Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2075 

§ 1230.400 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 1230.400 by: 

■ a. In paragraphs (a), (b), and (e), 

removing ‘‘$19,246’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘$19,639’’ each place it appears. 

■ b. In paragraphs (a), (b), and (e), 

removing ‘‘$192,459’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘$196,387’’ each place it appears. 

Appendix A to Part 1230 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend appendix A to part 1230 by: 

■ a. Removing ‘‘$19,246’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘$19,639’’ each place it 

appears. 

■ b. Removing ‘‘$192,459’’ and adding 

in its place ‘‘$196,387’’ each place it 

appears. 

PART 2554—PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL 

REMEDIES ACT REGULATIONS 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 2554 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 99–509, Secs. 6101– 

6104, 100 Stat. 1874 (31 U.S.C. 3801–3812); 

42 U.S.C. 12651c–12651d. 

§ 2554.1 [Amended] 

■ 5. Amend § 2554.1 by removing 

‘‘$10,957’’ in paragraph (b) and adding 

in its place ‘‘$11,181.’’ 

Dated: January 5, 2018. 

Tim Noelker, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00558 Filed 1–12–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6050–28–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket Nos. 17–287, 11–42, 09–197; 

FCC 17–155] 

Bridging the Digital Divide for LowIncome Consumers, Lifeline and Link 

Up Reform and Modernization, 

Telecommunications Carriers Eligible 

for Universal Service Support 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) takes a fresh look at the 

Commission’s Lifeline program and 

makes changes to the Lifeline rules to 

ensure that the program can more 

effectively and efficiently help close the 

digital divide for low-income 

consumers, while minimizing the 

contributions burden on ratepayers by 

tackling waste, fraud, and abuse. 

DATES: Effective February 15, 2018, 

except for § 54.411, which will become 

effective March 19, 2018, and 

§§ 54.403(a)(3), 54.413, and 54.414 

which contain information collection 

requirements that have not been 

approved by OMB. The Federal 

Communications Commission will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date 

of those rules awaiting OMB approval. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jodie Griffin, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or TTY: (202) 

418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Fourth 

Report and Order, Order on 

Reconsideration, and Memorandum 

Opinion and Order in WC Docket Nos. 

17–287, 11–42, 09–197; FCC 17–155, 

adopted on November 16, 2017 and 

released on December 1, 2017. The full 

text of this document is available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street 

SW, Washington, DC 20554 or at the 

following internet address: http://

transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_

Business/2017/db1201/FCC-17- 

155A1.pdf. The Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) and Notice of 

Inquiry (NOI) that was adopted 

concurrently with the Fourth Report 

and Order, Order on Reconsideration, 

Memorandum Opinion and Order are 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register. 

I. Introduction 

1. This Fourth Report and Order, 

Order on Reconsideration, and 

Memorandum Opinion and Order takes 

a series of steps to address ongoing areas 

of concern in the Lifeline program to 

prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. 

Specifically, the Orders target enhanced 

Lifeline support to residents of rural 

areas on Tribal lands, establish mapping 

resources to identify rural Tribal lands, 

require independent certification of 

residency on rural Tribal lands, and 

direct enhanced support to facilitiesbased providers. In addition, this 

document makes changes to increase 

Lifeline benefit portability by 

eliminating the port freezes for voice 

and broadband internet access services. 

This document also clarifies that 

‘‘premium Wi-Fi’’ and other similar 

networks of Wi-Fi-delivered broadband 

internet access service do not qualify as 

mobile broadband under the Lifeline 

program rules. Together, the Orders 

target enhanced Lifeline support for 

Tribal lands to support the deployment 

of modern communications networks, 

promote consumer choice within the 

program, and remove uncertainty and 

streamline our rules regarding the 

application of Lifeline support and 

eligibility for Lifeline reimbursement. 

II. Fourth Report and Order 

2. In this Fourth Report and Order, 

the Commission adopts several reforms 

to our Tribal Lifeline policies to 

increase the availability and 

affordability of high-quality 

communications services on Tribal 

lands. The Commission first targets 

enhanced Lifeline support on Tribal 

lands to residents of rural areas on 

Tribal lands. Since 2000, the Lifeline 

and Link Up programs have provided an 

enhanced subsidy of up to an additional 

$25 per month for service provided to 

qualified residents of Tribal lands, and 

a Link Up reduction of up to $100 for 

the cost to initiate supported service for 

qualifying residents of Tribal lands. 

This targeted support is in recognition 

of not only the low income levels but 

also the particularly poor connectivity 

on many Tribal lands. When it adopted 

the enhanced Lifeline Tribal subsidy, 

the Commission noted that the 

‘‘unavailability or unaffordability of 

telecommunications service on Tribal 

lands is at odds with our statutory goal 

of ensuring access to such services to 

‘[c]onsumers in all regions of the 

Nation, including low-income 

consumers,’’’ and explained that the 

added Lifeline and Link Up support 

would help lead to the deployment of 

more robust networks. While the 

Commission provided the enhanced 

support as a discount on services, that 

support was focused to most efficiently 

encourage ‘‘investment and 

deployment’’ in facilities, especially 

since all Lifeline providers in the 

program at the time were facilitiesbased. Because of an overly-broad 

definition of the geographic areas 

eligible for the enhanced subsidy, 

however, many areas where this 

enhanced subsidy is currently available 

are not lacking in either voice or 

broadband networks. To remedy this, 

the Commission refines its approach to 

target enhanced Lifeline support to 

residents of rural areas on Tribal lands. 

Focusing the enhanced subsidy for 

Tribal lands on rural areas is consistent 

with the enhanced subsidy’s purpose 

and will ensure that the Fund is better 

directed toward the residents of Tribal 

lands who typically have the least 

choice for communications services. 

3. The Commission believes that 

targeting enhanced support toward 

rural, facilities-based providers is 

consistent with the intent of the 2000 

Tribal Order, 65 FR 47883, August 4, 

2000. While the 2000 Tribal Order 

referenced reducing the costs of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
2076 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

telecommunications services, it 

specifically premised the support on the 

idea that enhanced support would 

incentivize providers to ‘‘deploy 

telecommunications facilities in areas 

that previously may have been regarded 

as high risk and unprofitable.’’ The 

Commission’s creation of an enhanced 

Lifeline benefit in the 2000 Tribal Order 

both reduced telecommunications costs 

and supported the deployment of 

networks because, at the time, all ETCs 

were facilities-based. (The Commission 

did not forbear from the Act’s facilitiesbased requirements at all until 2005.) 

While the Commission must consider 

and address appropriate distinctions 

between support for facilities-based and 

non-facilities-based providers, the 

Commission does so in a way that 

continues to follow the principles 

identified in the 2000 Tribal Order and 

Sections 214 and 254 of the Act. (See 

U.S.C. 214(e) and 254(b)(3).) 

4. To identify rural areas on Tribal 

lands, the Commission adopts the 

definition of ‘‘rural’’ used in the E-rate 

program rules, which define ‘‘urban’’ as 

‘‘an urbanized area or urban cluster area 

with a population equal to or greater 

than 25,000.’’ The Commission defines 

all other areas as ‘‘rural.’’ (47 CFR 

54.505(b)(3).) In the 2015 Lifeline 

FNPRM, 80 FR 42669, July 17, 2015, the 

Commission asked for comment on 

‘‘what level of density’’ and at ‘‘what 

level of geographic granularity’’ it 

should define such rural areas. Shortly 

thereafter, the Commission began 

consultations with Tribal Nations 

regarding the Lifeline proposals that the 

Commission sought comment on in the 

2015 Lifeline FNPRM. After 

consideration of the comments, 

including comments by numerous 

Tribal stakeholders, and evaluation of 

the practicality of implementation, the 

Commission believes this definition will 

reasonably identify the Tribal areas the 

Commission intends to benefit from 

additional Lifeline funding. 

Accordingly, the Commission amends 

§§ 54.403(a)(3), 54.413, and 54.414 of 

the Lifeline program rules and directs 

the Universal Service Administrative 

Company (USAC) to develop a tool that 

will allow Lifeline service providers to 

determine whether a subscriber residing 

on Tribal lands resides in a rural area 

according to this definition. USAC shall 

update this tool pursuant to the same 

update schedule used for the E-rate 

rurality tool. 

5. Selection of the E-rate program’s 

‘‘rural’’ definition is based on 

consideration of the record and matters 

of administrative efficiency. In the 2015 

Lifeline FNPRM, the Commission sought 

comment on focusing enhanced support 

to those Tribal lands with lower 

population densities. Specifically, the 

Commission sought comment on 

‘‘focus[ing] enhanced support only on 

areas of low population density that are 

likely to lack the facilities necessary to 

serve subscribers.’’ The Commission 

also sought comment on the approach 

taken by the United States Department 

of Agriculture’s Food Distribution 

Program on Indian Reservations 

(FDPIR), which excludes from eligibility 

residents of towns or cities in Oklahoma 

with populations of 10,000 or more, and 

sought comment on whether the 

Commission ‘‘should implement a 

similar approach that excludes urban 

areas on Tribal lands from receiving 

enhanced Tribal support.’’ Some 

commenters expressed concerns with a 

population density approach, but 

provided alternative density-based 

proposals ranging from limiting 

enhanced support to areas with fewer 

than 10,000 people and a county 

population density of less than 125 

people per square mile, (Navajo Nation 

Telecommunications Regulatory 

Commission Comments at 12–13.) or 

‘‘only to Tribal lands that are located 

outside of a Metropolitan Statistical 

Area and that have less than 100 

persons per square mile.’’ (Smith Bagley 

Inc., Comments at 16) These proposals 

are more restrictive than the E-rate 

program’s definition of rural. Other 

commenters opposed limiting the 

enhanced Tribal subsidy based on 

population density. The Commission 

disagrees with those commenters 

because their path would preserve the 

status quo of providing enhanced 

support to Lifeline subscribers on Tribal 

lands in densely populated areas where 

service providers already have sufficient 

incentive to deploy broadband facilities 

as in non-Tribal areas. 

6. The Commission agrees that 

focusing enhanced support on lessdense areas will improve the Tribal 

support mechanism and better serve the 

goals of enhanced Tribal Lifeline 

support to incent deployment in areas 

that need it most and to increase the 

affordability of Lifeline services for 

Tribal lands residents. Based on the 

record, however, the Commission 

declines to adopt a population-density 

threshold to identify the Tribal areas 

that are eligible for enhanced Tribal 

support. Instead, the Commission takes 

an approach similar to the approach 

used by the FDPIR and use the E-rate 

program definition of ‘‘rural’’ to identify 

Tribal areas that are eligible for 

enhanced Lifeline support. This 

approach provides consistency between 

the E-rate and Lifeline programs. In 

addition, the Commission’s definition of 

‘‘rural’’ in the E-rate program serves the 

goals of enhanced Tribal Lifeline 

support by focusing enhanced support 

where communications services are 

more costly. As explained in the 2014 

E-rate Order, 80 FR 5961, February 4, 

2015, the Commission adopted the 

current E-rate program definition of 

‘‘rural’’ after numerous parties 

demonstrated that a narrower definition 

would result in an urban classification 

for numerous schools and libraries in 

small towns and remote areas where 

E-rate supported services are more 

costly. Using the E-rate definition of 

‘‘rural’’ to identify Tribal areas that are 

eligible for enhanced support would 

ensure that the enhanced support is 

available for Tribal lands in these small 

towns and remote areas where 

supported services are more costly. 

Further, the E-rate definition of ‘‘rural’’ 

is less restrictive than the alternative 

population density-based methodologies 

proposed by Smith Bagley and the 

Navajo Nation Telecommunications 

Regulatory Commission. 

7. The Commission also concludes 

that identifying less-dense areas by 

using the same definition of ‘‘rural’’ as 

the E-rate program (which was adopted 

in December 2014 and implemented for 

E-rate Funding Year 2015) will allow for 

more accurate, efficient administration 

by USAC. The Commission expects that 

consistency between the two USF 

programs will simplify the urban/rural 

determinations for carriers and eligible 

households. Specifically, standard 

program definitions of rurality would 

allow USAC to develop master data 

sources and simplify the development 

and updating of service provider tools 

for identifying addresses that qualify for 

enhanced support. The Commission 

therefore declines to adopt commenters’ 

proposals to create an entirely new 

definition of rurality based directly on 

the number of persons per square mile 

in a particular geographic area. Those 

proposals would create unnecessary 

administrative difficulties and 

uncertainty for Lifeline providers, 

which the Commission believes would 

in turn create confusion and fewer 

choices for eligible low-income 

consumers. 

8. The Commission also concludes 

that the provision of enhanced support 

in more densely populated Tribal lands, 

such as large cities (e.g., Tulsa, 

Oklahoma or Reno, Nevada), is 

inconsistent with the Commission’s 

primary purpose of the enhanced 

support. (Despite being ‘‘The Biggest 

Little City in the World,’’ Reno, NV has 

a population of 446,154 and, according 

to Form 477 data, 97.5% percent of the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2077 

population in its county have access to 

fixed broadband speeds of at least 25 

Mbps/3 Mbps. Tulsa, OK has a 

population of 637,215 and 100% 

percent of the population in its county 

has access to fixed broadband speeds of 

at least 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. See Fixed 

Broadband Deployment Data, 

Deployment (last visited Oct. 24, 2017), 

https://www.fcc.gov/maps/fixedbroadband-deployment-data/.) When 

the Commission first adopted enhanced 

support on Tribal lands, it noted that 

‘‘unlike in urban areas where there may 

be a greater concentration of both 

residential and business customers, 

carriers may need additional incentives 

to serve Tribal lands that, due to their 

extreme geographic remoteness, are 

sparsely populated and have few 

businesses.’’ That remains too true 

today. Approximately 98 percent of 

Americans in urban areas already have 

access to fixed broadband internet 

access service at speeds of 25 Mbps/3 

Mbps, including residents of both Tulsa 

and Reno. (See Fixed Broadband 

Deployment Data, Deployment (last 

visited Oct. 24, 2017), https://

www.fcc.gov/maps/fixed-broadbanddeployment-data/.) Directing enhanced 

support to Tribal lands in urban areas is 

unlikely to materially increase the 

deployment of facilities in such areas 

and, therefore, risks wasting scarce 

program resources. In contrast, rural 

Americans, particularly those residing 

on Tribal lands, are much less likely to 

have access to high-speed internet 

access services, with Commission data 

showing that 63 percent of Americans 

living on rural, Tribal lands lack access 

to fixed broadband services at speeds of 

25 Mbps/3 Mbps, making enhanced 

support more likely to incentivize 

deployment to serve low-income, rural 

residents on Tribal lands. (See Fixed 

Broadband Deployment Data, 

Deployment (last visited Oct. 24, 2017), 

https://www.fcc.gov/maps/fixedbroadband-deployment-data/.) This 

policy supports our view that enhanced 

Tribal support should be targeted to 

rural areas where the need is greatest. 

9. The Commission next identifies 

mapping resources that can be used to 

locate ‘‘Tribal lands’’ under our rules. 

These maps can then be intersected 

with the maps delineating rural areas in 

order to create a map showing where 

enhanced Tribal lands Lifeline support 

is available. The Commission directs 

USAC to make these mapping resources 

available to providers. 

10. Section 54.400(e) of our rules 

defines Tribal lands to include 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; Indian 

allotments; Hawaiian Home Lands held 

in trust for Native Hawaiians pursuant 

to the Hawaiian Homes Commission 

Act; and ‘‘. . . any land designated as 

such by the Commission for purposes of 

this subpart.’’ Before 2015, the 

Commission had not established any 

mapping resources to provide ready 

access to the boundaries of these Tribal 

lands. 

11. The geographic areas described in 

§ 54.400(e) of the Lifeline program rules 

correspond with the map of Hawaiian 

Home Lands maintained by the 

Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 

(DHHL), the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

American Indians and Alaska Natives 

Map, the Oklahoma Historical Map 

1870–1890, as amended by the 

Commission to include the Cherokee 

Outlet, and the Alaska Native regions 

established pursuant to the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act. (See 85 

Stat. 688.) 

12. To assist carriers and subscribers, 

the Commission identifies specific maps 

of these Tribal lands. In the 2015 

Lifeline FNPRM, the Commission 

interpreted the term ‘‘former 

reservations in Oklahoma’’ to establish 

boundaries for Tribal lands in the 

Lifeline program for residents in 

Oklahoma. The Commission and USAC 

later provided a map and shapefile for 

carriers to use in determining whether 

their customers reside on Tribal lands in 

Oklahoma. The Commission believes 

making this map available has 

successfully given clarity to providers 

and subscribers about the boundaries of 

Tribal lands in Oklahoma. The 

Commission thus believes providing 

additional maps and data, including in 

shapefile format, is appropriate for the 

other Tribal lands listed in § 54.400(e) of 

the Commission’s rules. By providing 

carriers the information they need to 

quickly and accurately determine if an 

enrolling customer qualifies for 

enhanced support under the Lifeline 

rules, these maps and data will help 

prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in the 

program. These maps and data will also 

help Lifeline providers avoid situations 

in which the provider improperly 

requests enhanced Tribal support for 

customers who self-certified their Tribal 

residence but did not actually reside on 

Tribal lands. 

13. The Hawaiian Homes Commission 

Act of 1921 (42 Stat. 108.) delineated 

the boundaries of ‘‘Hawaiian Home 

Lands’’ and tasked the DHHL with 

maintaining those boundaries, along 

with the responsibility of promulgating 

rules under that Act. As part of its 

responsibilities, the DHHL makes 

available a map and shapefile that 

precisely defines the geographic areas 

within the state of Hawaii considered 

‘‘Hawaiian Home Lands.’’ Using this 

map will assist both Lifeline providers 

and consumers. Likewise, the Census 

Bureau maintains a map of every 

‘‘federally recognized Indian tribe’s 

reservation, pueblo, or colony,’’ called 

the American Indian and Alaska Native 

Areas Map. (See 47 CFR 54.400(e).) This 

map, and its accompanying shapefile, 

comports with the data sources the 

Commission uses regularly and will also 

provide clear guidance for Lifeline 

providers and consumers. 

14. In light of these identified 

mapping resources, as well as the 

expected need for a reasonable 

transition period, the Commission 

directs USAC to prepare a map and the 

corresponding shapefiles to delineate 

the areas on which subscribers may 

receive enhanced Lifeline support for 

rural Tribal lands. USAC shall make this 

map and data available at least sixty (60) 

days before the effective date of this 

Order’s rule changes for enhanced 

Lifeline support on Tribal lands. If, in 

the future, any of the sources identified 

in this section issue updated maps or 

shapefiles, the Commission directs 

USAC to make an updated map and the 

underlying data available within a 

reasonable time period but no later than 

ninety (90) days after the updated map 

or shapefile is issued. 

15. The Commission also directs 

USAC to incorporate the map discussed 

above in its administration and 

implementation of the National Lifeline 

Accountability Database (NLAD) and 

National Eligibility Verifier (NV). 

16. In the 2015 Lifeline FNPRM, the 

Commission sought comment on 

requiring additional evidence of Tribal 

residency beyond the current selfcertification requirement and placing 

the obligation to confirm Tribal 

residency with the Lifeline provider. To 

see that enhanced Lifeline support for 

rural Tribal lands is actually directed to 

subscribers who verifiably reside on 

Tribal lands, the Commission now 

establishes that only subscribers whose 

residential address or location is shown 

to fall within the boundary of the 

enhanced Tribal Lifeline map discussed 

above may receive enhanced support. 

Previously, the Commission had 

permitted providers to accept 

subscribers’ self-certifications that they 

reside on Tribal lands according to the 

Commission’s Lifeline rules, which 

made the program vulnerable to fraud 

and abuse and resulted in a $2 million 

settlement with one provider for 

claiming enhanced Tribal support for 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
2078 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

subscribers who did not reside on Tribal 

lands. The Commission finds that the 

provision of maps delineating the 

boundaries of areas eligible for 

enhanced Tribal Lifeline support will 

give consumers and providers a more 

effective and simpler means of 

determining rural Tribal residency, 

thereby eliminating the need for 

reliance on self-certification. 

Accordingly, going forward, Lifeline 

providers will be required to 

independently verify and document 

subscribers’ rural Tribal residency 

according to the map and data sources 

identified above. An ETC may seek 

enhanced reimbursement only for 

subscribers whose residential address is 

located within the bounds of that map. 

17. In response to the 2015 Lifeline 

FNPRM, some commenters urged the 

Commission to continue to permit 

consumers to self-certify their residence 

on Tribal lands. Commenters supporting 

this approach argue that there is no 

evidence of abuse of the selfcertification mechanism, and 

eliminating self-certification would only 

increase subscriber costs. However, the 

Commission has recently found 

concrete evidence of abuse of the selfcertification mechanism, resulting in 

improper payments that had to be 

reclaimed through an enforcement 

proceeding. (See Blue Jay Wireless, LLC, 

Order, 31 FCC Rcd 7603 (EB 2016).) In 

that instance, a Lifeline provider relied 

on subscriber self-certifications to 

improperly enroll several thousand 

customers as residents of Tribal lands, 

and continued to do so even after being 

informed that it was apparently overclaiming enhanced Tribal support. The 

Commission also finds that providing a 

map against which providers can verify 

eligibility for enhanced Tribal support 

provides greater certainty to providers 

and consumers alike, and thus 

eliminates questions about how to 

handle a consumer’s self-certification if 

that consumer seems to reside outside 

Tribal lands. 

18. The Commission concludes that a 

process by which providers determine 

enhanced eligibility by comparing the 

subscriber’s residential address to data 

sources delineating rural Tribal lands is 

a more accurate method of verifying that 

a subscriber is entitled to enhanced 

Tribal reimbursement. If a subscriber 

does not reside within the bounds of the 

map that the Commission now provides, 

permitting that subscriber to receive 

reimbursement by simply certifying that 

she or he lives on Tribal lands leaves 

the program open to improper 

payments, waste, and possibly fraud 

and abuse. 

19. The Commission is also sensitive 

to Tribal residences that have not been 

assigned conventional addresses and 

instead use descriptive addresses that 

are not recognized by the U.S. Postal 

Service. For those residences, a Lifeline 

subscriber may provide a descriptive 

address when enrolling in the program. 

A provider enrolling a subscriber with 

a descriptive residential address in a 

state where the National Verifier is not 

responsible for eligibility 

determinations must retain records 

documenting compliance with the 

program rules, including the rules the 

Commission amends in this Order 

limiting enhanced Lifeline support to 

rural Tribal lands and removing 

subscriber self-certification of Tribal 

lands residency. Accordingly, the 

Commission reminds providers that 

they must retain the documentation 

demonstrating how the provider 

determined that a subscriber with a 

descriptive address resides on rural 

Tribal lands to claim the enhanced 

Tribal Lifeline support. For example, as 

providers do today to verify the 

accuracy of consumers’ selfcertification, providers may note if a 

subscriber has a ZIP code that is entirely 

located in an area eligible for enhanced 

support, or may record the latitude and 

longitude of the subscriber’s residence 

to compare against a map identifying 

areas eligible for enhanced support. The 

Commission directs USAC to develop a 

process for subscribers with descriptive 

addresses who reside on Tribal lands for 

use in the National Verifier, and to make 

public the steps in that process to better 

inform providers about acceptable 

methods of determining whether such 

subscribers are eligible for enhanced 

support. 

20. In the 2015 Lifeline FNPRM, the 

Commission sought comment on 

limiting enhanced Tribal Lifeline 

support to facilities-based service 

providers, just as the Commission in 

2012 had limited enhanced Tribal Link 

Up support to facilities-based service 

providers that also received high-cost 

support. The Commission now 

concludes that such a limitation is 

appropriate. Accordingly, the 

Commission amends § 54.403(a)(3) of 

the Lifeline program rules to effectuate 

this change. 

21. The Commission finds that lastmile facilities are critical to deploying, 

maintaining, and building voice- and 

broadband-capable networks on Tribal 

lands and Lifeline funds are more 

efficiently spent when supporting such 

networks. When the Lifeline discount is 

applied to a consumer’s bill for a 

facilities-based service, those funds go 

directly toward the cost of providing 

that service, including provisioning, 

maintaining, and upgrading that 

provider’s facilities. Since the 

introduction of enhanced Tribal and 

Link Up support in 2000, facilitiesbased providers have used that support 

to construct and upgrade networks on 

Tribal lands. 

22. In contrast, Lifeline funds 

disbursed to non-facilities-based 

providers will still lower the cost of the 

consumer’s service, but cannot directly 

support the provider’s network because 

the provider does not have one. When 

the Commission eliminated Link Up 

support for non-facilities-based carriers 

on Tribal lands in 2012, it noted that at 

least one wireless reseller ‘‘has received 

approximately a million in Link Up 

support for two months in 2011 on 

Tribal lands in [Oklahoma] without 

building infrastructure’’—contravening 

the purposes of the enhanced support. 

And in the 2015 Lifeline FNPRM, the 

Commission explained, ‘‘Lifeline 

program data show that two-thirds of 

enhanced Tribal support goes to nonfacilities based providers, and it is 

unclear whether the support is being 

used to deploy facilities in Tribal 

areas’’—which contravened the 

Commission’s express ‘‘desire to use 

enhanced support to incent the 

deployment of facilities on Tribal 

lands.’’ 

23. For the purposes of the Lifeline 

program, to enforce our revised 

§ 54.403(a)(3), the Commission limits 

enhanced Tribal support to (1) fixed or 

mobile wireless facilities-based Lifeline 

service provided on Tribal lands with 

wireless network facilities covering all 

or a portion of the relevant Lifeline 

ETC’s service area on Tribal lands; and 

(2) facilities-based fixed broadband or 

voice telephony service provided 

through the ETC’s ownership or a longterm lease of last-mile wireline loop 

facilities capable of providing Lifeline 

service to all or a portion of the ETC’s 

service area on Tribal lands. For 

purposes of enhanced Lifeline support, 

a fixed wireless provider must, 

consistent with FCC Form 477 

instructions, provision or equip a 

broadband wireless channel to the enduser premises over licensed or 

unlicensed spectrum, while a mobile 

wireless provider must hold usage rights 

under a spectrum license or a long-term 

spectrum leasing arrangement along 

with wireless network facilities that that 

can be used to provide wireless voice 

and broadband services. (The 

Commission considers a long-term 

spectrum leasing arrangement as longterm de facto transfer spectrum leasing 

arrangements as defined and identified 

in 47 CFR 1.9003 and 1.9030, and longVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Jan 12, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JAR1.SGM 16JAR1

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2079 

term spectrum manager leasing 

arrangements as defined and identified 

in 47 CFR 1.9003 and 1.9020(e).) For 

wireline providers, the Commission 

considers a ‘‘long-term lease’’ as an 

indefeasible right of use (IRU) of 10 

years or more over the last-mile facility 

in question. The Commission has found 

that IRUs carry many of the same 

indicia of control as full ownership and 

therefore are considered fully owned 

facilities in other regulatory contexts. 

24. The Commission concludes that, 

in the Lifeline program, an ETC’s use of 

tariffed and un-tariffed special access 

services, resold services offered 

pursuant to sections 251(b) and (c), 

commercially available resold services, 

or unbundled network elements (UNEs) 

does not demonstrate that the service is 

‘‘facilities-based’’ because such services 

do not reflect investment in broadbandcapable networks in the service area by 

the ETC. Previously, the Commission 

found that competitors’ use of 

incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) 

special access services is not relevant to 

whether there is sufficient facilitiesbased competition in a market to justify 

forbearance from the incumbent LEC’s 

obligation to provide UNEs. 

Additionally, UNEs themselves are only 

available in those cases where 

competitors are ‘‘impaired’’ without 

access—that is, UNEs are available to 

competitive carriers for those network 

components that a ‘‘reasonably 

efficient’’ competitor would not likely 

be able to construct on its own and 

without which market entry would 

likely be uneconomic. 

25. If an ETC offers service using its 

own as well as others’ facilities in its 

service area on rural Tribal lands, it may 

only receive enhanced support for the 

customers it serves using its own lastmile facilities. The Commission finds 

this definition is technology-neutral as 

between fixed and mobile services. 

26. For many of the same reasons the 

Commission limited Link Up support to 

facilities-based carriers on Tribal lands, 

the Commission finds that limiting 

enhanced Lifeline support to facilitiesbased service provided to subscribers 

residing on Tribal lands will focus the 

enhanced support toward those 

providers directly investing in voiceand broadband-capable networks on 

rural Tribal lands. The Commission 

finds that this result comports with the 

Act’s direction to the Commission to 

base its policies on the principle that 

‘‘low-income consumers and those in 

rural, insular, and high cost areas, 

should have access to 

telecommunications and information 

services . . . that are reasonably 

comparable to those services provided 

in urban areas. . . .’’ (47 U.S.C. 

254(b)(3).) Directing enhanced Lifeline 

funds to facilities-based services makes 

those services more affordable and 

competitive for low-income consumers 

and also encourages investment that 

will ultimately provide more robust 

networks and higher quality service on 

rural Tribal lands. Doing so also ensures 

that the payments Lifeline providers 

receive from the Fund to serve rural 

Tribal lands will be reinvested in the 

‘‘provision, maintenance, and 

upgrading’’ of facilities in those areas. 

(47 U.S.C. 254(e).) A number of Tribal 

Nations, Tribally-owned Lifeline 

providers, and other Lifeline providers 

agree with this decision and favor 

limiting enhanced support to providers 

with facilities, arguing that it will 

ensure that the enhanced subsidies 

reach the Tribal lands and residences 

that have never been connected and will 

support those network facilities already 

constructed. 

27. The Commission disagrees with 

parties who argue that resellers’ 

purchase of wholesale services from 

carriers that own facilities increases the 

incentive of those carriers to deploy and 

maintain their networks. Resellers offer 

little evidence beyond their own 

assertions that funneling Lifeline 

enhanced support funding through 

middle men will spur facilities-based 

carriers to invest in their rural, Tribal 

networks. Moreover, even if revenue 

from resellers marginally increases the 

ability and incentive of other providers 

to deploy or maintain facilities, the 

Commission concludes that this benefit 

is outweighed by our need to prudently 

manage Fund expenditures. Indeed, 

these resellers cannot explain how 

passing only a fraction of funds through 

to facilities-based carriers will mean 

more investment in rural Tribal areas 

than ensuring that facilities-based 

carriers receive 100 percent of the 

support. The Commission concludes 

that providing the enhanced support to 

Lifeline providers deploying, building, 

and maintaining critical last mile 

infrastructure is a more appropriate way 

to support the expansion of voice- and 

broadband-capable networks on Tribal 

lands. (The Commission reminds all 

ETCs that they may not discontinue 

Lifeline service to any community they 

serve without first relinquishing their 

ETC designation after the approval of 

the designation (state or federal) 

commission. See 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(4).) 

28. To ensure compliance with this 

requirement and prevent potential 

waste, fraud, and abuse, the 

Commission directs USAC to take 

appropriate measures to verify that any 

ETC claiming enhanced rural Tribal 

support satisfies the facilities 

requirement outlined in this section 

prior to disbursing the enhanced 

support. 

29. The Commission also clarifies that 

the ‘‘facilities-based’’ standard it 

describes bears only on whether the 

Lifeline provider is eligible to receive 

enhanced rural Tribal support. Whether 

a provider is ‘‘facilities-based’’ under 

the Act for purposes of seeking a 

Lifeline-only ETC designation and must 

obtain approval for a compliance plan to 

take advantage of blanket forbearance 

from the facilities requirement is 

unaffected by this standard and remains 

the same. (See 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(1)(A) 

(requiring ETCs to offer service ‘‘either 

using its own facilities or a combination 

of its own facilities and resale of another 

carrier’s services’’).) 

30. To ensure all impacted parties 

have sufficient time to make the 

necessary changes adopted in this 

Fourth Report and Order, the 

Commission provides a transition 

period. The changes made in this Fourth 

Report and Order for enhanced Lifeline 

support on Tribal lands shall be 

effective 90 days after the Wireline 

Competition Bureau announces that the 

Commission has received approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for the new information 

collection requirements in this Fourth 

Report and Order subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13, or on August 

1, 2018, whichever date occurs later. 

The Commission directs ETCs to notify, 

in writing, any customers who are 

currently receiving enhanced support 

who will no longer be eligible for 

enhanced support as a result of the 

changes in this Order. This notice must 

be sent no more than 30 days after the 

announcement of PRA approval. (Or, if 

the Commission has not received 

approval from the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for the new 

information collection requirements in 

this Order subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), once OMB 

approval has been received.) This notice 

must inform any impacted customers 

that they will not receive the enhanced 

Lifeline discount beginning 90 days 

after the announcement of PRA 

approval or on August 1, 2018, 

whichever occurs later, and that 

customers residing on rural Tribal lands 

who are currently receiving service from 

a non-facilities-based provider have the 

option of switching their Lifeline benefit 

to a facilities-based provider to continue 

receiving enhanced rural Tribal support. 

The notice must also detail the ETC’s 

offerings for Lifeline subscribers who 

are not eligible for enhanced support. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
2080 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

III. Order on Reconsideration 

31. By this Order, the Commission 

eliminates the port freeze for voice and 

broadband internet access services 

found in § 54.411 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission takes this action 

in response to significant concerns 

regarding the port freeze raised in 

Petitions for Reconsideration and other 

recent filings in the docket. In the 2016 

Lifeline Order, 81 FR 33026, May 24, 

2016, the Commission codified port 

freezes lasting 12 months for broadband 

internet access service and 60 days for 

voice telephony service. After 

reconsideration of certain findings in 

the 2016 Lifeline Order, the Commission 

now eliminates the Lifeline port freeze 

for voice and broadband internet access 

service. 

32. The Commission established the 

extended port freeze for broadband 

internet access service ‘‘[t]o facilitate 

market entry for Lifeline-supported 

BIAS [broadband internet access 

service] offerings, provide additional 

consumer benefits, and encourage 

competition’’ by ‘‘allowing broadband 

providers the security of a longer term 

relationship with subscribers. . . .’’ 

Since the Commission adopted these 

requirements, multiple parties have 

filed Petitions for Reconsideration 

raising a variety of concerns regarding 

the port freeze rule. Petitioners argue 

that the port freeze requirements 

adversely impact consumers by 

restricting consumer choice and the 

record lacks evidence that demonstrates 

new entrants were or are having 

difficulty entering the Lifeline market. 

Petitioners also argue that the port 

freeze requirements were imposed 

without adequate notice, as required 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA); and raise concerns regarding the 

challenges ETCs will face from an 

administrative perspective in attempting 

to comply with the 12-month port freeze 

requirement. Because the Commission 

grants the petitions for reconsideration 

on other grounds below, it does not 

address the APA and administrative 

burden arguments here. Additionally, 

since implementation of the port freeze 

rule, other parties have raised concerns 

regarding the alleged improper 

invocation of consumer port freezes by 

certain Lifeline providers, which limits 

consumer choice, especially with regard 

to the 12-month port freeze for 

broadband service. 

33. The Commission agrees with 

arguments raised by Petitioners and 

others that the disadvantages to 

consumers of the port freeze rule, in 

practice, outweigh the anticipated 

advantages; accordingly, the 

Commission eliminates the codified 

Lifeline benefit port freeze for voice and 

broadband internet access service. (See 

47 CFR 54.411.) The Commission 

concludes that restricting the ability of 

Lifeline consumers to transfer their 

Lifeline benefit between service 

providers ultimately disadvantages 

Lifeline consumers. Such a restriction 

limits Lifeline consumers’ ability to seek 

more competitive offerings and obtain 

those services that best meet their 

needs. In addition, restricting 

consumers’ ability to transfer their 

Lifeline benefit will not promote 

competitive service offerings and, in 

fact, may diminish providers’ 

motivation to provide higher quality 

service after enrolling a Lifelinesupported broadband subscriber, 

because the provider is assured a 12- 

month commitment from the subscriber. 

The Commission also agrees that the 

record evidence does not clearly 

support the view that a 12-month port 

freeze is necessary to ease market entry, 

and indeed can discourage new 

providers from entering the Lifeline 

market or a new geographical area 

because a significant portion of Lifeline 

subscribers would not be able to transfer 

their benefit to otherwise compelling 

new services offerings. Nor does the 

Commission believe that the 60-day port 

freeze for voice services adopted in the 

2016 Lifeline Order, while leading to 

these disadvantages, is effective in 

furthering its desired goals. 

34. In general, parties that filed in 

support of a longer port freeze argued 

that carriers will be willing to make 

more significant investments as a result 

of longer term customer-carrier 

relationships and that a longer port 

freeze will discourage consumers from 

‘‘flipping.’’ Indeed, several carriers 

decry ‘‘flipping’’ and explain how 

consumer churn makes it harder for 

carriers to recover their costs, including 

the costs of free phones. But flipping 

and consumer churn are not unique to 

the Lifeline marketplace, and companies 

have repeatedly turned to voluntary 

agreements (such as contracts) and 

alternative business models (such as 

prepaid plans) to address such concerns 

without the federal government 

artificially limiting consumer choice. In 

addition, the Commission notes that the 

primary intent of the Lifeline program is 

to provide a discount on service rather 

than devices. To the extent that 

providing discounted or free devices 

incentivizes consumers to engage in 

flipping, that outcome primarily results 

from a service provider’s own marketing 

practices. The Commission also notes 

that supporters of the port freeze 

generally did not assert the 12-month 

port freeze was needed to address 

impediments to entering the market. 

35. The Commission disagrees with 

those commenters who contend that 

removing the 12-month broadband 

internet access service port freeze will 

reduce provider participation in the 

Lifeline program and make it 

‘‘impossible to meet the Commission’s 

minimum service standards and handset 

requirements at a cost that is affordable 

for low-income consumers.’’ (Joint 

Lifeline ETC Respondents’ Opposition 

at 7–8.) The Commission adopted 

minimum service standards after 

considering the record and concluding 

that minimum service standards are not 

unduly burdensome. Affordability was 

an important factor in adopting 

minimum service standards, and the 

standards the Commission adopted 

struck ‘‘a balance between the demands 

of affordability and reasonable 

comparability.’’ While the Commission 

considered concerns raised by some 

providers that they would not be able to 

offer services that meet the minimum 

standards, the Commission ultimately 

concluded that allowing the Lifeline 

benefit to be used on services that do 

not meet minimum service standards 

would lead to the type of ‘‘second class’’ 

service that the minimum service 

standards are meant to eliminate. 

Furthermore, prior to the 2016 Lifeline 

Order, the shorter USAC-administered 

60-day benefit port freeze for voice 

service did not drive providers out of 

the program. Indeed, the Commission is 

now acting in response to requests from 

Lifeline providers to eliminate or 

shorten the port freeze due to the 

administrative burdens associated with 

compliance. 

36. The Commission codified the port 

freeze in part because it anticipated that 

consumers would benefit from greater 

choice and innovative service offerings 

as a result. In addition, the Commission 

envisioned benefits would accrue to 

consumers from a longer term 

relationship with their service 

providers. Since the implementation of 

the port freeze, the Commission has 

been presented with evidence, however, 

that it has not delivered the consumer 

benefits the Commission envisioned 

when it codified the requirement, but 

instead has incented certain providers 

to enroll consumers in offerings that 

provide little meaningful residential 

broadband access while locking in their 

Lifeline benefit with that provider for 

the following 12 months. These 

providers have used the port freeze to 

prevent customer churn, asserting that 

the service falls within the 12-month 

port freeze timeframe, even when 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2081 

offering plans with only 10 MB of 

guaranteed mobile cellular data. As a 

result, although the port freeze rule has 

in some instances resulted in longer 

term relationships as anticipated, any 

benefits have come at the expense of 

consumers who find themselves trapped 

in low-quality plans for a full year. 

Parties such as Consumer Action and 

the National Consumers League have 

urged the Commission ‘‘to stop the 

abuse of the so-called ‘port freeze’ rule, 

which is now being used to limit 

consumer choice and access to true 

broadband service and broadbandsuitable devices.’’ Because 

implementation of the port freeze has 

not, on balance, resulted in the 

anticipated benefits to Lifeline 

consumers and instead appears to have 

harmed consumers, the Commission 

now determines that this rule should be 

eliminated. The Commission also finds 

that retaining existing customers’ port 

freezes would hinder consumer choice 

without leading or having led to 

improved offerings for consumers, and 

so the Commission declines to continue 

subscribers’ existing port freezes. 

37. Finally, the Commission clarifies 

the application of the Commission’s 

rolling recertification rule in the 

absence of the port freeze rule and the 

port freeze exceptions. (47 CFR 

54.410(f).) For purposes of rolling 

recertification, the subscriber’s service 

initiation date is twelve months from 

the date of the most recent transfer or 

enrollment with the subscriber’s current 

service provider, and recertification will 

be required every twelve months 

thereafter. 

38. These changes to § 54.411 of the 

Commission’s rules will become 

effective 60 days after publication of 

this Order in the Federal Register. 

39. To ensure that qualifying lowincome Americans receive quality, 

affordable Lifeline-supported broadband 

service, the Commission revises its rules 

concerning the application of Lifeline 

support. Section 54.403(b)(1) of the 

Commission’s rules requires ETCs ‘‘that 

charge federal End User Common Line 

charges or equivalent federal charges’’ to 

apply federal Lifeline support to waive 

such charges for Lifeline subscribers. 

(47 CFR 54.403(b)(1).) The rule is silent, 

however, on the application of Lifeline 

support for subscribers receiving the 

Lifeline benefit for broadband internet 

access service, either in a bundle with 

qualifying voice telephony service or on 

a standalone basis, which does not have 

an End User Common Line charge. The 

Commission hereby clarifies that 

§ 54.403(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules 

only applies to subscribers receiving 

Lifeline-supported standalone voice 

telephony service or a bundled offering 

where the ETC is requesting 

reimbursement from the Lifeline 

program for the voice telephony 

component of the bundle. 

40. USTelecom has filed a petition for 

reconsideration requesting, in relevant 

part, that the Commission eliminate 

§ 54.403(b) of the Commission’s rules to 

resolve the rule’s ambiguity with regard 

to Lifeline-supported broadband 

internet access service. USTelecom 

argues that broadband internet access 

service does not have a federal End User 

Common Line charge or intrastate 

service, creating confusion as to how 

ETCs may comply with § 54.403(b) of 

the Commission’s rules when the 

customer is receiving Lifeline-supported 

broadband internet access service. No 

parties filed in opposition to 

USTelecom’s petition on this issue. 

41. The Commission declines to 

eliminate the rule, as requested by 

USTelecom, so that ETCs seeking 

reimbursement for Lifeline voice 

telephony service, either on a 

standalone basis or in a bundle, will 

continue to apply the Lifeline discount 

to the EUCL. Instead the Commission 

now modifies § 54.403(b)(1) to clarify 

that this rule only applies to subscribers 

receiving standalone voice telephony 

service or a bundled offering where the 

ETC is requesting reimbursement from 

the Lifeline program for the voice 

telephony component of the bundle. By 

not addressing whether and how 

§ 54.403(b)(1) applies to Lifelinesupported broadband internet access 

service, the rule causes unnecessary 

uncertainty for ETCs and may result in 

less affordable offerings for subscribers 

without any corresponding benefit for 

Lifeline subscribers. This revision of 

§ 54.403(b)(1) also comports with the 

longstanding Commission goal of 

simplifying administration of the 

Lifeline program and reflecting current 

marketplace conditions. Accordingly, 

the Commission amends § 54.403(b)(1) 

to clarify that ETCs are only required to 

apply the Lifeline discount to the End 

User Common Line charge or equivalent 

federal charges where the ETC is 

receiving Lifeline support for that 

subscriber’s voice telephony service. 

42. The 2016 Lifeline Order modified 

§ 54.410(b)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(ii), and (e) to 

require the National Verifier, where it is 

responsible for determining subscriber 

eligibility or conducting recertification, 

to provide a copy of the subscriber’s 

certification to the provider. (47 CFR 

54.410(b)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(ii), (e).) The 

Commission now resolves an apparent 

conflict in our rules and alters 

§ 54.410(b)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(ii), and (e) of the 

Commission’s rules to eliminate the 

requirement that the National Verifier 

provide copies of certifications to ETCs 

where the National Verifier is 

responsible for eligibility 

determinations. 

43. USTelecom filed a petition for 

reconsideration requesting, in relevant 

part, modifications to § 54.410(b)(2)(ii), 

(c)(2)(ii), and (e) of the Commission’s 

rules to properly reflect the 2016 

Lifeline Order’s intent with regard to the 

National Verifier. USTelecom argues 

that the text of the rule is in direct 

conflict with the 2016 Lifeline Order’s 

language and intent. The 2016 Lifeline 

Order states: ‘‘[t]he National Verifier 

will retain eligibility information 

collected as a result of the eligibility 

determination process’’ and that 

‘‘Lifeline providers will not be required 

to retain eligibility documentation for 

subscribers who have been determined 

eligible by the National Verifier.’’ 

However, § 54.410(b)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(ii), 

and (e) require Lifeline providers to 

retain eligibility documentation and 

certifications even when the National 

Verifier was responsible for the 

enrollment process. USTelecom adds 

that the cost and burden to providers of 

maintaining duplicative subscriber 

eligibility information from the National 

Verifier are unsupported by any ‘‘sound 

policy basis.’’ Further, USTelecom 

argues the rule may actually subvert 

program goals of ‘‘. . . ‘ensur[ing] that 

the National Verifier will incorporate 

robust privacy and data security best 

practices in its creation and operation of 

the National Verifier.’ ’’ No parties filed 

in opposition to USTelecom’s petition 

on this issue. 

44. The Commission now modifies 

§ 54.410(b)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(ii), and (e) to 

clarify that where the National Verifier 

is responsible for the consumer’s initial 

eligibility determination or 

recertification, the National Verifier is 

not required to deliver copies of those 

certifications to the ETC. The 

Commission finds that this amendment 

to the rules is consistent with the goals 

of the National Verifier to ease burdens 

on Lifeline providers while improving 

privacy and security for consumers 

applying to participate in the program. 

This amendment also brings § 54.410 of 

the Commission’s rules in line with the 

Commission’s stated intent in the 2016 

Lifeline Order that Lifeline providers 

would not be required to retain 

eligibility documentation for eligibility 

determinations made by the National 

Verifier. Additionally, the Commission 

agrees with USTelecom that requiring 

Lifeline providers to maintain 

duplicative subscriber enrollment 

documentation presents unnecessary 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
2082 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

risk to the privacy and security of 

subscriber information. 

IV. Memorandum Opinion and Order 

45. To fully realize the Commission’s 

objectives of providing Lifeline-support 

for broadband services, the Commission 

provides clarity to ensure that service 

providers claiming Lifeline support for 

broadband service actually provide 

Lifeline customers with the level of 

broadband service intended in the 2016 

Lifeline Order. In February 2017, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau solicited 

public comment on a TracFone 

Wireless, Inc. (TracFone) request for 

clarification regarding §§ 54.408 and 

54.411 of the Commission’s rules. The 

Commission now removes any 

uncertainty in the record with respect to 

whether certain Wi-Fi technologies 

qualify for Lifeline reimbursement by 

clarifying that broadband internet access 

delivered via Wi-Fi is not eligible for 

reimbursement as mobile broadband 

under the Lifeline program rules, and 

the Commission reiterates that mobile 

broadband service eligible for Lifeline 

reimbursement must be provided on a 

network using at least 3G (Third 

Generation) mobile technologies. The 

Commission also clarifies that a 

provider does not directly serve a 

customer with fixed broadband service 

under the Lifeline rules if that customer 

cannot access the services at their 

residential address and, therefore, Wi-Fi 

offerings like the ‘‘premium Wi-Fi’’ 

service described in the record also do 

not qualify for Lifeline support as fixed 

broadband service offerings. 

46. In its request for clarification, 

TracFone sought clarification regarding 

the types of service that meet the 

minimum service standards for Lifelinesupported mobile broadband and 

qualify for the twelve-month benefit 

port freeze. In response, several 

commenters expressed concerns that 

interpreting the minimum service 

standards for Lifeline-eligible mobile 

broadband to allow for Wi-Fi-delivered 

broadband as described in the request 

would inhibit the Commission’s goal of 

supporting quality service to lowincome consumers, while others 

supported an interpretation of the 

Commission’s rules that would permit 

Lifeline support for ‘‘premium Wi-Fi’’ 

access offerings. 

47. The Commission clarifies that 

‘‘premium Wi-Fi’’ and other similar 

networks of Wi-Fi-delivered broadband 

internet access service do not qualify as 

mobile broadband under the Lifeline 

program rules. (See 47 CFR 54.400 et 

seq.) In the 2016 Lifeline Order, the 

Commission focused on ‘‘mobile 

network technologies’’ and mobile 

service offerings over different 

generations of mobile technologies in 

adopting rules for Lifeline-eligible 

mobile broadband service. (See 47 CFR 

54.408(b)(2)(i).) Against this backdrop, 

the Commission established minimum 

service standards, including minimum 

3G (Third Generation mobile network) 

speeds, to qualify for Lifeline support. 

There is no evidence in the record that 

Wi-Fi-only technology, as deployed 

today, is a ‘‘mobile technology’’ or one 

of the ‘‘generations’’ of mobile 

technologies, as contemplated by the 

Commission in the 2016 Lifeline Order. 

Further, nothing in the record 

demonstrates that Wi-Fi, including 

‘‘premium Wi-Fi,’’ as deployed today, 

should be treated as an industry 

accepted generation of mobile 

technology. 

48. The Commission also disagrees 

with Telrite that the use of the term 

‘‘3G’’ in the § 54.408(b)(2)(i) of the 

Commission’s rules was only intended 

as a proxy for a particular minimum 

network speed threshold and not a 

generation of mobile technology. In the 

2016 Lifeline Order, the Commission’s 

discussion makes it clear that it was 

incorporating industry mobile 

technology generations, and that 3G was 

not just a proxy for a speed threshold. 

The Commission, for example, stated 

that ‘‘[f]or the mobile broadband 

minimum service standard for speed, it 

relies on Form 477 data while also 

incorporating industry mobile 

technology generation (i.e., 3G, 4G).’’ 

49. Unlike Wi-Fi, mobile networks 

provide ubiquitous mobility with large 

service area coverage. Wi-Fi access, 

however, can be a complement to a 

consumer’s primary broadband service. 

Lifeline-eligible mobile broadband 

requires a mobile service provided 

through 3G mobile broadband 

technologies or subsequent and superior 

generations of mobile broadband 

technologies. Accordingly, the rules 

governing Lifeline support for a ‘‘mobile 

broadband service’’ contemplate not just 

a minimum of ‘‘3G’’ mobile network 

threshold speeds, but also a mobile 

network. (47 U.S.C. 153(33) (defining 

‘‘mobile service’’); 47 CFR 20.3 (same).) 

As noted above, mobile networks, 

unlike current Wi-Fi networks, provide 

ubiquitous mobility within a large 

service area. Was the Commission to 

interpret the minimum service standard 

otherwise, an ETC could offer any fixed 

service with an arguably fast-enough 

speed, limit it to serve end users 

primarily using mobile devices, and 

claim that such a service was in fact 

‘‘mobile’’ broadband because it offers 

speeds faster than ‘‘3G.’’ As a result, the 

section establishing Lifeline minimum 

service standards for fixed broadband 

service would have no meaningful 

application, because ETCs could simply 

offer the much lower data allowances 

permitted under the mobile broadband 

standards, supplement that amount with 

Wi-Fi-delivered data, and receive the 

same Lifeline support amount. (See 47 

CFR 54.408(b)(1).) 

50. The Commission also clarifies that 

a provider does not directly serve a 

customer with fixed broadband service 

under the Lifeline rules if that customer 

cannot access the service at their 

residential address. (See 47 CFR 

54.407(a) (‘‘Universal service support 

for providing Lifeline shall be provided 

directly to an eligible 

telecommunications carrier based on the 

number of actual qualifying low-income 

customers it serves directly as of the 

first day of the month.’’)) The 2016 

Lifeline Order contemplates Lifelinesupported fixed broadband service as a 

residential service. A service that, for 

example, purports to offer Lifelinesupported fixed broadband service but 

only provides customers with access to 

hotspots that a qualifying low-income 

subscriber cannot access from their own 

residence undermines the Commission’s 

requirement that carriers directly 

provide service to receive 

reimbursement. A review of the Wi-Fi 

service disputed in the record before us 

indicates that the iPass network used to 

provide the premium Wi-Fi service 

keeps customers connected in ‘‘hotels, 

airports, and other business venues,’’ 

trains, airplanes, and convention 

centers, and in many towns only 

includes hotspots at establishments 

with pre-existing free public Wi-Fi 

offerings, like McDonald’s, Burger King, 

and Walmart. (See The iPass Global WiFi Network, iPass (last visited Oct. 24, 

2017), https://www.ipass.com/mobilenetwork/. See also, e.g., iPass hotspot 

locations in Indianola, Iowa, and Forrest 

City, Arkansas, https://hotspotfinder.ipass.com/united-states/ 

indianola-iowa, https://hotspotfinder.ipass.com/united-states/forrestcity-arkansas (last visited Oct. 24, 

2017).) Some commenters indicated that 

these hot spot locations are ‘‘likely to be 

of little use to most Lifeline customers’’ 

because few of the hot spots are located 

in low-income residential areas, and the 

hot spot locations ‘‘may not be common 

areas in which Lifeline customers 

would find themselves trying to utilize 

their Lifeline supported [broadband 

internet access service].’’ (TracFone 

Wireless Reply at 7 & n. 12; Public 

Utility Division of Oklahoma Comments 

at 4.) TracFone also states that based on 

its sample testing for one Florida ZIP 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2083 

Code, ‘‘[l]ess than one percent of the 

10,223 Lifeline households within that 

ZIP Code reside within areas covered by 

iPass hotspots’’ and that nine of the 

twelve iPass hot spots within that ZIP 

Code ‘‘are located inside business 

locations (typically, restaurants and 

hotels, and only available to patrons of 

those businesses).’’ Accordingly, these 

types of premium Wi-Fi services would 

be functionally inaccessible to many 

Lifeline consumers and, thus, offering 

such services does not directly serve a 

Lifeline customer with fixed broadband 

service as required by § 54.407(a) of the 

Lifeline rules. 

V. Procedural Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

51. The Fourth Report and Order 

contains new information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. It will be submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under section 3507(d) 

of the PRA. OMB, the general public, 

and other federal agencies will be 

invited to comment on the revised 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proceeding. In 

addition, the Commission notes that 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, the Commission 

previously sought specific comment on 

how it might further reduce the 

information collection burden on small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

52. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Federal Communications 

Commission (Commission) included an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) of the possible significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities by the policies 

and rules proposed in the 2015 Lifeline 

FNPRM in WC Docket Nos. 11–42, 09– 

197, 10–90. The Commission sought 

written public comment on the 

proposals in the 2015 Lifeline FNPRM, 

including comment on the IRFA. This 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(FRFA) conforms to the RFA. 

53. The Commission is required by 

section 254 of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended, to promulgate 

rules to implement the universal service 

provisions of section 254. The Lifeline 

program was implemented in 1985 in 

the wake of the 1984 divestiture of 

AT&T. On May 8, 1997, the Commission 

adopted rules to reform its system of 

universal service support mechanisms 

so that universal service is preserved 

and advanced as markets move toward 

competition. Since the 2012 Lifeline 

Reform Order, 77 FR 12952, March 2, 

2012, the Commission has acted to 

address waste, fraud and abuse in the 

Lifeline program and improved program 

administration and accountability. In 

this Fourth Report and Order, Order on 

Reconsideration, and Memorandum 

Opinion and Order (Order), the 

Commission takes steps to focus Lifeline 

program support to effectively and 

efficiently bridge the digital divide for 

low-income consumers while 

minimizing the contributions burden on 

ratepayers. The Commission resolves 

questions regarding enhanced Lifeline 

support for Tribal lands, which were 

raised in the 2015 Lifeline Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking but left 

unaddressed by the 2016 Lifeline Order. 

The Commission resolves Petitions for 

Reconsideration to improve competition 

and efficiency in the Lifeline program. 

The Commission enables competition 

and empower Lifeline consumers by 

increasing their ability to switch their 

Lifeline benefit to a new provider. The 

Commission also clarifies how Lifeline 

providers should apply the Lifeline 

discount to service offerings that 

include Lifeline-supported broadband 

internet access service. 

54. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act. A small 

business concern is one that: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). Nationwide, 

there are a total of approximately 28.2 

million small businesses, according to 

the SBA. A ‘‘small organization’’ is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’ 

55. Small Entities, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, 

may affect small entities that are not 

easily categorized at present. The 

Commission therefore describes here, at 

the outset, three comprehensive small 

entity size standards that could be 

directly affected herein. As of 2016, 

according to the SBA, there were 28.8 

million small businesses in the U.S., 

which represented 99.9 percent of all 

businesses in the United States. 

Additionally, a ‘‘small organization is 

generally any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and not dominant in its field.’’ 

Nationwide, as of 2014, there were 

approximately 2,131,200 small 

organizations. Finally, the term ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined 

generally as ‘‘governments of cities, 

towns, townships, villages, school 

districts, or special districts, with a 

population of less than fifty thousand’’. 

U.S. Census Bureau data published in 

2012 indicates that there were 89,476 

local governmental jurisdictions in the 

United States. The Commission 

estimates that, of this total, as many as 

88,761 entities may qualify as ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ Thus, the 

Commission estimates that most 

governmental jurisdictions are small. 

56. A number of our rule changes will 

result in additional reporting, 

recordkeeping, or compliance 

requirements for small entities. For all 

of those rule changes, the Commission 

has determined that the benefit the rule 

change will bring for the Lifeline 

program outweighs the burden of the 

increased requirement/s. Other rule 

changes decrease reporting, 

recordkeeping, or compliance 

requirements for small entities. The 

Commission has noted the applicable 

rule changes below impacting small 

entities. 

57. Compliance burdens. All of the 

rules the Commission implements 

impose some compliance burdens on 

small entities by requiring them to 

become familiar with the new rules to 

comply with them. For several of the 

new rules the burden of becoming 

familiar with the new rule in order to 

comply with it is the only additional 

burden the rule imposes. 

58. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business, 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 and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities.’’ 

59. This rulemaking could impose 

minimal additional burdens on small 

entities. In this Order, the Commission 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
2084 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

modifies certain Lifeline rules to target 

funding to areas where it is most 

needed. In developing these rules, the 

Commission worked to ensure the 

burdens associated with implementing 

these rules would be minimized for all 

service providers, including small 

entities. In taking this action, the 

Commission considered potential 

impacts on service providers, including 

small entities. The Commission 

considered alternatives to the 

rulemaking changes that increase 

projected reporting, recordkeeping and 

other compliance requirements for small 

entities, including alternatives on how 

to define ‘‘rural’’ for purposes of 

describing rural Tribal lands and how 

the Commission and USAC could 

provide mapping resources to help 

small entities identify with certainty 

areas that are eligible for enhanced 

support. In developing our rules related 

to Tribal benefits, the Commission 

carefully crafted the requirements to be 

easier on all service providers and 

determined that a specific carve-out for 

small businesses was not necessary. 

60. No commenters specifically 

offered alternatives to the changes made 

in this Order. Further, given the narrow 

and targeted scope of the changes being 

made no alternative readily presents 

itself to limit the burdens on small 

business or organizations. The 

identified increase in burden is minimal 

and outweighed by the advantages in 

combating waste, fraud, and abuse in 

the program. 

VII. Ordering Clauses 

61. Accordingly, it is ordered, that 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1 through 4, 201 through 205, 

254, and 403 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151– 

154, 201–205, 254, and 403, and § 1.2 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.2, this 

Fourth Report and Order, Order on 

Reconsideration, and Memorandum 

Opinion and Order is adopted effective 

thirty (30) days after the publication of 

this Fourth Report and Order, Order on 

Reconsideration, and Memorandum 

Opinion and Order, in the Federal 

Register, except to the extent provided 

herein and expressly addressed below. 

62. It is further ordered, that pursuant 

to the authority contained in sections 1 

through 4, 201 through 205, 254, and 

403 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 201– 

205, 254, and 403, part 54 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR part 54, is 

amended as described in the following 

Final Rules, and such rule amendments 

to §§ 54.403(b) and 54.410 of the 

Commission’s rules shall be effective 

thirty (30) days after the publication of 

this Fourth Report and Order, Order on 

Reconsideration, and Memorandum 

Opinion and Order in the Federal 

Register. 

63. It is further ordered, that pursuant 

to the authority contained in sections 1 

through 4, 201 through 205, 254, and 

403 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 201– 

205, 254, and 403, that the removal and 

reservation of § 54.411 of the 

Commission’s rules shall be effective 

sixty (60) days after the publication of 

this Fourth Report and Order, Order on 

Reconsideration, and Memorandum 

Opinion and Order in the Federal 

Register. 

64. It is further ordered, that pursuant 

to the authority contained in sections 1 

through 4, 201 through 205, 254, and 

403 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 201– 

205, 254, and 403, part 54 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR part 54, is 

amended as described in the following 

Final Rules, and such rule amendments 

to §§ 54.403(a)(3), 54.413, and 54.414 of 

the Commission’s rules are subject to 

the PRA and shall be effective ninety 

(90) days after announcement in the 

Federal Register of OMB approval of the 

subject information collection 

requirements or on August 1, 2018, 

whichever occurs later. 

65. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to the authority contained in sections 1– 

5 and 254 of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–155 

and 254, and § 1.429 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by 

United States Telecom Association on 

June 23, 2016 and the Petition for 

Reconsideration/Clarification of 

NTCA—The Rural Broadband 

Association and WTA—Advocates for 

Rural Broadband are granted to the 

extent described above. 

66. It is further ordered that the 

Commission shall send a copy of this 

Fourth Report and Order, Order on 

Reconsideration, and Memorandum 

Opinion and Order to Congress and to 

the Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54 

Communications common carriers, 

Health facilities, Infants and children, 

internet, Libraries, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Schools, 

Telecommunications, Telephone. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Secretary. 

Final Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 as 

follows: 

PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 54 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 

205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 1302 

unles otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 54.403 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 54.403 Lifeline support amount. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) Tribal lands support amount. 

Additional federal Lifeline support of 

up to $25 per month will be made 

available to a eligible 

telecommunications carrier providing 

facilities-based Lifeline service to an 

eligible resident of Tribal lands, as 

defined in § 54.400(e), if the subscriber’s 

residential location is rural, as defined 

in § 54.505(b)(3)(i) and (ii), and the 

eligible telecommunications carrier 

certifies to the Administrator that it will 

pass through the full Tribal lands 

support amount to the qualifying 

eligible resident of Tribal lands and that 

it has received any non-federal 

regulatory approvals necessary to 

implement the required rate reduction. 

(b) Application of Lifeline discount 

amount. (1) Eligible 

telecommunications carriers that charge 

federal End User Common Line charges 

or equivalent federal charges must apply 

federal Lifeline support to waive the 

federal End User Common Line charges 

for Lifeline subscribers if the carrier is 

seeking Lifeline reimbursement for 

eligible voice telephony service 

provided to those subscribers. Such 

carriers must apply any additional 

federal support amount to a qualifying 

low-income consumer’s intrastate rate, 

if the carrier has received the nonfederal regulatory approvals necessary 

to implement the required rate 

reduction. Other eligible 

telecommunications carriers must apply 

the federal Lifeline support amount, 

plus any additional support amount, to 

reduce the cost of any generally 

available residential service plan or 

package offered by such carriers that 

provides at least one supported service 

as described in § 54.101(a), and charge 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2085 

Lifeline subscribers the resulting 

amount. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 54.410 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(ii), and (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 54.410 Subscriber eligibility 

determination and certification. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) If a state Lifeline administrator or 

other state agency is responsible for the 

initial determination of a subscriber’s 

eligibility, a copy of the subscriber’s 

certification that complies with the 

requirements set forth in paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) If a state Lifeline administrator or 

other state agency is responsible for the 

initial determination of a subscriber’s 

eligibility, a copy of the subscriber’s 

certification that complies with the 

requirements set forth in paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

* * * * * 

(e) State Lifeline administrators or 

other state agencies that are responsible 

for the initial determination of a 

subscriber’s eligibility for Lifeline must 

provide each eligible 

telecommunications carrier with a copy 

of each of the certification forms 

collected by the state Lifeline 

administrator or other state agency for 

that carrier’s subscribers. 

* * * * * 

§ 54.411 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 4. Remove and reserve § 54.411. 

■ 5. Revise § 54.413 to read as follows: 

§ 54.413 Link Up for rural Tribal lands. 

(a) For purposes of this subpart, the 

term ‘‘Tribal Link Up’’ means an 

assistance program for eligible residents 

of Tribal lands, if the subscriber’s 

location is rural, as defined in 

§ 54.505(b)(3)(i) and (ii), seeking 

telecommunications service from a 

telecommunications carrier that is 

receiving high-cost support on rural 

Tribal lands, pursuant to subpart D of 

this part, that provides: 

(1) A 100 percent reduction, up to 

$100, of the customary charge for 

commencing telecommunications 

service for a single telecommunications 

connection at a subscriber’s principal 

place of residence imposed by an 

eligible telecommunications carrier that 

is also receiving high-cost support on 

rural Tribal lands, pursuant to subpart 

D of this part. For purposes of this 

subpart, a ‘‘customary charge for 

commencing telecommunications 

service’’ is the ordinary charge an 

eligible telecommunications carrier 

imposes and collects from all 

subscribers to initiate service with that 

eligible telecommunications carrier. A 

charge imposed only on qualifying lowincome consumers to initiate service is 

not a customary charge for commencing 

telecommunications service. Activation 

charges routinely waived, reduced, or 

eliminated with the purchase of 

additional products, services, or 

minutes are not customary charges 

eligible for universal service support; 

and 

(2) A deferred schedule of payments 

of the customary charge for commencing 

telecommunications service for a single 

telecommunications connection at a 

subscriber’s principal place of residence 

imposed by an eligible 

telecommunications carrier that is also 

receiving high-cost support on rural 

Tribal lands, pursuant to subpart D of 

this part, for which the eligible resident 

of rural Tribal lands does not pay 

interest. The interest charges not 

assessed to the eligible resident of rural 

Tribal lands shall be for a customary 

charge for connecting the 

telecommunications service of up to 

$200 and such interest charges shall be 

deferred for a period not to exceed one 

year. 

(b) An eligible resident of rural Tribal 

lands may receive the benefit of the 

Tribal Link Up program for a second or 

subsequent time only for otherwise 

qualifying commencement of 

telecommunications service at a 

principal place of residence with an 

address different from the address for 

which Tribal Link Up assistance was 

provided previously. 

■ 5. Amend § 54.414 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 54.414 Reimbursement for Tribal Link 

Up. 

* * * * * 

(b) In order to receive universal 

support reimbursement for providing 

Tribal Link Up, eligible 

telecommunications carriers must use 

the maps made available by the 

Administrator to determine an eligible 

resident of rural Tribal lands’ initial 

eligibility for Tribal Link Up. Eligible 

telecommunications carriers must 

obtain a certification form from each 

eligible resident of Tribal lands that 

complies with § 54.410 prior to 

enrolling him or her in Tribal Link Up. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–00152 Filed 1–12–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2017–0081; 

4500090024] 

RIN 1018–BC54 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Taxonomical Update for 

Orangutan 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

revised taxonomy of the orangutan 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). When we listed 

the orangutan in 1970, the listed entity 

included all orangutans in the genus 

Pongo. At that time, the scientific 

community recognized one species 

(Pongo pygmaeus) in the genus Pongo, 

which consisted of two subspecies (P. 

pygmaeus pygmaeus and P. p. abelii). 

However, the orangutan has recently 

been reclassified as belonging to two 

distinct species: P. pygmaeus and P. 

abelii. Therefore, we are revising the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife to reflect the current 

scientifically accepted taxonomy and 

nomenclature of the orangutan. Because 

all orangutans in the genus Pongo are 

already included under the original 

listing of Pongo pygmaeus as 

endangered under the Act, the newly 

recognized taxonomic species is 

considered part of the original listed 

entity, and this technical correction 

does not alter the regulatory protections 

afforded to the orangutan. For the same 

reason, if other Pongo species emerge 

due to future taxonomic revisions to 

further subdivide the genus Pongo, they 

would be encompassed by the original 

listing and this technical correction. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 16, 

2018 without further action, unless we 

receive significant scientific information 

that provides strong justifications as to 

why this rule should not be adopted or 

why it should be changed on or before 

February 15, 2018. If we receive 

significant scientific information 

regarding this taxonomic change for the 

orangutan, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal of this rule in the Federal 

Register. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES