40416 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

or lost a challenge, it must include this 

correction layer in its subsequent filings 

to indicate the areas shown to lack 

service. 

(7) Commission staff are permitted to 

consider other relevant data to support 

a mobile service provider’s rebuttal of 

challenges, including on-the-ground 

data or infrastructure data, to the extent 

it was not previously submitted by a 

mobile service provider. The Office of 

Economics and Analytics will review 

such data when voluntarily submitted 

by providers in response to consumer 

challenges, and if it concludes that any 

of the data sources are sufficiently 

reliable, it will specify appropriate 

standards and specifications for each 

type of data and add it to the 

alternatives available to providers to 

rebut a consumer challenge. 

(f) * * * 

(1) 

(i) Government and other entity 

challengers may use their own software 

to collect data for the challenge process. 

When they submit their data they must 

meet the test metrics described in 

paragraph (c)(1)(i)–(ii) of this section. 

Additionally, their data must contain 

the following metrics for each test: 

(2) Challengers must conduct speed 

tests using a device advertised by the 

challenged service provider as 

compatible with its network and must 

take all speed tests outdoors. 

Challengers must also use a device that 

is engineering-capable and able to 

interface with drive test software and/or 

runs on the Android operating system. 

(3) For a challenge to be considered a 

cognizable challenge, thus requiring a 

mobile service provider response, the 

challenge must meet the same threshold 

specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(5) To dispute a challenge, a mobile 

service provider must submit on-theground test data or infrastructure data to 

verify its coverage map(s) in the 

challenged area based on the 

methodology set forth in paragraph 

(e)(4) of this section. To the extent that 

a service provider believes it would be 

helpful to the Commission in resolving 

a challenge, it may choose to submit 

other data in addition to the data 

initially required, including but not 

limited to either infrastructure or onthe-ground testing (to the extent such 

data are not the primary option chosen 

by the provider) or other types of data 

such as data collected from network 

transmitter monitoring systems or 

software or spectrum band-specific 

coverage maps. Such other data must be 

submitted at the same time as the 

primary on-the-ground testing or 

infrastructure rebuttal data submitted by 

the provider. If needed to ensure an 

adequate review, the Office of 

Economics and Analytics may also 

require that the provider submit other 

data in addition to the data initially 

submitted, including but not limited to 

either infrastructure or on-the-ground 

testing data (to the extent not the option 

initially chosen by the provider) or data 

collected from network transmitter 

monitoring systems or software (to the 

extent available in the provider’s 

network). 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 1.7008 by revising 

paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 1.7008 Creation of broadband internet 

access service coverage maps. 

* * * * * 

(d)(1) * * * 

(2) To the extent government entities 

or third parties choose to file verified 

data, they shall follow the same filing 

process as providers submitting their 

broadband internet access service data 

in the data portal. Government entities 

and third parties that file on-the-ground 

test data shall submit such data using 

the same metrics and testing parameters 

the Commission requires of mobile 

service providers when responding to a 

Commission request to verify mobile 

providers’ broadband network coverage 

with on-the-ground data (see 47 CFR 

1.7006(c)(1)). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–16071 Filed 7–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[WC Docket No. 12–375, FCC 21–60; FRS 

35679] 

Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling 

Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this Fifth Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission 

seeks to obtain detailed comment to 

enable it to make further progress 

toward ensuring that the rates, charges, 

and practices for and in connection with 

interstate and international inmate 

calling services meet applicable 

statutory standards. The Commission 

seeks comment about the provision of 

functionally equivalent communications 

services to incarcerated people with 

hearing and speech disabilities and 

whether the Commission should expand 

inmate calling services providers’ 

reporting requirements to include all 

accessibility-related calls. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

issues regarding the setting permanent 

interstate and international rate caps for 

calling services to incarcerated people; 

potential reforms to the treatment of site 

commission payments, including 

whether the Commission should 

preempt state and local laws imposing 

legally-mandated site commission 

payments; on providers’ costs to serve 

different types of facilities; on how it 

should reform its rules permitting 

certain types of ancillary service charges 

in connection with interstate or 

international calling services and on 

how it should refine its methodology for 

setting international rate caps; on 

whether it should adopt an on-going 

periodic data collection and, if so, 

whether it should impose specific 

recordkeeping on providers; and on the 

characteristics of the bidding market for 

inmate calling services contracts and the 

optimal regulatory regime for inmate 

calling services in view of those 

characteristics. 

DATES: Comments are due August 27, 

2021. Reply Comments are due 

September 27, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

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 the Fifth Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking relating 

specifically to the provision of 

communications services to 

incarcerated people with hearing and 

speech disabilities and Katherine 

Morehead, Pricing Policy Division of the 

Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 

418–0696 or via email at 

katherine.morehead@fcc.gov regarding 

other portions of the Fifth Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Fifth 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

FCC 21–60, released May 24, 2021. This 

summary is based on the public 

redacted version of the document, the 

full text of which can be obtained from 

the following internet address: https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC21-60A1.pdf. 

I. Introduction 

1. Unlike virtually everyone else in 

the United States, incarcerated people 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40417 

have no choice in their telephone 

service provider. Instead, their only 

option typically is to use a service 

provider chosen by the correctional 

facility, and once chosen, that service 

provider typically operates on a 

monopoly basis. Egregiously high rates 

and charges and associated 

unreasonable practices for the most 

basic and essential communications 

capability—telephone service—impedes 

incarcerated peoples’ ability to stay 

connected with family and loved ones, 

clergy, and counsel, and financially 

burdens incarcerated people and their 

loved ones. Never have such 

connections been as vital as they are 

now, as many correctional facilities 

have eliminated in-person visitation in 

response to the COVID–19 pandemic. 

2. The Commission adopts a Fifth 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM) to obtain evidence necessary 

to make further progress toward 

accomplishing the critical work that 

remains. To that end, this document 

seeks more detailed comments from 

stakeholders, including but not limited 

to, about the provision of 

communications services to 

incarcerated people with hearing and 

speech disabilities; the methodology to 

be employed in setting permanent 

interstate and international rate caps; 

general reform of the treatment of site 

commission payments in connection 

with interstate and international calls; 

the adoption of an on-going periodic 

cost data collection to ensure rates are 

just and reasonable; and additional 

reforms to its ancillary service charges 

rules. 

3. The Commission expects today’s 

actions to have immediate meaningful 

and positive impacts on the ability of 

incarcerated people and their loved 

ones to satisfy our universal, basic need 

to communicate. Although the 

Commission uses various terminology 

throughout this item to refer to the 

intended beneficiaries of the actions 

herein, unless context specifically 

indicates otherwise, these beneficiaries 

are broadly defined as the people 

placing and receiving inmate calling 

services (ICS) calls, whether they are 

incarcerated people, members of their 

family, or other loved ones and friends. 

The Commission also may refer to them, 

generally, as consumers. 

II. Background 

4. Access to affordable 

communications services is critical for 

everyone in the United States, including 

incarcerated members of our society. 

Studies have long shown that 

incarcerated people who have regular 

contact with family members are more 

likely to succeed after release and have 

lower recidivism rates. Because 

correctional facilities generally grant 

exclusive rights to service providers, 

incarcerated people must purchase 

service from ‘‘locational monopolies’’ 

and subsequently face rates far higher 

than those charged to other Americans. 

A. Statutory Background 

5. The Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended (Communications Act or 

Act) divides regulatory authority over 

interstate, intrastate, and international 

communications services between the 

Commission and the states. Section 2(a) 

of the Act empowers the Commission to 

regulate ‘‘interstate and foreign 

communication by wire or radio.’’ This 

regulatory authority includes ensuring 

that ‘‘[a]ll charges, practices, 

classifications, and regulations for and 

in connection with’’ interstate or 

international communications services 

are ‘‘just and reasonable’’ in accordance 

with section 201(b) of the Act. Section 

201(b) also provides that ‘‘[t]he 

Commission may prescribe such rules 

and regulations as may be necessary in 

the public interest to carry out’’ these 

provisions. 

6. Section 2(b) of the Act preserves 

states’ jurisdiction over ‘‘charges, 

classifications, practices, services, 

facilities, or regulations for or in 

connection with intrastate 

communication service.’’ The 

Commission is thus ‘‘generally 

forbidden from entering the field of 

intrastate communication service, 

which remains the province of the 

states.’’ Stated differently, section 2(b) 

‘‘erects a presumption against the 

Commission’s assertion of regulatory 

authority over intrastate 

communications.’’ 

7. Section 276 of the Act directs the 

Commission to prescribe regulations 

that ensure that payphone service 

providers, including inmate calling 

services providers, ‘‘are fairly 

compensated for each and every 

completed intrastate and interstate call 

using their payphone.’’ Although the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 

Act) amended the Act and ‘‘chang[ed] 

the FCC’s authority with respect to some 

intrastate activities,’’ with respect to 

section 276, the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit has 

held that ‘‘the strictures of [section 2(b)] 

remain in force.’’ Accordingly, that 

court concluded that section 276 does 

not authorize the Commission to 

determine ‘‘just and reasonable’’ rates 

for intrastate calls, and that the 

Commission’s authority under that 

provision to ensure that providers ‘‘are 

fairly compensated’’ both for intrastate 

and interstate calls does not extend to 

establishing rate caps on intrastate 

services. 

B. History of Commission Proceedings 

Prior to 2020 

8. In 2003, Martha Wright and her 

fellow petitioners, current and former 

incarcerated people and their relatives 

and legal counsel (Wright Petitioners), 

filed a petition seeking a rulemaking to 

address ‘‘excessive’’ inmate calling 

services rates. The petition sought to 

prohibit exclusive inmate calling 

services contracts and collect-call-only 

restrictions in correctional facilities. In 

2007, the Wright Petitioners filed an 

alternative petition for rulemaking in 

which they emphasized the urgency of 

the need for Commission action due to 

‘‘exorbitant’’ inmate calling services 

rates. The Wright Petitioners proposed 

benchmark rates for interstate long 

distance inmate calling services calls 

and reiterated their request that 

providers offer debit calling as an 

alternative option to collect calling. The 

Commission sought and received 

comment on both petitions. 

9. In 2012, the Commission 

commenced an inmate calling services 

rulemaking proceeding by releasing a 

document seeking comment on, among 

other matters, the proposals in the 

Wright Petitioners’ petitions and 

whether to establish rate caps for 

interstate inmate calling services calls. 

10. In the 2013 ICS Order, in light of 

record evidence that rates for calling 

services used by incarcerated people 

greatly exceeded the reasonable costs of 

providing those services, the 

Commission adopted interim interstate 

rate caps of $0.21 per minute for debit 

and prepaid calls and $0.25 per minute 

for collect calls. These interim interstate 

rate caps were first adopted in 2013 and 

remain in effect as a result of the 

vacatur, by the D.C. Circuit, of the 

permanent rate caps adopted in the 

2015 ICS Order. Under the 

Commission’s rules, ‘‘Debit Calling’’ 

means ‘‘a presubscription or comparable 

service which allows an Inmate, or 

someone acting on an Inmate’s behalf, to 

fund an account set up [through] a 

Provider that can be used to pay for 

Inmate Calling Services calls originated 

by the Inmate.’’ ‘‘Prepaid Calling’’ 

means ‘‘a presubscription or comparable 

service in which a Consumer, other than 

an Inmate, funds an account set up 

[through] a Provider of Inmate Calling 

Services. Funds from the account can 

then be used to pay for Inmate Calling 

Services, including calls that originate 

with an Inmate.’’ ‘‘Collect Calling’’ 

means ‘‘an arrangement whereby the 

called party takes affirmative action 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40418 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

clearly indicating that it will pay the 

charges associated with a call 

originating from an Inmate Telephone.’’ 

In the First Mandatory Data Collection, 

the Commission required all inmate 

calling services providers to submit data 

on their underlying costs so that the 

agency could develop permanent rate 

caps. In 2014, the Commission sought 

comment on reforming charges for 

services ancillary to the provision of 

inmate calling services and on 

establishing rate caps for both interstate 

and intrastate calls. Ancillary service 

charges are fees that providers assess on 

calling services used by incarcerated 

people that are not included in the perminute rates assessed for individual 

calls. 

11. The Commission adopted a 

comprehensive framework for interstate 

and intrastate inmate calling services in 

the 2015 ICS Order, including limits on 

ancillary service charges and permanent 

rate caps for interstate and intrastate 

inmate calling services calls in light of 

‘‘egregiously high’’ rates for inmate 

calling services calls. Because of 

continued growth in the number and 

dollar amount of ancillary service 

charges that inflated the effective price 

paid for inmate calling services, the 

Commission limited permissible 

ancillary service charges to only five 

types and capped the charges for each: 

(1) Fees for Single-Call and Related 

Services—billing arrangements whereby 

an incarcerated person’s collect calls are 

billed through a third party on a per-call 

basis, where the called party does not 

have an account with the inmate calling 

services provider or does not want to 

establish an account; (2) Automated 

Payment Fees—credit card payment, 

debit card payment, and bill processing 

fees, including fees for payments made 

by interactive voice response, web, or 

kiosk; (3) Third-Party Financial 

Transaction Fees—the exact fees, with 

no markup, that providers of calling 

services used by incarcerated people are 

charged by third parties to transfer 

money or process financial transactions 

to facilitate a consumer’s ability to make 

account payments via a third party; (4) 

Live Agent Fees—fees associated with 

the optional use of a live operator to 

complete inmate calling services 

transactions; and (5) Paper Bill/ 

Statement Fees—fees associated with 

providing customers of inmate calling 

services an optional paper billing 

statement. The Commission relied on 

sections 201(b) and 276 of the Act to 

adopt rate caps for both interstate and 

intrastate inmate calling services. The 

Commission set tiered rate caps of $0.11 

per minute for prisons; $0.14 per minute 

for jails with average daily populations 

of 1,000 or more; $0.16 per minute for 

jails with average daily populations of 

350 to 999; and $0.22 per minute for 

jails having average daily populations of 

less than 350. The Commission 

calculated these rate caps using 

industry-wide average costs based on 

data from the First Mandatory Data 

Collection and stated that this approach 

would allow providers to ‘‘recover 

average costs at each and every tier.’’ 

The Commission did not include site 

commission payments in its permanent 

rate caps, finding these payments were 

not costs reasonably related to the 

provision of inmate calling services. The 

Commission also readopted the interim 

interstate rate caps it had adopted in 

2013, and extended them to intrastate 

calls, pending the effectiveness of the 

new rate caps, and sought comment on 

whether and how to reform rates for 

international inmate calling services 

calls. At the same time, the Commission 

adopted a Second Mandatory Data 

Collection to identify trends in the 

market and form the basis for further 

reform as well as an annual filing 

obligation requiring providers to report 

information on their current operations, 

including their interstate, intrastate, and 

international rates as well as their 

ancillary service charges. 

12. In the 2016 ICS Reconsideration 

Order, the Commission reconsidered its 

decision to entirely exclude site 

commission payments from its 2015 

permanent rate caps. The Commission 

increased those permanent rate caps to 

account for claims that certain 

correctional facility costs reflected in 

site commission payments are directly 

and reasonably related to the provision 

of inmate calling services. The 

Commission set the revised rate caps at 

$0.13 per minute for prisons; $0.19 per 

minute for jails with average daily 

populations of 1,000 or more; $0.21 per 

minute for jails with average daily 

populations of 350 to 999; and $0.31 per 

minute for jails with average daily 

populations of less than 350. 

C. Judicial Actions 

13. In January 2014, in response to 

providers’ petitions for review of the 

2013 ICS Order, the D.C. Circuit stayed 

the application of certain portions of the 

2013 ICS Order but allowed the 

Commission’s interim rate caps to 

remain in effect. Later that year, the 

court held the petitions for review in 

abeyance while the Commission 

proceeded to set permanent rates. In 

March 2016, in response to providers’ 

petitions for review of the 2015 ICS 

Order, the D.C. Circuit stayed the 

application of the 2015 ICS Order’s 

permanent rate caps and ancillary 

service charge caps for Single Call 

Services while the appeal was pending. 

Single-Call Services mean ‘‘billing 

arrangements whereby an Inmate’s 

collect calls are billed through a third 

party on a per-call basis, where the 

called party does not have an account 

with the Provider of Inmate Calling 

Services or does not want to establish an 

account.’’ Later that month, the court 

stayed the application of the 

Commission’s interim rate caps to 

intrastate inmate calling services. In 

November 2016, the D.C. Circuit also 

stayed the 2016 ICS Reconsideration 

Order, pending the outcome of the 

challenge to the 2015 ICS Order. 

14. In 2017, in GTL v. FCC, the D.C. 

Circuit vacated the permanent rate caps 

adopted in the 2015 ICS Order. First, the 

panel majority held that the 

Commission lacked the statutory 

authority to cap intrastate calling 

services rates. The court explained that 

the Commission’s authority over 

intrastate calls is, except as otherwise 

provided by Congress, limited by 

section 2(b) of the Act and nothing in 

section 276 of the Act overcomes this 

limitation. In particular, section 276 

‘‘merely directs the Commission to 

‘ensure that all providers [of calling 

services to incarcerated people] are 

fairly compensated’ for their inter- and 

intrastate calls,’’ and it ‘‘is not a ‘general 

grant of jurisdiction’ over intrastate 

ratemaking.’’ The court noted that it 

‘‘need not decide the precise parameters 

of the Commission’s authority under 

§ 276.’’ 

15. Second, the D.C. Circuit 

concluded that the ‘‘Commission’s 

categorical exclusion of site 

commissions from the calculus used to 

set [inmate calling services] rate caps 

defie[d] reasoned decision making 

because site commissions obviously are 

costs of doing business incurred by 

[inmate calling services] providers.’’ 

The court noted that some site 

commissions were ‘‘mandated by state 

statute,’’ while others were ‘‘required by 

state correctional institutions’’ and were 

thus also a ‘‘condition of doing 

business.’’ The court directed the 

Commission to ‘‘assess on remand 

which portions of site commissions 

might be directly related to the 

provision of [inmate calling services] 

and therefore legitimate, and which are 

not.’’ The court did not reach the 

providers’ remaining arguments ‘‘that 

the exclusion of site commissions 

denies [them] fair compensation under 

[section] 276 and violates the Takings 

Clause of the Constitution because it 

forces providers to provide services 

below cost.’’ Instead, the court stated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40419 

that the Commission should address 

these issues on remand when revisiting 

the categorical exclusion of site 

commissions. Judge Pillard dissented 

from this view, noting that site 

commissions are not legitimate simply 

because a state demands them. 

16. Third, the D.C. Circuit held that 

the Commission’s use of industry-wide 

averages in setting rate caps was 

arbitrary and capricious because it 

lacked justification in the record and 

was not supported by reasoned decision 

making. Judge Pillard also dissented on 

this point, noting that the Commission 

has ‘‘wide discretion’’ under section 201 

of the Act to decide ‘‘which costs to take 

into account and to use industry-wide 

averages that do not necessarily 

compensate ‘each and every’ call.’’ More 

specifically, the court found the 

Commission’s use of a weighted average 

per-minute cost to be ‘‘patently 

unreasonable’’ given that such an 

approach made calls with above-average 

costs unprofitable and thus did ‘‘not 

fulfill the mandate of § 276 that ‘each 

and every’ ’’ call be fairly compensated. 

Additionally, the court found that the 

2015 ICS Order ‘‘advance[d] an 

efficiency argument—that the larger 

providers can become profitable under 

the rate caps if they operate more 

efficiently—based on data from the two 

smallest firms,’’ which ‘‘represent[ed] 

less than one percent of the industry,’’ 

and that the Order did not account for 

conflicting record data. The court 

therefore vacated this portion of the 

2015 ICS Order. 

17. Finally, the court remanded the 

ancillary service charge caps. The D.C. 

Circuit held that ‘‘the Order’s 

imposition of ancillary fee caps in 

connection with interstate calls is 

justified’’ given the Commission’s 

‘‘plenary authority to regulate interstate 

rates under § 201(b), including 

‘practices . . . for and in connection 

with’ interstate calls.’’ The court held 

that the Commission ‘‘had no authority 

to impose ancillary fee caps with 

respect to intrastate calls.’’ Because the 

court could not ‘‘discern from the record 

whether ancillary fees can be segregated 

between interstate and intrastate calls,’’ 

it remanded the issue so the 

Commission could determine whether it 

could segregate ancillary fee caps on 

interstate calls (which are permissible) 

and on intrastate calls (which are 

impermissible). The court also vacated 

the video visitation annual reporting 

requirements adopted in the 2015 ICS 

Order. 

