Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50969 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) 

Dated: August 5, 2011. 

Sandra K. Knight, 

Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administrator, Mitigation, Department of 

Homeland Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20866 Filed 8–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket Nos. 03–109 and 11–42; CC 

Docket No. 96–45; DA 11–1346] 

Further Inquiry Into Four Issues in the 

Universal Service Lifeline/Link Up 

Reform and Modernization Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; solicitation of 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission (Commission) sought 

public comment on proposed reforms 

that would assist the Commission in 

assessing strategies to increase 

broadband adoption, without increasing 

overall program size. Based on the 

current record in this proceeding, four 

issues in particular merit further 

inquiry. In this document, the 

Commission seeks further inquiry on 

four issues: designing and implementing 

a Lifeline/Link Up broadband pilot 

program to evaluate whether and how 

Lifeline/Link Up can effectively support 

broadband adoption by low-income 

households; limiting the availability of 

Lifeline support to one discount per 

residential address; revising the 

definition of Link Up service, as well as 

the possible reduction of the $30 

reimbursement amount for Link Up 

support; and improving methods for 

verifying continued eligibility for the 

program. The Commission believes that 

this analysis would benefit from further 

development of these issues in the 

record, and therefore seek further 

comment focused on these areas. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

August 26, 2011. Reply comments are 

due on or before September 2, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated above. All 

comments are to reference WC Docket 

Nos. 11–42, 03–109, and CC Docket No. 

96–45 and may be filed using: (1) The 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS) or (2) by filing 

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St., SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8 a.m. to 7 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, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). For detailed instructions 

for where and how to file comments, see 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jamie Susskind, Attorney Advisor, 

Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, (202) 418–7400 or TTY (202) 

418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To 

comprehensively reform and modernize 

the universal service Lifeline and Link 

Up programs in light of recent 

technological, market, and regulatory 

changes, on March 4, 2011 the 

Commission released the 2011 Lifeline 

and Link Up Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM or 2011 Lifeline and 

Link Up NPRM), 76 FR 16482, March 

23, 2011. The NPRM sought public 

comment on proposed reforms that 

would significantly bolster protections 

against waste, fraud, and abuse; control 

the size of the program; strengthen 

program administration and 

accountability; improve enrollment and 

outreach efforts; and support pilot 

programs that would assist the 

Commission in assessing strategies to 

increase broadband adoption, without 

increasing overall program size. Based 

on the current record in this proceeding, 

four issues in particular merit further 

inquiry: designing and implementing a 

Lifeline/Link Up broadband pilot 

program to evaluate whether and how 

Lifeline/Link Up can effectively support 

broadband adoption by low-income 

households; limiting the availability of 

Lifeline support to one discount per 

residential address; revising the 

definition of Link Up service, as well as 

the possible reduction of the $30 

reimbursement amount for Link Up 

support; and improving methods for 

verifying continued eligibility for the 

program. We believe that the 

Commission’s analysis would benefit 

from further development of these 

issues in the record, and therefore seek 

further comment focused on these areas. 

1. Broadband Pilot Program 

a. Scope of Permissible Funding. We 

seek comment on the Commission’s 

statutory authority to permit universal 

service funds to be used for such 

purposes, directly or indirectly, and 

what other legal considerations must be 

addressed before the Commission 

proceeds with a broadband pilot 

program. 

b. Consumer Eligibility for Pilot 

Program. We seek additional focused 

comment specifically on whether to 

maintain the current eligibility 

requirements for consumers 

participating in the pilot program that 

are currently used in the low-income 

program, or whether to adopt stricter or 

more permissive eligibility requirements 

for those consumers. How might 

adjusting the eligibility criteria affect 

our ability to maximize broadband 

adoption while providing support that 

is sufficient, but not excessive? How 

would it affect the reliability and 

statistical significance of the results of 

the pilot program? How would it help 

the pilot programs yield better data on 

how to accomplish our goals of 

maximizing adoption in low-income 

communities? 

c. Barriers to Consumer Participation 

in Pilots. The National Association of 

Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

supports a Lifeline/Link Up broadband 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
50970 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

pilot program and urges the 

Commission not to require Lifeline/Link 

Up broadband service pilot program 

participants to change local telephone 

service providers, purchase bundled 

broadband and voice services, or 

otherwise be penalized when they 

purchase Lifeline and Link Up 

broadband services and enabling access 

devices. Commenters should address 

whether and how the Commission could 

implement those recommendations. 

Commenters are encouraged to provide 

a legal analysis to support their 

positions. 

d. Pilot Evaluation. We invite further 

comment on the structure of the pilot 

projects, how to evaluate the results of 

pilot projects, and what reporting 

requirements should be adopted for 

pilot participants. 

i. Should the Commission structure 

the pilot program so that each 

individual participant tests multiple 

design elements (e.g,, price of the 

service, length of the offer, service type, 

kind of device connected to the 

broadband, etc.), or should each 

participant test a single variable for 

comparison against pilots operated by 

other participants? 

ii. The NPRM recognized that the cost 

of equipment is a major barrier to 

broadband adoption, and proposed to 

require at least some participants to 

provide the necessary hardware. It also 

proposed to test the impact of variations 

in equipment discounts. Should we also 

test the impact on adoption and 

broadband retention when equipment is 

leased, as opposed to purchased? 

iii. What quantitative metrics could 

the Commission use to evaluate whether 

approaches tested during the pilot 

program further the proposed goals of 

supporting broadband adoption for lowincome households and making 

broadband affordable while providing 

support that is sufficient, but not 

excessive? For instance, should we 

assess the total number of new adopters; 

new adopters as a percentage of eligible 

program participants; cost of support for 

each new adopter; average percentage of 

participants’ discretionary income spent 

on discounted broadband service 

through the pilot relative to the national 

average percentage of household 

discretionary income spent on 

broadband; and/or some other metric(s)? 

iv. How could we evaluate the relative 

impact of the service discount compared 

to other potential factors that could be 

part of a comprehensive strategy to 

increase broadband adoption, such as 

the provision of training or equipment? 

The Commission proposed to develop 

information about the cost per 

participant and cost per new adopter 

through the pilot program. This 

information could assist the 

Commission in assessing the costs and 

benefits of particular approaches to 

whether broadband should be 

supported, and if so, how. We seek 

further comment on this proposal and 

whether there are other types of data 

that the Commission should review to 

evaluate whether a given approach 

would provide support that is sufficient 

but not excessive. 

2. One-Per-Residence Limitation 

In the 2011 Lifeline and Link Up 

NPRM, the Commission proposed to 

codify a rule that would allow eligible 

low-income consumers to receive only 

one Lifeline and Link Up discount per 

residential address, and sought 

comment on related issues. 

a. Defining ‘‘Household’’ or 

‘‘Residence’’. We seek focused comment 

on whether a one-per-household or oneper-family rule would provide an 

administratively feasible approach to 

providing Lifeline/Link Up support, and 

how the Commission could implement 

such a rule. 

i. Commenters recommend that the 

Commission adopt a definition of 

‘‘household’’ that mirrors the definitions 

used to establish eligibility for other 

Federal benefit programs or used by 

other Federal agencies. We seek 

comment on whether any of these 

definitions, such as the definition of 

‘‘household’’ used to establish eligibility 

for the Low Income Home Energy 

Assistance Program (LIHEAP) or the 

definition used by the U.S. Census 

Bureau for surveying purposes, would 

provide an administratively feasible 

option for the Commission to employ to 

define who is eligible for Lifeline/Link 

Up support. 

ii. We seek comment on whether, if 

the Commission ultimately adopts a 

one-per-household rule (or a one-perresidential-address rule), requiring all 

ETCs to utilize similar procedures when 

signing up applicants in unique living 

situations would be an effective means 

of ensuring compliance with such a 

rule. 

iii. MFY Legal Services recommends 

that the Commission use room numbers 

and, if applicable, bed numbers to serve 

as potentially unique address identifiers 

for residents of group living facilities. 

We seek comment on this 

recommendation. If implemented, what 

types of information could constitute 

unique address identifiers? Who should 

be responsible for providing such 

information to the ETC—the consumer 

or the group living facility? Are there 

group living situations where a unique 

identifier would not be available, for 

example a shelter that houses all of its 

residents in a single room? 

b. Exceptions or Waivers from the 

‘‘One-Per-Household’’ or ‘‘One-PerResidential-Address’’ Rule. On May 25, 

2011, MFY Legal Services filed an ex 

parte presentation that included a copy 

of the National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration’s 

(NTIA) rule providing a limited waiver 

of the household-based eligibility 

process for the Digital-to-Analog 

Converter Box Coupon Program to allow 

applications from individuals residing 

in nursing homes, intermediate care 

facilities, and assisted living facilities. 

The NTIA rule waived the one-perresidence requirement for individuals 

residing in nursing homes, intermediate 

care facilities, and assisted living 

facilities licensed by a state, as well as 

individuals using post office boxes for 

mail receipt. Third party designees, 

such as facility administrators and 

family members, were also allowed to 

apply on behalf of residents. We seek 

comment on whether that rule could 

serve as a model for how to address 

such situations in the context of the 

low-income program. If the Commission 

were to adopt a similar rule, what 

information should applicants be 

required to provide to demonstrate they 

reside in such a facility? 

c. One-per-person for Tribal 

Residents. Smith Bagley provides 

further calculations in its comments as 

to the costs associated with providing 

enhanced Lifeline service to one 

additional adult per household on 

Tribal lands. Smith Bagley projected 

that, assuming a 100% take rate, the cost 

of providing this additional funding 

would be $77.7 million per year, or just 

under one percent of the current size of 

the overall universal service fund. We 

seek comment on the analysis provided 

by Smith Bagley. 

3. Link Up 

The NPRM addressed a number of 

issues regarding Link Up reimbursement 

for voice services. 

a. Sprint states that the costs 

associated with initiating phone service 

have fallen, noting that ‘‘the everincreasing level of automation has 

reduced the cost of initiating service,’’ 

and proposes that Link Up support be 

limited or eliminated. We seek comment 

on this proposal. 

b. We seek further focused comment 

on whether the Commission should 

provide reimbursement for Link Up 

only for service initiations that involve 

the physical installation of facilities by 

the provider at the consumer’s 

residence. 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50971 

4. Verification of Consumer Eligibility 

for Lifeline—Sampling Methodology 

In the 2011 Lifeline and Link Up 

NPRM, the Commission proposed to 

amend § 54.410 of its rules to establish 

a uniform methodology for conducting 

verification sampling that would apply 

to all ETCs in all states. The NPRM also 

asked commenters to consider two 

proposals for modifying the existing 

sampling methodology to more 

effectively balance the need for an 

administratively feasible sampling 

methodology with the Commission’s 

obligation to ensure that ineligible 

consumers do not receive Lifeline/Link 

Up benefits. We invite additional 

comment on this issue. 

a. With respect to the Commission’s 

sample-and-census proposal, could the 

Commission implement it in a way that 

would be more easily administrable for 

ETCs, particularly ETCs with a small 

number of Lifeline subscribers? 

b. TCA proposes that, if the 

Commission adopts a sample-andcensus rule, carriers with a small 

number of Lifeline subscribers should 

be required to sample fewer consumers 

than ETCs with a larger number of 

Lifeline subscribers. We seek comment 

on this proposal. Should the 

Commission consider a smaller sample 

size for ETCs with a small number of 

Lifeline customers in a given state? 

What number of respondents could 

ETCs with a smaller number of Lifeline 

customers feasibly sample in a given 

year, keeping in mind that reducing the 

required number of respondents could 

result in larger margins of error? 

c. Alternatively, should carriers with 

a small number of Lifeline subscribers 

be required to sample only a specified 

percentage of their customer base? What 

would be a reasonable percentage in 

such cases? 

This matter shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentation and 

not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented generally is 

required. Other rules pertaining to oral 

and written ex parte presentations in 

permit-but-disclose proceedings are set 

forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s 

rules. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Trent Harkrader, 

Division Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20847 Filed 8–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0055; MO 

92210–0–0008] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Leona’s Little Blue 

Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and 

initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly, Philotiella 

leona, as threatened or endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act), and to 

designate critical habitat. Based on our 

review, we find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing the Leona’s little blue butterfly 

may be warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this notice, we are 

initiating a review of the status of the 

species to determine if listing the 

Leona’s little blue butterfly is 

warranted. To ensure that this status 

review is comprehensive, we are 

requesting scientific and commercial 

data and other information regarding 

this species. Based on the status review, 

we will issue a 12-month finding on the 

petition, which will address whether 

the petitioned action is warranted, as 

provided in the Act. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before October 

17, 2011. The deadline for submitting an 

electronic comment using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES

section, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern 

Time on this date. After October 17, 

2011, you must submit information 

directly to the Klamath Falls Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section below). 

Please note that we might not be able to 

address or incorporate information that 

we receive after the above requested 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword 

box, enter Docket No. [FWS–R8–ES– 

2011–0055], which is the docket 

number for this action. Then, in the 

Search panel on the left side of the 

screen, under the Document Type 

heading, click on the Proposed Rules 

link to locate this document. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on ‘‘Send 

a Comment or Submission.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-deliver to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2011– 

0055; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 

2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all information we receive on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Request for Information section 

below for more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurie Sada, Field Supervisor, Klamath 

Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, by 

telephone (541–885–8481), or by 

facsimile (541–885–7837). If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Information 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing a 

species may be warranted, we are 

required to promptly review the status 

of the species (status review). For the 

status review to be complete and based 

on the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we request 

information on the Leona’s little blue 

butterfly from governmental agencies, 

Native American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested parties. We seek information 

on: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS