81 FR 62818 - Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 177 (September 13, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 177 (September 13, 2016)
| Page Range | 62818-62826 | |
| FR Document | 2016-21637 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 62818-62826] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-21637] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [WCB: WC Docket No. 12-375; FCC 16-102] Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission continues its reform of the inmate calling services (ICS) marketplace by responding to points raised in a petition filed by Michael S. Hamden, seeking reconsideration of certain aspects of the Commission's 2015 ICS Order. Specifically, the Commission amends its rate caps to better allow ICS providers to recover costs incurred as a result of providing inmate calling services, including the costs of reimbursing facilities for any costs they may incur that are reasonably and directly related to the provision of service. The Order also clarifies the definition of ``mandatory taxes and fees'' and addresses other arguments raised by Mr. Hamden. DATES: The rules adopted in this document shall become effective December 12, 2016, except for the amendments to 47 CFR 64.6010(a) and (c), which shall become effective March 13, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gil Strobel, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at (202) 418-1540 or at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission Order on Reconsideration, released August 9, 2016. The full text of this document may be downloaded at the following internet address: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-102A1.docx This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104- 13. I. Executive Summary 1. In this order, we respond to the petition filed by Michael S. Hamden and amend our rate caps to improve the ability of providers to cover costs facilities may incur that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS.The Commission is statutorily mandated to ensure ICS rates are just, fair, and reasonable and to promote access to ICS by inmates and their families and friends. In response to [[Page 62819]] claims our prior decision not to include certain costs in our rate cap calculations threatens the further deployment of ICS, we are increasing the rate caps to reflect the costs facilities may incur that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS. Acting upon the current record, including Hamden Petition and other input received after the 2015 ICS Order, the Commission concludes that facilities may incur costs directly related to the provision of ICS. Providers and facilities claim the 2015 rate caps prevent them from recovering all of their reasonable costs. We now revise our rate caps to expressly account for the possibility of reasonable facility costs related to ICS. Our rate caps continue to reflect the difference in the per-minute costs between smaller facilities and their larger counterparts, thus ensuring providers are fairly compensated for their ICS costs. After reviewing the record and the Hamden Petition, we amend the definition of ``Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee.'' The amended definition eliminates confusion and more clearly reflects the Commission's decision to prohibit providers from marking up mandatory taxes or fees that they pass through to consumers, unless the markup is specifically authorized by statute, rule, or regulation. Having considered the Hamden Petition and the record as a whole, we deny all other aspects of the Petition. Specifically, we are not persuaded to reconsider our decision to refrain from regulating site commissions. Nor are we persuaded, based on the current record, of the need to further clarify the Single-Call Rule adopted in the 2015 ICS Order. II. Background 2. This Order is the latest in a proceeding that began in 2012, when the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 78 FR 4369, January 22, 2013 in response to long-standing petitions seeking relief from certain ICS rates and practices. The Hamden Petition seeks partial reconsideration of the 2015 ICS Order, in which we adopted comprehensive reforms to the ICS market, including tiered rate caps for both interstate and intrastate ICS calls, and limits on ancillary service charges. In the 2015 ICS Order, we focused on our core authority over ICS rates, adopting rate caps in fulfillment of our obligation to ensure that compensation for ICS calls is fair, just, and reasonable. We capped ICS rates at levels that we found would be just and reasonable and would ensure that providers are fairly compensated, as required by the Act. In setting the rate caps, we declined to include the cost of site commissions, which are payments from facilities to providers, because we found that such payments are not a legitimate cost of providing ICS. We did not, however, prohibit providers from paying site commissions. Instead, we let providers and facilities negotiate over whether providers would make site commission payments and, if so, what payments are appropriate. Our approach offered ICS providers and facilities the freedom to negotiate compensation that is fair to each, while also ensuring that ICS consumers are charged rates that are fair, just, and reasonable. 3. In addition to setting rate caps for interstate and intrastate ICS calls, we discussed what costs, if any, facilities incur that are reasonably attributable to ICS. Specifically, we considered whether we should expressly provide for recovery of such costs through an additive to the per-minute rate caps limiting the prices providers may charge inmates and their families. The record before us on this point was relatively limited. Moreover, the data we had was mixed regarding the costs, if any, facilities incur that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS. Some commenters argued that many of the activities that facilities claim as ICS-related costs are actually performed by ICS providers. Other commenters, however, asserted that correctional facilities incur a variety of costs related to ICS that providers do not. These costs included expenses related to ``call monitoring, responding to ICS system alerts, responding to law enforcement requests for records/recordings, call recording analysis, enrolling inmates for voice biometrics, and other duties.'' As we noted, ``[e]ven commenters asserting that facilities incur costs that are properly attributable to the provision of ICS do not agree on the extent of those costs.'' In the 2015 ICS Order, we declined to adopt a per-minute ``additive,'' because of our view that the costs facilities claimed to incur in allowing ICS were ``already built into our rate cap calculations and should not be recovered through an `additive' to the ICS rates.'' 4. Following the release of the 2015 ICS Order, four ICS providers filed petitions for stay before the Commission, including Global Tel*Link Corporation (GTL), Securus Technologies, Inc. (Securus), Telmate, LLC (Telmate), and CenturyLink. GTL and Telmate, in particular, argued that the Commission was required to include the costs of paying site commissions in the rate caps and that it set the rate caps below the documented costs of many ICS providers. The Wright Petitioners opposed the petitions, stressing the importance of the ``overwhelmingly positive public interest benefits from the adoption of the [2013 ICS Order]'' and expressing concern that a stay of the 2015 ICS Order would delay relief to consumers and harm the public interest. 5. On January 22, 2016, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB or Bureau) issued an order denying the stay petitions of GTL, Securus, and Telmate. The Bureau found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm if the 2015 ICS Order was not stayed. The Bureau also was not persuaded that the petitioners were likely to succeed on the merits of their arguments or that a stay would be in the public interest. To the contrary, the Bureau noted that other parties--particularly ICS consumers--would likely be harmed if the relevant provisions of the 2015 ICS Order were stayed. 6. After the Bureau issued its order denying the stay petitions, the providers appealed the 2015 ICS Order to the D.C. Circuit. On March 7, 2016, the court stayed two provisions of the Commission's ICS rules: 47 CFR 64.6010 (setting caps on ICS calling rates that vary based on the size and type of facility being served) and 47 CFR 64.6020(b)(2) (setting caps on charges and fees for single-call services). The D.C. Circuit's March 7 Order denied motions for stay of the Commission's ICS rules ``in all other respects.'' On March 23, 2016, the D.C. Circuit modified the stay imposed in the March 7 Order to provide that ``47 CFR 64.6030 (imposing interim rate caps)'' be stayed as applied to ``intrastate calling services. Final briefs from the parties are due to the Court on October 5, 2016, and oral arguments have not yet been scheduled. 7. On January 19, 2016, Michael S. Hamden, an attorney who has both represented prisoners and served as a corrections consultant filed a Petition for Partial Reconsideration, seeking reconsideration of certain aspects of the 2015 ICS Order. Hamden asks the Commission to reconsider its decision not to prohibit providers from paying site commissions or, in the alternative, to mandate a ``modest, per-minute facility cost recovery fee that would be added to the rate caps.'' \1\ In short, Hamden, like several of the ICS providers, asserts that at least some portion of site commissions serves to reimburse facilities for reasonable costs [[Page 62820]] that facilities incur in providing ICS, and that excluding site commissions entirely from our rate cap calculations results in rates that are too low to allow providers to pay facilities for their reasonable ICS-related costs and still earn a profit. Hamden also asks the Commission to clarify ``the meaning of the terms `mandatory fee,' `mandatory tax,' and `authorized fee' as they are used in the [2015 ICS Order].'' Finally, Hamden seeks clarification that ICS providers ``cannot circumvent the Second ICS Order's rule regarding charges for single-call services through the use of unregulated subsidiaries to serve as the companies that charge third-party transaction fees for such services.'' On February 11, 2016, the Commission's Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau (CGB) issued a Public Notice seeking comment on the Hamden Petition. Multiple parties submitted responses and oppositions to the Hamden Petition, including ICS providers, facilities, and the Wright Petitioners. Hamden also submitted a reply to the responses and oppositions on April 4, 2016. We now act on these filings. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Although never clearly stated, the Petition appears to seek to limit any payments to facilities to the proposed ``facility cost- recovery fee'' that would be added to the per-minute rate caps. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Discussion 8. After reviewing the Hamden Petition, the arguments made in response to the Petition, and other relevant evidence in the record, we find that: (1) At least some facilities likely incur costs that are directly and reasonably related to the provision of ICS, (2) it is reasonable for those facilities to expect providers to compensate them for those costs, (3) such costs are a legitimate cost of ICS that should be accounted for in our rate cap calculations, and (4) our existing rate caps do not separately account for such costs. Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution, we increase our rate caps to better ensure that ICS providers are able to receive fair compensation for their services, including the costs they may incur in reimbursing facilities for expenses reasonably and directly related to the provision of ICS. Specifically, we increase our rate caps for debit and prepaid ICS calls to $0.31 per minute for jails with an average daily population (ADP) below 350, $0.21 per minute for jails with an ADP between 350 and 999, $0.19 per minute for jails with an ADP of 1,000 or more, and $0.13 per minute for prisons. As discussed below, we also increase the rate caps for collect calls by a commensurate amount. 9. We find that our revised rate caps will allow inmate calling providers to recover their costs of providing ICS even while reimbursing facilities for any costs they may incur that are reasonably and directly related to the provision of ICS.\2\ We also find that these rate caps will adequately ensure that rates for ICS consumers will be fair, just, and reasonable. Thus, we grant the Hamden Petition to the extent that it seeks an increase in the ICS rate caps to expressly account for reasonable facility costs.\3\ We also grant the Hamden Petition to the extent that it seeks a clarification of the definitions of the terms ``Mandatory Taxes'' and ``Mandatory Fees.'' We deny the Hamden Petition in all other respects. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ As explained below, because we do not regulate site commissions in this order (and have not done so previously), any revenues derived under these rate caps may be passed through to facilities. \3\ As noted above, Hamden appears to favor an approach whereby the Commission would adopt an ``additive'' to our existing rate caps and prohibit providers from paying any site commissions beyond the additive. We maintain our view that prohibiting site commission payments is not necessary at this time. As we noted in the 2015 ICS Order, ``this approach is consistent with the Commission's general preference to rely on market forces, rather than regulatory intervention, wherever reasonably possible.'' Correctional authorities have every incentive to accept whatever commissions providers can pay within the rate caps given the benefits ICS confers on both facilities and inmates. In addition, we note that our approach obviates the need to address arguments challenging our authority to regulate site commission payments. Contrary to the suggestion in one dissent, although we have not elected to adopt the precise mechanism that Hamden appears to have advocated for ``offset[ting]'' the facilities' claimed costs of providing access to ICS, our approach to ensuring that our rate caps adequately account for facilities' reasonable ICS-related costs is, at a minimum, a logical outgrowth of the Hamden Petition. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. The Rate Caps Should Account for Costs Reasonably and Directly Related to the Provision of ICS 10. The Commission has a statutory duty to set rates that are fair, just, and reasonable and to promote access to ICS by inmates and their families and friends. Accordingly, one of our goals is to ensure that inmates and their families have as much access as possible to this vital communications service. Some parties in the reconsideration proceeding have asserted that our prior decision not to include certain costs in our rate cap calculations could pose a risk to the continued deployment and development of ICS. Our reforms would not achieve their purpose if they resulted in less robust services for inmates and those who wish to communicate with them. As a result, out of an abundance of caution, we are increasing the rate caps to better reflect the costs that facilities claim to incur that are directly and reasonably related to the provision of ICS. This action better enables the Commission to achieve its twin statutory mandates of promoting deployment of ICS and ensuring that ICS rates are fair to both providers and consumers. 