[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 16, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41996-41998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-17568]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[CC Docket No. 96-45; FCC 03-115]


Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Promoting 
Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas, 
Including Tribal and Insular Areas

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document is being issued in order to ensure that enhanced 
Lifeline and Link-Up support is targeted to the most underserved 
segments of our Nation. The Commission sought comment on the same 
questions present herein in the Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks 
to bolster the record on how to define the geographic areas that are 
adjacent to reservations or are otherwise part of the reservation's 
community of interest, in a manner that is consistent with our goal of 
targeting enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support to the most underserved 
segments of the Nation.

DATES: Comments are due on or before August 15, 2003. Reply comments 
are due on or before September 2, 2003. Written comments by the public 
on the proposed information collections are due on or before September 
2, 2003. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) on the proposed information collections on or before 
September 15, 2003.

ADDRESSES: All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, 
William F. Caton, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to 
filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the 
information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to Judy 
Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected] and to 
Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, or via the Internet to [email protected]. See 
Supplementary Information for further filing instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Lipp, Attorney, 
Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 
(202) 418-7400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 96-45, 
FCC 03-115, released on May 21, 2003. This Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking was also released with a companion Order on Reconsideration 
and Report and Order (Order). 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.

I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we seek 
further comment on potential modifications to our rules regarding 
availability of enhanced Federal Lifeline and Link-Up assistance to 
qualifying low-income consumers living ``near reservations.''

A. Discussion

    2. We seek further comment on the proposals in the record to 
identify geographic areas that are adjacent to the reservations, 
consistent with the goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up to 
the most underserved areas of the Nation. As set forth in the Tribal 
Stay and Order, 65 FR 58721, October 2, 2000, the term ``near 
reservation,'' as defined by BIA at the time of adoption of the Twelfth 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 65 FR 
47941, August 4, 2000, and codified in our rules in this Order, 
includes wide geographic areas that do not possess the same 
characteristics that warrant the targeting of support to reservations, 
such as geographic isolation, high rates of poverty, and low telephone 
subscribership. As several commenters note, this definition of ``near 
reservation'' incorporates many highly populated, urban areas across 
the Nation, including major cities such as Phoenix, Sacramento, 
Seattle, and Las Vegas. As set forth in the Tribal Stay and Order, we 
continue to find that using this definition of ``near reservation'' 
will not target enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up appropriately.
    3. We issue this FNPRM to obtain more detailed information on 
proposals contained in the current record, as well as additional 
proposals that may be more consistent with our goal of targeting 
enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support to only the most underserved 
areas of our Nation and that may impose fewer administrative burdens. 
For instance, USCC recommends excluding major metropolitan areas from 
the enhanced low-income programs by excluding Consolidated Metropolitan 
Statistical Areas (CMSAs) from receiving enhanced low-income support. 
Washington UTC suggests that enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support be 
provided in the entirety of any telephone exchange that contains all or 
any portion of a tribal reservation. In addition, Smith Bagley, Inc. 
(SBI) proposes that a person qualify for enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up 
benefits if he or she resides within 50 miles of a recognized Native 
American reservation and in a county that has a population density of 
no more than 50 persons per square mile.
    4. We seek comment on data that addresses whether these proposed 
target areas share the same characteristics of reservation areas. For 
example, SBI fails to explain why it recommends choosing a population 
density of 50 persons per square mile. We seek record support regarding 
these issues. Moreover, the proposals of USCC, Washington UTC, and SBI 
may not adequately ensure that the enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up 
support mechanisms are targeted only to those areas that share the same 
attributes as reservations. For example, we believe that these 
proposals may not exclude large cities from the definition of ``near 
reservation.'' We seek comment on how these proposals may be tailored 
to exclude such large cities.
    5. We seek comment on how to minimize any administrative burdens 
raised by these proposals. For example, SBI proposes that the 
Commission produce and distribute maps outlining all areas that are 
within a 50 mile radius of a reservation in which the county contains 
less than 50 persons per square mile. We believe that the Commission 
may not be the appropriate entity to undertake such tasks because it 
has no particular expertise with regard to such mapmaking. In addition, 
we are not aware of any current map that contains all reservations as 
defined by the Commission. We seek comment on alternative sources for 
such maps. We seek comment on the feasibility of having prospective 
ETCs bear the cost and burden of producing their own maps showing the 
areas in which they request ETC designation.

[[Page 41997]]

    6. We also seek comment on additional proposals for defining the 
geographic areas that are near reservations to ensure that enhanced 
Lifeline and Link Up support is targeted to qualifying low-income 
consumers living in areas adjacent to, or near, reservations that share 
many of the same characteristics as the reservations. We request that 
commenters provide detailed information to assist us in determining how 
enhanced Lifeline and Link Up support should be targeted. Such 
information should include the population of the geographical area, the 
number of income-eligible subscribers, the distance of each area from 
the nearest reservation, whether there is any legal recognition of that 
area by the BIA, whether the area includes or is part of a Metropolitan 
Statistical Area (MSA), and the level of telephone subscribership in 
the area. Wireline Competition Bureau staff have estimated, through 
analysis of recent Census data of a sampling of zip codes in near 
reservation areas, that the level of telephone subscribership in Indian 
households is lower than the level of telephone subscribership for all 
households. We ask commenters to provide their own data comparing the 
level of telephone subscribership in Indian households in near 
reservation areas with the level of telephone subscribership in all 
households in near reservation areas, or comment on the Bureau's 
preliminary estimates. Bureau staff have also estimated that a greater 
percentage of Indian households in near reservation areas have incomes 
under $25,000, compared to all households in near reservation areas. We 
ask commenters to provide their own data comparing the percentage of 
low-income Indian households in near reservation areas with the 
percentage of all low-income households in near reservation areas, or 
comment on the Bureau's preliminary estimates. We note that the 
Bureau's most recent penetration report indicates that there is a 
correlation between low levels of household income and low levels of 
telephone subscribership.
    7. Finally, we seek comment on the effect of any proposed ``near 
reservation'' definitions on the ETC designation process. As explained, 
we conclude that, pending resolution of the ``near reservation'' 
definition, petitions for ETC designation relating to near reservation 
areas will not be considered as petitions relating to tribal lands. 
Petitioners seeking ETC designation in such areas must follow the 
procedures outlined in the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking for non-tribal lands prior to submitting a 
request for designation to the Commission under section 214(e)(6). The 
Commission reached this conclusion because it believed that near 
reservation areas do not invoke the same jurisdictional concerns and 
principles of tribal sovereignty that are associated with areas within 
the boundaries of reservations. Accordingly, we request that any 
proposed definitions of ``near reservation'' also include a discussion 
of the impact of such definition on the ETC designation process.

II. Procedural Matters

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    8. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains a proposed 
information collection. As part of a continuing effort to reduce 
paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the 
information collections contained in this Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public 
Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due on or before September 
2, 2003. OMB comments are due on or before September 15, 2003. Comments 
should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the 
Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    9. 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 effect 
on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the FNPRM. 
Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be 
identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadline 
for comments on the FNPRM provided in the Comment Filing Procedures 
section. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this 
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration. In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) 
will be published in the Federal Register.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
    10. This FNPRM is being issued in order to ensure that enhanced 
Lifeline and Link-Up support is targeted to the most underserved 
segments of our Nation. The Commission sought comment on the same 
questions present herein in the Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking. This FNPRM seeks to bolster the record on how to 
define the geographic areas that are adjacent to reservations or are 
otherwise part of the reservation's community of interest, in a manner 
that is consistent with our goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and 
Link-Up support to the most underserved segments of the Nation. This 
action is taken pursuant to the Act's mandate that ``[c]onsumers in all 
regions of the Nation * * * have access to telecommunications and 
information services. * * *''
2. Legal Basis
    11. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to 
the FNPRM is contained in sections 1-4, 201-205 and 254 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
    12. In the IRFA at paragraphs 11-31 of Tribal Stay Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we described and estimated the 
number of small entities that would be affected by the determination to 
stay application of the enhanced low-income programs to ``near 
reservation'' areas and to consider alternative definitions. The 
proposals discussed in this FNPRM apply to the same entities. We 
therefore incorporate by reference paragraphs 11-31 of the Tribal Stay 
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements
    13. The measures under consideration in this FNPRM may, if adopted, 
result in additional reporting or other compliance requirements. A 
modified definition of ``near reservation'' may impact reporting 
requirements for carriers eligible to receive enhanced Lifeline and 
Link-Up. For example, such carriers may be required to compile maps or 
derive other means to determine whether qualifying low-income customers 
fall within any designated geographic areas. In addition, if the 
current stay is lifted and

[[Page 41998]]

an alternative definition of ``near reservation'' is adopted, eligible 
carriers may be required to submit data regarding an increased number 
of qualifying low-income consumers. Such increased reporting 
requirements would be offset by increased opportunities to receive 
universal service support.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    14. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) 
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.
    15. In the FNPRM, we outline the various alternative proposals that 
have been suggested to the Commission in response to the Tribal Stay 
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. We seek comment on the 
cost and benefits of each of these alternative proposals, including the 
potential administrative burdens involved in implementing such 
proposals on eligible carriers. The Commission's rules relating to the 
receipt of enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support apply equally to all 
eligible carriers providing service to qualifying low-income consumers. 
The proposals presented herein are consistent with these standards.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules
    16. None.

C. Filing of Comments and Reply Comments

    17. We invite comment on the issues and questions set forth in the 
FNPRM. Pursuant to Sec.  1.415 and Sec.  1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, interested parties may file comments on or before August 15, 
2003, and reply comments on or before September 2, 2003. 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 24121, May 1, 1998.
    18. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic 
file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. 
Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If 
multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this 
proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of 
the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the 
caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should 
include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the 
applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an 
electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for 
e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to [email protected], and 
should include the following words in the body of the message, ``get 
form.'' A sample form and directions will be sent in reply. Parties who 
choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each 
filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appear in the 
caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional 
copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be 
sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or 
by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we 
continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). 
The Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-
delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's 
Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 
20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand 
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial 
overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and 
Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol 
Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, 
and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. 
Parties also should send four (4) paper copies of their filings to 
Sheryl Todd, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, Rm. 5-
A520, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    19. Written comments by the public on the proposed information 
collections are due on or before September 2, 2003. Written comments 
must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the 
proposed information collections on or before September 15, 2003. In 
addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments 
on the information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted 
to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to 
[email protected] and to Edward Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 
NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to 
[email protected].
    20. To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0531 (voice), 202-418-7365 (tty).

III. Ordering Clauses

    21. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 1-4, 214(e), and 254 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, and 254, and Sec.  1.429 of the Commission's rules, 
this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    22. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Ruth A. Dancey,
Special Assistant to the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-17568 Filed 7-15-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P