Case Background
In 2025, the
Legislature amended Sections 427.702 through 427.706, Florida Statutes (F.S.)
relating to the Telecommunications Access System Act of 1991. See 2025-148, Laws of Florida. Among
other things, these statutory changes require the Commission to set eligibility
requirements for distribution of newly defined specialized communications
technology and renumbered statutory sections referenced in Commission rule, necessitating
amendment of the rules implementing these statutes, Rule 25-4.150, Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.), The Administrator, and Rule 25-4.160, F.A.C.,
Operation of Telecommunications Relay Service.
The amendment of
Section 427.703(1), F.S., updated the definition of “Administrator,” which
entity is addressed in Rule 25-4.150, F.A.C. Section 427.703, F.S. was also
amended to add new subsection (17), defining “specialized communications
technology.” Additional amendments to Section 427.703, F.S., caused the
renumbering of the statutory section that defines “local exchange telecommunications
company,” which term is referenced in Rule 25-4.160, F.A.C.
Procedural Matters
In furtherance of the
Legislature’s directive in Section 427.704(7), F.S., staff initiated rulemaking
to amend Rules 25-4.150, and 25-4.160, F.A.C. The Commission’s Notice of
Development of Rulemaking was published in Vol. 51, Number 147, of the Florida
Administrative Register on July 30, 2025.
Staff received a request for rule
workshop regarding the draft language of Rule 25-4.150, F.A.C., from Florida
Telecommunications Relay, Inc. (FTRI), which is the “Administrator” as defined
by statute and is referenced in that rule. FTRI submitted written comments in
lieu of holding a workshop.
This recommendation addresses
whether the Commission should propose the amendment of Rules 25-4.150 and
25-4.160, F.A.C. The Commission has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 120.54,
350.127(2), and 427.704(7), F.S.
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should the Commission propose the amendment of Rule
25-4.150, F.A.C., The Administrator, and Rule 25-4.160, F.A.C., Operation of
Telecommunications Relay Service?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Commission should propose the amendment of
Rules 25-4.150 and 25-4.160, F.A.C., as set forth in Attachment A. The
Commission should also certify the rules as a minor violation rules.
(Sapoznikoff, Hinton, Guffey)
Staff Analysis:
The purpose of this rulemaking is to amend Rules
25-4.150 and 25-4.160, F.A.C., to implement statutory changes made during the
2025 legislative session. Staff recommends that the Commission propose the
amendment of Rules 25-4.150 and 25-4.160, F.A.C., as set forth in Attachment A.
Rule 25-4.150, F.A.C., The Administrator
Overall, the recommended amendments to Rule 25-4.150,
F.A.C., simplify and clarify the rule language to reference the revised
definition of the “Administrator,” as amended by the statutory changes to
Section 427.703(1), F.S., and to comply with Section 120.545(1)(c), F.S. The
more substantial recommended amendment to the rule is the addition of new
Subsection (5).
The
recommended amendments add Subsection (5) to implement the addition of Section
427.704(e), F.S., which requires the Commission to “set eligibility
requirements for the distribution of specialized communications technology.”
The statute requires the eligibility requirements be based on income qualifications
of no less than double, but no more than triple, the federal poverty level, or
participation in other state or federal programs based on income.
Subsection
(5) sets the eligibility threshold at 250 percent of the federal poverty level,
which is within the lowest and highest allowable amounts set forth in the
statute. Staff believes this level is most appropriate as it provides the
intended accessibility, but also allows for future adjustment based on initial
consumer interest and its impact on FTRI’s budget.
In addition, there are five federal programs
that qualify consumers for Lifeline Assistance. The recommended rule language allows
consumers who qualify for any of those programs to be eligible to receive the
specialized communications technology.
Staff incorporated many of the written
comments from FTRI into the recommended amendments of Rule 25-4.150, F.A.C.
FTRI had wanted the Commission to set the eligibility threshold at the top of
the statutory range, but has advised staff that it is satisfied with the
recommended amendments which allow the Commission flexibility to assess how the
income eligibility requirements affect demand for the newly available
“specialized communications technology.”
Rule 25-4.160, F.A.C., Operation of Telecommunications
Relay Service
Staff
recommends deleting subsection (1) of this rule because the current rule
language requires a discount for intrastate toll calls received from a
telecommunications relay service (TRS) and doesn’t reflect current practice. TRS
providers no longer charge for toll calls. As a result, the toll discount
language contained in the rule is no longer necessary.
Minor Violation Rule
Certification
Pursuant
to Section 120.695, F.S., for each rule filed for adoption, the agency head
shall certify whether any part of a rule is designated as a rule the violation
of which would be a minor violation. Under Section 120.695(2)(b), F.S., a
violation of a rule is minor if it does not result in economic or physical harm
to a person or adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or create
a significant threat of such harm. Rules 25-4.150 and 25-4.160, F.A.C., are
both currently listed as minor violation rules, and staff recommends that both should
remain listed as minor violation rules by the Commission. These rules are minor
violation rules because the violation of either of them would not result in
economic or physical harm to a person, cause an adverse effect on the public
health, safety, or welfare, or create a significant threat of such harm.
Therefore, for the purposes of filing the rules for adoption with the
Department of State, staff recommends that the Commission certify Rules
25-4.150 and 25-4.160, F.A.C., as minor violation rules.
Statement of Estimated
Regulatory Costs
Section
120.54(3)(b)1., F.S., encourages agencies to prepare a Statement of Estimated
Regulatory Costs (SERC) before the adoption, amendment, or repeal of any rule.
A SERC was prepared for each rule in this rulemaking and they are appended as
Attachment B. As required by Section 120.541(2)(a)1., F.S., the SERC analysis
includes whether the rules are individually likely to have an adverse impact on
economic growth, private sector job creation or employment, or private sector investment
in excess of $1 million in the aggregate within five years after
implementation.
The
SERCs conclude that neither rule will likely directly or indirectly increase
regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate in Florida within one
year after implementation. Further, the SERC concludes that the rule amendments
will not likely increase regulatory costs, including any transactional costs,
or have an adverse impact on business competitiveness, productivity, or
innovation, in excess of $1 million in the aggregate within five years of
implementation. Thus, pursuant to Section 120.541(3), F.S., neither rule
requires legislative ratification.
In
addition, the SERCs indicate that the rules would have no adverse impact on
small businesses, would have no implementation or enforcement costs on the
Commission or any other state or local government entity, and would have no
impact on small cities or small counties. The SERCs state that there will be no
transactional costs likely to be incurred by individuals and entities required
to comply with the requirements. None of the impact/cost criteria established
in Section 120.541(2)(a), F.S., will be exceeded as a result of either rule.
Finally, the SERCs indicate that there are no market impacts likely to result
from compliance with the proposed rule.
Conclusion
Based
on the foregoing, staff recommends that the Commission should propose the
amendment of Rules 25-4.150 and 25-4.160, F.A.C., as set forth in Attachment A.
Staff also recommends the Commission certify the rules as minor violation
rules.
Issue 2:
Should the docket be closed?
Recommendation:
Yes.
If no requests for hearing are made or comments from the Joint Administrative Procedures
Committee (JAPC) are filed, and no proposals for lower cost regulatory
alternatives are submitted pursuant to Section 120.541(1)(a), F.S., the rules
should be filed for adoption with the Department of State, and the docket
should be closed. (Sapoznikoff)
Staff Analysis:
If no request for hearing is made or comments from
JAPC are filed, and no proposals for a lower cost regulatory alternatives are
submitted pursuant to Section 120.541(1)(a), F.S., the rules should be filed
for adoption with the Department of State, and the docket should be closed.