11. As the Commission has repeatedly explained, providers should be able to recover costs that are ``reasonably and directly related to the provision of ICS'' through the ICS rates. The Commission has also recognized that correctional facilities may incur costs that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS. With both the Mandatory Data Collection and the 2014 ICS FNPRM, the Commission took steps to determine the costs involved in providing ICS. For example, in the Mandatory Data Collection, the Commission required ICS providers to submit their costs related to the provision of ICS, including costs related to telecommunications, equipment, and security. In addition, in the 2014 ICS FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on the ``actual costs'' that facilities may incur in the provision of ICS and the appropriate vehicle for enabling facilities to recover such costs. The Commission also sought comment on whether any such costs should be recoverable though the per-minute rates ICS providers charge inmates and their families. 12. After considering a ``wide range of conflicting views'' regarding facilities' costs, we acknowledged, in the 2015 ICS Order, the possibility that facilities incur some costs to provide ICS. We concluded, however, that the record at that time ``indicate[d] that if facilities incurred any legitimate costs in connection with ICS, those costs would likely amount to no more than one or two cents per billable minute.'' We further concluded that the rate caps we adopted were ``sufficiently generous to cover any such costs.'' Accordingly, we declined to adopt any of the proposals seeking an ``additive'' to our rate caps to cover facilities' costs. B. The Hamden Petition and Underlying Record Demonstrate That the Existing Rate Caps May Not Adequately Account for Facility Costs 13. With the benefit of the record developed since the 2015 ICS Order, we now conclude that at least some facilities likely incur costs directly related to the provision of ICS and that those costs may in some instances amount to materially more than one or two cents a minute.\4\ Providers and [[Page 62821]] facilities have claimed that the current rate caps prevent them from recovering all of their reasonable costs. Similarly, some parties have argued that our 2015 rate caps may not have been ``generous'' or conservative enough to cover all of the ICS-related costs that we expected providers to incur. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ We continue to hold that site commission payments should not be considered in determining fair or reasonable rates, except to the extent those payments reflect costs facilities incur that are directly related to the provision of ICS. As we explained in the 2015 ICS Order, ``[p]assing the non-ICS-related costs that comprise site commission payments . . . onto inmates and their families as part of the costs used to set rate caps would result in rates that exceed the fair compensation required by section 276 and that are not just and reasonable, as required by section 201.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. The Hamden Petition asks the Commission, among other things, to reconsider its decision not to ``mandate a modest, per-minute facility cost-recovery fee that would be added to the rate caps.'' Notwithstanding the debate regarding the nature and extent of the costs that correctional facilities incur, the Petition asserts that ``it seems clear that facilities do incur some administrative and security costs that would not exist but for ICS.'' Hamden notes that the idea of a cost recovery mechanism has gained support from a broad range of parties, including ``ICS providers, law enforcement, a state regulator, and some in the inmate advocacy community.'' Finally, Hamden concludes that ``[t]he lack of perfectly accurate data . . . does not preclude a rational cost recovery mechanism and a legally sustainable Order.'' As Hamden notes, ``[e]ven in the absence of absolute certainty regarding . . . facility administrative costs, the Commission can make a rational decision'' based on the record before us. 15. In response to the Hamden Petition, we received comments from numerous parties agreeing that the existing rate caps do not adequately account for ICS costs that facilities may incur. While not all of the commenters agree with Hamden's preferred approach, many of the comments submitted assert that facilities incur costs greater than those we allowed for under our 2015 rate caps. For example, NSA states that ``[i]n many cases, the duties performed by Sheriffs and jails are the same or similar in nature as the security features and duties found by the Commission as recoverable cost, including monitoring calls, determining numbers to be blocked and unblocked, enrolling inmates in voice biometrics service and maintenance and repair of ICS equipment.'' NSA acknowledges that providers perform security and administrative tasks ``in some cases,'' but asserts that in many other cases, those tasks fall to Sheriffs and jails, not providers. This view is supported by Pay Tel, which has asserted that ``jails, not ICS providers, perform the lion's share of administrative tasks associated with the provision of ICS and, more importantly . . . handle ALL of the monitoring of inmate calls.'' 16. NSA's arguments echo claims other parties have made in their filings before the D.C. Circuit. For example, representatives of state and local governments cite ``evidence that jails and prisons incur real and substantial costs in allowing access to ICS.'' More specifically, they contend that correctional facilities can spend ``over $100,000 a month to provide ICS privileges to inmates, most of which goes into the labor hours required to facilitate and monitor inmates' use of ICS.'' Similarly, Telmate has argued that our 2015 rate caps are not ``sufficiently generous'' to cover the ``costs that facilities bear in providing ICS.'' 17. These arguments are consistent with earlier filings claiming that facilities may incur costs related to the provision of ICS that are ``non-trivial.'' Out of an abundance of caution, we now revise our rate caps to incorporate those costs more fully. C. We Increase Our Rate Caps To Better Reflect Evidence in the Record 18. In view of the further evidence and arguments we have received, we now reconsider our earlier rate caps insofar as they did not separately account for ICS costs that facilities may incur.\5\ Accordingly, we increase our rate caps to better reflect the costs that facilities incur that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS. In addition, consistent with our findings in the 2015 ICS Order and with the evidence in the record, we recognize that the per-minute costs associated with ICS are higher in smaller facilities than in larger ones. Thus, we increase our rate caps more for smaller facilities than for larger ones.\6\ Specifically, we rely on the analyses submitted by NSA and by Baker/Wood to increase our rate caps by $0.02 per minute for prisons, by $0.05 per minute for larger jails, and by $0.09 per minute for the smallest jails.\7\ In adopting these revisions to our rate caps, we once again rely on our core ratemaking authority.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ We do not, however, revisit the rate structure or overall methodology used in the 2015 ICS Order. Specifically, we reject Telmate's argument that our rate caps ``are based on a flawed methodology, and thus cannot be saved by the proposed rate increase[s].'' This argument addresses the fundamental structure of our rate caps and methodology and goes to the heart of our 2015 ICS Order. As such, the argument appears to be an untimely--and improperly presented--request for reconsideration of that order. \6\ Consistent with our conclusion in the 2015 ICS Order, we find that providers will need more time to transition all of the country's jails to the new rate caps than to transition prisons. Accordingly, we adopt a six-month transition period for jails, in order to ``give providers and jails enough time to negotiate (or renegotiate) contracts to the extent necessary to comply'' with our new rules. \7\ As explained below, Baker/Wood and NSA provided the most credible data regarding facilities' costs and we find that a hybrid of those two proposals yields the most reliable basis for determining how much we must increase our rate caps to ensure that providers can compensate facilities for the costs the facilities incur that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS. The rate increases we adopt today are also supported by the Pay Tel Proposal. \8\ Accordingly, and for the reasons described below, we do not prohibit or regulate site commission payments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19. As noted above, in the 2015 ICS Order, we agreed with parties that argued that facilities' reasonable ICS-related costs likely amounted to no more than one or two cents per minute and did not require an adjustment to our rate caps. Upon further consideration, and with the benefit of an expanded record, we now conclude that we should increase our rate caps in light of claims that that some facilities may incur more significant costs that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS. After reviewing the Hamden Petition, and the record developed in response to the Petition, we find that facilities-- particularly smaller facilities--may face costs that are considerably higher than one or two cents per minute. Out of an abundance of caution, we increase our rate caps to account for this possibility and to better ensure that providers are fairly compensated for their reasonable ICS costs--including costs they may incur in reimbursing facilities for expenditures that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS--and that providers and facilities have stronger incentives to promote increased deployment of, and access to, ICS.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ Several parties have warned that access to ICS may be reduced if our rate caps fail to account for facilities' reasonable ICS-related costs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20. The rate caps we adopted in the 2015 ICS Order were based on 2012 and 2013 data that providers submitted in response to the Mandatory Data Collection. While we still find that the cost data from Mandatory Data Collection are an appropriate basis for constructing rate caps, we also recognize that due to our jurisdictional limitations, the Mandatory Data Collection only included cost information from providers, and not from facilities. Providers reported their own costs, but were not obligated to submit information about costs incurred by facilities. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that providers necessarily had access to the information needed to determine facility costs. As a result, the information on facilities' ICS-related [[Page 62822]] costs before the Commission came from filings received in response to the 2014 ICS FNPRM.\10\ Unlike the responses to the Mandatory Data Collection, however, which required providers to quantify various costs incurred in providing ICS, facilities' responses to the questions in the 2014 ICS FNPRM about facility costs were purely voluntary and consisted mostly of more general, narrative descriptions. The paucity of quantitative data made facility costs more difficult to measure than providers' costs, a problem exacerbated by disputes in the record regarding which of the costs involved in providing ICS could reasonably be attributed to providers, and which could reasonably be attributed to facilities. This led us to discount claims that facilities faced costs that should be recovered through the ICS rates. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ Providers did submit information about total site commission payments made to facilities, but, as noted above, we did not take those payments into account in setting our rate caps. Indeed, we still find that the bulk of site commission payments should not be considered in calculating the rate caps because most of the money providers pay to facilities is not directly related to the provision of ICS. We also note that it is likely that the costs submitted by providers include other costs that are not reasonably related to the provision of ICS. In our decision today, however, we conclude that the costs that facilities incur that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS may be more than de minimis and we therefore increase our rate caps to better accommodate those costs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21. Given these limitations, we relied almost completely on submissions from providers and their representatives to arrive at an estimate of facilities ICS-related costs in the 2015 ICS Order. In contrast, the approach we adopt today relies largely on proposals submitted by parties representing a much more diverse range of interests. The Baker/Wood Proposal, for example, was submitted by Darrell Baker, the Director of the Utility Services Division of the Alabama Public Service Commission, and Don Wood, an economic consultant for Pay Tel Communications who also has done work for other ICS providers. And the NSA proposal is based on data the NSA collected from individual sheriffs regarding the costs they incur to provide security and perform administrative functions necessary to allow ICS in jails, including the salaries and the benefits for the officers and employees performing ICS-related duties. We find these two proposals provide a sounder basis for determining facilities' ICS-related costs than did the provider-generated proposals we relied on in 2015.\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ We have also taken account of arguments that correctional authorities and ICS providers have raised to the D.C. Circuit concerning our decision in the 2015 Order not to separately account for potential facility costs when calculating the rate caps. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22. The rate caps we adopt today are based on a hybrid of the Baker/Wood and NSA Proposals. The Baker/Wood proposal is premised on Baker's view that ``some form of facility cost recovery is critical,'' and is supported by Baker's and Wood's independent reviews of cost support data. The NSA Proposal is based on the NSA's cost survey, which gathered information on the costs to sheriffs of providing security and administrative functions necessary to allow ICS in jails, including the salaries and the benefits for the officers and employees performing the ICS-related duties. Both of these proposals merit significant consideration, particularly given that they arrive at similar conclusions: Baker and Wood recommend adopting a cost recovery mechanism of $0.07 per minute for jails with ADP less than 349, $0.05 for jails with ADP between 350 and 999, $0.05 for jails with ADP between 1000 and 2500 ADP, and $0.03 for prisons; NSA, for its part, supports the adoption of a cost recovery mechanism in the range of $0.09 to $0.11 per minute for facilities with ADP less than 349, $0.05 to $0.08 for facilities with 350 to 2499 ADP, $0.01 to $0.02 per minute for jails with ADP greater than 2500, and $0.01 to $0.02 per minute for prisons. Not only are the two proposals fairly consistent with each other, they are notably closer to each other than they are to most other proposals in the record, including those that we relied on in the 2015 ICS Order. 