18. In December 2017, after it issued 

the GTL v. FCC opinion, the D.C. Circuit 

in Securus v. FCC ordered the 2016 ICS 

Reconsideration Order ‘‘summarily 

vacated insofar as it purports to set rate 

caps on inmate calling service’’ because 

the revised rate caps in that 2016 ICS 

Reconsideration Order were ‘‘premised 

on the same legal framework and 

mathematical methodology’’ rejected by 

the court in GTL v. FCC. The court 

remanded ‘‘the remaining provisions’’ of 

that Order to the Commission ‘‘for 

further consideration . . . in light of the 

disposition of this case and other related 

cases.’’ As a result of the D.C. Circuit’s 

decisions in GTL and Securus, the 

interim rate caps that the Commission 

adopted in 2013 ($0.21 per minute for 

debit/prepaid calls and $0.25 per 

minute for collect calls) remain in effect 

for interstate inmate calling services 

calls. 

D. 2020 Rates and Charges Reform 

Efforts 

19. In February 2020, the Wireline 

Competition Bureau (Bureau or WCB) 

issued a document seeking to refresh the 

record on ancillary service charges in 

light of the D.C. Circuit’s remand in GTL 

v. FCC. This document was published in 

the Federal Register. In the Ancillary 

Services Refresh Public Notice, the 

Bureau sought comment on ‘‘whether 

each permitted [inmate calling services] 

ancillary service charge may be 

segregated between interstate and 

intrastate calls and, if so, how.’’ The 

Bureau also sought comment on any 

steps the Commission should take to 

ensure, consistent with the D.C. 

Circuit’s opinion, that providers of 

interstate inmate calling services do not 

circumvent or frustrate the 

Commission’s ancillary service charge 

rules. The Bureau also defined 

jurisdictionally mixed services as 

‘‘ ‘[s]ervices that are capable of 

communications both between intrastate 

end points and between interstate end 

points’ ’’ and sought comment on, 

among other issues, how the 

Commission should proceed if any 

permitted ancillary service is 

‘‘jurisdictionally mixed’’ and cannot be 

segregated between interstate and 

intrastate calls. 

20. In August 2020, the Commission 

responded to the court’s remands and 

took action to comprehensively reform 

inmate calling services rates and 

charges. First, the Commission 

addressed the D.C. Circuit’s directive 

that the Commission consider whether 

ancillary service charges—separate fees 

that are not included in the per-minute 

rates assessed for individual inmate 

calling services calls—can be segregated 

into interstate and intrastate 

components for the purpose of 

excluding the intrastate components 

from the reach of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission found that 

ancillary service charges generally are 

jurisdictionally mixed and cannot be 

practicably segregated between the 

interstate and intrastate jurisdictions 

except in the limited number of cases 

where, at the time a charge is imposed 

and the consumer accepts the charge, 

the call to which the service is ancillary 

is clearly an intrastate call. As a result, 

the Commission concluded that inmate 

calling services providers are generally 

prohibited from imposing any ancillary 

service charges other than those 

permitted by the Commission’s rules, 

and providers are generally prohibited 

from imposing charges in excess of the 

Commission’s applicable ancillary 

service fee caps. 

21. Second, the Commission proposed 

rate reform of the inmate calling 

services within its jurisdiction. As a 

result of the D.C. Circuit’s decisions, the 

interim interstate rate caps of $0.21 per 

minute for debit and prepaid calls and 

$0.25 per minute for collect calls that 

the Commission adopted in 2013 remain 

in effect today. Commission staff 

performed extensive analyses of the data 

it collected in the Second Mandatory 

Data Collection as well as the data in the 

April 1, 2020, annual reports. In the 

2015 ICS Order, the Commission 

directed that the Second Mandatory 

Data Collection be conducted ‘‘two 

years from publication of Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval of the information collection.’’ 

The Commission received OMB 

approval in January 2017, and Federal 

Register publication occurred on March 

1, 2017. Accordingly, on March 1, 2019, 

inmate calling services providers 

submitted their responses to the Second 

Mandatory Data Collection. WCB and 

the Office of Economics and Analytics 

(OEA) undertook a comprehensive 

analysis of the Second Mandatory Data 

Collection responses, and conducted 

multiple follow-up discussions with 

providers to supplement and clarify 

their responses, in order to conduct the 

data analysis upon which the proposals 

in the August 2020 document are based. 

Based on that analysis, the Commission 

proposed to lower the interstate rate 

caps to $0.14 per minute for debit, 

prepaid, and collect calls from prisons 

and $0.16 per minute for debit, prepaid, 

and collect calls from jails. In so doing, 

the Commission used a methodology 

that addresses the flaws underlying the 

Commission’s 2015 and 2016 rate caps 

(which used industry-wide averages to 

set rate caps) and that is consistent with 

the mandate in section 276 of the Act 

that inmate calling services providers be 

fairly compensated for each and every 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40420 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

completed interstate call. The 

Commission’s methodology included a 

proposed 10% reduction in GTL’s costs 

to account, in part, for seemingly 

substantially overstated costs. The 

Commission also proposed to adopt a 

waiver process that would permit 

providers to seek waivers of the 

proposed rate caps on a facility-byfacility or contract basis if the rate caps 

would prevent a provider from 

recovering the costs of providing 

interstate inmate calling services at a 

facility or facilities covered by a 

contract. The Commission also 

proposed ‘‘to adopt a rate cap formula 

for international inmate calling services 

calls that permits a provider to charge 

a rate up to the sum of the inmate 

calling services provider’s per-minute 

interstate rate cap for that correctional 

facility plus the amount that the 

provider must pay its underlying 

international service provider for that 

call on a per-minute basis (without a 

markup).’’ The Commission explained 

that this cap ‘‘would enable inmate 

calling services providers to account for 

widely varying costs,’’ be consistent 

with the ‘‘just and reasonable’ standard 

in section 201(b) of the Act, and 

comport with the ‘‘fair compensation’’ 

provision of section 276 of the Act. 

22. In response to the 2020 ICS 

document, the Commission received 

over 90 comments and reply comments 

and 9 economic studies. Filers included 

providers of calling services to 

incarcerated people, public interest 

groups and advocates for the 

incarcerated, telecommunications 

companies, organizations representing 

individuals who are deaf or hard of 

hearing, and providers of 

telecommunications relay service. 

23. Intrastate Rate Reform Efforts. By 

April 1 of each year, inmate calling 

services providers file annual reports 

with the Commission that include rates, 

ancillary service charges, and site 

commissions. In an effort to compare 

interstate inmate calling services rate 

levels with intrastate rate levels, 

Commission staff analyzed the intrastate 

rate data submitted as part of the 

providers’ April 1, 2020, annual reports. 

Commission staff’s review revealed that 

intrastate rates for debit or prepaid calls 

exceed interstate rates in 45 states, with 

33 states allowing rates that are at least 

double the Commission’s interstate cap 

and 27 states allowing ‘‘first-minute’’ 

charges that can be more than 25 times 

that of the first minute of an interstate 

call. For example, one provider reported 

a first-minute intrastate rate of $5.34 

and additional per-minute intrastate 

rates of $1.39 while reporting the perminute interstate rate of $0.21 for the 

same correctional facility. Similarly, 

another provider reported a first-minute 

intrastate rate of $6.50 and an additional 

per-minute intrastate rate of $1.25 while 

reporting the per-minute interstate rate 

of $0.25 for the same correctional 

facility. Further, Commission staff 

identified instances in which a 15- 

minute intrastate debit or prepaid call 

costs as much as $24.80—almost seven 

times more than the maximum $3.15 

that an interstate call of the same 

duration would cost. 

24. In light of these data, in 

September 2020, former Chairman Pai 

and Brandon Presley, then president of 

the National Association of Regulatory 

Utility Commissioners (NARUC), jointly 

sent a letter to the co-chairs of the 

National Governors Association urging 

state governments to take action to 

reduce intrastate rates and related fees. 

At least one state has enacted a law to 

reduce intrastate inmate calling services 

rates and fees, at least one state 

commenced a regulatory proceeding 

aimed at reducing intrastate inmate 

calling services rates and fees, and 

several states are considering 

legislation. 

III. Fifth Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

25. In this document the Commission 

seeks further evidence and comments 

from stakeholders to consider additional 

reforms to inmate calling services rates, 

services, and practices within its 

jurisdiction, including permanent rate 

caps. To that end, the Commission seeks 

comment on the provision of 

functionally equivalent communications 

services to incarcerated people with 

hearing and speech disabilities, the 

methodology for establishing permanent 

rate caps, further reforms to the 

treatment of site commission payments, 

including at jails with average daily 

populations less than 1,000, and 

revisions to its ancillary service charge 

rules, among other matters. 

A. Disability Access 

26. While there are barriers to 

telecommunications access for 

incarcerated people, the obstacles are 

much larger for those who are deaf, hard 

of hearing, or deafblind, or who have a 

speech disability. The Commission 

refers to this class of people generally as 

incarcerated people with 

communication disabilities. Because 

functionally equivalent means of 

communication with the outside world 

are often unavailable to incarcerated 

people with communication disabilities, 

they are effectively trapped in a ‘‘prison 

within a prison.’’ The ability to make 

telephone calls is not just important to 

maintain familial and intimate 

relationships necessary for successful 

rehabilitation, but also crucial to allow 

for communication with legal 

representatives and medical 

professionals. 

1. Background 

27. The Commission first sought 

comment in 2012 on access to inmate 

calling services for incarcerated people 

with communication disabilities. In 

2015, the Commission affirmed the 

obligation of inmate calling services 

providers, as common carriers, to 

provide incarcerated people access to 

‘‘mandatory’’ forms of TRS—TTY-based 

TRS and speech-to-speech relay service 

(STS). TTY-based TRS allows an 

individual with a communication 

disability to communicate by telephone 

with another party, such as a hearing 

individual, by using a text telephone 

(TTY) device to send text to a 

communications assistant (CA) over a 

circuit-switched telephone network. To 

connect a hearing individual as the 

other party to the call, the CA 

establishes a separate voice service link 

with the hearing party and converts the 

TTY user’s text to speech. The CA 

listens to the hearing party’s voice 

response and converts that speech to 

text for the TTY user. STS ‘‘allows 

individuals with speech disabilities to 

communicate with voice telephone 

users through the use of specially 

trained CAs who understand the speech 

patterns of persons with speech 

disabilities and can repeat the words 

spoken by that person.’’ The 

Commission also amended its rules to 

prohibit inmate calling services 

providers from levying or collecting any 

charge for TRS calls. For TTY-to-TTY 

calls, which require substantially longer 

time than voice calls, the Commission 

limited permissible charges to 25% of 

the applicable per-minute voice rate. 

28. The Commission recognized in the 

2015 ICS Order that other, more 

advanced forms of TRS, many of which 

use the internet, had been developed 

and recognized as eligible for TRS Fund 

support. For example, video relay 

service (VRS) makes use of video 

communications technology to allow 

individuals whose primary language is 

American Sign Language (ASL) to 

communicate in ASL. VRS is a form of 

TRS that ‘‘allows people with hearing 

and speech disabilities who use sign 

language to communicate with voice 

telephone users through video 

equipment. The video link allows the 

[communication assistant] to view and 

interpret the party’s signed conversation 

and relay the conversation back and 

forth with a voice caller.’’ internet 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40421 

Protocol Captioned Telephone Service 

(IP CTS) and its non-internet 

counterpart, Captioned Telephone 

Service (CTS), allow a person who is 

hard of hearing to participate in direct 

voice communications while receiving 

captions of the other party’s voice— 

thereby eliminating much of the delay 

inherent in more traditional forms of 

TRS. IP CTS is a form of TRS ‘‘that 

permits an individual who can speak 

but who has difficulty hearing over the 

telephone to use a telephone and an 

internet Protocol-enabled device via the 

internet to simultaneously listen to the 

other party and read captions of what 

the other party is saying.’’ And IP Relay 

enhances traditional text-based relay by 

making use of the faster transmission 

speeds offered by the internet. Today, 

among people with communication 

disabilities, there is far more demand for 

these forms of TRS than for TTY-based 

TRS and STS. In its annual TRS usage 

projections for TRS Fund Year 2020–21, 

the TRS Fund administrator projected 

that interstate usage of TTY-based TRS 

from July 2020 through April 2021 

would total 1,361,038 minutes, and 

interstate usage of STS for the same 

period would be 141,313 minutes. 

Taking account of likely intrastate 

usage, total usage of TTY-based TRS in 

this period will not exceed 6 million 

minutes, and total usage of STS will not 

exceed 500,000 minutes. Although these 

statistics are for calendar year 2019, an 

earlier period, TTY-based TRS usage has 

been declining over time, and STS usage 

has not increased significantly in recent 

years. Therefore, the corresponding 

intrastate usage statistics for TRS Fund 

Year 2020–21 are likely to be lower (in 

the case of TTY-based TRS) or not 

substantially higher (in the case of STS) 

than these totals. By contrast, projected 

usage of VRS for the same period is 

140,575,160 minutes (about 23 times the 

usage of TTY-based TRS) and projected 

usage of IP CTS is 542,340,606 minutes 

(about 90 times the usage of TTY-based 

TRS). 

29. The Commission also ‘‘agree[d] 

with commenters that limiting all 

inmates with communication 

disabilities to one form of TRS, 

particularly what many view as an 

outdated form of TRS that relies on TTY 

usage, may result in communication 

that is not functionally equivalent to the 

ability of a hearing individual to 

communicate by telephone.’’ However, 

noting that the newer forms of TRS 

(other than STS) are not ‘‘mandatory’’ 

for common carriers to provide, the 

Commission declined to require calling 

service providers to make them 

available. Instead, it ‘‘strongly 

encourage[d] correctional facilities to 

work with [inmate calling services] 

providers to offer these other forms of 

TRS,’’ and to ‘‘comply with obligations 

that may exist under other federal laws, 

including Title II of the ADA, which 

require the provision of services to 

inmates with disabilities that are as 

effective as those provided to other 

inmates.’’ The Commission stated it 

would ‘‘monitor the implementation 

and access to TRS in correctional 

institutions and may take additional 

action if inmates with communications 

disabilities continue to lack access to 

functionally equivalent service.’’ 

30. In 2015, the Commission sought 

comment on the accessibility 

implications of the increasing 

availability to incarcerated people of 

video calling and video visitation 

services. Recognizing that video calling 

could enable incarcerated sign language 

users to access and use VRS, as well as 

communicate directly with other sign 

language users, the Commission sought 

comment on the bandwidths and 

broadband speeds currently used for 

video visitation, the interoperability of 

video visitation systems with VRS, the 

prevalence of VRS access in correctional 

institutions, and the steps that should 

be taken to ensure that charges for video 

calling services offered to deaf 

incarcerated people are just and 

reasonable. In 2020, the Commission 

sought comment more broadly on the 

needs of incarcerated people with 

communication disabilities, including 

whether they have adequate access to 

TRS, whether additional forms of TRS 

should be made available by inmate 

calling services providers, and what the 

Commission can do to facilitate such 

access. In response to the 2015 and 2020 

ICS documents, the Commission has 

received information describing the lack 

of functionally equivalent access to 

telecommunications services for 

incarcerated people with 

communication disabilities. The 

Commission has also received several 

individual comments urging it to 

require more access to communications 

in correctional facilities and sharing 

personal experiences with disability 

access to telecommunications in 

correctional facilities. As a result of 

these limitations, the Accessibility 

Coalition asserts, many incarcerated 

people with communication disabilities 

have been unable to stay in contact with 

their loved ones. 

2. Making Modern Forms of TRS 

Available 

31. In light of the comments filed in 

response to the 2020 ICS document, as 

well as other evidence, the Commission 

proposes to amend the Commission’s 

rules to require that inmate calling 

services providers provide access, 

wherever feasible, to all forms of TRS 

that are eligible for TRS Fund support— 

including (in addition to TTY-based 

TRS and STS) CTS (a non-internetbased telephone captioning service) and 

the three forms of internet-based TRS: 

VRS, IP CTS, and IP Relay. In proposing 

that inmate calling services providers 

offer access to all forms of TRS, the 

Commission does not contemplate that 

providers would necessarily provide 

TRS directly. They would only need to 

ensure that incarcerated people with 

hearing and speech disabilities can be 

connected to an existing, authorized 

provider of the appropriate form of TRS. 

32. As the Commission has 

recognized, ‘‘functional equivalence’’ is 

an evolving standard for the level of 

communications access that TRS must 

provide. ‘‘Functional equivalence is, by 

nature, a continuing goal that requires 

periodic reassessment. The everincreasing availability of new services 

and the development of new 

technologies continually challenge us to 

determine what specific services and 

performance standards are necessary to 

ensure that TRS is functionally 

equivalent to voice telephone service.’’ 

The current record confirms the 

Commission’s initial assessment in the 

2015 ICS Order that TTY-based TRS and 

STS may be insufficient by themselves 

to ensure functionally equivalent 

communication for people with 

communication disabilities. As 

explained above, among the general 

population of people with 

communication disabilities, TTY-based 

TRS and STS are currently the least 

frequently used forms of relay service. 

TTY-based TRS is little used today 

because it is based on an obsolete 

technology, which is very slow and 

cumbersome compared with current 

internet technology. Further, given the 

availability of VRS, limiting signlanguage users to TTY-based TRS 

unnecessarily precludes them from 

communicating in their primary 

language. Similarly, for individuals who 

are hard of hearing, captioned telephone 

services such as CTS and IP CTS 

frequently provide far more efficient 

and effective means of communication 

than TTY-based TRS. Further, current 

transitions to modern IP-based networks 

have adversely affected the quality and 

utility of TTY-based communication. In 

the 2016 RTT Order, the Commission 

recognized the limitations of TTY 

technology in an IP environment, and 

adopted rules to facilitate a transition 

from TTY technology to real-time text 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40422 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

(RTT) as a reliable and interoperable 

universal text solution over wireless IPenabled networks for people who are 

deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, or have 

a speech disability. 

33. Although the Commission has not 

mandated the provision of the more 

advanced forms of TRS by state TRS 

programs or common carriers, their 

‘‘non-mandatory’’ status does not reflect 

a lower level of need for these forms of 

TRS. These forms of TRS are ‘‘nonmandatory’’ only in the limited sense 

that the Commission does not require 

that they be included in the offerings of 

Commission-certified state TRS 

programs (and, in the event that a state 

does not have a certified TRS program, 

does not require common carriers in 

that state to make their own 

arrangements to provide such relay 

services). Instead, internet-based TRS 

are made available by TRS providers 

operating on a nationwide basis and 

certified by the Commission. However, 

support for all forms of TRS is 

mandatory for all carriers and VoIP 

service providers, which must support 

the provision of these services through 

mandatory contributions to the TRS 

Fund. As noted above, among the 

general population of people with 

communication disabilities, there is far 

more demand for ‘‘non-mandatory’’ than 

‘‘mandatory’’ relay services. Further, the 

comments submitted in response to the 

2015 and 2020 ICS documents persuade 

us that access to commonly used, 

widely available relay services such as 

VRS and IP CTS is equally or more 

important for incarcerated people with 

communication disabilities than it is for 

the general population. Further, 

incarcerated people—unlike the general 

population—have no ability to connect 

to a suitable form of TRS on their own. 

Therefore, to fulfill the statutory TRS 

mandate with respect to this subset of 

people with communication disabilities, 

it appears to be incumbent on the 

Commission to take additional steps in 

this proceeding to ensure that they can 

access those relay services needed for 

functionally equivalent communication, 

regardless of the ‘‘mandatory’’ or ‘‘nonmandatory’’ status of such services as 

provided in other contexts. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

analysis. 

34. Legal Authority. As a threshold 

matter, the Commission seeks comment 

on the extent of its statutory authority 

to require inmate calling services 

providers to provide access to TRS. 

Section 225 of the Act directs the 

Commission to ‘‘ensure that interstate 

and intrastate telecommunications relay 

services are available, to the extent 

possible and in the most efficient 

manner, to [individuals with 

communications disabilities] in the 

United States,’’ and incarcerated people 

are not excluded from this mandate. To 

this end, section 225 expressly provides 

the Commission with authority over 

common carriers providing intrastate as 

well as interstate communications 

services, including the authority to 

require carriers to provide access to TRS 

‘‘to the extent possible.’’ Section 225 

also expressly requires common carriers 

to ‘‘provide in compliance with the 

regulations prescribed under this 

section, throughout the area in which it 

offers service, telecommunications relay 

services, individually, through 

designees, through a competitively 

selected vendor, or in concert with other 

carriers.’’ Does section 225 authorize the 

Commission to require that inmate 

calling services providers provide 

access to appropriate forms of TRS, as 

well as to regulate the manner in which 

such access is provided? 

35. As alternative sources of 

authority, section 255 of the Act 

requires providers of 

telecommunications services to ensure 

that their services are ‘‘accessible to and 

usable by individuals with disabilities 

‘if readily achievable.’’’ Similarly, 

section 716 of the Act requires providers 

of advanced communications services 

(including VoIP services) to ensure that 

such services are accessible to and 

usable by individuals with disabilities 

‘‘unless [these requirements] are not 

achievable,’’ prohibits such providers 

from installing ‘‘network features, 

functions, or capabilities that impede 

accessibility or usability,’’ and 

authorizes the Commission to adopt 

implementing regulations. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

extent to which, independently of 

section 225, these provisions authorize 

the Commission to require inmate 

calling services providers to provide 

access to appropriate forms of TRS. 

36. As noted earlier in the 

accompanying Report and Order, 

correctional authorities ‘‘exercise near 

total control over how incarcerated 

people are able to communicate with 

the outside world.’’ In general, the 

Communications Act does not provide 

us with authority to regulate the actions 

of correctional authorities (except to the 

extent that they also act as 

communications service providers or 

other entities subject to its authority). 

As a practical matter, therefore, its 

ability to compel an inmate calling 

services provider to make additional 

forms of TRS available in a particular 

facility may depend, for example, on 

whether the correctional institution 

agrees—or is required by other 

applicable law—to make suitable 

communications devices and network 

access available to incarcerated people 

with disabilities, or to permit a service 

provider to do so. The Commission 

seeks comment on the extent to which 

Title II of the ADA or other federal or 

state laws require such access. Access to 

telecommunications for incarcerated 

people with disabilities may also 

involve issues of constitutional rights. 

The Commission also stresses that, 

although the obligations of inmate 

calling service providers under any 

rules the Commission adopts may be 

limited to measures that are ‘‘feasible’’ 

in the circumstances of a particular 

correctional facility, the Commission 

does not propose to preempt other 

requirements under state or federal law, 

whether applicable to service providers 

or correctional authorities, which may 

expand the scope of access to TRS that 

would otherwise be deemed ‘‘possible’’ 

under section 225. 

37. Benefits and Costs. To supplement 

the current record, the Commission 

seeks further comment on the benefits 

and costs of requiring that providers of 

inmate calling services provide access to 

all authorized forms of TRS. First, to 

establish a baseline, the Commission 

seeks additional, specific information 

on the extent to which VRS, IP Relay, 

IP CTS, and CTS are currently being 

made available in correctional facilities. 

According to comments on the 2020 ICS 

document, VRS and IP CTS already 

have been made available in some 

correctional facilities. ZP Better 

Together, LLC, a certified VRS provider, 

notes that a number of state facilities 

that allow video visitations also have 

added VRS and point-to-point video 

communications for those with 

accessibility needs. Where available, 

how are internet-based relay services 

and CTS provided? Do correctional 

facilities make arrangements directly 

with TRS Fund-supported TRS 

providers to provide these services, or 

are they accessed through an inmate 

calling services provider? What kinds of 

devices are used to access these forms 

of TRS, and how and by which entities 

are they provided? Similarly, how is 

broadband internet access provided to 

the facility—by arrangement with an 

inmate calling services provider or some 

other entity? Where access to additional 

forms of TRS has been made available, 

what operational or other challenges 

were encountered, and how were they 

addressed? 

38. Second, the Commission seeks 

additional comment on the benefits of 

making VRS, IP CTS, IP Relay, and CTS 

available in correctional facilities where 

they are not currently available. As 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40423 

noted above, the record to date strongly 

suggests that TTY-based TRS and STS, 

by themselves, are insufficient to ensure 

that incarcerated people with 

communications disabilities have access 

to functionally equivalent 

communications. The Commission 

seeks additional, specific information 

on how and to what extent each of the 

other TRS-Fund supported relay 

services would enhance 

communications for incarcerated people 

with communications disabilities. 

Where available, what specific benefits 

do these services offer that TTY-based 

TRS and STS cannot? What 

communications limitations of TTYbased TRS and STS would be remedied 

by providing modern relay services? For 

example, how would access to 

additional forms of TRS improve 

communications access for incarcerated 

people who are deafblind? Should each 

of these relay services—VRS, IP CTS, IP 

Relay, and CTS—be available, or would 

a combination of some of them 

collectively provide adequate access to 

telecommunications for incarcerated 

people with communication 

disabilities? Would the provision of 

modern relay services also benefit the 

people that incarcerated people with 

communication disabilities want to call? 

39. As part of its assessment of the 

potential benefits of making other forms 

of TRS available, the Commission also 

seeks comment on the extent to which, 

as a practical matter, TTY-based TRS is 

actually available and usable in 

correctional facilities. To what extent is 

access to TTY-based TRS subject to 

more restrictions (e.g., physical access, 

limited hours, dependence on 

correctional staff) than telephone 

access? For example, to what extent are 

TTY devices incorporated into the 

telephones used by the general 

incarcerated population, or are TTY 

devices available only upon request? 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

the extent to which the TTYs available 

at correctional facilities are actually 

functional and capable of making calls. 

Are TTYs adequately maintained? 

Further, in light of the incompatibilities 

between TTYs and IP networks, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

extent to which correctional facilities 

have upgraded to IP-enabled voice 

service. For those that have upgraded, 

how do correctional facilities ensure 

that incarcerated people with 

communication disabilities are able to 

use TTYs successfully? Do incarcerated 

people with disabilities wishing to use 

TTY-based TRS encounter difficulties 

navigating inmate calling services (e.g., 

accessing the system to complete steps 

required to make an outgoing call)? 

What kinds of difficulties are 

encountered by individuals eligible to 

use STS? To what extent could such 

difficulties in using TTY-based TRS and 

STS be overcome by providing access to 

other forms of TRS? 

40. Third, what security or other 

issues do inmate calling services 

providers and correctional facilities face 

that could be affected by the provision 

of VRS, IP CTS, IP Relay, and CTS, and 

how could such issues be effectively 

addressed? The Commission has 

recognized that security is a significant 

concern for inmate calling services 

generally. However, service providers 

and correctional facilities have 

developed methods for effectively 

monitoring, recording, and 

administering inmate calls, and some 

commenters have stated that these 

solutions are applicable or adaptable to 

the TRS context. Is there evidence that 

security issues are more challenging for 

TRS than for inmate calling services in 

general, and if so, why? What specific 

security issues are raised by 

incarcerated people’s access to TRS? 

Are there specific concerns with respect 

to VRS, given its use of video? How 

have security concerns been addressed 

with respect to TTY-based TRS and 

STS, and in facilities where VRS is 

currently available? What measures are 

available to address such security 

concerns with respect to other forms of 

TRS? 

41. Fourth, what additional costs 

would be incurred—and by which 

entities—in providing access to VRS, IP 

CTS, IP Relay, and CTS, respectively, 

for incarcerated people? For example, 

would inmate calling services providers 

or other entities incur costs associated 

with upgrading or modifying existing 

technology configurations, operations, 

or associated network infrastructure? To 

what extent would additional 

broadband services be needed for 

transmission and completion of TRS 

calls, what costs would be involved, and 

which entity would incur such costs— 

the correctional institution or the 

inmate calling services provider? To 

what extent would additional costs be 

incurred by TRS providers to provide 

relay services in correctional facilities? 

Would it be necessary to provide 

training to correctional facilities 

personnel regarding modern TRS, and 

which entity would incur such costs? 

To what extent would additional costs 

be incurred, and by which entity, in 

ensuring that the provision of VRS, IP 

CTS, IP Relay, and CTS is secure? The 

Commission seeks detailed estimates of 

the costs described above and how they 

would be incurred—including 

discussion of the actual costs incurred 

in those instances where access to some 

of these forms of TRS is already being 

provided. 

42. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how the various costs 

attributable to the provision of TRS 

access should be recovered. Which, if 

any, of the additional costs that may be 

incurred by TRS providers should be 

treated as eligible for TRS Fund 

support? To the extent that costs are 

incurred by inmate calling services 

providers, to what extent should they be 

recoverable in generally applicable 

inmate calling services charges that are 

subject to Commission regulation? As 

discussed below, the Communications 

Act restricts the extent to which parties 

to a TRS call may be charged for TRS 

access. 

43. Feasibility, TRS Equipment, and 

internet Access. As noted above, its 

proposed expansion of inmate calling 

services providers’ obligations to 

provide access to TRS is necessarily 

conditional on the extent to which 

associated communications capabilities, 

such as internet access and suitable user 

devices, can be made available in a 

particular correctional facility. The 

Commission cannot compel providers to 

provide access to all forms of TRS in 

those facilities where it is not feasible to 

do so. The Commission seeks comment 

on how to determine feasibility in this 

context and how potential limitations 

on the availability of internet service 

and user devices could be addressed 

and overcome. In order to access relay 

services, certain hardware is necessary. 

The Commission notes that people who 

are deafblind may need devices that 

have refreshable Braille output or text 

enlarging capabilities. To access TTYbased relay, a TTY is necessary. For 

CTS, a telephone with a display suitable 

for captioning, and compatible with the 

applicable state-program captioning 

service, is required. For internet-based 

forms of TRS, broadband internet access 

is required, as well as appropriate 

devices. Various devices may be used 

for IP CTS, such as a caption-displaying 

telephone compatible with an IP CTS 

provider’s service, a personal computer, 

a laptop, a tablet, or a smartphone. IP 

Relay, similarly, may be accessed using 

a personal computer, a laptop, a tablet, 

or a smartphone. Finally, VRS requires 

a device with a screen and a video 

camera, such as a standalone 

videophone, a personal computer, a 

laptop, a tablet, or a smartphone. 

Internet-based services (IP Relay, IP 

CTS, and VRS) also require certain 

software that is available from TRS 

providers. With respect to VRS, the 

Commission requires that any user 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40424 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

devices and associated software 

distributed by a VRS provider must be 

interoperable and usable with all VRS 

providers’ services. 

44. As a threshold matter, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

extent to which broadband internet 

access, as well as the various user 

devices described above, are currently 

made available in correctional facilities 

for use by incarcerated people. To what 

extent are broadband internet access 

services currently available for use by 

incarcerated people, and could such 

services be used to support access to 

internet-based TRS? For example, the 

record indicates that remote video 

visitation, where available, is often 

provided by an inmate calling service 

provider. Where an inmate calling 

service provider or affiliated company is 

providing video visitation using 

broadband internet access, is it feasible 

for the provider to also use such 

broadband service to provide access to 

VRS or other forms of internet-based 

TRS? To what extent are off-the-shelf 

user devices suitable for internet access, 

such as personal computers, laptops, 

tablets, smartphones, or specialized 

videophones, available to incarcerated 

people? For VRS, to what extent are 

video-capable versions of such devices 

available? To what extent do 

correctional facilities place restrictions 

on people with disabilities’ access to the 

internet and internet-capable devices 

(e.g., physical access, limited hours, 

dependence on correctional staff) that 

are not imposed on the use of 

telephones by hearing people? The 

Commission also seeks comment on any 

security issues specific to certain types 

of equipment that may be used to access 

TRS. Are such security issues more 

easily or effectively addressed with 

certain kinds of video-capable user 

devices than with others? 

45. To what extent is the provision of 

broadband internet access or TRScompatible user devices (other than 

TTYs) by a correctional facility required 

by the ADA or other laws? Federal 

prisons and other facilities receiving 

federal funds are subject to section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and 

implementing regulations. State and 

local correctional facilities are subject to 

Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12131 et 

seq., and implementing regulations 

adopted by the Department of Justice. 

For example, public entities must 

‘‘furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and 

services where necessary to afford 

individuals with disabilities, including 

applicants, participants, companions, 

and members of the public, an equal 

opportunity to participate in, and enjoy 

the benefits of, a service, program, or 

activity of a public entity.’’ Such 

‘‘auxiliary aids and services’’ include 

‘‘qualified interpreters on-site or 

through video remote interpreting (VRI) 

services; . . . real-time computer-aided 

transcription services; . . . telephone 

handset amplifiers; assistive listening 

devices; assistive listening systems; 

telephones compatible with hearing 

aids; closed caption decoders; open and 

closed captioning, including real-time 

captioning; voice, text, and video-based 

telecommunications products and 

systems, including text telephones 

(TTYs), videophones, and captioned 

telephones, or equally effective 

telecommunications devices; videotext 

displays; accessible electronic and 

information technology; or other 

effective methods of making aurally 

delivered information available to 

individuals who are deaf or hard of 

hearing.’’ The Commission invites 

parties to comment on the extent to 

which this or other applicable ADA 

regulations mandate the availability to 

incarcerated people of appropriate 

equipment for accessing TRS. To the 

extent that such access services and 

devices are not otherwise available, 

should the Commission require inmate 

calling services providers to provide 

internet access service or user devices? 

The Commission also notes that TRS 

providers frequently distribute suitable 

user devices to TRS users, although its 

rules do not permit recovery of devicerelated costs from the TRS Fund. 

Should the Commission make TRS 

Fund support available for the provision 

of these items by a certified TRS 

provider to an incarcerated person, as 

an exception to the cost-recovery 

prohibition? The Commission seeks 

comment on the merits, costs, and 

benefits of these alternatives, and 

whether the Commission has statutory 

authority to adopt each of them. 

46. To what extent do these feasibility 

issues implicate the agreements between 

calling service providers and 

correctional facilities, and how should 

the Commission treat such contractual 

issues in defining providers’ 

obligations? For example, an inmate 

calling services provider may claim that 

access to a particular form of TRS is 

infeasible at a particular facility because 

the correctional authority has withheld 

permission for incarcerated people to 

use that form of TRS—or has withheld 

permission for the inmate calling 

services provider or TRS provider to 

provide internet access or suitable user 

devices. How should the Commission 

evaluate such possible defenses? For 

example, should the Commission 

require the inmate calling services 

provider to provide written evidence 

that the necessary permissions were 

withheld? Should the Commission 

require providers to make a good faith 

effort to secure necessary permissions, 

and how should a sufficient effort be 

defined? Should the Commission 

require the provider to show that it 

assured the correctional authority of its 

willingness to abide by reasonable use 

limitations and security restrictions? If 

there is sufficient evidence of 

infeasibility of access to some form of 

TRS due to the policy of the correctional 

authority, are there any steps that the 

Commission could take to encourage the 

facility to alter its practice? The 

Commission invites commenters to 

discuss the Commission’s legal 

authority for any measures advocated in 

this regard. 

3. Application of Existing TRS Rules 

47. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether any modifications of its 

existing TRS rules may be appropriate 

in conjunction with expanded TRS 

access for incarcerated people. In 

general, the rules governing internetbased forms of TRS are more complex 

than those applicable to TTY-based 

TRS. For example, to prevent waste, 

fraud, and abuse and allow the 

collection of data on TRS usage, its rules 

require that people using VRS, IP Relay, 

or IP CTS be registered with a TRS 

provider and that such providers submit 

information on users registered for VRS 

and IP CTS to a central User 

Registration Database (User Database). 

The VRS provider must ‘‘obtain a 

written certification from the individual 

responsible for the videophone, 

attesting that the individual 

understands the functions of the 

videophone[,] that the cost of VRS calls 

made on the videophone is financed by 

the federally regulated Interstate TRS 

Fund,’’ and that the institution ‘‘will 

make reasonable efforts to ensure that 

only persons with a hearing or speech 

disability are permitted to use the phone 

for VRS.’’ In addition, the VRS provider 

must collect and submit to the User 

Database the following information: (1) 

The VRS provider’s name; (2) the 

telephone number assigned to the 

videophone; (3) the name and physical 

address of the institution (and the 

Registered Location of the phone, if 

different from the physical address); (4) 

the type of location where the 

videophone is placed within the 

institution; (5) the date of initiation of 

service to the videophone; (6) the name 

of the individual responsible for the 

videophone, confirmation that the 

provider has obtained the certification 

described above, and the date the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40425 

certification was obtained; and (7) 

whether the device is assigned to a 

hearing individual who knows sign 

language. VRS providers, however, may 

register videophones maintained by 

businesses, organizations, government 

agencies, or other entities and 

designated for use in private or 

restricted areas as ‘‘enterprise 

videophones.’’ In lieu of individual 

registration, should the Commission 

also permit such enterprise device 

registration for equipment used by 

incarcerated people to access IP Relay 

and IP CTS? Should the information and 

documents collected by TRS providers 

for purposes of such enterprise or 

individual user registration be the same, 

or different from, the information and 

documents currently required by its 

rules? Are additional safeguards 

necessary for the provision of certain 

relay services in the inmate calling 

services context, to prevent waste, 

fraud, and abuse? What steps should be 

taken to ensure that compliance with 

user registration rules or other TRS rules 

does not create a significant delay for 

telecommunication access for 

incarcerated people with disabilities? 

48. Should incarcerated people be 

able to select the TRS provider they 

wish to use, or should the TRS provider 

be selected by the inmate calling 

services provider serving a facility (or 

by the facility itself)? Should a TRS 

provider be required to identify inmate 

calling services calls in their claims for 

TRS Fund compensation, or to submit 

additional or different information to 

the TRS Fund administrator regarding 

TRS calls involving incarcerated 

people? To assist the Commission in 

evaluating the level of service 

incarcerated people are receiving, and 

the effectiveness and efficiency of such 

service, should the Commission require 

TRS providers to report annually on the 

provision of TRS to incarcerated 

people? What kinds of information 

should be included in such reports— 

e.g., identification of the correctional 

facilities served, the number and type of 

devices provided at each facility, and 

the number of minutes handled per 

facility? 

49. Are any changes in the 

Commission’s TRS confidentiality rules 

necessary to address the security 

concerns of correctional facilities? For 

example, section 64.604(a) states: 

Except as authorized by section 705 of the 

Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 605, CAs 

[(communications assistants)] are prohibited 

from disclosing the content of any relayed 

conversation regardless of content, and with 

a limited exception for STS CAs, from 

keeping records of the content of any 

conversation beyond the duration of a call, 

even if to do so would be inconsistent with 

state or local law. 

This rule, which the Commission has 

recognized as fundamental to ensuring 

that TRS is ‘‘functionally equivalent’’ to 

voice communications and maintaining 

the trust of TRS users in the TRS 

program, applies to TRS providers and 

their CAs but does not expressly impose 

obligations on other parties, such as an 

inmate calling services provider that 

does not employ CAs and is only 

providing a communications link to an 

authorized TRS provider. The 

Commission tentatively concludes that 

the existing rule does not prohibit an 

inmate calling services provider or 

correctional facility from monitoring the 

transmissions sent and received 

between an incarcerated person and the 

TRS provider’s CA, in the same way as 

they monitor other inmate calls, 

provided that the TRS provider and CA 

are not directly facilitating such 

monitoring. The Commission seeks 

comment on this tentative conclusion. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

whether such monitoring that does not 

require affirmative steps by the TRS 

provider or CA is sufficient to ensure 

that a facility’s security needs are 

protected as effectively as for other 

inmate calls. The Commission notes 

that, by monitoring transmissions to and 

from the incarcerated user’s device, 

without involving the TRS provider, the 

inmate calling services provider or 

facility would have access to the entire 

content of the incarcerated person’s 

conversation with the other party to the 

call. That is, the inmate calling services 

provider or facility could monitor the 

incarcerated person’s communication 

directly, and could monitor the speech 

of the other party as conveyed in text or 

ASL video by the TRS CA. To the extent 

that monitoring permitted by the current 

rule is insufficient to protect 

institutional security, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether there are 

ways to narrowly address such security 

needs in order to avoid eroding the 

legitimate privacy interests of TRS 

users. 

50. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether any other modifications to 

its TRS rules are necessary to address 

the special circumstances that 

characterize inmate calling services. For 

example, what, if any, changes are 

needed in the TRS rules governing the 

types of calls TRS providers must 

handle (47 CFR 64.604(a)(3)), the TRS 

Numbering Directory (47 CFR 64.613, 

64.615(a)(1)–(2)), change of default TRS 

provider (47 CFR 64.630–64.636), and 

TRS customer proprietary network 

information (47 CFR 64.5101–64.5111)? 

In the inmate calling services context, 

should any of the rules under part 64, 

subpart F, that currently apply to TRS 

providers be applicable to inmate 

calling services providers as well—and 

if so, which rules? 

4. Charges for TRS Calls 

51. Prohibition of Provider Charges for 

TTY-Based TRS Calls. In 2015, the 

Commission amended its rules to state 

that ‘‘No [inmate calling services] 

Provider shall levy or collect any charge 

or fee for TRS-to-voice or voice-to-TTY 

calls.’’ Notwithstanding this rule, some 

commenters allege that some calling 

service providers are imposing fees on 

the receiving end of TTY-based TRS 

calls placed by incarcerated people. In 

addition, at least one commenter 

suggests that incarcerated people with 

disabilities may be subject to charges for 

using or accessing the TTY or telephone 

devices needed to make TRS calls. To 

prevent circumvention of the rule, 

advocates and VRS providers have 

requested that the Commission clarify 

that it does not allow either party to be 

charged for a TRS call, or for access to 

equipment when used to place or 

receive a TRS call. The Commission 

seeks additional comment and 

information on whether, and to what 

extent, such practices have continued 

after section 64.6040(b) of the rules 

became effective, and by which 

entities—inmate calling services 

providers or correctional institutions— 

such charges are being imposed. 

52. The Commission notes that, by its 

terms, section 64.6040(b) prohibits any 

charge for TRS calling, regardless of the 

person on whom such a charge might be 

assessed, or whether such a charge is 

formally applied to the service itself or 

to a device used to access the service. 

Prior to the adoption of section 64.6040, 

other provisions of the rules might have 

been read to suggest that inmate calling 

services providers were free to charge 

the called party for TRS calls. 

Specifically, in the payphone provisions 

of the rules, adopted more than 20 years 

ago, section 64.1330(b) states that 

‘‘[e]ach state must ensure that access to 

dialtone, emergency calls, and 

telecommunications relay service calls 

for the hearing disabled is available 

from all payphones at no charge to the 

caller.’’ However, the Commission sees 

no basis for inferring that the 

Commission, in adopting section 

64.6040, intended an unstated 

qualification that similarly limits its 

application to the assessment of charges 

on the initiator of a call. In any event, 

the proposed amendment would put to 

rest any conceivable doubt that inmate 

calling services providers are prohibited 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40426 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

from charging other parties to a TRS 

call. Nonetheless, to more effectively 

deter the charging practices described 

above, the Commission proposes to 

amend the rule to expressly prohibit 

inmate calling services providers from 

levying or collecting any charge on any 

party to a TRS call subject to this rule, 

regardless of whether the party is the 

caller or the recipient and whether the 

party is an incarcerated person or is 

communicating with such individual, 

and regardless of whether the charge is 

formally assessed on the service itself or 

on the use of a device needed to make 

the call. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal, including its 

costs and benefits. The Commission also 

seeks comment on its legal authority in 

this regard, including section 225 of the 

Act, which the Commission relied upon 

in the 2013 ICS Order, as well as the 

interplay with section 276 of the Act. 

53. Provider Charges for Other Forms 

of TRS. In light of its proposal above to 

expand the kinds of relay services that 

incarcerated people are able to access, 

the Commission also proposes to amend 

section 64.6040 to prohibit inmate 

calling service providers from charging 

for other forms of TRS to which an 

inmate calling services provider 

provides access. The Commission seeks 

comment on the costs, benefits, and 

statutory authority for this proposal. 

54. To the extent that incarcerated 

people currently have access to forms of 

TRS not currently covered by the ban on 

TRS charges, the Commission seeks 

comment on the extent to which callers 

or called parties are currently being 

charged for such TRS calls, and whether 

such charges are assessed by the inmate 

calling services provider, the 

correctional facility, the TRS provider, 

or another entity. Are the same charges 

assessed for all types of TRS calls 

allowed at a given correctional facility, 

or only some? If certain charges are only 

being assessed for some types of TRS, 

which types are being assessed? If 

charges are imposed on either party for 

relay calls, what justification, if any, is 

proffered for imposing such charges? 

Are incarcerated people with 

communication disabilities being 

charged to access equipment needed to 

make relay calls? If so, how are they 

being charged (e.g., per use, or per 

minute), and how much are they being 

charged? Are there any comparable 

charges for the use of telephones in 

correctional facilities? Which entities 

impose charges for the use of relay 

equipment in correctional facilities, and 

what justification, if any, is proffered for 

such charges? Where charges are not 

imposed for calls involving such 

additional forms of TRS, how are costs 

attributable to such calls currently being 

recovered, and how should they be 

recovered? 

55. To the extent that the Commission 

has discretion to permit calling service 

providers to assess charges for non-TTY 

TRS, to what extent should such charges 

be allowed? Should the Commission 

allow charges for some forms of TRS 

and not others? For example, while VRS 

cannot be used for video 

communication unless the user knows 

sign language, CTS and IP CTS have no 

similar inherent barriers to use—and 

consequently are more susceptible to 

abuse by ineligible users. Could 

requiring the free provision of CTS and 

IP CTS create an undesirable incentive 

for ineligible incarcerated people to 

place calls using such relay services, 

simply to avoid the applicable charges 

for using non-TRS inmate calling 

services? Are correctional facilities able 

to effectively mitigate such risks? 

Should any allowed charges be 

calibrated, like TTY-to-TTY calls, to 

take into account that VRS, IP Relay, IP 

CTS, or CTS calls, like TTY-to-TTY 

calls, are of longer duration than 

‘‘functionally equivalent’’ calls using 

‘‘voice communications services’’? On 

this point, the Commission invites 

commenters to submit evidence 

regarding the relative duration of 

various kinds of TRS calls and voice 

calls. 

56. Correctional Institution Charges. 

Regarding charges for the use of relay 

services (whether TTY-based or 

modern) or related user devices or 

access services that are imposed directly 

by a correctional facility, rather than by 

an inmate calling services provider, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the Commission has authority to 

regulate or prohibit such charges, either 

directly or indirectly, the source of any 

such authority, and how any such rules 

should be structured. The Commission 

also seeks comment on the legality of 

such charges under other laws, 

including other titles of the ADA. 

5. Direct Video Communication by 

Incarcerated People With 

Communication Disabilities 

57. Availability of Direct 

Communication. Many incarcerated 

people with communication disabilities 

have family and loved ones who also 

have communication disabilities. 

Communication with these people 

requires direct communication without 

TRS. This is a particular concern for 

incarcerated persons who are deaf and 

whose primary language is ASL. For 

these individuals, direct communication 

in their primary language requires direct 

video communication. To facilitate 

direct communication among ASL 

users, the Commission has long required 

VRS providers to handle point-to-point 

calls between a registered VRS user and 

another ASL user with an assigned VRS 

telephone number. Further, the record 

indicates that the number of 

correctional facilities that allow some 

form of direct video communication by 

incarcerated people has grown in recent 

years. 

58. Because of the key role of video 

communications for ASL users, because 

VRS providers are already set up to 

provide direct video service in 

conjunction with VRS, and because the 

equipment and internet connection 

needed for VRS is also sufficient for 

direct video, the Commission proposes 

to require that, wherever inmate calling 

services providers provide access to 

VRS, they also provide access to direct 

video service, through a VRS provider 

or by another effective method. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal, including its costs and 

benefits and relevant sources of 

statutory authority. The Commission 

invites commenters to provide 

additional information on specific 

benefits that direct video 

communication provides, beyond those 

offered by VRS. In terms of benefits, 

costs, and feasibility, what are the 

differences between video visitations, 

which some facilities currently allow, 

and direct video communications using 

VRS provider networks? Is one form of 

direct video communication generally 

more available than the other? What are 

the security concerns, and related costs, 

with providing direct video 

communication in ASL using broadband 

internet in correctional facilities? How 

can such concerns be effectively 

addressed to increase the availability of 

direct video communication to 

incarcerated people with disabilities? 

59. With respect to direct text-based 

communication for incarcerated people 

with disabilities, the record is 

insufficient for us to formulate a 

proposed rule. What kinds of direct textbased communication services—such as 

SMS messaging and real-time text—are 

currently available to incarcerated 

people with disabilities, and to what 

extent? Do direct text communications 

raise security concerns, and if so, how 

can they be addressed to enable 

increased availability of text 

communication to incarcerated people 

with communication disabilities? 

60. Charges for Direct 

Communication. The Commission’s 

current rules limit the rates charged by 

inmate calling services providers for 

TTY-to-TTY calls to no more than 25% 

of the rates they charge for traditional 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40427 

inmate calling services. The 

Commission invites comment on 

whether and how to expand the scope 

of this rule to include charges for other 

types of direct communications. 

61. First, the Commission seeks 

additional information on current 

charging practices for other types of 

direct communications by incarcerated 

people with communication disabilities. 

With respect to direct video 

communication that is currently 

available in correctional facilities, are 

incarcerated people being charged for 

such calls, and if so, how much? Are 

different charges currently applied to 

point-to-point videophone calls by signlanguage-using individuals with 

communication disabilities than for 

video visitation by other incarcerated 

people? How do charges for direct video 

communication and video visitation 

compare with charges for voice 

telephone calls? Regarding direct text 

services for incarcerated people with 

communication disabilities, are there 

charges for such services? If so, what are 

the rates? Are there differences in how 

much incarcerated people with 

communication disabilities are charged 

to engage in direct text communication 

and how much other incarcerated 

people are charged for similar services? 

62. The Commission invites comment 

on whether the Commission should 

impose limits on the charges that may 

be assessed for direct video 

communications by ASL users, as well 

as the costs and benefits and its 

statutory authority for regulating such 

charges. Are such limits justified by 

fairness and nondiscrimination 

considerations, such as those 

underlying the TTY-pricing rule? For 

example, should the Commission 

require that an inmate calling services 

provider’s charges for direct video 

communication by an incarcerated ASL 

user should be no greater than the 

provider’s charges for a voice call of 

equivalent duration? Are similar limits 

needed and appropriate for direct text 

communication by people with 

communication disabilities? 

6. Accessibility-Related Reporting 

63. As a part of the Commission’s 

Annual Reporting and Certification 

Requirement, inmate calling services 

providers are required to submit certain 

information related to accessibility: (1) 

‘‘[t]he number of TTY-based Inmate 

Calling Services calls provided per 

facility during the reporting period’’; (2) 

‘‘[t]he number of dropped calls the . . . 

provider experienced with TTY-based 

calls’’; and (3) ‘‘[t]he number of 

complaints that the . . . provider 

received related to[,] e.g., dropped calls, 

[or] poor call quality[,] and the number 

of incidents of each by TTY and TRS 

users.’’ Inmate calling services providers 

must submit annual reporting and 

certifications forms to the Commission 

by April 1 of each year. Required 

information to submit include 

international, interstate, and intrastate 

inmate calling services rates and 

ancillary service charges. In the 2015 

ICS Order, the Commission concluded 

that tracking TTY-based calls would not 

be overly burdensome because: (1) TTYbased TRS calls make up only a small 

portion of inmate calling services calls; 

and (2) the need for specialized 

equipment or calling a designated TRS 

number (such as 711), or both, makes 

tracking easier. The Commission also 

found the burdens of reporting TTYbased calls to be far outweighed by the 

benefits of greater transparency and 

heightened accountability on the part of 

inmate calling services providers. In the 

same order, the Commission established 

a safe harbor, allowing inmate calling 

services providers to avoid TRS-related 

reporting obligations if: (1) The provider 

operates in a facility that allows 

additional forms of TRS beyond those 

already mandated by the Commission, 

or (2) the provider has not received any 

complaints related to TRS calls. 

Although the TRS-related reporting may 

not be required under this safe harbor, 

the provider would need to provide a 

certification from an officer of the 

company stating which prong(s) of the 

safe harbor the provider has met. This 

safe harbor was adopted to help 

encourage correctional facilities to 

adopt more modern forms of TRS. 

Accessibility Coalition requests that the 

Commission expand the reporting 

requirement to foster accountability on 

the part of inmate calling services 

providers, and to eliminate the safe 

harbor. Specifically, they ask to include 

the functionality and status of accessible 

equipment in correctional facilities in 

the reporting requirements. At this time, 

the Commission does not propose a rule 

on reporting of accessible equipment by 

inmate calling services providers, 

pending further information and 

analysis regarding the current 

availability of such equipment and the 

role of inmate calling services providers 

in providing such equipment. Generally, 

GTL is opposed to additional data 

collection on the basis it would create 

an administrative burden. 

64. Given its proposal to expand the 

types of TRS that inmate calling services 

providers are required to provide, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to expand the inmate calling services 

providers’ reporting requirements to 

include all other accessibility-related 

calls. What are the benefits or burdens, 

including on small entities, of imposing 

these additional requirements? Has its 

safe harbor, in fact, driven more 

correctional facilities to adopt forms of 

TRS other than TTY-based TRS and 

STS? If the reporting requirements are 

expanded to include other types of TRS, 

should the safe harbor be modified so 

that inmate calling services providers 

can avoid TRS-related reporting 

obligations only if they have not 

received complaints related to TRS 

calls? Alternatively, should the 

Commission eliminate the safe harbor 

and require all inmate calling services 

providers to report the required 

information? 

B. Permanently Capping Provider- and 

Facility-Related Rate Components 

1. Overall Methodology 

65. The Commission seeks comment 

on what methodology the Commission 

should use to permanently cap 

provider-related rate components for 

interstate and international inmate 

calling services. In the Report and Order 

the Commission adopts today, the 

Commission uses data from the Second 

Mandatory Data Collection to establish 

zones of reasonableness from which the 

Commission selects separate interim 

provider-related rate caps for prisons 

and larger jails. Although those data are 

more than sufficient to support the 

interim rate caps, the Commission 

recognizes that more disaggregated, 

consistent and uniformly reported data 

will be needed for us to set permanent 

rate caps for interstate and international 

inmate calling services that more 

accurately reflect the cost of providing 

inmate calling services, including to 

jails with average daily populations less 

than 1,000. Accordingly, the 

Commission establishes another 

Mandatory Data Collection to enable us 

to obtain those data. 

66. The Commission seeks comment 

on how the Commission should use the 

data from the Mandatory Data 

Collection in establishing permanent 

provider-related rate caps for interstate 

and international inmate calling 

services. Should the Commission use 

those data to calculate industry-wide 

mean contract costs per paid minute of 

use, and the associated standard 

deviation, in the provision of calling 

services to incarcerated persons? Should 

the Commission, instead, analyze costs 

at the facility level, which seems 

necessary to capture potential 

differences in costs associated with 

smaller facilities? If so, how would the 

Commission do that if providers keep 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40428 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

their costs only on a contract basis? 

Does that fact suggest that, for any 

particular contract, so long as the 

permanent rate caps enable the provider 

to recover the contract costs for 

interstate and international services 

without regard to the different facilities 

comprising the contract, the caps would 

be consistent with the fair compensation 

provision of section 276 of the Act? Or 

should the Commission use an 

alternative methodology and, if so, what 

methodology should the Commission 

use? 

67. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should employ a zone of reasonableness 

approach in establishing permanent rate 

caps. If so, should the Commission 

establish separate zones of 

reasonableness for prisons, larger jails, 

and jails with average daily populations 

less than 1,000? Or should the 

Commission use different groupings of 

facilities? Precisely how should the 

Commission establish the upper and 

lower bounds of the zones of 

reasonableness for each group of 

facilities? Should the Commission 

follow the approach set forth in the 

Appendices to the Report and Order in 

developing the database that the 

Commission use to set any upper and 

lower bounds? If not, what alternative 

approach should the Commission take? 

What other steps, if any, should the 

Commission take to make sure that any 

upper and lower bounds reflect the 

costs of providing interstate and 

international inmate calling services? 

And what criteria should the 

Commission use in picking interstate 

rate caps from within those zones? How 

should the Commission determine 

permanent rate caps if the Commission 

does not use a zone of reasonableness 

approach? Should the Commission set 

the caps at its best estimates of industrywide mean costs per paid minute of use 

plus one standard deviation or should 

the Commission use another 

methodology? And, if so, what 

methodology should the Commission 

use? 

68. The Commission’s rules preclude 

providers from imposing on consumers 

of interstate inmate calling services any 

charges other than per-minute usage 

charges and the permissible ancillary 

services fees. The Commission invites 

comment on whether the Commission 

should consider alternative rate 

structures, such as one under which an 

incarcerated person would have a 

specified—or unlimited—number of 

monthly minutes of use for a 

predetermined monthly charge. Should 

providers be permitted to offer different 

options of rate structures as long as one 

of their options would ensure that all 

consumers of inmate calling services 

have the ability to choose a plan subject 

to the Commission’s prescribed rate 

caps? Would such an optional rate 

structure benefit incarcerated persons 

and their families? For example, 

incarcerated people and their families 

enjoy free telephone calling in New 

York City and San Francisco for calls 

made from jails. Or would a different 

alternative rate structure be preferable? 

Securus requests that the Commission 

adopt a waiver from per minute 

requirements to allow ICS providers to 

establish alternative rate-based pilot 

programs to allow families the option of 

utilizing a flat rate plan. Securus also 

requests that the Commission adopt a 

presumption in favor of granting such 

waiver requests upon a showing that the 

alternative rate plan would result in a 

lower effective rate than the interim 

provider-related per minute rate caps. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether the Commission should adopt 

such a waiver process, including the 

presumption Securus seeks. What 

incremental costs, if any, would 

providers incur to develop an 

alternative rate structure and implement 

it on an ongoing basis? The Commission 

asks interested parties to address the 

relative merits of different rate 

structures and their impact on calling 

services consumers and providers. 

2. Provision of Service to Jails With 

Average Daily Populations Below 1,000 

69. In 2020, the Commission sought 

comment on its proposal to adopt a 

single interstate rate cap for prisons and 

a single interstate rate cap for jails. The 

Commission asked, however, whether 

there are differences in providers’ costs 

to serve different types of facilities, and, 

if so, how it should take those 

differences into account in setting 

interstate rate caps for different types of 

facilities. The Commission now seeks to 

expand the record on these matters. 

70. The available data do not make 

clear how, if at all, jail size affects the 

costs providers incur in providing 

inmate calling services. Securus asserts 

that jail size is a ‘‘critical cost factor’’ in 

providing calling services to 

incarcerated people, identifying jails 

with average daily populations less than 

1,000 as being the most costly to serve. 

The National Sheriffs’ Association, for 

example, contends that there are a 

number of factors that result in jails 

with fewer incarcerated people having 

higher costs per minute, noting that jails 

are typically operated by local 

jurisdictions that are under the 

authority of the county government or 

an elected sheriff, and that jails lack the 

economies of scope and scale of federal 

or state prisons. The National Sheriffs’ 

Association’s 2015 survey shows, in 

general, that jails with larger average 

daily populations have lower perminute costs than jails with average 

daily populations less than 1,000, but 

even if this is the case, would the fact 

that the jails themselves may have 

higher costs make providers’ costs to 

provide service at jails with fewer 

incarcerated people any higher? Pay 

Tel’s outside consultant argues that 

‘‘some locations, particularly small jails, 

have characteristics that make them 

more costly for an [inmate calling 

services] provider to serve, and that the 

higher level of costs precludes any 

ability to pay site commissions.’’ Is this 

the case for other providers as well? 

High turnover rates may play a role, as 

Pay Tel explains, because ‘‘the cost of 

establishing service or ‘selling’ to a new 

customer is greater than the cost of 

continuing to service or maintain an 

existing customer.’’ But to the extent 

providers are able to recover the cost of 

account setup and funding through 

ancillary service fees, how does setting 

up new accounts for newly incarcerated 

people differ in any material way from 

funding existing accounts? 

71. The Commission seeks comment 

on the particular factors that result in 

higher costs of serving jails having 

average daily populations below 1,000 

and ask commenters to address how the 

Commission should take those factors 

into account in setting permanent 

interstate rate caps using data from the 

upcoming Mandatory Data Collection. 

Are there characteristics that are 

consistent across all jails with average 

daily populations less than 1,000 and 

that contribute to making those facilities 

more costly to serve on a per-minute 

basis? What factors affect providers’ 

costs of serving these jails? Are the 

characteristics that make it more costly 

to serve these jails related to size, 

geography, state or local law, or other 

factors? Does the length of the average 

incarcerated person’s stay influence 

providers’ costs of serving jails having 

average daily populations below 1,000 

and, if so, how? What one-time costs, if 

any, do providers incur when first 

offering service to a newly incarcerated 

person that differ from the costs of the 

services permitted under its ancillary 

services rules? What is the effect of 

turnover of incarcerated people in jails 

with average daily populations less than 

1,000 on a provider’s cost to serve that 

jail? Finally, are there other cost 

categories, such as account setup, 

customer service, or refund processing, 

that the Commission should consider in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40429 

determining appropriate rate caps for 

jails having average daily populations 

below 1,000? Commenters are asked to 

share any additional information that 

may be relevant for the Commission to 

consider in establishing new permanent 

rate caps for jails with average daily 

populations less than 1,000 vis-a`-vis 

larger jails. 

72. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how its methodology for 

setting permanent interstate rate caps 

can quantify the factors that make jails 

with average daily populations less than 

1,000 more costly to serve than prisons 

and larger jails. What steps should the 

Commission take to distinguish the 

direct costs of serving these jails from 

the direct costs of serving prisons and 

larger jails? How can the Commission 

ensure that jails with average daily 

populations less than 1,000 are 

allocated an appropriate proportion of 

providers’ common costs? Should the 

Commission use a combination of 

allocation methods to apportion those 

costs among facilities and, if so, what 

allocation methods should the 

Commission use? 

73. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment whether the current definition 

of the average daily population 

sufficiently addresses fluctuations in jail 

populations and variations in how 

correctional facilities determine average 

daily populations. Currently, its rules 

define the average daily population as 

‘‘the sum of all inmates in a facility for 

each day of the preceding calendar year, 

divided by the number of days in the 

year.’’ However, the record suggests that 

average daily populations may fluctuate, 

and ‘‘[v]arious states and localities track 

these numbers differently.’’ Should the 

Commission modify the definition and 

if so, how? What other steps, if any, 

should the Commission take to ensure 

that average daily populations are 

determined on a consistent basis for all 

correctional facilities? 

3. Correctional Facility Costs 

74. In the Report and Order the 

Commission adopts today, the 

Commission reforms, on an interim 

basis, the current treatment of site 

commission payments related to inmate 

calling services for prisons and larger 

jails based on the record before us. The 

Commission uses the term ‘‘larger jails’’ 

to refer to facilities with average daily 

populations greater than or equal to 

1,000. The Commission permits 

recovery of payments or portions of site 

commission payments mandated by 

federal, state or local law or regulation 

(legally mandated) and those resulting 

from contractual obligations imposed by 

correctional facilities or agencies 

(contractually prescribed). For legally 

mandated site commission payments, 

the Commission permits providers to 

pass through these payments to 

consumers, without any markup, up to 

a maximum total interstate rate of $0.21 

per minute. For contractually prescribed 

payments, the Commission adopts a 

new interim rate component of up to 

$0.02 per minute for both prisons and 

larger jails. The Commission refrains 

from including jails with average daily 

populations less than 1,000 from today’s 

interim rate cap reforms because the 

Commission finds the record 

information insufficient to reasonably 

consider such reforms, including for 

discretionary site commission 

payments, at this time. The Commission 

seeks comment to supplement the 

record to account for this fact, 

specifically with respect to facility costs 

reflected in site commission payments. 

The Commission seeks broad comment 

on potential site commission reforms 

with respect to all correctional facilities. 

ICSolutions requests that the 

Commission require in-kind site 

commission payments to be explicitly 

stated on consumer bills. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

request. Would such a requirement be 

administratively difficult and confusing 

to consumers? The Commission also 

seeks more targeted data and detailed 

information that would better enable us 

to undertake further reforms in how 

providers recover site commission 

payments going forward, especially for 

jails with average daily populations less 

than 1,000, if permitted at all, that are 

legitimately related to, and necessary 

for, the provision of inmate calling 

services. Although in some places the 

Commission uses the term ‘‘smaller 

jails’’ to refer to facilities with average 

daily populations less than 1,000, that 

usage is not meant to imply that such 

jails are small in any absolute sense. 

75. In GTL v. FCC, the court left it to 

the Commission to determine ‘‘which 

portions of site commissions might be 

directly related to the provision of ICS 

and therefore legitimate, and which are 

not.’’ As the Commission explained in 

2020, site commissions have two 

components: Compensating facilities for 

the costs they incur in providing inmate 

calling services and compensating the 

facilities for the transfer of market 

power over inmate calling services from 

the facilities to the providers. Prior to 

the 2016 ICS Reconsideration Order, the 

Commission viewed these payments 

solely as an apportionment of profits 

between providers and correctional 

facility owners even though it 

recognized some portion of site 

commission payments may be 

attributable to legitimate facility costs. 

In the 2016 ICS Reconsideration Order, 

the Commission recognized that ‘‘some 

facilities likely incur costs that are 

directly related to the provision of 

[inmate calling services],’’ and 

determined that ‘‘it is reasonable for 

those facilities to expect [inmate calling 

services] providers to compensate them 

for those costs . . . [a]s a legitimate cost 

of [inmate calling services].’’ But, as the 

Public Interest Parties’ expert explains, 

it is ‘‘difficult to disentangle which part 

of the site commission payment goes 

towards reasonable costs and which 

portion is due to the transfer of market 

power.’’ Even the National Sheriffs’ 

Association acknowledges that some 

portion of site commission payments are 

‘‘locational rents,’’ while other parts 

may be attributable to other factors. 

How and where should the Commission 

draw the line between legitimate and 

illegitimate portions of site 

commissions? The Commission seeks 

comment on the specific costs that the 

Commission should consider to be 

legitimate for recovery through site 

commission allowances as the 

Commission moves from the interim 

steps the Commission takes today to a 

more permanent policy. Specifically, 

what costs are directly related to, and 

necessary for, the provision of inmate 

calling services? What costs are too 

attenuated or indirect to be directly 

related to the provision of inmate 

calling services? Commenters should be 

as specific as possible in describing 

specific costs or cost categories. If 

commenters identify categories of costs 

that they believe are directly related to 

the provision of inmate calling services, 

those commenters should identify with 

specificity what those costs cover and 

why they would not be incurred but for 

the fact that inmate calling services are 

provided at that facility. 

76. Methodology to Estimate Costs. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

other methodologies to estimate 

correctional facility costs directly 

related to the provision of inmate 

calling services and whether and how 

the Commission should consider 

accounting for legitimate facility costs 

related to inmate calling in the future. 

Should the Commission continue to 

permit recovery through an additive 

per-minute rate component like the 

interim $0.02 rate component the 

Commission adopts today for larger jails 

and prisons? Should the Commission 

consider some other method of recovery 

such as a flat fee per billing period or 

on a per-call basis? The Commission 

seeks comment, generally, on any other 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40430 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

factors that the Commission should 

consider in determining legitimate 

facility-related costs to enable inmate 

calling services and whether those costs 

are reflected in site commission 

payments or recovered by facilities in 

some other way, and whether it is 

appropriate to even permit providers to 

recover those costs from end users of 

inmate calling services. If they are 

recovered through other means, how 

best can the Commission account for 

that fact so as to ensure there is no 

double recovery at the expense of 

incarcerated people and their families? 

77. Given the difficulties and 

complexities evidenced in accounting 

for and isolating what portion of site 

commission payments may be related to 

legitimate facility costs for enabling 

inmate calling, should the Commission 

simply consider prohibiting providers 

from entering into any contract 

requiring the payment of contractually 

prescribed site commissions for 

interstate and international calling 

services? Would such a prohibition be 

the best way to ensure incarcerated 

people and their families do not bear a 

financial burden that is unrelated to 

costs necessary to provide their calling 

services? The Commission believes 

section 201(b) of the Act provides 

sufficient authority for us to prohibit 

such payments. Do commenters agree? 

What other legal authority does the 

Commission have to make this 

determination? Would restricting such 

payments ensure that providers recover 

fair compensation pursuant to section 

276 of the Act? Would prohibiting such 

payments eliminate the incentive for 

facilities to select providers that pay the 

highest site commissions, even if those 

providers do not offer the best service or 

lowest rates? Would prohibiting such 

payments encourage facilities to allow 

multiple providers of inmate calling 

services to serve a given facility, instead 

of awarding monopoly franchises? Does 

permitting providers to recover any 

portion of site commission payments 

through interstate and international 

rates decrease incentives of providers to 

negotiate with facilities to lower or 

eliminate such payments altogether? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether contractually prescribed site 

commissions are commonly paid on 

intrastate calls. If so, will the ability to 

charge site commissions on intrastate 

calls render ineffective any Commission 

efforts to encourage correctional 

facilities to prioritize the selection of 

providers with the best service or lowest 

rates, rather than those which pay the 

highest site commission? 

78. The Commission seeks comment 

on legally mandated site commission 

payments. As Judge Pillard explained in 

her dissent in GTL v. FCC and as the 

United Church of Christ and Public 

Knowledge emphasize, ‘‘the fact that a 

state may demand them does not make 

site commissions a legitimate cost of 

providing calling services.’’ Do 

commenters agree? Why or why not? If 

there is a legal requirement to pay site 

commissions in a state, on what basis 

could the Commission say that this legal 

requirement is not recoverable through 

interstate inmate calling services rates? 

Should the Commission preempt state 

or local laws that impose these 

payments on interstate and international 

calling services because they interfere 

with federal policy and its statutory 

duty to consumers of inmate calling 

service that their interstate rates be just 

and reasonable? What effect would such 

a prohibition have on inmate calling 

services? How do these various possible 

approaches comport with sections 

201(b) and 276 of the Act, and cases 

interpreting those provisions, including 

GTL v. FCC? Would preventing 

providers from paying site commissions 

(or certain types of site commissions) 

comport with principles of federalism? 

Should the Commission consider 

continuing to allow the payment of site 

commissions but prohibit the recovery 

of any portion of site commissions in 

interstate and international rates? 

79. Facility Costs for Jails with 

Average Daily Populations Less Than 

1,000. Several commenters responding 

to the 2020 ICS document argue that a 

$0.02 rate component is inadequate for 

smaller jails to recover their costs 

related to inmate calling services. They 

point to the National Sheriffs’ 

Association 2015 cost survey to support 

the claim that ‘‘the per minute cost 

incurred by the vast majority of Sheriffs 

and jails for security and administrative 

duties associated with [inmate calling 

services] greatly exceeds $0.02 per 

minute.’’ Pay Tel contends that a 

uniform $0.02 allowance for all size 

facilities is at odds with the 

Commission’s tiered treatment of site 

commissions in the 2016 ICS 

Reconsideration Order, which adopted 

higher allowances for smaller facilities, 

based on a finding that those facilities 

incur higher per-minute costs than 

larger facilities. Here, commenters 

suggest that legitimate facility costs 

related to inmate calling services may 

indeed be higher for smaller facilities. 

Unfortunately, they did not provide 

sufficient evidence to enable us to 

quantify any such costs. 

80. The Commission seeks that 

comment now. While the National 

Sheriffs’ Association points us to its 

2015 survey for evidence that 

correctional facility costs for smaller 

facilities are higher, the survey data for 

jails with fewer incarcerated people 

varied far too widely to comfortably 

estimate any values that would 

withstand scrutiny today. This is 

particularly the case when even the 

National Sheriffs’ Association itself 

explains that ‘‘each individual jail 

facility has its own per minute cost 

because of differences in officer, 

supervisor and other employee hours 

spent on various duties; the 

compensation rates for officer, 

supervisors and other employees; and 

differences in minutes of use,’’ and 

states that in some cases, jails with 

similar average daily populations have 

‘‘significantly different cost per 

minute.’’ The Commission understands 

there are many potential variables that 

impact facilities’ cost of enabling inmate 

calling services in addition to size. The 

Commission seeks detailed comment on 

those variables, including jail funding 

sources that may come from state or 

local government budgets to offset these 

costs. 

81. The Commission seeks comment 

on what costs, if any, jails with average 

daily populations less than 1,000 incur 

related to the provision of inmate 

calling services that prisons and larger 

jails may not incur. If costs are indeed 

higher, either in an absolute sense or on 

a per-unit basis, at jails with average 

daily populations less than 1,000, what 

are the characteristics that make those 

facilities more costly to serve? Are these 

characteristics related to geography, 

state or local law, or other factors, and 

if so, how should the Commission 

account for that in its facility-rate 

component analysis? Are there 

particular factors or characteristics that 

are consistent across all jails with 

average daily populations less than 

1,000? The Commission encourages 

commenters, especially correctional 

facilities and agencies, to provide 

detailed descriptions and analyses of 

the cost drivers for jails with average 

daily populations less than 1,000. 

82. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the effect of turnover of 

incarcerated people in jails with average 

daily populations less than 1,000. The 

National Sheriffs’ Association explains 

that jails ‘‘contain people who have 

been arrested and not convicted and, as 

a result they experience a much greater 

number of admissions and higher 

turnover.’’ Pay Tel’s outside consultant 

points to data previously submitted by 

Pay Tel estimating that the average 

weekly turnover is 62.2% for jails 

compared with 1.01% for prisons. 

According to Pay Tel, this turnover 

impacts both provider and facility costs. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40431 

While these turnover costs might lead to 

increased costs for the provider due to, 

for example, larger numbers of account 

setups and larger quantities of called 

numbers to be vetted, do they similarly 

increase costs for the facility? If so, how 

and by how much, and how is that 

related specifically to inmate calling 

services? The National Sheriffs’ 

Association explains that the relatively 

shorter stays in jails with fewer 

incarcerated people leave correctional 

facilities with less time to recover their 

costs from incarcerated people which, 

in turn, leads to higher ‘‘per inmate 

cost’’ in these jails.’’ The Commission 

seeks detailed comment and analysis on 

the relationship between turnover and 

correctional facilities’ costs, but more 

specifically, between turnover and 

inmate calling service costs. For 

example, if an intake process requires 

certain tasks associated with newly 

incarcerated people, including 

explaining the availability of inmate 

calling services, the Commission sees no 

reason why any portion of the costs of 

that intake process should be included 

as a legitimate facility cost related to 

inmate calling. This is because intake 

procedures are not specific to the 

provision of inmate calling services. 

Facilities incur costs related to these 

procedures regardless of whether the 

correctional facility staff explain the 

availability of inmate calling services. 

The Commission also seeks data 

regarding turnover rates and legitimate 

facility costs unique to jails with 

average daily populations less than 

1,000, if any. The Commission also 

seeks specific information and comment 

on how the Commission avoids 

duplication in cost recovery for inmate 

calling services-related costs that both 

facilities and providers say they incur 

for the same functions. Commenters 

should be specific in identifying cost 

categories and providing supporting 

data for each category. 

83. Pay Tel, which ‘‘serves many 

small facilities,’’ indicates that it has 

experienced increases in site 

commissions over the last four years, 

but there is no indication that these 

increases are attributable to legitimate 

facility costs related to inmate calling 

services. What accounts for these 

increases and why should incarcerated 

people and their families bear the 

burdens of these costs when other 

services are provided to incarcerated 

people for which they need not pay any 

fee or rate? Is there any evidence such 

increases have any relationship to 

inmate calling services at all except that 

they are being extracted from an inmate 

calling services provider? Do these 

increases reflect other market dynamics, 

such as providers offering increasingly 

larger site commissions? Have other 

providers that serve smaller facilities 

observed a similar trend? Is this increase 

attributable to smaller facilities 

undertaking a greater share of 

administrative and security tasks that 

calling providers would ordinarily 

perform for larger facilities? Are these 

increases observed at all jails with 

average daily populations less than 

1,000 or only at the jails with the fewest 

people? Conversely, have other 

providers experienced a decrease in site 

commissions at smaller facilities in 

recent years? If so, what has caused this 

decrease? The Commission encourages 

commenters to submit current data and 

detailed analyses of these increases or 

decreases and to what they are 

attributable to enable the Commission to 

better understand cost causation at these 

smaller facilities. The Commission also 

seeks comment on whether providers 

have sought to pay lower site 

commissions in connection with inmate 

calling services and whether such 

attempts have been rebuffed or 

successful. 

84. Some commenters advocate for a 

tiered jail structure based on average 

daily population, with the jails with the 

fewest incarcerated people receiving the 

largest per-minute facility-related cost 

recovery. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should adopt separate tiers that 

distinguish between jails with average 

daily populations of less than 350 and 

somewhat larger jails (e.g., those with 

average daily populations of 350 to 999). 

If so, what tiers should the Commission 

adopts? The Commission previously 

adopted site commission allowances for 

tiers that reflected three categories of 

incarcerated people (i.e., jails with 

average daily populations below 350; 

medium-sized jails with average daily 

populations of 350 to 999; and larger 

jails). Should the Commission adopt 

these same tiers or different sizes or 

number of tiers? If so why? Or would a 

single tier covering all jails with average 

daily populations below 1,000 be more 

appropriate? Alternatively, should the 

Commission conclude, as certain 

commenters suggest, that a uniform 

facility-related allowance is the most 

appropriate if any such allowance is 

permitted? Commenters arguing that the 

Commission should adopt different site 

commission rate components based on 

jail size should provide data and 

supporting analysis for any proposals 

submitted. Pay Tel and the National 

Sheriffs’ Association ask the 

Commission to consider the data that 

are already in the record. But Pay Tel’s 

representation that it has seen upticks in 

site commission costs at some of the 

smaller facilities it serves suggests that 

the landscape has changed since those 

data became part of the record in this 

proceeding. The Commission therefore 

requests renewed data and analysis 

regarding reasonable inmate calling 

services costs at facilities with average 

daily populations between 0 and 999. 

85. Facility Costs for Prisons and 

Larger Jails. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should further reduce or eliminate the 

$0.02 rate component allowance for 

contractually prescribed site 

commissions for prisons, larger jails, or 

both. The Commission seeks comment 

on the same questions the Commission 

poses for jails with average daily 

populations less than 1,000 regarding 

what factors impact a facility’s 

legitimate costs to enable inmate calling 

services. Should the Commission 

consider different tier sizes for larger 

jails? For example, the National Sheriffs’ 

Association proposes categorizing the 

largest jails as those with average daily 

populations exceeding 2,500. What 

would be the basis for different-sized 

tiers for prisons and larger jails? Are 

there material differences in unit costs 

that facilities reasonably incur as sizes 

increase? As explained above in 

connection with jails with average daily 

populations less than 1,000, there is 

record evidence suggesting that small 

facilities incur higher costs due to 

turnover of the incarcerated population. 

Are larger jails and prisons similarly 

affected by turnover rates? If not, what 

effect, if any, does turnover have at 

larger facilities? As the Commission 

does for jails with average daily 

populations less than 1,000, the 

Commission asks commenters to 

provide data on turnover rates for 

prisons and larger jails. 

86. Security and Surveillance. Several 

commenters argue that facilities’ 

security and surveillance costs should 

not be recovered through inmate calling 

services rates as these tasks are ‘‘not 

related to the provision of 

communication service and provide no 

benefit to consumers.’’ Others argue that 

these costs should be recovered through 

providers’ calling rates because 

correctional facilities incur them to 

provide incarcerated people with access 

to inmate calling services. In the survey 

data the National Sheriffs’ Association 

provided, facilities reported often 

hundreds of hours a week on security 

and related administrative functions 

associated with inmate calling. How can 

the Commission ensure that these 

functions are not normal security 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40432 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

functions a facility already incurs? How 

can the Commission determine to what 

extent some of these security-related 

costs are for services that should more 

appropriately be deemed to be general 

security services that are added on to 

inmate calling services but not actually 

necessary to the provision of the calling 

service itself? In other words, the 

Commission seeks to determine if 

inmate calling service providers are 

providing two different services to 

facilities when it comes to these socalled security and surveillance costs: 

(1) A communication service that 

enables incarcerated people to make 

telephone calls; and (2) a separate 

security service that aids the facility’s 

general security efforts but would more 

appropriately be paid for directly by the 

facility rather than by the users of the 

communications service who receive no 

benefit from these security features that 

are unnecessary to enable them to use 

the calling service. The Commission 

also notes that the functions described 

by the National Sheriffs’ Association 

appear to duplicate many of the same 

security functions for which providers 

reported costs. What types of security 

and surveillance functions, if any, are 

appropriately and directly related to 

inmate calling? For example, 

ICSolutions suggests that a basic phone 

system requires security related to 

identifying the incarcerated individual 

placing a call, restricting who that 

individual can and cannot call, 

providing the called party with the 

ability to accept, reject, or block the 

caller, and providing the facility with 

the ability to monitor and record calls. 

This is consistent with the position of 

Worth Rises, which argues that 

providers ‘‘have routinely introduced 

new security and surveillance services 

that are not required by procuring 

agencies.’’ The United Church of Christ, 

however, disagrees with ICSolutions’s 

assertions about ‘‘what is considered a 

minimum necessary service for the 

consumer, as opposed to the carceral 

facility.’’ ICSolutions suggests that 

anything more than this is not required 

for secure calling and that additional 

products are ‘‘gold-plated offerings.’’ 

What functions should be disallowed as 

too attenuated to claim as legitimate 

costs? What methodology would permit 

the Commission to verify or otherwise 

isolate telephone calling-related security 

and surveillance costs from general 

security and surveillance costs in 

correctional facilities? Worth Rises 

cautions that isolating and thus being 

able to quantify calling-related security 

and surveillance costs is an important 

step in determining how, if at all, such 

costs should be recovered through rates. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

how to isolate and quantify these from 

general security and surveillance costs. 

87. Obtaining Correctional Facility 

Cost Data. Several commenters discuss 

the difficulty in determining facilities’ 

actual costs related to the provision of 

inmate calling services from examining 

providers’ reported costs. For example, 

GTL asserts that correctional facilities 

‘‘are in the best position to provide 

information regarding their costs related 

to [inmate calling services],’’ which fall 

into several generic categories, namely 

‘‘administrative security, monitoring 

investigative, maintenance, and 

staffing.’’ The National Sheriffs’ 

Association again points to its 2015 

survey as the most recent data available 

about correctional facility costs as 

reported by correctional officials. Are 

the data from the National Sheriffs’ 

Association survey accurate today 

regarding the functions and related costs 

that jails legitimately incur in 

connection with inmate calling 

services? The Commission invites the 

National Sheriffs’ Association and 

others to provide updated data and 

analysis in this regard. The Commission 

also seeks comment more broadly on 

how the Commission can obtain reliable 

data on correctional facility costs. Are 

there specific questions the Commission 

could ask of providers or other 

stakeholders that would elicit data 

appropriate to establish a permanent 

allowance for recovering legitimate 

facility-related costs that are included in 

site commission payments? Should the 

Commission condition any rate element 

for correctional facility costs on the 

provision of reliable correctional facility 

cost data provided to us by the facilities 

themselves? Or should the Commission 

specify a default rate cap, similar to the 

$0.02 per minute that the Commission 

adopts on an interim basis in the 

accompanying Report and Order, and 

disallow recovery of any amount above 

that default rate cap absent the 

provision of reliable facility cost data 

that supports a higher rate cap? 

C. Revising Ancillary Service Charges 

Rules 

88. The Commission seeks comment 

on its current rules for permitted 

ancillary service charges, and whether 

the Commission should revisit the rules 

and the level of charges. Ancillary 

service charges are fees that providers of 

calling services for incarcerated people 

assess on calling services consumers 

that are not included in the per-minute 

rates assessed for individual calls. 

Currently, the Commission allows five 

types of ancillary service charges in 

connection with interstate or 

international inmate calling services: 

(1) Fees for Single-Call and Related 

Services; 

(2) Automated Payment Fees; 

(3) Third-Party Financial Transaction 

Fees; 

(4) Live Agent Fees; and 

(5) Paper Bill/Statement Fees. 

89. The Commission has explained 

that these charges are unchecked by 

market forces because incarcerated 

people and their families must either 

incur them when making a call or forego 

contact with their loved ones. Ancillary 

charges have in the past drawn 

Commission scrutiny and reform 

because they were excessive and not 

cost-justified. The record reflects 

concerns that consumers may still be 

overpaying ancillary service charges in 

various ways. The Commission seeks 

comment on these concerns. Certain 

providers argue that the Commission 

need not consider making any changes 

its ancillary service charge cap rules. Do 

commenters agree? Why or why not? 

90. The record suggests that some 

providers of inmate calling services may 

impose ‘‘duplicate transaction costs’’ on 

the same payments, such as charging 

both an automated payment fee and a 

third-party financial transaction fee also 

covering credit/debit card processing 

fees, for example, when a consumer 

makes an automated payment to fund its 

account with the services provider. 

There appears to be some confusion 

among industry stakeholders regarding 

the relationship between the automated 

payment fee and third-party transaction 

fees as they relate to credit card 

processing fees. In connection with 

automated payment fees, the 

Commission has suggested that credit 

card processing fees that providers incur 

are already included in the automated 

payment fee, which is capped at $3.00. 

At the same time, the Commission 

referred to ‘‘credit card processing fees’’ 

in its discussion of third-party financial 

transaction fees in the 2015 ICS Order. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether the credit card processing fees 

encompassed in the automated payment 

fee are the same credit card processing 

fees referred to in the third-party 

financial transaction fee. If they are the 

same, then permitting providers to 

charge both an automated payment fee 

and a credit card processing fee when 

consumers use a credit or debit card to 

make an automated payment would, 

indeed, seem to allow for double 

recovery. And if credit or debit card 

companies or other third parties are also 

charging the consumer a fee for using a 

credit or debit card to fund their 

account, permitting the services 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40433 

provider to double recover would mean 

the consumer might potentially be 

paying for the same processing fees 

three times. Do commenters agree? 

Alternatively, is the credit card 

processing embedded in the automated 

payment fee related to providers’ costs 

of allowing credit card and debit card 

payments in the facilities they serve 

separate and apart from any other fees 

providers might incur from the thirdparty financial institution for enabling 

such payments when third parties are 

involved in the transaction? Are the 

‘‘credit card processing fees’’ charged by 

third parties, such as Western Union, 

Money Gram, or credit card companies, 

fees associated solely with transferring 

cash from a consumer’s credit card to an 

incarcerated person’s calling account? If 

so, are those fees passed on to the 

services provider, or the consumer 

requesting the cash transfer, or both? If 

a third-party transaction fee can only be 

passed on by the provider to the 

consumer when a third party is directly 

involved in the transaction with the 

provider (as opposed to indirectly when 

the consumer uses its credit or debit 

card to fund an account or pay a bill 

using an automated method), when 

would it be the case that a third-party 

financial transaction fee is incurred by 

the provider that could appropriately be 

passed on to the consumer? The 

Commission seeks comment on how the 

Commission should amend its rules to 

clarify when providers may pass 

through separate third-party financial 

transaction fees and when they may not. 

91. Alternatively, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether its rules 

clearly prohibit services providers from 

charging an automated payment fee and 

a third-party financial transaction fee for 

the same transaction in spite of some 

providers’ apparent confusion. The 

Prison Policy Initiative argues that ‘‘the 

Commission’s record overwhelmingly 

indicates that carriers should not be 

allowed to double-dip by charging an 

automated payment fee and passing 

through third-party fees on the same 

transaction.’’ Do commenters agree? As 

discussed above, if the credit card 

processing costs associated with the 

automated payment fee are different 

than the credit card processing costs 

inherent in the fee associated with the 

third-party financial transaction fee, 

how are providers double-dipping? CPC 

argues that there is no double-dipping 

associated with charging an automated 

payment fee and a third-party financial 

transaction fee for the same transaction. 

And GTL asserts that ‘‘[t]he rationale for 

and purpose of Automated Payment 

Fees and Third-Party Financial 

Transaction Fees are therefore distinct; 

the former cannot substitute for or 

subsume the latter.’’ Do commenters 

agree with this assertion? Why or why 

not? Can commenters point us to 

specific evidence of other forms of 

double-dipping in the record? Are there 

other costs embedded in the automated 

payment and third-party transaction 

fees that could lead to double recovery? 

If there is no overlap between the costs 

recovered in the automated payment fee 

and the third-party financial transaction 

fee, on what basis would the 

Commission say that providers cannot 

charge both for the same transaction 

provided that the charges are at or 

below the applicable caps? 

92. Similar to its inquiry above, 

should the Commission specifically 

prohibit providers from charging a live 

agent fee and a third-party financial 

transaction fee in the same transaction, 

if no third party is directly involved 

when the consumer provides the agent 

with credit or debit card information? 

The Prison Policy Initiative alleges that 

at least one provider may be charging 

‘‘an automated-payment or live-agent 

fee and passing through its credit- or 

debit-card processing costs.’’ They point 

to tariff language that appears to couple 

live agent fees with third-party 

transaction fees. In the 2015 ICS Order, 

the Commission explained that 

‘‘interaction with a live operator to 

complete [inmate calling services] 

transactions may add to the costs of 

providing ICS’’ recognizing that 

providers incur costs associated with 

use of a live operator. But it is unclear 

from the current record whether thirdparty costs are involved with all or even 

some such live agent transactions, or 

whether such costs are already included 

in the live agent fee. For example, if the 

provider uses its own live agents, do 

such agents ever engage in three-way 

calls with third parties, such as Western 

Union or MoneyGram to transfer money 

to effectuate the transaction? If so, 

would it be the provider or the 

consumer that would incur the thirdparty transaction fee imposed by 

Western Union or MoneyGram for 

transferring the money? Even if there 

were third parties involved, the 

Commission has been clear that the fee 

for use of a live agent applies 

‘‘regardless of the number of tasks 

completed in the call.’’ Does this suggest 

that there should be no other fees 

passed through to the consumer in 

connection with the use of a live 

operator? Why or why not? ICSolutions 

characterizes third-party fees, 

automated payment fees, and live agent 

fees as fees related to funding accounts 

and suggests that the Commission 

should amend its rules to prevent 

providers from charging more than one 

of these types of fees per funding event. 

Do commenters support this proposal? 

Why or why not? 

93. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on how the Commission can 

ensure that third parties are involved 

when third-party financial transaction 

fees are charged. The Commission has 

explained that the third-party financial 

transaction fees necessarily must 

involve third parties. The Prison Policy 

Initiative suggests that certain fees 

characterized as third-party financial 

transaction fees may not actually 

involve third parties. In the case of GTL, 

for example, the Prison Policy Initiative 

explains that ‘‘the customer makes a 

payment via GTL’s website, thus making 

only two parties to the transaction.’’ The 

Prison Policy Initiative acknowledges 

that ‘‘other entities may participate 

behind the scenes (such as the 

customer’s card issuer and GTL’s 

acquiring bank), but these entities are 

not directly third parties to the 

transaction; they are merely agents of 

the payor and payee.’’ Should the 

Commission amend its rules to require 

calling service providers to specify the 

third party involved in the transaction 

whose fees are being passed through to 

the consumer? Why or why not? Should 

the Commission define a third party in 

its rules as a company that is not related 

to the calling services provider as 

ICSolutions suggests? How should the 

Commission define ‘‘not related’’ for 

purposes of such a rule? 

94. The record also reveals that ‘‘15 

states now explicitly exclude any 

automated payment (or deposit) fees 

from being charged to end users because 

the costs of automated payments are 

already factored into the [inmate calling 

services] provider’s direct or indirect 

costs of providing service.’’ What is the 

basis for these states’ decisions to 

exclude these types of fees? Do 

providers already include these costs in 

the cost of providing inmate calling 

services? To the extent providers claim 

that it costs more to serve smaller 

facilities because higher turnover rates 

result in opening proportionately more 

new accounts, does this confirm that 

providers consider the processing of 

automated payments (necessary to 

establish a new account) as a cost 

included in their general inmate calling 

services accounts? The Commission 

seeks comment on whether the 

Commission should similarly prohibit 

providers from charging automated 

payment fees. Should the Commission 

instead reduce such fees to account for 

the third-party charges embedded in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40434 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

those fees? If so, what would be the 

appropriate cap? 

95. In the Report and Order, the 

Commission adopts an interim cap of 

$6.95 for fees related to single-call 

services and third-party financial 

transaction fees based on data provided 

by the Prison Policy Initiative and 

acknowledged by other public interest 

advocates that providers were 

circumventing the ‘‘pass through 

without markup’’ rule previously in 

place. NCIC has proposed that the 

Commission cap the third-party 

financial transaction fee associated with 

single-call services at the $3.00 cap for 

automated payment fees or the $5.95 

cap for live agent fees, as applicable. 

And ICSolutions similarly suggests that 

the Commission cap third-party fees at 

the $5.95 live agent fee cap or the $3.00 

automated fee cap. As the Commission 

explains in the Report and Order, 

however, the record does not contain 

sufficient evidence to adopt these 

proposals at this time. The Commission 

seeks comment on these proposals here. 

Why would it be reasonable to tie fees 

for single-call services and/or thirdparty transaction fees to the caps for 

automated payment or live agent fees? 

What is the relationship between these 

fees? Should the Commission consider 

adopting two separate caps on thirdparty financial transaction fees, one for 

money transfer companies like Western 

Union and a separate one for credit card 

companies? Given the evidence 

provided by the Prison Policy Initiative 

suggesting that one of the more 

prevalent money transmitter services 

charges more than NCIC’s proposed 

caps, on what basis would the 

Commission adopts NCIC’s lower caps? 

In the absence of a revenue-sharing 

agreement, do these third parties 

legitimately charge more than NCIC’s 

proposed caps, and if so, do providers— 

due to the volume of business 

conducted with these money transfer 

companies—have an ability to negotiate 

lower fees? 

96. Relatedly, the Commission 

remains concerned about the adverse 

effect of revenue-sharing arrangements 

between calling service providers and 

third-party financial institutions. In the 

2020 ICS Order on Remand, the 

Commission cited evidence that inmate 

calling services providers have ‘‘entered 

into revenue-sharing arrangements with 

third-party processing companies such 

as Western Union and MoneyGram 

where a third-party processing company 

shares its revenues generated from 

processing transactions for an inmate 

calling services provider[s]’ customers.’’ 

While the Commission sought 

additional evidence that providers were 

using revenue-sharing or other 

arrangements to indirectly mark up 

ancillary service charge fees, the 

Commission received relatively little 

responsive comment. The Commission 

therefore seeks renewed comment on 

how revenue sharing arrangements work 

in the context of ancillary service 

charges, including concrete evidence of 

these arrangements. There is evidence 

in the record that revenue sharing can 

run from the third party to the calling 

services provider whereby the thirdparty provider charges the consumer a 

fee, which the third party then shares 

with the providers. The record also 

suggests that providers may charge the 

incarcerated person inflated fees and 

then split the resulting revenue with 

third parties. Is one scenario more 

prevalent than the other? How do 

commenters suggest that the 

Commission detect these types of 

practices? Will its adoption of a specific 

monetary cap—instead of permitting the 

pass-through of any third-party financial 

transaction fee—mitigate this issue, or 

could it still occur even under the 

adopted caps? Should the Commission 

adopt a rule disallowing the revenuesharing arrangements with respect to 

interstate or international inmate calls 

or accounts altogether? If so, how 

should the Commission ensure 

compliance with such a rule? 

97. Certain parties point out that the 

Commission’s present ancillary services 

charge caps are based on cost data that 

are over six years old and assert that all 

ancillary service charge caps should be 

immediately reduced by 10%. These 

commenters argue that the caps should 

also be adjusted in the future based on 

more current cost data. The Commission 

seeks comment on these proposals. The 

Commission notes that the Mandatory 

Data Collection that the Commission 

authorizes in the accompanying Report 

and Order will collect cost data on the 

permissible ancillary service charges. 

Should the Commission adjust the 

ancillary service charge caps based on 

the new data collection the Commission 

will receive from the upcoming 

Mandatory Data Collection? What 

factors should the Commission consider 

in evaluating that cost data for ancillary 

service charges in connection with 

interstate and international inmate 

calling services? 

98. The Commission asks commenters 

to address specific factors that the 

Commission should consider in 

evaluating the cost data to ensure the 

Commission addresses and accounts for 

anomalies that may distort its analysis. 

The Commission encourages 

participation, and seek input, from any 

state public utility commission or 

similar state regulatory agency 

colleagues having jurisdiction over 

inmate calling services based on their 

expertise setting appropriate ancillary 

service charge caps. 

99. Should the Commission consider 

revising the ancillary service charge 

caps on a standard periodic basis? If so, 

how frequently should the Commission 

revise those caps and what process 

should the Commission follow? 

Commenters should provide the 

reasoning and justification for their 

responses. For example, how should the 

Commission balance related benefits 

and burdens to all relevant stakeholders 

and serve the public interest in 

determining how frequently to update 

ancillary service charge caps to enable 

the Commission to continually maintain 

interstate and international rates and 

charges that are just and reasonable and 

provide fair compensation to providers? 

How frequently should the Commission 

require providers to file updated 

ancillary charges cost data to make this 

possible? 

100. The Commission also seeks 

comment generally on any other matters 

related to ancillary services that the 

Commission should consider in 

reforming its ancillary service charges 

rules. For example, record evidence 

suggests that certain providers fail to 

close accounts and issue refunds to 

families of incarcerated people when 

they are released. It appears that some 

state authorities, such as the Alabama 

Public Service Commission, have 

addressed this problem. The 

Commission are concerned that any 

unused funds are not refunded to the 

account holder and invite comment on 

this issue. Should the Commission 

adopt a rule requiring automatic refunds 

after a certain period of inactivity? If so, 

what timeframe would be appropriate? 

Should the timeframe vary based on the 

size and type of facility? If the 

Commission requires these refunds, 

how should such refunds be made? Is 

this issue sufficiently related to setting 

up an account and making automatic 

payments that the Commission can 

address it in its existing ancillary 

services charges rules, or should the 

Commission adopt a separate rule to 

address this issue? The Commission 

also seeks comment on whether the 

Commission should add a rule relating 

to account setup fees to prohibit 

charging separate fees for establishing 

an account. Do providers assess separate 

fees for account setup? The Commission 

also seeks comment on the issue of 

dropped calls as it relates to ancillary 

service charges. Should the Commission 

amend its rules to prevent providers 

from assessing the same ancillary 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40435 

service charge in cases where calls are 

dropped after a call is successfully 

connected? For example, should 

providers be permitted to charge a fee 

for single-call services if a consumer 

makes a call that is dropped and then 

must make another call to finish the 

conversation? Why or why not? If not, 

how should the Commission amend its 

ancillary service charge rules to prevent 

this? Are there other issues regarding 

dropped calls in the ancillary services 

context that the Commission should be 

aware of? More broadly, are there other 

practices in which providers engage that 

the Commission should also consider 

addressing in the context of its ancillary 

services rules? If so, the Commission 

asks commenters to describe such 

practices in detail and discuss how best 

the Commission should address them. 

Finally, the Commission seeks comment 

on whether fees for single-call services 

are ‘‘already covered under the other 

fees applicable to all calls’’ as 

ICSolutions alleges. Do commenters 

agree with this assertion? If so, how are 

these fees embedded in the other 

permitted ancillary service charges? 

Should the Commission consider 

eliminating fees for single-call services 

as a permissible ancillary service 

charge? Why or why not and on what 

basis would the Commission do so? 

NCIC and ICSolutions also mistakenly 

assume that fees for single-call services 

are capped at either the $5.95 live agent 

fee or the $3.00 automated payment 

fees, but the Commission’s rules do not 

establish these caps in connection with 

fees for single-call services. Relatedly, 

should the Commission reduce the cap 

on fees for single calls as the Prison 

Policy Initiative asks? If so, what would 

be an appropriate cap? 

D. Refining International Rate 

Methodology To Prevent Double 

Counting 

101. In the Report and Order, the 

Commission adopts interim rate caps for 

international inmate calling services 

based on a formula that permits a 

provider to charge a rate up to the sum 

of the provider’s per-minute interstate 

rate cap for a particular correctional 

facility plus the amount that the 

provider must pay its underlying 

international service provider for that 

call on a per-minute basis. The interim 

rate caps for international calls will 

benefit incarcerated people by lowering 

the rates for most of their international 

calls, while allowing providers to 

recover their costs for those calls. 

Nonetheless, the Commission is 

concerned that the new interim rate 

caps for international calls may be based 

on an overestimation of the costs 

providers actually incur in providing 

international inmate calling services. 

102. In particular, the Commission is 

concerned by the Public Interest Parties’ 

assertion that the interim rate caps for 

international calls that the Commission 

sets today may be double counting 

providers’ costs for international calls 

because such costs are already included 

in their overall inmate calling services 

costs that the Commission uses to set 

interim interstate rate caps. As the 

Public Interest Parties explain, ‘‘some 

[inmate calling services] providers 

reported zero international costs but 

positive international minutes and 

revenues [which] suggests that 

international costs are already included 

in their total costs, and thus accounted 

for in the interstate rates.’’ 

103. The Commission seeks comment 

on this assertion. Do the data reflect 

such double counting? Is some degree of 

double counting a natural consequence 

of the way providers reported their costs 

associated with international calls as 

part of their total costs associated with 

inmate calling services? Despite Public 

Interest Parties’ concerns, the record 

indicates that some providers separately 

reported international calling costs in 

their responses. The Commission 

anticipates that in the upcoming 

Mandatory Data Collection, WCB and 

OEA will require calling service 

providers to report separately the 

amounts they pay international service 

providers for international calls. Will 

this eliminate the double counting of 

international inmate calling services 

costs, to the extent it exists? If not, how 

should the Commission address this 

issue if providers do not ordinarily track 

international call costs separately? What 

allocation method should providers use 

to reliably separate their international 

costs from their interstate costs? The 

Commission further asks what types of 

costs should legitimately be considered 

as additional costs associated with 

international calls. Do those additional 

costs include only the charges imposed 

by international carriers? 

104. The Commission also asks 

commenters to consider other ways in 

which the Commission could reform 

international rates on a permanent basis 

to ensure they are just and reasonable. 

For example, there is evidence in the 

record that in addition to varying by 

country/rate zone, international rates 

also vary depending on whether the call 

terminates on a mobile or fixed-line 

network. Should the Commission 

address this type of rate variation in 

setting permanent rate caps for 

international calls, and if so, how? Are 

there other types of international voice 

communications that could be provided 

to incarcerated people that would result 

in significantly reduced financial 

burdens for international calling to their 

family and loved ones abroad? Should 

the Commission require providers to 

work with facilities to enable 

alternatives to traditional types of voice 

communications that would be less 

expensive? Are there any other issues 

the Commission should take into 

account in setting permanent rate caps 

for international inmate calling 

services? 

E. Recurring Mandatory Data Collection 

105. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether the Commission should 

conduct cost data collections on a more 

routine, periodic basis than the 

Commission has since the First and 

Second Mandatory Data Collections in 

2012 and 2019. In 2020, the 

Commission sought comment on 

whether, in the event that it adopted a 

new data collection, it should require 

providers to update their responses to 

that collection periodically. The 

Commission invited comment on the 

relative benefits and burdens of a 

periodic data collection versus another 

one-time data collection. The 

Commission also asked how frequently 

it should collect the relevant data, 

inquiring whether a biennial or triennial 

collection covering multiple years 

would balance the benefits and burdens 

better than an annual collection. 

106. In the Report and Order, the 

Commission institutes a Third 

Mandatory Data Collection. GTL asserts 

that data filed in the Annual Reports are 

sufficient to evaluate calling service 

providers’ rates, but the Commission 

disagrees. Instead, the Commission 

agrees with the Public Interest Parties 

who explain that the Annual Reports 

only include information on rates and 

charges and not the type of cost data 

required to establish and ensure 

continued cost-based rates. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the Third Mandatory Data Collection 

should be required to be updated within 

a specific future timeframe to enable us 

to evaluate the reasonableness of 

providers’ interstate and international 

rates on a regular basis. The Public 

Interest Parties assert that, to further 

refine rate caps in the future, the 

Commission should institute a ‘‘routine, 

periodic data collection with clear, 

structured questions, commit to 

reviewing that data through scheduled 

ratemaking proceedings, and adjust 

[inmate calling services] rates 

accordingly.’’ The Public Interest Parties 

contend that the Commission should 

first establish an annual data collection 

to ensure it has sufficient and updated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40436 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

information to reevaluate rate caps, and 

then establish a triennial rate review 

process to evaluate the prior two years’ 

cost data to determine whether 

interstate rates for inmate calling 

services and ancillary service charge 

caps should be lowered. According to 

the Public Interest Parties, a three-year 

review cycle would strike the 

appropriate balance between the need 

for the Commission to fulfill its 

statutory mandate and the 

administrative burdens to providers. 

Free Press supports conducting routine 

future data collections and 

implementing a biennial or triennial 

review process to evaluate rates based 

on those data collections. Free Press 

asserts that a periodic collection will 

provide the Commission with the 

opportunity to conduct trend analysis 

on costs, revenues, and prices charged 

over time, and that it may give providers 

an incentive to collect more uniform 

and consistent data over time. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

proposals or alternative proposals that 

similarly enable us to monitor costs and 

revenue for the purpose of continuing to 

lower the rate caps. 

107. The Commission recognizes that 

the periodic collection and assessment 

of cost data could yield valuable 

information but are conscious of 

potential burdens on providers. If the 

Commission were to adopt a periodic 

collection, how could the Commission 

best structure the collection in order to 

maximize its benefits, while at the same 

time reducing administrative burdens 

on providers? Would a triennial review, 

as described by the Public Interest 

Parties, be the ideal structure? What are 

the relative benefits and burdens of 

conducting a triennial review versus a 

biennial review, or some other type of 

review? 

108. The Commission invites 

comment on how providers should 

maintain their records in the event the 

Commission requires a periodic 

collection, such as a triennial review? 

Should the Commission impose specific 

recordkeeping requirements on 

providers of inmate calling services? 

What would be the type of 

recordkeeping requirements necessary 

for a biennial or triennial review, as 

opposed to a one-time collection? Is 

there a relatively small but precisely 

defined set of investment and expense 

accounts that the Commission could 

establish relative to providers’ inmate 

calling service assets and labor activities 

or categories of assets and labor 

activities to facilitate consistent data 

reporting among all providers? If so, 

what specific accounts should be 

included in the prescribed set of 

accounts? Securus considers its cost 

study ‘‘to be a comprehensive view’’ of 

its cost structures and encourages ‘‘the 

Commission to consider similar data 

collection from other providers.’’ 

Should the Commission use this cost 

study as a model for future mandatory 

data collections, especially in regard to 

the cost categories and methodologies 

set forth therein? Why or why not? 

Should a portion of revenues from 

ancillary services be netted out of the 

inmate calling service costs to the extent 

that costs are incurred for assets or labor 

shared among inmate calling services 

and ancillary services if the full amount 

of these shared costs is reported as 

inmate calling service costs? If so, how 

should it be calculated? The 

Commission believes its authority under 

sections 201 and 220 of the Act permits 

us to impose certain recordkeeping 

obligations on providers for the purpose 

of ensuring just and reasonable rates. Do 

commenters agree? What other authority 

does the Commission have to adopt 

such requirements should they be 

necessary? How can the Commission 

ensure that providers comply with any 

recordkeeping requirements? Are there 

other requirements associated with a 

periodic collection, as opposed to a onetime data collection, that the 

Commission should consider? 

109. Alternatively, should the 

Commission require providers to 

comply with an annual or biennial 

certification obligation attesting to the 

fact that no substantial change in costs 

has occurred that would warrant a 

change in rates? Would such a 

certification in conjunction with 

providers’ annual reporting obligation 

on rates provide us sufficient basis to 

avoid periodic data collection on a more 

routine basis? The Commission seeks 

comment on this alternative and any 

others that stakeholders may propose. 

F. Revisions to the Commission’s 

Definition of ‘‘Jail’’ 

110. The Commission proposes to 

amend section 64.6000(m) of its rules to 

clarify the definition of ‘‘Jail’’ in several 

ways. These amendments would apply 

equally to the definition of ‘‘Prison’’ 

because its rules explain that ‘‘Prisons’’ 

include ‘‘facilities that would otherwise 

fall under the definition of a Jail but in 

which the majority of inmates are postconviction or are committed to 

confinement for sentences of longer 

than one year.’’ First, the Commission 

proposes to modify the definition of 

‘‘Jail’’ in section 64.6000(m) of its rules 

to include facilities operated by the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE), whether directly or by contract 

with third parties. Second, the 

Commission proposes to add ‘‘juvenile 

detention facilities’’ and ‘‘secure mental 

health facilities’’ to that definition. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

proposals, which are consistent with the 

2015 ICS Order and are meant to 

prevent potential confusion as to the 

application of its rules. 

111. In the 2015 ICS Order, the 

Commission explained that the rate caps 

adopted in that order were meant to 

apply to ‘‘jails, prisons and immigration 

detention facilities, secure mental 

health facilities and juvenile detention 

facilities.’’ The Commission further 

explained that the general term ‘‘Jail’’ 

was meant to include facilities operated 

by local, state, or federal law 

enforcement agencies and ‘‘city, county 

or regional facilities that have 

contracted with a private company to 

manage day-to-day operations; 

privately-owned and operated facilities 

primarily engaged in housing city, 

county or regional inmates; and 

facilities used to detain individuals 

pursuant to a contract with ICE and 

facilities operated by ICE.’’ But the 

codified rule only includes ‘‘facilities 

used to detain individuals pursuant to 

a contract’’ with ICE, and does not 

explicitly include facilities operated 

directly by ICE. Similarly, while the 

BOP is a ‘‘federal law enforcement 

agency’’ such that BOP facilities fall 

within the purview of its rules, the 

codified rule does not explicitly 

distinguish between facilities operated 

by the BOP and those operated under a 

contract with the BOP. The Commission 

therefore proposes to explicitly list ICE 

and BOP facilities, whether operated 

directly by the relevant law enforcement 

agency or by contract, in the definition 

of ‘‘Jail.’’ The Commission finds these 

proposed changes to 64.6000(m) of its 

rules to be clarifying in nature given the 

Commission’s stated intent in 2015 to 

include all facilities directly operated by 

law enforcement agencies and those 

operated pursuant to a contract with a 

third party. The Commission seeks 

comment on this analysis. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether there are other types of 

correctional facilities that should be 

explicitly added to its codified 

definitions of ‘‘Jail’’ or ‘‘Prison.’’ 

112. The Commission also proposes to 

list ‘‘juvenile detention facilities’’ and 

‘‘secure mental health facilities’’ within 

the definition of ‘‘Jail’’ in section 

64.6000(m). In the 2015 ICS Order, the 

Commission concluded that providing 

inmate calling services in these facilities 

was ‘‘more akin to providing service to 

jail facilities’’ and instructed that ‘‘[t]o 

the extent that juvenile detention 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40437 

facilities and secure mental health 

facilities operate outside of jail or prison 

institutions’’ they would be subject to 

the rate caps applicable to jails. 

However, the codified definition of 

‘‘Jail’’ does not include the phrases 

‘‘juvenile detention facilities’’ or 

‘‘secure mental health facilities.’’ As 

relevant to juvenile facilities, the 

National Center for Youth Law explains 

that it is ‘‘unclear which rate cap will 

apply to juvenile facilities, many of 

which are not described by the 

proposed definitions of ‘jail’ or 

‘prison.’’’ The Commission therefore 

proposes to add these terms to the 

definition of ‘‘Jail’’ in section 

64.6000(m) and seek comment on this 

proposal. 

G. Characteristics of the Bidding Market 

113. The Commission has already 

determined that inmate calling services 

providers have market power at the 

facility level once they win a contract. 

However, some providers claim that 

they win contracts through a 

competitive bidding process, and thus, 

that the market or markets to supply 

inmate calling services are competitive. 

To assess this claim, and its relevance 

to permanent rate caps, the Commission 

seeks comment on the characteristics of 

the bidding market. The Commission 

proposes to define every contract or 

request for proposal as a market in 

which calling service providers 

participate based on its understanding 

that providers generally make contractby-contract decisions about whether or 

not to bid on a particular request for 

proposal, and they do not bid on all 

open requests for proposals. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

proposed bidding market boundaries or 

whether there are other boundaries the 

Commission should consider. 

114. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the extent of competition 

in these bidding markets. What share of 

providers’ contracts are won through a 

competitive bidding process? Does this 

vary across providers? Does the number 

of bidders vary from request for 

proposal to request for proposal, and if 

so, what determines bidders’ decisions 

to compete? Does the number of bidders 

vary depending on the type and size of 

facility? Do large providers have a 

competitive advantage in bidding for 

certain contracts, such as contracts for 

state prisons, or large or multiple 

facility contracts? Are there providers 

who cannot compete for such contracts 

at all? Are some providers unable to bid 

beyond certain geographies because of 

logistical difficulties or difficulties 

associated with meeting different 

governmental requirements? Are some 

providers uninterested in certain 

requests for proposals (e.g., those for the 

jails with the fewest people)? What are 

the implications of these answers for 

competition for different requests for 

proposals? Should the Commission 

consider prisons, larger jails, and 

contracts for multiple facilities to be in 

separate market segments? Are there 

other potential market segments the 

Commission should consider? It is 

common, in measuring market power in 

bidding markets, to analyze bids across 

many requests for proposals to 

determine the impact of the number and 

identity of bidders on contract prices. In 

the context of a merger, the U.S. 

Department of Justice and Federal Trade 

Commission recommend examining 

‘‘the frequency or probability with 

which, prior to the merger, one of the 

merging sellers had been the runner-up 

when the other won the business.’’ 

Should the Commission collect data to 

enable such analysis? 

115. The Commission seeks to 

understand how correctional authorities 

select a winning bid. To what extent do 

correctional authorities evaluate inmate 

calling service bids based on costs (both 

to incarcerated people and to the 

facility), quality of service, or other 

factors? What is the relevance of site 

commissions? Do calling service 

providers compete on the basis of site 

commissions? If so, how? Are providers 

aware of site commissions offered by 

other providers in the bidding process? 

If not, how do they determine the level 

of the site commission to offer to ensure 

that they remain competitive? Assuming 

no site commission is legally mandated, 

can a provider win a bid if it offers no 

site commission to the facility? The 

Commission has observed differences in 

criteria for awarding contracts among 

various requests for proposals that the 

Commission has reviewed. Is this 

seeming heterogeneity in the criteria 

used by authorities when selecting a 

winning bid typical? If so, is this 

heterogeneity more pronounced in some 

jurisdictions or jail types than in others? 

116. The Commission understands 

that once a local correctional authority 

awards the contract to a particular 

provider, it is locked into a multi-year 

contract, typically with options to 

renew that avoid the need for further 

competitive bidding to serve the facility 

after the expiration of the initial term. 

Is there a typical contract length, and if 

so, does this vary across prisons and 

jails or by contract size? Are there 

typical timeframes for options to renew? 

Does exercising options to renew lead to 

contract amendments that also avoid 

competitive bidding to effectuate 

contractual changes? Is contract length 

ever a dimension along which 

provider’s bids are compared, in 

addition to criteria pre-specified in the 

request for proposal? Do correctional 

authorities give more weight to some 

criteria than others, and if so, which 

ones? How easy or difficult is it to 

modify the terms of the contract or 

terminate it during the contract term if 

the correctional authority is dissatisfied 

with the provider’s rates, site 

commissions, terms, or quality of 

service? How common is it for a 

contract to be extended by correctional 

authorities, and does this occurrence 

vary as between prisons or jails, or by 

contract size? 

117. The Commission has found that 

the inmate calling services industry is 

highly concentrated, and that GTL 

possesses the largest market share, 

controlling [REDACTED] of the market 

as measured by paid minutes. Another 

provider, Securus, controls 

[REDACTED] of the market, which 

means these two firms collectively 

control [REDACTED] of the market. The 

record also shows high industry 

concentration as measured by the 

Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

findings. Are these shares still accurate? 

Does a large industry share, together 

with entry barriers and other market 

characteristics, give the two largest 

inmate calling services providers a 

degree of market power in bidding for 

certain or all requests for proposals? 

118. The Commission seeks comment 

on barriers to entering the inmate 

calling services markets, both generally 

and in terms of bidding on a particular 

request for proposal. What impediments 

do potential providers face when 

considering entering the inmate calling 

services market? The Commission also 

seeks comment on actual entry into the 

market in the past. How many firms 

have entered or exited the inmate 

calling services market in the past 

twenty years? What barriers does a 

provider face once it enters the market? 

What services, other than inmate calling 

services, must be offered, at a minimum, 

by a provider in order to successfully 

participate in the bidding market given 

record evidence of service bundling 

required by many facilities when 

issuing requests for proposals? 

119. The Commission also 

understands that providers frequently 

provide multiple nonregulated services 

at the facilities where they provide 

inmate calling services, including 

commissary services, access to email 

and the internet, video services, video 

visitation and calling, and access to 

tablets. Do correctional authorities 

sometimes or typically require that the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40438 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

same company bundle some or all of 

these services? If so, are there any 

exceptions to this (i.e., do correctional 

authorities enter into separate contracts 

for certain services with different 

providers), and how common is this? 

What other services outside of 

telephone communications do providers 

competitively bid on at the same 

facility? Are providers more likely to 

win bids if they offer other services at 

the same facility? Have calling service 

providers used their market power, to 

the extent they have such power, in the 

communications services market to 

affect bidding for other services? The 

Commission asks whether the 

Commission should consider any 

additional aspects of the bidding market 

and invite parties to submit alternative 

evidence in the record. 

120. If the Commission does find that 

some providers possess market power in 

the bidding market, should the 

Commission act to make it easier for 

small providers to compete? Would 

doing so better ensure just and 

reasonable rates? For example, should 

the Commission prohibit dominant 

providers from including certain terms 

and conditions in their contracts with 

correctional authorities? In many 

instances, won contracts are not 

publicly available. Would requiring the 

contracts to be made publicly available 

make bidding more competitive? The 

Commission seeks comment on 

potential ways to even the playing field 

among large and small providers in the 

bidding market, and on whether doing 

so would lower interstate rates paid by 

incarcerated people and their families. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

whether such regulations would result 

in supporting providers that are 

currently not as successful in winning 

contracts with correctional facilities in 

spite of continuing to bid for contracts. 

121. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the optimal regulatory 

regime for inmate calling services. If the 

Commission finds that certain providers 

possess market power in the bidding 

market, should the Commission classify 

those providers as dominant carriers? In 

the past, the Commission imposed rateof-return regulation on providers with 

market power. Would this type of 

regulation be appropriate in the event 

that market power in the bidding market 

is found to exist? If not, what type of 

regulatory regime would promote 

regulatory certainty and permit us to 

ensure that inmate calling services rates 

and charges are just and reasonable? 

What other type of regulatory 

framework would be appropriate to 

achieve its objectives if the Commission 

determines that some or all inmate 

calling service providers should be 

considered dominant carriers? What are 

the relative costs and benefits of the 

alternative approaches? Finally, the 

Commission welcomes comments by all 

stakeholders on appropriate alternative 

frameworks and ideas that will promote 

increased transparency and just and 

reasonable inmate calling services rates 

and charges for incarcerated people. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

122. Filing of Comments and Replies. 

Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System. See 

FCC, Electronic Filing of Documents in 

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 

(May 1, 1998). The Protective Order 

issued in this proceeding permits 

parties to designate certain material as 

confidential. Filings which contain 

confidential information should be 

appropriately redacted, and filed 

pursuant to the procedure described 

therein. 

123. Electronic Filers: Comments may 

be filed electronically using the internet 

by accessing the ECFS: https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 

124. Paper Filers: Parties who choose 

to file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

125. Filings can be sent by 

commercial overnight courier, or by 

first-class or overnight U.S. Postal 

Service mail. All filings must be 

addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission. 

126. Commercial overnight mail 

(other than U.S. Postal Service Express 

Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 

9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 

Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service 

first-class, Express, and Priority mail 

must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

127. Effective March 19, 2020, and 

until further notification, the 

Commission no longer accepts any hand 

or messenger delivered filings. This is a 

temporary measure taken to help protect 

the health and safety of individuals, and 

to mitigate the transmission of COVID– 

19. 

128. Comments and reply comments 

must include a short and concise 

summary of the substantive arguments 

raised in the pleading. Comments and 

reply comments must also comply with 

section 1.49 and all other applicable 

sections of the Commission’s rules. The 

Commission directs all interested 

parties to include the name of the filing 

party and the date of the filing on each 

page of their comments and reply 

comments. All parties are encouraged to 

use a table of contents, regardless of the 

length of their submission. The 

Commission also strongly encourages 

parties to track the organization set forth 

in the Fifth Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in order to facilitate its 

internal review process. 

129. People with Disabilities. The 

Commission asks that requests for 

accommodations be made as soon as 

possible in order to allow the agency to 

satisfy such requests whenever possible. 

Send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530. 

130. Ex Parte Presentations. This 

proceeding shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance 

with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Persons making ex parte presentations 

must file a copy of any written 

presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). 

131. Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in the prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with section 

1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules. 

Participants in this proceeding should 

familiarize themselves with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. 

132. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis. As required by the RFA, the 

Commission has prepared an Initial 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40439 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on small entities by the policies 

and rules proposed in the Fifth Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The 

Commission requests written public 

comments on the IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments provided in the Fifth Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

Fifth Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including this IRFA, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the Fifth Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and the IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

133. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act 

Analysis. The Fifth Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking contains 

proposed new information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites OMB, the 

general public, and other Federal 

agencies to comment on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

the Commission seeks specific comment 

on how the Commission might further 

reduce the information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees. 

V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

134. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on small 

entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in this Fifth Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). The 

Commission requests written public 

comments on this IRFA. Comments 

must be identified as responses to the 

IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines 

for comments provided on the first page 

of this document. The Commission will 

send a copy of the FNPRM, including 

this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). In addition, the 

FNPRM and the IRFA (or summaries 

thereof) will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

135. In this document, the 

Commission seeks more detailed 

evidence and comments from industry 

stakeholders to consider further reforms 

to inmate calling services rates within 

its jurisdiction, including permanent 

interstate and international rate caps. 

The Commission seeks to ensure that 

functionally equivalent access is 

provided to people who are deaf, hard 

of hearing or deafblind, or have speech 

disabilities. The TTY-based 

telecommunications relay service (TRS) 

and speech-to-speech relay service 

(STS)—the only relay services for which 

inmate calling services providers 

currently are required to provide access 

under the Commission’s rules—are 

insufficient to meet the range of needs 

of incarcerated people with 

communication disabilities using 

today’s networks. The Commission 

seeks comment on requiring inmate 

calling services providers to make 

available newer forms of TRS, such as 

Captioned Telephone Service (CTS) (a 

non-internet-based telephone captioning 

service), and the three forms of internetbased TRS: Video relay service (VRS), IP 

Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS), 

and IP Relay (a text-based relay service 

using IP). The Commission seeks 

comment on whether to modify the 

existing TRS rules for application to the 

provision of such services at 

correctional facilities. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether to expand 

the scope of the rule prohibiting charges 

for TRS provided at correctional 

facilities. Further, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether to require inmate 

calling services providers to provide 

access to direct video communication 

for incarcerated people with 

communication disabilities. Finally, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

new TRS services provided to 

incarcerated people with 

communication disabilities should be 

included in the existing accessibilityrelated reports. 

136. The Commission seeks comment 

on what methodology it should use to 

permanently cap provider-related rate 

components for interstate and 

international inmate calling services. It 

seeks comment on the provision of 

communications services to jails with 

average daily populations below 1,000 

and on further reforms to the treatment 

of site commission payments in 

connection with interstate and 

international inmate calling services, 

including at jails with average daily 

populations below 1,000. Next, the 

Commission seeks comments on 

revisions to its ancillary service charge 

rules and refining its international rate 

methodology to prevent double 

counting of international call costs that 

are already included in the providers’ 

overall inmate calling services cost. The 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

need to adopt an on-going periodic cost 

data collection to ensure interstate and 

international calling services rates are 

just and reasonable and on revisions to 

the Commission’s definition of ‘‘jail’’ to 

clarify the term to include certain types 

of facilities. Finally, the Commission 

seeks comment on the characteristics of 

the bidding market in order for the 

Commission to assess some providers’ 

claims that they win contracts through 

a competitive bidding process and thus 

the inmate calling services market is 

competitive. 

2. Legal Basis 

137. The legal basis for any action that 

may be taken pursuant to the FNPRM is 

contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i)–(j), 

201(b), 218, 220, 276, and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)–(j), 

201(b), 218, 220, 276, and 403. 

3. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

138. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rule revisions, if adopted. 

The RFA generally defines the term 

‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ 

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition, 

the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same 

meaning as the term ‘‘small-business 

concern’’ under the Small Business Act. 

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 ‘‘smallbusiness 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. 

139. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. The Commission’s actions, 

over time, may affect small entities that 

are not easily categorized at present. 

The Commission therefore describes 

here, at the outset, three broad groups of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40440 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

small entities that could be directly 

affected herein. First, while there are 

industry specific size standards for 

small businesses that are used in the 

regulatory flexibility analysis, according 

to data from the SBA’s Office of 

Advocacy, in general a small business is 

an independent business having fewer 

than 500 employees. These types of 

small businesses represent 99.9% of all 

businesses in the United States, which 

translates to 30.7 million businesses. 

140. Next, the type of small entity 

described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’ The Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of 

$50,000 or less to delineate its annual 

electronic filing requirements for small 

exempt organizations. The IRS 

benchmark is similar to the population 

of less than 50,000 benchmark in 5 

U.S.C. 601(5) that is used to define a 

small governmental jurisdiction. 

Therefore, the IRS benchmark has been 

used to estimate the number small 

organizations in this small entity 

description. The Commission notes that 

the IRS data does not provide 

information on whether a small exempt 

organization is independently owned 

and operated or dominant in its field. 

Nationwide, for tax year 2018, there 

were approximately 571,709 small 

exempt organizations in the U.S. 

reporting revenues of $50,000 or less 

according to the registration and tax 

data for exempt organizations available 

from the IRS. 

141. Finally, the small entity 

described as a ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction’’ is defined generally as 

‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts, with a population of 

less than fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census 

Bureau data from the 2017 Census of 

Governments indicate that there were 

90,075 local governmental jurisdictions 

consisting of general purpose 

governments and special purpose 

governments in the United States. Of 

this number there were 36,931 general 

purpose governments (county, 

municipal and town or township) with 

populations of less than 50,000 and 

12,040 special purpose governments— 

independent school districts with 

enrollment populations of less than 

50,000. While the special purpose 

governments category also includes 

local special district governments, the 

2017 Census of Governments data does 

not provide data aggregated based on 

population size for the special purpose 

governments category. Therefore, only 

data from independent school districts 

is included in the special purpose 

governments category. Accordingly, 

based on the 2017 U.S. Census of 

Governments data, the Commission 

estimates that at least 48,971 entities fall 

into the category of ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ This total 

is derived from the sum of the number 

of general purpose governments 

(county, municipal and town or 

township) with populations of less than 

50,000 (36,931) and the number of 

special purpose governments— 

independent school districts with 

enrollment populations of less than 

50,000 (12,040), from the 2017 Census 

of Governments—Organizations Tables 

5, 6, and 10. 

142. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 

defines this industry as ‘‘establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry.’’ 

The SBA has developed a small 

business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, which 

consists of all such companies having 

1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2012 show that there 

were 3,117 firms that operated that year. 

Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

size standard, the majority of firms in 

this industry can be considered small. 

143. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a size standard for small 

businesses specifically applicable to 

local exchange services. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

Under the applicable SBA size standard, 

such a business is small if it has 1,500 

or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 

firms that operated for the entire year. 

Of that total, 3,083 operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees. Thus under this 

category and the associated size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of local exchange carriers 

are small entities. 

144. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for incumbent local 

exchange services. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

Under the applicable SBA size standard, 

such a business is small if it has 1,500 

or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms 

operated the entire year. Of this total, 

3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of incumbent local exchange 

service are small businesses that may be 

affected by its actions. According to 

Commission data, one thousand three 

hundred and seven (1,307) Incumbent 

Local Exchange Carriers reported that 

they were incumbent local exchange 

service providers. Of this total, an 

estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Thus, using the SBA’s size 

standard the majority of incumbent 

LECs can be considered small entities. 

145. The Commission has included 

small incumbent LECs in this present 

RFA analysis. As noted above, a ‘‘small 

business’’ under the RFA is one that, 

inter alia, meets the pertinent small 

business size standard (e.g., a telephone 

communications business having 1,500 

or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not 

dominant in its field’’ of operation. The 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy contents that, 

for RFA purposes, small incumbent 

LECs are not dominant in their field of 

operation because any such dominance 

is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. 

146. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (Competitive LECs), 

Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and 

Other Local Service Providers. Neither 

the Commission nor the SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for these service 

providers. The appropriate NAICS Code 

category is Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers and under that size standard, 

such a business is small if it has 1,500 

or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms 

operated during that year. Of that 

number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Based on these data, 

the Commission concludes that the 

majority of Competitive LECs, CAPs, 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and 

Other Local Service Providers, are small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

1,442 carriers reported that they were 

engaged in the provision of either 

competitive local exchange services or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40441 

competitive access provider services. Of 

these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. In 

addition, 17 carriers have reported that 

they are Shared-Tenant Service 

Providers, and all 17 are estimated to 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 

carriers have reported that they are 

Other Local Service Providers. Of this 

total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, based on internally 

researched FCC data, the Commission 

estimates that most providers of 

competitive local exchange service, 

competitive access providers, SharedTenant Service Providers, and Other 

Local Service Providers are small 

entities. The Commission has included 

small incumbent LECs in this present 

RFA analysis. As noted above, a ‘‘small 

business’’ under the RFA is one that, 

inter alia, meets the pertinent small 

business size standard (e.g., a telephone 

communications business having 1,500 

or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not 

dominant in its field of operation.’’ The 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that, 

for RFA purposes, small incumbent 

LECs are not dominant in their field of 

operation because any such dominance 

is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. The 

Commission has therefore included 

small incumbent LECs in this RFA 

analysis, although the Commission 

emphasizes that this RFA action has no 

effect on Commission analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts. 

147. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard specifically for Interexchange 

Carriers. The closest applicable NAICS 

Code category is Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers. The 

applicable size standard under SBA 

rules is that such a business is small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate 

that 3,117 firms operated for the entire 

year. Of that number, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. 

According to internally developed 

Commission data, 359 companies 

reported that their primary 

telecommunications service activity was 

the provision of interexchange services. 

Of this total, an estimated 317 have 

1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of 

interexchange service providers are 

small entities. 

148. Local Resellers. The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for the category of 

Telecommunications Resellers. The 

Telecommunications Resellers industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

purchasing access and network capacity 

from owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Census data for 2012 

show that 1,341 firms provided resale 

services during that year. Of that 

number, all operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

these resellers can be considered small 

entities. 

149. Toll Resellers. The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for the category of 

Telecommunications Resellers. Under 

that size standard, such a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to Commission data, 881 

carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provisions of toll resale 

services. Of this total, an estimated 857 

have 1,500 or fewer employees and 24 

have more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of toll 

resellers are small entities that may be 

affected by its action. 

150. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a size standard for small businesses 

specifically applicable to Other Toll 

Carriers. This category includes toll 

carriers that do not fall within the 

categories of interexchange carriers, 

operator service providers, prepaid 

calling card providers, satellite service 

carriers, or toll resellers. The closest 

applicable NAICS code is for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers. The 

applicable size standard under SBA 

rules is that such a business is small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to Commission data, 284 

companies reported that their primary 

telecommunications service activity was 

the provision of other toll carriage. Of 

this total, an estimated 279 have 1,500 

or fewer employees and five have more 

than 1,500 employees. Consequently, 

the Commission estimates that most 

Other Toll Carriers are small entities 

that may be affected by its action. 

151. Payphone Service Providers 

(PSPs). Neither the Commission nor the 

SBA has developed a small business 

size standard specifically for payphone 

services providers, a group that includes 

inmate calling services providers. The 

appropriate size standard under SBA 

rules is for the category Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers. Under 

that size standard, such a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to Commission data, 535 

carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of payphone 

services. Of this total, an estimated 531 

have 1,500 or fewer employees and four 

have more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of payphone 

service providers are small entities that 

may be affected by its action. 

152. TRS Providers. TRS can be 

included within the broad economic 

category of All Other 

Telecommunications. Ten providers 

currently receive compensation from the 

TRS Fund for providing at least one 

form of TRS: ASL Services Holdings, 

LLC (GlobalVRS); Clarity Products, LLC 

(Clarity); ClearCaptions, LLC 

(ClearCaptions); Convo 

Communications, LLC (Convo); 

Hamilton Relay, Inc. (Hamilton); 

MachineGenius, Inc. (MachineGenius); 

MEZMO Corp. (InnoCaption); Sorenson 

Communications, Inc. (Sorenson); 

Sprint Corporation (Sprint); and ZP 

Better Together, LLC (ZP Better 

Together). 

153. All Other Telecommunications. 

The ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ 

category is comprised of establishments 

primarily engaged in providing 

specialized telecommunications 

services, such as satellite tracking, 

communications telemetry, and radar 

station operation. This industry also 

includes establishments primarily 

engaged in providing satellite terminal 

stations and associated facilities 

connected with one or more terrestrial 

systems and capable of transmitting 

telecommunications to, and receiving 

telecommunications from, satellite 

systems. Establishments providing 

internet services or voice over internet 

protocol (VoIP) services via clientsupplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for All 

Other Telecommunications, which 

consists of all such firms with annual 

receipts of $35 million or less. For this 

category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2012 show that there were 1,442 firms 

that operated for the entire year. Of 

those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual 

receipts less than $25 million and 15 

firms had annual receipts of $25 million 

to $49,999,999. Thus, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of ‘‘All Other 

Telecommunications’’ firms potentially 

affected by its action can be considered 

small. TRS can be included within the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40442 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

broad economic census category of All 

Other Telecommunications. Under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, a majority of the 

ten TRS providers can be considered 

small. 

4. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

154. Compliance with Caps on 

Permanent Per-Minute Rate, and 

Ancillary Service Charges. In the 

FNPRM, the Commission seeks 

comments on further reform of inmate 

calling services, including permanent 

rate caps on interstate and international 

telephone services and on revising 

ancillary service charges rules. To the 

extent that permanent rate caps are 

lower than the interim interstate and 

international rate caps or they apply to 

all types of facilities (including jails 

with average daily populations below 

1,000), providers (including any smaller 

entities) must comply with the new rate 

caps. Likewise, providers of all sizes 

must comply with any new caps or 

limits on permissible ancillary service 

charges. 

155. Compliance with Requirements 

to Provide Access to Additional 

Telecommunications Relay Services. In 

the FNPRM, the Commission seeks 

comment on requiring inmate calling 

services providers to provide access to 

several additional TRS and direct video 

communications services, and whether 

such services should be provided at no 

charge. If such rules are adopted, they 

would apply to inmate calling service 

providers of all sizes. 

156. Recordkeeping, Reporting, and 

Certification. The FNPRM seeks 

comments on adopting an on-going 

periodic cost data collection to ensure 

calling services rates are just and 

reasonable. It also seeks comments on 

revising the Commission’s definition of 

‘‘jail’’ to include certain types of 

facilities. To the extent the Commission 

imposes a new periodic cost data 

collection and clarifies the term ‘‘jail’’ to 

include certain types of facilities, 

providers of all sizes must maintain and 

report their cost data in accordance with 

the Commission’s rules. Similarly, if the 

Commission imposes expanded data 

collection or other new rules specific to 

services provided to incarcerated people 

with communication disabilities, the 

data collection and other rules will be 

applicable to inmate calling services 

providers of all sizes. However, some 

providers may opt to not make the data 

filings based on the ‘‘safe harbor’’ 

applicable to entities, basically, that 

offer more than the mandatory TRS 

services or that have had no complaints, 

provided that the safe harbor is 

expanded and not eliminated entirely. 

5. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

157. 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 

Commission will consider all of these 

factors when the Commission receives 

substantive comment from the public 

and potentially affected entities. 

158. The Commission seeks comment 

on differences in costs between prisons, 

larger jails, and jails with average daily 

populations below 1,000 to account for 

differences in costs incurred by 

providers servicing these different 

facility types and sizes. To that end, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

provisioning of inmate calling services 

to small jails and different correctional 

facility costs involving different facility 

sizes. The Commission also seeks 

comment on employing separate zones 

of reasonableness in establishing 

permanent rate caps for prisons, larger 

jails, and jails with average daily 

populations below 1,000 to ensure that 

even small providers serving jails, 

which may be smaller, higher-cost 

facilities, and larger prisons, which 

often benefit from economies of scale, 

can recover their legitimate inmate 

calling services-related costs. 

159. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether it should revise its 

ancillary service charge caps on a 

standard periodic basis and if so, how 

frequently the Commission should do so 

while balancing related benefits and 

burdens to all relevant stakeholders and 

serve the public interest and ensuring 

that the interstate and international 

rates are just and reasonable and 

provide fair compensation to providers. 

160. The Commission asks whether its 

proposed periodic data collection would 

impose unreasonable burdens and costs. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

how to structure the data collection in 

order to maximize its benefits, while at 

the same time reducing the 

administrative burdens on providers by 

asking, for example, how frequently the 

Commission should require the cost 

data collection to occur and whether the 

Commission should allow a certification 

of no substantial change in lieu of a full 

data collection to alleviate burdens on 

providers. 

161. Given the Commission’s longstanding finding that every provider has 

a monopoly in the facilities it serves, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

calling services providers have market 

power in bidding for calling services 

contracts. The Commission also asks for 

comment on what kind of regulation 

would be appropriate in the event that 

market power in the bidding market is 

found to exist. 

162. Regarding the provision of 

functionally equivalent access to people 

who are deaf, hard of hearing or 

deafblind, or have speech disabilities, 

the Commission does not expect that the 

implementation of new forms of TRS or 

direct video communication would have 

much impact on small providers of 

inmate calling services. The TRS itself 

is provided by other entities. Small 

inmate calling services providers would 

need to provide access to that TRS, 

which may require special equipment 

(such as videophones) and appropriate 

billing and security features. The data 

obtained from providing these 

additional services may be additional 

data that would be required for annual 

accessibility-related reports. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

impact of expanded reporting 

requirements on small entities, 

including the modification or 

elimination of the safe harbor for 

entities that have had no TRS-related 

complaints. 

163. The Commission will consider 

the economic impact on small entities, 

as identified in comments filed in 

response to the FNPRM and this IRFA, 

in reaching its final conclusions and 

promulgating rules in this proceeding. 

6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

164. None. 

VI. Ordering Clauses 

165. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1, 2, 4(i)–(j), 201(b), 218, 220, 

276, and 403 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 

152, 154(i)–(j), 201(b), 218, 220, 276, 

403, and 617, this Fifth Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted. 

166. It is further ordered that, 

pursuant to applicable procedures set 

forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40443 

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on this Fifth Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking on or before 30 

days after publication of a summary of 

this Fifth Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in the Federal Register and 

reply comments on or before 60 days 

after publication of a summary of this 

Fifth Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in the Federal Register. 

167. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Fifth Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the 

Supplemental Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 

Communications common carriers, 

Individuals with disabilities, Prisons, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Telecommunications, 

Telephone, Waivers. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons set forth above, the 

Federal Communications Commission 

proposes to amend Part 64, subpart FF 

of Title 47 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 64 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 

202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 

228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 276, 

403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401–1473, 

unless otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115–141, Div. 

P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091. 

■ 2. Amend § 64.6000 by revising 

paragraph (m)(3) and adding new 

paragraphs (y) through (aa) to read as 

follows: 

§ 64.6000 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(3) Post-conviction and awaiting 

transfer to another facility. The term 

also includes city, county, or regional 

facilities that have contracted with a 

private company to manage day-to-day 

operations; privately-owned and 

operated facilities primarily engaged in 

housing city, county or regional 

Inmates; facilities used to detain 

individuals operated directly by the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons or U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

or pursuant to a contract with those 

agencies; juvenile detention centers; and 

secure mental health facilities; 

* * * * * 

(y) Incarcerated person with a 

communication disability means an 

incarcerated individual who is deaf, 

hard of hearing, or deafblind, or has a 

speech disability. 

(z) Telecommunications relay services 

(TRS) and other TRS-related terms used 

in this subpart are defined in 47 CFR 

64.601. 

(aa) TRS Fund means the 

Telecommunications Relay Services 

Fund described in 47 CFR 

64.604(c)(5)(iii). 

■ 3. Amend § 64.6040 by revising the 

section heading and paragraph (b) and 

adding paragraphs (c) through (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 64.6040 Communications Access for 

Incarcerated People with Communication 

Disabilities. 

* * * * * 

(b) No Provider shall levy or collect 

any charge or fee on or from any party 

to a TRS call to or from an incarcerated 

person, including any charge for the use 

of a device or transmission service when 

used to access TRS from a correctional 

facility. 

(c) A Provider shall provide access for 

incarcerated people with 

communication disabilities to any form 

of TRS that is eligible for TRS Fund 

support. 

(d) A Provider shall provide access to 

direct video service for incarcerated 

people eligible to access video relay 

service (VRS). 

■ 4. Amend § 64.6060 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(5) and (6) to read as 

follows: 

§ 64.6060 Annual reporting and 

certification requirement. 

(a) * * * 

(5) The number of calls provided per 

facility, and the number of dropped 

calls per facility, during the reporting 

period in each of the following 

categories: 

(i) TTY-to-TTY Inmate Calling 

Services calls; 

(ii) Direct video calls placed or 

received by ASL users; 

(iii) TRS calls, broken down by each 

form of TRS that can be accessed from 

the facility; and 

(6) The number of complaints that the 

reporting Provider received related to 

dropped calls and poor call quality, 

respectively, in each of the categories 

set forth in paragraph (a)(5) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–14728 Filed 7–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS