[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 183 (Friday, September 20, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77065-77074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-19038]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[WC Docket Nos. 12-375, 23-62; FCC 24-75; FR ID 237560]


Incarcerated People's Communication Services; Implementation of 
the Martha Wright-Reed Act; Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling 
Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks 
additional comment on establishing permanent rate caps for video 
incarcerated people's communications services (IPCS) that are just and 
reasonable, and will fairly compensate IPCS providers, including 
comment on the video IPCS marketplace and the types of data needed to 
support its efforts to adopt permanent video IPCS rate caps in the 
future. It also seeks comment on the possibly of further disaggregating 
the very small jail rate tier and the types of cost or other data that 
would identify any additional distinctions within this rate tier. The 
Commission seeks comment on its authority to address quality of service 
issues raised in this proceeding and whether it should develop minimum 
Federal quality of service standards. It again seeks comment on whether 
to expand the definitions of ``Prison'' and ``Jail'' to capture the 
full universe of confinement facilities and specifically, the costs 
providers incur in providing service to confinement facilities that are 
not correctional institutions. It also seeks comment on whether to

[[Page 77066]]

incorporate into its inactive account rules a requirement that 
providers allow account holders to designate a third party to receive 
refunds from IPCS accounts. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on 
possibly adopting a uniform additive to the IPCS rate caps to account 
for correctional facility costs.

DATES: Comments are due on or before October 21, 2024; and reply 
comments are due on or before November 19, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket Nos. 12-375 
and 23-62, by either of the following methods:
    Electronic filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the 
internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System 
(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 hand or messenger delivery, 
by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must 
be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Hand-
delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's 
Secretary are accepted between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. by the FCC's mailing 
contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. 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 courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. 
Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class 
Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L 
Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Meil, Pricing Policy Division 
of the Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-7233 or via email at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), document FCC 24-75, 
adopted on July 18, 2024, and released on July 22, 2024, in WC Docket 
Nos. 12-375 and 23-62. This summary is based on the public redacted 
version of the FCC 24-75 document, the full text of which can be 
accessed electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management 
System (EDOCS) website at www.fcc.gov/edocs, or via the FCC's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at www.fcc.gov/ecfs, or 
is available at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-75A1.pdf.

Synopsis

I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Establishing Permanent Rate Caps for Video Services

    1. In the 2024 IPCS Report and Order, published elsewhere in this 
issue of the Federal Register, we determine that we do not have a 
sufficient record or sufficiently reliable data from the 2023 Mandatory 
Data Collection to set permanent rate caps for video IPCS. The 
Commission identified anomalies in the video cost data (both industry-
wide and for Securus in particular) that suggest that there is 
significant room for growth in this nascent market and that these data 
were unlikely to be representative of longer term trends in the video 
IPCS market. For these reasons, in the 2024 IPCS Report and Order, we 
establish interim rates based on the best data available and delegate 
authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) and the Office of 
Economics and Analytics (OEA) to conduct an additional mandatory data 
collection to obtain updated cost and other data and information from 
providers concerning their video IPCS offerings, among other things. We 
now seek further comment on establishing permanent rate caps for video 
IPCS that are just and reasonable, and will fairly compensate IPCS 
providers. We emphasize that we will keep a close eye on developments 
in the video IPCS marketplace, including how changes in it affect 
people with disabilities. We anticipate receiving detailed information 
on those developments as part of the IPCS providers' annual reports 
once WCB and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) revise the 
requirement for those reports in response to the 2024 IPCS Report and 
Order. We also will be receiving detailed information regarding video 
IPCS costs and demand and (to the extent practicable) how those costs 
might change over time, once WCB and OEA implement the additional data 
collection we require today. We ask interested parties to supplement 
the record in this proceeding with any information they have regarding 
the types of video communications services that providers offer 
incarcerated people, the demand for those services, the used and useful 
costs providers and facilities incur in the provision of those 
services, and other information that might help us set just and 
reasonable, and fairly compensatory, permanent rate caps for video 
IPCS. While the course of this proceeding, including the Commission's 
efforts regarding inmate calling services prior to the enactment of the 
Martha Reed-Wright Act, make us acutely aware of all the steps involved 
in determining just and reasonable, and fairly compensatory, permanent 
rate caps, we intend to move quickly to complete that task with regard 
to video IPCS once we have the requisite information.
    2. In 2023, the Commission sought comment on how it could best 
ensure that the rates and charges for video IPCS are just and 
reasonable (88 FR 27850, May 3, 2023). We now invite further comment on 
the video IPCS marketplace, including the types of costs incurred by 
video IPCS providers and the pricing and other associated practices 
under which such providers presently offer video services to 
incarcerated people. What types of video communications services are 
currently being offered to incarcerated people and what additional 
video services are likely to be offered in the near future? Is there a 
difference between video communications depending on the technology 
used? For example, are kiosks the primary means of video IPCS or are 
tablets more prevalent? What role does application-based video IPCS 
play in the IPCS market and how is that role likely to change in the 
future with increased deployment of tablets? Do providers use third-
party applications, or develop applications internally? Do providers 
that develop such applications internally offset their development 
costs by selling them to other providers? Are there trends favoring the 
use of one technology over the other, for example, in costs, 
deployment, or usage? Is there a cost difference between different 
types of technologies, whether hardware-based or software-based, or 
among different versions of the same types of technologies? Are these 
technologies used in different ways? For example, are kiosks used more 
commonly for on-site video visitation? Do different hardware or 
software platforms entail differences in the manner in which video IPCS 
is offered, for example, as to quality of service or the variety of 
features offered with the service? Within the categories of safety and 
security services that we identify as used and useful in the 2024 IPCS 
Report and Order, are any such services or functions particular to 
video IPCS that--given the developing nature of the market--are still 
in the process of deployment or development?
    3. We also seek comment on trends that may characterize the video 
IPCS market. What trends are there, if any, in

[[Page 77067]]

the costs of providing video IPCS? Are the substantial investments 
providers reported making in video equipment in the 2023 Mandatory Data 
Collection continuing or is investment in them trending to more stable, 
sustainable levels? Under what circumstances would it be appropriate to 
determine that the market has reached a more mature stage, potentially 
warranting the adoption of permanent, rather than interim, rates? What 
trends are there, if any, in demand for video IPCS? To what extent are 
providers' investments in and deployment of video equipment and network 
architecture stimulating demand for video IPCS? Are there trends in the 
costs of deploying these technologies as they become more widely 
available? Are there trends in the relative usage of these technologies 
to access video IPCS, including video visitation, versus other services 
provided via the same technologies or platforms, such as educational or 
entertainment services? How should we measure the relative use of these 
technologies among different services? What proportion of equipment and 
platform costs are devoted to providing video IPCS as compared to 
providing other services? Given the common usage of these equipment and 
platforms, what are appropriate methods for allocating costs among 
video IPCS, audio IPCS, and other non-IPCS that use the same equipment 
and platforms? What trends are there, if any, in providers' investment 
in the platforms necessary to support the provision of video IPCS?
    4. Additional Mandatory Data Collection. In the 2024 IPCS Report 
and Order, we direct staff to conduct an additional mandatory data 
collection to obtain updated data on video IPCS and the IPCS industry 
in general. We seek comment on the types of data that would be most 
helpful for the Commission to collect to support its efforts to adopt 
permanent video IPCS rate caps in the future. We invite comment on any 
changes the Commission should consider making to the 2023 Mandatory 
Data Collection as it considers developing the additional data 
collection. Are there any types of data that the Commission should 
consider adding to that collection to ensure it meets the Commission's 
needs? We also seek comment on the relative benefits and burdens that 
collecting additional data would entail. Finally, we seek comment on 
the appropriate timeframe in which to conduct this data collection to 
ensure that the data we receive reflect a sufficiently mature video 
IPCS market to be suitable as the basis for setting permanent video 
IPCS rate caps.

B. Further Disaggregating the Very Small Jail Tier

    5. In the 2024 IPCS Report and Order, we establish five rate cap 
tiers based on facility type and size, based on the best evidence 
available, in both the record and the data provided in the 2023 
Mandatory Data Collection, reflecting the factors driving providers' 
costs. Of the four size tiers for jails, the smallest size tier (i.e., 
for those jails with an average daily population of less than 100) 
makes up approximately half of all jails for which we had available 
data. Given the relative share of jail facilities comprising this tier, 
we recognize that there may be additional distinctions within this tier 
that are not effectively captured by the available data and that the 
number of facilities in this tier, of necessity, limits the granularity 
of the analysis for this smallest jail tier. For example, certain small 
providers that serve very small jails failed to submit data in response 
to the 2023 Mandatory Data Collection that we found to be reliable and 
therefore excluded from our analysis. Although we find that the 
available data are sufficiently robust for setting permanent audio rate 
caps at the tiers we adopt in the 2024 IPCS Report and Order, obtaining 
more reliable data from these providers may establish a better more 
comprehensive understanding of the costs of serving this smallest tier 
of jails. Commenters suggest that the smallest facilities are subject 
to particularly high costs, due to, for example, more frequently being 
located in rural areas. Accordingly, we seek comment on the types of 
cost or other data that would be most helpful for the Commission to 
collect from providers serving this tier of facilities to ascertain 
whether, and if so how, to further disaggregate this tier to capture 
any variability that may exist within segments of this tier. Are there 
any particular types of data that the Commission should consider adding 
to our subsequent data collection to ensure that it meets the 
Commission's needs in this regard? We also seek comment on, if the data 
suggests that this tier should be further disaggregated, how to do so 
in a manner that accurately reflects providers' costs, but also 
minimizes the burden on providers to administer or on consumers to 
understand.

C. Quality of Service

    6. Many commenters raise concerns in the record regarding the 
quality of IPCS. Dropped calls, lack of enough communications devices 
at facilities, frozen video screens, and other technological 
shortcomings are ongoing challenges for incarcerated people and their 
loved ones. As an initial matter, we seek comment on scope of the 
Commission's authority to address quality of service issues related to 
these communications services, including to establish and enforce 
service quality rules or standards for the provision of IPCS. The 
Commission long has relied on its section 201(b) authority to address 
traffic delivery and call completion concerns. In addition, the 
Commission has recognized that ``[a]n inherent part of any rate setting 
process is not only the establishment of the rate level and rate 
structure, but the definition of the service or functionality to which 
the rate will apply.'' We thus believe that quality of service 
considerations are within the purview of our establishment of a 
compensation plan to ensure just and reasonable rates for IPCS under 
section 276(b)(1)(A). Do commenters agree that our traditional sources 
of statutory authority over these communications and providers--
sections 276 and 201--convey jurisdiction for the regulation of service 
quality? Are there alternative statutory provisions on which we could 
rely to regulate the service quality of IPCS? Does the source of our 
authority differ depending on the type of communication, i.e., audio or 
video IPCS?
    7. Assuming the Commission has statutory bases to address service 
quality issues, we seek comment on whether the Commission should 
develop minimum Federal quality of service standards. If Federal 
standards are warranted, how should such standards or rules be 
developed? Should there be different standards or rules for different 
types of facilities or providers? Should the Commission establish the 
same or different standards for audio and video IPCS? Are there 
technical considerations that may warrant different standards for video 
services, or for different types of video services? How would the 
Commission monitor and enforce such standards? Similarly, are there 
service quality issues caused by factors beyond the control of the IPCS 
provider, such as broadband congestion or network failures? If so, how 
would Federal standards account for these factors?
    8. We also seek comment on the types of service quality issues that 
should be addressed by any Federal standards. Should the standards 
simply address the most common issues reported in the record or attempt 
to cover any issue that materially impacts the communication service? 
If the Commission adopted service quality standards, how would

[[Page 77068]]

such standards be monitored and enforced and through what procedures? 
Under what circumstances, if any, should the standards require refunds 
to IPCS consumers?
    9. Finally, are there any existing service quality standards or 
regulations in the IPCS marketplace today? To the extent that parties 
support adoption of Federal service quality standards, we anticipate 
that existing standards or regulations might provide a model for 
Federal efforts. Do prison and jail facilities currently have rules or 
regulations in place to address the service quality of IPCS? Do 
contracts between correctional institutions and providers include 
service quality standards, and, if so, what kinds of standards and what 
type of metrics for monitoring such standards are included? Have states 
adopted any regulations designed to address service quality of 
communications in correctional facilities? Parties should address these 
and any additional issues related to the service quality of IPCS.

D. Expanding the Definitions of Prisons and Jails

    10. In the 2024 IPCS Report and Order, we modify the definition of 
``Jail'' to encompass all immigration detention facilities, but we 
decline, at this time, to further expand the definitions of ``Prison'' 
and ``Jail'' in our rules, as requested by some parties, to capture the 
full universe of confinement facilities such as civil commitment, 
residential, group and nursing facilities. Several commenters support 
expanding the definition of ``Jail'' to cover civil commitment 
facilities, residential facilities, group facilities, and nursing 
facilities in which people with disabilities, substance abuse problems, 
or other conditions are routinely detained. In both 2022 and 2023, the 
Commission sought comment on modifying the definitions of ``Jail'' and 
``Prison'' in its rules ``to ensure that they capture the full universe 
of confinement facilities.'' In addition, the Commission sought comment 
in 2022 on its authority to apply the inmate calling services rules, 
``including those addressing communication disabilities, to these 
facilities.'' Although we agree that individuals in these facilities 
should benefit from the protections of just and reasonable rate caps 
and other consumer protection rules that we adopt here, we conclude 
that the Commission lacks sufficient information and data to address 
the requests. For this reason, we seek further comment on the costs 
providers incur in providing service to confinement facilities that are 
not correctional institutions.
    11. Some parties contend that the definition of payphone service in 
section 276 of the Communications Act is, in pertinent part, limited to 
payphone service provided ``in correctional institutions'' and does not 
extend to confinement facilities that allegedly are not 
``correctional'' in nature. Others assert that the protections of our 
rules should be extended to benefit individuals in confinement 
facilities generally. We seek comment on whether our statutory 
authority under section 276 can be interpreted to extend to confinement 
facilities. Are there other sources of statutory authority that would 
allow us to extend our regulations to cover these facilities?
    12. Some parties contend that IPCS regulations should only apply to 
``corrections-type communications systems'' because the various types 
of confinement facilities may not have the same cost characteristics as 
correctional facilities. We seek comment on whether confinement 
facilities outside the scope of facilities historically encompassed by 
our rules have cost characteristics that are substantially similar to 
the facilities our rules traditionally have addressed. Do confinement 
facilities make available communications services and impose similar 
types of usage restrictions as correctional facilities? Parties 
addressing these issues should detail any cost and service differences, 
and how such differences might result in different rate caps for non-
correctional confinement facilities.

E. Treatment of Unused Balances In IPCS Accounts

    13. In the 2024 IPCS Report and Order, we adopt permanent rules 
designed to ensure that IPCS account holders receive refunds of any 
unused funds in their accounts once the accounts are deemed inactive. 
We invite comment on whether to incorporate into those rules a 
requirement that providers allow account holders to designate a family 
member or other individual as an additional person eligible to receive 
refunds. We ask that commenters address the relative benefits and 
burdens of such a measure. We also ask how we might tailor such a 
measure to facilitate timely refunds without unduly burdening 
providers. Should we, for example, require providers to give account 
holders the opportunity to provide their designees' contact 
information, including residential addresses, phone numbers, and email 
addresses? Should we specify, in addition, that a designee receive any 
inactivity and refund notices that would be provided to the account 
holder and be allowed to request refunds on the account holder's 
behalf?

F. Uniform Additive To Account for Correctional Facility Costs

    14. We seek comment on whether we should adopt a uniform additive 
to our IPCS rate caps to account for correctional facility costs. In 
the 2024 IPCS Report and Order, we permit IPCS providers to reimburse 
correctional facilities for the used and useful costs they may incur in 
allowing access to IPCS. Some commenters express concern that the 
reimbursement we permit may be difficult for IPCS providers to 
implement, particularly in determining which costs are used and useful 
for purposes of reimbursement. As an alternative, some commenters 
propose the use of an ``explicit additive to the rate caps for audio 
and video IPCS.'' Under this proposal, rather than permit IPCS 
providers and correctional facilities to negotiate for reimbursement 
under our current audio and video IPCS rates caps, the Commission would 
adopt a uniform facility cost additive. One commenter suggests that 
this approach ``would properly account for the security needs of 
facilities (and corresponding costs caused by making IPCS available)'' 
and would ``help to ensure the continued widespread availability of 
IPCS.'' We seek comment on this proposal, including the extent to which 
an additive would be a reasonable method to ensure that correctional 
facilities are able to recover the used and useful costs they incur in 
making IPCS available. Is such an additive preferable to the freely-
negotiated reimbursement we allow in the 2024 IPCS Report and Order? 
Why or why not? Would a uniform additive allow correctional facilities 
to better adapt to the IPCS rate structure the Commission adopts in the 
2024 IPCS Report and Order? Why or why not?
    15. We seek broad comment on the contours of any possible rate 
additive. In particular, we seek comment on the appropriate amount of a 
rate additive for used and useful correctional facility costs. One 
commenter suggests that $0.02 could be established as a maximum cost 
recovery amount. This would be consistent with the approach the 
Commission took for prisons and jails with average daily populations of 
1,000 or more in the 2021 ICS Order (86 FR 40682, July 28, 2021). Pay 
Tel's outside consultant, estimates, on the basis of an informal survey 
of 30 correctional facilities with average daily populations below 
1,000 that the average used and useful costs may be $0.08 per minute. 
Which data should the Commission rely on in determining

[[Page 77069]]

the appropriate additive and why? To the extent commenters believe more 
data are needed, should the Commission seek those data through an 
additional data collection? How can we ensure that we receive reliable 
data on correctional facilities' used and useful costs for purposes of 
establishing a rate additive? Obtaining reliable correctional facility 
cost data has been a perennial problem in these proceedings. In 2021, 
the Commission sought comment on how to obtain reliable correctional 
facility data (86 FR 40416, July 28, 2021). The Commission also sought 
facility cost data in the 2023 Mandatory Data Collection. As we explain 
above, however, commenters have not provided updated facility cost 
data. Finally, we invite comment on how the Commission should implement 
a rate additive within the zones of reasonableness determined in the 
2024 IPCS Report and Order.

G. Effect on Small Entities

    16. We seek comment on the effect that our proposals to adopt 
permanent video IPCS rate caps, quality of service rules, and expanded 
definitions of ``Prison'' and ``Jail'' in our rules would have on small 
entities, and whether any rules that we adopt should apply differently 
to small entities. We seek input on the effect, if any, on small 
entities of any other issues upon which we inquire in this document. We 
also seek comment on how we should take into account the impact on 
small businesses and, in particular, any disproportionate impact or 
unique burdens that small businesses may face, in effectuating the 
questions and proposals in this document. Parties should also address 
any alternative proposals that would minimize the burdens on small 
businesses.

H. Digital Equity and Inclusion

    17. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance 
digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with 
disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who 
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely 
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any 
equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be 
associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. Section 1 of 
the Communications Act 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.'' Specifically, we seek 
comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in 
diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well as the scope 
of the Commission's relevant legal authority. The term ``equity'' is 
used here 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.

I. OPEN Government Data Act

    18. We also seek comment on whether any of the information proposed 
to be collected in this would constitute ``data assets'' for purposes 
of the OPEN Government Data Act and, if so, whether such information 
should be published as ``open Government data assets''?

II. Procedural Matters

    19. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in this document. The Commission requests written public 
comments on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the 
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided in this 
document. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including the 
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and the IRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
    20. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Analysis. This document 
may contain new or modified information collection(s) subject to the 
PRA. If the Commission adopts any new or modified information 
collection requirements, they 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. In addition, pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific comment on how 
we might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
    21. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent 
with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 
118-9, a summary of the FNPRM will be available on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
    22. OPEN Government Data Act. The OPEN Government Data Act, 
requires agencies to make ``public data assets'' available under an 
open license and as ``open Government data assets,'' i.e., in machine-
readable, open format, unencumbered by use restrictions other than 
intellectual property rights, and based on an open standard that is 
maintained by a standards organization. This requirement is to be 
implemented ``in accordance with guidance by the Director'' of the OMB. 
The term ``public data asset'' means ``a data asset, or part thereof, 
maintained by the Federal Government that has been, or may be, released 
to the public, including any data asset, or part thereof, subject to 
disclosure under [the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)].'' A ``data 
asset'' is ``a collection of data elements or data sets that may be 
grouped together,'' and ``data'' is ``recorded information, regardless 
of form or the media on which the data is recorded.'' We seek comment 
in the FNPRM on whether any of the information proposed to be collected 
would constitute ``data assets'' for purposes of the OPEN Government 
Data Act and, if so, whether such information should be published as 
``open Government data assets.''
    23. Comment Period and Filing Procedures. 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 in the DATES section of this document. All filings 
must refer to WC Docket Nos. 23-62 and 12-375. The Protective Order 
issued in this proceeding permits parties to designate certain material 
as confidential. Filings which contain confidential information should 
be appropriately redacted, and filed pursuant to the procedure 
described therein.
    24. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using 
the internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS): https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. See

[[Page 77070]]

Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 
(1998).
    25. 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.
    26. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be 
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    27. Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the 
Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. by the 
FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 
20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or 
fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering 
the building.
    28. Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. 
Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701.
    29. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority 
Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20554.
    30. 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 Sec.  1.49 and all other 
applicable sections of the Commission's rules. We 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. We also strongly encourage parties to track the 
organization set forth in the FNPRM in order to facilitate our internal 
review process.
    31. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-
but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 through 1.1216. 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).
    32. 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 Sec.  1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
Sec.  1.49(f) 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.
    33. 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.
    34. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex 
parte submissions will be publicly available online via ECFS.

III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    35. As required by the RFA, the Commission has prepared this IRFA 
of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in this document. Written public comments 
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to 
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments. The 
Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 
In addition, the FNPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 
published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    36. The Commission seeks additional comment on establishing 
permanent rate caps for video incarcerated people's communications 
services (IPCS) that are just and reasonable, and will fairly 
compensate IPCS providers. Specifically, the Commission requests that 
parties supplement the record with additional information on the video 
IPCS marketplace, including the types of video communications services 
that providers offer incarcerated people, the demand for those 
services, the used and useful costs providers and facilities incur in 
the provision of those services, and other information that might help 
us set just and reasonable, and fairly compensatory, permanent rate 
caps for video IPCS. It also requests comment on the types of data that 
would be most helpful for the Commission to collect to support its 
efforts to adopt permanent video IPCS rate caps.
    37. The Commission also seeks comment on quality of service issues 
that have been raised in this proceeding. This includes comment on the 
Commission's legal authority to address quality of service issues and 
whether it should develop minimal quality of service standards. It 
seeks comment on the types of service quality issues that should be 
addressed and whether there should be different standards or rules for 
different types of facilities or providers.
    38. The Commission again seeks comment on revisions to its 
definitions of ``Prison'' and ``Jail,'' and specifically, the costs 
providers incur in providing service to confinement facilities that are 
not correctional institutions. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether its statutory authority under section 276 can be interpreted to 
extend to confinement facilities. Finally, the Commission seeks comment 
on possibly obtaining additional data about serving very small jails, 
the possible designation of a third party to receive refunds from IPCS 
accounts and possibly adopting a uniform additive to the IPCS rate caps 
to account for correctional facility costs.

B. Legal Basis

    39. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 
4(i)-(j), 201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, and 403 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 
201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, 403, and 617 and the Martha Wright-
Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act of 2022, Public Law 117-
338, 136 Stat 6156 (2022).

[[Page 77071]]

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

    40. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rule revisions, if adopted. The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. 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.
    41. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the 
outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly 
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size 
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of 
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having 
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 
99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 
million businesses.
    42. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for 
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were 
approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting 
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data 
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
    Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 
90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose 
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of 
this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, 
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 
and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts) 
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on 
the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 
48,724 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
    43. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating 
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure 
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, 
sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission 
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of 
technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired 
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a 
variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including Voice 
over internet Protocol (VoIP) services, wired (cable) audio and video 
programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By 
exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution 
services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are 
included in this industry. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also 
referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local service providers.
    44. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers 
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    45. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers 
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    46. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services 
include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service 
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry 
with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local 
service providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers 
that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have 
1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business 
size standard, most of these providers can be considered small 
entities.
    47. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small 
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on

[[Page 77072]]

Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2021, there were 1,212 providers that reported they were 
incumbent local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the 
Commission estimates that 916 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local exchange 
carriers can be considered small entities.
    48. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small 
businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. 
Providers of these services include several types of competitive local 
exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the 
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this 
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, 
there were 3,378 providers that reported they were competitive local 
service providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 
3,230 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the 
SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be 
considered small entities.
    49. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for 
Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the 
closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA 
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers 
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in 
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated 
with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data 
in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 
2021, there were 127 providers that reported they were engaged in the 
provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 109 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry 
can be considered small entities.
    50. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 
developed a small business size standard specifically for Local 
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with an 
SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers 
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and 
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications 
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services 
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) 
are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for 
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire 
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 207 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of local 
resale services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 202 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    51. Toll Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 
developed a small business size standard specifically for Toll 
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with an 
SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers 
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and 
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications 
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services 
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. MVNOs are included in this industry. The 
SBA small business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry 
provided resale services for the entire year. Of that number, 1,375 
firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2021, there were 457 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of toll services. Of these providers, the 
Commission estimates that 438 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.
    52. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition 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. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest 
industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that 
operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, 
there were 90 providers that reported they were engaged in the 
provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 87 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.
    53. Payphone Service Providers (PSPs). Neither the Commission nor 
the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for 
payphone service providers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest 
industry with an SBA small business size standard. The 
Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged 
in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of 
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless 
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and 
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; 
they do not operate transmission facilities and

[[Page 77073]]

infrastructure. MVNOs are included in this industry. The SBA small 
business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers classifies a 
business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry provided 
resale services for the entire year. Of that number, 1,375 firms 
operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2021, there were 36 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these providers, the 
Commission estimates that 32 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.
    54. Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Providers. 
Telecommunications relay services enable individuals who are deaf, hard 
of hearing, deafblind, or who have a speech disability to communicate 
by telephone in a manner that is functionally equivalent to using voice 
communication services. Internet-based TRS connects an individual with 
a hearing or a speech disability to a TRS communications assistant 
using an internet Protocol-enabled device via the internet, rather than 
the public switched telephone network. Video Relay Service (VRS), one 
form of internet-based TRS, enables people with hearing or speech 
disabilities who use sign language to communicate with voice telephone 
users over a broadband connection using a video communication device. 
Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS) another form of 
internet-based TRS, permits a person with hearing loss to have a 
telephone conversation while reading captions of what the other party 
is saying on an internet-connected device. A third form of internet-
based TRS, internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay), permits an 
individual with a hearing or a speech disability to communicate in text 
using an internet Protocol-enabled device via the internet, rather than 
using a text telephone (TTY) and the public switched telephone network. 
Providers must be certified by the Commission to provide VRS and IP CTS 
and to receive compensation from the TRS Fund for TRS provided in 
accordance with applicable rules. Analog forms of TRS, text telephone 
(TTY), Speech-to-Speech Relay Service, and Captioned Telephone Service, 
are provided through state TRS programs, which also must be certified 
by the Commission.
    55. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small 
business size standard specifically for TRS Providers. All Other 
Telecommunications is the closest industry with an SBA small business 
size standard. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and VoIP services, via 
client-supplied telecommunications connections are included in this 
industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry 
classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in 
this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 
had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on Commission data there 
are 14 certified internet-based TRS providers and two analog forms of 
TRS providers. The Commission however does not compile financial 
information for these providers. Nevertheless, based on available 
information, the Commission estimates that most providers in this 
industry are small entities.
    56. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of 
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of 
internet services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or VoIP services, via client-
supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this 
industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry 
classifies firms with annual receipts of $40 million or less as small. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in 
this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 
had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.

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

    57. Establishing Permanent Rate Caps for Video IPCS. The Commission 
seeks comments on establishing permanent video IPCS rates, including 
updated marketplace and cost data. To the extent that permanent video 
IPCS rate caps are lower than the interim rate caps and apply to all 
types of facilities (including jails with average daily populations 
below 1,000) as detailed in the 2024 IPCS Report and Order, IPCS video 
providers (including any smaller entities) must comply with the new 
rate caps.
    58. Compliance with Quality of Service Rules. The Commission seeks 
comment on adopting quality of service rules for IPCS. It also seeks 
comment on whether there should be different standards or rules for 
different types of facilities or providers. Thus, IPCS providers that 
are small entities may be subject to any quality of service rules 
ultimately adopted by the Commission.
    59. Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Certification. The 2024 IPCS 
Report and Order directs staff to conduct an additional mandatory data 
collection to obtain updated data on video IPCS and the IPCS industry 
in general. The Commission seeks comment on the types of data that 
would be most helpful for it to collect to support its efforts to adopt 
permanent video IPCS rate caps that are just and reasonable to 
consumers, as well as ensuring fair compensation to providers. To the 
extent the Commission imposes a new mandatory data collection, 
providers of all sizes must maintain and report their cost data in 
accordance with the Commission's rules. The Commission also seeks 
comments on revising its definitions of ``Prison'' and ``Jail'' to 
capture the full universe of confinement facilities. To the extent the 
Commission expands these definitions as proposed, providers of 
communication services to these facilities may be subject to the 
Commission's regulations. We anticipate the information we receive in 
comments including where requested, cost and benefit analyses, will 
help the Commission identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters 
for small entities, including compliance costs and other burdens that 
may result from the proposals and inquiries we make herein.

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

    60. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
alternatives that could minimize impacts to small entities 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

[[Page 77074]]

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.
    61. The Commission seeks comments on establishing permanent rate 
caps for video IPCS. Data are sought from providers servicing different 
facility types and sizes, and information on how small providers 
serving jails, which may be smaller, higher-cost facilities, and larger 
prisons, which often benefit from economies of scale, can recover their 
legitimate IPCS costs related to video communications services.
    62. The Commission seeks comment on adopting quality of service 
standards for IPCS including whether there should be different 
standards or rules for different types of facilities or providers. The 
Commission seeks information on the impact such rules may have on IPCS 
providers for smaller facilities. The Commission seeks comment on the 
costs providers incur in providing service to confinement facilities of 
all sizes that are not correctional institutions. Specifically, whether 
non-correctional confinement facilities have cost characteristics that 
are substantially similar to correctional facilities.
    63. The Commission seeks comment on whether any of the burdens 
associated the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
described above can be minimized for small entities and whether any of 
the costs associated with the proposals in this summary document can be 
alleviated for small entities. The Commission will consider the 
economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in 
response to this summary and this IRFA, in reaching its final 
conclusions and promulgating rules in this proceeding.

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

    64. None.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    65. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(j), 201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, 
403, and 716 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, 403, and 617, 
and the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act of 
2022, Public Law 117-338, 136 Stat 6156 (2022), the FNPRM is adopted.
    66. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures 
set forth in Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the FNPRM on 
or before 30 days after publication of a summary of the FNPRM in the 
Federal Register and reply comments on or before 60 days after 
publication of a summary of the FNPRM in the Federal Register.
    67. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of the FNPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-19038 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P