**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+-----------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | CC Docket No. 96-45         |
|                                  | *) |                             |
| Federal-State Joint Board on     | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
| Universal Service;               | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
| Promoting Deployment and         | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
| Subscribership in Unserved       | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
| And Underserved Areas, Including | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
| Tribal and Insular Areas         | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
| Commonwealth of Northern Mariana | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
| Islands                          | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
| Petitions for Reconsideration    | ** |                             |
| filed by:                        |    |                             |
|                                  | *  |                             |
| Crow Tribal Council              | *) |                             |
|                                  | ** |                             |
| Florida Public Service           |    |                             |
| Commission                       | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
| Fort Belknap Indian Community    | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
| Goshute Indian Reservation       | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
| National Telephone Cooperative   | ** |                             |
| Association                      |    |                             |
|                                  | *  |                             |
| Oglala Sioux Tribe               | *) |                             |
|                                  | ** |                             |
| Rosebud Sioux Tribe              |    |                             |
|                                  | *  |                             |
| South Dakota Independent         | *) |                             |
| Telephone                        | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
| Coalition                        | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
| Western Wireless Corporation     | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
|                                  | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
|                                  | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
|                                  | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
|                                  | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
|                                  | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
|                                  | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
|                                  | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
|                                  | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
|                                  | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
|                                  | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
|                                  | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
|                                  | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
|                                  | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
|                                  | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
|                                  | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
|                                  | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
|                                  | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
|                                  | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
|                                  | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
|                                  | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
|                                  | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
|                                  | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
|                                  | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
|                                  | ** |                             |
|                                  |    |                             |
|                                  | *  |                             |
|                                  | *) |                             |
|                                  | ** |                             |
+----------------------------------+----+-----------------------------+

**TWENTY-FIFTH ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION, REPORT AND ORDER, ORDER, AND
FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted:** May 19, 2003 **Released:** May 21, 2003

**Comment Date: 30 days after publication in the Federal Register**

**Reply Comment Date: 45 days after publication in the Federal
Register**

By the Commission: Commissioner Copps approving in part, concurring in
part and issuing a statement.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

Paragraph

I. introduction 1

II\. background 3

III\. Order on reconsideration 7

A. Petitions for Reconsideration 7

B. Discussion 8

1\. ETC Designation Framework for Carriers Serving Tribal Lands 8

2\. Definition of \"Tribal lands\" 13

3\. Universal Service Low-Income Programs 18

4\. Qualification Criteria for Enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up Service 23

IV\. Report and order ADDRESSING THE FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED
RULEMAKING IN THE *tWELFTH rEPORT AND oRDER* 25

A. Background 25

B. Discussion 26

V. ORDER ADDRESSING THE REQUEST OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF NORTHERN MARIANA
ISLANDS 28

A. Background 28

B. Discussion 29

VI\. Further notice of proposed rulemaking 32

A. Background 32

B. Discussion 33

VII\. Procedural Matters 39

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 39

B. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 40

C. Effective Date of Amended Rules 47

D. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 48

E. Filing of Comments and Reply Comments 56

VIII\. ordering clauses 60

APPENDIX A: FINAL RULES

APPENDIX B: LIST OF NEAR RESERVATION AREAS

# introduction

1.  In this Order, we address the requests of several petitioners to
    reconsider portions of the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further
    Notice* adopting rules to provide additional, targeted universal
    service support to low-income consumers on tribal lands and
    establishing a framework for the resolution of eligible
    telecommunications carrier (ETC) designations under section
    214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
    Act).[^1] The advancement of universal service on tribal lands
    remains a major policy goal of this Commission. Through our on-going
    dialogue with the tribes, as most recently exemplified by the
    Commission's launch of the Indian Telecommunications Initiatives in
    Phoenix, Arizona on September 19, 2002, the Commission continues in
    its efforts to promote telecommunications subscribership within
    American Indian and Alaskan Native tribal communities.

2.  We affirm that the framework adopted by the Commission for
    resolution of ETC designations on tribal lands provides a reasonable
    means to facilitate the expeditious resolution of such requests,
    while balancing the respective federal, state, and tribal interests.
    We also conclude that the definition of "reservation" for purposes
    of the universal service programs remains the same as that adopted
    in the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice* despite the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) subsequent modification of that
    definition for purposes of its direct assistance programs. We
    address several requests for reconsideration relating to the rule
    amendments to the universal service low-income programs adopted in
    the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*. We also clarify,
    on our own motion, the Commission's rules regarding the
    qualification criteria for enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up service. In
    addition, we decline to adopt a rule that would require resolution
    of the merits of any request for ETC designation within six months
    of the filing date. We also decline to extend the enhanced
    low-income programs to the Northern Mariana Islands. Finally, we
    seek further comment on potential modifications to our rules
    regarding availability of enhanced Federal Lifeline and Link-Up
    assistance to qualifying low-income consumers living "near
    reservations."

# background

3.  On June 30, 2000, the Commission released the *Twelfth Report and
    Order* *and Further Notice* adopting amendments to the Commission's
    universal service rules. The amended rules were designed to provide
    additional, targeted support under the universal service low-income
    programs in order to create financial incentives for carriers to
    serve and deploy facilities on tribal lands.[^2] Specifically, the
    Commission adopted measures to provide up to \$25 per month in
    additional federal Lifeline support and \$70 per consumer in
    additional Link-Up support to ETCs serving qualifying low-income
    individuals living on tribal lands.[^3] The Commission concluded
    that significantly lower-than-average incomes and subscribership
    levels on tribal lands warranted the adoption of additional measures
    designed to increase subscribership and improve access to
    telecommunications service.[^4] In so doing, the Commission noted
    that the lack of availability of telecommunications service on
    tribal lands is at odds with the statutory goal of ensuring access
    to such services to "\[c\]onsumers in all regions of the Nation,
    including low-income consumers."[^5] For purposes of identifying the
    geographic areas within which the rule amendments should apply, the
    Commission determined that the term "tribal lands" should include
    the BIA definitions of "reservation" and "near reservation"
    contained, at that time, in sections 20.1(v) and 20.1(r) of the BIA
    regulations, respectively.[^6]

4.  On August 31, 2000, the Commission, on its own motion, released an
    order staying implementation of the enhanced federal Lifeline and
    Link-Up assistance rule amendments to the extent that they applied
    to qualifying low-income consumers living "near reservations."[^7]
    Specifically, the Commission concluded that the term "near
    reservation," as defined by BIA, includes wide geographic areas that
    do not possess the same characteristics that warranted the targeting
    of enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support to reservations, such as
    geographic isolation, high rates of poverty, and low telephone
    subscribership.[^8] The Commission sought comment on how to define
    alternative geographic areas that are adjacent to reservations in a
    manner that is consistent with our goal of targeting enhanced
    Lifeline and Link-Up to the most underserved areas of the Nation.

5.  In the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, the Commission
    also found that jurisdictional ambiguities associated with the
    question of whether a state may designate a carrier as an ETC may
    unnecessarily delay the provision of service on tribal lands.[^9]
    The Commission noted that, although section 214(e)(6) of the Act
    directs the Commission to perform the eligibility designation in
    instances where a carrier is not subject to the jurisdiction of a
    state commission, section 214(e) does not address how such
    jurisdictional determinations should be made or by whom. The
    Commission therefore established a framework to streamline the
    process for eligibility designations for carriers seeking to provide
    service on tribal lands.[^10] Specifically, the Commission concluded
    that carriers seeking eligibility designations for service provided
    on tribal lands may petition the Commission directly under section
    214(e)(6), without first seeking designation from the relevant state
    commission.[^11] The Commission found that this framework is
    consistent with the execution of its duty to preserve and advance
    universal service under section 254, principles of tribal
    sovereignty, and the unique federal trust relationship between
    Indian tribes and the federal government.

6.  The Commission rejected, however, the contention that section
    214(e)(6) confers upon it the general authority to make ETC
    designations over all carriers providing service on tribal
    lands.[^12] The Commission concluded that the inquiry as to whether
    a state commission has authority to regulate the provision of
    telecommunications service on tribal lands is a particularized one,
    and thus specific to each state and the facts and circumstances
    surrounding the provision of service.[^13]

# Order on reconsideration

## Petitions for Reconsideration

7.  In September 2000, petitions for reconsideration were filed in
    response to the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*.[^14]
    Several petitioners request that the Commission reconsider the
    framework to resolve jurisdictional issues under section 214(e)(6)
    for carriers seeking ETC designation on tribal lands.[^15] Several
    petitioners also raise issues relating to the amendments to the
    universal service low-income programs adopted in the *Twelfth Report
    and Order and Further Notice*.[^16]

## Discussion

### ETC Designation Framework for Carriers Serving Tribal Lands 

8.  As discussed in greater detail below, we deny petitions for
    reconsideration of the framework to resolve requests for ETC
    designations for carriers providing service on tribal lands.[^17] We
    affirm the Commission's prior conclusion that this framework
    facilitates the expeditious resolution of such requests, while
    balancing the relevant federal, state, and tribal interests in
    determining jurisdiction over carriers operating on tribal
    lands.[^18] In addition, we note that similar arguments were
    previously considered and rejected by the Commission in the *Twelfth
    Report and Order and Further Notice*.[^19] We find no basis to now
    reconsider these issues.[^20]

9.  Consistent with the Commission's prior conclusion, we decline to
    adopt the suggestion of those petitioners contending that section
    214(e)(6) provides the Commission with the authority to assume
    jurisdiction over all carriers seeking ETC designation for service
    on tribal lands.[^21] These petitioners contend that any exercise of
    state jurisdiction in designating ETCs on tribal lands is
    inconsistent with the federal trust responsibility to tribes and the
    principle of tribal sovereignty. As the Commission concluded in the
    *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, we do not believe
    that Congress intended the Commission to use section 214(e)(6) to
    usurp the role of a state commission that has jurisdiction over a
    carrier providing service on tribal lands.[^22] To the contrary, in
    adopting section 214(e)(6), Congress recognized that some state
    commissions had asserted jurisdiction over tribal lands.[^23]
    Congress also acknowledged pending jurisdictional disputes between
    states and tribes and made clear that the adoption of section
    214(e)(6) was not "intended to impact litigation regarding
    jurisdiction between State and federally-recognized tribal
    entities."[^24]

10. We affirm that this framework is consistent with the federal trust
    responsibility to the tribes and the principle of tribal
    sovereignty.[^25] In establishing the framework for the designation
    of carriers serving tribal lands, the Commission was guided by the
    recognition of, and respect for, principles of tribal sovereignty
    and self-determination.[^26] The designation framework recognizes
    that the principles of tribal sovereignty may lead some carriers and
    tribes to be unwilling to submit jurisdictional questions relating
    to tribal lands to a state commission. The adopted framework
    therefore provides the opportunity for parties to submit this issue
    directly to the Commission for resolution. In addition, the
    availability of a federal forum allows carriers and tribes to avoid
    the potential costs and delays that would arise if they were
    required to first challenge the jurisdictional issue in state
    proceedings and judicial appeals prior to requesting designation
    from this Commission under section 214(e)(6).

11. For the reasons discussed above, we also decline to grant SDITC's
    request that the Commission require the relevant state commission to
    make the threshold determination as to whether it has jurisdiction
    over a carrier offering service on tribal lands.[^27] In addition,
    we note that nothing in the Commission's designation framework
    affects the ability of a carrier to seek designation from a state
    commission. The Commission's framework merely provides carriers with
    the option to seek resolution of the threshold jurisdictional issue
    on tribal lands from this Commission.[^28]

12. We also decline to adopt Western Wireless' suggestion that the
    Commission establish a standard whereby the Commission assumes
    jurisdiction under section 214(e)(6) in those instances in which the
    requesting carrier has obtained an agreement with the tribe and
    proposes to offer universal service that is targeted to the tribal
    land.[^29] In so doing, we note the admonition of the United States
    Supreme Court that "\[g\]eneralizations on this subject have become
    . . . treacherous."[^30] Although the existence of a consensual
    relationship between the tribe and carrier regarding the provision
    of telecommunications service to tribal lands may be a significant
    factor in the jurisdictional analysis, we do not believe that it is
    prudent or necessary to establish such a fixed presumption. A
    careful analysis of the specific agreement between the tribe and
    carrier is necessary to determine its relevance to the
    jurisdictional determination.[^31] As noted in the *Twelfth Report
    and Order and Further Notice*, the issue of whether a state
    commission lacks jurisdiction over a carrier is a particularized
    inquiry guided in each case by the principles of tribal sovereignty,
    federal Indian law, and treaties, as well as state law.[^32] The
    framework established by the Commission allows for the careful
    balancing of the respective federal, state, and tribal interests,
    including an examination of the relationship between the carrier and
    tribe, to make this determination on a case-by-case basis.[^33] We
    therefore decline to adopt Western Wireless' proposal.

    **2. Definition of "Tribal Lands"**

13. Consistent with the request of NTCA,[^34] we confirm that the
    Commission's definition of "tribal lands" for purposes of
    considering requests for ETC designation under section 214(e)(6) is
    identical to the definition of "tribal lands" utilized in the
    context of the enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support programs.[^35]
    In the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, the Commission
    adopted a definition of "tribal lands" that included "reservation"
    and "near reservation" areas, as defined, at that time, in sections
    20.1(v) and (r) of the BIA regulations.[^36] Subsequently, the
    Commission became aware that the term "near reservation" included
    wide geographic areas, extending substantially beyond the boundaries
    of reservations, that do not possess the same characteristics that
    warranted the targeting of support to reservations. For example,
    areas such as Phoenix, Arizona and Sacramento, California are
    considered to be "near reservation areas," even though they are not
    isolated and underserved. As a result, the Commission issued an
    order staying implementation of the enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up
    rules to the extent that they apply to qualifying low-income
    consumers located on "near reservation" areas.[^37]

14. We agree with NTCA that the Commission's rationale for adopting a
    separate designation framework for carriers seeking designation on
    tribal lands does not extend to "near reservation" areas, as defined
    by BIA. As defined by BIA, near reservations are designated areas or
    communities that are adjacent or contiguous to reservations where
    financial assistance and social service programs are provided.[^38]
    Because these areas often extend substantially beyond the exterior
    boundaries of reservations, we do not believe they invoke the same
    jurisdictional concerns and principles of tribal sovereignty
    associated with areas within the exterior boundaries of
    reservations. Therefore, pending resolution of the issues presented
    in the *Tribal Stay Order*, petitions for designation filed under
    section 214(e)(6) relating to "near reservation" areas will not be
    considered as petitions relating to tribal lands.[^39] Petitioners
    seeking ETC designation in such areas must follow the procedures
    outlined in the *Twelfth Report and Order* for non-tribal lands
    prior to submitting a request for designation to this Commission
    under section 214(e)(6).[^40]

15. We also take this opportunity to confirm that the definition of
    "reservation" and "near reservation" for purposes of the universal
    service programs remains the same as that adopted in the *Twelfth
    Report and Order and Further Notice*.[^41] Therefore, within the
    context of the universal service programs, the term "reservation"
    means "any federally recognized Indian tribe's reservation, Pueblo,
    or Colony, including former reservations in Oklahoma, Alaska Native
    regions established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
    Act (85 Stat. 688), and Indian allotments."[^42] The term "near
    reservation" is defined as those areas or communities adjacent or
    contiguous to reservations which are designated by the Department of
    Interior's Commission of Indian Affairs upon recommendation of the
    local Bureau of Indian Affairs Superintendent, which recommendation
    shall be based upon consultation with the tribal governing body of
    those reservations, as locales appropriate for the extension of
    financial assistance and/or social services, on the basis of such
    general criteria as: (1) Number of Indian people native to the
    reservation residing in the area, (2) a written designation by the
    tribal governing body that members of their tribe and family members
    who are Indian residing in the area, are socially, culturally and
    economically affiliated with their tribe and reservation; (3)
    geographical proximity of the area to the reservation, and (4)
    administrative feasibility of providing an adequate level of
    services to the area.[^43]

16. As noted above, the Commission defined the term "reservation" in a
    manner consistent with section 20.1(v) of the BIA regulations and
    stated that any future BIA modifications to the definition of
    "reservation" would also apply to the definitions adopted in the
    *Twelfth Report and Order*. [^44] Following the release of the
    *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, BIA revised its
    definition of "reservation" in such a way as to no longer explicitly
    include "former reservations in Oklahoma" or "Indian allotments."
    [^45] Residence in a "service area," rather than a "reservation," is
    the new geographic eligibility requirement to receive financial
    assistance.[^46] As defined by BIA, "service area" means a
    geographic area, designated by the Assistant Secretary of Indian
    Affairs, where financial assistance and social services programs are
    provided.[^47] Such a geographic area designation can include a
    reservation, near reservation, or other geographic location. Under
    this mechanism, tribes may also request alternative service area
    designations. As noted above, BIA has also eliminated section
    20.1(r) defining near reservations and replaced it with a similar
    definition now contained in section 20.100.[^48]

17. To alleviate the potential for ongoing administrative uncertainty,
    we conclude that any future modifications to the definition of
    "reservation" or "near reservation" will take effect in the context
    of the universal service programs only upon specific action by the
    Commission. In so doing, we decline to incorporate BIA's recent
    revisions to the definition of "reservation."[^49] Notwithstanding
    the fact that BIA modifications did not include "former reservations
    in Oklahoma" and Indian allotments in its definition of
    "reservation," BIA continues to provide financial assistance in
    these areas.[^50] Accordingly, we find that maintaining the current
    definition of "reservation" for universal service purposes will be
    consistent with BIA's action in continuing to provide assistance in
    these areas, and with the Commission's commitment to increase
    subscribership and improve access to telecommunications services. We
    believe that this will ensure that the definition of "reservation"
    will remain consistent with the underlying goals of the Commission's
    enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up programs.

    **3.** **Universal Service Low-Income Programs**

18. *[SDITC Petition]{.underline}*. We grant SDITC's request to
    reconsider the Commission's finding that non-wireline carriers are
    eligible to receive Link-Up support for that portion of a handset
    that receives wireless signals.[^51] Upon reconsideration, we
    conclude that Link-Up should not offset any costs of a wireless
    handset.[^52] The Commission's rules preclude Link-Up support for
    facilities or equipment that fall on the customer side of the
    demarcation point.[^53] Although the Commission has never defined a
    demarcation point for wireless service, it has generally treated
    wireless handsets for purposes of bundled marketing of equipment and
    services as Customer Premises Equipment (CPE),[^54] which is
    equipment that falls on the customer side of the demarcation point
    between customer and network facilities.[^55] At the same time, we
    recognize that some portion of a wireless handset may perform
    functions analogous to the functions on the network side of the
    demarcation point, which, in the wireline context, would be eligible
    for Link-Up support. Nevertheless, under all the circumstances, we
    find that Link-Up should not support any costs of a wireless
    handset. In reaching this decision, we consider the difficulty of
    defining what portion, if any, of a wireless handset is on the
    network side of the demarcation point, as well as the difficulty in
    isolating the costs of such portion.[^56] We note that we make this
    finding regarding wireless handsets solely for purposes of
    determining what charges are eligible for Link-Up discounts. We
    further note that non-wireline carriers remain eligible to receive
    Link-Up support for the "customary charge for commencing
    telecommunications service," as defined in section 54.411 of the
    Commission's rules,[^57] including wireless activation fees. Where
    wireless telecommunications service is provided to an eligible
    resident of tribal lands, such charges may also continue to include
    "facilities-based" charges associated with the construction of
    facilities needed to initiate service, as provided in section
    54.411(a)(3).[^58]

19. *[Florida Commission Petition]{.underline}*. We deny the Florida
    Commission's requests for reconsideration.[^59] We disagree with the
    Florida Commission's contention that the expansion of the existing
    Lifeline program may be without clear statutory authority and
    without support in the record.[^60] As the Commission explained in
    the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, the authority to
    provide additional federal Lifeline and Link-Up assistance and
    broaden consumer qualification criteria for low-income consumers on
    tribal lands derives from sections 1, 4(i), 201, 205, and section
    254 of the Act.[^61] The Commission concluded that the
    unavailability or unaffordability of telecommunications service on
    tribal lands is at odds with its statutory goal of ensuring access
    to such services to "\[c\]onsumers in all regions of the Nation,
    including low-income consumers."[^62] The Commission further
    concluded that the lack of access to affordable telecommunications
    services on tribal lands is inconsistent with its statutory
    directive "to make 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, a rapid, efficient
    Nationwide . . . wire and radio communication service, with adequate
    facilities at reasonable charges."[^63] The Commission also
    determined that its actions were consistent with its general
    authority to "perform any and all acts, make such rules and
    regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act,
    as may be necessary in the execution of its functions."[^64]

20. In addition, the evidence and record before us at the time supported
    the expansion of the Lifeline and Link-Up program and nothing on
    reconsideration persuades us otherwise. In reaching the decision to
    enhance Lifeline and Link-Up assistance, the Commission relied on
    statistical evidence that demonstrated that American Indian and
    Alaska Native communities on average have the lowest reported
    telephone subscribership levels in the country.[^65] For example,
    the Commission noted that, according to the most recent census data,
    although approximately 94 percent of all Americans have a telephone,
    only 47 percent of Indians on reservations and other tribal lands
    have a telephone.[^66] In addition to these statistics, other
    statistical evidence, as well as the majority of comments,
    demonstrated that low incomes and poverty are the key reasons for
    low subscribership levels on tribal lands.[^67] Along with these
    conditions, the record also identified other factors as impediments
    to subscribership. These included: (1) the cost of basic service in
    certain areas (as high as \$38 per month in some areas); (2) the
    cost of intrastate toll service (limited local calling areas); (3)
    inadequate telecommunications infrastructure and the cost of line
    extensions and facilities deployment in remote, sparsely populated
    areas; and (4) the lack of competitive service providers offering
    alternative technologies.[^68] Finally, the record demonstrated that
    non-Indian, low-income households on tribal lands may face the same
    or similar economic and geographic barriers as those faced by
    low-income Indian households.[^69] After careful consideration of
    this evidence, the Commission concluded that specific and immediate
    action was needed to remedy the disproportionately lower levels of
    infrastructure deployment and subscribership prevalent among tribal
    communities to ensure affordable access to telecommunications
    services in these areas.

21. We also reject the Florida Commission's contention that the creation
    of a fourth tier of federal Lifeline support available to eligible
    telecommunications carriers serving qualifying low-income
    individuals living on tribal lands "may raise issues of
    discrimination."[^70] Specifically, the Florida Commission
    "questions whether there is any discriminatory impact by singling
    out Native American and Alaska tribal areas for the benefit of up to
    an additional \$25.00 per primary residential line." The Florida
    Commission adds that "\[i\]f the goal is to increase subscribership
    for these populations, we respectfully request first increasing
    efforts to enroll qualified low-income Native Americans and Alaskan
    Natives in the already existing Lifeline and Link-Up programs."[^71]

22. The goal of the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice* was
    not, as the Florida Commission implies, to increase subscribership
    solely among low-income Native American and Alaskan Natives. As
    explained above, the Commission recognized that American Indian and
    Alaska Native communities, on average, have the lowest reported
    telephone subscribership levels in the country. In response, the
    Commission adopted amendments to its universal service rules to
    provide additional, targeted support under the low-income programs
    for all qualifying low-income individuals on tribal lands, as
    opposed to limiting these benefits solely to qualifying low-income
    tribal members on tribal lands.[^72] In addition, the Commission
    noted that its efforts in the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further
    Notice* represent only the first step in addressing the causes of
    low subscribership within underserved and unserved areas.[^73] The
    Commission therefore continues to monitor the causes of low
    subscribership throughout the Nation and will be addressing this
    important issue on an ongoing basis.[^74] Accordingly, we do not
    find that our rules raise issues of discrimination.

    **4. Qualification Criteria for Enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up
    Service**

23. We also clarify, on our own motion, the federal default
    qualification criteria for enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up service as
    set forth in section 54.409(c) of the Commission's rules. As
    discussed above, in the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further
    Notice*, the Commission modified its universal service rules to
    increase access to telecommunications services among low-income
    individuals on tribal lands. In particular, the Commission created a
    fourth tier of federal Lifeline support to substantially reduce the
    cost of basic telephone service for such individuals. In addition,
    the Commission revised its rules governing the Link-Up program to
    provide increased federal support to reduce the costs of initial
    connection charges and line extension charges. Finally, the
    Commission broadened the federal default qualification criteria to
    enable low-income individuals living on tribal lands to qualify for
    this enhanced support by certifying their participation in certain
    additional means-tested assistance programs.[^75] We make this
    clarification to ensure that those otherwise eligible to participate
    in the enhanced programs will have the full opportunity to do so.

24. We take this opportunity to clarify that a low-income individual
    living on tribal lands in a state that mandates state Lifeline
    support shall be eligible for Tiers One, Two, Three, and Four of
    federal Lifeline support if the consumer meets the eligibility
    criteria established by the state for such support. If the consumer
    does not meet the eligibility criteria established by the state for
    such support, or if the consumer lives in a state that does not
    mandate state Lifeline support, the consumer living on tribal lands
    may qualify for Tiers One, Two, and Four of federal Lifeline support
    if the consumer participates in at least one of the following nine
    programs: Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance,
    Tribally-Administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Head
    Start (only those meeting its income qualifying standard), the
    National School Lunch Program's free lunch program, Medicaid, Food
    Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, Federal Public Housing
    Assistance (Section 8) or the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
    Program.[^76] In addition, such consumer may still be eligible to
    receive Tier Three of federal Lifeline support, as described in
    section 54.403(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, if the ETC offering
    the Lifeline service provides carrier-matching funds.[^77] We
    strongly encourage eligible carriers to ensure that customer service
    representatives handling inquiries about the universal service
    low-income programs, especially enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up, are
    trained with regard to the operative eligibility criteria as
    clarified in this Order. We also take this opportunity to reiterate
    that the Commission's rules require eligible carriers to publicize
    the availability of Lifeline and Link-Up services in a manner
    reasonably designed to reach those likely to qualify for those
    services.[^78]

# Report and order ADDRESSING THE FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IN THE *tWELFTH rEPORT AND oRDER*

## Background

25. In the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, the Commission
    sought comment on whether to adopt a rule that would require
    resolution, by the Commission or a state commission, on the merits
    of any request for ETC designation within a six-month period, or
    some shorter period.[^79] The Commission noted that lengthy delays
    in addressing requests for designation may hinder the availability
    of affordable telecommunications service in many high-cost areas.
    The Commission committed to resolve, within six months of the date
    filed, all ETC designation requests for non-tribal lands that are
    properly before it pursuant to section 214(e)(6).[^80] In addition,
    the Commission committed to resolve, within six months of release of
    an order resolving the jurisdictional issue, any request for ETC
    designation on tribal lands.[^81] Several parties filed comments in
    response to this Further Notice.[^82]

## Discussion

26. We decline to adopt a rule at this time that would require state
    commissions to resolve the merits of any request for designation
    under section 214(e) within six months or some shorter period. We
    conclude that such action is unnecessary at this time. In so doing,
    we note that a number of ETC designation requests pending at the
    time of release of the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*
    have been resolved by state commissions.[^83] We commend these state
    commissions for resolving those designation requests. We continue to
    encourage state commissions to act with the appropriate analysis yet
    as expeditiously as possible on all such requests. In addition, we
    note that a state's action on ETC designation requests may be
    reviewed under section 253 as a potential barrier to entry.[^84]
    Although we continue to encourage states to address such requests in
    a timely manner, we find no need for further action at this time.

27. In addition, we disagree with those commenters who suggest that the
    Commission should adopt a rule requiring resolution within six
    months of all ETC designations filed with the Commission, including
    requests for designation on tribal lands.[^85] In the *Twelfth
    Report and Order and Further Notice*, the Commission committed to
    resolve the merits of any request for designation on tribal lands
    within six months of release of an order resolving the
    jurisdictional issue.[^86] We decline, however, to extend this
    commitment to resolution of the jurisdictional issues presented in
    tribal ETC designation proceedings.[^87] As the Commission noted in
    the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, the determination
    of whether a state commission lacks jurisdiction over a carrier
    providing service on tribal lands is a legally complex inquiry that
    may require additional time to fully address. The Commission also
    has specifically committed to resolving, within six months from the
    date filed, all designation requests for non-tribal lands that are
    properly before it pursuant to section 214(e)(6).[^88] The
    Commission has acted expeditiously on all ETC requests filed since
    the release of the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further
    Notice*.[^89] We conclude, therefore, that no further measures
    beyond those adopted in the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further
    Notice* are required at this time to expedite the resolution of ETC
    designation requests filed before this Commission.

# ORDER ADDRESSING THE REQUEST OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

## Background

28. In a letter dated September 11, 2000, the Commonwealth of the
    Northern Mariana Islands' (CNMI) requested that the Commission
    extend to the Northern Mariana Islands the same measures adopted by
    the Commission to promote subscribership and infrastructure
    deployment on tribal lands.[^90] CNMI maintains that the rationale
    for enhancing Lifeline and Link-Up support and broadening the
    eligibility criteria for support on tribal lands applies to the
    Northern Mariana Islands.

## Discussion

29. We decline, at this time, to extend to the Northern Mariana Islands
    the same measures that were adopted to promote subscribership on
    tribal lands. The record is insufficient to establish that the
    Northern Mariana Islands has the same impediments to subscribership
    and infrastructure investment as tribal lands.

30. The actions taken by the Commission in the *Twelfth Report and Order
    and Further Notice* were designed to address impediments to
    subscribership and infrastructure investment on tribal lands, where
    high cost service and low subscribership are most egregious. The
    Commission identified a number of factors that are primary
    impediments to subscribership on tribal lands, including the cost of
    basic service, the cost of intrastate toll service, inadequate
    telecommunications infrastructure and the cost of line extensions,
    and the lack of competitive service providers offering alternative
    technologies. [^91] We find that CNMI has not provided any
    information that would allow us to identify the main impediments to
    subscribership on the Northern Mariana Islands (*e.g.*, geographic
    isolation, limited local calling areas, cost of basic service). CNMI
    merely asserts that the Northern Mariana Islands has low telephone
    penetration rates, low income levels, and a trust relationship with
    the federal government that is similar to that of tribal
    communities.[^92] Given the lack of specific information in the
    record, we cannot conclude that the enhanced low-income programs
    established for tribal lands would be effective in addressing the
    causes of low subscribership rates on the Northern Mariana Islands.

31. We note that the Commission specifically chose not to apply the
    actions taken in the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*
    more generally to all high-cost areas and all insular areas, which
    would have included the Northern Mariana Islands. [^93] The
    Commission found that, although the record demonstrated that
    subscribership levels are below the national average in other
    low-income, rural areas and in certain insular areas, it did not
    permit a determination that the factors causing low subscribership
    on tribal lands are the same factors causing low subscribership
    among other populations.[^94] We find that CNMI has not provided any
    evidence that would lead us to depart from this determination.
    Specifically, CNMI has not demonstrated that the Northern Mariana
    Islands has low penetration rates and low per capita incomes that
    are similar to those on tribal lands.[^95] Although CNMI provides
    1995 data suggesting that telephone penetration rates and per capita
    incomes on the Northern Mariana Islands are below the national
    average, even these statistics exceed those that exist on tribal
    lands. In the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, the
    Commission noted that subscribership on reservations was
    approximately 47 percent and per capita incomes were only
    \$4,478.[^96] By comparison, CNMI indicates that the subscribership
    rates in the Northern Mariana Islands is 61 percent and per capita
    income is \$6,897. We therefore deny CNMI's request to extend to the
    Northern Mariana Islands the same measures adopted by the Commission
    to boost subscribership levels on tribal lands. As noted, however,
    the Commission continues to monitor the causes of low subscribership
    and develop appropriate measures to address these causes as
    necessary.

# Further notice of proposed rulemaking

## Background

32. On August 31, 2000, the Commission stayed the implementation of the
    enhanced federal Lifeline and Link-Up assistance rule amendments to
    the extent that they apply to qualifying low-income consumers living
    "near reservations."[^97] In so doing, the Commission concluded that
    the term "near reservation," as defined by BIA at the time, includes
    wide geographic areas that do not possess the same characteristics
    that warranted the targeting of enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up
    support to reservations, such as geographic isolation, high rates of
    poverty, and low telephone subscribership.[^98] The Commission
    therefore stayed application of enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up
    support on near reservation areas. At that time, the Commission
    sought further comment on whether and, if so, how it should identify
    geographic areas that are adjacent to the reservations, consistent
    with the goal of targeted enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up.[^99] The
    Commission indicated that the stay would remain in effect pending
    resolution of the issues raised in the Further Notice. A few
    commenters filed in response to this Further Notice.[^100]

## Discussion

33. We seek further comment on the proposals in the record to identify
    geographic areas that are adjacent to the reservations, consistent
    with the goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up to the most
    underserved areas of the Nation. As set forth in the *Tribal Stay
    and Order,* the term "near reservation," as defined by BIA at the
    time of adoption of the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further
    Notice* and codified in our rules in this Order*,*[^101] includes
    wide geographic areas that do not possess the same characteristics
    that warrant the targeting of support to reservations, such as
    geographic isolation, high rates of poverty, and low telephone
    subscribership.[^102] As several commenters note, this definition of
    "near reservation" incorporates many highly populated, urban areas
    across the Nation, including major cities such as Phoenix,
    Sacramento, Seattle, and Las Vegas.[^103] As set forth in the
    *Tribal Stay and Order,* we continue to find that using this
    definition of "near reservation" will not target enhanced Lifeline
    and Link-Up appropriately.

34. We issue this Further Notice to obtain more detailed information on
    proposals contained in the current record, as well as additional
    proposals that may be more consistent with our goal of targeting
    enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support to only the most underserved
    areas of our Nation and that may impose fewer administrative
    burdens.[^104] For instance, USCC recommends excluding major
    metropolitan areas from the enhanced low-income programs by
    excluding Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs) from
    receiving enhanced low-income support.[^105] Washington UTC suggests
    that enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support be provided in the
    entirety of any telephone exchange that contains all or any portion
    of a tribal reservation.[^106] In addition, Smith Bagley, Inc. (SBI)
    proposes that a person qualify for enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up
    benefits if he or she resides within 50 miles of a recognized Native
    American reservation and in a county that has a population density
    of no more than 50 persons per square mile.[^107]

35. We seek comment on data that addresses whether these proposed target
    areas share the same characteristics of reservation areas. For
    example, SBI fails to explain why it recommends choosing a
    population density of 50 persons per square mile.[^108] We seek
    record support regarding these issues. Moreover, the proposals of
    USCC, Washington UTC, and SBI may not adequately ensure that the
    enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support mechanisms are targeted only
    to those areas that share the same attributes as reservations. For
    example, we believe that these proposals may not exclude large
    cities from the definition of "near reservation."[^109] We seek
    comment on how these proposals may be tailored to exclude such large
    cities.

36. We seek comment on how to minimize any administrative burdens raised
    by these proposals. For example, SBI proposes that the Commission
    produce and distribute maps outlining all areas that are within a 50
    mile radius of a reservation in which the county contains less than
    50 persons per square mile.[^110] We believe that the Commission may
    not be the appropriate entity to undertake such tasks because it has
    no particular expertise with regard to such mapmaking. In addition,
    we are not aware of any current map that contains all reservations
    as defined by the Commission.[^111] We seek comment on alternative
    sources for such maps. We seek comment on the feasibility of having
    prospective ETCs bear the cost and burden of producing their own
    maps showing the areas in which they request ETC designation.

37. We also seek comment on additional proposals for defining the
    geographic areas that are near reservations to ensure that enhanced
    Lifeline and Link Up support is targeted to qualifying low-income
    consumers living in areas adjacent to, or near, reservations that
    share many of the same characteristics as the reservations. We
    request that commenters provide detailed information to assist us in
    determining how enhanced Lifeline and Link Up support should be
    targeted. Such information should include the population of the
    geographical area, the number of income-eligible subscribers, the
    distance of each area from the nearest reservation, whether there is
    any legal recognition of that area by the BIA, whether the area
    includes or is part of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA),[^112]
    and the level of telephone subscribership in the area. Wireline
    Competition Bureau staff have estimated, through analysis of recent
    Census data of a sampling of zip codes in near reservation
    areas,[^113] that the level of telephone subscribership in Indian
    households is lower than the level of telephone subscribership for
    all households.[^114] We ask commenters to provide their own data
    comparing the level of telephone subscribership in Indian households
    in near reservation areas with the level of telephone subscribership
    in all households in near reservation areas, or comment on the
    Bureau's preliminary estimates. Bureau staff have also estimated
    that a greater percentage of Indian households in near reservation
    areas have incomes under \$25,000, compared to all households in
    near reservation areas.[^115] We ask commenters to provide their own
    data comparing the percentage of low‑income Indian households in
    near reservation areas with the percentage of all low‑income
    households in near reservation areas, or comment on the Bureau's
    preliminary estimates.[^116] We note that the Bureau's most recent
    penetration report indicates that there is a correlation between low
    levels of household income and low levels of telephone
    subscribership.[^117]

38. Finally, we seek comment on the effect of any proposed "near
    reservation" definitions on the ETC designation process. As
    explained above, we conclude that, pending resolution of the "near
    reservation" definition, petitions for ETC designation relating to
    near reservation areas will not be considered as petitions relating
    to tribal lands. Petitioners seeking ETC designation in such areas
    must follow the procedures outlined in the *Twelfth Report and Order
    and Further Notice* for non-tribal lands prior to submitting a
    request for designation to the Commission under section
    214(e)(6).[^118] The Commission reached this conclusion because it
    believed that near reservation areas do not invoke the same
    jurisdictional concerns and principles of tribal sovereignty that
    are associated with areas within the boundaries of reservations.
    Accordingly, we request that any proposed definitions of \"near
    reservation\" also include a discussion of the impact of such
    definition on the ETC designation process.

# Procedural Matters

## Paperwork Reduction Act

39. The action contained herein has been analyzed with respect to the
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and found to impose new
    reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements or burdens on the
    public. Implementation of these modified reporting and/or
    recordkeeping requirements will be subject to approval by the Office
    of Management and Budget (OMB) as prescribed by the PRA, and will go
    into effect upon announcement in the Federal Register.

## Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

40. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^119] an
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in
    the *Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice*.[^120] The Commission
    sought written public comment on the proposals in the Further
    Notice, including comment on the IRFA. In addition, a Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) and IRFA were included in the
    *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*.[^121] In compliance
    with the RFA, this present FRFA supplements the FRFA contained in
    the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice* to the extent that
    changes to that Order adopted here on reconsideration require
    changes in the conclusions reached in the FRFA.[^122]

### Need for and Objectives of the Order

41. The Commission issues this Order to ensure that enhanced Lifeline
    and Link-Up support is targeted to the only the most underserved
    segments of our Nation. The Commission takes this action as part of
    its implementation of the Act's mandate that "\[c\]onsumers in all
    regions of the Nation . . . have access to telecommunications and
    information services . . .."[^123] In this Order, we affirm that the
    framework adopted by the Commission for resolution of ETC
    designations on tribal lands provides a reasonable means to
    facilitate the expeditious resolution of such requests, while
    balancing the respective federal, state, and tribal interests. In
    addition, we conclude that the definition of "reservation" for
    purposes of the universal service programs remains the same as that
    adopted in the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice* despite
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) subsequent modification of that
    definition for purposes of its direct assistance programs. We also
    clarify the Commission's rules regarding the qualification criteria
    for enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up service.

### Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

42. We received no comments directly in response to the IRFA in this
    proceeding. However, we reconsider our conclusion that Link-Up
    support should offset a portion of the costs of a wireless handset.
    Pending resolution of the issues presented in the *Tribal Stay*
    Order, we also conclude that carriers seeking designation as an ETC
    on "near reservation" areas must follow the procedures established
    for non-tribal designations in the *Twelfth Report and Order and
    Further Notice*.

### Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules Will Apply

43. In the FRFA at paragraphs 162-178 of the *Twelfth Report and Order
    and Further Notice*, we described and estimated the number of small
    entities that would be affected by the new universal service rules
    and amendments for low-income consumers residing on tribal lands.
    The rule amendments adopted herein apply to the same entities
    affected by the rules adopted in that order. We therefore
    incorporate by reference paragraphs 162-178 of the *Twelfth Report
    and Order and Further Notice*.[^124]

### Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

44. The actions taken herein will require carriers seeking designation
    as an ETC on near reservation areas to file such requests with the
    relevant state commission. Pending resolution of the issues
    presented in the *Tribal Stay Order and Further* Notice, only in
    those instances where a carrier provides the Commission with an
    affirmative statement from a court of competent jurisdiction or the
    state commission that it lacks jurisdiction to perform the
    designation will we consider section 214(e)(6) designation requests
    from carriers serving near reservation areas.

### Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

45. In this Order, we confirm that the definition of "reservation" for
    purposes of the universal service programs remains the same as that
    adopted in the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*. This
    decision will not result in a significant economic impact on small
    entities. We also conclude that Link-Up support should not offset
    any costs of a wireless handset. Given that Link-Up support is a
    one-time reduction in the eligible consumer's connection charge, we
    do not believe that this decision will result in a significant
    economic impact on any small wireless entities.

### Report to Congress

46. The Commission will send a copy of this Order, including this FRFA,
    in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional
    Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the
    Commission will send a copy of the Order, including the FRFA, to the
    Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A
    copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be
    published in the Federal Register. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

## Effective Date of Amended Rules

47. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C § 553(d),[^125] the rule amendments adopted
    herein shall take effect thirty (30) days after publication in the
    Federal Register.

## Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

48. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended,
    (RFA),[^126] the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic
    effect on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the
    FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments
    must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
    deadline for comments on the FNPRM provided below in the Comment
    Filing Procedures section. The Commission will send a copy of the
    FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
    Small Business Administration.[^127] In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA
    (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
    Register.[^128]

### Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

49. This FNPRM is being issued in order to ensure that enhanced Lifeline
    and Link-Up support is targeted to the most underserved segments of
    our Nation. The Commission sought comment on the same questions
    present herein in the *Tribal Stay Order and Further* Notice.[^129]
    This FNPRM seeks to bolster the record on how to define the
    geographic areas that are adjacent to reservations or are otherwise
    part of the reservation's community of interest, in a manner that is
    consistent with our goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up
    support to the most underserved segments of the Nation. This action
    is taken pursuant to the Act's mandate that "\[c\]onsumers in all
    regions of the Nation . . . have access to telecommunications and
    information services. . . ."[^130]

### Legal Basis

50. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the
    FNPRM is contained in sections 1-4, 201-205 and 254 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154,
    201-205 and 254.

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

51. In the IRFA at paragraphs 11-31 of *Tribal Stay Order and Further
    Notice*, we described and estimated the number of small entities
    that would be affected by the determination to stay application of
    the enhanced low-income programs to "near reservation" areas and to
    consider alternative definitions. The proposals discussed in this
    FNPRM apply to the same entities. We therefore incorporate by
    reference paragraphs 11-31 of the *Tribal Stay Order and Further
    Notice*.[^131]

### Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

52. The measures under consideration in this FNPRM may, if adopted,
    result in additional reporting or other compliance requirements. A
    modified definition of "near reservation" may impact reporting
    requirements for carriers eligible to receive enhanced Lifeline and
    Link-Up. For example, such carriers may be required to compile maps
    or derive other means to determine whether qualifying low-income
    customers fall within any designated geographic areas. In addition,
    if the current stay is lifted and an alternative definition of "near
    reservation" is adopted, eligible carriers may be required to submit
    data regarding an increased number of qualifying low-income
    consumers. Such increased reporting requirements would be offset by
    increased opportunities to receive universal service support.

### Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

53. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
    that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
    include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the
    establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
    timetables that take into account the resources available to small
    entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
    compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for 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 small entities.[^132]

54. In the FNPRM, we outline the various alternative proposals that have
    been suggested to the Commission in response to the *Tribal Stay
    Order and Further Notice*. We seek comment on the cost and benefits
    of each of these alternative proposals, including the potential
    administrative burdens involved in implementing such proposals on
    eligible carriers. The Commission's rules relating to the receipt of
    enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support apply equally to all eligible
    carriers providing service to qualifying low-income consumers. The
    proposals presented herein are consistent with these standards.

### Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules

55. None.

## Filing of Comments and Reply Comments

56. We invite comment on the issues and questions set forth in the
    Further Notice above. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
    Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties
    may file comments on or before 30 days after publication in the
    Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 45 days after
    publication in the Federal Register. Comments may be filed using the
    Commission\'s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing
    paper copies. *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
    Proceedings*, 63 Fed. Reg. 24121 (1998).

57. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to \<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html\>.
    Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed.
    If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of
    this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic
    copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced
    in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters
    should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address,
    and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also
    submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing
    instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail
    to <ecfs@fcc.gov>, and should include the following words in the
    body of the message, \"get form.\" A sample form and directions will
    be sent in reply. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
    original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or
    rulemaking number appear in the caption of this proceeding,
    commenters 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 (although we
    continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service
    mail). The Commission\'s contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive
    hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
    Commission\'s Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite
    110, Washington, D.C. 20002. The filing hours at this location are
    8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
    with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes 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
    9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal
    Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be
    addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554. All
    filings must be addressed to the Commission\'s Secretary, Office of
    the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Parties also
    should send four (4) paper copies of their filings to Sheryl Todd,
    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, Rm. 5-A520,
    S.W., Washington, DC 20554.

58. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified
    information collections are due on or before 45 days after the date
    of publication in the Federal Register. Written comments must be
    submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the
    proposed and/or modified information collections on or before 60
    days after date of publication in the Federal Register. In addition
    to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the
    information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to
    Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445
    12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
    <jboley@fcc.gov> and to Edward Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room
    10236 NEOB, 725 17^th^ Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503 or via
    the Internet to <edward.springer@omb.eop.gov>.

59. To  request materials in accessible formats for people with
    disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
    send an e-mail to <fcc504@fcc.gov> or call the Consumer &
    Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0531 (voice), 202-418-7365
    (tty).

# ordering clauses

60. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained
    in sections 1-4, 214(e), and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934,
    as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 214(e), and 254, and section 1.429
    of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.429, this ORDER ON
    RECONSIDERATION, REPORT AND ORDER, ORDER, AND FURTHER NOTICE IS
    ADOPTED. The collections of information contained within this Order
    are contingent upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget.
    The Commission will publish a notice announcing the effective date
    of the collections of information.

61. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned petitions for
    reconsideration of the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*
    ARE DENIED, to the extent discussed herein.

62. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration of the
    National Telephone Cooperative Association, filed on September 5,
    2000, IS GRANTED, to the extent discussed herein.

63. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration of the
    South Dakota Independent Telephone Coalition, filed on September 5,
    2000, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, to the extent discussed
    herein.

64. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 54 of the Commission's rules, 47
    C.F.R. Part 54, IS AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A attached
    hereto, effective thirty (30) days after the publication of this
    ORDER in the Federal Register.

65. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this Order, including the Initial and Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
    of the Small Business Administration.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch Secretary

    **APPENDIX A -- FINAL RULES**

    Part 54 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
    follows:

    **PART 54 -- UNIVERSAL SERVICE**

    **Subpart E -- Universal Service Support for Low-Income Consumers.**

    1\. Section 54.400 is amended by revising paragraph (e) and the note
    to paragraph (e) to read as follows:

    **§ 54.400 Terms and definitions.**

    **\* \* \* \* \***

    \(e\) [*Eligible resident of Tribal lands*.]{.underline} An
    "eligible resident of Tribal lands" is a "qualifying low-income
    consumer," as defined in paragraph (a) of this section, living on or
    near a reservation. A "reservation" is defined as any federally
    recognized Indian tribe's reservation, Pueblo, or Colony, including
    former reservations in Oklahoma, Alaska Native regions established
    pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688),
    and Indian allotments. "Near reservation" is defined as those areas
    or communities adjacent or contiguous to reservations which are
    designated by the Department of Interior's Commission of Indian
    Affairs upon recommendation of the local Bureau of Indian Affairs
    Superintendent, which recommendation shall be based upon
    consultation with the tribal governing body of those reservations,
    as locales appropriate for the extension of financial assistance
    and/or social services, on the basis of such general criteria
    as: (1) Number of Indian people native to the reservation residing
    in the area, (2) a written designation by the tribal governing body
    that members of their tribe and family members who are Indian
    residing in the area, are socially, culturally and economically
    affiliated with their tribe and reservation; (3) geographical
    proximity of the area to the reservation, and (4) administrative
    feasibility of providing an adequate level of services to the area.

    Note to Paragraph (e): This paragraph (e) is stayed to the extent
    that it applies to qualifying low-income consumers living "near
    reservations."

    2\. Section 54.409 is amended by revising the third sentence of
    paragraph (a), and the first and third sentence of paragraph (c) to
    read as follows:

    **§ 54.409 Consumer qualification for Lifeline**

    \(a\) \* \* \* A state containing geographic areas included in the
    definition of "reservation" and "near reservation," as defined in §
    54.400(e), must ensure that its qualification criteria are
    reasonably designed to apply to low-income individuals living in
    such areas.

    \* \* \* \* \*

    \(c\) A consumer that lives on a reservation or near a reservation,
    but does not meet the qualifications for Lifeline specified in
    paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, nonetheless shall be a
    "qualifying low-income consumer" as defined in § 54.400(a) and thus
    an "eligible resident of Tribal lands" as defined in § 54.400(e) and
    shall qualify to receive Tiers One, Two, and Four Lifeline service
    if the individual participates in one of the following federal
    assistance programs: Bureau of Indian affairs general assistance;
    Tribally administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; Head
    Start (only those meeting its income qualifying standard); or
    National School Lunch Program's free lunch program. **\* \* \*** To
    receive Lifeline support under this paragraph for the eligible
    resident of Tribal lands, the eligible telecommunications carrier
    offering the Lifeline service to such consumer must obtain the
    consumer's signature on a document certifying under penalty of
    perjury that the consumer receives benefits from at least one of the
    programs mentioned in this paragraph or paragraph (b) of this
    section, and lives on or near a reservation, as defined in §
    54.400(e). \* \* \*

**APPENDIX B -- LIST OF NEAR RESERVATION AREAS**

This list encompasses areas in all states that have been given a "near
reservation" designation by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of
the Interior.

[Arizona]{.underline}

Tribe: Pascua Yaqui

Pima County, Arizona communities of South Tucson, Old Pascua Village and
Yoem Pueblo.

Tribe: Tonto Apache Indians of Arizona

The communities of Gisela, Payson, and Star Valley in the State of
Arizona.

Tribe: Colorado River

Bouse, Ehrenberg, Parker, Salome, Lake Havasu City, Kingman, Bull Head
City, Holiday Shores, Mohave Valley, Havasu Valley

Tribe: Fort Apache

Pine Top, Lakeside, Eager, Showlow, Nutrioso, Holbrook, Overgaard,
Alpine, Taylor, Springerville, Herber, Globe, St. Johns, Snowflake,
Winslow

Tribe: Majave-Apache

Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale

Tribe: Queehan, Cocopah

Gadsen, Roll, San Luis, Somerton, Tacna, Yuma, Wellton

Tribe: Hopi

Holbrook, Winslow, Flagstaff, Grand Canyon, Page

Tribe: Navajo

Grand Canyon, Joseph City, Marble Canyon, Flagstaff, Snowflake,
Holbrook, Page, Wupatki, Winslow

Tribe: Papago

Tucson, Why, South Tucson, Ajo, Gila Bend, Sasabe, Case Grande,
Sahuarita, Coolidge, Marana, Florence, Red Rock, Eloy, Cortaro, Toltec,
Picacho, Buckeye, Arizona City, Stanfield

Tribe: Ak-Chin

Chandler, Mobile, Laveen, Stanfield, Casa Grande, Gila Bend, Phoenix,
Midway, Eleven Mile Corner, Kyrene, Coolidge, Florence, Buckeye,
Maricopa

Tribe: Gila River

Chandler, LaPalma, Eloy, Ocotillo, Casa Grande, Gilbert, Higley, Kyrene,
Rittenhouse, Hightown, Queen Creek, Gila Bend, Stanfield, Chandler Hts,
Florence, Mobile, Maricopa, Coolidge, Boree Corners, Avondale, Randolf,
Tempe, Phoenix, Guadalupe, Mesa, Glendale, Litchfield, Laveen, Eleven
Mile Corner, Buckeye, Cotton Bowl, Tolleson, Apache Junction

Tribe: Salt River Pima-Maricopa

Tempe, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale

Tribe: San Carlos

Miami, Superior, Eden, Thatcher, Pima, Safford, Hayden, Winkleman,
Globe, Port Thomas, Showlow

Tribe: Hualapai

Kingman, Seligman, Nelson, Grand Canyon, Williams, Flagstaff

Tribe: Yavapai (Prescott)

Prescott

Tribe: Yavapai (Apache)

Jerome, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, Rimrock, McGuire\< ville, Camp Verde,
Lake Montezuma

Tribe: Kalbab-Palute

Fredonia, Arizona; St. George, Utah; Kanob, Utah; Cedar City, Utah

[California]{.underline}

Tribe: Big Sandy Rancheria

The counties of Madera, Fresno and Kings in the State of California.

Tribe: Big Valley Rancheria

The counties of Lake and Sonoma in the State of California.

Tribe: Bishop Reservation

The counties of Mono and Inyo in the State of California.

Tribe: Cedarville Rancheria

The county of Modoc in the State of California.

Tribe: Cortina Rancheria

The counties of Glenn, Colusa, Yolo and Sacramento in the State of
California.

Tribe: Dry Creek Rancheria

The county of Sonoma in the State of California.

Tribe: Fort Bidwell Reservation

The county of Modoc in the State of California. The counties of Lake and
Klamath in the State of Oregon.

Tribe: Greenville Rancheria

The counties of Plumas, Lassen, Shasta, Tehama, Butte, Yuba and Sutter
in the State of California.

Tribe: Hopland Reservation

The counties of Mendocino and Sonoma in the State of California.

Tribe: Karuk Tribe of California

The counties of Siskiyou, northeastern Humboldt from State Highway 96
milepost HUM 28.61 north to the Siskiyou County Line in the State of
California.

Tribe: Laytonville Rancheria

The counties of Mendocino, Lake and Humboldt in the State of California.

Tribe: Mechoopda Indian Tribe of the Chico Rancheria

The county of Butte in the State of California.

Tribe: Mooretown Rancheria

The county of Butte in the State of California.

Tribe: North Fork Rancheria

The counties of Madera, Mariposa and Fresno in the State of California.

Tribe: Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians

The counties of Fresno, Madera and Mariposa in the State of California.

Tribe: Pinoleville Reservation

The counties of Mendocino, Sonoma, Lake and Napa in the State of
California.

Tribe: Redding Rancheria

The county of Trinity and the western two-thirds of Shasta in the State
of California.

Tribe: Redwood Valley Rancheria

The counties of Mendocino and Sonoma in the State of California.

Tribe: Coast Indian Community of the Resighini Rancheria

The county of Del Norte in the State of California.

Tribe: Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria

The counties of Humboldt and Del Norte in the State of California.

Tribe: Round Valley Reservation

The counties of Trinity, Mendocino, Lake and Sonoma in the State of
California.

Tribe: Scotts Valley Rancheria

The counties of Mendocino, Lake, Sonoma and Contra Costa in the State of
California.

Tribe: Sherwood Valley Rancheria

The counties of Mendocino, Lake and Sonoma in the State of California.

Tribe: Shingle Springs Rancheria

The counties of El Dorado, Sacramento, Placer and Yolo in the State of
California.

Tribe: Smith River Rancheria

The counties of Del Norte and Humboldt in the State of California. The
counties of Curry, Josephine and Coos in the State of Oregon.

Tribe: Susanville Indian Rancheria

The county of Lassen in the State of California.

Tribe: Tule River Reservation

The county of Tulare in the State of California.

Tribe: Tuolumne Rancheria

The county of Tuolumne in the State of California.

Tribe: Yurok Tribe

The counties of Humboldt and Del Norte in the State of California.

[Colorado]{.underline}

Tribe: Navajo

La Plata, Cortez, Bayfield, Durango, Ignacio, and Towaoc

[Idaho]{.underline}

Tribe: Shoshone-Bannock

Counties of Bingham, Power, Bannock and Caribou

Tribe: Battle Mountain Indian Colony of the Te-Moak Band of the Western
Shoshone, Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Duck Valley
Shoshone-Pauite, Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, Elko Community Committee, Ely
Colony of Western Shoshone, Te-Moak Bands of the Western Shoshone, South
Fork Community Committee organization.

The Nevada counties of Elko, Eureka, Lander, Nye, and White Pine
inclusively; the community of Winnemucca, Nevada; the Utah county of
Tooele; the Idaho counties of Ada, Canyon, Elmore, and Owyhee.

Tribe: Nez Perce Tribe

The towns of Lewiston, Kendrick, Grangeville, and Cottonwood in Idaho,
and the towns of Asotin and Clarkston in Washington.

[Louisiana]{.underline}

Tribe: Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana

The Saint Mary Parish in the State of Louisiana

Tribe: Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana

Parishes of Allen Jefferson Davis, Louisiana

Tribe: Tunica-Biloxi Indians of Louisiana

Parishes of Avoyelles and Rapids, Louisiana

[Michigan]{.underline}

Tribe: Bay Mills Indian Community

The counties of Chippewa, Luce and Mackinac in the State of Michigan.

Tribe: Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians

The counties of Grand Traverse, Charlevoix, Leelanau, Benzie, Manistee
and Antrim in the State of Michigan.

Tribe: Hannahville Indian Community

The counties of Delta, Menominee and Dickinson in the State of Michigan.

Tribe: Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

The counties of Baraga, Iron, Houghton, Marquette, Ontonagon, Dickinson,
Gogebic and Keweenaw in the State of Michigan.

Tribe: Lac Vieux Desert

The counties of Gogebic, Ontonogin and Iron in the State of Michigan.

Tribe: Saginaw Chippewa

The counties of Isabella, Arenac, Osceola, Mecosta, Montcalm, Midland,
Gratiot, Gladwin and Midland in the State of Michigan.

Tribe: Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Michigan

The counties of Chippewa, Mackinac, Luce, Alger, Schoolcraft, Delta and
Marquette in the State of Michigan.

[Mississippi]{.underline}

Tribe: Choctaw

Counties of Neshoba, Leake, Newton, Kemper, Scott, Attala, Lauderdale,
Winston, Noxubee, Clarke, Smith and Jones

[Montana]{.underline}

Tribe: Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana

The communities of Cut Bank, Dupuyer, and Valier in the State of
Montana.

Tribe: Crow Tribe of Montana

City of Hardin, Montana

Tribe: Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes

Cities of Harlem and Dodson, Montana

Tribe: Northern Cheyenne

Ashland, Montana

[Nevada]{.underline}

Tribe: The Nevada counties of Humboldt, Washoe, Story, Pershing,
Churchill, Douglas, Mineral, Lyon, Esmeralda, Clark and Nye.

Tribe: Fallon Paiute Shoshone; Fort McDermitt Paiute Shoshone; Lovelock
Paiute; Pyramid Lake Paiute; Reno Sparks Indian Colony's Summit Lake
Paiute; Walker River Paiute; Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California;
Winnemucca Indian Colony; Yerington Paiute; and Yomba Shoshone

The county of Carson City in the State of Nevada

Tribe: Battle Mountain Indian Colony of the Te-Moak Band of the Western
Shoshone, Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Duck Valley
Shoshone-Pauite, Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, Elko Community Committee, Ely
Colony of Western Shoshone, Te-Moak Bands of the Western Shoshone, South
Fork Community Committee organization.

The Nevada counties of Elko, Eureka, Lander, Nye, and White Pine
inclusively; the community of Winnemucca, Nevada; the Utah county of
Tooele; the Idaho counties of Ada, Canyon, Elmore, and Owyhee.

[New Mexico]{.underline}

Tribe: Pueblo of San Juan, New Mexico

Communities within five miles from the reservation border, including
Alcade, Arroyo Seco, Chamita, Chili, El Llano, El Quique, Espanola,
Guachupange, Hernandez, La Mesilla, San Pedro, Santa Cruz and Velarde,
New Mexico.

Tribe: Navajo

Farmington, Aztec, Bloomfield, Magdalena, Cuba, Kirtland, Grants, Milan,
Socorro, Gallup

[North Carolina]{.underline}

Tribe: Cherokee

Counties of Cherokee, Graham, Haywood, Jackson and Swain

[North Dakota]{.underline}

Tribe: Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians

Rolette County, North Dakota

Tribe: Devils Lake Sioux Tribe

Cities of Devils Lake, Minnewaukan, Oberon and Sheyenne, North Dakota

[Oklahoma]{.underline}

Tribe: Kaw, Otoe-Missouria, Ponca, Tonkawa, Pawnee

*North Boundary*- From the west of Grant County, along the
Oklahoma-Kansas state line, to the east boundary of Kay County. *East
Boundary*- Commencing northeast corner of Kay County, south on Kay
County line to Kaw City thence southwest to the Arkansas River,
following Arkansas River to Cimarron Turnpike. *South Boundary*- From
juncture of Arkansas River and Cimarron Turnpike, west on Cimarron
Turnpike to State Highway 18, south on State Highway 18 to the Cimarron
River, west along the Cimarron River to Coyle, Oklahoma, thence along
State Highway 33 west to Kingfisher, Oklahoma. *West Boundary*-
Commencing at Kingfisher, Oklahoma, north on State Highway 81 to the
Garfield County line, west along the Garfield County line to the west
boundary of Garfield County, thence north along the west boundaries of
Garfield and Grant Counties to the Oklahoma-Kansas state line.

Tribe: Chyenne-Arapaho

Woodward, Major, Kingfisher, Canadian, Blaine, Dewey, Custer, Washita,
Beckham, Roger Mills Counties and that southeastern portion of Ellis
County which falls within the former reservation boundaries.

Tribe: Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe
of Oklahoma, Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, Sac and
Fox Tribe of Oklahoma.

All of Payne County north of the Cimarron River except that part which
lies within the boundaries of the Pawnee Tribe's former reservation; and
all the area within a six-mile-wide strip of land in Logan, Oklahoma,
and Cleveland Counties, beginning at the extreme southwest corner of
Payne County where the line intersects with the Cimarron River, then
running due south to the South Canadian River (all within the State of
Oklahoma).

[Oregon]{.underline}

Tribe: Burns Paiute

The Communities of Burns and Hines in the State of Oregon and those
public domain allotments in Harney County, Oregon inhabited by members
of the Burns Paiute Tribe.

Tribe: Yakama Indian Nation

The community of Celilo Village in the State of Oregon

Tribe: Umatilla

Counties of Umatilla and Union; Celilo Village in Wasco county

Tribe: Warm Springs Confederated Tribes

Counties of Jefferson, Wasco, Clackamas, Marion, Linn, Crook, Deschutes,
and Hood River (all within the State of Oregon).

Tribe: Fort Bidwell Reservation

The county of Modoc in the State of California. The counties of Lake and
Klamath in the State of Oregon.

Tribe: Smith River Rancheria

The counties of Del Norte and Humboldt in the State of California. The
counties of Curry, Josephine and Coos in the State of Oregon.

Tribe: Confederated Tribe of the Siletz Indians

The counties of Washington, Clackamas, and Multnomah (all of the above
within the State of Oregon).

[South Dakota]{.underline}

Tribe: Cheyenne River Sioux

The community of Faith, South Dakota (only that area falling within the
city limits of Faith, South Dakota.

Tribe: Rosebud Sioux

The South Dakota counties of Gregory, Melette, Tripp, and Lyman
(excluding that portion of Lyman County which falls within the
boundaries of the Lower Brule Indian Reservation).

Tribe: Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux

The communities of Waubay, South Dakota and Wilmot, South Dakota.

[Utah]{.underline}

Tribe: Kalbab-Palute

Fredonia, Arizona; St. George, Utah; Kanob, Utah; Cedar City, Utah

Tribe: Battle Mountain Indian Colony of the Te-Moak Band of the Western
Shoshone, Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Duck Valley
Shoshone-Pauite, Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, Elko Community Committee, Ely
Colony of Western Shoshone, Te-Moak Bands of the Western Shoshone, South
Fork Community Committee organization.

The Nevada counties of Elko, Eureka, Lander, Nye, and White Pine
inclusively; the community of Winnemucca, Nevada; the Utah county of
Tooele; the Idaho counties of Ada, Canyon, Elmore, and Owyhee.

[Washington]{.underline}

Tribe: Muckleshoot

The counties of King and Pierce in the State of Washington.

Tribe: Nisqually

Thurston, County and pierce County in the State of Washington.

Tribe: Nooksack

Whatcom County and Skagit County in the State of Washington.

Tribe: Suquamish

Counties of Mason, Kitsap, Thurston, Snohomish, King and Pierce in the
State of Washington.

Tribe: Swinomish

Skagit County in the State of Washington.

Tribe: Quinault Indian Nation

The counties of Grays Harbor and Jefferson in the State of Washington

Tribe: Skokomish Indian Tribe of the Skokomish Reservation of Washington

Mason County within the State of Washington

Tribe: Lummi

County of Whatcom in the State of Washington

Tribe: Klallam

County of Kitsap in the State of Washington

Tribe: Puyallup

Counties of King, Pierce, Kitsap, Thurston, in the State of Washington

Tribe: Tulalip

County of Snohomish in the State of Washington

Tribe: Hoh

Counties of Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor and King in the State of
Washington

Tribe: Quileute

Forks, Washington

Tribe: Colville Confederated Tribes

Counties of Ferry, Stevens, Okanogan, Grant, and Douglas

Tribe: Nez Perce Tribe

The towns of Lewiston, Kendrick, Grangeville, and Cottonwood in Idaho,
and the towns of Asotin and Clarkston in Washington.

Tribe: Kalispel Tribe

Counties of Pend Oreille, Stevens, and Spokane (all within the State of
Washington).

Tribe: Spokane

Counties of Spokane, Lincoln, Stevens and Pend Oreille (all within the
State of Washington).

Tribe: Chehalis Confederated Tribes

Counties of Grays Harbor, Lewis, Thurston, Cowlitz, and Mason (all
within the State of Washington).

Tribe: Shoalwater Bay

Counties of Grays Harbor and Pacific (all within the State of
Washington).

Tribe: Squaxin Island

Counties of Mason, Kitsap, Pierce, and Thurston (all within the State of
Washington).

Tribe: Confederated Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation

Counties of Klickitat, Grant, Yakima, and Skamania; towns of Wenatchee
and Ellensburg (all within the State of Washington).

[Wyoming]{.underline}

Tribe: Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River reservation of Wyoming and
Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation of Wyoming

Cities of Lander and Riverton, Wyoming

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS,**

**APPROVING IN PART, CONCURRING IN PART**

Re: *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Promoting
Deployment and*

*Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and
Insular*

*Areas*

Three years ago, the Commission adopted an official policy statement to
guide interactions between the agency and tribal governments. For the
first time in its history, the Commission formally affirmed the
principles of tribal sovereignty and federal trust responsibility. The
Commission committed to consult with tribal governments before taking
action affecting tribal land and resources and committed to address
persistent communications problems like low penetration in Indian
communities.

Although I support the Order we adopt today, I concur in part because I
fear that our Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking falls short of the
vision and commitment expressed in our official policy statement. For
the second time in three years, we seek comment on how the Commission
can ensure that tribal members living *near* tribal lands can benefit
from the same enhanced Lifeline and Link Up available to those living
*on* tribal lands. As the Commission already has recognized, lands
adjacent to reservations have been considered tribal lands for purposes
of other federal programs targeted to federally-recognized Indian
tribes. Many of these near reservation areas share the same high rates
of poverty, low telephone subscribership and geographic isolation found
on tribal lands. Moreover, rates of unemployment on tribal lands of 20
and 30 and 40 percent often compel members to move off reservations to
adjacent areas where job prospects are brighter. I understand that the
Commission's prior definition of near reservation inadvertently included
highly populated urban areas not targeted for enhanced support.
Nonetheless, I believe that it is high time for the Commission to choose
an appropriate limiting principle for near reservation areas and resolve
this issue once and for all.

By seeking another round of comment we only further delay enhancing
tribal communities' access to telecommunications. As a result, we delay
these same communities' access to education, commerce, government and
public services. Native Americans should not be the last Americans to
reap the benefits of the Information Age. We need to work harder to
honor the commitment we made in our policy statement to address low
penetration rates in Indian Country. I remain hopeful that in this
proceeding we finally will identify the effective mechanism to address
support for subscribership and facilities deployment in Indian
communities in near reservation areas. I look forward to working with my
colleagues and with tribal governments and communities to make this
happen.

[^1]: *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Promoting
    Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas,
    Including Tribal and Insular Areas*, Twelfth Report and Order,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96-45, 15 FCC Rcd 12208 (2000) (*Twelfth
    Report and Order and Further Notice).*

[^2]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12213-14, para. 5.

[^3]: The Lifeline support program is designed to increase
    subscribership by reducing qualifying low-income consumers' monthly
    basic local service charge. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 54.401. The Link-Up
    program assists qualifying low-income consumers in initiating
    telephone service by paying a portion of the service connection
    charge. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 54.411.

[^4]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12225, paras. 28-29.

[^5]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12221, para. 21 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 254(b)(3)).

[^6]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12218-19, paras. 17-18. Subsequent to the release of the *Twelfth
    Report and Order and Further Notice*, BIA modified these
    definitions. *See* 25 C.F.R. § 20.100.

[^7]: *See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Promoting
    Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas,
    Including Tribal and Insular Areas*, Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96-45, 15 FCC Rcd 17112 (2000)
    (*Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice*).

[^8]: *Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17113, para.
    3.

[^9]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12266, para. 118.

[^10]: *See Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12265-69, paras. 115-127.

[^11]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12265-67, paras. 115, 120. Once a carrier files with the Commission
    a petition seeking ETC designation for service on tribal lands, the
    Commission undertakes a two-step analysis. First, the Commission
    determines whether a carrier providing service on tribal lands is
    subject to the jurisdiction of a state commission. Second, if the
    carrier is not subject to the jurisdiction of a state commission,
    the Commission proceeds to rule on the carrier's request to be
    designated as an ETC. *See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
    Service; Western Wireless Corporation Petition for Designation as an
    Eligible Telecommunications Carrier for the Pine Ridge Reservation
    in South Dakota*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 96-45,
    16 FCC Rcd 18133 (2001).

[^12]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12261, para. 107.

[^13]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12262, para. 108.

[^14]: Petitions for reconsideration were filed by the Crow Tribal
    Council (Crow), Florida Commission, Fork Belknap Indian Community
    (Fort Belknap), Goshute Indian Reservation (Goshute), NTCA, Oglala
    Sioux Tribe (Oglala), Qwest Corporation (Qwest), Rosebud Sioux Tribe
    (Rosebud), SBC Communications (SBC), SDITC, and Western Wireless
    Corporation (Western Wireless). Qwest and SBC subsequently filed
    requests to withdraw their petitions for reconsideration. *See*
    *Request to Withdraw Petition for Reconsideration and Application of
    Stay of Order* filed by SBC on Oct. 4, 2001; Letter from Craig J.
    Brown, Qwest, to Magalie Roman Salas, FCC, filed Dec. 3, 2001. These
    requests were granted. *See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
    Service; Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange
    Carrier Association, Inc.; Requests to Withdraw Petitions for
    Reconsideration*, Order, CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 97-21, 16 FCC Rcd
    21424 (2001).

[^15]: *See, e.g.*, Crow Petition; Fort Belknap Petition; Goshute
    Petition; Oglala Petition.

[^16]: *See e.g.,* SDITC Petition; Florida Petition.

[^17]: *See* Crow Petition; Fort Belknap Petition; Goshute Petition;
    Oglala Petition; Rosebud Petition; SDITC Petition; Western Wireless
    Petition.

[^18]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12265, para. 115.

[^19]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12261-62, 12265-69, paras. 106-08, 115-27.

[^20]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(b).

[^21]: *See, e.g.*, Crow Petition at 2-7; Fort Belknap Petition at 1-3;
    Oglala Petition at 1-2; Rosebud Petition at 1-2.

[^22]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12261, para. 107. *See also Western Wireless Corporation Petition
    for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier for the
    Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota; Federal-State Joint Board on
    Universal Service*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No.
    96-45, 16 FCC Rcd 18145 (2001) (*South Dakota Jurisdictional
    Order*).

[^23]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12261, para. 107. *See* 143 Cong. Rec. H10808 (daily ed. Nov. 13,
    1997) (statement of Rep. Hayworth).

[^24]: *See* Colloquy between Representatives Thune and Bliley, 143
    Cong. Rec. H10808-09 (daily ed. Nov. 13, 1997).

[^25]: *But see* Crow Petition at 2-7; Fort Belknap Petition at 1-3;
    Oglala Petition at 1-2; Rosebud Petition at 1-2.

[^26]: *See Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12266, para. 119.

[^27]: SDITC Petition at 4-5.

[^28]: To avoid the potential for "forum-shopping" and the costs and
    confusion caused by a duplication of effort, the Commission has
    concluded that it will not entertain a jurisdictional determination
    if the carrier has submitted a request for designation to the state
    commission for the same geographic area within the state. *See
    Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12268-69, para. 126.

[^29]: Western Wireless Petition at 4-5. Western Wireless contends that
    such a standard would provide greater certainty at the outset
    regarding whether a carrier should apply to the state or Commission
    for ETC designation. *See id*.

[^30]: *Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones*, 411 U.S. 145, 148 (1973).

[^31]: *See South Dakota Jurisdictional Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 18151-52,
    paras. 15-16.

[^32]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12267, para. 122.

[^33]: *See generally South Dakota Jurisdictional Order*.

[^34]: *See* NCTA Petition at 1-5.

[^35]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12268, n.289.

[^36]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12217-18, para. 16. BIA has subsequently modified its definition of
    both reservation and near reservation areas. *See* 25 C.F.R. §
    20.100. *See infra* discussion.

[^37]: *See Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice*.

[^38]: *See* 25 C.F.R. § 20.100 (the definition of near reservation was
    previously contained in 25 C.F.R. § 20.1(r)) .

[^39]: As noted above, the Commission has stayed implementation of the
    enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up rules amendments to the extent that
    they apply to qualifying low-income consumers living "near
    reservations." *See Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice*. In
    addition, 25 C.F.R. § 20.1(r), defining "near reservations," has
    been replaced by 25 C.F.R. § 20.100. The Commission seeks further
    comment on the issues set forth in the *Tribal Stay Order and
    Further Notice* in the attached Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking.

[^40]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12263-64, paras. 112-13 ("\[o\]nly in those instances where a
    carrier provides the Commission with an affirmative statement from a
    court of competent jurisdiction or the state commission that it
    lacks jurisdiction to perform the designation will we consider
    section 214(e)(6) designation requests from carriers serving
    non-tribal lands.").

[^41]: *See infra* Appendix A, § 54.400(e). In the *Twelfth Report and
    Order and Further Notice*, the Commission adopted BIA's definition
    of "reservation" and "near reservation" contained, at that time, in
    25 C.F.R. § 20.1(v) and 20.1(r), respectively. *Twelfth Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12218, para. 17.

[^42]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12218, para. 17.

[^43]: The Commissioner of the Department of Interior's Commission of
    Indian Affairs is required to publish such designations in the
    Federal Register. For administrative efficiency, we have compiled a
    comprehensive list of all "near reservation" designations published
    in the Federal Register to date. *See* Appendix B.

[^44]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12219, para. 19.

[^45]: *See* 25 C.F.R. § 20.100. *See also* 66 Fed. Reg. 15029 (March
    15, 2001).

[^46]: *See* 25 C.F.R. § 20.100.

[^47]: *See* 25 C.F.R. § 20.100.

[^48]: *See* 25 C.F.R. § 20.100.

[^49]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12219, para. 19.

[^50]: *See* Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
    Financial Assistance and Social Services Programs, 65 Fed. Reg.
    63144 at 63148, 63150-51 (2000) (indicating that Indian allotments
    were to be included under the new definition of service area).
    Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Technical
    Amendments to Financial Assistance and Social Services Programs, 66
    Fed. Reg. 15029 (2000) (clarifying that an inconsistency in the
    final rule regarding eligibility in Alaska "could support an
    unintended interpretation that the BIA was denying service to
    persons previously served under the former regulations.").

[^51]: SDITC Petition at 7-8.

[^52]: We note that this decision extends only to wireless handsets that
    constitute customer equipment. Certain types of wireless service are
    provided using a wireless access terminal that is owned by the
    carrier and is not considered "customer equipment." Accordingly,
    such a unit would not be excluded from receiving Link-Up support
    under our rules. *See also Petition of the State Independent
    Alliance and the Independent Telecommunications Group for a
    Declaratory Ruling that the Basic Universal Service Offering
    Provided by Western Wireless in Kansas is Subject to Regulation as
    Local Exchange Service*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket No.
    00-239, 17 FCC Rcd 14802, para. 23 (2002). Similarly, as noted in
    the *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, if a fixed
    wireless service requires the installation of a receiver on a
    rooftop, for example, to bring service to a demarcation point,
    expanded Link-Up support could be used to offset the cost of
    installing such facilities. *Twelfth Report and Order and Further
    Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 12240, para. 61.

[^53]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.411(a)(3). The demarcation point is the "interface
    between the \[public switched telephone network\] and the inside
    wiring, and is the juncture at which the telecommunications
    carrier's responsibilities end and the customer's control begins."
    *See Review of Sections 68.104 and 68.213 of the Commission's Rules
    Concerning Connection of Simple Inside Wiring to the Telephone
    Network and Petition for Modification of Section 68.213 of the
    Commission's Rules Filed by the Electronics Industries Association*,
    Third Report and Order, CC Docket No. 88-57, 15 FCC Rcd 927, 929,
    para. 2 (2000) (*Inside Wiring Order*).

[^54]: *See, e.g., Bundling of Cellular Customer Premises Equipment and
    Cellular Service*, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 91-34, 7 FCC Rcd
    4028, para. 9 (1992).

[^55]: *Telecommunications Inside Wiring*, Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, CS Docket. No. 95-184, 11 FCC Rcd 2747, 2776 (1996).
    *See Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange
    Marketplace; Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Communications
    Act of 1934, as amended; 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review \-- Review
    of Customer Premises Equipment And Enhanced Services Unbundling
    Rules In the Interexchange, Exchange Access And Local Exchange
    Markets,* Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-61, CC Docket No.
    98-183, 16 FCC Rcd 7418, 7450 (2001).

[^56]: SDITC Petition at 7-8.

[^57]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 54.411(a).

[^58]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.411(a)(3).

[^59]: Florida Commission Petition at 3.

[^60]: Florida Commission Petition at 4.

[^61]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd at
    12220-21, paras. 20-21 and authority cited therein*.*

[^62]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd at
    12221, para. 21 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 254(b)(3)).

[^63]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12221, para. 21 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 151).

[^64]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd at
    12219-20, para*.* 20 n.45 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 154(i)).

[^65]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd at
    12223-24 , paras. 26-27 and footnotes cited therein*.*

[^66]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12224, para. 27.

[^67]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd at
    12223-24, paras. 26-27 and footnotes cited therein*.*

[^68]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd at
    12220, para. 20 and footnotes cited therein*.*

[^69]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd at
    12225, para. 29.

[^70]: Florida Commission Petition at 4.

[^71]: Florida Commission Petition at 4.

[^72]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd at
    12225, paras. 29-31*.*

[^73]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12213-14, para. 5.

[^74]: *See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service*, CC Docket
    No. 96-45, Recommended Decision, FCC 03J-2, paras. 15‑19 (rel. Apr.
    2, 2003) (*Recommended Decision*).

[^75]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12245, para. 68.

[^76]: *See infra* Appendix A, § 54.409 (c).

[^77]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 54.409(c).

[^78]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.405 and 54.411.

[^79]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12277, paras. 151-152.

[^80]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12265, para. 114.

[^81]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12267, para. 121.

[^82]: The following parties filed comments in response to this Further
    Notice: California Public Utilities Commission (California
    Commission), Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority,
    Competitive Universal Service Coalition (CUSC), Florida Public
    Service Commission (Florida Commission), National Telephone
    Cooperative Association (NTCA), Regulatory Commission of Alaska,
    South Dakota Independent Telephone Coalition (SDITC), United States
    Telecom Association (USTA), and WorldCom.

[^83]: *See, e.g., Western Wireless Corporation Designated Eligible
    Carrier Application*, Order on Remand, Case No. PU-1564-98-428 (ND
    PSC rel. Oct. 3, 2001); *WWC License LLC, d.b.a. Cellular One*,
    Order Granting Request for Eligible Telecommunications Carrier
    Status, Docket No. 199 IAC 39.2(4) (Iowa Dept. of Commerce Util. Bd.
    rel. Nov. 21, 2000). *See also* NTCA Comments at 3 (noting that
    state commissions in Arkansas, California, Kansas, Maryland,
    Minnesota, North Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin have recently
    issued decisions granting carrier ETC designations).

[^84]: *See, e.g.,* *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service;
    Western Wireless Corporation Petition for Preemption of an Order of
    the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission*, Declaratory Ruling,
    CC Docket No. 96-45, 15 FCC Rcd 15168 (2000) (*Section 214(e)
    Declaratory Ruling*).

[^85]: *See generally* Competitive Universal Service Coalition Comments
    filed Sept. 2, 2000; WorldCom Comments filed Aug. 7, 2000. *But see*
    California Commission Comments filed Aug. 4, 2000 at 3; Florida
    Commission Comments filed Aug. 4, 2000 at 3-4; NTCA Comments filed
    Sept. 1, 2000; SDITC Comments filed Aug. 7, 2000 at 2-3.

[^86]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12267, para. 121.

[^87]: *See* CUSC Comments at 19.

[^88]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12265, para. 114.

[^89]: *See, e.g.*, *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service;
    Western Wireless Corporation Petition for Designation as an Eligible
    Telecommunications Carrier for the Pine Ridge Reservation in South
    Dakota*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 96-45, FCC
    01-283 (rel. Oct. 5, 2001); *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
    Service; Guam Cellular and Paging, Inc. d/b/a Guamcell
    Communications Petition for Designation as an Eligible
    Telecommunications Carrier in the Territory of Guam*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 96-45, 17 FCC Rcd 1502 (2002).

[^90]: Letter from Thomas K. Crowe, Counsel for the Commonwealth of the
    Northern Mariana Islands to Magalie R. Salas, FCC, dated September
    11, 2000 (CNMI *ex parte*).

[^91]: *See* *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd
    at 12220, para. 20.

[^92]: CNMI *ex parte* at 5.

[^93]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd at
    12226, paras. 32-33 and footnotes cited therein.

[^94]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12226, para. 32.

[^95]: CNMI *ex parte* at 4.

[^96]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12223-24, paras. 26-27.

[^97]: *See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Promoting
    Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas,
    Including Tribal and Insular Areas*, Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96-45, 15 FCC Rcd 17112 (2000)
    (*Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice*).

[^98]: *Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17113,
    para. 3. As set forth above, in this Order we adopt the previous BIA
    definition of "near reservation" and codify it in our rules. *See
    supra* para. 14.

[^99]: *Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17113,
    paras. 5-6.

[^100]: The following parties filed comments in response to the Further
    Notice: AT&T, SBC, United States Cellular Corporation (USCC),
    Verizon, and Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
    (Washington UTC). Reply comments were filed by AT&T and USCC.

[^101]: *See supra* para. 14. We note that BIA's current definition of
    "near reservation" is not narrower than its prior definition. *See*
    25 C.F.R. § 20.100.

[^102]: *Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17113,
    para. 3.

[^103]: *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments at 2-3; SBC Comments at 1; Verizon
    Comments at 1-2.

[^104]: We note that the Commission is also seeking comment on how to
    define areas that are adjacent to tribal lands where it might be
    appropriate to provide tribal lands bidding credits. The
    Commission's current tribal lands bidding credits program grants
    credits to winning bidders who deploy facilities and provide service
    to federally-recognized tribal areas that have a telephone service
    penetration rate below 70 percent. *See Extending Wireless
    Telecommunications Services to Tribal Lands*, Second Report and
    Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket
    No. 99-266, paras. 1, 32-33 (rel. Mar. 14, 2003).

[^105]: USCC Comments at 6-7. A CMSA is a Metropolitan Statistical Area
    (MSA) that has a population of one million or more, has separate
    component areas can be identified within the entire area by meeting
    certain statistical standards, and in which local opinion indicates
    there is support for the component areas. An MSA is an area that
    includes: (1) at least one city with 50,000 or more inhabitants, or
    (2) a Census Bureau-defined urbanized area (of at least 50,000
    inhabitants) and a total metropolitan population of at least 100,000
    (75,000 in New England). *See*
    \<http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html\>.

[^106]: Washington UTC Comments at 4-5.

[^107]: Letter from David LaFuria, counsel for Smith Bagley, Inc. to
    Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, dated August 22, 2002 (SBI Letter).

[^108]: *See* SBI Letter generally.

[^109]: *See, e.g.,* USCC Comments at 6-7 (acknowledging that cities as
    large as Yakima, WA would be included in its definition of "near
    reservation"); SBI Letter at Near Lands Comparative Analysis Arizona
    & New Mexico (showing that its proposal would include Flagstaff,
    AZ).

[^110]: SBI Letter at 4-5.

[^111]: *See* Appendix A, 47 C.F.R. § 54.400(e).

[^112]: *See supra* n. 105.

[^113]: *See* 2000 Census Data at
    \<http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html\> (analysis excluded
    MSAs); Appendix B (List of Near Reservation Areas).

[^114]: For example, in near reservation areas in Arizona, telephone
    subscribership for Indian households was estimated to be 88.1%
    compared to 95.6% for all households. In near reservation areas in
    Montana, telephone subscribership for Indian households was
    estimated to be 83.7% compared to 95.1% for all households. In near
    reservation areas in New Mexico, telephone subscribership for Indian
    households was estimated to be 88.5% compared to 95.3% for all
    households. In near reservation areas in South Dakota, telephone
    subscribership for Indian households was estimated to be 74.8%
    compared to 95.2% for all households. *See* 2000 Census Data at
    \<http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html\> (analysis excluded
    zip codes in MSAs); Appendix B (List of Near Reservation Areas).

[^115]: For example, in near reservation areas in Arizona sampled by the
    Bureau, 46.1% of Indian households had annual incomes under \$25,000
    compared to 37.2% for all households. In near reservation areas in
    Montana, 62.4% of Indian households had annual incomes under
    \$25,000 compared to 43.1% for all households. In near reservation
    areas in New Mexico, 43.6% of Indian households had annual incomes
    under \$25,000 compared to 37.9% for all households. In near
    reservation areas in South Dakota, 67.2% of Indian households had
    annual incomes under \$25,000 compared to 48.4% for all households.
    *See* 2000 Census Data at
    \<http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html\> (analysis excluded
    zip codes in MSAs); Appendix B (List of Near Reservation Areas).

[^116]: According to the Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG), a family of
    four with an income at or below \$25,000 is just above 135% of the
    FPG. *See* 2003 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and
    the District of Columbia, 68 Fed. Reg. 6456-58 (2003). A family of
    four with a yearly income of \$24,840 is at 135% of the FPG. *Id*.
    We note that issues related to the federal low-income programs,
    Lifeline and Link-Up, have been raised in a different proceeding.
    *See Recommended Decision*, FCC 03J-2 at paras. 15‑19 (recommending,
    *inter alia*, that the Commission add an income-based criteria of
    135% of the FPG to the current default eligibility criteria). *See
    generally Recommended Decision*, FCC 03J-2.

[^117]: Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition
    Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, *Telephone Penetration by
    Income by State*, at 7, Chart 1 (rel. May 20, 2003) (*Telephone
    Penetration Report*) (households with the lowest incomes had the
    lowest telephone penetration rates).

[^118]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12263-64, paras. 112-13 ("\[o\]nly in those instances where a
    carrier provides the Commission with an affirmative statement from a
    court of competent jurisdiction or the state commission that it
    lacks jurisdiction to perform the designation will we consider
    section 214(e)(6) designation requests from carriers serving
    non-tribal lands.").

[^119]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et seq*.,
    has been amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^120]: *Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17115-25,
    paras. 8-36.

[^121]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12278-89, paras. 155-183.

[^122]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^123]: 47 U.S.C. § 254.

[^124]: *Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    12281-87, paras. 162-78.

[^125]: 5 U.S.C. § 553(d).

[^126]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^127]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^128]: *See id.*

[^129]: *See generally Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice*.

[^130]: 47 U.S.C. § 254.

[^131]: *Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17112,
    paras. 11-31.

[^132]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).