23. Even given the similarities between the NSA and Baker/Wood Proposals, we acknowledge that the record on what the costs facilities actually incur in relation to ICS is still imperfect. Nonetheless, we find that the record is sufficient to warrant an increase in the rate caps. As state and local governments have explained in their court filings, even faced with ``less-than-ideal data,'' it is the Commission's obligation to ``determine as best it can ICS-related facility costs.'' Thus, based on the information in the record, including, in large part, the recommendations submitted by NSA and by Baker/Wood, we increase the rate caps by $0.02 for prisons, and $0.09, $0.05, and $0.05, respectively, for small, medium, and large jails. This translates into revised debit/prepaid rate caps of $0.13 per minute for prisons, $0.19 per minute for jails with an ADP greater than 1000, $0.21 for jails with ADP between 350 and 999, and $0.31 per minute for jails with ADP below 350. It also leads to revised collect rate caps of $0.16 per minute for prisons, $0.54 per minute for jails with ADP greater than 1000, $0.54 per minute for jails with ADP between 350 and 999, and $0.58 per minute for jails with ADP less than 350.\12\ To arrive at these numbers, we compared the Baker/Wood and NSA proposals and, in order to produce a conservative rate, took the higher additive rate of the two proposals.\13\ In the instance where even the low end of NSA's proposed rate range was greater than the rate proposed by Baker and Wood, we selected the lower end of the NSA rate range to better account for the suggestions of both proposals.\14\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ As we did in the 2015 ICS Order, we adopt a separate rate cap tier for collect calling, as well as a two-year step-down transitional period that will decrease the collect rates over time and, by 2018, will bring the collect rates down to the debit/prepaid rates we adopt today. This is consistent with the Commission's prior actions in adopting a separate collect calling rate tier based on data indicating that collect calls were more expensive than other types of ICS calls and on the Commission's decision to encourage correctional institutions to move away from collect calling. \13\ Our decision on reconsideration rests on a desire to take a cautious approach that minimizes any concerns that our rate caps fail to allow for fair, just, and reasonable compensation. Indeed, the very decision to reconsider our earlier order is prompted by our view that it is better to err on the side of caution than to risk undercompensating providers and facilities for their reasonable costs that are directly related to ICS. Consistent with this approach, when the NSA and Baker/Wood Proposals differed, we opted for the choice that resulted in the higher rate cap. This decision is informed, in part, by the fact that NSA's proposal already reflects an effort to reduce rates below the levels that the raw data might support, absent any analysis or refinement. As explained above, however, our rate caps provide a ceiling, and we expect that in many instances providers will charge rates far below the maximums permitted under our rate caps. \14\ NSA proposed a rate increase of $0.09-$0.11 per minute for the smallest jails, while Baker/Wood proposed adding only $0.07 per minute for those facilities. Given that the low end of NSA's proposed rate range was higher than the rate proposed by Baker/Wood, we took the lowest number proposed by NSA (i.e., $0.09/minute). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24. The approach we use to increase the rates to the levels we adopt today has the primary advantage of being supported by two separate and independent sets of data. It has the additional advantage of being supported by credible, independent participants in this proceeding, including Baker, an objective public service employee who has participated in this proceeding and has been working on inmate calling reform at the state level,\15\ and Wood, an [[Page 62823]] outside economic consultant to Pay Tel whom seven ICS providers engaged to prepare a joint report that was filed with the Commission. Our approach is also based on data provided by the NSA, which, as an organization representing sheriffs, is well situated to understand and estimate the costs that facilities face to provide ICS.\16\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ In the Baker/Wood Proposal, Baker and Wood state that Baker's ``experience with ICS in Alabama informs his view that some form of facility cost recovery is critical. He explained that the APSC regularly inspects ICS at jails and prisons in Alabama and is therefore very familiar with the activities and responsibilities that facility personnel undertake in administering ICS and in monitoring inmate calls. He concludes that facilities incur costs associated with ICS and should be provided an opportunity to recover their costs.'' \16\ While agreeing with our assessment that NSA is well- equipped to gauge facilities' costs, one dissenting commissioner nonetheless faults us for relying (in part) on NSA's estimates of those costs. In claiming that ``the rate increases set forth in this Order are insufficient to cover the facility-administration costs'' that jails incur in providing access to ICS, this commissioner relies on raw data from the NSA survey that NSA itself reasonably elected to discount when estimating jails' actual costs. NSA treated its survey data as ``inputs'' that, once ``compared to and tested by'' information elsewhere in the record, could be refined to generate more reliable estimated ranges of facilities' reasonable costs of providing access to ICS. Those ranges are the cost data we find credible--particularly given that, as noted above, the NSA and Baker/Wood Proposals arrive at similar conclusions. Thus, contrary to the dissent's contention that our rate caps, as revised in this Order, are ``confiscatory,'' we are confident that they fall well within the zone of reasonableness. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25. Given that we find NSA's cost data to be credible we disagree with commenters who suggest the contrary. Andrew Lipman, in particular, denigrated NSA's cost survey for including only three months of data from only about five percent of NSA's members.\17\ NSA convincingly defends its cost survey in its Opposition to the Hamden Petition, however, arguing that ``[t]he Commission fails to explain . . . why these criticisms doom the NSA cost survey data even though they all equally apply to the cost recovery data and analysis performed by GTL's cost consultant, which the Commission apparently accepts.'' NSA also argues that the Commission ``fails to explain why it entirely ignores the data provided by other parties that show a much higher facility compensation fee than one or two cents per minute.'' We agree with NSA's arguments and find that NSA's cost survey is a credible (though imperfect) source of data regarding the costs facilities incur in relation to ICS. We are particularly persuaded by NSA's point that the criticisms of the NSA cost survey made by Andrew Lipman, and recited in the 2015 ICS Order, apply with equal force to other proposals, including the analysis performed by GTL's cost consultant that supported the one to two cent estimate that informed our decision in the 2015 ICS Order. Moreover, we note that Pay Tel, which has no affiliation with NSA, has rebutted many of the arguments raised by Lipman and concluded that NSA's survey results constitute a ``robust and significant data set.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ We note as well that Lipman did not identify his client, except as ``certain clients with an interest in the regulation of inmate calling services,'' when filing prior to the 2015 ICS Order. Lipman has subsequently acted as counsel to Securus. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26. We are confident that the new rate caps we adopt today will ensure that inmates and their families have access to ICS at rates that are fair to consumers, providers, and facilities.\18\ By adjusting the rate caps to better account for the reasonable costs that facilities may incur in connection with ICS, we ensure that providers will be able to charge rates that cover all of their costs that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS.\19\ Based on our analysis of the data providers submitted to the Mandatory Data Collection, the new rates should allow virtually all providers to recover their overall costs of providing ICS.\20\ To come to this conclusion, we calculated each provider's cost per minute, by tier, based on their reported numbers. We then compared each provider's cost per minute to our new rates for each tier. The difference between these two amounts allowed us to calculate the net impact that each provider will face as a result of our new rate caps. Our analysis indicates that the new rate caps will allow all but one provider to recover its costs, on average.\21\ Although we conclude that virtually all providers will be able to recover their legitimate ICS costs (including a reasonable return on capital) under the new rate caps, we reiterate that our waiver process remains available to any providers that find that the rate caps do not result in fair compensation for their services.\22\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ In sum, we agree with Hamden that reconsideration of our rates will ``pave the way for the comprehensive reform that the Commission has promised, that ICS consumers deserve, and that the ICS industry needs, while also ensuring that facilities will continue to facilitate ICS and that providers will earn a reasonable return on their investments.'' \19\ Indeed, although recognizing that the revised rate caps will ``ensure that ICS consumers avoid paying unjust, unreasonable and unfair ICS rates,'' the Wright Petitioners assert that our revised rate caps are so conservative as to be ``well above'' providers' costs. \20\ Based on Commission analysis, this is true for nearly 100 percent of the ICS market, and all of the largest ICS providers. As noted above, there is only one small provider that might not be able to cover all of its ICS-related costs under the new rate caps. \21\ Our analysis of the data indicates that some providers may lose money on collect calls, but more than make up for any lost revenue with profits from debit and prepaid calls. In the 2015 ICS Order, we recognized that collect calling represents a small and declining percentage of inmate calls. The record further suggests that collect calls will continue to decline to a negligible share of ICS calls. In light of that, we are not concerned about losses that are recovered and that we predict will continue to decrease in the future. Providers will be able to recover their costs as a whole under our rate caps. Moreover, as noted above, we continue to be concerned that allowing the rate caps for collect calls to remain higher than the caps for other ICS calls on an ongoing basis would create incentives for providers to drive consumers to make collect calls. Such a result would drive up the costs of ICS for the average consumer and, therefore, would not be in the public interest. \22\ We also reiterate that ``[i]f any provider believes it is being denied fair compensation . . . due, for example, to the interaction of our rate caps with the terms of the provider's existing service contracts--it may . . . seek preemption of the requirement to pay a site commission, to the extent that it believes that such a requirement is a state requirement and is inconsistent with the Commission's regulations.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D. We Amend the Definition of ``Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee'' 27. In the 2015 ICS Order, we defined a Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee as ``a fee that a Provider is required to collect directly from Consumers, and remit to federal, state, or local governments.'' In his Petition, Hamden asks us to clarify these definitions. After considering the Hamden Petition, the record developed in response to that petition, and the text of the 2015 ICS Order, we now amend the definition of Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee to read: ``A fee that a Provider is required to collect directly from consumers, and remit to federal, state, or local governments. A Mandatory Tax or Fee that is passed through to a Consumer may not include a markup, unless the markup is specifically authorized by a federal, state, or local statute, rule, or regulation.'' The amended definition more clearly captures the Commission's decision to allow carriers to collect applicable pass-through taxes, but to prohibit markups, other than those specifically authorized by law.\23\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ This rule allows providers to collect Universal Service fees, and similar government taxes and fees, from consumers and remit the funds to the relevant government entity, in keeping with existing federal and state requirements. As the 2015 ICS Order makes clear, we distinguish between such taxes and fees and site commission payments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28. In his petition, Hamden claims that there has been ``confusion'' regarding the Commission's definitions of the terms ``authorized fee,'' ``mandatory tax,'' and mandatory fee'' in the 2015 ICS Order, and regarding ``what fees and taxes the Commission intended to include as permissible under those terms.'' Although some commenters assert that the terms ``Mandatory Tax'' and ``Mandatory Fee'' were adequately defined by the 2015 ICS Order, other parties are open to further clarification from the Commission. The Wright Petitioners, for example, assert that ``Mr. Hamden's comments regarding the clarification of the rules associated with the definition of `Authorized Fee,' `Mandatory Tax,' and `Mandatory Fee' do merit further consideration.'' [[Page 62824]] 29. After further review, we agree with Hamden that we should clarify the definition of Mandatory Tax and Mandatory Fee. While the definitions of these terms were clear from the text of 2015 ICS Order, we take this opportunity to amend our rules to more clearly track the language and intent of the 2015 ICS Order. The prohibition against markups that we adopted in the 2015 ICS Order is an important part of our efforts to ensure that the rates and fees end users pay for ICS are fair, just, and reasonable. Thus, we now amend 47 CFR 64.6000 to read: ``Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee means a fee that a Provider is required to collect directly from Consumers, and remit to federal, state, or local governments. A Mandatory Tax or Fee that is passed through to a Consumer may not include a markup, unless the markup is specifically authorized by a federal, state, or local statute, rule, or regulation.'' E. We Deny All Other Aspects of the Hamden Petition 30. As previously noted, the Hamden Petition asks the Commission to reconsider or clarify two additional aspects of the 2015 ICS Order. First, Hamden urges the Commission to reconsider its treatment of site commissions.\24\ Second, Hamden asks that the Commission clarify that ICS providers cannot use unregulated subsidiaries to circumvent the rule regarding charges for single call services. After considering Hamden's arguments, as well as the rest of the record, we deny both requests. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ As noted above, Hamden asks that the Commission consider adopting an additive to the ICS rate caps as an alternative to banning all payments to facilities. We address that alternative at length in the discussion above and increase our 2015 rate caps to better accommodate facilities' ICS-related costs. We find no other changes to our rate caps are warranted. Nor do we find any need to regulate site commissions at this time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. There Is No Need To Regulate Site Commissions at This Time 31. In the 2015 ICS Order, we affirmed the Commission's previous finding that ``site commissions do not constitute a legitimate cost to the providers of providing ICS'' and, accordingly, did not include site commission payments in the cost data we used in setting our rate caps. Furthermore, although we encouraged states and correctional facilities to curtail or prohibit such payments, we concluded that ``we do not need to prohibit site commissions in order to ensure that interstate rates for ICS are fair, just, and reasonable and that intrastate rates are fair.'' 32. Hamden now seeks reconsideration of this conclusion, arguing that the Commission should ``prohibit payments to facilities in all forms.'' In the absence of such a ban, Hamden argues, ``facilities will continue to demand, and ICS providers will continue to pay site commissions . . . .'' Hamden also expresses concern that if providers are unwilling or unable to pay site commissions, ICS services ``may be curtailed, especially in smaller, less profitable facilities.'' 33. Several commenters oppose Hamden's request. ICSolutions, for example, asserts that we lack the legal authority to regulate site commissions.\25\ NCIC contends that prohibiting or capping site commissions will result in facilities being unable to recover their ICS-related costs, which, in turn, will lead to a reduction in inmate access. Finally, the Wright Petitioners argue that, even if the Commission were to ban site commissions, it is likely that providers and correctional facilities would simply ``seek new and innovative ways to funnel additional funds in connection with entering into their exclusive contracts.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ As was the case in the 2015 ICS Order, we need not reach these arguments, given our decision to let facilities and providers negotiate a reasonable approach to facility costs, subject only to providers' obligations to adhere to our rate caps. In addition, as discussed above, we have raised the rate caps to a level that should ensure that providers are able to earn a reasonable profit even after compensating facilities for any costs they incur that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS. This should help ensure that facilities recover the costs they incur that are directly related to the provision of ICS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34. After reviewing the Hamden Petition and the subsequent record, we are not persuaded to reconsider our decision to refrain from regulating site commissions. We are not convinced, based on the current record, that regulation of site commissions is necessary or in the public interest. As we noted in the 2015 ICS Order, the ``decision to establish fair and reasonable rate caps for ICS and leave providers to decide whether to pay site commissions--and if so, how much to pay--is supported by a broad cross-section of commenters . . . underscor[ing] the reasonableness of our approach.'' Based on the record on reconsideration, as well as the record in the underlying proceeding, we find that the prudent course remains to ``focus on our core ratemaking authority in reforming ICS and not prohibit or specifically regulate site commission payments.'' \26\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ Our commitment to maintain our approach to site commission payments is further bolstered by our decision today to increase the rate caps to ensure that providers are able to compensate facilities for the reasonable costs they incur that are directly related to the provision of ICS. Our decision to increase our rate caps to better account for facilities' costs does not require us to cap or limit site commission payments. In other words, nothing in our rules, as revised by this Order, restricts a provider's ability to distribute as it chooses whatever revenue it collects under the adopted rate caps. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. There Is No Need To Further Clarify the Single-Call Rule Adopted in the 2015 ICS Order 35. In the 2015 ICS Order, we held that ``for fees for single-call and related services and third-party financial transaction fees, we allow providers to pass through only the charges they incur without any additional markup.'' Hamden asserts that the Commission should clarify that the rule adopted in the 2015 ICS Order that single-call service costs must be passed through to end users with no additional markup may not be circumvented by providers using unregulated subsidiaries imposing ``excessive financial transaction fees.'' 36. Most commenters disagree with Hamden's requested clarifications. Several commenters assert that the rule regarding charges for single call services is adequately defined in the 2015 ICS Order, and as a result, no clarification is needed. 37. Having reviewed the arguments on both sides of the matter, we agree with the majority of commenters that there is no need to clarify the rule regarding single-call service costs. We are not persuaded, based on the current record, that the clarifications Hamden seeks are either necessary or in the public interest. Additionally, we reiterate our finding from the 2015 ICS Order that ``a major problem with single- call and related services is that customers are often unaware that other payment options are available, such as setting up an account . . . . We encourage providers to make clear to consumers that they have other payment options available to them.'' We find that no further action is necessary at this time, particularly given that we already have sought further comment on third-party financial transactions and potential fee-sharing. IV. Procedural Matters A. Paperwork Reduction Act 38. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. Therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burdens for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, [[Page 62825]] Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). B. Congressional Review Act 39. The Commission will send a copy of this Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 40. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. 604, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules, as proposed, addressed in this order. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix C of the Order. V. Ordering Clauses 41. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(j), 201(b), 215, 218, 220, 276, 303(r), 403, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 201(b), 215, 218, 220, 276, 303(r), and 403, 405 and sections 1.1, 1.3. 1.427, and 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.3, 1.427, and 1.429, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Michael S. Hamden on January 19, 2016, IS GRANTED IN PART, and is otherwise DENIED, as described above. 42. It is further ordered that part 64 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR part 64, is AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A of the Order. These rules shall become effective December 12, 2016, except for the amendments to 47 CFR 64.6010(a) and (c), which shall become effective March 13, 2017. 43. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Order on Reconsideration to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 Claims, Communications common carriers, Computer technology, Credit, Foreign relations, Individuals with disabilities, Political candidates, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telegraph, Telephone. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Final Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows: PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 0 1. The authority citation for part 64 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 276, 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, unless otherwise noted. Subpart FF--Inmate Calling Services 0 2. Revise Sec. 64.6000 paragraph (n) to read as follows: Sec. 64.6000 Definitions. * * * * * (n) Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee means a fee that a Provider is required to collect directly from consumers, and remit to federal, state, or local governments. A Mandatory Tax or Fee that is passed through to a Consumer may not include a markup, unless the markup is specifically authorized by a federal, state, or local statute, rule, or regulation; * * * * * 0 3. Effective December 12, 2016, amend Sec. 64.6010 by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) through (f) to read as follows: Sec. 64.6010 Inmate Calling Services rate caps. * * * * * (b) No Provider shall charge, in any Prison it serves, a per-minute rate for Debit Calling, Prepaid Calling, or Prepaid Collect Calling in excess of: (1) $0.13; (2) [Reserved] * * * * * (d) No Provider shall charge, in the Prisons it serves, a per- minute rate for Collect Calling in excess of: (1) $0.16 after the December 12, 2016; (2) $0.15 after July 1, 2017; and (3) $0.13 after July 1, 2018, and going forward. (e) For purposes of this section, the initial ADP shall be calculated, for all of the Correctional Facilities covered by an Inmate Calling Services contract, by summing the total number of inmates from January 1, 2015, through the effective date of the Order, divided by the number of days in that time period; (f) In subsequent years, for all of the correctional facilities covered by an Inmate Calling Services contract, the ADP will be the sum of the total number of inmates from January 1st through December 31st divided by the number of days in the year and will become effective on January 31st of the following year. 4. Effective March 13, 2017, revise Sec. 64.6010(a) and (c) to read as follows: Sec. 64.6010 Inmate Calling Services rate caps. (a) No Provider shall charge, in the Jails it serves, a per-minute rate for Debit Calling, Prepaid Calling, or Prepaid Collect Calling in excess of: (1) $0.31 in Jails with an ADP of 0-349; (2) $0.21 in Jails with an ADP of 350-999; or (3) $0.19 in Jails with an ADP of 1,000 or greater. * * * * * (c) No Provider shall charge, in the Jails it serves, a per-minute rate for Collect Calling in excess of: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Collect rate Collect rate Collect rate cap per MOU as cap per MOU as cap per MOU as Size and type of facility of effective of July 1, of July 1, date 2017 2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0-349 Jail ADP.................................................. $0.58 $0.45 $0.31 350-999 Jail ADP................................................ 0.54 0.38 0.21 1,000+ Jail ADP................................................. 0.54 0.37 0.19 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 62826]] * * * * * [FR Doc. 2016-21637 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
![62818 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
comment is received, HHS will publish Smallpox Countermeasures, which FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
a timely withdrawal of the rule in the expired on January 23, 2008. Vaccine COMMISSION
Federal Register. recipients and accidental vaccinia
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: contacts had 1 and 2 years, respectively, 47 CFR Part 64
Questions or comments regarding the to file a request for program benefits.
[WCB: WC Docket No. 12–375; FCC 16–
Smallpox Vaccine Injury Compensation The SVICP ended on January 23, 2010. 102]
Program should be directed to Narayan Alternatively, based on a credible risk
Nair, M.D., Acting Director, Division of that the threat of exposure to variola Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling
Injury Compensation Programs, virus, the causative agent of smallpox, Services
Healthcare Systems Bureau, HRSA, constitutes a public health emergency,
5600 Fishers Lane, Room 08N146B, the Secretary issued a Declaration (73 AGENCY: Federal Communications
Rockville, MD 20857, by phone at (301) FR 61869–61871) covering smallpox Commission.
443–5287, or by email at countermeasures under the Public ACTION: Final rule.
nnair@hrsa.gov. Readiness and Emergency Preparedness
Act of 2005 (PREP Act), with an SUMMARY: In this document, the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Commission continues its reform of the
effective date of January 24, 2008. The
response to Executive Order 13563, Sec. PREP Act authorizes the establishment inmate calling services (ICS)
6(a), which urges agencies to ‘‘repeal’’ and administration of the marketplace by responding to points
existing regulations that are Countermeasures Injury Compensation raised in a petition filed by Michael S.
‘‘outmoded’’ from the Code of Federal Program, whose implementing Hamden, seeking reconsideration of
Regulations (CFR), HHS is removing 42 regulation, at 42 CFR part 110, is based certain aspects of the Commission’s
CFR part 102. Notice and comment are on the SVICP’s regulation and provides 2015 ICS Order. Specifically, the
not required for this rule, because it similar benefits. On December 9, 2015, Commission amends its rate caps to
affects agency organization, procedure, the PREP Act Declaration was amended better allow ICS providers to recover
or practice under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). and republished (80 FR 76546–76553), costs incurred as a result of providing
Furthermore, HHS believes that there is extending the effective time period to inmate calling services, including the
good cause hereby to bypass notice and December 31, 2022, and deleting costs of reimbursing facilities for any
comment and proceed to a direct final obsolete language referring to SEPPA. costs they may incur that are reasonably
rule, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(B). and directly related to the provision of
The action is non-controversial, as it Executive Order 12866 service. The Order also clarifies the
merely removes a provision from the This action does not meet the criteria definition of ‘‘mandatory taxes and
CFR that is obsolete. This rule poses no for a significant regulatory action as set fees’’ and addresses other arguments
new substantive requirements on the out under Executive Order 12866, and raised by Mr. Hamden.
public. Accordingly, HHS believes this review by the Office of Management and DATES: The rules adopted in this
direct final rule will not elicit any Budget has accordingly not been document shall become effective
significant adverse comments, but if required. December 12, 2016, except for the
such comments are received HHS will
Regulatory Flexibility Act amendments to 47 CFR 64.6010(a) and
publish a timely notice of withdrawal in
(c), which shall become effective March
the Federal Register. This action will not have a significant
13, 2017.
economic impact on a substantial
I. Background FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gil
number of small entities. Therefore, the
The Smallpox Emergency Personnel regulatory flexibility analysis provided Strobel, Wireline Competition Bureau,
Protection Act of 2003 (SEPPA), (42 for under the Regulatory Flexibility Act Pricing Policy Division at (202) 418–
U.S.C. 239 et seq.) enacted on April 30, is not required. 1540 or at Gil.Strobel@fcc.gov.
2003, authorized the Secretary of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
Department of Health and Human Paperwork Reduction Act summary of the Commission Order on
Services (the Secretary), through the This action does not affect any Reconsideration, released August 9,
establishment of the Smallpox Vaccine information collections. 2016. The full text of this document
Injury Compensation Program (SVICP), List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 102 may be downloaded at the following
to provide benefits and/or compensation internet address: https://apps.fcc.gov/
to certain persons who sustained Biologics, Immunization, Public edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-
covered injuries as a direct result of the health, Smallpox. 102A1.docx This document does not
administration of covered smallpox contain new or modified information
PART 102—[REMOVED]
countermeasures (including the collection requirements subject to the
smallpox vaccine) or as a result of ■ For reasons set out in the preamble, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
vaccinia contracted through accidental and under the authority at 5 U.S.C. 301, (PRA), Public Law 104–13.
vaccinia contact. The SVICP’s HHS amends 42 CFR chapter I by I. Executive Summary
implementing regulation was codified at removing part 102.
42 CFR part 102. 1. In this order, we respond to the
The SVICP provided compensation Dated: August 26, 2016. petition filed by Michael S. Hamden
for unreimbursed medical expenses James Macrae, and amend our rate caps to improve the
and/or lost employment income to Acting Administrator, Health Resources and ability of providers to cover costs
eligible individuals for covered injuries Services Administration. facilities may incur that are reasonably
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
sustained as a direct result of the Approved: September 7, 2016. related to the provision of ICS.
smallpox vaccine or accidental vaccinia Sylvia M. Burwell, • The Commission is statutorily
inoculation, and/or death benefits to Secretary, Department of Health and Human mandated to ensure ICS rates are just,
certain survivors of these individuals. Services. fair, and reasonable and to promote
The Secretary did not extend SEPPA’s [FR Doc. 2016–21888 Filed 9–12–16; 8:45 am] access to ICS by inmates and their
Declaration Regarding Administration of BILLING CODE 4165–15–P families and friends. In response to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:24 Sep 12, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM 13SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_62995/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 62819
claims our prior decision not to include required by the Act. In setting the rate ICS providers. The Wright Petitioners
certain costs in our rate cap calculations caps, we declined to include the cost of opposed the petitions, stressing the
threatens the further deployment of ICS, site commissions, which are payments importance of the ‘‘overwhelmingly
we are increasing the rate caps to reflect from facilities to providers, because we positive public interest benefits from the
the costs facilities may incur that are found that such payments are not a adoption of the [2013 ICS Order]’’ and
reasonably related to the provision of legitimate cost of providing ICS. We did expressing concern that a stay of the
ICS. not, however, prohibit providers from 2015 ICS Order would delay relief to
• Acting upon the current record, paying site commissions. Instead, we let consumers and harm the public interest.
including Hamden Petition and other providers and facilities negotiate over 5. On January 22, 2016, the Wireline
input received after the 2015 ICS Order, whether providers would make site Competition Bureau (WCB or Bureau)
the Commission concludes that facilities commission payments and, if so, what issued an order denying the stay
may incur costs directly related to the payments are appropriate. Our approach petitions of GTL, Securus, and Telmate.
provision of ICS. Providers and facilities offered ICS providers and facilities the The Bureau found that the petitioners
claim the 2015 rate caps prevent them freedom to negotiate compensation that failed to demonstrate that they would
from recovering all of their reasonable is fair to each, while also ensuring that suffer irreparable harm if the 2015 ICS
costs. We now revise our rate caps to ICS consumers are charged rates that are Order was not stayed. The Bureau also
expressly account for the possibility of fair, just, and reasonable. was not persuaded that the petitioners
reasonable facility costs related to ICS. 3. In addition to setting rate caps for were likely to succeed on the merits of
• Our rate caps continue to reflect the interstate and intrastate ICS calls, we their arguments or that a stay would be
difference in the per-minute costs discussed what costs, if any, facilities in the public interest. To the contrary,
between smaller facilities and their incur that are reasonably attributable to the Bureau noted that other parties—
larger counterparts, thus ensuring ICS. Specifically, we considered particularly ICS consumers—would
providers are fairly compensated for whether we should expressly provide likely be harmed if the relevant
their ICS costs. for recovery of such costs through an provisions of the 2015 ICS Order were
• After reviewing the record and the additive to the per-minute rate caps stayed.
Hamden Petition, we amend the limiting the prices providers may charge 6. After the Bureau issued its order
definition of ‘‘Mandatory Tax or inmates and their families. The record denying the stay petitions, the providers
Mandatory Fee.’’ The amended before us on this point was relatively appealed the 2015 ICS Order to the D.C.
definition eliminates confusion and limited. Moreover, the data we had was Circuit. On March 7, 2016, the court
more clearly reflects the Commission’s mixed regarding the costs, if any, stayed two provisions of the
decision to prohibit providers from facilities incur that are reasonably Commission’s ICS rules: 47 CFR 64.6010
marking up mandatory taxes or fees that related to the provision of ICS. Some (setting caps on ICS calling rates that
they pass through to consumers, unless commenters argued that many of the vary based on the size and type of
the markup is specifically authorized by activities that facilities claim as ICS- facility being served) and 47 CFR
statute, rule, or regulation. related costs are actually performed by 64.6020(b)(2) (setting caps on charges
• Having considered the Hamden ICS providers. Other commenters, and fees for single-call services). The
Petition and the record as a whole, we however, asserted that correctional D.C. Circuit’s March 7 Order denied
deny all other aspects of the Petition. facilities incur a variety of costs related motions for stay of the Commission’s
Specifically, we are not persuaded to to ICS that providers do not. These costs ICS rules ‘‘in all other respects.’’ On
reconsider our decision to refrain from included expenses related to ‘‘call March 23, 2016, the D.C. Circuit
regulating site commissions. Nor are we monitoring, responding to ICS system modified the stay imposed in the March
persuaded, based on the current record, alerts, responding to law enforcement 7 Order to provide that ‘‘47 CFR 64.6030
of the need to further clarify the Single- requests for records/recordings, call (imposing interim rate caps)’’ be stayed
Call Rule adopted in the 2015 ICS recording analysis, enrolling inmates for as applied to ‘‘intrastate calling services.
Order. voice biometrics, and other duties.’’ As Final briefs from the parties are due to
II. Background we noted, ‘‘[e]ven commenters asserting the Court on October 5, 2016, and oral
that facilities incur costs that are arguments have not yet been scheduled.
2. This Order is the latest in a properly attributable to the provision of
proceeding that began in 2012, when the 7. On January 19, 2016, Michael S.
ICS do not agree on the extent of those Hamden, an attorney who has both
Commission issued a notice of proposed costs.’’ In the 2015 ICS Order, we
rulemaking 78 FR 4369, January 22, represented prisoners and served as a
declined to adopt a per-minute corrections consultant filed a Petition
2013 in response to long-standing ‘‘additive,’’ because of our view that the
petitions seeking relief from certain ICS for Partial Reconsideration, seeking
costs facilities claimed to incur in reconsideration of certain aspects of the
rates and practices. The Hamden allowing ICS were ‘‘already built into
Petition seeks partial reconsideration of 2015 ICS Order. Hamden asks the
our rate cap calculations and should not
the 2015 ICS Order, in which we Commission to reconsider its decision
be recovered through an ‘additive’ to the
adopted comprehensive reforms to the not to prohibit providers from paying
ICS rates.’’
ICS market, including tiered rate caps 4. Following the release of the 2015 site commissions or, in the alternative,
for both interstate and intrastate ICS ICS Order, four ICS providers filed to mandate a ‘‘modest, per-minute
calls, and limits on ancillary service petitions for stay before the facility cost recovery fee that would be
charges. In the 2015 ICS Order, we Commission, including Global Tel*Link added to the rate caps.’’ 1 In short,
focused on our core authority over ICS Corporation (GTL), Securus Hamden, like several of the ICS
rates, adopting rate caps in fulfillment Technologies, Inc. (Securus), Telmate, providers, asserts that at least some
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
of our obligation to ensure that LLC (Telmate), and CenturyLink. GTL portion of site commissions serves to
compensation for ICS calls is fair, just, and Telmate, in particular, argued that reimburse facilities for reasonable costs
and reasonable. We capped ICS rates at the Commission was required to include 1 Although never clearly stated, the Petition
levels that we found would be just and the costs of paying site commissions in appears to seek to limit any payments to facilities
reasonable and would ensure that the rate caps and that it set the rate caps to the proposed ‘‘facility cost-recovery fee’’ that
providers are fairly compensated, as below the documented costs of many would be added to the per-minute rate caps.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:24 Sep 12, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM 13SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_62995/page/2.svg)
![62820 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
that facilities incur in providing ICS, costs they may incur that are reasonably promoting deployment of ICS and
and that excluding site commissions and directly related to the provision of ensuring that ICS rates are fair to both
entirely from our rate cap calculations ICS.2 We also find that these rate caps providers and consumers.
results in rates that are too low to allow will adequately ensure that rates for ICS 11. As the Commission has repeatedly
providers to pay facilities for their consumers will be fair, just, and explained, providers should be able to
reasonable ICS-related costs and still reasonable. Thus, we grant the Hamden recover costs that are ‘‘reasonably and
earn a profit. Hamden also asks the Petition to the extent that it seeks an directly related to the provision of ICS’’
Commission to clarify ‘‘the meaning of increase in the ICS rate caps to through the ICS rates. The Commission
the terms ‘mandatory fee,’ ‘mandatory expressly account for reasonable facility has also recognized that correctional
tax,’ and ‘authorized fee’ as they are costs.3 We also grant the Hamden facilities may incur costs that are
used in the [2015 ICS Order].’’ Finally, Petition to the extent that it seeks a reasonably related to the provision of
Hamden seeks clarification that ICS clarification of the definitions of the ICS. With both the Mandatory Data
providers ‘‘cannot circumvent the terms ‘‘Mandatory Taxes’’ and Collection and the 2014 ICS FNPRM,
Second ICS Order’s rule regarding ‘‘Mandatory Fees.’’ We deny the the Commission took steps to determine
charges for single-call services through Hamden Petition in all other respects. the costs involved in providing ICS. For
the use of unregulated subsidiaries to example, in the Mandatory Data
serve as the companies that charge A. The Rate Caps Should Account for Collection, the Commission required
third-party transaction fees for such Costs Reasonably and Directly Related ICS providers to submit their costs
services.’’ On February 11, 2016, the to the Provision of ICS related to the provision of ICS,
Commission’s Consumer and 10. The Commission has a statutory including costs related to
Government Affairs Bureau (CGB) duty to set rates that are fair, just, and telecommunications, equipment, and
issued a Public Notice seeking comment reasonable and to promote access to ICS security. In addition, in the 2014 ICS
on the Hamden Petition. Multiple by inmates and their families and FNPRM, the Commission sought
parties submitted responses and friends. Accordingly, one of our goals is comment on the ‘‘actual costs’’ that
oppositions to the Hamden Petition, to ensure that inmates and their families facilities may incur in the provision of
including ICS providers, facilities, and have as much access as possible to this ICS and the appropriate vehicle for
the Wright Petitioners. Hamden also vital communications service. Some enabling facilities to recover such costs.
submitted a reply to the responses and parties in the reconsideration The Commission also sought comment
oppositions on April 4, 2016. We now proceeding have asserted that our prior on whether any such costs should be
act on these filings. decision not to include certain costs in recoverable though the per-minute rates
III. Discussion our rate cap calculations could pose a ICS providers charge inmates and their
risk to the continued deployment and families.
8. After reviewing the Hamden development of ICS. Our reforms would 12. After considering a ‘‘wide range of
Petition, the arguments made in not achieve their purpose if they conflicting views’’ regarding facilities’
response to the Petition, and other resulted in less robust services for costs, we acknowledged, in the 2015 ICS
relevant evidence in the record, we find inmates and those who wish to Order, the possibility that facilities
that: (1) At least some facilities likely communicate with them. As a result, incur some costs to provide ICS. We
incur costs that are directly and out of an abundance of caution, we are concluded, however, that the record at
reasonably related to the provision of increasing the rate caps to better reflect that time ‘‘indicate[d] that if facilities
ICS, (2) it is reasonable for those the costs that facilities claim to incur incurred any legitimate costs in
facilities to expect providers to that are directly and reasonably related connection with ICS, those costs would
compensate them for those costs, (3) to the provision of ICS. This action likely amount to no more than one or
such costs are a legitimate cost of ICS better enables the Commission to two cents per billable minute.’’ We
that should be accounted for in our rate achieve its twin statutory mandates of further concluded that the rate caps we
cap calculations, and (4) our existing adopted were ‘‘sufficiently generous to
rate caps do not separately account for 2 As explained below, because we do not regulate cover any such costs.’’ Accordingly, we
such costs. Accordingly, out of an site commissions in this order (and have not done declined to adopt any of the proposals
abundance of caution, we increase our so previously), any revenues derived under these
seeking an ‘‘additive’’ to our rate caps to
rate caps to better ensure that ICS rate caps may be passed through to facilities.
3 As noted above, Hamden appears to favor an cover facilities’ costs.
providers are able to receive fair
approach whereby the Commission would adopt an
compensation for their services, ‘‘additive’’ to our existing rate caps and prohibit
B. The Hamden Petition and Underlying
including the costs they may incur in providers from paying any site commissions beyond Record Demonstrate That the Existing
reimbursing facilities for expenses the additive. We maintain our view that prohibiting Rate Caps May Not Adequately Account
reasonably and directly related to the site commission payments is not necessary at this for Facility Costs
time. As we noted in the 2015 ICS Order, ‘‘this
provision of ICS. Specifically, we approach is consistent with the Commission’s 13. With the benefit of the record
increase our rate caps for debit and general preference to rely on market forces, rather developed since the 2015 ICS Order, we
prepaid ICS calls to $0.31 per minute for than regulatory intervention, wherever reasonably now conclude that at least some
jails with an average daily population possible.’’ Correctional authorities have every
incentive to accept whatever commissions facilities likely incur costs directly
(ADP) below 350, $0.21 per minute for providers can pay within the rate caps given the related to the provision of ICS and that
jails with an ADP between 350 and 999, benefits ICS confers on both facilities and inmates. those costs may in some instances
$0.19 per minute for jails with an ADP In addition, we note that our approach obviates the amount to materially more than one or
of 1,000 or more, and $0.13 per minute need to address arguments challenging our
authority to regulate site commission payments. two cents a minute.4 Providers and
for prisons. As discussed below, we also
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Contrary to the suggestion in one dissent, although
increase the rate caps for collect calls by we have not elected to adopt the precise mechanism 4 We continue to hold that site commission
a commensurate amount. that Hamden appears to have advocated for payments should not be considered in determining
9. We find that our revised rate caps ‘‘offset[ting]’’ the facilities’ claimed costs of fair or reasonable rates, except to the extent those
providing access to ICS, our approach to ensuring payments reflect costs facilities incur that are
will allow inmate calling providers to that our rate caps adequately account for facilities’ directly related to the provision of ICS. As we
recover their costs of providing ICS even reasonable ICS-related costs is, at a minimum, a explained in the 2015 ICS Order, ‘‘[p]assing the
while reimbursing facilities for any logical outgrowth of the Hamden Petition. non-ICS-related costs that comprise site
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:24 Sep 12, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM 13SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_62995/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 62821
facilities have claimed that the current with the provision of ICS and, more $0.09 per minute for the smallest jails.7
rate caps prevent them from recovering importantly . . . handle ALL of the In adopting these revisions to our rate
all of their reasonable costs. Similarly, monitoring of inmate calls.’’ caps, we once again rely on our core
some parties have argued that our 2015 16. NSA’s arguments echo claims ratemaking authority.8
rate caps may not have been ‘‘generous’’ other parties have made in their filings 19. As noted above, in the 2015 ICS
or conservative enough to cover all of before the D.C. Circuit. For example, Order, we agreed with parties that
the ICS-related costs that we expected representatives of state and local argued that facilities’ reasonable ICS-
providers to incur. governments cite ‘‘evidence that jails related costs likely amounted to no
14. The Hamden Petition asks the and prisons incur real and substantial more than one or two cents per minute
Commission, among other things, to costs in allowing access to ICS.’’ More and did not require an adjustment to our
reconsider its decision not to ‘‘mandate specifically, they contend that rate caps. Upon further consideration,
a modest, per-minute facility cost- correctional facilities can spend ‘‘over and with the benefit of an expanded
recovery fee that would be added to the $100,000 a month to provide ICS record, we now conclude that we
rate caps.’’ Notwithstanding the debate privileges to inmates, most of which should increase our rate caps in light of
regarding the nature and extent of the goes into the labor hours required to claims that that some facilities may
costs that correctional facilities incur, incur more significant costs that are
facilitate and monitor inmates’ use of
the Petition asserts that ‘‘it seems clear reasonably related to the provision of
ICS.’’ Similarly, Telmate has argued that
that facilities do incur some ICS. After reviewing the Hamden
our 2015 rate caps are not ‘‘sufficiently
administrative and security costs that Petition, and the record developed in
generous’’ to cover the ‘‘costs that
would not exist but for ICS.’’ Hamden response to the Petition, we find that
facilities bear in providing ICS.’’
notes that the idea of a cost recovery facilities—particularly smaller
mechanism has gained support from a 17. These arguments are consistent facilities—may face costs that are
broad range of parties, including ‘‘ICS with earlier filings claiming that considerably higher than one or two
providers, law enforcement, a state facilities may incur costs related to the cents per minute. Out of an abundance
regulator, and some in the inmate provision of ICS that are ‘‘non-trivial.’’ of caution, we increase our rate caps to
advocacy community.’’ Finally, Hamden Out of an abundance of caution, we now account for this possibility and to better
concludes that ‘‘[t]he lack of perfectly revise our rate caps to incorporate those ensure that providers are fairly
accurate data . . . does not preclude a costs more fully. compensated for their reasonable ICS
rational cost recovery mechanism and a C. We Increase Our Rate Caps To Better costs—including costs they may incur
legally sustainable Order.’’ As Hamden Reflect Evidence in the Record in reimbursing facilities for
notes, ‘‘[e]ven in the absence of absolute expenditures that are reasonably related
certainty regarding . . . facility 18. In view of the further evidence to the provision of ICS—and that
administrative costs, the Commission and arguments we have received, we providers and facilities have stronger
can make a rational decision’’ based on now reconsider our earlier rate caps incentives to promote increased
the record before us. insofar as they did not separately deployment of, and access to, ICS.9
15. In response to the Hamden account for ICS costs that facilities may 20. The rate caps we adopted in the
Petition, we received comments from incur.5 Accordingly, we increase our 2015 ICS Order were based on 2012 and
numerous parties agreeing that the rate caps to better reflect the costs that 2013 data that providers submitted in
existing rate caps do not adequately facilities incur that are reasonably response to the Mandatory Data
account for ICS costs that facilities may related to the provision of ICS. In Collection. While we still find that the
incur. While not all of the commenters addition, consistent with our findings in cost data from Mandatory Data
agree with Hamden’s preferred the 2015 ICS Order and with the Collection are an appropriate basis for
approach, many of the comments evidence in the record, we recognize constructing rate caps, we also
submitted assert that facilities incur that the per-minute costs associated recognize that due to our jurisdictional
costs greater than those we allowed for with ICS are higher in smaller facilities limitations, the Mandatory Data
under our 2015 rate caps. For example, than in larger ones. Thus, we increase Collection only included cost
NSA states that ‘‘[i]n many cases, the our rate caps more for smaller facilities information from providers, and not
duties performed by Sheriffs and jails than for larger ones.6 Specifically, we from facilities. Providers reported their
are the same or similar in nature as the rely on the analyses submitted by NSA own costs, but were not obligated to
security features and duties found by and by Baker/Wood to increase our rate submit information about costs incurred
the Commission as recoverable cost, caps by $0.02 per minute for prisons, by by facilities. Indeed, there is no reason
including monitoring calls, determining $0.05 per minute for larger jails, and by to believe that providers necessarily had
numbers to be blocked and unblocked, access to the information needed to
enrolling inmates in voice biometrics 5 We do not, however, revisit the rate structure or determine facility costs. As a result, the
service and maintenance and repair of overall methodology used in the 2015 ICS Order. information on facilities’ ICS-related
ICS equipment.’’ NSA acknowledges Specifically, we reject Telmate’s argument that our
that providers perform security and rate caps ‘‘are based on a flawed methodology, and 7 As explained below, Baker/Wood and NSA
thus cannot be saved by the proposed rate provided the most credible data regarding facilities’
administrative tasks ‘‘in some cases,’’ increase[s].’’ This argument addresses the costs and we find that a hybrid of those two
but asserts that in many other cases, fundamental structure of our rate caps and proposals yields the most reliable basis for
those tasks fall to Sheriffs and jails, not methodology and goes to the heart of our 2015 ICS determining how much we must increase our rate
providers. This view is supported by Order. As such, the argument appears to be an caps to ensure that providers can compensate
untimely—and improperly presented—request for facilities for the costs the facilities incur that are
Pay Tel, which has asserted that ‘‘jails, reconsideration of that order. reasonably related to the provision of ICS. The rate
not ICS providers, perform the lion’s increases we adopt today are also supported by the
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
6 Consistent with our conclusion in the 2015 ICS
share of administrative tasks associated Order, we find that providers will need more time Pay Tel Proposal.
to transition all of the country’s jails to the new rate 8 Accordingly, and for the reasons described
commission payments . . . onto inmates and their caps than to transition prisons. Accordingly, we below, we do not prohibit or regulate site
families as part of the costs used to set rate caps adopt a six-month transition period for jails, in commission payments.
would result in rates that exceed the fair order to ‘‘give providers and jails enough time to 9 Several parties have warned that access to ICS
compensation required by section 276 and that are negotiate (or renegotiate) contracts to the extent may be reduced if our rate caps fail to account for
not just and reasonable, as required by section 201.’’ necessary to comply’’ with our new rules. facilities’ reasonable ICS-related costs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:24 Sep 12, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM 13SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_62995/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 62823
outside economic consultant to Pay Tel affiliation with NSA, has rebutted many on capital) under the new rate caps, we
whom seven ICS providers engaged to of the arguments raised by Lipman and reiterate that our waiver process
prepare a joint report that was filed with concluded that NSA’s survey results remains available to any providers that
the Commission. Our approach is also constitute a ‘‘robust and significant data find that the rate caps do not result in
based on data provided by the NSA, set.’’ fair compensation for their services.22
which, as an organization representing 26. We are confident that the new rate
caps we adopt today will ensure that D. We Amend the Definition of
sheriffs, is well situated to understand
inmates and their families have access ‘‘Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee’’
and estimate the costs that facilities face
to provide ICS.16 to ICS at rates that are fair to consumers, 27. In the 2015 ICS Order, we defined
25. Given that we find NSA’s cost providers, and facilities.18 By adjusting a Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee as
data to be credible we disagree with the rate caps to better account for the ‘‘a fee that a Provider is required to
commenters who suggest the contrary. reasonable costs that facilities may incur collect directly from Consumers, and
Andrew Lipman, in particular, in connection with ICS, we ensure that remit to federal, state, or local
denigrated NSA’s cost survey for providers will be able to charge rates governments.’’ In his Petition, Hamden
including only three months of data that cover all of their costs that are asks us to clarify these definitions. After
from only about five percent of NSA’s reasonably related to the provision of considering the Hamden Petition, the
members.17 NSA convincingly defends ICS.19 Based on our analysis of the data record developed in response to that
its cost survey in its Opposition to the providers submitted to the Mandatory petition, and the text of the 2015 ICS
Hamden Petition, however, arguing that Data Collection, the new rates should Order, we now amend the definition of
‘‘[t]he Commission fails to explain . . . allow virtually all providers to recover Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee to
why these criticisms doom the NSA cost their overall costs of providing ICS.20 To read: ‘‘A fee that a Provider is required
survey data even though they all equally come to this conclusion, we calculated to collect directly from consumers, and
apply to the cost recovery data and each provider’s cost per minute, by tier, remit to federal, state, or local
analysis performed by GTL’s cost based on their reported numbers. We governments. A Mandatory Tax or Fee
consultant, which the Commission then compared each provider’s cost per that is passed through to a Consumer
apparently accepts.’’ NSA also argues minute to our new rates for each tier. may not include a markup, unless the
that the Commission ‘‘fails to explain The difference between these two markup is specifically authorized by a
why it entirely ignores the data amounts allowed us to calculate the net federal, state, or local statute, rule, or
provided by other parties that show a impact that each provider will face as a regulation.’’ The amended definition
much higher facility compensation fee result of our new rate caps. Our analysis more clearly captures the Commission’s
than one or two cents per minute.’’ We indicates that the new rate caps will decision to allow carriers to collect
agree with NSA’s arguments and find allow all but one provider to recover its applicable pass-through taxes, but to
that NSA’s cost survey is a credible costs, on average.21 Although we prohibit markups, other than those
(though imperfect) source of data conclude that virtually all providers specifically authorized by law.23
regarding the costs facilities incur in will be able to recover their legitimate 28. In his petition, Hamden claims
relation to ICS. We are particularly ICS costs (including a reasonable return that there has been ‘‘confusion’’
persuaded by NSA’s point that the regarding the Commission’s definitions
criticisms of the NSA cost survey made 18 In sum, we agree with Hamden that of the terms ‘‘authorized fee,’’
by Andrew Lipman, and recited in the reconsideration of our rates will ‘‘pave the way for ‘‘mandatory tax,’’ and mandatory fee’’ in
the comprehensive reform that the Commission has the 2015 ICS Order, and regarding
2015 ICS Order, apply with equal force promised, that ICS consumers deserve, and that the
to other proposals, including the ICS industry needs, while also ensuring that ‘‘what fees and taxes the Commission
analysis performed by GTL’s cost facilities will continue to facilitate ICS and that intended to include as permissible
consultant that supported the one to two providers will earn a reasonable return on their under those terms.’’ Although some
investments.’’ commenters assert that the terms
cent estimate that informed our decision 19 Indeed, although recognizing that the revised
in the 2015 ICS Order. Moreover, we ‘‘Mandatory Tax’’ and ‘‘Mandatory Fee’’
rate caps will ‘‘ensure that ICS consumers avoid
note that Pay Tel, which has no paying unjust, unreasonable and unfair ICS rates,’’ were adequately defined by the 2015
the Wright Petitioners assert that our revised rate ICS Order, other parties are open to
16 While agreeing with our assessment that NSA caps are so conservative as to be ‘‘well above’’ further clarification from the
is well-equipped to gauge facilities’ costs, one providers’ costs. Commission. The Wright Petitioners, for
20 Based on Commission analysis, this is true for
dissenting commissioner nonetheless faults us for example, assert that ‘‘Mr. Hamden’s
relying (in part) on NSA’s estimates of those costs. nearly 100 percent of the ICS market, and all of the
In claiming that ‘‘the rate increases set forth in this largest ICS providers. As noted above, there is only comments regarding the clarification of
Order are insufficient to cover the facility- one small provider that might not be able to cover the rules associated with the definition
administration costs’’ that jails incur in providing all of its ICS-related costs under the new rate caps. of ‘Authorized Fee,’ ‘Mandatory Tax,’
access to ICS, this commissioner relies on raw data 21 Our analysis of the data indicates that some
and ‘Mandatory Fee’ do merit further
from the NSA survey that NSA itself reasonably providers may lose money on collect calls, but more
elected to discount when estimating jails’ actual than make up for any lost revenue with profits from
consideration.’’
costs. NSA treated its survey data as ‘‘inputs’’ that, debit and prepaid calls. In the 2015 ICS Order, we
once ‘‘compared to and tested by’’ information recognized that collect calling represents a small 22 We also reiterate that ‘‘[i]f any provider
elsewhere in the record, could be refined to and declining percentage of inmate calls. The believes it is being denied fair compensation . . .
generate more reliable estimated ranges of facilities’ record further suggests that collect calls will due, for example, to the interaction of our rate caps
reasonable costs of providing access to ICS. Those continue to decline to a negligible share of ICS with the terms of the provider’s existing service
ranges are the cost data we find credible— calls. In light of that, we are not concerned about contracts—it may . . . seek preemption of the
particularly given that, as noted above, the NSA and losses that are recovered and that we predict will requirement to pay a site commission, to the extent
Baker/Wood Proposals arrive at similar continue to decrease in the future. Providers will that it believes that such a requirement is a state
conclusions. Thus, contrary to the dissent’s be able to recover their costs as a whole under our requirement and is inconsistent with the
contention that our rate caps, as revised in this Commission’s regulations.’’
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
rate caps. Moreover, as noted above, we continue
Order, are ‘‘confiscatory,’’ we are confident that to be concerned that allowing the rate caps for 23 This rule allows providers to collect Universal
they fall well within the zone of reasonableness. collect calls to remain higher than the caps for other Service fees, and similar government taxes and fees,
17 We note as well that Lipman did not identify ICS calls on an ongoing basis would create from consumers and remit the funds to the relevant
his client, except as ‘‘certain clients with an interest incentives for providers to drive consumers to make government entity, in keeping with existing federal
in the regulation of inmate calling services,’’ when collect calls. Such a result would drive up the costs and state requirements. As the 2015 ICS Order
filing prior to the 2015 ICS Order. Lipman has of ICS for the average consumer and, therefore, makes clear, we distinguish between such taxes and
subsequently acted as counsel to Securus. would not be in the public interest. fees and site commission payments.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:24 Sep 12, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM 13SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_62995/page/6.svg)
![62824 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
29. After further review, we agree 32. Hamden now seeks 2. There Is No Need To Further Clarify
with Hamden that we should clarify the reconsideration of this conclusion, the Single-Call Rule Adopted in the
definition of Mandatory Tax and arguing that the Commission should 2015 ICS Order
Mandatory Fee. While the definitions of ‘‘prohibit payments to facilities in all 35. In the 2015 ICS Order, we held
these terms were clear from the text of forms.’’ In the absence of such a ban, that ‘‘for fees for single-call and related
2015 ICS Order, we take this Hamden argues, ‘‘facilities will continue services and third-party financial
opportunity to amend our rules to more to demand, and ICS providers will transaction fees, we allow providers to
clearly track the language and intent of continue to pay site commissions pass through only the charges they incur
the 2015 ICS Order. The prohibition . . . .’’ Hamden also expresses concern without any additional markup.’’
against markups that we adopted in the that if providers are unwilling or unable Hamden asserts that the Commission
2015 ICS Order is an important part of to pay site commissions, ICS services
should clarify that the rule adopted in
our efforts to ensure that the rates and ‘‘may be curtailed, especially in smaller,
the 2015 ICS Order that single-call
fees end users pay for ICS are fair, just, less profitable facilities.’’
33. Several commenters oppose service costs must be passed through to
and reasonable. Thus, we now amend
Hamden’s request. ICSolutions, for end users with no additional markup
47 CFR 64.6000 to read: ‘‘Mandatory
example, asserts that we lack the legal may not be circumvented by providers
Tax or Mandatory Fee means a fee that
authority to regulate site commissions.25 using unregulated subsidiaries imposing
a Provider is required to collect directly
NCIC contends that prohibiting or ‘‘excessive financial transaction fees.’’
from Consumers, and remit to federal,
capping site commissions will result in 36. Most commenters disagree with
state, or local governments. A
facilities being unable to recover their Hamden’s requested clarifications.
Mandatory Tax or Fee that is passed
ICS-related costs, which, in turn, will Several commenters assert that the rule
through to a Consumer may not include
lead to a reduction in inmate access. regarding charges for single call services
a markup, unless the markup is
Finally, the Wright Petitioners argue is adequately defined in the 2015 ICS
specifically authorized by a federal,
that, even if the Commission were to Order, and as a result, no clarification
state, or local statute, rule, or
regulation.’’ ban site commissions, it is likely that is needed.
providers and correctional facilities 37. Having reviewed the arguments on
E. We Deny All Other Aspects of the would simply ‘‘seek new and innovative both sides of the matter, we agree with
Hamden Petition ways to funnel additional funds in the majority of commenters that there is
30. As previously noted, the Hamden connection with entering into their no need to clarify the rule regarding
Petition asks the Commission to exclusive contracts.’’ single-call service costs. We are not
reconsider or clarify two additional 34. After reviewing the Hamden persuaded, based on the current record,
aspects of the 2015 ICS Order. First, Petition and the subsequent record, we that the clarifications Hamden seeks are
Hamden urges the Commission to are not persuaded to reconsider our either necessary or in the public
reconsider its treatment of site decision to refrain from regulating site interest. Additionally, we reiterate our
commissions.24 Second, Hamden asks commissions. We are not convinced, finding from the 2015 ICS Order that ‘‘a
that the Commission clarify that ICS based on the current record, that major problem with single-call and
providers cannot use unregulated regulation of site commissions is related services is that customers are
subsidiaries to circumvent the rule necessary or in the public interest. As often unaware that other payment
regarding charges for single call we noted in the 2015 ICS Order, the options are available, such as setting up
services. After considering Hamden’s ‘‘decision to establish fair and an account . . . . We encourage
arguments, as well as the rest of the reasonable rate caps for ICS and leave providers to make clear to consumers
record, we deny both requests. providers to decide whether to pay site that they have other payment options
commissions—and if so, how much to available to them.’’ We find that no
1. There Is No Need To Regulate Site further action is necessary at this time,
pay—is supported by a broad cross-
Commissions at This Time particularly given that we already have
section of commenters . . .
31. In the 2015 ICS Order, we underscor[ing] the reasonableness of our sought further comment on third-party
affirmed the Commission’s previous approach.’’ Based on the record on financial transactions and potential fee-
finding that ‘‘site commissions do not reconsideration, as well as the record in sharing.
constitute a legitimate cost to the the underlying proceeding, we find that
providers of providing ICS’’ and, IV. Procedural Matters
the prudent course remains to ‘‘focus on
accordingly, did not include site our core ratemaking authority in A. Paperwork Reduction Act
commission payments in the cost data reforming ICS and not prohibit or 38. This document does not contain
we used in setting our rate caps. specifically regulate site commission new or modified information collection
Furthermore, although we encouraged payments.’’ 26 requirements subject to the Paperwork
states and correctional facilities to
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
curtail or prohibit such payments, we 25 As was the case in the 2015 ICS Order, we need
Law 104–13. Therefore, it does not
concluded that ‘‘we do not need to not reach these arguments, given our decision to let
prohibit site commissions in order to facilities and providers negotiate a reasonable contain any new or modified
ensure that interstate rates for ICS are approach to facility costs, subject only to providers’ information collection burdens for small
obligations to adhere to our rate caps. In addition, business concerns with fewer than 25
fair, just, and reasonable and that as discussed above, we have raised the rate caps to
intrastate rates are fair.’’ a level that should ensure that providers are able
employees, pursuant to the Small
to earn a reasonable profit even after compensating Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
24 As noted above, Hamden asks that the facilities for any costs they incur that are reasonably
related to the provision of ICS. This should help
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Commission consider adopting an additive to the directly related to the provision of ICS. Our
ICS rate caps as an alternative to banning all ensure that facilities recover the costs they incur decision to increase our rate caps to better account
payments to facilities. We address that alternative that are directly related to the provision of ICS. for facilities’ costs does not require us to cap or
26 Our commitment to maintain our approach to limit site commission payments. In other words,
at length in the discussion above and increase our
2015 rate caps to better accommodate facilities’ ICS- site commission payments is further bolstered by nothing in our rules, as revised by this Order,
related costs. We find no other changes to our rate our decision today to increase the rate caps to restricts a provider’s ability to distribute as it
caps are warranted. Nor do we find any need to ensure that providers are able to compensate chooses whatever revenue it collects under the
regulate site commissions at this time. facilities for the reasonable costs they incur that are adopted rate caps.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:24 Sep 12, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM 13SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_62995/page/7.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 62825
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 § 64.6010 Inmate Calling Services rate
3506(c)(4). caps.
Claims, Communications common * * * * *
B. Congressional Review Act carriers, Computer technology, Credit, (b) No Provider shall charge, in any
Foreign relations, Individuals with Prison it serves, a per-minute rate for
39. The Commission will send a copy disabilities, Political candidates, Radio,
of this Order in a report to be sent to Debit Calling, Prepaid Calling, or
Reporting and recordkeeping Prepaid Collect Calling in excess of:
Congress and the Government requirements, Telecommunications,
Accountability Office pursuant to the (1) $0.13;
Telegraph, Telephone. (2) [Reserved]
Congressional Review Act. See 5 U.S.C.
Federal Communications Commission. * * * * *
801(a)(1)(A).
Marlene H. Dortch, (d) No Provider shall charge, in the
C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Secretary. Prisons it serves, a per-minute rate for
Final Rules Collect Calling in excess of:
40. As required by the Regulatory
(1) $0.16 after the December 12, 2016;
Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. 604,
For the reasons discussed in the (2) $0.15 after July 1, 2017; and
the Commission has prepared a Final preamble, the Federal Communications (3) $0.13 after July 1, 2018, and going
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as forward.
of the possible significant economic follows: (e) For purposes of this section, the
impact on small entities of the policies initial ADP shall be calculated, for all of
and rules, as proposed, addressed in PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES the Correctional Facilities covered by an
this order. The FRFA is set forth in RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS Inmate Calling Services contract, by
Appendix C of the Order. summing the total number of inmates
■ 1. The authority citation for part 64 is from January 1, 2015, through the
V. Ordering Clauses
revised to read as follows: effective date of the Order, divided by
41. Accordingly, it is ordered that, Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); the number of days in that time period;
pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i)–(j), 201(b), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104–104, 110 Stat. (f) In subsequent years, for all of the
215, 218, 220, 276, 303(r), 403, and 405 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, correctional facilities covered by an
of the Communications Act of 1934, as 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 276, 616, 620, and Inmate Calling Services contract, the
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)–(j), the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation ADP will be the sum of the total number
Act of 2012, Public Law 112–96, unless of inmates from January 1st through
201(b), 215, 218, 220, 276, 303(r), and otherwise noted.
403, 405 and sections 1.1, 1.3. 1.427, December 31st divided by the number of
and 1.429 of the Commission’s rules, 47 Subpart FF—Inmate Calling Services days in the year and will become
CFR 1.1, 1.3, 1.427, and 1.429, the effective on January 31st of the
Petition for Reconsideration filed by ■ 2. Revise § 64.6000 paragraph (n) to following year.
Michael S. Hamden on January 19, read as follows: 4. Effective March 13, 2017, revise
2016, IS GRANTED IN PART, and is § 64.6010(a) and (c) to read as follows:
otherwise DENIED, as described above. § 64.6000 Definitions.
§ 64.6010 Inmate Calling Services rate
42. It is further ordered that part 64 * * * * * caps.
of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR part (n) Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee (a) No Provider shall charge, in the
64, is AMENDED as set forth in means a fee that a Provider is required Jails it serves, a per-minute rate for
Appendix A of the Order. These rules to collect directly from consumers, and Debit Calling, Prepaid Calling, or
shall become effective December 12, remit to federal, state, or local Prepaid Collect Calling in excess of:
2016, except for the amendments to 47 governments. A Mandatory Tax or Fee (1) $0.31 in Jails with an ADP of 0–
CFR 64.6010(a) and (c), which shall that is passed through to a Consumer 349;
become effective March 13, 2017. may not include a markup, unless the (2) $0.21 in Jails with an ADP of 350–
markup is specifically authorized by a 999; or
43. It is further ordered that the
federal, state, or local statute, rule, or (3) $0.19 in Jails with an ADP of 1,000
Commission’s Consumer and
regulation; or greater.
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, SHALL SEND a * * * * * * * * * *
copy of this Order on Reconsideration to ■ 3. Effective December 12, 2016, (c) No Provider shall charge, in the
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the amend § 64.6010 by revising paragraphs Jails it serves, a per-minute rate for
Small Business Administration. (b) and (d) through (f) to read as follows: Collect Calling in excess of:
Collect rate Collect rate Collect rate
cap per MOU cap per MOU cap per MOU
Size and type of facility as of effective as of July 1, as of July 1,
date 2017 2018
0–349 Jail ADP ............................................................................................................................ $0.58 $0.45 $0.31
350–999 Jail ADP ........................................................................................................................ 0.54 0.38 0.21
1,000+ Jail ADP ........................................................................................................................... 0.54 0.37 0.19
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:24 Sep 12, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM 13SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_62995/page/8.svg)
![62826 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
* * * * * DATES: This rule is effective October 13, Background
[FR Doc. 2016–21637 Filed 9–12–16; 8:45 am] 2016.
Below, we update and summarize
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P ADDRESSES: This final rule is available
information from the proposed listing
on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov and http:// rule for the white fringeless orchid (80
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR www.fws.gov/cookeville. Comments and FR 55304; September 15, 2015) on the
materials we received, as well as historical and current distribution of
Fish and Wildlife Service supporting documentation we used in white fringeless orchid. Please refer to
preparing this rule, are available for the proposed listing rule for a summary
50 CFR Part 17 public inspection at http:// of other species information, including
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2015–0129; www.regulations.gov, or by habitat, biology, and genetics.
4500030113] appointment, during normal business Distribution
RIN 1018–BA93 hours, at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Tennessee Ecological Services In this final rule, we are updating
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Field Office, 446 Neal Street, information on the species’ distribution
and Plants; Threatened Species Status Cookeville, TN 38501; telephone: 931– from the September 15, 2015, proposed
for Platanthera integrilabia (White 528–6481; facsimile: 931–528–7075. rule to include two minor changes,
Fringeless Orchid) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: which were brought to our attention
Mary Jennings, Field Supervisor, U.S. following publication of the proposed
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee listing rule. First, we are changing the
Interior.
Ecological Services Field Office (see 2014 status of the Forsyth County,
ACTION: Final rule.
ADDRESSES, above). Persons who use a Georgia, population from extant to
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and telecommunications device for the deaf uncertain (Table 1), because flowering
Wildlife Service (Service), determine (TDD) may call the Federal Information plants have not been documented at this
threatened species status under the Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. site since 1990 (Richards 2015, pers.
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: comm.). In addition, we have added
as amended, for Platanthera integrilabia Georgia Department of Transportation
(white fringeless orchid), a plant species Previous Federal Actions (GDOT) to the list of local, State, or
from Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Please refer to the proposed listing Federal government entities that own or
Mississippi, South Carolina, and rule for the white fringeless orchid (80 manage lands where white fringeless
Tennessee. This rule adds this species FR 55304; September 15, 2015) for a orchid is present (Table 2). A revised
to the Federal List of Endangered and detailed description of previous Federal summary of the species’ distribution
Threatened Plants. actions concerning this species. follows.
TABLE 1—COUNTY-LEVEL DISTRIBUTION OF EXTANT AND UNCERTAIN STATUS WHITE FRINGELESS ORCHID OCCUR-
RENCES, CIRCA 1991 (SHEA 1992) AND 2014 (ANHP 2014, GDNR 2014, KSNPC 2014, MDWFP 2014, NCDENR
2014, SCDNR 2012, SCHOTZ 2015, AND TDEC 2014)
1991 2014
State County
Extant Uncertain Extant Uncertain
Alabama ............................................ Calhoun ............................................ ........................ ........................ 2 ........................
Clay .................................................. ........................ 1 1 ........................
Cleburne ........................................... ........................ ........................ 1 ........................
DeKalb .............................................. ........................ ........................ 1 ........................
Jackson ............................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 1
Marion .............................................. 1 ........................ 1 2
Tuscaloosa ....................................... 1 ........................ 1 ........................
Winston ............................................ 1 ........................ 1 ........................
Georgia ............................................. Bartow .............................................. ........................ ........................ 1 ........................
Carroll ............................................... 2 ........................ 2 ........................
Chattooga ......................................... ........................ ........................ 1 ........................
Cobb ................................................. 1 ........................ ........................ ........................
Coweta ............................................. 1 ........................ 1 ........................
Forsyth ............................................. ........................ 1 ........................ 1
Pickens ............................................. ........................ ........................ 1 ........................
Rabun ............................................... 1 ........................ 1 ........................
Stephens .......................................... 1 ........................ 1 ........................
Kentucky ........................................... Laurel ............................................... ........................ ........................ 2 2
McCreary .......................................... 4 ........................ 2 1
Pulaski .............................................. 1 1 2 ........................
Whitley .............................................. ........................ ........................ 1 ........................
Mississippi ......................................... Alcorn ............................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Itawamba .......................................... ........................ ........................ 2 1
Tishomingo ....................................... ........................ ........................ 1 1
South Carolina .................................. Greenville ......................................... 1 ........................ ........................ 1
Tennessee ........................................ Bledsoe ............................................ ........................ 2 2 1
Cumberland ...................................... ........................ ........................ 1 ........................
Fentress ........................................... ........................ ........................ 2 ........................
Franklin ............................................. 3 2 5 5
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:24 Sep 12, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM 13SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_62995/page/9.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-09 13:16:46
Document Modified: 2018-02-09 13:16:46
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | The rules adopted in this document shall become effective December 12, 2016, except for the amendments to 47 CFR 64.6010(a) and (c), which shall become effective March 13, 2017. | |
| Contact | Gil Strobel, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at (202) 418-1540 or at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 62818 | |
| CFR Associated | Claims; Communications Common Carriers; Computer Technology; Credit; Foreign Relations; Individuals with Disabilities; Political Candidates; Radio; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Telecommunications; Telegraph and Telephone |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR