[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9444-9446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03110]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[WC Docket No. 12-375; DA 20-127; FRS 16478]


Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks To Refresh the Record on 
Ancillary Service Charges Related to Inmate Calling Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; solicitation of comments.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) 
seeks to refresh the record on ancillary service charges imposed in 
connection with inmate calling services (ICS) in response to a remand 
from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit.

DATES: Comments are due March 20, 2020. Reply Comments are due April 6, 
2020.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Minsoo Kim, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, via phone at 202-418-1739 or via email 
at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Public Notice that 
the Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau 
released on February 4, 2020. A full-text version of the Public Notice 
is available at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-127A1.pdf.
    In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) seeks to 
refresh the record on ancillary service charges imposed in connection 
with inmate calling services (ICS). In the 2015 ICS Order, the 
Commission adopted rules limiting the ancillary services for which ICS 
providers could assess fees and capping the permissible charges for 
these ancillary services.
    In Global Tel*Link v. FCC, the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the Commission's plenary 
authority to cap ancillary service charges for interstate ICS, but held 
that, based on the record before the Court, the Commission lacked 
authority to regulate ancillary service charges for intrastate ICS. 
Because the Court could not ``discern from the record whether ancillary 
fees can be segregated between interstate and intrastate calls,'' the 
Court remanded the issue to the Commission for further consideration. 
The Bureau seeks to refresh the record on ancillary service charges in 
response to the D.C. Circuit's remand.
    The 2015 ICS Order did not address whether any particular ancillary 
service charge could be segregated between interstate and intrastate 
calls given the Commission's imposition of identical rate caps for 
interstate and intrastate calls alike. The Bureau now seeks specific 
comment on whether each permitted ICS ancillary service charge may be 
segregated between interstate and intrastate calls and, if so, how. The 
Bureau asks commenters to explain in

[[Page 9445]]

detail the basis for any claim that an ancillary service charge may be 
segregated, including addressing the range of different functions that 
might be associated with each charge where relevant. For example, a 
``Live Agent Fee'' can be assessed when an ICS consumer uses an 
optional live operator to complete different types of ICS-related 
transactions. To the extent these individual transactions 
jurisdictionally differ (e.g., if a live operator is used by an ICS 
consumer to complete either an interstate or intrastate ICS call as 
well as to assist that same consumer with paper billing), how should 
the Commission factor that transaction into applying the Live Agent Fee 
cap?
    The Bureau also seeks 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 
calls. Jurisdictionally mixed services are ``[s]ervices that are 
capable of communications both between intrastate end points and 
between interstate end points.'' Jurisdictionally mixed services ``are 
generally subject to dual federal/state jurisdiction, except where it 
is impossible or impractical to separate the service's intrastate from 
interstate components and the state regulation of the intrastate 
component interferes with valid federal rules or policies.''
    To the extent any permitted ancillary service charge or associated 
function is jurisdictionally mixed, the Bureau seeks comment on how 
best to apply the prescribed cap to that ancillary service or function 
pursuant to section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended. Should the Bureau simply apply the cap to jurisdictionally 
mixed services? Is it possible or practical to allow higher rates on 
only a portion of such ancillary services? How would such a rule apply 
here? Is it possible to separate the interstate and intrastate aspects 
of each such ancillary service charge or function? If so, how? If not, 
can the Commission proceed to regulate the entire ancillary service 
charge to the extent it is not jurisdictionally severable? One court 
has interpreted GTL v. FCC to hold that the Commission may not cap 
interstate ancillary fees ``except to the extent those for interstate 
calls `can be segregated' from intrastate calls.'' Given the holdings 
of the Supreme Court and federal appellate courts on the issue, is that 
interpretation correct?
    Finally, the Bureau asks commenters to (1) suggest specific rule 
language responsive to the D.C. Circuit's remand, and (2) propose any 
additional steps the Commission should take to ensure, consistent with 
the D.C. Circuit's opinion, that its actions on remand ``properly 
reflect[]'' the reforms adopted in 2015 and that providers of 
interstate ICS do not circumvent or frustrate the Commission's 
ancillary service charge rules. For example, should the Commission 
prohibit an ICS provider that generates separate paper bills for 
interstate and intrastate ICS (merely to impose two separate paper bill 
charges on ICS consumers) from imposing a $2.00 charge for the 
interstate paper bill and an additional charge for the intrastate bill? 
Alternatively, should the Commission lower the cap for any separate 
paper bills for interstate ICS to $0.00 if an ICS provider charges 
$2.00 or more for paper bills for intrastate services?
    Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before 
the dates set forth in the Federal Register notice of this document. 
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://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 hand or messenger delivery, 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.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together 
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
     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 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
    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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
    Ex Parte Rules. 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 his or her 
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. In proceedings governed by 
section 1.49(f) of the rules or for which the Commission has made 
available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations 
and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all 
attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment 
filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their 
native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 
in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's 
ex parte rules.
    Additional Information. For further information, contact Minsoo Kim 
of the Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-1739 or 
[email protected].


[[Page 9446]]


Federal Communications Commission.
Daniel Kahn,
Associate Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2020-03110 Filed 2-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P