Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

40350

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
but through a foreign country; but shall not, with respect to the provisions of subchapter II of this chapter other than second 223 of this title, include wire or radio communication between points in the same State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or the District of Columbia, through any place outside thereof, if such communication is regulated by a State commission. There has been no new legislative rule that would have required notice and an opportunity to comment. The Commissions reminder clearly served the purpose of an interpretive rule. The Administrative Procedure Act APA
exempts interpretive rules from the procedural requirements of notice and comment rulemaking. An interpretive rule is a clarification or explanation of existing laws or regulations rather than a substantive modification in or adoption of new regulations.
49. In essence, GTL contends that interstate as used in the Commissions inmate calling services rules had a different meaning than interstate as used in the Communications Act and therefore that it could classify as intrastate a call that originates in one state and terminates in another state based solely on NPANXX
codes. GTLs claim is unavailing and has no bearing on the question of whether the Commission was required to provide additional notice and an additional opportunity to comment prior to clarifying that interstate as used in the inmate calling services rules continues to have the same meaning as interstate as used in the Communications Act and historical Commission usage of the term.
50. In any event, the Ancillary Services Refresh Public Notice fully apprised all interested parties that the Commission would be considering how it should proceed in the event an ancillary service could not be segregated between interstate and intrastate calls. That public notice also invited comment on what additional steps the Commission should take to ensure that providers of interstate inmate calling services do not circumvent or frustrate the Commissions ancillary service charge rules. GTL claims that the Ancillary Services Refresh Public Notice was insufficient to inform stakeholders that the Commission might reexamine the methodology used to determine whether a call or charge is interstate or intrastate. But the Public Notice made clear that the Commission would be considering when an ancillary service is interstate, which necessarily involves a determination whether the calls in connection with that service are
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:30 Jul 27, 2021

Jkt 253001

interstate. For this reason, the Commission also rejects Pay Tels assertion that the Ancillary Services Refresh Public Notice did not contemplate an evaluation of the jurisdictional classification of inmate calling services calls. And, when the record revealed that certain providers were using NPANXX codes, rather than endpoints, to classify calls as interstate or intrastate, the Commission properly clarified, consistent with the text of the Act and long-standing precedent, that using the geographic endpoints was the proper method to determine call jurisdiction. Thus, the Commissions clarification that providers must use an end-to-end analysis in classifying calls as interstate or intrastate was, at the very least, a logical outgrowth of the Ancillary Services Refresh Public Notice. Indeed, absent such clarification, the Commission could not have responded fully to the D.C. Circuits directive to ascertain on remand whether ancillary service charges could be segregated between interstate and intrastate components.
51. For the reasons stated herein, the Commission denies GTLs petition on the merits and dismiss it as procedurally defective.
IV. Severability 52. All of the rules and policies that are adopted in the Commissions Third Report and Order and this Order on Reconsideration are designed to ensure that rates for inmate calling services are just and reasonable while also fulfilling the Commissions obligations under sections 201b and 276 of the Act. Each of the separate reforms the Commission undertakes here serves a particular function toward these goals. Therefore, it is the Commissions intent that each of the rules and policies adopted herein shall be severable. If any of the rules or policies is declared invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining rules shall remain in full force and effect.
V. Procedural Matters 53. People with Disabilities. The Commission asks 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 fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202 4180530.
54. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will not send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act CRA, see 5 U.S.C.

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

801a1A, because it does not adopt any rule as defined in the CRA, 5 U.S.C.
8043.
55. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended RFA, the Commission has prepared a Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis FRFA
relating to the Order on Reconsideration. The FRFA is set forth below.
56. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. The Order on Reconsideration does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 10413. Therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burdens for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506c4.
VI. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Order on Reconsideration 57. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended RFA, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis IRFA was incorporated in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Commissions Inmate Calling Services proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in that Notice, including comment on the IRFA.
The Commission did not receive comments directed toward the IRFA.
Thereafter, the Commission issued a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis FRFA conforming to the RFA. This Supplemental FRFA supplements that FRFA to reflect the actions taken in the Order on Reconsideration and conforms to the RFA.
58. The Order on Reconsideration denies a Petition for Reconsideration of the 2020 ICS Order on Remand and reiterates that the jurisdictional nature of an inmate calling services telephone call depends on the physical location of the originating and terminating endpoints of the call.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
59. The Commission did not receive comments specifically addressing the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.

E:FRFM28JYR1.SGM

28JYR1