern of 

100% of the cPAD; they utilize 7.6% of 

the cPAD for all infants less than 1-yearold, the population group receiving the 

greatest exposure. 

The combined short-term food, water, 

and residential exposures result in an 

aggregate MOE of 490 for adults. The 

combined short- and intermediate-term 

food, water, and residential exposures 

result in an aggregate MOE of 260 for 

children 1 to 2 years old, the population 

subgroup for children with the greatest 

exposure. MOEs below 100 are of 

concern; these MOEs are above 100 and 

therefore are not of concern. 

Because sulfentrazone is classified as 

‘‘not likely to be carcinogenic to 

humans,’’ EPA has concluded that 

aggregate exposure to sulfentrazone is 

not likely to pose a cancer risk. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80448 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Therefore, based on the risk 

assessments and information described 

above, EPA concludes there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to the general population, or to 

infants and children, from aggregate 

exposure to sulfentrazone residues. 

III. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate enforcement methodology, 

gas chromatography (GC), is available to 

enforce the tolerance expression. The 

method may be requested from: Chief, 

Analytical Chemistry Branch, 

Environmental Science Center, 701 

Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; 

telephone number: (410) 305–2905; 

email address: residuemethods@

epa.gov. 

B. International Residue Limits 

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA 

seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with 

international standards whenever 

possible, consistent with U.S. food 

safety standards and agricultural 

practices. EPA considers the 

international maximum residue limits 

(MRLs) established by the Codex 

Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as 

required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). 

No Codex MRLs have been 

established for sulfentrazone on 

popcorn. 

IV. Conclusion 

Tolerances are proposed for residues 

of sulfentrazone on Corn, pop, grain at 

0.15 ppm and Corn, pop, stover at 0.3 

ppm. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

This action is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by 

Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, 

April 11, 2023), because it proposes to 

establish or modify a pesticide tolerance 

or a tolerance exemption under FFDCA 

section 408. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because it 

does not contain any information 

collection activities. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. In 

making this determination, EPA 

concludes that the impact of concern for 

this action is any significant adverse 

economic impact on small entities and 

that the Agency is certifying that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because the 

action has no net burden on small 

entities subject to this rulemaking. This 

determination takes into account an 

EPA analysis for tolerance 

establishments and modifications that 

published in the Federal Register of 

May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950 (FRL–1809– 

5)) and for tolerance revocations on 

December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020 (FRL– 

5753–1)). Additionally, in a 2001 

memorandum, EPA determined that 

eight conditions must all be satisfied in 

order for an import tolerance or 

tolerance exemption revocation to 

adversely affect a significant number of 

small entity importers, and that there is 

a negligible joint probability of all eight 

conditions holding simultaneously with 

respect to any particular revocation. See 

Memorandum from Denise Keehner, 

Division Director, Biological and 

Economic Analysis Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs, entitled ‘‘RFA/ 

SBREFA Certification for Import 

Tolerance Revocation’’ and dated May 

25, 2001, which is available in docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0322 at 

https://www.regulations.gov. 

Any comments about the Agency’s 

determination for this rulemaking 

should be submitted to EPA along with 

comments on the proposed rule and will 

be addressed in the final rule. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more (in 1995 dollars and adjusted 

annually for inflation) as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), because it will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because it will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

the Indian tribes, or on the distribution 

of power and responsibilities between 

the Federal government and Indian 

tribes. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866 (See Unit V.A.), 

and because EPA does not believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

However, EPA’s 2021 Policy on 

Children’s Health applies to this action 

as discussed in Unit II.D. generally, and 

in Unit III. in the context of the 

individual chemicals addressed in this 

action. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355) (May 22, 

2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This action does not involve technical 

standards that would require Agency 

consideration under NTTAA section 

12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations and Executive 

Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All 

EPA believes that the human health 

and environmental conditions that exist 

prior to this action do not result in 

disproportionate and adverse effects on 

communities with EJ concerns as 

described in Executive Orders 12898 (59 

FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and 14096 

(88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80449 

Furthermore, EPA believes that this 

action is not likely to result in new 

disproportionate and adverse effects on 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns. As discussed in more detail in 

the pesticide specific risk assessments 

conducted as part of the registration 

review for each pesticide identified in 

Unit III., EPA has considered the safety 

risks for the pesticides subject to this 

rulemaking and in the context of the 

tolerance actions set out in this 

rulemaking. See also Unit I.D.3. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: September 27, 2024. 

Edward Messina, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, EPA is proposing to amend 

40 CFR chapter I as follows: 

PART 180—TOLERANCES AND 

EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE 

CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. Amend § 180.498, by revising table 

2 to paragraph (a)(2) by adding, in 

alphabetical order, the commodities 

‘‘Corn, pop, grain’’; and ‘‘Corn, pop, 

stover’’ to read as follows: 

§ 180.498 Sulfentrazone; tolerances for 

residues. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(2) 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Corn, pop, grain ........................ 0.15 

Corn, pop, stover ...................... 0.3 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–22809 Filed 10–2–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[WC Docket Nos. 12–375, 23–62; DA 24– 

918; FR ID 246456] 

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; solicitation of 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) 

and the Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau (CGB) (collectively, the 

Bureaus) of the Federal 

Communications Commission seek to 

refresh the record on proposed revisions 

to the instructions and templates for the 

Annual Reports and Annual 

Certifications submitted by providers of 

incarcerated people’s communications 

services (IPCS). 

DATES: Comments are due November 4, 

2024. Reply Comments are due 

November 18, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by WC Docket Nos. 23–62, 12–375, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS): https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. Filings can be 

sent by commercial overnight courier, or 

by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal 

Service mail. 

The Commission adopted a Protective 

Order in this proceeding which 

incorporates all materials previously 

designated by the parties as 

confidential. Filings that contain 

confidential information should be 

appropriately redacted and filed 

pursuant to the procedure described in 

that Order. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov, or call 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) or 

(202) 418–0432 (TTY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Scott, Disability Rights Office 

of the Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418–1264 or via 

email at michael.scott@fcc.gov, 

regarding portions of this document 

relating to communications services for 

incarcerated people with disabilities, 

and Stephen Meil, Pricing Policy 

Division of the Wireline Competition 

Bureau, at (202) 418–7233 or via email 

at stephen.meil@fcc.gov, regarding other 

matters. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

document seeking to refresh the record 

on incarcerated people’s 

communications services annual 

reporting obligations, document DA 24– 

918, released on September 11, 2024, in 

WC Docket Nos. 12–375 and 23–62. The 

full text of document DA 24–918 can be 

accessed electronically via the FCC’s 

Electronic Document Management 

System (EDOCS) website at 

www.fcc.gov/edocs or via the FCC’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS) website at www.fcc.gov/ecfs, or 

is available at the following internet 

address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/ 

2024-incarcerated-peoplescommunications-services-annualreports-pn. 

Synopsis: By document DA 24–918, 

the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) 

and the Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau (CGB) (collectively, the 

Bureaus) invite supplemental comment 

to refresh and expand upon the record 

regarding the annual reporting and 

certification requirements for providers 

of incarcerated people’s 

communications services (IPCS). The 

Commission requires IPCS providers to 

make annual filings ‘‘to enable the 

Commission to monitor and track trends 

in the IPCS marketplace, increase 

provider transparency, and ensure 

compliance with the Commission’s 

rules.’’ 

In an August 3, 2023 document, DA 

23–656 (88 FR 53850, August 9, 2023), 

the Bureaus sought comment on 

proposed revisions to the instructions 

and templates for the annual reports and 

annual certifications that the 

Commission requires IPCS providers to 

submit. At the time document DA 23– 

656 was published, only ‘‘IPCS 

providers that [were] classified as 

inmate calling services (ICS) providers 

under the Commission’s rules [were] 

required to make these filings.’’ 

However, pursuant to the reforms 

adopted in the 2024 IPCS Order, all 

IPCS providers are now required to 

make these filings. Subsequently, in the 

2024 IPCS Order, the Commission 

modified ‘‘the scope and content of [its] 

annual reports to reflect the . . . 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1