Third Mandatory Data Collection for Inmate Calling Services, 54897-54903 [2021-21781]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 5, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54897-54903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21781]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[WC Docket No. 12-375, DA 21-1192, FRID 51251]


Third Mandatory Data Collection for Inmate Calling Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Solicitation of comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Wireline Competition Bureau and the Office of Economics 
and Analytics (WCB/OEA) seek comment on the contours and specific 
requirements of the forthcoming Third Mandatory Data Collection for 
inmate calling services. WCB/OEA have drafted proposed instructions, a 
template, and a certification form for the Third Mandatory Data 
Collection. WCB/OEA seek comment on all aspects of these documents.

DATES: Comments are due November 4, 2021. Reply Comments are due 
November 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20554.

[[Page 54898]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Morehead, Pricing Policy 
Division of the Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-0696 or via 
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of a document that the 
Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau 
released on September 22, 2021. A full-text version of the document is 
available at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-1192A1.pdf.

I. Introduction and Background

    By this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) and the 
Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA) (collectively, WCB/OEA) seek 
comment on the contours and specific requirements of the forthcoming 
Third Mandatory Data Collection for inmate calling services (ICS). In 
2020, the Commission sought comment on whether and how the Commission 
should proceed with any new data collection. The record demonstrated 
the need to ``collect, in a more consistent and directed manner, the 
data and information necessary to respond to the various criticisms in 
the record about the imperfections and inconsistencies in the data from 
the Second Mandatory Data Collection.'' In the 2021 ICS Order, the 
Commission directed WCB/OEA to develop a new data collection related to 
providers' operations, costs, demand, and revenues. The Commission has 
conducted two prior mandatory data collections relating to inmate 
calling services in the past eight years--the 2013 First Mandatory Data 
Collection and the 2015 Second Mandatory Data Collection. The 
Commission explained that it would use the collected data to set 
permanent interstate and international ICS provider-related rate caps 
that more closely reflect providers' costs of serving correctional 
facilities. The Commission also emphasized that the data would enable 
it to evaluate and, if warranted, revise the current ancillary service 
charge caps.
    The Commission delegated authority to WCB/OEA to implement this 
Third Mandatory Data Collection, including ``determining and describing 
the types of information required related to providers' operations, 
costs, demand, and revenues,'' and directed WCB/OEA to develop a 
template and instructions for the collection. The draft instructions 
and template for the Third Mandatory Data Collection are posted on the 
Commission's website and are located at this link: Third Mandatory Data 
Collection Instructions. The template consists of a Word document and 
Excel spreadsheets. For simplicity, WCB/OEA refer to these respective 
portions of the template as the Word template and the Excel template. 
The Commission also directed WCB/OEA to consider record suggestions 
regarding, among other matters, data granularity, cost allocation, and 
specificity in definitions and instructions in designing the data 
collection, and ``to require each provider to fully explain and justify 
each step of its costing process'' including, where appropriate, ``to 
specify the methodology the provider shall use in any or all of those 
steps.'' The Commission also directed WCB/OEA to ``incorporate lessons 
learned from the two prior data collections to ensure that [the 
Commission] collect[s], to the extent possible, uniform cost, demand, 
and revenue data from each provider.''

II. Overall Structure of the Data Collection

    Pursuant to WCB/OEA's delegated authority, WCB/OEA have drafted 
proposed instructions, a template, and a certification form for the 
Third Mandatory Data Collection. WCB/OEA seek comment on all aspects of 
these documents. Do they sufficiently implement the requirements the 
Commission articulated for the mandatory data collection in the 2021 
ICS Order? If not, what steps should WCB/OEA take to improve the 
proposed documents? The Commission's prior data collections have 
demonstrated that detailed and specific instructions and templates are 
essential to ensure that providers use similar procedures to determine 
and report their costs, revenues, and other data. WCB/OEA invite 
comment on whether the proposed instructions and template are 
sufficiently detailed to accomplish this objective. If not, what 
additional instructions, inquiries, or fields should WCB/OEA add? 
Conversely, are there any instructions, inquiries, or fields that 
should be removed because they are unnecessary to ensure that providers 
report uniform and accurate data and other information?

A. Instructions to the Third Mandatory Data Collection

    WCB/OEA seek comment on whether the instructions provide sufficient 
guidance to ensure that providers use uniform methodologies and report 
the required information in a consistent manner. What improvements can 
WCB/OEA make to the instructions? Are there any changes that would 
clarify the instructions or increase uniformity across providers' 
responses, particularly regarding how to report and allocate their 
costs? If so, what specific changes should WCB/OEA make? Are there any 
definitions that are unclear? Are there any undefined terms WCB/OEA 
should define? Is there alternative or additional language that would 
minimize ambiguity in any instruction? The proposed instructions also 
include many requests that are not specifically described below. WCB/
OEA seek comment on all aspects of the proposed instructions, including 
on those requests that WCB/OEA do not address individually in this 
document.
    Reporting Period. The proposed instructions generally seek data for 
each calendar year from 2019 through 2021, but seek cost data only for 
calendar year 2021, in part to minimize the burden of responding to 
this data collection. Is this the correct period for general data 
requests, such as revenues, site commission payments, and calling 
minutes? Is cost data only for calendar year 2021 the most relevant to 
collect? Would cost data from 2019, on the other hand, provide the most 
representative data set, given that the data from 2020 and 2021 will 
reflect the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon operations? Should 
WCB/OEA adopt a longer or shorter period for any set of requests? If 
so, why? Are there any specific known and measurable changes to ICS-
related investments, expenses, revenues, and demand over the next few 
years that are not reflected in the data the proposed instructions seek 
to collect?
    Financial Information. The proposed instructions require providers 
to report financial data in accordance with generally accepted 
accounting principles and specify that the carrying value of all assets 
shall reflect the results of recent impairment testing that accurately 
removes any overstatement of carrying value otherwise recorded in a 
provider's book of accounts. Under generally accepted accounting 
principles, an asset or asset group is impaired when its carrying 
amount, that is, the value reflected on the balance sheet, net of 
depreciation or amortization, exceeds its fair market value. In that 
case, the value of the impaired asset or asset group is written down 
and the reduced value is reflected on the balance sheet and a loss is 
recorded on the income statement. Is this the correct approach? If not, 
why not? How often do providers test their assets for impairment and 
how often are they required to do so under generally accepted 
accounting principles? Are additional instructions needed to ensure 
that the carrying value of providers' assets is not overstated? If so, 
what other instructions should WCB/OEA adopt?

[[Page 54899]]

    WCB/OEA seek comment on whether providers maintain sufficient 
records to enable them to respond fully to the data collection. If not, 
what additional steps should WCB/OEA take to ensure that the Commission 
has sufficient information to set reasonable permanent provider-related 
rate caps for interstate and international ICS and to revise the 
current ancillary service change caps? Should WCB/OEA adopt workarounds 
that would provide reasonable proxies for any financial data that 
providers are unable to report and, if so, what workarounds should WCB/
OEA specify?
    Cost Allocation. WCB/OEA propose several steps for providers to 
follow in allocating their costs among various services, as set forth 
in the proposed instructions. What refinements, if any, should WCB/OEA 
make to the proposed cost allocation methodology? Is there an 
alternative methodology that would better ensure that providers 
allocate their costs in a manner consistent with how they are incurred? 
If so, what is that methodology and why would it produce more accurate 
results than the proposed method? Are there additional allocation steps 
or instructions that would result in greater uniformity in providers' 
cost allocation procedures or greater accuracy in the cost allocation 
results? Do all or most providers routinely track certain data in the 
normal course of operating their businesses that should be used to 
develop allocators for particular costs or groups of costs? Are there 
additional steps WCB/OEA should take to ensure that each provider will 
directly assign its investments and expenses to the extent possible? 
Similarly, are there additional steps WCB/OEA can take to ensure that 
each provider will allocate shared and common investments and expenses 
in a cost-causative manner?
    Response Granularity. WCB/OEA propose that all providers submit 
data both at the company-wide level and for each correctional facility 
in which the provider offered calling services during the reporting 
period. WCB/OEA seek comment on this approach. Assuming WCB/OEA should 
require providers to report data on a facility-level basis, how should 
WCB/OEA require providers that track costs only on a contract level to 
respond? Are the cost allocation procedures set forth in the 
instructions sufficient to enable these providers to allocate costs 
down to the facility and, if not, what additional procedures should 
WCB/OEA require? Are there any additional data WCB/OEA should seek that 
would help ensure that providers allocate costs to facilities in a 
manner that more accurately reflects how such costs are incurred? How 
and to what degree should a provider document or explain the way it 
derives facility-level costs?
    The proposed instructions give providers the option of reporting 
their investment and expense data for ICS and related ancillary 
services without separating them into interstate and intrastate 
components or, if they prefer, to perform that separation prior to 
reporting their data. This approach reflects the fact that WCB/OEA are 
unaware of any material cost differences between providing interstate 
and intrastate calling services based on the record in this proceeding 
to date. Is that understanding correct? Are there any data for which a 
separation into interstate and intrastate components would be helpful 
in determining the costs providers incur solely in providing interstate 
and international calling services and related ancillary services?

B. Template

    WCB/OEA propose to require providers to submit the requisite data 
using a reporting template, to be filed through the Commission's 
electronic comment filing system (ECFS). The proposed template consists 
of a Word document (Appendix A to the instructions) for responses 
requiring narrative information and Excel spreadsheets (Appendix B to 
the instructions) for responses that require specific numbers or 
information. WCB/OEA seek suggestions for improvements WCB/OEA can make 
to the template. Is there an alternative organization that would reduce 
any perceived burdens? Are there other organizational or substantive 
improvements WCB/OEA can make to the reporting requirements? Are there 
inquiries WCB/OEA should add to the templates? Are there inquiries WCB/
OEA should eliminate? If so, why? Do any questions require 
clarification?

III. Specific Inquiries

    General Categories of Information Requested. The proposed 
instructions require providers to submit certain types of information 
related to their operations, costs, demand, and revenues. Are the 
categories of data described in sufficient detail in the proposed 
instructions? Are there additional categories or subcategories of 
information WCB/OEA should require providers to submit, in order to 
gather accurate, consistent, and sufficiently disaggregated data? Is 
there additional information that would help quantify the relative 
financial importance of different products and services in each 
provider's business portfolio or ICS operations? Is there additional 
information WCB/OEA could seek to facilitate a thorough accounting of 
the providers' investments, particularly to distinguish investments in 
intangible assets that were created internally from investments in 
intangible assets and goodwill generated by acquisitions or asset 
purchases? If so, how should WCB/OEA draw this distinction and how 
should any distinctions be reflected in the development of permanent 
rate caps? Is there additional information WCB/OEA should seek to help 
thoroughly account for a provider's recurring capital expenses or 
recurring operating expenses? Should customer deposits be subtracted 
from the provider's net investment in assets, the base upon which an 
allowable rate of return is calculated? Do customer deposits represent 
non-investor-supplied capital? Does the provider pay interest on the 
outstanding customer deposit balance? Is the provider able to earn a 
return on the outstanding customer deposit balance? Are there 
additional subcategories of data WCB/OEA should seek that will enable 
the Commission to better estimate providers' costs of serving 
individual correctional facilities?
    Demand for Interstate and International Calling Services. WCB/OEA 
propose to seek information on providers' demand for interstate and 
international calling services by requiring providers to report billed 
minutes, unbilled minutes, average daily population, number of 
telephones installed, and the number of kiosks installed. Are there 
other types of data that would provide a more accurate picture of 
demand such as the number of beds, or the rate of new account 
generation, at a particular facility? For example, would the rates of 
new account generation or account termination serve as accurate proxies 
for demand, or otherwise reflect cost drivers that could be used to 
better allocate provider costs? Could a measure of demand other than 
minutes be used as the unit of sale for the permanent rate caps? If 
providers do not know the average daily population of certain 
facilities they serve, what data could they report to provide a 
reasonable proxy for average daily population in those instances? What 
impact has the COVID-19 pandemic had on the cost of providing and the 
demand for intrastate, interstate, and international calling services? 
Do providers expect that impact to persist?
    Data for Jails with Fewer than 1,000 ADP. The Commission explained 
in the 2021 ICS Order that ``[a]lthough in some places WCB/OEA use the 
term `smaller jails' to refer to facilities with average

[[Page 54900]]

daily populations less than 1,000, that usage is not meant to imply 
that such jails are small in any absolute sense.'' In the 2021 ICS 
Order, the Commission observed that the record then before it did not 
``allow [it] to reasonably set permanent or even new interim interstate 
rate caps for jails with less than 1,000 average daily population.'' 
What types of data would provide a more accurate picture of the costs 
providers incur in serving such jails? What are the specific factors 
that differentiate the costs associated with serving such jails from 
the costs of serving larger jails? What data should WCB/OEA collect to 
analyze those factors? What are the one-time costs that providers incur 
to initiate service for a newly incarcerated person in such jails as 
compared to larger jails? Should WCB/OEA require providers to 
separately report these one-time costs? If so, what are the appropriate 
one-time cost categories? The record suggests that higher turnover in 
jails with less than 1,000 ADP may affect providers' and facilities' 
costs. How should providers be required to report turnover data, and 
how can WCB/OEA analyze those data to identify the impact of turnover 
on provider and facility costs, or to distinguish between them? Are 
there additional data WCB/OEA can request that would help the 
Commission quantify and evaluate the effect of turnover?
    Site Commissions. WCB/OEA propose to require that providers 
separately identify the amounts of (1) legally mandated, (2) 
contractually prescribed, (3) monetary, and (4) in-kind site commission 
payments. Are there other categories of information WCB/OEA should seek 
regarding site commissions? How should providers submit information 
concerning in-kind payments? For example, should WCB/OEA require 
providers to describe their in-kind payments in detail and assign them 
a dollar value? In the 2021 ICS Order, the Commission observed that the 
record did not allow it to ``determine on a permanent basis whether and 
what portion of [site commission] payments are legitimately related to 
the cost'' of providing inmate calling service.'' What types of 
information should WCB/OEA seek to help make this determination? Should 
WCB/OEA, for example, require providers to explain whether they agree 
to pay site commission on ICS calls to get footholds in facilities 
where they can offer non-ICS products and services that will not be 
subject to site commission payments obligations? If so, how can WCB/OEA 
ensure that providers allocate their site commission payments between 
their ICS-related operation and those other operations in a cost-
causative manner?
    Security Services. As the Commission explained in 2021, to 
determine whether any costs associated with security services should be 
recovered through ICS rates, it first must be able to determine whether 
any of those costs are directly related to the provision of ICS and 
distinguish them from other security costs incurred by correctional 
institutions. To facilitate this determination, the proposed 
instructions would require providers to report security costs in 
connection with the providers' ICS-related and non-ICS-related 
operations. Are there other data WCB/OEA should seek concerning such 
costs? What categories of security costs are properly considered 
directly related to ICS? What categories are not? How should WCB/OEA 
require providers to separate and report security costs which are 
legitimately or directly related to ICS from general facility security 
costs? Should WCB/OEA require providers to specify whether any such 
cost is incurred by the ICS provider or the facility? In 2021, the 
Commission observed that there is record evidence suggesting that some 
of the security and surveillance functions described by the National 
Sheriffs' Association as being performed by correctional facility staff 
appear to duplicate some of the security functions that providers 
report as costs. Are there any other data WCB/OEA could collect that 
would assist the Commission in determining whether security costs are 
directly or legitimately related to the provision of ICS? Should WCB/
OEA collect specific data about security costs that may not be directly 
or legitimately related to the provision of ICS, such as costs incurred 
to monitor and record every call made by an incarcerated person?
    Ancillary Service Charges. WCB/OEA propose to require providers to 
report revenues and disaggregated costs incurred for ancillary 
services. WCB/OEA seek comment on this proposal, as reflected in the 
instructions. In the 2021 ICS Order, the Commission observed that the 
existing record did not allow it to ``adjust [the] caps on ancillary 
service fees beyond the new cap on fees for single-call services and 
third-party financial transaction fees.'' The instructions for the 
Second Mandatory Data Collection required certain ancillary service 
revenues to be reported separately, but providers were not required to 
report their ancillary service costs separately from other inmate 
calling services costs. Further, providers were not required to 
separately report costs relating to any specific ancillary service. The 
Commission found that there was ``no reliable way to exclude ancillary 
service costs from [the] provider-related rate caps calculations at 
this time.'' By consequence, the Commission allowed such costs to 
``remain as part of the industry costs'' used in the calculations for 
the interim rate caps. What other revenue or disaggregated cost data 
should WCB/OEA seek to enable the Commission to evaluate and, if 
warranted, revise the current ancillary service charge caps and/or 
isolate and exclude ancillary service costs from any future 
calculations related to per-minute rate caps?
    In the 2021 ICS Order, the Commission identified ``confusion among 
industry stakeholders regarding the relationship between the automated 
payment fee and third-party financial transaction fees as they relate 
to credit card processing fees.'' To determine how credit card 
processing works in relation to these two ancillary services, WCB/OEA 
propose to require providers to report the total amount of revenues 
derived from charging automated payment fees and third-party 
transaction fees, to report the amount of that total that is credit 
card processing separately, and specify whether the provider, an 
affiliate, or a third party performs the processing. Do commenters 
agree with this approach? If not, how should WCB/OEA require providers 
to report credit card processing revenues embedded in revenues derived 
from these two ancillary service charges?
    The Commission also expressed concern about ``the adverse effect of 
revenue-sharing arrangements between calling service providers and 
third-party financial institutions'' in the context of ancillary 
services. To assist the Commission in understanding the prevalence and 
effect of such agreements, WCB/OEA propose to require providers to 
identify revenue-sharing agreements related to ancillary services and 
the revenues shared under those agreements. What other information 
should WCB/OEA seek on revenue-sharing agreements?
    Additional Data. Beyond the foregoing, are there other types of 
data WCB/OEA should require providers to submit to ensure that WCB/OEA 
fully capture the costs of providing ICS? Are there additional data 
that may enable the Commission to better understand the costs ICS 
providers and correctional facilities incur in connection with ICS? How 
should any such data be compiled and used to ensure that direct and 
shared and common costs are assigned

[[Page 54901]]

or allocated in the most cost-causative manner? What data should WCB/
OEA collect concerning international calling costs to isolate those 
costs and to eliminate the risk of double counting?
    Are there other issues WCB/OEA should consider regarding the data 
WCB/OEA propose to collect? Should WCB/OEA seek data on the marketing 
and sale of inmate calling services, such as contracts by which 
correctional facilities purchase calling services on behalf of 
incarcerated persons at fixed monthly rates? If so, what data should 
WCB/OEA ask for? For example, should WCB/OEA direct providers to 
identify in narrative responses the terms of any bulk-purchasing 
arrangements they have with correctional facilities? ``Bulk 
purchasing'' in this context refers to the purchase by a correctional 
facility of ICS at fixed monthly rates or other similar arrangements 
such as unlimited calling plans at fixed rates. What data should WCB/
OEA ask for from providers that enter into service arrangements, such 
as GTL's contract with San Francisco, whereby incarcerated people 
receive free telephone service?

IV. Miscellaneous

    In the 2021 ICS Order, the Commission delegated to WCB/OEA the 
authority to ``require providers to submit any additional information 
that they deem necessary to help the Commission formulate permanent 
rate caps or to revise [the] rules governing ancillary service 
charges.'' WCB/OEA propose to require all providers to submit audited 
financial statements or reports, or similar documentation, for the 
relevant reporting period, to the extent they have been produced in the 
ordinary course of business. Are there other reports or documentation 
WCB/OEA should seek? Should WCB/OEA require providers to provide copies 
of all or a random sample of their ICS contracts to assist Commission 
staff in verifying or crosschecking data submitted in response to the 
Third Mandatory Data Collection?
    Separately, in the 2021 ICS Order, the Commission reasoned that the 
benefits of conducting a third data collection ``far outweigh any 
burden on providers'' given the ``adverse impact that unreasonably high 
rates and ancillary services charges have on incarcerated people and 
those family and loved ones they call.'' While WCB/OEA do not revisit 
this general finding, WCB/OEA do seek to maximize the benefits of this 
data collection while minimizing the costs to the extent WCB/OEA can. 
WCB/OEA therefore seek comment on whether these proposals will meet the 
Commission's objectives in requiring the data collection. If not, what 
additional questions should WCB/OEA ask to ensure the Commission has 
all the data it needs to set permanent rate caps, evaluate ancillary 
service fees, and adjust the caps for those fees, if necessary? 
Conversely, are there ways that WCB/OEA could minimize the burden on 
providers while still ensuring WCB/OEA collect all the data the 
Commission needs to meet its goals? If so, what specific changes do 
commenters propose in this regard? WCB/OEA also seek to ensure that 
smaller providers are not disproportionately burdened by this data 
collection, while recognizing that data from smaller providers is 
critical to the Commission's ratemaking process going forward. Do 
commenters have suggestions as to how WCB/OEA can get the information 
WCB/OEA need from smaller providers in a less burdensome way? If so, 
how?
    In the 2021 Order, the Commission eliminated the separate interim 
rate cap that had applied to interstate collect calls, an action that 
reflected a record establishing that collect calls now play only a 
limited role in the inmate calling services marketplace and that there 
is at most a relatively small difference between the costs of providing 
collect and non-collect inmate calling services calls. Consistent with 
that Commission action, the proposed instructions do not differentiate 
among debit, prepaid, and collect calls. WCB/OEA seek comment on 
whether the instructions should distinguish among these call types. If 
so, why and for which specific components of the proposed data 
collection?
    Finally, as part of the Commission's continuing effort to advance 
communications equity for all, including people of color and others who 
have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely 
affected by persistent poverty and inequality, WCB/OEA invite comment 
on any equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be 
associated with the upcoming Third Mandatory Data Collection. Section 1 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, provides that the 
Commission ``regulat[es] interstate and foreign commerce in 
communication by wire and radio so as to make [such service] available, 
so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without 
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, 
or sex.'' WCB/OEA define the term ``equity'' consistent with Executive 
Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial 
treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to 
underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as 
Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian 
Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of 
religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer 
(LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural 
areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty 
or inequality. Specifically, WCB/OEA seek comment on how these 
proposals for that collection may promote or inhibit advances in 
diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.

V. Procedural Matters

    Filing of Comments and Replies. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 
1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested 
parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates 
indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed 
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System. See FCC, 
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 
(May 1, 1998). The Protective Order issued in this proceeding permits 
parties to designate certain material as confidential. Filings that 
contain confidential information should be appropriately redacted and 
filed pursuant to the procedure described therein.
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
     Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, 
and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 
20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and pending additional 
information, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger 
delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect

[[Page 54902]]

the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission 
of COVID-19.
    Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise 
summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments 
and reply comments must also comply with section 1.49 and all other 
applicable sections of the Commission's rules. WCB/OEA direct all 
interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the date 
of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. All 
parties are encouraged to use a table of contents, regardless of the 
length of their submission. WCB/OEA also strongly encourage parties to 
track the organization set forth in the WCB/OEA document and the 
instructions in order to facilitate the internal review process.
    People with Disabilities. WCB/OEA ask that requests for 
accommodations be made as soon as possible in order to allow the agency 
to satisfy such requests whenever possible. Send an email to 
[email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 
(202) 418-0530.
    Ex Parte Presentations. This proceeding shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy 
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in the prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.
    Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. As 
required by the RFA, the Commission has prepared a Supplemental Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in the WCB/OEA document. The Commission requests written 
public comments on the Supplemental IRFA. Comments must be identified 
as responses to the Supplemental IRFA and must be filed by the 
deadlines for comments provided in this Notice. The Commission will 
send a copy of the WCB/OEA document, including this Supplemental IRFA, 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA). In addition, summaries of the WCB/OEA document and the 
Supplemental IRFA will be published in the Federal Register.
    Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. The WCB/OEA document 
contains new or modified information collection requirements subject to 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will 
be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review 
under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other 
federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified 
information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. 
Contemporaneously with the publication of this Notice in the Federal 
Register, WCB/OEA will publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking 
comment pursuant to the PRA on the information collection requirements 
for the Mandatory Data Collection in the 2021 ICS Order and this Public 
Notice. WCB/OEA will consider comments submitted in response to both 
Federal Register notices in finalizing this information collection for 
submission to OMB. In addition, WCB/OEA note that pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198; see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(4), WCB/OEA previously sought comment on how the Commission 
will further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    Additional Information. For further information, please contact 
Erik Raven-Hansen, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy 
Division, at (202) 418-1532 or [email protected], or Peter 
Bean, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, at (202) 
418-0786 or [email protected]. Please copy 
[email protected] on any email correspondence.

VI. Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) and the Office of 
Economics and Analytics (OEA) (collectively, WCB/OEA) have prepared 
this Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental 
IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by 
the policies and rules proposed in the WCB/OEA document. WCB/OEA 
request written public comments on this Supplemental IRFA. Comments 
must be identified as responses to the Supplemental IRFA and must be 
filed by the deadlines for comments provided in this Public Notice. The 
Commission will send a copy of the WCB/OEA document, including this 
Supplemental IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Public Notice and the 
Supplemental IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the 
Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Data Collection

    In this document, WCB/OEA seek comment on the contours and specific 
requirements of the forthcoming Third Mandatory Data Collection for 
inmate calling services (ICS). In 2020, the Commission sought comment 
on whether and how the Commission should proceed with any new data 
collection. In the 2021 ICS Order, the Commission adopted a new data 
collection requirement. The Commission determined that this data 
collection would enable it to adopt permanent interstate and 
international rate caps, protect consumers against unjust and 
unreasonable ancillary service charges, and improve its continuing 
review of the inmate calling services marketplace.
    Pursuant to their delegated authority, WCB/OEA have drafted 
proposed instructions and a template for the Third Mandatory Data 
Collection and are issuing the WCB/OEA document to seek comment on all 
aspects of these documents.

B. Legal Basis

    The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the 
WCB/OEA document is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(j), 201(b), 218, 
220, 276, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 201(b), 218, 220, 276, and 403.

[[Page 54903]]

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Third Mandatory Data Collection Will Apply

    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the Third Mandatory Data Collection. 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. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory 
definition of a small business applies ``unless an agency, after 
consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes 
one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the 
activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the 
Federal Register.'' A ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA.
    Regulatory Flexibility Analyses were incorporated in a 2020 
document and the 2021 ICS Order. In those analyses, the Commission 
described in detail the small entities that might be affected. 
Accordingly, in this document, for the Supplemental IRFA, WCB/OEA 
hereby incorporate by reference the descriptions and estimates of the 
number of small entities from these previous Regulatory Flexibility 
Analyses.

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

    The WCB/OEA document seeks comments on the specifics of the Third 
Mandatory Data Collection to ensure calling services rates, charges, 
and practices are just and reasonable. The Third Mandatory Data 
Collection requires ICS providers to submit, among other things, data 
and other information on calls, demand, operations, company and 
contract information, information about facilities served, revenues, 
site commission payments, and ancillary fees.

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

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives 
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may 
include the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) The 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for such small 
entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and 
(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for 
such small entities.'' WCB/OEA will consider all of these factors when 
WCB/OEA receive substantive comment from the public and potentially 
affected entities.
    The Third Mandatory Data Collection is a one-time request and does 
not impose a recurring obligation on providers. Because the 
Commission's 2021 ICS Order requires all ICS providers to comply with 
the mandatory data collection, the collection will affect smaller as 
well as larger ICS providers. The Commission has taken steps to ensure 
that the data collection template is competitively neutral and not 
unduly burdensome for any set of providers. Additionally, the WCB/OEA 
document asks whether there are ways of minimizing the burden of the 
data collection on providers while still ensuring that the Commission 
collects all the data needed to meet its goals.
    WCB/OEA will consider the economic impact on small entities, as 
identified in comments filed in response to the WCB/OEA document and 
this Supplemental IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and 
finalizing the instructions and the template for the Third Mandatory 
Data Collection.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    None.

Federal Communications Commission.
Daniel Kahn,
Associate Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2021-21781 Filed 10-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P