2104 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board 

(OWRB) Section 785:35–7–2. After 

review of this OWRB regulation, an EPA 

groundwater expert finds the Oklahoma 

rules to be more stringent than the 

requirements under 40 CFR 257.91(e). 

EPA preliminarily finds these changes 

to be minor because the key aspects of 

the CCR program including 

requirements for location restrictions, 

design and operating criteria, 

groundwater monitoring and corrective 

action, closure requirements and postclosure care, recordkeeping, notification 

and internet posting requirements are 

not substantially changed or reduced by 

the Oklahoma revisions and in one 

example is more stringent. These 

changes do not keep the overall program 

from being at least as protective as 40 

CFR part 257, subpart D. EPA’s full 

analysis of Oklahoma’s CCR permit 

program can be found in the Technical 

Support Document (TSD) located in the 

docket for this notice. 

IV. Proposed Action 

In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6945(d), 

EPA is proposing to wholly approve 

ODEQ’s CCR permit program 

application. 

Dated: January 3, 2018. 

Barry N. Breen, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Land and Emergency Management. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00474 Filed 1–12–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–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: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) proposes and seeks 

comment on reforms to ensure the 

Lifeline program rules comport with the 

authority granted to the Commission in 

the Communications Act and to curb 

wasteful and abusive spending in the 

Lifeline program. The Commission also 

seeks comment on how Lifeline might 

more efficiently target funds to areas 

and households most in need of help in 

obtaining digital opportunity. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

January 24, 2018, and reply comments 

are due on or before February 23, 2018. 

If you anticipate that you will be 

submitting comments, but find it 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this document, you 

should advise the contact listed below 

as soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket Nos. 17–287, 

11–42, and 09–197, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s website: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

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 Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of 

Inquiry (NPRM and NOI) 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 Fourth Report and 

Order, Order on Reconsideration and 

Memorandum Opinion and Order that 

was adopted concurrently with the 

NPRM and NOI are published elsewhere 

in this issue of the Federal Register. 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, the Commission proposes 

and seeks comment on reforms to 

ensure the Lifeline program rules 

comport with the authority granted to 

the Commission in the Communications 

Act and to curb wasteful and abusive 

spending in the Lifeline program. 

Specifically, the NPRM seeks comment 

on ending the Commission’s previous 

preemption of states’ role in designating 

certain eligible telecommunications 

carriers and removing the Lifeline 

Broadband Provider designation; 

targeting Lifeline funds to facilitiesbased broadband-capable networks 

offering both voice and broadband 

services; adopting a self-enforcing 

budget cap for the program; improving 

the eligibility verification and 

recertification processes to further 

prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in the 

program; and improving providers’ 

incentive to provide quality 

communications services by 

establishing a maximum discount level 

for Lifeline-supported service. In the 

Notice of Inquiry, the Commission seeks 

comment on how Lifeline might more 

efficiently target funds to areas and 

households most in need of help in 

obtaining digital opportunity. 

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

2. In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, the Commission proposes 

and seeks comment on reforms to 

ensure that the Commission is 

administering the Lifeline program on 

sound legal footing, recognizing the 

important and Congressionally 

mandated role of states in Lifeline 

program administration, and rooting out 

waste, fraud, and abuse in the program. 

These steps must precede broader 

discussions about how the Lifeline 

program can be updated to effectively 

bring digital opportunity to those who 

are currently on the wrong side of the 

digital divide. 

3. The Commission first seeks 

comment on ways the Commission can 

better accommodate the important and 

lawful role of the states in the Lifeline 

program. The Commission proposes to 

eliminate the Lifeline Broadband 

Provider category of ETCs and the state 

preemption on which it is based. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

ways to encourage cooperative 

federalism between the states and the 

Commission to make the National 

Verifier a success. 

4. In this section, the Commission 

addresses the serious concerns that have 

been raised that the Commission’s 

creation of Lifeline Broadband Provider 

(LBP) ETCs and preemption of state 

commissions’ designations of such LBPs 

was inconsistent with the role 

contemplated for the states in Section 

214 of the Act. In the 2016 Lifeline 

Order, 81 FR 33026, May 24, 2016, the 

Commission established a framework to 

designate providers as Lifeline 

Broadband Providers (LBPs), eligible to 

receive Lifeline reimbursement for 

qualifying broadband internet access 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2105 

service provided to eligible low-income 

consumers, but not Lifeline voice 

service. The Commission’s role in this 

framework was premised on the 

Commission’s authority to designate a 

common carrier ‘‘that is not subject to 

the jurisdiction of a State commission.’’ 

And to effectuate that policy goal, the 

agency preempted state authority in a 

manner wholly inconsistent with 

Section 214 of the Communications Act, 

which gives primary responsibility for 

designation of eligible 

telecommunications carriers to the 

states. (47 U.S.C. 214(e)(2), (3)). Based 

on these circumstances and on further 

review, the Commission believes it 

erred in preempting state commissions 

from their primary responsibility to 

designate ETCs under section 214(e) of 

the Act and seek comment on this issue. 

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

5. The 2016 Lifeline Order’s 

preemption of state designation of LBPs 

was challenged by the National 

Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners (NARUC) and a 

coalition of states led by the State of 

Wisconsin (State Petitioners). (See 

NARUC v. FCC, Case No. 16–1170 (DC 

Cir., filed June 3, 2016); Wisconsin v. 

FCC, Case No. 16–1219 (DC Cir. filed 

June 30, 2016). Among other issues, 

NARUC and the State Petitioners 

contend the Commission’s decision to 

preempt states from exercising any 

authority to designate broadband 

providers as LBPs violates the Act and 

the Administrative Procedure Act. The 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

DC Circuit has remanded the legal 

challenges to the Commission for 

further proceedings. (NARUC v. FCC, 

Case No. 16–1170, Order (DC Cir., Apr. 

19, 2017), granting the Commission’s 

motion for voluntary remand.) The legal 

challenges to the LBP designation 

process question the Commission’s legal 

authority to create an LBP designation 

process and designate providers under 

that process. Additionally, members of 

Congress have introduced legislation to 

reverse the Commission’s preemption 

and clarify that the Communications 

Act of 1934 and the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996 cannot 

be interpreted to limit the jurisdiction of 

any state to designate an ETC. (See 

Preserving State Commission Oversight 

Act of 2017, S. 421, 115th Cong. (2017)). 

Would reversing the preemption in the 

2016 Lifeline Order resolve the legal 

issues surrounding LBPs and their 

designation process? How would 

reversing the preemption in the 2016 

Lifeline Order impact the future of LBPs 

in the Lifeline program? Should ETCs be 

designated through traditional state and 

federal roles either for purposes of only 

Lifeline or for both the high-cost and 

Lifeline programs? (See 47 U.S.C. 

214(e)). What rule changes would be 

needed to restore the traditional state 

and federal roles for ETC designations? 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal and on any alternatives. 

6. The 2016 Lifeline Order 

‘‘applaud[ed] state programs for 

devoting resources designed to help 

close the affordability gap for 

communications services.’’ Although 

not formally constraining how states 

administer those state programs for 

voice and/or broadband support, the 

Order recognized that its approach to 

ETC designations could create 

inconsistencies with the operation of 

those state programs. States continue to 

play an important role in ensuring 

affordability of voice, and also 

supporting broadband; accordingly, 

reversing the preemption in the 2016 

Lifeline Order may resolve 

inconsistencies between state and 

federal efforts and provide benefits to 

the operation of state and federal 

programs. The Commission seeks 

comment on these issues. 

7. The Commission also proposes 

eliminating stand-alone LBP 

designations to better reflect the 

structure, operation, and goals of the 

Lifeline program, as set forth in the 

Communications Act, as well as related 

state programs. For example, the 

existence of an LBP designation enables 

entities to participate in the Lifeline 

program without assuming any 

obligations with respect to voice service. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. 

8. In the 2016 Lifeline Order, the 

Commission established the National 

Verifier to make eligibility 

determinations and perform a variety of 

other functions necessary to enroll 

eligible subscribers into the Lifeline 

Program. As outlined in the 2016 

Lifeline Order, ‘‘[t]he Commission’s key 

objectives for the National Verifier are to 

protect against and reduce waste, fraud, 

and abuse; to lower costs to the Fund 

and Lifeline providers through 

administrative efficiencies; and to better 

serve eligible beneficiaries by 

facilitating choice and improving the 

enrollment experience.’’ A strong 

cooperative effort between the 

Commission and its state partners is 

critical to advancing these laudable 

objectives. In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, the Commission seeks 

comment on ways to ensure the 

Commission can partner with states to 

facilitate the successful implementation 

of the National Verifier. 

9. The Commission seeks comment on 

ways states can be encouraged to work 

cooperatively with the Commission and 

USAC to integrate their state databases 

into the National Verifier without 

unnecessary delay. Because the National 

Verifier is a critical part of improving 

the integrity of the Lifeline program, it 

is important all states join the National 

Verifier in a timely manner. To protect 

the integrity of the enrollment and 

eligibility determination process, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

new Lifeline enrollments should be 

halted in a state at any point if the 

launch of the National Verifier has been 

unnecessarily delayed in that state. For 

example, when the plan for National 

Verifier initiation in a state falls behind 

schedule, what steps should be taken to 

ensure no ineligible subscribers enroll 

in the program because of the delay? 

What is the proper response when the 

scheduled launch of the National 

Verifier in a state is not accomplished 

by the announced date and carriers 

relying on the launch announcement are 

unprepared to handle eligibility 

determinations? Should enrollments be 

halted for all consumers in the state or 

only for those whose eligibility must be 

verified using a state database? 

10. The Commission seeks comment 

on other steps to encourage cooperation 

and collaboration between the states, 

the Commission, and USAC to ensure 

the National Verifier is launched in a 

state in a timely fashion. Should the 

Commission adopt specific benchmarks 

or proposed timelines to guide this 

process? Are there ways to streamline 

the process of developing and executing 

the agreements necessary to allow data 

sharing between states and the 

Commission? In the event a state has 

demonstrated an unwillingness to 

engage in the effort to deploy the 

National Verifier or to do so at 

reasonable costs, are there other 

measures the Commission should take? 

In these situations, USAC is able to 

conduct a manual review of all 

eligibility documentation for potential 

Lifeline subscribers in that state but that 

measure is costly, burdensome, and 

inefficient; the Commission believes 

program expenses would be better 

directed towards electronic connections 

between state systems and the National 

Verifier platform. How can the 

Commission encourage states to work 

cooperatively with USAC to avoid 

unnecessary costs? 

11. The Lifeline program has an 

important role in bringing digital 

opportunity to low-income Americans. 

The Commission believes that changes 

to Lifeline policies are warranted to 

ensure the Commission’s administration 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
2106 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

of Lifeline support is faithful to 

Congress’s stated universal service goals 

and is focused on helping low-income 

households obtain the benefits that 

come from access to modern 

communications networks. In this 

section, the Commission proposes 

policy changes to focus Lifeline support 

on encouraging service provider 

investment in networks that offer 

quality, affordable broadband service. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

the Commission’s legal authority for 

these proposed changes. 

12. Lifeline Support for FacilitiesBased Broadband Service. The 

Commission seeks comment on focusing 

Lifeline support to encourage 

investment in broadband-capable 

networks. As explained in the 2016 

Lifeline Order, broadband service is 

increasingly important for participation 

in the 21st Century economy. However, 

broadband service is not as ubiquitous 

or as affordable as voice service. This is 

particularly true in rural and rural 

Tribal areas, where broadband 

deployment lags behind other areas of 

the country. 

13. Section 254(b) of the Act requires 

the Commission to base its policies for 

the preservation and advancement of 

universal service on the principles that 

‘‘[q]uality services should be available at 

just, reasonable, and affordable rates,’’ 

‘‘[a]ccess to advanced 

telecommunications and information 

services shall be provided in all regions 

of the Nation’’ and ‘‘[c]onsumers in all 

regions of the Nation . . . should 

have access to . . . advanced 

telecommunications and information 

services, that are reasonably comparable 

to those services provided in urban 

areas and that are available at rates that 

are reasonably comparable to rates 

charged for similar services in urban 

areas.’’ (47 U.S.C. 254(b)(1)–(3)). 

14. Mindful of the direction given to 

the Commission by Congress, the 

Commission believes Lifeline support 

will best promote access to advanced 

communications services if it is focused 

to encourage investment in broadbandcapable networks. The Commission 

therefore proposes limiting Lifeline 

support to facilities-based broadband 

service provided to a qualifying lowincome consumer over the ETC’s voiceand broadband-capable last-mile 

network. The Commission believes this 

proposal would do more than the 

current reimbursement structure to 

encourage access to quality, affordable 

broadband service for low-income 

Americans. In particular, Lifeline 

support can serve to increase the ability 

to pay for services of low-income 

households. Such an increase can 

thereby improve the business case for 

deploying facilities to serve low-income 

households. In this way, Lifeline can 

serve to help encourage the deployment 

of facilities-based networks by making 

deployment of the networks more 

economically viable. Furthermore, the 

competitive impacts of having multiple 

competing facilities-based networks can 

also help to lower prices for consumers. 

If Lifeline can help promote more 

facilities, it can then indirectly also 

serve to reduce prices for consumers. 

15. The Commission seeks comment 

on this proposal. What rule changes 

would be necessary to implement this 

proposal? How can the Commission 

ensure Lifeline support is only 

disbursed to ETCs that provide 

broadband service over facilities-based 

networks? How would his proposal 

impact the availability and affordability 

of Lifeline broadband services? Are 

there other steps the Commission 

should take to focus Lifeline support to 

encourage investment in broadband 

networks? 

16. Discontinuing Lifeline Support for 

Non-Facilities-Based Service. Next, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

discontinuing Lifeline support for 

service provided over non-facilitiesbased networks, to advance our policy 

of focusing Lifeline support to 

encourage investment in voice- and 

broadband-capable networks. The 

Commission proposes limiting Lifeline 

support to broadband service provided 

over facilities-based broadband 

networks that also support voice 

service. Under this proposal, Lifeline 

providers that are partially facilitiesbased may obtain designation as an 

ETC, but would only receive Lifeline 

support for service provided over the 

last-mile facilities they own. The 

Commission seeks comment on how the 

Commission should define ‘‘facilities’’ 

for this purpose. Should the 

Commission adopt the same definition 

of facilities that the Fourth Report and 

Order uses for enhanced support on 

rural Tribal lands? If the Commission 

adopts different facilities-based criteria 

for Lifeline generally, should the 

Commission also use that definition of 

‘‘facilities’’ for purposes of enhanced 

Tribal support? The Commission seeks 

comment on any other rule changes that 

would be necessary to implement this 

proposal. 

17. How would this proposal impact 

the number of Lifeline providers 

participating in the program and the 

availability of quality, affordable 

Lifeline broadband services? Are there 

other means of providing broadband 

service that should be considered 

facilities-based for purposes of the 

Lifeline program? How should the 

facilities-based requirement apply in a 

situation where a reseller and a 

facilities-based provider form a joint 

venture to provide Lifeline services? 

How should the Commission ensure 

Lifeline support is only issued to ETCs 

that satisfy the facilities requirement? 

Would the facilities-based requirement 

further the Commission’s goal of 

eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in 

the Lifeline program? On this last point, 

the Commission notes that the vast 

majority of Commission actions 

revealing waste, fraud, and abuse in the 

Lifeline program over the past five years 

have been against resellers, not 

facilities-based providers. And the 

proliferation of Lifeline resellers in 2009 

corresponded with a tremendous 

increase in households receiving 

multiple subsidies under the Lifeline 

program. How do the incentives of 

resellers differ from those who use their 

own last-mile facilities? Why have 

waste, fraud, and abuse increased— 

including multiple-subsidies-perhousehold problems, self-certification 

problems, authentication-of-subscriber 

problems, phantom-subscriber 

problems, and eligibility problems— 

since the advent of multiple resellers 

within the program in 2009? 

18. The Commission does not expect 

that this approach would impact the 

forbearance relief from section 

214(e)(1)(A)’s facilities requirement. 

However, the Commission recognizes 

that not reversing this forbearance relief 

may create a tension that could be 

relieved by making the requirements for 

obtaining a Lifeline-only ETC 

designation under section 214(e)(1)(A) 

match the facilities requirement for 

receiving Lifeline reimbursement. The 

Commission seeks comment on such 

matters. 

19. Alternatively, should the 

Commission reverse the forbearance 

from section 214(e)(1)(A)’s facilities 

requirement? If the Commission found 

that forbearing from the facilities-based 

requirement was no longer in the public 

interest, what other findings, if any, 

would the Commission need to make 

under section 10? If the Commission 

rescinded this forbearance, what 

effective date would give impacted 

ETCs and their customers an 

appropriate amount of time to make the 

transition? Furthermore, if the 

Commission were to rescind forbearance 

from the facilities requirement, should it 

reconsider its interpretation of that 

requirement? For example, § 54.201(g) 

of our current rules states that an ETC’s 

facilities need not be located within the 

relevant service area as long as the 

carrier uses them within the designated 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2107 

service area. But the Commission has 

previously noted that ‘‘[s]everal ETCs, 

some of which call themselves 

‘facilities-based resellers,’ have 

previously maintained they are 

facilities-based based on facilities that 

provision operator and/or directory 

assistance services, which are provided 

in conjunction with their retail 

offering.’’ The Commission seeks 

comment on revising those rules to 

make clear that a carrier is only 

facilities-based under our rules if its 

facilities are located in its service area 

and it uses those facilities to provide 

last-mile service to its supported 

customers. The Commission also notes 

that the Act defines a facilities-based 

carrier as one that offers service ‘‘either 

using its own facilities or a combination 

of its own facilities and resale of another 

carrier’s services.’’ (47 U.S.C. 

214(e)(1)(A)). The Commission seeks 

comment on how to balance Congress’s 

expectation that ETCs would invest 

universal service support in the areas 

they serve (See 47 U.S.C. 254(e).) and its 

recognition that some amount of resale 

should be permissible. The Commission 

seeks comment on any other 

formulations of this rule it should 

consider to ensure that facilities-based 

Lifeline carriers are in fact reinvesting 

the support they receive in facilities in 

the communities they serve. 

20. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the transition period for 

implementing this approach. If Lifeline 

support is only provided to ETCs that 

provide Lifeline broadband services 

over facilities-based voice- and 

broadband-capable last-mile networks, 

what should the transition period and 

transition process be for non-facilitiesbased providers currently participating 

in the Lifeline program and their 

customers? Should the transition 

process consider whether there is a 

facilities-based provider in a specific 

market that intends to continue 

providing Lifeline service? If so, what 

geographic area would be the 

appropriate focus of this determination? 

What sources could the Commission use 

to determine whether a facilities-based 

Lifeline provider is present in and plans 

to continue offering Lifeline service in 

a particular geographic market? What 

other factors should the Commission 

consider in developing the transition 

process? What would be an appropriate 

transition period for impacted ETCs and 

their customers? Should the 

Commission provide a three-year 

support phase down period for nonfacilities-based ETCs participating in the 

Lifeline program, or would a shorter 

period be appropriate? How would the 

transition process and period differ if 

the Commission reversed the 

forbearance from section 214(e)(1)(A)’s 

facilities requirement? 

21. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how to determine whether 

existing or future resellers have fully 

complied with the statute’s exhortation 

that universal service funding must be 

spent ‘‘only for the provision, 

maintenance, and upgrading of facilities 

and services for which the support is 

intended.’’ (47 U.S.C. 254(e)). Have 

Lifeline resellers passed through all 

Lifeline funding to their underlying 

carriers to ensure federal funding is 

appropriately spent on the required 

‘‘facilities and services’’ rather than 

non-eligible expenses like free phones 

and equipment? What accounting 

measures have Lifeline resellers 

instituted to ensure that Lifeline 

funding has only been used for eligible 

expenses? Would eliminating resellers 

from the program address any concerns 

about the appropriate use of federal 

funds by Lifeline providers? Would 

limiting payments to resellers to what 

they pay their wholesale carriers fully 

effectuate the congressional intent of 

section 254(e)? What auditing or other 

review should the Commission or USAC 

carry out to ensure that resellers that 

have been receiving funds used them 

properly? 

22. Alternatively, the Commission 

seeks comment on TracFone’s 

suggestions that it minimizes waste, 

fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program 

through ‘‘conduct-based requirements.’’ 

One form of conduct-based requirement 

would be to suspend for a year or disbar 

any Lifeline ETC with sufficiently high 

improper payment rates, whether on the 

basis of Payment Quality Assurance 

reviews or program audits. The 

Commission seeks comment on such a 

conduct-based requirement. If the 

Commission were to adopt such a 

requirement, what should be the 

measuring stick it uses and what should 

be the trigger? Should the Commission 

use a percent of Lifeline revenues 

improperly paid in a given state? 

Should the Commission establish a 

threshold amount of improper 

payments, such as $50,000, as a trigger 

for suspension in a state? What levels 

should be established for disbarment? 

And should the Commission apply such 

a requirement to all Lifeline providers, 

as TracFone suggests, or only wireless 

resellers, the historic source of most of 

the Commission’s enforcement actions 

and investigations with respect to waste, 

fraud, and abuse? Another conductbased requirement could be the 

suspension of companies that regularly 

engage in fraud-related conduct—such 

as practices that TracFone has 

previously suggested eliminating from 

the program. Would banning such 

practices and suspending those who 

engaged in them mitigate our concerns 

about rampant waste, fraud, and abuse? 

Would any of the conduct-based 

requirements minimize waste, fraud, 

and abuse in the Lifeline program to the 

same extent as the proposed facilities 

requirement? How could TracFone’s 

proposals be implemented with 

minimal additional administrative 

burden on Lifeline service providers? 

How would such proposals ensure that 

Lifeline support is being appropriately 

used to advance the deployment of 

broadband-eligible networks? 

23. Continuing the Phase Down of 

Lifeline Support for Voice Service. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

continuing the phase down of Lifeline 

support for voice-only services. In the 

2016 Lifeline Order, the Commission 

adopted rules to gradually phase out 

Lifeline support for voice-only services 

to further the Commission’s goal of 

transitioning to a broadband-focused 

Lifeline program. The current rules 

provide that Lifeline support will 

decrease to zero dollars on December 1, 

2021, with an exception permitting 

Lifeline voice support to continue in 

Census blocks where there is only one 

Lifeline provider. (47 CFR 

54.403(a)(2)(iv).) In deciding to phase 

down Lifeline support for voice-only 

service, the Commission explained that 

continuing to provide Lifeline support 

for voice-only service may ‘‘artificially 

perpetuate a market with decreasing 

demand’’ and may incent Lifeline 

providers to ‘‘avoid providing lowincome consumers with modern 

services as Congress intended.’’ The 

Commission also cited the declining 

prices of fixed and wireless voice-only 

services and the availability of a widerange of voice-only services in the 

marketplace. 

24. Continuing the phase down of 

Lifeline support is faithful to section 

254(b)’s mandates and would support 

our proposal to focus Lifeline support to 

encourage investment in broadbandcapable networks. (See 47 U.S.C. 

254(b)(1)–(3)). The Commission 

acknowledges that some parties have 

argued against the phase down of 

Lifeline support for voice service, citing, 

among other concerns, the lack of 

affordable of voice service. However, the 

Commission expects that even without 

Lifeline voice support, low-income 

consumers would be able to obtain 

quality, affordable voice service in 

urban areas. Based on the 2018 Urban 

Rate Survey, several providers charge 

monthly rates of fifteen dollars or less 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
2108 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

for fixed voice-only service, and the 

national average monthly rate for fixed 

voice-only service is $25.50. (See 2018 

Urban Rate Survey, Voice Data, Column 

J, Rows 423, 496, 501, 763, 788, https:// 

www.fcc.gov/general/urban-rate-surveydata-resources.) The 2016 Universal 

Service Monitoring Report indicates that 

telephone expenses represent under 

four percent of after-tax income for lowincome households. (See Universal 

Service Monitoring Report, CC Docket 

No. 96–45, et al., at 57, Table 6.12 

(2016) https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs__

public/attachmatch/DOC343025A1.pdf.) Therefore, the 

Commission expects that even without 

Lifeline support for voice-only service, 

the monthly cost of such service in 

urban areas would represent a small 

percentage of low-income households’ 

after-tax income. The Commission seeks 

comment on continuing the phase down 

of Lifeline support for voice-only 

service. Should the Commission make 

any changes to the current schedule for 

phasing out Lifeline support for voice 

services to support the policy changes 

the Commission proposes in this 

section? Should the Commission retain 

the exception permitting Lifeline 

support for voice services after 

December 1, 2021 in areas where there 

is only one Lifeline provider? (47 CFR 

54.403.) Would retaining this exception 

impede the adoption of Lifeline 

broadband service or investment in 

broadband-enabled networks? 

25. In contrast, it is unclear whether 

low-income consumers would be able to 

obtain quality, affordable voice service 

in rural areas without Lifeline voice 

support. The Commission’s rules 

require high-cost ETCs to offer voice 

service at rates that are reasonably 

comparable to the rates for similar 

services in urban areas, USF/ICC 

Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830, 

November 29, 2011. Although such rates 

may be affordable in theory, they may 

not be in practice: The 2018 reasonablecomparability benchmark for voice 

services is $45.38—almost double the 

average urban rate. The Commission 

accordingly seeks comment on 

eliminating the phase down of Lifeline 

support for voice-only service in rural 

areas. Would eliminating the phase 

down be the best way to ensure that 

consumers in rural areas are offered 

affordable voice services? Should voiceonly support be limited to a subset of 

rural areas where voice rates are 

actually above the urban average? If so, 

by how much? And how should the 

Commission determine the areas where 

voice-only support is available? Would 

offering voice-only support to rural 

Tribal lands ensure more affordable 

voice services in those areas? If so, what 

should be the level of support offered 

compared to the amount of support 

available for broadband? 

26. Legal Authority. The Commission 

believes it has authority under Section 

254(e) of the Act to provide Lifeline 

support to ETCs that provide broadband 

service over facilities-based broadbandcapable networks that support voice 

service. Section 254(e) provides that a 

carrier receiving universal service 

support ‘‘shall use that support only for 

the provision, maintenance, and 

upgrading of facilities and services for 

which the support is intended.’’ Our 

proposed changes to Lifeline support 

comport with the Commission’s 

authority under Section 254 because 

voice service would continue to be 

defined as a supported service under the 

Commission’s rules, and the networks 

receiving Lifeline support would also 

support voice service. (47 CFR 

54.401(a)(2)). Thus, under the proposed 

changes, Lifeline support would be used 

‘‘for the provision, maintenance, and 

upgrading of facilities and services for 

which the support is intended.’’ (47 

U.S.C. 254(e)). This legal authority does 

not depend on the regulatory 

classification of broadband internet 

access service and, thus, ensures the 

Lifeline program has a role in closing 

the digital divide regardless of the 

regulatory classification of broadband 

service. 

27. Relying on the Commission’s 

authority under Section 254(e) for the 

proposed changes to Lifeline support 

would also better reconcile the 

Commission’s authority to leverage the 

Lifeline program to encourage access to 

broadband with the Commission’s 

efforts to promote access to broadband 

through high-cost support. In the 

universal service high-cost program, the 

Commission relied on section 254(e) as 

its authority to require ETCs receiving 

support through the Connect America 

Fund (including the Mobility Fund) or 

the existing high cost-support 

mechanisms to invest in broadbandcapable networks, but declined to add 

broadband internet access service to the 

list of supported services. In adopting 

this requirement, the Commission 

explained that Section 254(e) grants the 

Commission the authority to ‘‘support 

not only voice telephony service but 

also the facilities over which it is 

offered’’ and that Congress’s use of the 

words ‘‘services’’ and ‘‘facilities’’ in 

Section 254(e) provides the 

‘‘Commission the flexibility not only to 

designate the types of 

telecommunications services for which 

support would be provided, but also to 

encourage the deployment of the types 

of facilities that will best achieve the 

principles set forth in section 254(b) and 

any other universal service principle 

that the Commission may adopt under 

section 254(b)(7), USF/ICC 

Transformation Order. The Commission 

further explained that it has a 

‘‘ ‘mandatory duty’ to adopt universal 

service policies that advance the 

principles outlined in section 254(b) 

and the Commission has the authority to 

‘create some inducement’ to ensure that 

those principles are achieved.’’ In 2014, 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth 

Circuit upheld the Commission’s 

interpretation of its section 254(e) 

authority in the USF/ICC 

Transformation Order. 

28. The Commission seeks comment 

on the Commission’s legal authority to 

adopt the proposed changes to Lifeline 

support. Are there other sources of 

authority that allow the Commission to 

make these changes to Lifeline support 

proposed in this section? 

29. The Commission seeks comment 

on ways the Lifeline program can 

responsibly empower Lifeline 

subscribers to obtain the highest value 

for the Lifeline benefit through 

consumer choice in a competitive 

market. In particular, the Commission 

seeks comment on a request from 

TracFone Wireless, Inc. (TracFone) to 

allow providers to meet the minimum 

service standards through plans that 

provide subscribers with a particular 

number of ‘‘units’’ that can be used for 

either voice minutes or broadband 

service. TracFone argues that the 

Bureau’s previous guidance that such 

‘‘units’’ plans do not meet the minimum 

service standards was given without 

public comment and represented an 

improper reading of the relevant rule. 

(47 CFR 54.408.) Should the 

Commission now allow ‘‘units’’ plans to 

receive reimbursement from the Lifeline 

program? What impact would these 

plans have on consumer choice in the 

Lifeline market? Would such a decision 

require a change in the Commission’s 

rules? If the Commission permits such 

plans, how should the Commission 

determine the appropriate support 

amount for those plans that combine 

voice and broadband options when the 

support level for voice service decreases 

to $7.25 while the support amount for 

broadband service remains at $9.25? 

(See 47 CFR 54.403(a).) 

30. The Commission also seeks 

comment on eliminating the Lifeline 

program’s ‘‘equipment requirement.’’ 

(See 47 CFR 54.408(f).) That rule 

mandates that any Lifeline provider that 

‘‘provides devices to its consumers[] 

must ensure that all such devices are 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2109 

Wi-Fi enabled,’’ prohibits ‘‘tethering 

charge[s],’’ and requires mobile 

broadband providers to offer devices 

‘‘capable of being used as a hotspot.’’ 

(See 47 CFR 54.408(f)(1)–(3)). The 

Commission never sought comment on 

such requirements before imposing 

them on all Lifeline providers and 

appears to lack the statutory authority to 

adopt or enforce such requirements. 

And although well-intentioned, the 

equipment mandate appears 

unnecessary if not affirmatively 

harmful. As the 2016 Lifeline Order 

recognized, a ‘‘substantial majority’’ of 

Americans already own Wi-Fi enabled 

smartphones, suggesting such mandates 

are not needed. And even those Lifeline 

providers that appear to support offering 

Wi-Fi-enabled devices or hotspotenabled equipment acknowledge the 

increased cost of such equipment, and 

fail to explain why consumers should 

not be free to choose lower-cost options. 

For example, the equipment mandate 

would prohibit a cable Lifeline provider 

from offering a low-cost modem rather 

than an integrated modem-Wi-Fi-router, 

even if a Lifeline consumer wanted to 

use a desktop computer to access the 

internet. What is more, the 2016 Lifeline 

Order lacked record evidence suggesting 

that these mandates would have any 

meaningful impact on the homework 

gap—their nominal purpose. As such, it 

appears these mandates are more likely 

to widen the digital divide than close it. 

And so, for the first time, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the Commission may or should retain 

the equipment mandates in our rules, or 

whether they instead should be 

eliminated. 

31. In the interest of removing 

regulations that no longer benefit 

consumers, the Commission proposes to 

eliminate § 54.418 of the Commission’s 

rules, and the Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. (See 47 CFR 

54.418.) When enacted, section 54.418 

required ETCs to notify their customers 

about the then-upcoming transition for 

over-the-air full power broadcasters 

from analog to digital service (the ‘‘DTV 

transition’’) over the course of several 

months in 2009. The DTV transition has 

since occurred, and it appears that the 

rule is no longer relevant. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. 

32. As the Commission embarks on an 

effort to reform the incentives and 

effectiveness of the Lifeline program, it 

is incumbent on the Commission to 

consider ways it can continue to fight 

and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in 

the program. To that end, the 

Commission seeks comment on a 

number of proposals to improve the 

Lifeline program’s administration to 

preserve program integrity. 

33. The Commission proposes to 

adjust the process that USAC currently 

uses to identify which service providers 

will be subjected to Lifeline audits by 

transitioning to a fully risk-based 

approach. The Commission proposes to 

transition the independent audit 

requirements required by section 54.420 

of the Commission’s rules away from a 

$5 million threshold and, instead, to 

move toward identifying companies to 

be audited based on established risk 

factors and taking into consideration the 

potential amount of harm to the Fund. 

The Commission proposes modifying 

section 54.420 to allow companies to be 

selected based on risk factors identified 

by the Wireline Competition Bureau and 

Office of Managing Director, in 

coordination with USAC. This approach 

allows for adaptable, independent 

audits that respond to risk factors that 

change over time. The Commission 

believes this new audit approach will 

better target waste, fraud, and abuse in 

the program and also utilize 

administrative resources more 

efficiently and effectively than in prior 

years. 

34. USAC’s current audit program 

consists of audits targeted to high-risk 

participants as well as mandatory audits 

of certain carriers, such as all carriers 

offering Lifeline for the first time and 

any carrier receiving more than $5 

million in program support in a given 

year. Recognizing that some mandatory 

audits were unnecessary, the 

Commission in the 2016 Lifeline Order 

directed the Office of Managing Director 

to work with USAC to modify the 

approach for determining the first-year 

Lifeline providers to be audited. The 

Commission intended this direction to 

prevent wasteful auditing of companies 

with limited subscriber bases, for 

example, and to allow USAC to more 

efficiently direct audit resources to 

higher risk providers. The Commission’s 

rules still require carriers drawing more 

than $5 million annually from the 

program to obtain independent biennial 

audits. (47 CFR 54.420.) 

35. The Commission seeks comment 

on transitioning from the mandatory $5 

million threshold for the biennial 

independent audits under § 54.420(a) of 

the Commission’s rules to a purely riskbased model of targeted Lifeline audits. 

Under this approach, the Wireline 

Competition Bureau and Office of 

Managing Director, with support from 

USAC, would establish risk factors to 

identify the companies required to 

complete the biennial independent 

audits. The independent audits would 

then follow the same process currently 

outlined in the rules with the identified 

carriers obtaining an independent 

auditor and following a standardized 

audit plan outlined by the Commission. 

(47 CFR 54.420(a)). The Commission 

believes this approach would be more 

efficient and more effective at rooting 

out waste, fraud, and abuse in the 

program because the identified risk 

factors would better target potential 

violations than merely focusing on 

companies receiving large Lifeline 

disbursements. A wider range of risk 

factors would be more responsive to 

identified program risks. 

36. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the impact and burdens the 

current audit program imposes on 

providers and whether this risk-based 

approach reduces those burdens. What 

resources have the current, non-riskbased audits consumed in terms of 

employee time, recordkeeping systems, 

and other related audit costs? Would 

transitioning all Lifeline audits to a riskbased model improve the accountability 

of the program? What factors are key 

indicators of potential abuse in the 

program? Are there other risk factors the 

Wireline Competition Bureau, Office of 

Managing Director, and USAC should 

consider when identifying companies 

that should be subject to audit? How 

many companies should be required to 

obtain independent audits? 

37. In its recent report, the 

Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) identified significant fraud and 

an absence of internal controls by 

performing undercover work to 

determine whether ETCs would enroll 

subscribers who are not eligible for 

Lifeline support. (See GAO, 

Telecommunications: Additional Action 

Needed to Address Significant Risks in 

FCC’s Lifeline Program, GAO–17–538, 

at 44–46 (2017), http://www.gao.gov/ 

products/GAO-17-538.) The 

Commission seeks comment on 

conducting similar undercover work as 

part of the audits administered by USAC 

or a third-party auditor acting on 

USAC’s behalf. Would such auditing 

techniques be a cost-effective way to 

eliminate fraud in the program? What 

administrative challenges would the 

Commission or USAC face in 

undertaking such undercover work? 

38. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on how Lifeline program 

audits can ensure that Lifeline 

beneficiaries are actually receiving the 

service for which ETCs are being 

reimbursed. What documentation 

should an audit require to demonstrate 

that service is being provided? How 

should an audit detect and report 

instances where the subscriber’s 

equipment makes it difficult or 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
2110 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

impossible for the subscriber to use the 

relevant service? Would changes to 

auditing methods on this issue require 

any changes to the Lifeline program 

rules? Should the Commission require 

Lifeline service providers to 

demonstrate that they have addressed 

any issues that resulted in PQA failures 

above a certain threshold, or audit 

findings that result in recovery of more 

than a certain percentage of the 

disbursements during the audit period? 

39. The Lifeline enrollment and 

recertification processes continue to 

demonstrate significant weaknesses that 

open the program to waste, fraud, and 

abuse that harms contributing 

ratepayers and fails to benefit lowincome subscribers. The Commission 

therefore seeks comment on a number of 

potential changes to the eligibility 

verification and reverification processes 

in the Lifeline program. 

40. ETC Representatives. The 

Commission seeks comment on 

prohibiting agent commissions related 

to enrolling subscribers in the Lifeline 

program and on codifying a requirement 

that ETC representatives who 

participate in customer enrollment 

register with USAC. The Commission 

believes these measures may benefit 

ratepayers by reducing waste, fraud, and 

abuse in the program. Many ETCs 

compensate sales employees and 

contractors with a commission for each 

consumer enrolled, and these sales and 

marketing practices can encourage the 

employees and agents of ETCs to enroll 

subscribers in the program regardless of 

eligibility, enroll consumers in the 

program without their consent, or 

engage in other practices that increase 

waste, fraud, and abuse in the program. 

41. The Commission seeks comment 

on codifying in the Commission’s rules 

the USAC administrative requirement 

that ETCs’ customer enrollment 

representatives register with USAC in 

order to be able to submit information 

to the NLAD or National Verifier 

systems. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the scope of the use of 

representatives’ information. USAC is 

currently implementing an ETC 

representative registration database to 

help detect and prevent impermissible 

activity when enrolling or otherwise 

working with USAC to enroll Lifeline 

subscribers. The Commission is aware 

of certain practices of sales 

representatives resulting in improper 

enrollments or otherwise violating the 

Lifeline rules. (See Letter from Ajit V. 

Pai, Chairman, FCC, to Vickie Robinson, 

Acting Chief Executive Officer and 

General Counsel, USAC, at 1–4 (July 11, 

2017), http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_

Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0711/ 

DOC-345729A1.pdf; GAO, 

Telecommunications: Additional Action 

Needed to Address Significant Risks in 

FCC’s Lifeline Program, GAO–17–538 

(2017), http://www.gao.gov/products/ 

GAO-17-538.) These practices include 

data manipulation to defeat NLAD 

protections, using personally identifying 

information (PII) of an eligible 

subscriber to enroll non-eligible 

subscribers, and obtaining false 

certifications from subscribers. USAC’s 

current administrative efforts to create 

this database of ETC representatives 

would also combat waste in the event a 

representative using impermissible 

enrollment tactics is engaged by 

multiple ETCs. The Commission seeks 

comment on codifying the ETC 

representative registration requirement. 

How should the Commission define an 

ETC enrollment representative for these 

purposes? What information would be 

necessary for the creation of this 

database? What privacy and security 

practices should be used to safeguard 

this information? 

42. The Commission also seeks 

comment on its ability to take 

appropriate enforcement action against 

registered ETC representatives who 

violate the rules governing Lifeline 

enrollment. For the Commission to 

exercise its forfeiture authority for 

violations of the Act and its rules 

without first issuing a warning, the 

wrongdoer must hold (or be an 

applicant for) some form of 

authorization from the Commission, or 

be engaged in activity for which such an 

authorization is required. (See 47 U.S.C. 

503(b).) Toward this end, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should implement a certification or 

blanket authorization process applicable 

to ETC representatives who register with 

USAC. How would this blanket 

authorization coincide with the 

Commission’s existing authority over 

Lifeline providers’ officers, agents, and 

employees under Section 217 of the 

Act? (See 47 U.S.C. 217). 

43. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should require ETCs to implement 

procedures that prohibit commissionbased ETC personnel from verifying 

eligibility of Lifeline subscribers. By 

prohibiting commissions, the 

Commission hopes to dis-incent 

improper, fraudulent, or otherwise 

illegal enrollment processes sometimes 

utilized by ETCs’ representatives. The 

Commission proposes that those 

employees, agents, or third parties who 

receive a significant portion of their 

compensation based on the number of 

Lifeline subscribers they enroll in the 

program be precluded from determining 

eligibility. The Commission is 

concerned that ETCs implementing 

procedures barring commission-based 

personnel from reviewing and verifying 

subscriber eligibility certifications and 

documentation will reduce financial 

incentives for commission-based 

personnel to enroll ineligible 

subscribers. Should this proposal 

preclude ETCs from using commissionbased personnel altogether, or should it 

instead require ETCs to simply 

implement procedures precluding 

commission-based personnel from 

determining eligibility? As an additional 

safeguard, should the Commission 

require Lifeline providers to ensure that 

service provider representatives 

involved in soliciting customers are 

separated from service provider 

representatives who are involved in the 

verification process? 

44. NLAD Dispute Resolution. The 

Commission seeks comment on 

requiring USAC to directly review 

supporting documents for manual 

NLAD dispute resolutions, including 

information regarding the ETC agent 

submitting the documentation. The 

Commission believes this requirement 

would reduce improper enrollments in 

the program. Currently, manual 

documentation review is required when 

a subscriber wishes to dispute an NLAD 

denial. An NLAD denial occurs when a 

subscriber fails one of the protective 

checks contained in the NLAD system. 

For example, if USAC’s automated 

identity check rejects a consumer’s 

application, that consumer may produce 

documentation verifying their identity, 

because the databases that are available 

to automatically verify identity are not 

comprehensive. A Lifeline subscriber 

may dispute an NLAD denial by 

submitting the appropriate 

documentation to the ETC. The ETC 

then reviews the documents, verifies the 

information at issue in the dispute, and 

processes the dispute resolution with 

USAC. 

45. The current system’s reliance on 

carrier certification for dispute 

resolution has been questioned for 

making the Lifeline program vulnerable 

to waste, fraud, and abuse. (See 

Testimony of FCC Commissioner Ajit 

Pai Before the Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology of the 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

Oversight of the Federal 

Communications Commission, at 4–5 

(July 12, 2016), available at https://

www.fcc.gov/document/commissionerpai-statement-house-oversight-hearing.) 

Having USAC conduct actual document 

review associated with NLAD dispute 

resolutions would increase the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2111 

accountability of the resolutions. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. Do the associated costs and 

administrative burdens associated with 

such review justify this additional step? 

If the Commission directed USAC to 

adopt this measure, what would be the 

optimal response time for USAC to 

process such disputes? How should 

USAC collect the documentation and 

what privacy safeguards should be taken 

to protect that information? Should 

USAC offer a list of acceptable 

documentation, and what 

documentation should qualify? 

46. Subscriber Recertification. The 

Commission seeks comment on 

prohibiting subscribers from selfcertifying their continued eligibility 

during the Lifeline program’s annual 

recertification process if the consumer is 

no longer participating in the program 

they used to demonstrate their initial 

eligibility for the program. Section 

54.410(f) of the Commission’s rules 

allows subscribers to self-certify that 

they continue to be eligible for the 

Lifeline program if their eligibility 

cannot be determined by querying an 

eligibility database. This is true even 

where the subscriber is seeking to 

recertify under a different qualifying 

program than the one they used to 

demonstrate their initial eligibility. 

Requiring eligibility documentation to 

be submitted in such cases would help 

to ensure the self-certification option for 

the eligibility recertification process is 

accurate and the subscriber is still 

eligible to participate in the Lifeline 

program through a different eligibility 

path. Should the Commission amend its 

rules to require documentation be 

submitted when the subscriber attempts 

to recertify by self-certification only 

when the subscriber seeks to recertify 

under a different program than the one 

through which they initially 

demonstrated eligibility and cannot be 

recertified through an eligibility 

database? Should the Commission 

require USAC to review that 

documentation? 

47. Independent Economic Household 

Forms. The Commission next seeks 

comment on limiting ETCs’ use of the 

Independent Economic Household (IEH) 

worksheet only when the consumer 

shares an address with other subscribers 

already enrolled in the Lifeline program. 

The 2016 Lifeline Order amended the 

language of § 54.410(g) of the 

Commission’s rules to require a 

prospective subscriber to complete an 

IEH worksheet upon initial enrollment 

and during any recertification in which 

the subscriber changes households and 

as a result shared an address with 

another Lifeline subscriber. The 

intended purpose of the IEH worksheet 

was for use when multiple independent 

households reside at the same 

residence. If an ETC collects an IEH 

worksheet from all subscribers 

regardless of whether another Lifeline 

subscriber resides at the same address, 

it is more difficult for USAC to monitor 

aggregate trends and particular ETCs’ 

use of the IEH worksheet to detect 

improper activity. Prophylactic use of 

the household worksheet can therefore 

subvert the duplicate address 

protections and may result in increased 

waste, fraud, and abuse. The 

Commission seeks comment on 

amending the language of § 54.404(b)(3) 

to only permit the use of an IEH 

worksheet after the ETC has been 

notified by the NLAD, or state 

administrator in the case of NLAD optout states, that the prospective 

subscriber resides at the same address as 

another Lifeline subscriber. 

48. Additionally, the Commission 

seeks comment on other methods to 

prevent abuse of the IEH worksheet 

process. Should the Commission direct 

USAC to develop a list of addresses 

known to contain multiple households? 

The addresses would primarily be 

assisted-living and retirement facilities, 

homeless shelters, public housing, and 

similar institutions. This list would 

enable USAC or the Commission to 

more effectively investigate addresses 

with high numbers of enrollments that 

do not appear to be physically or 

organizationally capable of housing 

many independent economic 

households. How should this list of 

known multiple-household addresses 

impact whether an ETC may collect an 

IEH worksheet from the prospective 

Lifeline consumer? Should the 

Commission require Lifeline applicants 

residing in multi-person residences 

(e.g., homeless shelters, nursing homes, 

assisted living facilities) to submit a 

certification from the facility manager 

confirming that the applicant resides at 

the address and is not part of the same 

economic household as any other 

resident already receiving Lifeline 

support? What administrative 

approaches would reduce burdens on 

subscribers without creating 

vulnerabilities in the program’s 

integrity? 

49. More broadly, the Commission 

seeks comment on other dispute 

resolutions or ‘‘overrides’’ to Lifeline 

enrollment requirements that should be 

restricted or eliminated. Are there other 

points of the enrollment process that 

rely on the consumer’s certification or 

manual document review in a way that 

irreparably weakens the integrity of the 

enrollment process? The Commission 

notes that, currently, a consumer may go 

through a dispute resolution process if 

that consumer is not found in a thirdparty identity verification database, has 

the same address as another Lifeline 

subscriber, has an address not 

recognized by the U.S. Postal Service, or 

cannot be found in an available 

eligibility program database. What 

additional steps should the Commission 

institute as part of this resolution 

process to reduce the opportunity for 

abuse? Should the Commission limit the 

ability of providers or subscribers to 

override those initial failures with 

additional documentation to prevent 

fraudulent or abusive practices? 

50. Other Measures. Finally, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

there are other measures the 

Commission could take to further 

reduce waste, fraud, and abuse and 

improve transparency in the program. 

Should the Commission require USAC 

to conduct ongoing targeted risk-based 

reviews of eligibility documentation or 

dispute resolution documentation? 

Should the Commission codify a 

requirement that subscribers be 

compared to the Social Security Master 

Death Index during the enrollment and 

recertification processes? Should the 

Commission amend its rules to require 

that a provider’s Lifeline reimbursement 

be based directly on the subscribers it 

has enrolled in the NLAD to prevent 

claims for ‘‘phantom’’ subscribers? 

Should the Commission prohibit 

Lifeline providers from distributing 

handsets in person to Lifeline 

consumers and, if so, should there be 

any exceptions? Are there additional 

measures the Commission should take 

to address waste, fraud, and abuse in the 

program? The Commission seeks 

comment on these proposals. 

51. The Commission seeks comment 

on additional reports USAC could make 

public or available to state agencies to 

increase program transparency and 

accountability. The Commission seeks 

comment on directing USAC to 

periodically report suspicious activity 

or trends to the Wireline Competition 

and Enforcement Bureaus, as well as the 

Office of Managing Director, and any 

relevant state agencies. Suspicious 

activity would include trend analysis of 

NLAD exemptions, subscriber churn, 

TPIV failure rates, and IEH worksheet 

rates. It will also include information 

gained from analytics on the National 

Verifier data. In addition to more 

transparent reporting of NLAD 

exemptions, what information would 

state agencies need to access to increase 

the effectiveness of state enforcement in 

the Lifeline program? Further, what 

information should USAC make 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
2112 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

accessible to other Lifeline stakeholders 

to increase the effectiveness and 

transparency of the program? 

52. The Commission seeks comment 

on what additional reports USAC 

should make available for state agencies. 

USAC currently makes available a 

number of Lifeline program statistics 

and reports showing eligible Lifeline 

population estimates, Lifeline 

participation, and ETCs receiving 

Lifeline support. In addition to this 

information, state agencies may request 

NLAD access for their respective state. 

This access allows the state agency to 

review detailed subscriber information 

in the NLAD to aid their own program 

administration and enforcement, 

including information regarding which 

carriers are providing service. In the 

2016 Lifeline Order, the Commission 

directed USAC to publish Lifeline 

subscriber counts on the study area code 

(SAC) level to ‘‘increase[] transparency 

and continue[] to promote 

accountability in the program.’’ 

53. In the 2016 Lifeline Order, the 

Commission implemented a budget 

process for the Lifeline program. This 

budget approach, however, does not 

include any mechanism that 

automatically curtails disbursements 

beyond the budget amount absent 

further action by the Commission. 

Instead, if Lifeline disbursements in a 

given year meet or exceed 90 percent of 

that year’s budget, initially set at $2.25 

billion, the Bureau is required to issue 

a report to the full Commission detailing 

the reasons for the increased spending 

and recommending next steps. 

54. The Commission proposes to 

adopt a self-enforcing budget 

mechanism to ensure that Lifeline 

disbursements are kept at a responsible 

level and to prevent undue burdens on 

the ratepayers who contribute to the 

program. The Commission believes a 

self-enforcing budget is appropriate to 

ensure the efficient use of limited funds. 

The Commission therefore proposes to 

replace the approach adopted in the 

2016 Lifeline Order and require an 

annual cap for Lifeline disbursements. 

The Commission intends for the 

program to automatically make 

adjustments in order to maintain the cap 

in the event the budget is exceeded. 

55. The Commission seeks comment 

on the operation of such a self-enforcing 

budget. What is the appropriate period 

over which the Commission should 

measure and enforce the cap? Would a 

six-month period be appropriate? For 

example, under this proposal, for each 

upcoming six-month period, USAC 

would forecast expected Lifeline and 

Link Up disbursements, as well as 

administrative expenses attributable to 

the operation of these programs. If 

projected disbursements and expenses 

are expected to exceed one half of the 

annual cap, USAC would 

proportionately reduce support amounts 

during the upcoming six-month period 

to bring total disbursements under one 

half of the annual cap. If, however, total 

payments in the upcoming six-month 

period are projected to be less than one 

half the annual cap, USAC would 

provide the full support amounts as 

determined by the Commission and 

collect only what is necessary to fund 

the demand. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. What 

administrative difficulties should USAC 

anticipate when forecasting 

disbursements? What steps should 

USAC take, if any, in the midst of a sixmonth period in the event forecast 

disbursements and expenses vary 

significantly from actual disbursements 

and expenses? The Commission notes 

that USAC currently projects quarterly 

requirements for the Lifeline program 

and submits those projections to the 

Commission. What can the Commission 

learn from the accuracy of USAC’s past 

forecasts that would inform how this 

proposal would work? Alternatively, 

would another period of time be more 

appropriate? Would a one-year period 

be more suitable for the Lifeline market? 

In particular, the Commission seeks 

comment on the concept of measuring 

the budget over a 12-month period and 

whether that concept fully protects the 

ratepayer from excessive spending. 

56. Alternatively, the Commission 

seeks comment on a different selfenforcing budget mechanism that would 

allow Lifeline spending in a given 

period to exceed the cap, but would 

result in Lifeline disbursements being 

reduced in the next period to 

accommodate the excessive spending. In 

this mechanism, disbursements would 

be reduced proportionally throughout 

the following period to ensure the 

disbursements and expenses do not 

exceed the budget less the amount by 

which the previous period’s 

disbursements and expenses exceeded 

the budget. The Commission seeks 

comment on this approach, noting that 

it has the benefit of not requiring a 

forecast or handling the inevitable 

under- or over-shooting of the actual 

demand. Under this proposal, when 

should the cap for the second period of 

time be set? At the beginning of the first 

period, or the second one? The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether it is acceptable to allow 

disbursements to exceed the budget in 

a given period, even where adjustments 

made in the following period mean the 

program spends less than the total 

budgeted amount over the two periods. 

Would any of the proposed budget 

mechanisms result in a significant 

variance in the disbursement cap for 

consecutive funding years, and if so, 

what impact would that have on 

Lifeline consumers and providers? 

57. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether Lifeline spending 

should be prioritized in the event that 

the cap is reached or USAC projects will 

be reached in a funding year. If so, the 

Commission proposes that the 

Commission prioritize funding in the 

following order if disbursements are 

projected to exceed the cap: (1) Rural 

Tribal lands, (2) rural areas, and (3) all 

other areas. The Commission seeks 

comment on this prioritization scheme 

and whether any other factors should 

weigh in our analysis. For example, 

should the Commission prioritize 

Lifeline spending in low-income areas 

where the business case for deployment 

is harder to make? If the Commission 

adopts such funding prioritizations, 

how should it implement such a 

system? Should the Commission adjust 

all of the support amount categories to 

different extents, or should categories 

with less prioritization receive no 

support before the support of the 

category with the next-highest 

prioritization is adjusted? The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

issues. 

58. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the appropriate initial 

amount for this cap. Would historical 

disbursement levels be instructive in 

determining the appropriate annual 

cap? In 2008, when the Commission 

first allowed a non-facilities-based ETC 

to receive Lifeline support, Lifeline 

expenditures totaled approximately 

$820 million. By 2012, that amount had 

grown to over $2.1 billion. The 

Commission’s initial steps to eliminate 

waste, fraud, and abuse within the 

program have reduced Lifeline 

disbursements to just over $1.5 billion 

in 2015. If the Commission adopted a 

previous disbursement level as the 

annual disbursement cap, which 

disbursement level would be 

appropriate? The Commission seeks 

comment on these issues and other 

relevant matters, such as whether this 

cap should include USAC’s expenses for 

administering the Lifeline program. If 

so, how should the Commission 

incorporate these administrative 

expenses? 

59. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether and how the 

program’s cap should be adjusted in 

subsequent years. Should the cap 

remain the same, absent further action 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2113 

by the Commission, or should the cap 

be automatically indexed to inflation? 

Should the cap be tied to other metrics, 

like the growth or decrease of poverty 

nationwide or participation in meanstested programs? 

60. In this section, the Commission 

seeks comment on ways to focus 

Lifeline support toward encouraging 

broadband adoption among low-income 

consumers and minimizing wasteful 

spending in the program. 

61. Maximum Discount Level. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to apply a maximum discount level for 

Lifeline services above which the costs 

of the service must be borne by the 

qualifying household. Today, many 

service providers use the monthly 

Lifeline support amount to offer free-tothe-end-user Lifeline service, for which 

the Lifeline customer has no personal 

financial obligation. In 2016, certain 

wireless Lifeline service providers 

estimated that 11 million Lifeline 

participants (85 percent of all Lifeline 

program participants) subscribed to 

plans providing free-to-the-end-user 

Lifeline service. (See Letter from John 

Heitmann, Kelly Drye & Warren LLP, to 

Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC 

Docket No. 11–42 et al., at 2 (Feb. 3, 

2016)). In contrast, the Commission’s 

other universal service support 

programs all require beneficiaries or 

support recipients to pay a portion of 

the costs of the supported service. For 

example, the E-rate program discount 

levels range from 20 percent to 90 

percent of the costs of eligible goods and 

services, and E-rate beneficiaries are 

required to pay the remaining costs of 

the supported goods and services. (47 

CFR 54.505(b) and 54.504(a)(1)(iii).) 

Should the approach that the 

Commission has taken in other 

universal service support programs be 

instructive in the Lifeline context? Do 

the users of the supported service value 

that service more if they contribute 

financially? Are such users more 

sensitive to the price and quality of the 

service? Is there any particular approach 

taken by another universal service 

support program that should inform the 

Commission’s analysis for the Lifeline 

program? Under the Commission’s 

rules, providers of video relay service 

(VRS) are compensated for the 

reasonable costs of providing VRS. (47 

CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E)(1).) Do the 

policies underlying that approach apply 

in the Lifeline context? The concept of 

maximum discount levels and 

mandatory contributions is not limited 

to federal benefit programs administered 

by the Commission. For example, many 

participants in the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development’s 

(HUD’s) Public Housing and Housing 

Choice Voucher programs and the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services’ (DHHS’) Low-Income Home 

Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) 

are required to pay a portion of the costs 

of their utilities or rent. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

utility of comparing these programs to 

the Lifeline program, and if the 

Commission should consider the 

approach undertaken in other benefit 

programs with capped support amounts. 

For those other benefit programs, has 

the efficacy of mandatory end user 

payments been evaluated? Did the 

requirement of end user payments 

impact services provided to the 

consumer, program enrollment, or 

competition in the relevant market? 

Importantly, did such a requirement 

reduce the waste, fraud, and abuse in 

those programs that would have 

occurred absent the cap? 

62. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the impact a maximum 

discount level would have on the 

Lifeline program. What impact would a 

maximum discount level have on the 

affordability, availability, and quality of 

communications service for low-income 

consumers? Would a maximum 

discount level for the Lifeline program 

impact the types of services that 

consumers obtain through the program? 

Would it change the quality of 

broadband service that Lifeline 

providers offer, including speed and 

data allowances? Would this change 

affect the availability of certain types of 

service more than others, for example, 

mobile versus fixed service? Would a 

maximum discount level help ensure 

that Lifeline funds are targeted at highquality broadband service offerings that 

truly help close the digital divide for 

low-income consumers? Would 

adopting a maximum discount level 

encourage consumers to more carefully 

investigate and evaluate the service to 

which they wish to apply their Lifeline 

benefit, thereby decreasing Lifeline 

subscriber churn or violations of the 

one-per-household rule and helping 

further reduce waste, fraud, and abuse 

in the Lifeline program? 

63. One proposal is to adopt a 

maximum discount level to improve the 

Lifeline program’s efficiency and further 

reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the 

program. Under the current structure, 

service providers may engage in fraud or 

abuse by using no-cost Lifeline offerings 

to increase their Lifeline customer 

numbers when the customers do not 

value or may not even realize they are 

purportedly receiving a Lifelinesupported service. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether Lifeline’s 

current benefit structure fails to ensure 

that the program supports services that 

consumers value. Would a maximum 

discount level curtail such practices and 

prevent universal service funds from 

being spent on services of little to no 

value for the Lifeline consumer? 

64. What rule changes would be 

needed to implement a maximum 

discount level? If the Commission 

established a maximum discount level 

requirement for Lifeline, how should 

such a requirement operate? Are there 

specific pricing data or other data that 

would help the Commission determine 

an appropriate maximum discount 

level? Should the required end user 

payment be a flat amount or a 

percentage of the price of the service? 

Should the maximum discount level 

apply differently to enhanced Lifeline 

support than standard Lifeline support? 

Should the maximum level apply to 

Link Up support? How would a 

maximum discount level apply for 

prepaid services or consumer payment 

structures that otherwise do not require 

a monthly billing relationship between 

the provider and the consumer? Should 

Lifeline service providers have 

flexibility to determine the timing of the 

customer’s payment (e.g., upfront 

payments, monthly, post-paid)? What 

steps could the Commission take to 

ensure that Lifeline service providers 

actually collect the required customer 

share? How should the Commission 

treat partial payments by Lifeline 

subscribers? Should there be any 

exceptions to the maximum discount 

level and, if so, what is the justification 

for these exceptions? How could the 

Commission implement a maximum 

discount level with minimal increases 

in Lifeline service provider costs and 

administrative burdens? Are there 

specific data that would help the 

Commission evaluate the potential 

impact of a maximum discount level on 

the Lifeline participation rate of 

qualifying low-income consumers? Are 

there other alternatives the Commission 

should consider to ensure that the 

Lifeline program supports services that 

Lifeline customers value? 

65. In the 2016 Lifeline Order, the 

Commission adopted minimum service 

standards to make sure that Lifeline 

customers receive quality Lifelinesupported services. A maximum 

discount level may also achieve this 

goal because consumers who pay a 

portion of the costs may be more 

sensitive to the price and quality of the 

service. Would a maximum discount 

level therefore make minimum service 

standards unnecessary? Do the 

minimum service standards serve 

additional purposes that would not be 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
2114 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

served by a maximum discount level? If 

the Lifeline program rules included both 

a maximum discount level and 

minimum service standards, should the 

Commission revise the formulas used to 

determine the minimum service 

standards or adjust the mechanisms by 

which the minimum service standards 

are updated? Similarly, would adopting 

a maximum discount level eliminate the 

need for the usage requirement in 

§ 54.407(c)(2) of the Lifeline program 

rules and the related non-usage deenrollment rule in § 54.405(e)(3)? 

66. Targeting Non-Adopters. The 

Lifeline program was originally created 

to promote low-income consumers’ 

access to affordable services. Some 

parties have suggested that the 

Commission should target Lifeline 

support to low-income consumers who 

have not yet adopted broadband service. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

changes the Commission could make to 

target consumers who have not yet 

adopted broadband, and to what extent 

the Commission should weigh efforts 

that facilitate reaching those consumers 

specifically? The Commission seeks 

comment on whether and how the 

Commission should adopt a support 

framework that encourages adoption of 

high quality communications service by 

low-income consumers. What rule 

changes would be necessary to 

implement these changes? 

67. The Commission seeks comment 

on the need for regulatory action to 

address the problems identified here, as 

well as the costs and benefits of our 

proposals along with data and other 

information that can be used to quantify 

these. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks comment on the need for and 

costs and benefits of regulatory action of 

the following proposals, relative to the 

status quo: Encouraging cooperative 

federalism between state data sources 

and the National Verifier; directing 

Lifeline support to facilities-based 

providers; alternatives to a facilities 

requirement; adopting a maximum 

discount level; changes to encourage 

Lifeline consumers to adopt broadband 

services; adopting a self-enforcing 

budget; enhancing targeted audits of 

participating providers; and acting on 

the other interpretive and policy 

changes for which the Commission 

seeks comment above. Commenters 

proposing alternatives to our proposals 

should discuss the need for and costs 

and benefits of their proposal, including 

relative costs and benefits of their 

proposal as compared to those set forth 

here, and should provide supporting 

evidence. The Commission also seeks 

comment on options to achieve the most 

effective use of resources to achieve the 

purposes of the Lifeline program, and 

specifically to lower the cost of 

adoption to lower-income subscribers. 

The Commission seeks data and 

information commenters believe is 

necessary for these analyses and 

comment on specific methodologies 

commenters believe are best suited for 

this purpose. The Commission also 

seeks comment generally on how to 

evaluate the relative importance of 

public interest outcomes that are not 

readily susceptible to quantification, 

such as ‘‘equity, human dignity, 

fairness, and distributive impacts.’’ (See 

Executive Order 13563, 76 FR 3821, 

3821–23 (Jan. 18, 2011)). 

III. Notice of Inquiry 

68. The Lifeline program is an 

important means of achieving universal 

service. In the 2016 Lifeline Order the 

Commission took the step of allowing 

Lifeline to support broadband to help 

low-income Americans obtain access to 

quality, affordable service. However, the 

Commission remains concerned about 

the well-documented digital divide for 

low-income Americans, and in 

particular low-income Americans 

residing in rural Tribal, rural, and 

underserved areas. 

69. To ensure that the Lifeline 

program achieves universal service for 

21st Century services, it is necessary to 

evaluate the ultimate purposes of the 

Lifeline program and identify the 

policies that will best accomplish those 

purposes. Sharpening the focus of the 

Lifeline program would further promote 

digital opportunity for low-income 

individuals, and in particular for lowincome Americans who have not 

adopted broadband, or who reside in 

rural Tribal or rural areas. 

70. To focus the Lifeline program on 

supporting affordable communications 

service for the nation’s low-income 

households and on improving the 

economic incentives of providers 

serving them, the Commission begins a 

proceeding to reexamine the Lifeline 

program’s support structure to 

encourage affordable access to high 

quality services for low-income 

consumers while the Commission 

continues to discourage the practices 

leading to program waste, fraud, and 

abuse. Accordingly, the Commission 

seeks comment on potential changes to 

the Lifeline program funding paradigm 

that will help the Lifeline program more 

efficiently target funds to areas and 

households most in need of help 

obtaining digital opportunity. 

71. Ensuring that service providers 

have appropriate incentives to deploy 

and provide services to these 

populations can further the 

Commission’s efforts to bring digital 

opportunity to low-income Americans 

who have not yet adopted broadband 

and low-income Americans residing in 

rural or rural Tribal areas who typically 

experience difficulty obtaining access to 

affordable, quality broadband. The 

Commission seeks comment on actions 

the Commission could take to create 

better economic incentives for providers 

participating in the Lifeline program. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

how those incentives would impact the 

program’s effectiveness at reaching 

certain subsets of the low-income 

population. 

72. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how the Commission could 

leverage the Lifeline program to 

encourage broadband deployment in 

areas that have found themselves on the 

wrong side of the digital divide. Where 

a provider has already invested in 

building a broadband-capable network, 

that provider often has incentives to 

create mutually beneficial offerings that 

make affordable connectivity options 

available to low-income households 

within the network’s footprint. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the Commission should shape its 

Lifeline support structure to provide 

enhanced support in areas where 

providers do not have sufficient 

incentive to make available affordable 

high-speed broadband service. 

73. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether and how the Commission 

should adopt rule changes to target 

Lifeline support to bring digital 

opportunity to areas that offer less 

incentive for deployment of high-speed 

broadband service, such as rural areas 

and rural Tribal areas. Rural and rural 

Tribal areas have higher percentages of 

broadband non-adopters compared to 

other areas. It is also well documented 

that lower-income households have 

lower broadband adoption rates and 

lower in-home broadband connectivity 

rates compared to higher-income 

households. Some have suggested that 

the Commission should therefore target 

Lifeline support primarily to 

nonadopters to improve the 

effectiveness and efficiency of the 

Lifeline program. In light of these 

analyses, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the Lifeline 

program could better reach nonadopters 

of broadband by focusing Lifeline 

support in areas where providers need 

additional incentive to offer high-speed 

broadband service. 

74. Rural and Rural Tribal Areas. The 

Commission specifically seeks comment 

on whether and how the Commission 

should adjust the Lifeline support 

amount to encourage affordable 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2115 

broadband access for low-income 

consumers in rural areas. Low-income 

consumers in rural or rural Tribal areas 

may have difficulty obtaining 

affordable, quality broadband service 

because service providers have less 

incentive to incur the costs to deploy 

advanced facilities or to provide a wide 

range of services at competitive prices 

in these areas. In rural areas, higher 

deployment costs can also lead to fewer 

service options and higher prices that 

disproportionately impact low-income 

consumers. The Commission also 

focuses on rural Tribal areas in which 

affected stakeholders have suggested 

that the current Lifeline Tribal 

enhanced subsidy amount is insufficient 

to incentivize broadband deployment in 

rural Tribal areas. Although broadband 

deployment in both rural and rural 

Tribal areas is lagging compared to other 

areas, the current Lifeline program rules 

only provide targeted enhanced 

monthly Lifeline support (up to an 

additional $25 per month) for Lifeline 

customers residing on Tribal lands. (47 

CFR 54.403(a)(3).) 

75. The Commission is also mindful 

about the need to establish the correct 

support amounts. If the Commission 

establishes enhanced Lifeline support 

for consumers living in rural and rural 

Tribal areas, how could the Commission 

provide targeted support while also 

promoting the interests of fiscal 

responsibility and minimizing the 

burden on the ratepayers who support 

the Fund? Are there specific pricing 

data or other data that the Commission 

should consider in determining the 

appropriate enhanced monthly support 

amounts for Lifeline subscribers in rural 

and rural Tribal areas? Should a single 

enhanced monthly support amount 

apply in all rural areas or should 

Lifeline consumers in rural areas on 

Tribal lands or another subset of rural 

residents receive a higher monthly 

support amount? How should the 

enhanced monthly support amounts 

compare to the monthly support amount 

for Lifeline subscribers who do not live 

in rural areas? What data or metrics 

should the Commission use to identify 

the rural areas that qualify for enhanced 

support? What geographic level (e.g., 

county, Census tracts, Census block 

groups) should the Commission use to 

identify these rural areas? Is the E-rate 

program’s definition of ‘‘rural’’ the best 

option for identifying rural areas in the 

Lifeline program, or should the 

Commission consider some other 

definition to identify rural areas? (47 

CFR 54.505(b)(3)(i)–(ii)) 

76. Underserved Areas. The 

Commission next seeks comment on 

whether and how the Commission 

should also target Lifeline support to 

bring digital opportunity to low-income 

areas where service providers have less 

incentive to invest in facilities or offer 

robust broadband offerings compared to 

other areas. Recent reports argue that 

certain low-income areas experience 

less facilities deployment when 

compared to other areas, and that lowincome consumers in those areas may 

experience increased difficulty 

obtaining affordable, robust 

communications services. 

77. The Commission seeks comment 

on how the Commission can address 

this issue with the Lifeline program. If 

the Commission permits an enhanced 

subsidy amount for households in these 

areas, how should the Commission 

define underserved areas for the 

purpose of this enhanced support, and 

how should the Commission identify 

these underserved areas? What data 

could inform the Commission as to the 

prevalence of service providers electing 

not to invest as much in facilities or 

robust broadband offerings compared to 

other areas, and the areas where this has 

occurred? What types of broadband 

deployment, service offerings, adoption 

data or other measures could the 

Commission use to determine whether 

areas are underserved because service 

providers have less incentive to invest 

in facilities and broadband services in 

those areas compared to other areas? 

Are there certain income levels or other 

markers in a geographic area that could 

help the Commission reliably identify 

whether an area is likely to be 

underserved? For example, could the 

Commission address underserved areas 

by offering enhanced Lifeline support in 

areas where the median household 

income and/or broadband investment 

rates are significantly lower than the 

national average? 

78. What changes should the 

Commission make to the Lifeline 

program support structure to target 

support to underserved areas? Are there 

specific pricing or other data the 

Commission could use to determine the 

appropriate support amount for 

underserved areas? How should the 

targeted support for underserved areas 

compare to and interact with the 

support amounts for rural or Tribal 

areas? What level of geographic 

granularity (e.g., county, Census tracts, 

Census block groups) should the 

Commission use to identify areas that 

qualify for enhanced Lifeline support as 

underserved areas? How frequently 

should the Commission update the 

threshold for areas that qualify for 

enhanced support as underserved areas? 

79. The Commission next seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should implement a benefit limit that 

restricts the amount of support a 

household may receive or the length of 

time a household may participate in the 

program. The objectives of such 

restrictions include encouraging 

broadband adoption without reliance on 

the Lifeline subsidy and controlling the 

disbursement of scarce program funds. 

Such a limit would provide low-income 

households incentives to not take the 

subsidy unless it is needed, since taking 

the subsidy in a given month will forfeit 

the opportunity to use it in a future 

month. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether the Commission should 

adopt a benefit limit for the Lifeline 

program. 

80. What rule changes would be 

necessary to implement a benefit limit 

or time limit for consumer participation 

in the Lifeline program? If the 

Commission established a benefit limit 

or time limit for Lifeline, how should 

such a requirement operate and how 

should it be enforced? Are there specific 

data that would help the Commission 

determine an appropriate monetary or 

temporal limit in support? Currently in 

the Lifeline program, households 

remain enrolled for 1.75 years on 

average. How should this information 

affect our decision to impose this 

restriction? Should the limit be applied 

to households or individuals, and how 

would the Commission or USAC track 

benefits received if consumers transfer 

to different providers? Should there be 

any exceptions to the benefit limit or 

time limit and, if so, what is the 

justification for these exceptions? How 

could the Commission implement a 

benefit limit or time limit with minimal 

increases in the costs or administrative 

burdens for Lifeline service providers? 

Are there specific data that would help 

the Commission evaluate the potential 

impact of a benefit or time limit on the 

Lifeline participation rate of qualifying 

low-income consumers? Are there other 

alternatives to a benefit limit that the 

Commission should consider to better 

focus Lifeline funds on those 

households who need it most? 

81. This Notice of Inquiry seeks 

comments on potential ways to sharpen 

the focus of the Lifeline program to 

further promote digital opportunity for 

all Americans. The Commission now 

seeks comment on the program’s goals 

and metrics that would allow us to 

better determine if Lifeline support is 

truly achieving the purpose of closing 

the digital divide. In 2015, the GAO 

reported that ‘‘outcome-based 

performance goals and measures will 

help illustrate to what extent, if any, the 

Lifeline program is fulfilling the guiding 

principles set forth by Congress.’’ (GAO, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
2116 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Telecommunications: FCC Should 

Evaluate the Efficiency and 

Effectiveness of the Lifeline Program, 

GAO–15–335, at 13 (2015), http://

www.gao.gov/assets/670/669209.pdf.) In 

2016, the Commission revised its 

Lifeline program goals by including the 

affordability of voice and broadband 

service, as measured as the percentage 

of disposable household income spent 

on those services, to the goals 

established in the Commission’s 2012 

Lifeline Order, 77 FR 12951, March 2, 

2012. The Commission agrees outcomebased performance goals and measures 

have an important role ensuring Lifeline 

support is achieving Congress’s 

universal service goals. The 

Commission seeks comment on how the 

Commission should determine and 

define the Lifeline program’s goals and 

metrics and how those goals should 

inform the Commission’s efforts to 

sharpen the focus of the Lifeline 

program, as discussed in this Notice of 

Inquiry. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

82. This document contains proposed 

modified information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

the Commission seeks specific comment 

on how it might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

83. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

from the policies and rules proposed in 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Notice). The Commission requests 

written public comment on this IRFA. 

Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines for comments on the 

Notice provided on the first page of the 

Notice. The Commission will send a 

copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

84. 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. The Lifeline program is 

administered by the Universal Service 

Administrative Company (USAC), the 

Administrator of the universal service 

support programs, under Commission 

direction, although many key attributes 

of the Lifeline program are currently 

implemented at the state level, 

including consumer eligibility, eligible 

telecommunication carrier (ETC) 

designations, outreach, and verification. 

Lifeline support is passed on to the 

subscriber by the ETC, which provides 

discounts to eligible households and 

receives reimbursement from the 

universal service fund (USF or Fund) for 

the provision of such discounts. 

85. When the Commission overhauled 

the Lifeline program in its 2016 Lifeline 

Order, it included broadband internet 

access service as a supported service; 

laid the groundwork for a National 

Verifier; strengthened protections 

against waste, fraud and abuse; 

improved program administration and 

accountability; and improved 

enrollment and consumer disclosures. 

In this NPRM, the Commission proposes 

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 actions and 

proposals in this NPRM aim to facilitate 

the Lifeline program’s goal of 

supporting affordable, high-speed 

internet access for low-income 

households. 

86. In this NPRM, the Commission 

seeks comment on a number of 

significant reforms that will effectively 

and responsibly leverage the Lifeline 

program to bridge the digital divide for 

low-income consumers. The 

Commission seeks comment on 

respecting the states’ primary role in 

eligible telecommunications carrier 

designation by eliminating Lifeline 

Broadband Provider designations. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

proposals to enable consumer choice 

and proposed policies to focus Lifeline 

support to encourage investment in 

broadband-capable networks. Finally, 

the Commission proposes several 

program accountability improvements 

to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse and 

improve transparency in the program. 

87. The legal basis for the NPRM is 

contained in sections 1 through 4, 201– 

205, 254, and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended by the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 154, 

201 through 205, 254, and 403. 

88. 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.’’ 

89. 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2117 

Commission estimates that most 

governmental jurisdictions are small. 

90. In this NPRM, the Commission 

seeks public input on new and 

additional solutions for the Lifeline 

program, including reforms that would 

bring the program closer to its core 

purpose and promote the availability of 

modern services for low-income 

families. The issues the Commission 

seeks comment on in this NPRM are 

directed at enabling us to meet our goals 

and objectives for the Lifeline program, 

and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. 

Specifically, the Commission seeks 

comment on a number of potential 

changes that would increase the 

economic burdens on small entities, and 

also seek comment on proposals that 

would decrease those burdens. The 

Commission has identified the 

applicable potential changes below that 

impact small entities. 

91. Focusing Lifeline Support to 

Encourage Investment in BroadbandCapable Networks. The Commission 

seeks comment on several policy 

changes that would focus Lifeline 

support to encourage investment in 

broadband-capable networks, including 

limiting Lifeline support to facilitiesbased broadband service provided to 

Lifeline customers over the ETC’s voiceand-broadband-capable network, 

discontinuing Lifeline support for nonfacilities-based service, and continuing 

the phase down of Lifeline support for 

voice service in urban areas. 

92. Reforms to Increase Efficient 

Administration of the Lifeline Program. 

The Commission seeks comment on a 

number of reforms to increase the 

efficient administration of the program, 

including requiring ETCs to supply 

documentation to USAC for National 

Lifeline Accountability Database 

(NLAD) dispute resolutions, ETCs to 

collect documentation for subscribers 

seeking to self-certify to continued 

eligibility, and limiting the use of 

independent economic household forms 

to only NLAD dispute resolutions. 

93. 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.’’ 

94. The NPRM seeks comment on 

several policies that would bring the 

program closer to its core purpose and 

promote the availability of modern 

services for low-income families, and 

also reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in 

the program. As explained below, 

several of the policies would increase 

the economic burdens on small entities, 

and certain changes would lessen the 

economic impact on small entities. In 

those instances in which a policy would 

increase burdens on small entities, the 

Commission has determined that the 

benefits from such changes outweigh 

the increased burdens on small entities 

because those proposed changes would 

facilitate the Lifeline program’s goal of 

supporting affordable, high-speed 

internet access for low-income 

Americans or would minimize waste, 

fraud, and abuse in the program. The 

Commission invites comments on ways 

in which the Commission can achieve 

its goals, but at the same time further 

reduce the burdens on small entities. 

The Commission expects to consider the 

economic impact on small entities, as 

identified in comments filed in response 

to the NPRM and this IRFA, in reaching 

its final conclusions and taking action 

in this proceeding. 

95. Eliminating Lifeline Device 

Requirements. The Commission seeks 

comment on eliminating the Lifeline 

program’s device requirements. This 

would decrease the burdens for small 

entities because they would no longer 

be required to meet criteria imposed by 

the rule, including the requirement that 

devices provided to consumers be Wi-Fi 

enabled and the requirement that 

mobile broadband providers offer 

devices that are ‘‘capable of being used 

as a hotspot.’’ Eliminating these 

requirements should reduce compliance 

costs for small entities because they will 

no longer be required to include these 

capabilities. 

96. Focusing Lifeline Support to 

Encourage Investment in BroadbandCapable Networks. The Commission 

seeks comment on several potential 

policies that would focus Lifeline 

support to encourage investment in 

broadband-capable networks. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

TracFone’s suggested alternatives to the 

proposed facilities requirement. The 

Commission’s proposed policies would 

change the services eligible for Lifeline 

support and would also change the type 

of providers that can receive Lifeline 

support. In particular, these policies 

would eliminate Lifeline support for 

ETCs that do not offer facilities-based 

broadband service over their own 

networks, or would continue the phase 

down of Lifeline support for voice-only 

service in urban areas. However, these 

policies would facilitate the Lifeline 

program goals of providing low-income 

consumers access to quality, affordable 

broadband services, in particular by 

encouraging service providers to invest 

in broadband networks in unserved and 

underserved areas. The Commission 

also notes that these policies may 

benefit small entities that operate 

facilities-based broadband-capable 

networks, whose services would be 

more affordable for low-income 

consumers through the application of 

the Lifeline discount. The benefits of 

these policies to Lifeline customers 

outweighs any impact of these changes 

on small entities. TracFone’s suggested 

alternatives to the proposed facilities 

requirement would impact Lifeline 

service provider in-person hand-set 

distribution, operations practices 

concerning Lifeline solicitations and 

eligibility verifications, and application 

processes. These alternatives would 

increase service providers’ 

administrative burdens. However, they 

would also minimize waste, fraud, and 

abuse in the program, which in turn 

benefits consumers and service 

providers that pay into the Universal 

Service Fund. Therefore, the benefits of 

these changes would outweigh and 

impact of these changes on small 

entities. 

97. Focusing Lifeline Support on 

Modern Communications Services. The 

Commission seeks comment on 

adopting a maximum discount level for 

Lifeline subscribers, and potential 

changes to encourage Lifeline 

consumers to adopt broadband services. 

These changes could increase costs 

associated with ETCs’ administrative 

processes, including billing. However, 

the Commission expects these burdens 

to be manageable for ETCs. Further, 

these proposed changes would help 

minimize waste, fraud, and abuse in the 

Lifeline program, and would also 

increase the effectiveness of Lifeline 

support by targeting support to Lifeline 

consumers who have not yet adopted 

broadband services. Therefore, the 

benefits of these proposed changes 

outweigh the impact of the proposed 

changes on small entities. 

98. Reforms to Increase Efficient 

Administration of the Lifeline Program. 

The Commission seeks comment on a 

number of reforms to increase the 

efficient administration of the program, 

including requiring ETCs to supply 

documentation to USAC for National 

Lifeline Accountability Database 

(NLAD) dispute resolutions, ETCs to 

collect documentation for subscribers 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
2118 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

seeking to self-certify to continued 

eligibility, and limiting the use of 

independent economic household forms 

to only NLAD dispute resolutions. 

These reforms could increase costs 

associated with ETCs’ administrative 

processes. However, the Commission 

expects these burdens to be manageable 

for ETCs. In addition, in states where 

the National Verifier will be 

implemented, these burdens would be 

temporary because the National Verifier 

would take over eligibility verification 

and recertification in those states. 

Further, these proposed changes would 

help minimize waste, fraud, and abuse 

in the Lifeline program, which in turn 

would benefit consumers and providers 

that pay into the Universal Service 

Fund. Therefore, the benefits of these 

proposed changes outweigh the impact 

of these proposed changes on small 

entities. 

99. Compliance burdens. 

Implementing any of our proposed rules 

(e.g., requiring ETCs to supply 

documentation to USAC for National 

Lifeline Accountability Database 

(NLAD) dispute resolutions, ETCs to 

collect documentation for subscribers 

seeking to self-certify to continued 

eligibility, and limiting the use of 

independent economic household forms 

to only NLAD dispute resolutions) 

would impose some burden on small 

entities by requiring them to make such 

certifications and entries on FCC forms, 

and requiring them to become familiar 

with the new rules to comply with 

them. For many of proposed the rules, 

there is a minimal burden. Thus, these 

new requirements should not require 

small businesses to seek outside 

assistance to comply with the 

Commission’s rule but rather are more 

routine in nature as part of normal 

business processes. The importance of 

bringing the Lifeline program closer to 

its core purpose and promoting the 

availability of modern services for lowincome families, however, outweighs 

the minimal burden requiring small 

entities to comply with the new rules 

would impose. 

100. The proceeding for this NPRM 

and NOI initiates shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making ex parte 

presentations must file a copy of any 

written presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

D. Comment Filing Procedures 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (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. 

Æ 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 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

Æ Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

Availability of Documents. 

Comments, reply comments, and ex 

parte submissions will be publicly 

available online via ECFS. These 

documents will also be available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, which is located in 

Room CYA257 at FCC Headquarters, 

445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 

20554. The Reference Information 

Center is open to the public Monday 

through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 

a.m. 

People with Disabilities. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

V. Ordering Clauses 

121. 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 section 

1.2 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.2, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

and Notice of Inquiry is adopted. 

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. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2119 

1 47 CFR 76.1601 through 76.1630. 

Commission proposes to amend 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 

unless otherwise noted. 

§ 54.201 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 54.201 by removing 

paragraph (j). 

§ 54.202 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 54.202 by removing 

paragraphs (d) and (e). 

§ 54.205 [Amended] 

■ 4. Amend § 54.205 by removing 

paragraph (c). 

■ 5. Amend § 54.404 by revising 

paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 54.404 The National Lifeline 

Accountability Database. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) If the Database indicates that 

another individual at the prospective 

subscriber’s residential address is 

currently receiving a Lifeline service, 

the eligible telecommunications carrier 

must not seek and will not receive 

Lifeline reimbursement for providing 

service to that prospective subscriber, 

unless the prospective subscriber has 

certified, pursuant to § 54.410(d) that to 

the best of his or her knowledge, no one 

in his or her household is already 

receiving a Lifeline service. This 

certification may only be obtained after 

the eligible telecommunications carrier 

receives a notification from the Database 

or state administrator that another 

Lifeline subscriber resides at the same 

address as the prospective subscriber. 

* * * * * 

§ 54.408 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend § 54.408 by removing 

paragraph (f). 

■ 7. Amend § 54.410 by revising 

paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and (f)(3)(iii) and 

removing and reserving paragraph (g) to 

read as follows: 

§ 54.410 Subscriber eligibility 

determination and certification. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) If the subscriber’s program-based 

or income-based eligibility for Lifeline 

cannot be determined by accessing one 

or more state databases containing 

information regarding enrollment in 

qualifying assistance programs, then the 

eligible telecommunications carrier may 

obtain a signed certification from the 

subscriber on a form that meets the 

certification requirements in paragraph 

(d) of this section. The subscriber must 

present documentation meeting the 

requirements in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) or 

(c)(1)(i)(B) of this section to establish 

continued eligibility. If a Federal 

eligibility recertification form is 

available, entities enrolling subscribers 

must use such form to re-certify a 

qualifying low-income consumer. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iii) If the subscriber’s eligibility for 

Lifeline cannot be determined by 

accessing one or more databases 

containing information regarding 

enrollment in qualifying assistance 

programs, then the National Verifier, 

state Lifeline administrator, or state 

agency may obtain a signed certification 

from the subscriber on a form that meets 

the certification requirements in 

paragraph (d) of this section. The 

subscriber must present documentation 

meeting the requirements in paragraph 

(b)(1)(i)(B) or (c)(1)(i)(B) of this section 

to establish continued eligibility. If a 

Federal eligibility recertification form is 

available, entities enrolling subscribers 

must use such form to recertify a 

qualifying low-income consumer. 

* * * * * 

§ 54.418 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 8. Remove and reserve § 54.418. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00153 Filed 1–12–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 76 

[MB Docket Nos. 17–317, 17–105; FCC 17– 

168] 

Electronic Delivery of MVPD 

Communications; Modernization of 

Media Regulation Initiative 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) addresses ways to 

modernize certain notice provisions in 

the Commission’s rules governing 

multichannel video and cable television 

service. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

February 15, 2018; reply comments are 

due on or before March 2, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket Nos. 17–317, 

17–105, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s website: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: 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. 

People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Maria Mullarkey of 

the Policy Division, Media Bureau at 

Maria.Mullarkey@fcc.gov, or (202) 418– 

2120. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 17–168, 

adopted and released on December 14, 

2017. The full text of this document is 

available electronically via the FCC’s 

Electronic Document Management 

System (EDOCS) website at https://

apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ 

FCC-17-168A1.docx. Documents will be 

available electronically in ASCII, 

Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

This document is also available for 

public inspection and copying during 

regular business hours in the FCC 

Reference Information Center, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street SW, CY–A257, Washington, DC 

20554. Alternative formats are available 

for people with disabilities (Braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), by sending an email to fcc504@

fcc.gov or calling the Commission’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). 

Synopsis 

1. In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), we address ways 

to modernize certain notice provisions 

in part 76 of the Federal 

Communications Commission’s rules 

governing multichannel video and cable 

television service. First, we seek 

comment on proposals to modernize the 

rules in subpart T of part 76 (subpart 

T),1 which sets forth notice 

requirements applicable to cable 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS