[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 31, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54967-54970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-27229]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[CC Docket No. 96-45; FCC 01J-2]


Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Seeks Comment on 
Review of Lifeline and Link-Up Service for all Low-Income Consumers

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; solicitation of comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In a public notice released on October 12, 2001, the Federal-
State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) invites comment 
regarding its review of Lifeline/Link-Up, two federal support programs 
that are used to preserve and advance universal service and to ensure 
that quality telecommunications and information services are available 
to low-income consumers at just, reasonable and affordable rates, as 
required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

DATES: Submit comments on or before December 31, 2001. Submit reply 
comments on or before February 28, 2002.

ADDRESSES: See Supplementary Information section for where and how to 
file comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Cheng or Dana Bradford, Common 
Carrier Bureau, Accounting Policy Division, (202) 418-7400 TTY: (202) 
418-0484.

[[Page 54968]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The full text of this document is available 
for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the 
FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased 
from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, Portals 
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 
202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail [email protected].

I. Background

    Since 1984, the Commission, in conjunction with the states and 
local telephone companies, has administered a Lifeline program designed 
to promote universal service by providing low-income individuals with 
monthly discounts on the cost of receiving telephone service. The 
Commission also established ``Link-Up America,'' a program designed to 
help low-income individuals pay the initial costs of commencing 
telephone service. In June 2000, the Commission expanded the Lifeline 
and Link-Up programs to provide additional discounts to those 
individuals living on Indian reservations.
    In the 1996 Joint Board Recommended Decision, 61 FR 63778, December 
2, 1996), the Joint Board determined that Congress's intent would best 
be served if all low-income consumers had access to Lifeline/Link-Up 
assistance. Accordingly, the Joint Board found that the goal of 
increasing low-income subscribership would best be met if the 
Commission maintained the basic framework for administering Lifeline/
Link-Up qualification in states that provide matching support from the 
intrastate jurisdiction, with the criteria to be based solely on income 
or factors directly related to income. The Joint Board also recommended 
that for states choosing not to provide intrastate matching support, 
the Commission should adopt specific default means-tested eligibility 
standards.
    Consistent with the Joint Board's recommendations, the Commission 
maintained the basic framework for administering the Lifeline program 
that existed prior to the adoption of the Universal Service Order, 62 
FR 32862, June 17, 1997. The Commission also adopted the Joint Board's 
recommendation to apply a specific, means-tested eligibility standard, 
by requiring participation in Medicaid, food stamps, Supplementary 
Security Income (SSI), Federal public housing assistance (Section 8), 
or Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), in order for an 
individual to be eligible for Lifeline/Link-Up in states that choose 
not to provide matching support from the intrastate jurisdiction.
    An individual living on tribal lands may also qualify for Lifeline/
Link-Up assistance if he/she certifies participation in one of the 
following Federal programs: Bureau of Indian Affairs general 
assistance, Tribally-administered Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families; Head Start (only for those meeting its income qualifying 
standard); or National School Lunch Program.
    In the Universal Service Order, the Commission explained that: ``We 
clarify, however, that the Joint Board recommendation, which we adopt, 
requires states to base eligibility on income or factors directly 
related to income and merely suggests using participation in a low 
income assistance program as the criterion.'' The Commission further 
explained that: ``[w]e have tied the default Lifeline qualification 
standards (which will apply in states that do not provide intrastate 
funds) to programs that commenters believe to be unaffected or 
minimally affected by the new welfare legislation. We will, however, 
continue to monitor the situation and may make further changes in the 
future if it appears that changes to other programs unduly limit 
Lifeline eligibility.''
    On December 21, 2000, the Commission referred the low-income 
support issues to the Joint Board and stated: ``* * * we ask the Joint 
Board to undertake a review of Lifeline and Link-Up service for all 
low-income customers, including a review of the income eligibility 
criteria.''

A. The Effectiveness of the Current Lifeline/Link-Up Program

    According to the 2001 Trends in Telephone Service Report, an 
estimated 5.9 million consumers paid reduced rates for local telephone 
service under the low-income provisions of the Lifeline program in 
2000. Since the inception of the Link-Up America program in 1987, 
approximately 10.6 million low-income consumers have been able to 
initiate telephone service using Link-Up. We note that, in a recent 
study, the Missouri Office of Public Counsel estimated that 26 percent 
of households with incomes at or below 150 percent of the Federal 
poverty level take advantage of the Lifeline/Link-Up program.
    We invite parties to develop a full record on the effectiveness of 
the Commission's existing Lifeline/Link-Up rules. In particular, we 
seek comment from all interested parties who may have data on the 
Lifeline/Link-Up enrollment in each state. Commenters should provide 
information on the number and percentage of low-income households that 
are with and without telephones within the living unit; the number and 
percentage of low-income households who receive Lifeline/Link-Up 
support; the number and percentage of low-income households who do not 
receive Lifeline/Link-Up support; and the number and percentage of 
households that are low-income and not enrolled in Federal assistance 
programs. Where possible, commenters should break these figures into 
on-reservation and off-reservation categories.
    The 2001 Trends Report includes some of the information we seek; 
however, states and/or telecommunications companies may have gathered 
more comprehensive information concerning Lifeline/Link-Up enrollment 
in their respective state(s). In the interest of compiling the most 
complete and accurate record, we therefore encourage commenters to 
provide as much detail as possible with respect to Lifeline/Link-Up 
enrollment, including the source of the information, when and how this 
information was compiled, or other information the commenters believe 
to be relevant.
    We also invite parties to discuss the reasons that some low-income 
individuals are not receiving Lifeline/Link-Up assistance. For example, 
these individuals may be excluded from qualifying programs because of 
federal or state program restrictions; they may not be receiving 
adequate information about the Lifeline/Link-Up program; or they may be 
excluding themselves by choice from participating in qualifying 
programs.
    We also seek comment regarding welfare reform and its impact on the 
number of low-income households that are participating in Lifeline/
Link-Up. In particular, we seek comment on whether the number of low-
income households eligible for Lifeline/Link-Up assistance has changed 
as a result of state and federal efforts to reduce the number of 
participants in welfare programs such as food stamps, SSI, LIHEAP, etc.
    We encourage commenters to discuss whether there are other reasons 
that low-income individuals may not enroll in qualifying programs or 
participate in Lifeline/Link-Up. Commenters also should discuss whether 
existing or proposed qualification standards and enrollment procedures 
may serve to encourage or discourage increased participation among all 
low-income households.

[[Page 54969]]

    In addition, there may be special concerns regarding recent 
immigrants, individuals living on reservations, and other groups that 
may need to be considered. In this regard, we invite comment on the 
extent to which immigrants may be underrepresented in public assistance 
programs for legal or social reasons. Commenters also should discuss 
whether individuals living on reservations face barriers to 
participation and what modifications to the Lifeline/Link-Up program 
may be necessary to overcome those barriers.
    Moreover, we seek comment on the innovative ways in which states 
are implementing their respective Lifeline/Link-Up programs. 
Specifically, commenters should discuss what steps have been taken to 
increase Lifeline/Link-Up subscribership in their respective state(s). 
Commenters should also discuss ways in which successful state methods 
could be implemented at the federal level.

B. Modifying the Existing Lifeline/Link-Up Rules

    We seek comment on whether changes to the current Lifeline/Link-Up 
program are warranted to further the goal of bringing affordable rates 
to low-income consumers. We discuss various possible changes below.
1. Eligibility Criteria
    We seek comment on whether the current eligibility criteria should 
be modified. Specifically, commenters should address whether new 
eligibility criteria should be added to the existing list for Lifeline/
Link-Up and enhanced Lifeline/Link-Up, or whether particular 
eligibility criteria should be deleted from the existing list.
    Commenters also should discuss whether there are programs used by 
states that are particularly effective in determining eligibility for 
Lifeline/Link-Up assistance. In addition, commenters should discuss how 
modifications to the current federal eligibility criteria may impact 
state Lifeline/Link-Up programs.
    As indicated, a state that has its own Lifeline/Link-Up program 
establishes the eligibility criteria for that program. As such, these 
criteria vary from state to state. To the extent a state has its own 
Lifeline/Link-Up program, we seek comment on the specifics of the 
eligibility criteria used. We also seek comment on whether all states 
should be required to include, at a minimum, the federal eligibility 
criteria in their respective programs or whether we should adopt one 
national standard for purposes of determining eligibility.
    Moreover, we invite comment on whether individuals should be able 
to qualify for Lifeline/Link-Up support merely by being eligible for 
low-income assistance programs, rather than actually participating in 
them. If the Commission were to adopt such a standard, we invite 
comment on how eligibility might be certified or verified.
    Commenters also are encouraged to discuss whether low-income 
individuals should be removed immediately from Lifeline enrollment when 
they no longer meet the eligibility standards, or whether Lifeline 
enrollment should be guaranteed for a specified minimum period of time.
    We also seek comment on whether eligibility based on income level 
should be added to the existing eligibility standards as an additional 
means to qualify for Lifeline/Link-Up. In the Twelfth Report and Order, 
65 FR 47941, August 4, 2000, the Commission stated its intent to 
examine, in consultation with the Joint Board, revisions to Sec. 54.409 
of the Commission's rules to provide for eligibility based solely on 
income level. We seek comment on whether this approach would reach more 
or fewer low-income consumers than the federal criteria, which 
condition eligibility on participation in low-income assistance 
programs. We invite comment on what the appropriate income level might 
be, if an income-based test is used. Commenters should discuss whether 
the Federal Poverty Guidelines or some other mechanism should be used 
to establish an appropriate income level.
    Commenters also should discuss how an individual may qualify for 
Lifeline/Link-Up support under an income-based standard; how an 
individual might certify his/her income level; and what, if any, 
special procedures should be implemented to verify an individual's 
income level.
2. Application/Verification
    We invite comment on the Lifeline/Link-Up application process. 
Currently, in order to receive Lifeline/Link-Up support under federal 
criteria, a consumer must certify that he/she participates in at least 
one of the qualifying federal programs set forth. Under the federal 
criteria of the Commission's Lifeline/Link-Up rules, certification of 
participation in a federal assistance program is accomplished in the 
following manner: the eligible telecommunications carrier that is 
providing Lifeline/Link-Up service to the low-income consumer obtains 
the consumer's signature on a document certifying under penalty of 
perjury that the consumer receives benefits from at least one of the 
qualifying programs. The consumer also must identify the program or 
programs from which he/she receives benefits and must agree to notify 
the carrier if he/she ceases to participate in the identified 
program(s). We invite comment on whether this process effectively 
targets support. In this regard, commenters should discuss what 
application procedures should be considered in order to promote an 
efficient and effective Lifeline/Linkup program, including increasing 
participation where appropriate.
    We also seek comment on whether an individual's eligibility to 
receive Lifeline/Link-Up support should be verified, and if so, what 
the federal verification measures should be (e.g., requiring consumers 
to provide a copy of a food stamp coupon in order to receive support). 
We seek comment on the effects of any proposed verification procedures 
on enrollment, on the costs of administration, and on the effectiveness 
of the program. For instance, commenters should discuss whether 
verification of eligibility should occur periodically or whether the 
subscriber should be required to notify the carrier when he/she is no 
longer eligible to receive Lifeline/Link-Up assistance. In addition, we 
encourage commenters to provide information concerning best practices 
of states with regard to certification and/or verification procedures 
and whether those procedures have been successful. We also ask 
commenters to provide information on the extent and frequency of any 
fraudulent or otherwise inappropriate enrollment in Lifeline or Link-Up 
programs, or any other problems that lead to improper program 
expenditures. We seek comment on any problems relating to our existing 
procedures and also on any problems that could result from adopting new 
qualifying standards.
    Finally, we seek comment regarding automatic enrollment and 
verification methods that could assist the states in more readily 
identifying low-income households that qualify for Lifeline/Link-Up, 
and reduce delay and inefficiency in the processing of applications.
3. Additional Modifications
    We invite comment on the ways in which the Federal Lifeline/Link-Up 
program could be improved. For example, commenters may wish to discuss 
whether increased or alternative methods of Link-Up support would 
improve the Lifeline program.
    We also seek comment regarding impediments that may prevent low-
income households from obtaining affordable access to the network, 
including existing credit, collections,

[[Page 54970]]

and disconnection policies and service application procedures that are 
required by local exchange companies. Commenters are requested to 
suggest alternatives to those procedures that are identified as 
impediments.
    Commenters also are requested to provide information about specific 
procedures that have been adopted to eliminate impediments and provide 
efficient processing of Lifeline/LinkUp applications without undue 
delay. We are particularly interested in learning about specific credit 
and collection procedures that have resulted in increased 
subscribership in low-income households.
    Commenters also should discuss whether there are initiatives in 
addition to Lifeline/Link-Up that could increase telephone 
subscribership among low-income households.

C. Outreach

    In the Twelfth Report and Order, the Commission amended 
Secs. 54.405 and 54.411 of its rules to require eligible 
telecommunications carriers to publicize the availability of Lifeline/
Link-Up services in a manner reasonably designed to reach those likely 
to qualify for those services. We seek comment on whether more 
extensive consumer education and outreach efforts are necessary to 
increase participation in the Lifeline/Link-Up program. We recognize 
that many carriers and states have been successful in locating and 
informing low-income consumers of the Lifeline/Link-Up program by 
various measures, such as mailings, hanging posters in churches and 
community centers, placing advertisements in local newspapers, and in 
some cases, canvassing. We seek comment on whether these efforts have 
been sufficient to educate low-income individuals about their 
telecommunications options. We encourage states, carriers, and 
interested non-profit organizations to continue to develop innovative 
consumer education and outreach programs that will increase public 
awareness and understanding of Lifeline/Link-Up. The Joint Board and 
the Commission are committed to working together to increase 
participation in these programs as well.
    To this end, we invite comment on the best practices of states, 
telecommunications companies, and non-profit organizations with regard 
to increasing participation in the Lifeline/Link-Up program, including 
outreach efforts, assisting individuals in enrolling in Lifeline/Link-
Up, and assisting in eligibility verification. Commenters should 
discuss the costs and benefits of preparing and distributing 
information to the public. Commenters also should discuss whether 
existing websites on Lifeline/Link-Up provide adequate information. We 
encourage commenters to provide as much detail as possible with respect 
to their consumer education and outreach efforts. Commenters also may 
wish to identify specifically those non-profit organizations that may 
be able to assist with consumer outreach efforts, Lifeline/Link-Up 
enrollment, and any eligibility verification procedures that may be 
adopted. In addition, commenters should discuss whether the Commission 
should adopt specific outreach requirements if current outreach efforts 
are not effectively providing Lifeline/Link-Up information to low-
income consumers. We ask commenters to provide detailed comment on 
these as well as any other issues relating to Lifeline/Link-Up that 
they wish to raise.
    Pursuant to Secs. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
interested parties may file comments on or before December 31, 2001, 
and reply comments on or before February 28, 2002. Comments may be 
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or 
by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24,121 (1998). Comments filed through the 
ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Only one copy of an electronic 
submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, 
commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing 
address, and CC Docket No. 96-45. Parties also may submit electronic 
comments by Internet e-mail. To receive filing instructions for e-mail 
comments, commenters should send an e-mail to [email protected], and include 
the following words in the body of the message, ``get form your e-mail 
address>.'' A sample form and directions will be sent in reply. Parties 
who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of 
each filing.
    All paper filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, 
Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Parties who 
choose to file by paper also should send three copies of their filings 
to Sheryl Todd, Accounting Policy Division, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 
5-B540, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, parties who choose to file 
by paper must send copies of their comments on diskette to the 
Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Such 
submissions should be on a 3.5-inch diskette formatted in an IBM-
compatible format using Word or compatible software. The diskette 
should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in 
``read only'' mode. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the 
commenter's name, CC Docket No. 96-45, the type of pleading (comment or 
reply comment), the date of submission, and the name of the electronic 
file on the diskette. The label should also include the following 
phrase ``Disk Copy--Not an Original.'' Each diskette should contain 
only one party's pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file.
    The full text of this document is available for public inspection 
and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference 
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the 
Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 
202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail [email protected].

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-27229 Filed 10-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P