Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, 67450-67462 [2020-19951]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 206 (Friday, October 23, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67450-67462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19951]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[WC Docket No. 12-375, FCC 20-111; FRS 17047]


Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission continues to comprehensively 
reform inmate calling services rates and charges to ensure just and 
reasonable rates for interstate and international inmate calling 
services. In response to a directive from the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Commission determined 
that, except in limited circumstances, it is impractical to separate 
out the intrastate and intrastate components of ancillary service 
charges imposed in connection with inmate calling services. For the 
limited circumstances in which the components may be distinguished, 
inmate service providers are subject to the Commission's ancillary 
service charge rules, which constrain providers to only five specific 
types of ancillary service charges and related fee caps. The Commission 
also reinstated its rule prohibiting providers from marking up 
mandatory taxes or fees and adopted rule changes in response to the 
D.C. Circuit that clarify that the Commission's inmate calling service 
rate and fee cap rules apply only to interstate and international 
inmate calling services.

DATES: The rules adopted in this document take effect on November 23, 
2020.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Goodman, Pricing Policy Division 
of the Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1549 or via email at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a final rule summary of the 
Commission's Report and Order, released August X, 2020. A full-text 
version of this document can be obtained from the following internet 
address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-111A1.pdf.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. The Communications Act divides jurisdiction for regulating 
communications services, including inmate calling services, between the 
Commission and the states. Specifically, the Act empowers the 
Commission to regulate interstate communications services and preserves 
for the states jurisdiction over intrastate communications services. 
Because the Commission has not always respected this division, the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has twice 
remanded the agency's efforts to address rates and charges for inmate 
calling services.
    2. Today, the Commission responds to the court's remands and takes 
action to comprehensively reform inmate calling services rates and 
charges. First, the Commission addresses the D.C. Circuit's directive 
that it consider whether ancillary service charges--separate fees that 
are not included in the per-minute rates assessed for individual inmate 
calling services calls--can be segregated into interstate and 
intrastate components for the purpose of excluding the intrastate 
components

[[Page 67451]]

from the reach of its rules. The Commission finds that ancillary 
service charges generally cannot be practically segregated between the 
interstate and intrastate jurisdictions except in the limited number of 
cases where, at the time a charge is imposed and the consumer accepts 
the charge, the call to which the service is ancillary is a clearly 
intrastate-only call. As a result, inmate calling services providers 
are generally prohibited from imposing any ancillary service charges 
other than those permitted by the Commission's rules and providers are 
generally prohibited from imposing charges in excess of the 
Commission's applicable ancillary service fee caps.
    3. The Commission believes that its actions today will ensure that 
rates and charges for interstate and international inmate calling 
services are just and reasonable as required by section 201(b) of the 
Act and thereby enable incarcerated individuals and their loved ones to 
maintain critical connections. At the same time, given that the vast 
majority of calls made by incarcerated individuals are intrastate 
calls, the Commission urges its state partners to take action to 
address the egregiously high intrastate inmate calling services rates 
across the country.

II. Background

    4. Access to affordable communications services is critical for all 
Americans, including incarcerated members of our society. Studies have 
long shown that incarcerated individuals who have regular contact with 
family members are more likely to succeed after release and have lower 
recidivism rates. Unlike virtually every other American, however, 
incarcerated people and the individuals they call have no choice in 
their telephone service provider. Instead, their only option is 
typically an inmate calling services provider chosen by the 
correctional facility that, once chosen, operates as a monopolist. 
Absent effective regulation, rates for inmate calling services calls 
can be unjustly and unreasonably high and thereby impede the ability of 
incarcerated individuals and their loved ones to maintain vital 
connections.
    5. Statutory Background. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(the Act) establishes a system of regulatory authority that divides 
power over interstate, intrastate, and international communications 
services between the Commission and the states. More specifically, 
section 2(a) of the Act empowers the Commission to regulate 
``interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio'' as provided 
by the Act. This regulatory authority includes ensuring that ``[a]ll 
charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in 
connection with'' interstate or international communications services 
are ``just and reasonable'' in accordance with section 201(b) of the 
Act. Section 201(b) also provides that ``[t]he Commission may prescribe 
such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest 
to carry out'' these provisions.
    6. Section 2(b) of the Act preserves for the states jurisdiction 
over ``charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, or 
regulations for or in connection with intrastate communication 
service.'' The Commission is thus `` `generally forbidden from entering 
the field of intrastate communication service, which remains the 
province of the states.' '' Stated differently, section 2(b) ``erects a 
presumption against the Commission's assertion of regulatory authority 
over intrastate communications.''
    7. Although the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ``chang[ed] the 
FCC's authority with respect to some intrastate activities,'' ``the 
strictures of [section 2(b)] remain in force.'' That is, ``[i]nosfar as 
Congress has remained silent . . . , [section 2(b)] continues to 
function.'' Thus, while section 276 of the Act specifically directs the 
Commission to ensure that payphone service providers, including inmate 
calling services providers, ``are fairly compensated for each and every 
completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone,'' that 
provision does not authorize the Commission to regulate intrastate 
rates. Nor does section 276 give the Commission the authority to 
determine ``just and reasonable'' rates.
    8. Prior Commission Actions. The Commission has taken repeated 
action to address inmate calling services rates and charges. In the 
2012 ICS Notice, the Commission sought comment on whether to establish 
rate caps for interstate inmate calling services calls. In the 2013 ICS 
Order, the Commission established interim interstate rate caps for 
debit and prepaid calls as well as collect calls and required all 
inmate calling services providers to submit data (hereinafter, the 
First Mandatory Data Collection) on their underlying costs so that the 
agency could develop a permanent rate structure. In the 2014 ICS 
Notice, the Commission sought comment on reforming charges for services 
ancillary to the provision of inmate calling services and on 
establishing rate caps for both interstate and intrastate inmate 
calling services calls. In the 2015 ICS Order, the Commission attempted 
to adopt a comprehensive framework for interstate and intrastate inmate 
calling services. More specifically, the Commission adopted limits on 
ancillary service charges; set rate caps for interstate and intrastate 
inmate calling services calls; extended the interim interstate rate 
caps it adopted in 2013 to intrastate calls pending the effectiveness 
of the new rate caps; and sought comment on whether and how to reform 
rates for international inmate calling services calls. The Commission 
also addressed inmate calling services providers' ability to recover 
mandatory applicable pass-through taxes and regulatory fees. 
Additionally, the Commission adopted a Second Mandatory Data Collection 
to enable it to identify trends in the market and adopt further reform, 
and it required inmate calling services providers to annually report 
information on their operations, including their current interstate, 
intrastate, and international rates and their current ancillary service 
charge amounts. In the 2016 ICS Reconsideration Order, the Commission 
increased its rate caps to account for certain correctional facility 
costs related to the provision of inmate calling services.
    9. The Commission's attempts to reform inmate calling services 
rates and charges have a long history in the courts and have not always 
been well received. In January 2014, in response to inmate calling 
services providers' petitions for review of the 2013 ICS Order, the 
D.C. Circuit stayed the application of certain portions of that Order 
but allowed the Commission's interim rate caps to remain in effect. 
Later that year, the court held the petitions for review in abeyance 
while the Commission proceeded to set permanent rates. In March 2016, 
in response to inmate calling services providers' petitions for review 
of the 2015 ICS Order, the D.C. Circuit stayed the application of that 
Order's rate caps and ancillary service charge cap for single-call 
services while the appeal was pending. Later that month, the court 
stayed the application of the Commission's interim rate caps to 
intrastate inmate calling services. In November 2016, the court stayed 
the 2016 ICS Reconsideration Order pending the outcome of the challenge 
to the 2015 ICS Order. In 2017, in GTL v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit vacated 
the rate caps in the 2015 ICS Order, finding that the Commission lacked 
the statutory authority to regulate intrastate rates and that the 
methodology used to set the caps was arbitrary and capricious. The 
court remanded for further proceedings with respect to certain rate cap 
issues;

[[Page 67452]]

remanded the ancillary service charge caps in that Order; and vacated 
one of the annual reporting requirements in that Order.
    10. Because this procedural history is somewhat complicated, the 
Commission provides background on the relevant issues in turn below.
    11. Ancillary Service Charges. Ancillary service charges are fees 
that inmate calling services providers assess on inmate calling service 
consumers that are not included in the per-minute rates assessed for 
individual calls. In the 2015 ICS Order, in light of the continued 
growth in the number and dollar amount of ancillary service charges, 
and the fact that such charges inflate the effective price that 
consumers pay for inmate calling services, the Commission adopted 
reforms to limit such charges. The Commission established five types of 
permissible ancillary service charges, which are defined as follows: 
(1) Fees for Single-Call and Related Services--billing arrangements 
whereby an incarcerated person's collect calls are billed through a 
third party on a per-call basis, where the called party does not have 
an account with the inmate calling services provider or does not want 
to establish an account; (2) Automated Payment Fees--credit card 
payment, debit card payment, and bill processing fees, including fees 
for payments made by interactive voice response, web, or kiosk; (3) 
Third-Party Financial Transaction Fees--the exact fees, with no markup, 
that inmate calling services providers are charged by third parties to 
transfer money or process financial transactions to facilitate a 
consumer's ability to make account payments via a third party; (4) Live 
Agent Fees--fees associated with the optional use of a live operator to 
complete inmate calling services transactions; and (5) Paper Bill/
Statement Fees--fees associated with providing customers of inmate 
calling services an optional paper billing statement. The Commission 
then capped the amount of each of these charges and prohibited inmate 
calling services providers from assessing any other ancillary service 
charges. The D.C. Circuit stayed the rule setting the ancillary service 
charge cap for single-call services on March 7, 2016, before the rest 
of the ancillary service charge caps were to go into effect. Therefore, 
the ancillary service charge cap for single-call services never became 
effective.
    12. In the 2015 ICS Order, the Commission applied these caps to all 
services ancillary to inmate calling services, regardless of whether 
the underlying service was interstate or intrastate. In particular, the 
Commission held that ``section 276 of the Act authorizes the Commission 
to regulate charges for intrastate ancillary services.'' On review, the 
D.C. Circuit held that ``the Order's imposition of ancillary fee caps 
in connection with interstate calls is justified'' given the 
Commission's ``plenary authority to regulate interstate rates under 
Sec.  201(b), including `practices . . . for and in connection with' 
interstate calls.'' The court held, however, that just as the 
Commission lacks authority to regulate intrastate rates pursuant to 
section 276, the Commission likewise ``had no authority to impose 
ancillary fee caps with respect to intrastate calls.'' Because the 
court could not ``discern from the record whether ancillary fees can be 
segregated between interstate and intrastate calls,'' it remanded the 
issue ``to allow the Commission to determine whether it can segregate 
[the ancillary fee] caps on interstate calls (which are permissible) 
and the [ancillary fee] caps on intrastate calls (which are 
impermissible).''
    13. Mandatory Pass-Through Taxes and Fees. In the 2015 ICS Order, 
the Commission found record evidence that inmate calling services 
providers were charging end users fees under the guise of taxes. The 
Commission therefore held that such providers ``are permitted to 
recover mandatory-applicable pass-through taxes and regulatory fees, 
but without any additional mark-up or fees.'' To implement this 
determination, the Commission added rules governing an ``Authorized 
Fee'' and a ``Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee.'' The rule regarding 
authorized fees included language precluding markups in the absence of 
specific governmental authorization. The rule regarding mandatory taxes 
or fees, however, contained no parallel language. To correct this 
oversight, the Commission amended the rule in the 2016 ICS 
Reconsideration Order to specify: ``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.''
    14. On review, the D.C. Circuit vacated the 2016 ICS 
Reconsideration Order ``insofar as it purport[ed] to set rate caps on 
inmate calling service'' and remanded ``the remaining provisions'' of 
that Order to the Commission ``for further consideration . . . in light 
of the disposition of this case and other related cases.'' As a result, 
the Commission's rule governing Mandatory Taxes or Mandatory Fees was 
vacated to the extent that it ``purport[ed] to set rate caps.''
    15. Rate Caps. In the 2013 ICS Order, in light of record evidence 
that rates for inmate calling services calls greatly exceeded the 
reasonable costs of providing service, the Commission adopted interim 
interstate rate caps of $0.21 per minute for debit and prepaid calls 
and $0.25 per minute for collect calls. In the 2015 ICS Order, in light 
of ``egregiously high'' rates for intrastate inmate calling services 
calls, the Commission relied on section 276 and section 201(b) of the 
Act to adopt rate caps for both intrastate and interstate inmate 
calling services calls. The Commission set tiered rate caps of $0.11 
per minute for prisons; $0.14 per minute for jails with average daily 
populations of 1,000 or more; $0.16 per minute for jails with average 
daily populations of 350 to 999; and $0.22 per minute for jails having 
average daily populations of less than 350. The Commission calculated 
these rate caps using industry-wide average costs and stated that this 
approach would allow providers to ``recover average costs at each and 
every tier.'' Additionally, the Commission held that site commissions--
payments made by inmate calling services providers to correctional 
facilities or state authorities that are often required to win the 
contract for provision of service to a given facility--were not costs 
reasonably related to the provision of inmate calling services. The 
Commission therefore excluded site commission payments from the cost 
data used to set the rate caps.
    16. On reconsideration in 2016, the Commission increased the rate 
caps for both interstate and intrastate inmate calling services to 
expressly account for correctional facility costs that are directly and 
reasonably related to the provision of inmate calling services. The 
Commission set the revised rate caps at $0.13 per minute for prisons; 
$0.19 per minute for jails with average daily populations of 1,000 or 
more; $0.21 per minute for jails with average daily populations of 350 
to 999; and $0.31 per minute for jails with average daily populations 
of less than 350.
    17. On review, the D.C. Circuit in GTL v. FCC vacated the rate caps 
adopted in the 2015 ICS Order. First, the court held that the 
Commission lacked the statutory authority to cap intrastate inmate 
calling services rates. The court explained that the Commission's 
authority over intrastate calls is, except as otherwise provided by 
Congress, limited by section 2(b) of the Act and nothing in section 276 
of the Act overcomes this limitation. In particular, section 276 
``merely directs the Commission to `ensure that all [inmate

[[Page 67453]]

calling services] providers are fairly compensated' for their inter- 
and intrastate calls,'' and it ``is not a `general grant of 
jurisdiction' over intrastate ratemaking.''
    18. Second, the D.C. Circuit held that the ``Commission's 
categorial exclusion of site commissions from the calculus used to set 
[inmate calling services] rate caps defie[d] reasoned decisionmaking 
because site commissions obviously are costs of doing business incurred 
by [inmate calling services] providers.'' The court directed the 
Commission to ``assess on remand which portions of site commissions 
might be directly related to inmate calling services and therefore 
legitimate, and which are not.'' The court did not reach inmate calling 
services providers' remaining arguments ``that the exclusion of site 
commissions denies [them] fair compensation under [section] 276 and 
violates the Takings Clause of the Constitution because it forces 
providers to provide services below cost,'' and it stated that the 
Commission should address these issues on remand once it revisits the 
exclusion of site commissions.
    19. Third, the D.C. Circuit held that the Commission's use of 
industry-wide averages in setting rate caps was arbitrary and 
capricious because it lacked justification in the record and was not 
supported by reasoned decisionmaking. More specifically, the court 
found the Commission's use of a weighted average per-minute cost to be 
``patently unreasonable'' given that such an approach made calls with 
above-average costs unprofitable and thus did ``not fulfill the mandate 
of [section] 276 that `each and every' '' call be fairly compensated. 
Additionally, the court found that the 2015 ICS Order ``advances an 
efficiency argument--that the larger providers can become profitable 
under the rate caps if they operate more efficiently--based on data 
from the two smallest firms,'' which ``represent less than one percent 
of the industry,'' and that the Order did not account for conflicting 
record data. The court therefore vacated this portion of the 2015 ICS 
Order and remanded to the Commission for further proceedings.
    20. Also in 2017, in Securus v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit ordered the 
2016 ICS Reconsideration Order ``summarily vacated insofar as it 
purports to set rate caps on inmate calling service'' because the 
revised rate caps in that Order were ``premised on the same legal 
framework and mathematical methodology'' rejected by the court in GTL 
v. FCC. The court remanded ``the remaining provisions'' of that Order 
to the Commission ``for further consideration . . . in light of the 
disposition of this case and other related cases.'' As a result of the 
D.C. Circuit's decisions in GTL and Securus, the interim rate caps that 
the Commission adopted in 2013 ($0.21 per minute for debit/prepaid 
calls and $0.25 per minute for collect calls) are in effect for 
interstate inmate calling services calls.
    21. More Recent Developments. In the 2015 ICS Order, the Commission 
directed that the Second Mandatory Data Collection be conducted two 
years from publication of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
approval of the information collection. The Commission received such 
approval in January 2017 and publication occurred on March 1, 2017. 
Accordingly, on March 1, 2019, inmate calling services providers 
submitted their responses to the Second Mandatory Data Collection. The 
Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) and Office of 
Economics and Analytics (OEA) undertook a comprehensive analysis of the 
Second Mandatory Data Collection responses and conducted multiple 
follow-up discussions with inmate calling services providers to 
supplement and clarify their responses.
    22. In February 2020, the Bureau issued a public notice seeking to 
refresh the record on ancillary service charges in light of the D.C. 
Circuit's remand in GTL v. FCC. The Bureau sought comment on, among 
other issues, (1) whether each permitted inmate calling services 
ancillary service charge may be segregated between interstate and 
intrastate calls and, if so, how; (2) how the Commission should proceed 
in the event any permitted ancillary service is ``jurisdictionally 
mixed'' and cannot be segregated between interstate and intrastate 
calls; and (3) any steps the Commission should take to ensure that 
providers of interstate inmate calling services do not circumvent or 
frustrate the Commission's ancillary service charge rules.
    23. In April 2020, inmate calling services providers submitted data 
pursuant to the Commission's annual reporting requirements and they did 
so using a revised annual reporting form and accompanying instructions. 
First, the Bureau made minor revisions to the form and instructions in 
light of the D.C. Circuit's vacatur of the Commission's annual 
reporting requirement for video visitation services offered by inmate 
calling services providers. The GTL court held that the video 
visitation services reporting requirement adopted in the 2015 ICS Order 
was ``too attenuated to the Commission's statutory authority to justify 
this requirement.'' Accordingly, the Bureau eliminated questions 
regarding video visitation from the annual reporting form.
    24. Second, the Bureau made additional revisions to the annual 
reporting form and instructions based on its experience in analyzing 
past annual reports and based on formal and informal input from inmate 
calling services providers, thereby making the annual reports easier to 
understand and analyze. Bureau and OEA staff used the April 2020 annual 
report responses to supplement their understanding of the Second 
Mandatory Data Collection responses.
    25. Commission staff also analyzed the intrastate rate data 
submitted as part of inmate calling services providers' most recent 
annual reports. Staff's analysis reveals that the vast majority of 
inmate calls--roughly 80%--are reported to be intrastate and that 
inmate calling services providers are charging egregiously high 
intrastate rates across the country. Intrastate rates for debit or 
prepaid calls substantially exceed interstate rates in 45 states, with 
33 states allowing rates that are at least double the Commission's cap 
and 27 states allowing excessive ``first-minute'' charges up to 26 
times that of the first minute of an interstate call. Indeed, while 
interstate rates for the first minute and all subsequent minutes may 
not exceed $0.25, inmate calling services providers' first-minute 
charges for intrastate calls may range from $1.65 to $6.50. For 
example, one provider reported the first-minute intrastate rate of 
$5.341 and the additional per-minute intrastate rate of $1.391 in 
Arkansas while reporting the per-minute interstate rate of $0.21 for 
the same correctional facility. Similarly, another provider reported 
the first-minute intrastate rate of $6.50 and the additional per-minute 
intrastate rate of $1.25 in Michigan while reporting the per-minute 
interstate rate of $0.25 for the same correctional facility. Further, 
Commission staff identified instances in which a 15-minute intrastate 
debit or prepaid call costs as much as $24.80--almost seven times more 
than the maximum $3.15 that an interstate call of the same duration 
would cost.

III. Report and Order on Remand

    26. In this Report and Order on Remand (Remand Order), the 
Commission responds to the D.C. Circuit's directive in GTL v. FCC that 
the Commission determine whether ancillary service charges can be 
segregated between interstate and intrastate inmate telephone service 
calls. The Commission also amends its rule regarding mandatory pass-
through

[[Page 67454]]

taxes and fees in light of the court's vacatur and remand in Securus v. 
FCC. Additionally, the Commission revises certain of its other inmate 
calling services rules to comport with the D.C. Circuit's decisions in 
those cases.

A. Ancillary Service Charges

    27. The Commission finds that ancillary service charges generally 
cannot be practically segregated between the interstate and intrastate 
jurisdiction except in the limited number of cases where, at the time a 
charge is imposed and the consumer accepts the charge, the call to 
which the service is ancillary is a clearly intrastate-only call. The 
record strongly supports this determination. As such, providers are 
generally prohibited from imposing any ancillary service charges in 
connection with inmate calling services other than those specified in 
the Commission's rules and providers are generally prohibited from 
imposing charges in excess of the Commission's applicable ancillary 
service fee caps.
1. The Extent of the Commission's Authority
    28. In creating a dual federal-state regulatory regime to govern 
interstate and intrastate communications services in sections 1 and 
2(b) of the Act, Congress ``attempt[ed] to divide the world of 
telephone regulation neatly into two separate components.'' However, 
``since most aspects of the communications field have overlapping 
interstate and intrastate components, these two sections do not create 
a simple division.'' Decades of precedent reconciling these statutory 
provisions recognizes that the Commission may regulate services having 
both interstate and intrastate components, referred to as 
``jurisdictionally mixed'' services, where it is impossible or 
impracticable to separate out their interstate and intrastate 
components.
    29. Courts have recognized that as ``a basic underpinning of our 
federal system . . . state regulation will be displaced to the extent 
that it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of 
the full purposes and objectives of Congress.'' Thus, although the 
Commission is ``generally forbidden from entering the field of 
intrastate communication service,'' courts have interpreted the Act and 
the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution to allow federal 
regulation of the intrastate portion of jurisdictionally mixed services 
in spite of section 2(b) where: ``(1) the matter to be regulated has 
both interstate and intrastate aspects; (2) FCC preemption [regulation] 
is necessary to protect a valid federal regulatory objective; and (3) 
state regulation would `negate[ ] the exercise by the FCC of its own 
lawful authority' because regulation of the interstate aspects of the 
matter cannot be `unbundled' from regulation of the intrastate 
aspects.'' When all three criteria are met, the Commission may regulate 
the jurisdictionally mixed service falling within the ``impossibility 
exception'' as jurisdictionally interstate.
    30. Stated differently, where the Commission has jurisdiction under 
section 201(b) of the Act to regulate rates, charges, and practices of 
interstate communications services, the impossibility exception extends 
that authority to the intrastate portion of jurisdictionally mixed 
services ``where it is impossible or impractical to separate the 
service's intrastate from interstate components'' and state regulation 
of the intrastate component would interfere with valid federal rules 
applicable to the interstate component. As the Vonage Order made clear, 
``we need not demonstrate absolute future impossibility to justify 
federal preemption here. The Commission need only show that interstate 
and intrastate aspects of a regulated service or facility are 
inseverable as a practical matter in light of prevailing technological 
and economic conditions.''
    31. The Bureau's public notice seeking to refresh the record sought 
comment on how the Commission should proceed in the event a permitted 
ancillary service is ``jurisdictionally mixed'' and cannot be 
segregated between interstate and intrastate calls. No commenter 
disputed the Commission's authority to regulate jurisdictionally mixed 
ancillary services charges that cannot be segregated. Where a consumer 
of inmate calling services would incur an ancillary service charge in 
connection with inmate telephone service and the charge is not clearly 
and entirely applicable to intrastate calling, the Commission applies 
the impossibility exception criteria to determine whether that 
ancillary service charge should be subject to its authority and rules. 
The Commission rejects one federal District Court's suggestion that GTL 
v. FCC held that the Commission may not cap ancillary fees ``except to 
the extent those for interstate calls `can be segregated' from 
intrastate calls.'' As Pay Tel points out, the District Court did ``not 
engage in the relevant preemption analysis--indeed not once [did] the 
decision even mention the term `mixed jurisdiction.' '' And no party 
argues that Mojica v. Securus provides the appropriate reading of GTL 
v. FCC. Given the long history of Supreme Court and federal appellate 
court precedent on jurisdictionally mixed services and the specific 
language of the D.C. Circuit in GTL v. FCC (which remanded the issue of 
``whether ancillary fees can be segregated between interstate and 
intrastate calls'' to the Commission ``for further consideration''), 
the Commission finds that the D.C. Circuit did not instruct the 
Commission on how it should proceed if it were impossible or 
impracticable to segregate some ancillary fees but instead left that 
question open for the Commission to resolve in the first instance.
2. Applying the Commission's Authority to Particular Ancillary Services
    32. Single-Call Service (and Related Service) Fees. Where no 
prepaid or debit inmate calling services account has been established, 
an incarcerated individual can make individual collect calls to family 
members or others. Third parties assess fees on a per-call basis to 
bill the called family member or other party for such calls. In 2015, 
the Commission adopted rules that would preclude inmate calling 
services providers from charging more than the exact fee the third-
party charges for these transactions, with no markup.
    33. Because single-call service is associated with a specific call, 
the Commission finds that the ancillary service can be jurisdictionally 
determined based on the classification--interstate or intrastate--of 
the underlying call. Single-call service (and related service) 
associated with an interstate call is subject to the Commission's 
ancillary service charge rules. Single-call service (and related 
service) associated with an intrastate call is beyond the reach of the 
Commission's regulations. In the 2015 ICS Order, the Commission held 
that ``for single call and related services, we permit ICS providers to 
charge the amount of the third-party financial transaction (with no 
markup) added to a per-minute rate no higher than the applicable rate 
cap.'' However, the D.C. Circuit stayed section 64.6020(b)(2) before 
that rule took effect. The D.C. Circuit in GTL remanded the 
``imposition of ancillary fee caps'' in the 2015 ICS Order without 
specifically addressing the effect of that remand on the single-call 
service rule or dissolving the court's earlier stay of that rule. The 
``no-mark-up'' portion of the single-call service rule never became 
effective. Because the D.C. Circuit remanded section 64.6020(b)(2) 
without vacating, finding fault, or otherwise addressing the no-markup 
clause, the Commission reinstates section 64.6020(b)(2) today for the 
same reasons it adopted this

[[Page 67455]]

prohibition in 2015. Nothing in the record of this proceeding since 
that time suggests the Commission should refrain from doing so, and 
hence it has good cause to reinstate section 64.6020(b)(2) without 
further notice and comment.
    34. Automated Payment Fees. Automated payments fund prepaid or 
debit accounts that can be used to pay for inmate calling services. 
Inmate calling services consumers typically make these payments to fund 
their accounts to pay for future calls to family or other loved ones 
and any associated ancillary services charge fees. These payments occur 
through multiple methods or types of transactions including ``credit 
card payment, debit card payment, and bill processing fees, including 
fees for payments by interactive voice response[ ], web, or kiosk.'' 
They are also made to pay inmate calling service bills for calls that 
have already been made. The Commission limits these fees to a maximum 
of ``$3.00 per use,'' based on its prior finding that a $3.00 cap would 
``more than ensure[ ] that ICS providers [could] recoup the costs of 
offering these services.''
    35. Because a prepaid or debit account can generally be used to 
make both interstate and intrastate calls, automated payment fees are 
generally jurisdictionally mixed and subject to the Commission's 
ancillary service charge rules. For example, accounts that allow the 
dialing of any mobile telephone number (such as one assigned by a 
mobile wireless provider or a nomadic interconnected voice over 
internet Protocol (VoIP) provider) are inherently jurisdictionally 
mixed because the called party need not be located in the same state as 
the incarcerated individual at the time of a call. This is true even if 
the called party's residence, as commenters point out, is in the same 
state as the correctional facility. And it is true even if the area 
code and NXX prefix of the called party's telephone number are 
associated with the state of the correctional facility. Similarly, if 
the account only allows a certain number of non-mobile numbers to be 
called, such an account is jurisdictionally mixed if any one of those 
numbers is assigned to a fixed location in a different state. The 
Commission uses a fixed landline telephone number in its example here 
but recognizes that fixed wireless technology may also have the same 
``fixed'' location characteristics as fixed wireline service and thus 
the same jurisdictional analysis would apply. Indeed, accounts where an 
incarcerated individual may make a call to any telephone number or add 
a telephone number to the list of authorized numbers (even if that 
telephone number must go through a screening process before it is 
authorized) may be inherently jurisdictionally mixed. Because automated 
payments typically are made to fund accounts before calls are completed 
or fees are incurred, the record suggests that it may be impractical, 
if not impossible, to connect these payments to any specific subsequent 
calls made. When automated payments cannot be segregated by 
jurisdiction, they are subject to the Commission's ancillary service 
charge rules.
    36. The Commission recognizes, however, that automated payments are 
sometimes made to pay inmate calling service bills after calls have 
already been made. In that circumstance, an inmate calling services 
provider could potentially confirm that not one call with an 
outstanding balance was made that crossed state lines and thus that the 
service charge would be ancillary only to intrastate inmate calling 
services. Because the Commission must respect the boundary on its 
jurisdiction drawn by Congress, it cannot impose its automated payment 
fee cap in such circumstances.
    37. The Commission rejects Securus' claim that ``since the 
jurisdiction of any given payment transaction depends on the specific 
circumstances surrounding the transaction, Securus does not believe 
that the Commission can reach any conclusion regarding the application 
of these [Automated Payment Fee] caps as a generic matter.'' It is 
precisely because providers generally impose (and consumers are 
charged) these fees before it is possible to determine whether such 
payments are ancillary to interstate or intrastate calls that precedent 
dictates that the Commission find these automated payments to be 
jurisdictionally mixed--and thus application of the Commission's rule 
to all such transactions is necessary to protect interstate callers.
    38. Third-Party Financial Transaction Fees. Consumers often make 
use of third parties, such as Western Union or MoneyGram, to transfer 
money or process financial transactions that enable these consumers to 
make payments to inmate calling services accounts. These third parties 
charge fees to inmate calling services providers, which the providers 
then pass on to consumers. The Commission's ancillary services charges 
rules limit the amount of third-party fees that an inmate calling 
services provider can pass on to consumers to the exact third-party 
fees, with no markup.
    39. As with automated payments, because third-party financial 
transactions typically fund accounts before calls are placed or 
associated fees are incurred, it is generally impossible to know 
whether the fees will be applied to interstate calls, intrastate calls, 
or a mix of the two. Therefore, third-party financial transactions are 
generally jurisdictionally mixed and subject to the Commission's 
ancillary service charge rules in the same way as automated payments. 
The Commission declines in this Order to consider NCIC's suggestion 
that it further cap third-party processing fees. Setting aside whether 
the Commission would have the authority to prohibit an inmate calling 
services provider from passing along the costs itself incurs for 
conducting a service on a consumer's behalf, NCIC's suggestion is 
beyond the scope of the remand in this proceeding.
    40. To the extent Securus suggests that third-party financial 
transactions ``raise no jurisdictional dispute,'' the Commission agrees 
so long as such a transaction is tied to a particular jurisdictionally 
identifiable call--which, as with automated payments, the Commission 
would expect would only occur if the fee is imposed after calls have 
been made. And such an inquiry would only matter where the inmate 
calling services provider can confirm that no call with an outstanding 
balance was interstate or international--otherwise, the only way to 
protect the interstate caller from unjust and unreasonable fees is to 
apply the Commission's ancillary service charge rules to the entire 
third-party financial transaction.
    41. Live Agent Fees. Consumers may optionally use live operators to 
complete a range of inmate calling services-related tasks, including 
setting up an account, adding money to an account, or assisting with 
making a call. In practice, multiple transactions can be, and often 
are, made via a single live operator interaction, which the Commission 
caps at $5.95 per interaction, regardless of the number of tasks the 
live operator completes in a single session.
    42. As with automated payments and third-party financial 
transactions, because live agents are often used to set up accounts or 
add money to accounts before any call is made, live agent services are 
generally jurisdictionally mixed and subject to the Commission's 
ancillary service charge rules. In contrast, to the extent a live agent 
is used to place a particular call, then that service can be 
jurisdictionally determined by the classification of the call, just as 
single-call services are. And

[[Page 67456]]

to the extent a live agent is used after calls have been made to, for 
example, pay a bill, then the Commission's ancillary service charge 
rules apply unless every call with an outstanding balance can be 
determined to be intrastate. Similarly, to the extent a live agent 
session is used to complete multiple tasks, the Commission finds that 
service is jurisdictionally mixed (and thus subject to its ancillary 
service charge rules) unless the inmate calling services provider can 
demonstrate that each action taken by the live agent was ancillary only 
to an intrastate telephone service.
    43. The Commission rejects Securus' claim that because Live Agent 
fees are based on multiple different types of transactions, it cannot 
reach a conclusion as to whether or not the Commission's ancillary 
service charge rule applies. Again, the Commission can reach a 
conclusion here precisely because it has found that live agent services 
can, and do, involve both interstate and intrastate tasks within a 
single transaction session. As a result, failing to treat live agent 
services as generally jurisdictionally mixed would conflict with the 
federal law requiring these fees to be just and reasonable for all 
interstate callers.
    44. Paper Bill Fees. Inmate calling services consumers have the 
option to obtain paper bills or statements reflecting all charges that 
occurred during a billing cycle, including those related to calls and 
ancillary service charges. The Commission has capped fees for paper 
bills at $2.00 per statement.
    45. Because the creation of a paper bill occurs only after calls 
have been made, it may be possible to jurisdictionally segregate this 
service. Generally, the Commission would expect such bills to be 
jurisdictionally mixed as incarcerated people may make calls to those 
both in and outside of the state of the correctional facility--and thus 
subject to its ancillary service charge rules. However, if an inmate 
calling services provider can confirm that no call on the bill is 
interstate or international, then the paper bill service would only be 
ancillary to intrastate calls and beyond the reach of the Commission's 
rules.
3. Related Issues
    46. Effect on State Regulation. As in prior cases, the Commission 
exercises its authority under the Supremacy Clause to preempt state 
regulation of jurisdictionally mixed services to the extent that such 
regulation conflicts with federal law. The Commission's rules apply to 
all ancillary service charges imposed for and in connection with 
interstate inmate calling services. To the extent those charges relate 
to accounts or transactions having interstate as well as intrastate 
components, the federal requirements will operate as ceilings limiting 
potential state action. To the extent a state allows or requires an 
inmate calling services provider to impose fees for ancillary services 
other than those permitted by the Commission's rules, or to charge fees 
higher than the caps imposed by the Commission's rules, that state law 
or requirement is preempted except where such ancillary services are 
provided only in connection with intrastate inmate calling services. In 
contrast, to the extent a state allows or requires an inmate calling 
services provider to impose fees lower than those contained in the 
Commission's rules, that state law or requirement is not preempted by 
the Commission's action here.
    47. Attempts to Exploit the Dual Regulatory Environment and Evade 
the Commission's Rules. The Commission shares the concern of commenters 
that inmate calling services providers may undermine or negate its caps 
on ancillary service charges for interstate inmate calling services 
(and, in turn, its interstate rate caps) by departing from their 
current business practices and taking new steps to segregate interstate 
and intrastate activity. For example, commenters point out that 
providers may newly decide to create separate paper bills for 
intrastate and interstate services in order to evade the Commission's 
cap on paper bill fees. The Commission recognizes, in view of the D.C. 
Circuit's decision in GTL, that the Commission lacks authority to limit 
the fees providers assess for purely intrastate activity. But it is 
within the Commission's authority to ensure that fees for interstate 
activity are just and reasonable. And because providers have not 
historically distinguished between interstate and intrastate ancillary 
service charges, the Commission anticipates that the costs associated 
with providing jurisdictionally separate ancillary services, should 
providers seek to do so in the future, would often or always be 
``common'' to both the interstate and intrastate service. It would 
frustrate the Commission's efforts to ensure that charges for 
interstate ancillary services are just and reasonable if providers 
could recover, through their interstate ancillary service charges, 
costs that should be allocated to a parallel intrastate ancillary 
service, or that providers have already recovered through their 
intrastate ancillary service charges.
    48. To ensure that providers do not negate the effectiveness of the 
Commission's caps on interstate ancillary service charges in this 
manner, the Commission determines that if a provider takes new steps to 
segregate interstate and intrastate activity (for example, by providing 
separate paper bills for interstate and intrastate inmate calling 
services, and assessing separate ancillary service charges for those 
bills), the Commission will presumptively consider such actions as 
unjust and unreasonable practices that are prohibited under federal 
law. The Commission directs the Wireline Competition Bureau and the 
Enforcement Bureau to take appropriate action should they become aware 
of such actions. Any inmate calling services provider that takes such 
actions should be prepared to demonstrate to the Commission that its 
affected interstate ancillary service charges are just and reasonable, 
including that the affected charges do not recover jurisdictionally 
common costs that are already, or should properly be, recovered through 
the provider's corresponding intrastate ancillary service charges.
    49. Relatedly, the Commission cautions providers that they are 
prohibited, either directly or indirectly, from imposing ancillary 
service charges falling outside the five categories of charges 
permissible under its rules, and that they are prohibited from 
collecting, directly or indirectly, amounts that exceed the ancillary 
service fee caps set forth in its rules. The Commission further 
cautions that it intends to exercise the full breadth of the agency's 
jurisdiction to curb attempts to evade its rate cap and ancillary 
service charge rules through arrangements with third parties. For 
example, one commenter has suggested that other providers may have 
entered into arrangements with a third party in connection with single-
call service transactions whereby excessive one-time transaction fees 
associated with these calls are imposed, passed on without markup to 
the consumer of the inmate calling service, and then the revenue 
obtained from the consumer is shared by the service provider and the 
third party. Evidence of arrangements such as this that appear to 
result in the service provider indirectly marking up the third-party 
transaction fee in circumvention of the Commission's rules is subject 
to immediate referral to the Enforcement Bureau for investigation.
    50. Similarly, inmate calling services providers are required to 
certify

[[Page 67457]]

annually that the information in their Annual Reports, including the 
information on their ancillary services fees, is ``true and accurate'' 
and that they are in compliance with the Commission's inmate calling 
services rules. The Commission will not hesitate to take action to 
ensure full compliance with its ancillary services fee caps and other 
inmate calling services rules. To that end, the Commission directs the 
Enforcement Bureau to issue an Enforcement Advisory, within 60 days of 
the effective date of this Order, reminding inmate calling services 
providers of their obligations under the Commission's rules, their duty 
of candor in connection with their interactions with the Commission, 
and the potential penalties for noncompliance.
    51. Classifying Calls by Jurisdiction. There is significant debate 
within the record on whether it is possible for inmate calling services 
providers to classify the jurisdiction of certain calls and thus the 
jurisdiction of the services ancillary to such calls. On the one hand, 
GTL argues that the ``jurisdictional nature of calls themselves is 
easily classified as either interstate or intrastate based on the 
call's points of origin and termination,'' and Securus asserts that an 
inmate calling services provider knows the jurisdiction of a call 
because it is ``from a known originating telephone number to a single, 
known terminating number.'' On the other hand, Pay Tel argues that the 
Commission should generally treat inmate calling services as 
jurisdictionally mixed across the board because providers cannot 
practically and reliably determine the location of each called party.
    52. This confusion calls for some clarification. First, the 
Commission reminds providers that the jurisdictional nature of a call 
depends on the physical location of the endpoints of the call and not 
on whether the area code or NXX prefix of the telephone number, or the 
billing address of the credit card associated with the account, are 
associated with a particular state. In other words, certain providers 
are incorrect to argue that comparing the incarcerated person's local 
access and transport area and phone number with the account holder's 
will let an inmate calling services provider identify whether a call or 
account is interstate or intrastate. Although that may be true for 
legacy wireline networks, more modern networks such as wireless 
networks and interconnected VoIP networks allow the portability of such 
numbers across state lines. And given the prevalence of such networks 
and the increasing reliance on mobile wireless and VoIP services, it 
would be unreasonable for an inmate calling services provider to rely 
on a telephone number alone to determine the location of a particular 
called party. Today, a phone number provides little indication of the 
physical location of a called party or a calling party. Telephone 
numbers have been readily ported between wireline providers, and 
between wireline and wireless service providers, since at least 2003. 
And VoIP providers have been porting numbers since at least 2008. Thus, 
a telephone number only identifies the state and rate center where the 
number was originally assigned, and not where it is currently assigned. 
Moreover, because a wireless telephone user may make or receive a call 
anywhere there is wireless reception, their phone number readily may 
not indicate their location. And the chance of a phone number being one 
that is used by a mobile phone is high: The telephone numbers used by 
mobile phones make up about half of all assigned telephone numbers. 
Second, the Commission disagrees with Pay Tel's argument that the 
location of a wireless caller is unknowable. As Securus points out, 
``wireless carriers can determine the locations of their customers at 
the time of each call, so it is possible to establish the jurisdiction 
of each individual call.'' Third, the Commission recognizes that just 
because some provider can establish the location of a caller (and thus 
the jurisdiction of a call) does not mean that every inmate calling 
services provider can or does do so. As such the Commission agrees with 
Pay Tel that, to the extent an inmate calling services provider cannot 
definitively establish the jurisdiction of a call, it may and should 
treat the call as jurisdictionally mixed and thus subject to the 
Commission's ancillary service charge rules. Such treatment is 
necessary to carry out the requirement of the Communications Act that 
all interstate charges and practices be just and reasonable. Or to put 
it another way, any other treatment of jurisdictionally indeterminate 
calls would strip interstate callers of the protections guaranteed by 
federal law.
    53. GTL and Securus take issue with the Commission's jurisdictional 
approach, arguing that it is inconsistent with Commission and provider 
practices for determining the jurisdictional nature of calls. These 
providers misread Commission precedent, however. While the Commission 
has allowed carriers to use proxies for determining the jurisdictional 
nature of calls in specific contexts, typically related to carrier-to-
carrier matters or payment of fees owed, it has never adopted a general 
policy allowing the broad use of such proxies outside of specific facts 
and circumstances which are not applicable here. Indeed, the Commission 
has never applied proxies to telecommunications resellers generally, or 
inmate calling services providers specifically, with respect to 
assessing different interstate and intrastate rates and charges on 
their customers for those customers' interstate and intrastate 
telephone calls. Indeed, the examples that GTL and Securus provide 
relate specifically to carrier-to-carrier arrangements involving 
intercarrier compensation or applicable federal fees due between 
carriers and the Commission, not to using a proxy for charging a 
customer a higher or different rate than it would otherwise be subject 
to based on whether the customer's call is interstate or intrastate.
    54. The Commission is also unpersuaded by the ``precedent'' cited 
by GTL and Securus. Much of what those parties cite is drawn from 
Notices of Proposed Rulemaking. Even insofar as those Notices include 
observations about historical industry practice as context for those 
requests for comment, the Notices do not establish actual Commission 
policy. Nor is the Commission persuaded by their citation of a 2002 
Bureau-level Order resolving an interconnection arbitration. That 
Bureau decision involved baseball-style arbitration, and an arbitrator 
concluded that those parties could use NPA-NXX codes for purposes of 
determining whether calls were local or toll. That conclusion was a 
function of the limits of the carriers' respective proposals there--
nothing in that case made the use of NPA-NXX codes applicable to the 
entire industry. Moreover, this 18 year-old decision did not involve 
carriers terminating calls to VoIP and mobile wireless telephone 
numbers, which is the Commission's concern here. The industry is very 
different today than it was in 2002 and the rules applicable to 
numbering resources have changed substantially, calling into question 
whether that arbitrator would have reached the same conclusion today 
with respect to reliance on NPA-NXX codes. In still other cases, GTL 
cites state commission decisions or an industry white paper, which 
likewise do not demonstrate Commission policy. Thus, these filings by 
GTL and Securus do not demonstrate any actual Commission policy for the 
industry from which the Commission would be departing here.
    55. Independently, the Commission Notices and Bureau Order cited by 
GTL

[[Page 67458]]

and Securus involve materially different policy contexts. In 
particular, they generally involve scenarios where the Commission is 
seeking to ensure a reasonable aggregate outcome across a mass of 
transactions. This is the case under the telecommunications relay 
service (TRS) program, where a single entity--the Commission--is 
providing all of the compensation that providers receive from the 
interstate TRS Fund. To the extent that interstate vs. intrastate 
distinctions arise in that context, the Commission must ensure a 
reasonable approach across the aggregation of TRS calls handled by each 
provider rather than necessarily requiring jurisdictional accuracy on a 
call-by-call basis. This also is the case with intercarrier 
compensation, for example, where carriers exchange large volumes of 
calls and the jurisdictional status of any individual call is less 
important for intercarrier compensation purposes than ensuring that, in 
the aggregate, the payments carriers exchange reflect a reasonable 
accounting of the relative portion of that mass of calls that are 
interstate vs. intrastate. Furthermore, under the framework of sections 
251 and 252 of the Act, Commission rules merely establish a default, 
with individual carriers free to negotiate alternative approaches. In 
that context, Congress thus anticipated that regulators generally would 
defer to industry-derived outcomes where they emerged. The situation 
here is quite different, however. Currently, charges for inmate calling 
services calls are imposed on a call-by-call basis. As a result, to 
ensure the rate caps serve their purpose of ensuring just and 
reasonable rates for interstate services, those protections must apply 
on a call-by-call basis. Even assuming arguendo that proxies could be 
identified that would yield an approximately accurate differentiation 
between interstate and intrastate traffic when viewed across the entire 
aggregation of a providers' calls, that would be cold comfort to the 
end-user consumers. Nor, in any case, does the record reveal proxies 
that would be reasonable even if it made sense to focus on aggregate 
outcomes. For example, the record does not reveal why proxies or the 
like that industry might have used in the context of traditional 
telephone calls would make sense in the inmate calling services context 
given potential differences in the types of calls that are placed, 
potential differences in frequency and duration of calls, or other 
possible considerations. At the same time, relying on proxies such as 
telephone numbers could be self-defeating, since consumers could 
purchase wireless phones from a different state (with a number from 
that state) and then place calls from within the same state as the 
inmate in order to gain the protections of the interstate inmate 
calling services rules. Such activities would impose their own costs 
and could lead to disparate application of the protections of the 
interstate inmate calling services rules based on the relative 
sophistication of the particular consumers receiving calls from 
inmates. The Commission finds all these concerns persuasive both in 
connection with its inmate calling services rate caps and in connection 
with its regulation of fees for ancillary services. Those consumers 
would lose the protection of the Commission's rate caps for particular 
calls that are, in fact, interstate calls because per-call regulation 
turned on proxies developed in the context of aggregations of calls 
with no guarantee--or necessarily even likelihood--of seeing offsetting 
benefits in the case of other inmate calling services calls they make 
or receive. Likewise, when it comes to fees for jurisdictionally mixed 
ancillary services, the Commission merely seeks to vindicate its 
statutory interests whenever interstate inmate calling services are 
implicated. Indeed, in the Vonage Order cited by GTL, the Commission 
responded to the difficulty in directly determining the jurisdiction of 
calls by broadly preempting the state's attempted regulation of the 
service at issue. Thus, although the Commission leaves providers free 
to follow state law where the associated effects can be limited to 
intrastate inmate calling services, the record here does not persuade 
it to neglect its interest when there is an effect on interstate 
services even if it falls below some (undefined) threshold.
    56. Additionally, the end-to-end analysis that the Commission 
relies upon in this Order is the analysis that the Commission ``has 
traditionally used to the determine whether a call is within its 
interstate jurisdiction.'' The Commission has not extended to inmate 
calling services any of the jurisdictional proxies it has adopted for 
specific and limited purposes in other contexts, nor has it ever had 
any reason to suspect that inmate calling services providers were not 
appropriately complying with this most basic regulatory obligation of 
telecommunications services providers with respect to their customers--
determining the proper jurisdiction of a call when charging its 
customers the correct and lawful rates for those calls using the end-
to-end analysis. The Commission therefore disagrees with GTL and 
Securus that its approach is a departure from established precedent and 
imposes a ``burden'' on them.
    57. For the same reasons, the Commission also disagrees with GTL 
and Securus that requiring inmate calling services providers to 
classify incarcerated people's calls as interstate or intrastate based 
on their end points constitutes a change in Commission policy requiring 
prior notice and an opportunity to comment. On the contrary, the 
Commission's approach simply clarifies the long-established standard 
that inmate calling services providers must apply in classifying calls 
for purposes of charging customers the appropriate rates and charges. 
And, in any event, the Bureau's public notice seeking to refresh the 
record on ancillary service charges in light of GTL v. FCC sought 
comment ``on how the Commission should proceed in the event any 
permitted ancillary service is `jurisdictionally mixed' and cannot be 
segregated between interstate and intrastate call'' and defined 
jurisdictionally mixed services as ``[s]ervices that are capable of 
communications both between intrastate end points and between 
interstate end points.'' Since the permitted ancillary services include 
single-call services (i.e., services related to a specific call), GTL 
and Securus received notice of, and a full opportunity to comment on, 
the jurisdictional status of inmate calling services calls.
    58. Ancillary Service Charges Rule Revisions. The Commission 
revises its ancillary services charge rules consistent with its 
findings herein. These amendments reflect the D.C. Circuit's holding 
that the Commission lacks authority over intrastate inmate calling 
services as well as the Commission's actions exercising its authority 
to ensure just and reasonable rates under section 201(b) for ancillary 
services charges for and in connection with jurisdictionally mixed 
inmate calling services for which it is impossible or impracticable to 
segregate the interstate and intrastate components.
    59. The Commission also changes section 64.6020(a)'s cross-
reference to section 64.6000 to more precisely cross-reference section 
64.6000(a). The Commission finds good cause to correct the cross-
reference without notice and comment because this change is non-
substantive. It is well established that the Commission need not seek 
comment on amendments to its rules designed ``to ensure consistency in 
terminology and cross references across various rules or to correct 
inadvertent failures to make

[[Page 67459]]

conforming changes when prior rule amendments occurred.'' In the 
absence of any indication of changed circumstances regarding the markup 
of Mandatory Taxes or Mandatory Fees, the Commission finds it 
unnecessary to seek additional comment on these matters.

B. Mandatory Pass-Through Taxes and Fees

    60. As a result of the D.C. Circuit's decision in Securus, the rule 
amendments in the 2016 ICS Reconsideration Order to include language 
precluding markups of a ``Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee'' in the 
absence of specific governmental authorization were vacated to the 
extent they capped rates. The Commission therefore amends its rules to 
reinstate the language added in the 2016 ICS Reconsideration Order in 
response to the court's vacatur and remand. The Commission also adds 
language clarifying that this rule applies only in connection with 
interstate and international inmate calls. This amendment will ensure 
that end users will pay for ``the cost of the service they have chosen 
and any applicable taxes or fees, and nothing more'' for inmate calling 
services subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, thereby helping 
ensure that the charges imposed in connection with those services are 
just and reasonable.
    61. The amendment is consistent with the Commission's prior intent 
regarding mandatory taxes or fees and the record previously developed 
in this proceeding. The Commission bases its reinstatement on the same 
record, and finds no basis to depart from its prior determination that 
adopting this rule best comports with its application of section 
201(b). Further, this amendment harmonizes the rules regarding a 
``Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee'' and an ``Authorized Fee'' to 
prohibit markups on either category of charges, thereby eliminating at 
least some potential confusion from the disparate definitions regarding 
whether inmate calling services providers may mark up such charges.

C. Revisions to Certain Inmate Calling Services Rules

    62. Finally, the Commission revises certain of its rules governing 
inmate calling services to comport with the D.C. Circuit's decisions in 
GTL and Securus. First, the court vacated the rate caps that the 
Commission adopted in the 2015 ICS Order and the 2016 ICS 
Reconsideration Order, and the Commission thus eliminates section 
64.6010, which contained those rate caps. Second, the GTL court vacated 
the reporting requirement the Commission had adopted for video 
visitation services. The Commission thus eliminates section 
64.6060(a)(4), which contained that rule. Third, the GTL court found 
that the Commission lacks ratemaking authority over intrastate inmate 
calling services rates. The Commission thus revises sections 
64.6000(b), 64.6000(n), 64.6030, 64.6050, 64.6070, 64.6080, 64.6090, 
and 64.6100 to reflect that these rules only apply to interstate and 
international inmate calling services. Fourth, the Commission revises 
section 64.6000(t) of its rules to change the reference to ``ICS'' 
therein to ``Inmate Calling Services.''
    63. The Commission finds good cause to implement these revisions 
without notice and comment. The Administrative Procedure Act states 
that notice and comment procedures do not apply ``when the agency for 
good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of 
the reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public 
procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the 
public interest.'' With the exception of its change to section 
64.6000(t), the Commission's revisions are non-discretionary changes to 
the Commission's rules necessary to effectuate the D.C. Circuit's 
decisions in GTL and Securus. Seeking notice and comment before 
implementing the D.C. Circuit's non-discretionary mandate would serve 
no purpose because commenters could not say anything during a notice 
and comment period that would change the D.C. Circuit's decision and 
the Commission does not have discretion to depart from the court's 
mandate.
    64. The Commission also finds good cause to revise section 
64.6000(t) without notice and comment because this change is non-
substantive. The Commission need not seek comment on amendments to its 
rules designed ``to ensure consistency in terminology and cross 
references across various rules or to correct inadvertent failures to 
make conforming changes when prior rule amendments occurred.

IV. Procedural Matters

    65. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
    66. Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and 
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management Budget concurs, that this rule is non-major under 
the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send 
a copy of this Report and Order on Remand to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    67. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. As 
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, 
the Commission has prepared a Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) relating to this Report and Order on Remand. The FRFA 
is set forth below.
    68. Paperwork Reduction Act. This Report and Order on Remand does 
not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In addition, therefore, 
it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to 
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (SBPRA).

V. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    69. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the 2014 ICS Notice. The Commission sought written 
public comment on the proposals in that Notice, including comment on 
the IRFA. The Commission did not receive comments directed toward the 
IRFA. Thereafter, the Commission issued a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) conforming to the RFA. This Supplemental FRFA 
supplements that FRFA to reflect the actions taken in the Report and 
Order on Remand (Remand Order) and conforms to the RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Order on Remand

    70. The Remand Order adopts rules segregating ancillary service 
charges provided in connection with inmate calling services into 
interstate and intrastate components in response to a remand from the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(D.C. Circuit). It also amends the Commission's rule regarding 
mandatory pass-through taxes and fees in light of a second remand from 
the D.C. Circuit. Finally, it revises certain of the Commission's other 
inmate calling services rules to comport with the D.C. Circuit's 
decisions in those cases, and reinstates the Commission's rule

[[Page 67460]]

providing an ancillary service charge cap for single-call services.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    71. The Commission did not receive comments specifically addressing 
the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    72. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the 
proposed rules in this proceeding.

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
Rules Will Apply

    73. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, 
where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may 
be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the 
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).
    74. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of 
approximately 27.9 million small businesses, according to the SBA.
    75. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a 
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, 
which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 3,188 firms in 
this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 
3,144 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 44 firms had 
employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this size standard, 
the majority of firms can be considered small.
    76. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable size 
standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported 
that they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of these 
1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 
301 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that most providers of local exchange service are small 
entities that may be affected by the Commission's action.
    77. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (incumbent LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small 
businesses specifically applicable to incumbent local exchange 
services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to 
Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported that they were incumbent local 
exchange service providers. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent 
local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by the 
Commission's action.
    78. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this 
present RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the 
RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size 
standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or 
fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' 
The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small 
incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any 
such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. The Commission has 
therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although 
it emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses 
and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    79. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (competitive LECs), 
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these 
service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for 
the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services 
or competitive access provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an 
estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have more than 
1,500 employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are 
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 
or fewer employees. In addition, 72 carriers have reported that they 
are Other Local Service Providers. Of the 72, 70 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange 
service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers are small entities that may be 
affected by the Commission's action.
    80. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to interexchange services. The closest applicable size 
standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. According to Commission data, 359 companies reported 
that their primary telecommunications service activity was the 
provision of interexchange services. Of these 359 companies, an 
estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 42 have more than 1,500 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
interexchange service providers are small entities that may be affected 
by the Commission's action.
    81. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that 
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported 
that they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of 
these, an estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more 
than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of local resellers are small entities that may be affected by 
the Commission's action.
    82. Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that 
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported 
that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of 
these, an estimated 857

[[Page 67461]]

have 1,500 or fewer employees and 24 have more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll 
resellers are small entities that may be affected by the Commission's 
action.
    83. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable 
to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do 
not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator 
service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service 
carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under 
SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Commission data, 284 companies reported that their primary 
telecommunications service activity was the provision of other toll 
carriage. Of these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 
five have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities that may be 
affected by the Commission's action.
    84. Payphone Service Providers (PSPs). Neither the Commission nor 
the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
payphone services providers, a group that includes inmate calling 
services providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is 
for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Commission data, 535 carriers have reported that they are 
engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these, an estimated 
531 have 1,500 or fewer employees and four have more than 1,500 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
payphone service providers are small entities that may be affected by 
the Commission's action.

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    85. Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Certification. The Order on 
Remand requires inmate calling services providers to properly identify 
whether ancillary services associated with inmate calling services are 
interstate, intrastate, or jurisdictionally mixed. To the extent those 
ancillary services are interstate or jurisdictionally mixed, the 
provider must comply with fee caps or limits previously adopted by the 
Commission. The Remand Order also requires inmate calling services 
providers to not mark up mandatory taxes or fees passed on to consumers 
of interstate or international inmate calling services, and places an 
ancillary service charge cap on single-call services.

F. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    86. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    87. The FRFA that the Commission previously issued in connection 
with the 2015 ICS Order addressed in full the steps taken to minimize 
the economic impact or small entities and the significant alternatives 
considered.

G. Report to Congress

    88. The Commission will send a copy of the Remand Order, including 
this Supplemental FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In 
addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Remand Order, 
including this Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Remand Order and 
Supplemental FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the 
Federal Register.

VI. Ordering Clauses

    89. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(j), 201(b), 218, 220, 276, and 403 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-
(j), 201(b), 218, 220, 276, and 403, this Report and Order on Remand is 
adopted.
    90. It is further ordered, pursuant to the authority contained in 
sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(j), 201(b), 218, 220, 276, and 403 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 
201(b), 218, 220, 276, and 403, that the amendments to the Commission's 
rules are adopted, effective 30 days after publication of a summary in 
the Federal Register.
    91. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Report and Order on Remand, including the Supplemental 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    92. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Report and Order on Remand, including the Supplemental 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Communications common carriers, Individuals with disabilities, 
Prisons, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, 
Telephone, Waivers.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends part 64, of title 47 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations 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. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 
222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 262, 276, 
403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted; Pub. 
L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.


0
2. Amend Sec.  64.6000 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (n), and (t) 
and by adding paragraph (u) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6000  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (a) Ancillary Service Charge means any charge Consumers may be 
assessed for, or in connection with, the interstate or international 
use of Inmate Calling Services that are not included in the per-minute 
charges assessed for such individual calls. Ancillary Service Charges 
that may be assessed are limited only to those listed in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (5) of this section. All other Ancillary Service Charges 
are

[[Page 67462]]

prohibited. For purposes of this definition, ``interstate'' includes 
any Jurisdictionally Mixed Charge, as defined in paragraph (u) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (b) Authorized Fee means a government authorized, but 
discretionary, fee which a Provider must remit to a federal, state, or 
local government, and which a Provider is permitted, but not required, 
to pass through to Consumers for or in connection with interstate or 
international Inmate Calling Service. An Authorized Fee may not include 
a markup, unless the markup is specifically authorized by a federal, 
state, or local statute, rule, or regulation.
* * * * *
    (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 for, or in connection with, interstate or 
international Inmate Calling Services may not include a markup, unless 
the markup is specifically authorized by a federal, state, or local 
statute, rule, or regulation;
* * * * *
    (t) Site Commission means any form of monetary payment, in-kind 
payment, gift, exchange of services or goods, fee, technology 
allowance, or product that a Provider of Inmate Calling Services or 
affiliate of a Provider of Inmate Calling Services may pay, give, 
donate, or otherwise provide to an entity that operates a correctional 
institution, an entity with which the Provider of Inmate Calling 
Services enters into an agreement to provide Inmate Calling Services, a 
governmental agency that oversees a correctional facility, the city, 
county, or state where a facility is located, or an agent of any such 
facility.
    (u) Jurisdictionally Mixed Charge means any charge Consumers may be 
assessed for use of Inmate Calling Services that are not included in 
the per-minute charges assessed for individual calls and that are 
assessed for, or in connection with, uses of Inmate Calling Service to 
make such calls that have interstate or international components and 
intrastate components that are unable to be segregated at the time the 
charge is incurred.


Sec.  64.6010  [Removed and Reserved]

0
3. Remove and reserve Sec.  64.6010.

0
4. Section 64.6020(a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6020  Ancillary Service Charge.

    (a) No Provider of interstate or international Inmate Calling 
Services shall charge an Ancillary Service Charge other than those 
permitted charges listed in Sec.  64.6000(a).
* * * * *

0
5. Section 64.6030 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6030  Inmate Calling Services interim rate cap.

    No provider shall charge a rate for interstate Collect Calling in 
excess of $0.25 per minute, or a rate for interstate Debit Calling, 
Prepaid Calling, or Prepaid Collect Calling in excess of $0.21 per 
minute. These interim rate caps shall remain in effect until permanent 
rate caps are adopted and take effect.

0
6. Section 64.6050 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6050  Billing-related call blocking.

    No Provider shall prohibit or prevent completion of an interstate 
or international Collect Calling call or decline to establish or 
otherwise degrade interstate or international Collect Calling solely 
for the reason that it lacks a billing relationship with the called 
party's communications service provider, unless the Provider offers 
Debit Calling, Prepaid Calling, or Prepaid Collect Calling for 
interstate and international calls.


Sec.  64.6060  [Amended]

0
7. In Sec.  64.6060, remove and reserve paragraph (a)(4).

0
8. Section 64.6070 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6070  Taxes and fees.

    No Provider shall charge any taxes or fees to users of Inmate 
Calling Services for, or in connection with, interstate or 
international calls, other than those permitted under Sec.  64.6020, 
and those defined as Mandatory Taxes, Mandatory Fees, or Authorized 
Fees.

0
9. Section 64.6080 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6080  Per-Call or Per-Connection Charges.

    No Provider shall impose a Per-Call or Per-Connection Charge on a 
Consumer for any interstate or international calls.

0
10. Section 64.6090 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6090  Flat-Rate Calling.

    No Provider shall offer Flat-Rate Calling for interstate or 
international Inmate Calling Services.

0
11. Section 64.6100 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6100  Minimum and maximum Prepaid Calling account balances.

    (a) No Provider shall institute a minimum balance requirement for a 
Consumer to use Debit or Prepaid Calling for interstate or 
international calls.
    (b) No Provider shall prohibit a consumer from depositing at least 
$50 per transaction to fund a Debit or Prepaid Calling account that can 
be used for interstate or international calls.

[FR Doc. 2020-19951 Filed 10-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P