[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 248 (Friday, December 27, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71338-71347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27221]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket Nos. 17-287, 11-42 and 09-197; FCC 19-111; FRS 16301]
Bridging the Digital Divide for Low-Income Consumers
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on adding a goal of broadband adoption to
the Lifeline program, making additional program integrity improvements
to the program, and establishing privacy training requirements for
entities accessing Lifeline subscribers' personal information.
DATES: Comments are due on or before January 27, 2020 and reply
comments are due on or before February 25, 2020. 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 as soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file comments and reply comments,
identified by WC Docket Nos. 17-287, 11-42 and 09-197, by any of the
following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th Street 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.
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.
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 [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jodie Griffin, Wireline Competition
Bureau, 202-418-7550 or TTY: 202-418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) of the Fifth Report and
Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Order on Reconsideration, and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket Nos. 17-287, 11-42
and 09-197; FCC 19-111 adopted October 30, 2019 and released November
14, 2019. 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: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-111A1.pdf.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. For years, the Commission has been taking steps to address
waste, fraud, and abuse in the program, including through the
establishment of a National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier. The
Commission continues that work to strengthen the Lifeline program.
Specifically, seeking comments on appropriate program goals and metrics
for a modernized Lifeline
[[Page 71339]]
program and additional improvements to program integrity.
II. Discussion
2. The Commission seeks comments on continuing to improve the
operation and oversight of the Lifeline program; seeks comments on
adding the goal of increasing broadband adoption for consumers who
would not otherwise subscribe to broadband as one of the Lifeline
program's goals and also seeks comments on making additional program
integrity improvements to the program and establishing privacy training
requirements for entities accessing personal information in the NLAD.
3. Program Goals and Metrics. In the 2017 Lifeline Order (FCC 17-
155), the Commission concurred with the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) and past Commissions that outcome-based performance goals
and measures would help to achieve Congress's universal service goals.
The Commission now seeks comments on whether the Lifeline program's
current goals adequately reflect the importance of measuring the
program's impact on adoption and continued connectivity, and how the
program's goals can be improved.
4. Increasing Broadband Adoption Among Consumers. The Commission
seeks comments on adding a new goal to the program: increased broadband
adoption for consumers who, without a Lifeline benefit, would not
subscribe to broadband. Believing that broadband adoption, and the
impact it will have on closing the digital divide, should be a focus of
the Lifeline program. Increasing broadband adoption as a goal will help
to ensure that Lifeline funds are appropriately targeted toward
bridging the digital divide. To achieve this goal, requires the
Commission to accurately evaluate the impact of Lifeline funds on
broadband adoption.
5. The Commission first seeks comments on our authority to adopt as
a goal of the Lifeline program increasing broadband adoption for
consumers who otherwise would not subscribe to broadband. Is such a
goal a component of preserving and advancing universal service, as
directed by section 254(b) of the Act? How would this goal relate to
the principles of promoting the availability of quality services at
just, reasonable, and affordable rates and promoting access to
reasonably comparable telecommunications and information services for
low-income consumers?
6. The Commission next seeks comments on the appropriate method of
measuring broadband adoption by low-income consumers. As GAO noted in
its report, the current structure of the Lifeline program ``ma[kes] it
difficult for the [C]ommission to determine causal connections between
the program and the number of individuals with telephone access.'' The
Commission seeks to alter that structure as it relates to broadband, to
ensure that Lifeline funds are being used effectively to help close the
digital divide by encouraging broadband adoption by households that
otherwise would not subscribe to the supported service, and seeking
comment on the best way to accomplish this.
7. The Commission seeks comments on the best data sources to help
measure adoption progress. The Commission proposes to ask Lifeline
applicants questions in the enrollment process regarding how the
program has impacted their broadband adoption, and to seek comments on
what those specific questions should be. For example, should the
Commission ask Lifeline applicants whether they already subscribe to
voice or broadband service, and whether they would be able to afford
their Lifeline-supported service without the Lifeline discount? Also,
should the Commission add questions to determine whether the Lifeline
program is effectively reaching specific demographics, like veterans or
households with children?
8. Instead of or in addition to seeking information directly from
Lifeline applicants, what other methods and data can be explored to
determine the impact of the Lifeline benefit on broadband adoption?
Should the Commission rely on other Commission reports or data sources?
For purposes of this goal, how should the Commission identify low-
income consumers or areas if other Commission reports or data sources
are used? The Commission also seeks comments on how best to measure the
impact of Lifeline on broadband adoption for groups of consumers.
9. When determining whether the program's goals are being met,
should the evaluation consider fixed and mobile broadband services
differently? In the annual report required by section 706 of the Act,
the Commission reports data on fixed and mobile broadband separately
and recognizes variations in speed and other characteristics. How
should consideration of these goals for the Lifeline program be
impacted by the similarities and differences between fixed and mobile
broadband?
10. When measuring broadband adoption, the Commission proposes
examining the effectiveness of the Lifeline program by recognizing that
Lifeline-supported broadband internet access service and some other
forms of broadband internet access service are, to various extents,
substitutable. For example, some Lifeline consumers may value broadband
access so highly that they would purchase some level of broadband
service even in the absence of a Lifeline benefit. Other consumers who
currently use a Lifeline-supported broadband internet access service
would prefer to not purchase broadband internet access service (or
purchase broadband access intermittently) without Lifeline support.
Finally, some consumers currently do not subscribe to any broadband
internet access service at all. In this context, how can the Commission
identify, measure, and analyze the effect of the Lifeline program on
increasing broadband adoption? Is the degree of substitution between
Lifeline-supported and unsupported broadband internet access service
affected by the characteristics of Lifeline service (such as download
speeds, data caps, etc.) of the Lifeline-supported broadband internet
access service? The Commission also seeks comments on additional
criteria to consider during evaluating the program's impact on
broadband adoption.
11. Additional Program Integrity Recommendations. In the 2017
Lifeline Order, the Commission sought comment on potential changes that
would help eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse within the Lifeline
program. The Commission also proposes additional requirements that will
help the Commission, and ETCs, achieve that goal. First, the Commission
proposes requiring ETCs to upload their internal customer account
numbers into the NLAD in order to help USAC match its records with
those of the ETC. Second, the Commission proposes requiring ETCs and
the National Verifier to record and retain a Lifeline applicant's
eligibility proof number and the type of proof the applicant used to
qualify for the program. Lastly, the Commission proposes requiring ETCs
to provide the NLAD or National Verifier with access to the same data
maintained by the ETC, including non-usage data and the time the
customer enrolled. The Commission also seeks comments on the best ways
to ensure that consumer usage is accurately measured and defined.
12. Internal Customer Account Numbers. When examining data to
determine if improper payments were made, USAC often needs to examine
an ETC's data. However, the internal number that an ETC uses to
identify a subscriber in its own service and billing records is
currently not entered into the NLAD. As a result, it may be difficult
for
[[Page 71340]]
USAC or enforcement authorities, such as the Commission, the U.S.
Department of Justice, or state public service commissions, to compare
an ETC's records with USAC's NLAD or reimbursement records because it
can be difficult to locate an individual subscriber's records.
Accordingly, the Commission proposes amending Sec. 54.404(b) of the
Commission's rules to require ETCs to submit their internal customer
account numbers into the NLAD when enrolling or recertifying
subscribers. Concluding that this will facilitate examination of
relevant data, and therefore help to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.
The Commission seeks comments on this proposal including its costs and
benefits.
13. Eligibility Proof Number and Type. The Commission also seeks
comments on improving the information collected during the process of
manually reviewing eligibility documentation for those applicants whose
eligibility cannot be confirmed by an automated data source. In 2016,
the Commission determined that a provider had been using ``temporary
SNAP cards to enroll consumers because these cards did not include the
actual benefit recipient's name,'' and repeatedly used the same program
eligibility card to enroll multiple applicants. The Commission believes
that requiring ETCs and the National Verifier to track both the
eligibility proof number and the type of eligibility proof will enable
both ETCs and the National Verifier to quickly determine if improper
enrollment techniques are being used. Therefore, the Commission
proposes amending Sec. Sec. 54.404(b) and 54.410(d) of the
Commission's rules to require that where the applicant provides
eligibility documentation, ETCs and the National Verifier shall collect
and record the identification number or card number indicated on the
eligibility documentation (e.g., the SNAP card number or Medicaid card
number) and the type of eligibility proof used by an applicant to
demonstrate eligibility for the Lifeline program. The proposal would
not apply where an applicant's eligibility is verified through an
automated database. The Commission seeks comments on the proposed
requirement, including its costs and benefits.
14. Demonstrating Compliance with Usage Requirements. The
Commission seeks comments on ways to ensure the accuracy of ETCs'
claims that subscribers are actually using their broadband internet
access service on an ongoing basis. The current usage rules require
subscribers receiving a free-to-the-end-user Lifeline service to use
the service every 30 days by, among other ways, using broadband data.
Given this requirement, would it be possible for an ETC to evade our
30-day usage requirement by installing an application (``app'') on a
user's phone that would ``use'' data without any action by the user?
Even if such data usage would not meet the requirement that qualifying
usage be ``undertaken by the subscriber,'' there is concern that it
would be difficult to differentiate legitimate subscriber usage from
ETC-arranged data usage that happens without the knowledge or direction
of the subscriber in an audit or enforcement investigation. Could an
ETC thus fabricate usage data to continue claiming support for a
Lifeline subscriber who is no longer using the service?
15. The Commission seeks comments on how to amend its rules to
address this vulnerability. Would requiring subscribers to periodically
contact USAC remedy this issue? Would requiring subscribers to use an
app to confirm continued usage be a sufficient and user-friendly
solution? What would such an app look like, and how could the
Commission ensure that such an app would not ``use'' data without any
activity from the user? The other types of ``usage'' under the
Commission's rules all require an affirmative act by the user, and the
Commission seeks comments on what other options would guarantee that
``usage of data'' is understood to mean ``usage of data initiated by
the Lifeline subscriber.'' Does the Commission have the authority to
prohibit ETCs from installing an app that ``uses'' data without
direction from the subscriber? The Commission also seek comments on any
potential privacy implications of modifying the usage requirement or
requiring the installation of a specific app or method of usage.
Finally, the Commission seeks comments on the costs of these proposals
and on how to minimize the burden on consumers and ETCs of verifying
legitimate monthly usage.
16. The Commission also seeks comments on amending Sec. 54.417 of
the Commission's rules to clarify an ETC's obligation to maintain
records that document compliance with the usage requirement. The
current rule requires ETCs to ``maintain records to document compliance
with all Commission and state requirements governing the Lifeline and
Tribal Link Up program for three full preceding calendar years and
provide that documentation to the Commission or Administrator upon
request.'' While the rule already applies to the usage requirement in
Sec. Sec. 54.405(e)(3) and 54.407(c) of the Commission's rules,
comments are sought on whether a more detailed explanation of what
documentation ETCs must maintain in the context of the non-usage
requirement would provide certainty to ETCs. If the Commission amended
Sec. 54.417 to give more specific guidance on document retention in
the context of the usage requirement, what documentation should ETCs be
required to maintain to show that data usage is ``undertaken by the
subscriber,'' and not by the ETC, as the Commission's rules require?
What are the costs and benefits of specifically requiring ETCs to
maintain detailed data usage records, which could be examined to reveal
any trends that reveal indications of potential usage fabrication (for
example, an account that only uses data once every 30 days, at 2:00
a.m.)? Should such usage data be maintained for the same general
timeframe as other compliance documentation under Sec. 54.417 of the
Commission's rules? In adopting such a requirement, how can the
Commission best safeguard Lifeline subscribers' privacy? For example,
should the Commission require certain security practices for the
collection, retention, and management of this information, or are
existing ETC security and privacy practices sufficient in this regard?
17. De-enrollment Process. The Commission seeks comments on
amending Sec. 54.405(e)(1) of the Commission's rules to clarify ETCs'
obligation to act promptly to notify subscribers when the ETC has
reason to believe that the subscriber is not eligible for the Lifeline
program. Currently, the rule provides the subscriber 30 days to
demonstrate continued eligibility and a five-business-day de-enrollment
period if the subscriber fails to demonstrate her eligibility. However,
the rule does not specify how quickly the ETC must act to send the
subscriber the written notice that begins the 30-day period once it has
reason to believe the subscriber is not eligible for the Lifeline
benefit. The Commission seeks comments on implementing a firm deadline
to ensure that ETCs do not unreasonably delay in sending the 30-day
notice. Should the Commission amend Sec. 54.405(e)(1) of the rules to
require ETCs to send written notice to the subscriber no later than
five business days after the ETC has a reasonable basis to believe the
subscriber is no longer eligible for Lifeline service? Would amending
the rule to allow the ETC five business days to send the 30-day de-
enrollment notice be sufficient? The Commission also seeks comments on
how the rule should apply to states in which the National
[[Page 71341]]
Verifier has launched. In those states, should the ETC instead be
required to notify the National Verifier of its reason to believe that
the subscriber is not eligible, upon which notice the National Verifier
can conduct any necessary outreach and de-enrollments?
18. The Commission also seeks comments on amending Sec. 54.405 of
the Commission's rules to codify the de-enrollment process when the de-
enrollment is conducted by USAC under its authority as administrator of
the Fund. Should the de-enrollment procedures operate differently when
USAC de-enrolls a subscriber from the NLAD, pursuant to an ETC's
request or a program integrity review, under its authority as
administrator or the Fund? Should USAC continue to rely on the ETC to
conduct subscriber outreach for program integrity reviews, and if so,
should the Commission's rules specifically direct USAC to de-enroll or
deny reimbursement for those subscribers if the ETC is nonresponsive or
delayed in its response? How should the Commission ensure that
subscribers are given an opportunity to demonstrate continued
eligibility before being de-enrolled? Are there any other
clarifications the Commission should make to its de-enrollment rules?
19. Distribution of Free Handsets. Lifeline providers often offer a
free handset with the activation of Lifeline service. Many of the ETCs
offering free handsets also provide Lifeline service that is free to
the subscriber where there is no regular billing relationship between
the subscriber and the ETC. Often the device is handed directly to the
consumer at enrollment without requiring any payment by the consumer,
and this practice has been the subject of reports that focus on
ineligible consumers enrolling in Lifeline. For example, undercover
local news teams have reported that they were able to obtain a free
cell phone even when the undercover reporter was not eligible for the
Lifeline service. In the 2017 Lifeline Order and Notice and in response
to Lifeline stakeholder suggestions, the Commission asked whether it
should prohibit Lifeline providers from distributing handsets in
person. The Commission now asks for further focused comments on the
practice of in-person distribution of free handsets and its possible
role in encouraging ineligible Lifeline customers to attempt to enroll
in the program.
20. In response to the 2017 Lifeline Order and Notice, some
commenters argue that in-person distribution of free handsets benefits
low-income and vulnerable Lifeline customers, such as those that are
homeless or otherwise displaced. Others note that banning in-person
free handset distribution ``would be well worth the program's
substantial gain in controls and, in turn, credibility that would
result from implementation of this measure . . .'' While the Commission
does not suggest that every ETC that distributes free handsets in this
manner is engaging in or encouraging fraudulent behavior, our oversight
experience suggests that the practice encourages ineligible consumers
to attempt to enroll in Lifeline. The Commission seeks comments on ways
to minimize the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse stemming from the in-
person distribution of free handsets upon enrollment in the Lifeline
program.
21. The Commission seeks comments on requiring ETCs to charge
Lifeline subscribers a fee in exchange for receiving a handset or
device in-person at enrollment. How prevalent is the in-person
distribution of free handsets today? Is this practice primarily
associated with free-to-the-end-user Lifeline plans? Would such a
restriction eliminate incentives for ineligible consumers to attempt to
enroll in Lifeline? Does the promise of an immediate free phone along
with a free service provide improper incentives to potential
subscribers? The Lifeline program currently does not provide support
for equipment used with the supported service. Does the Commission have
the statutory authority to prohibit ETCs from distributing free
handsets to Lifeline subscribers or otherwise regulate the distribution
of handsets to ETCs?
22. Does the long-standing restriction on using the Lifeline
subsidy for equipment support a new requirement that all Lifeline
subscribers must pay a fee for the cost of the handsets used to provide
the supported service? What are the costs and benefits of such a
requirement? Would delaying the distribution of free handsets, or
allowing the in-person distribution of handsets only to Lifeline
subscribers who, either up front or through a payment plan, have paid
an end-user fee, help eliminate fraud within the program? Would such
requirements discourage participation in the program by eligible
subscribers? What would be the impact on broadband adoption if Lifeline
subscribers had to pay a fee in exchange for a handset? What sources of
data or industry studies could be helpful to estimate the magnitude of
these effects? How should the Commission evaluate the savings to the
Universal Service Fund from reduced waste, fraud, and abuse against the
lower consumer benefits to Lifeline subscribers who would no longer
subscribe because of an increased cost to the customer? Would a charge
for the handset ensure that the carriers are providing handsets that
customers value? Would the potential program integrity and consumer
benefits of requiring ETCs to charge Lifeline subscribers for handsets
distributed in person outweigh any potential burdens to ETCs and
Lifeline subscribers?
23. The Commission recognizes that many other activities, such as
in-person training on how to use the handset, occur between the ETC and
the subscriber at enrollment. How would limitations on the distribution
of free handsets impact these other activities? Are there other changes
that could be made to this practice that would eliminate opportunities
for fraud while ensuring that customers have access to affordable
handsets?
24. The Commission and USAC have made a number of important changes
to the Lifeline program and its administrative systems to reduce waste,
fraud, and abuse, including a duplicate check with the NLAD and
implementation of the National Verifier to make eligibility
determinations. Has the implementation of the NLAD and recent changes
to the Lifeline rules (including the requirement to retain eligibility
documents) reduced the opportunities for fraud that were associated
with the distribution of free handsets? Will the National Verifier
further reduce the opportunities for fraud associated with this
practice? Do any of these program or system changes reduce the risk of
problems associated with in-person distribution of free handsets and
obviate any need to require ETCs to charge a fee for receiving a
handset at an in-person enrollment or for the Commission to place other
restrictions on this practice?
25. In 2012, the Commission eliminated a rule requiring that ETCs
charge Tribal Lifeline customers a minimum of $1 per month. The
Commission acknowledged that while the rule had specified the minimum
charge, carriers were not required to collect the amount from
customers, and some did not. What lessons should the Commission learn
from the now eliminated $1 minimum service charge for Tribal Lifeline
customers? If the Commission were to require ETCs to charge Lifeline
subscribers a nominal fee for handsets distributed in person, is there
a significant risk that ETCs would not actually collect that fee from
Lifeline subscribers? How would the requirements be designed to address
that risk?
[[Page 71342]]
26. The Commission further notes that, in the 2017 Lifeline Order
and Notice, comments were sought on whether it should impose a maximum
discount level for Lifeline services, which would require customers to
pay a portion of the costs of the supported service. There, the
Commission proposed to adopt a maximum discount level as a way to
further reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the program. The Commission
reasoned that under the current model where providers offer ``free-to-
the-end-user'' Lifeline service, ``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 Lifeline-supported
service.'' Would requiring that ETCs charge Lifeline customers a fee in
exchange for a handset constitute a minimum charge for Lifeline
service? Alternatively, would requiring ETCs to assess a regular fee on
subscribers for the Lifeline supported service mitigate any problems
associated with providing in-person free handsets?
27. Certifying Privacy Protection Efforts. The Commission seeks
comments on two issues that are expected to address open
recommendations made by the Commission's Office of Inspector General
(OIG) following its review of USAC's NLAD implementation in 2018. The
first is a recommendation to require ETCs and state agencies with
access to the USAC NLAD and National Verifier systems to certify that
they have given their employees and enrollment representatives
appropriate privacy training before those individuals may access the
NLAD or National Verifier systems. The Commission believes that such a
training and certification requirement would reduce the possibility
that Lifeline subscribers' personal information would be accessed,
used, or disclosed inappropriately. In response to a second
recommendation from the Commission's OIG, the Commission seeks comments
on whether state commissions and ETCs conduct background investigations
of their staff that access USAC's systems, the nature of those
investigations, and whether the Commission should require that state
commissions and ETCs certify that they complete such investigations.
28. In an effort to ensure that Lifeline subscribers' personal
information is kept private and secure, the Commission has repeatedly
directed USAC to implement strict standards regarding how it handles
and gives external access to the Lifeline subscriber data that it
receives as the administrator of the Lifeline program. The Commission
has not, however, specifically required ETCs and state agencies to
train their personnel regarding appropriate privacy precautions for
accessing and handling personal information. A lack of such a training
requirement could result in employees and enrollment representatives of
ETCs or state agencies accessing highly sensitive information about
Lifeline applicants or subscribers without having received sufficient
instruction in the appropriate use and disposal of those data. The
Commission therefore proposes and seeks comments on requiring ETCs and
state agencies with access to the USAC NLAD and National Verifier
systems to certify that they have given their employees and enrollment
representatives appropriate privacy training.
29. Outside of the Lifeline context, Commission rules governing
customer proprietary network information (CPNI) already require
telecommunications carriers to ``train their personnel as to when they
are and are not authorized to use CPNI, and carriers must have an
express disciplinary process in place.'' Additionally,
telecommunications carriers must have an officer annually certify a
carrier's compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. In considering a
training and certification requirement for entities with NLAD and
National Verifier access, the Commission seeks comments on the
sufficiency of an ETC's CPNI certification to cover the effective
training of their staff accessing these systems. The Commission also
seeks comments on the scope and focus of existing ETC training programs
and whether they address any unique personal information issues that
arise when submitting Lifeline information to USAC that are not
adequately addressed by the CPNI rules. Is there a need for a Lifeline-
specific rule mandating training beyond what is put forward in the
Commission's CPNI rules? Further, the Commission seeks comments on the
scope of ETCs' existing training programs and whether they include
contractors, sub-contractors, enrollment representatives, and other
individuals that might interact with personal information being used in
NLAD or the National Verifier.
30. The Commission also seeks comments on the availability of
existing privacy training resources for state agencies that have access
to personal data in the NLAD or National Verifier. Are there existing
state agency privacy training programs that would satisfy the same
purposes of a Lifeline-specific privacy training? Should state
agencies' privacy training cover the same type of data protection
standards as would be required by telecommunications carriers under the
Commission's CPNI rules? If not, how should the training differ?
31. The Commission also seeks comments on how a privacy training
and certification requirement, if any, should be implemented. Should
USAC conduct the training directly, or make a training available if an
ETC or state agency does not conduct its own? The Commission proposes
requiring ETCs and state agencies to certify in their NLAD and National
Verifier access agreements that they have implemented compliant
training programs or require their relevant employees and enrollment
representatives to complete USAC's training prior to using USAC's
system to access Lifeline applicant or subscriber personal information,
and the Commission seeks comments on this approach.
32. Finally, to further confirm that Lifeline subscriber's personal
information is appropriately protected, the Commission seeks comments
on a proposal to require state commissions and ETCs to provide written
confirmation that they have conducted background investigations of
their staff with access to the NLAD or National Verifier systems. Do
state commissions and ETCs already complete background investigations
for staff members with access to NLAD or the National Verifier? Do
state commissions and ETCs conduct similar investigations for agents,
contractors, and other non-employees that might handle Lifeline
subscriber data and interact with NLAD or the National Verifier? How
are these investigations documented, and would providing written
confirmation to USAC of these investigations be feasible and reliable?
The Commission also seeks comments on the burdens of such a requirement
beyond the steps that state commissions and ETCs may already be taking.
Would those burdens be outweighed by reduced waste, fraud, and abuse in
the Lifeline program?
III. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
33. 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 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,
[[Page 71343]]
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
comments on how we might further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
34. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding the FNPRM
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.
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
35. 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 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). The
Commission requests written public comment on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
comments deadline dates. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
36. Need for, and Objective of, the Proposed Rules. 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.
37. In the 2017 Lifeline Order and Notice, the Commission sought
comment on a number of proposals that were intended to improve the
integrity of the program. Many of those proposals were adopted in the
Fifth Report and Order. Building on those efforts, in the FNPRM, the
Commission seeks comment on revising the goals of the Lifeline program
and how to measure the program's achievements with respect to broadband
adoption. The Commission also seeks comment on its proposal to require
ETCs, USAC, and the National Verifier, as appropriate, to recertify
each Lifeline subscriber's eligibility once every 12 months, as
measured from the subscriber's service initiation date. The Commission
also proposes a number of changes designed to improve integrity of the
Lifeline program.
38. Legal Basis. The legal basis for the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking 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.
39. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. 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 29.6 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.''
40. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commissions actions, over time, may affect small
entities that are not easily categorized at present. Therefore
described, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that
could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry
specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the
regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's
Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent
business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States which
translates to 29.6 million businesses.
41. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
42. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships,
[[Page 71344]]
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of
less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2012
Census of Governments indicates that there were 90,056 local
governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments
and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number
there were 37,132 general purpose governments (county, municipal and
town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,184
special purpose governments (independent school districts and special
districts) with populations of less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census
Bureau data for most types of governments in the local government
category show that the majority of these governments have populations
of less than 50,000. Based on this data we estimate that at least
49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the category of ``small
governmental jurisdictions.'' The small entities that may be affected
include Wireline Providers, Wireless Carriers and Service Providers,
and Interment Service Providers.
43. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities. In the FNPRM, the
Commission seeks comments on modifying its goals for the Lifeline and
on proposed reforms of the program that are intended to improve the
integrity of the program by further eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse
in the program.
44. Increased Broadband Adoption as a New Program Goal. In the
FNPRM, the Commission seeks comments on adding a new goal to the
program: Increased broadband adoption among consumers who otherwise,
without a Lifeline benefit, would not subscribe to broadband. The
Commission seeks comments on its authority to adopt as a goal of the
Lifeline program increasing broadband adoption for consumers who
otherwise would not subscribe to broadband. The Commission also seeks
comments on the appropriate method for measuring broadband adoption
among consumers who otherwise would not subscribe to broadband. The
Commission asks which data sources could help inform the Commission's
measurement of the goals and asks whether there are additional
questions that can be asked of Lifeline applicants during the
enrollment process regarding how the program has impacted their
broadband adoption. Should the Commission also add questions to
determine whether Lifeline is effectively reaching specific
demographics, like veterans or households with children? The Commission
seeks comments on what other methods can be used to determine the
impact of the Lifeline benefit on broadband adoption, and whether the
Commission should reply on Commission reports or other data sources.
Furthermore, for the purposes of this goal, the Commission asks how it
should identify low-income consumers or areas if other Commission
reports or data sources are used. The Commission also asks how it
should define broadband and whether its evaluation of this goal
consider fixed and mobile broadband differently. The Commission also
asks whether this goal should also measure adoption of voice service
from consumers who would not otherwise have it. The Commission also
proposes to examine Lifeline's impact across several categories of
consumers, from those that value broadband so highly that they would
purchase it even without a Lifeline benefit, to those that may
currently use a Lifeline-supported broadband internet access service
but would lose access to that serve or only purchase broadband
intermittently without Lifeline support. The Commission also wishes to
examine those that do not subscribe to any broadband internet access
service at all. The Commission asks how to identify, measure, and
analyze adoption among each of these groups, and how would it inform
whether the Lifeline program is meeting the goal of increasing
broadband adoption? The Commission seeks comments on any additional
criteria to consider when evaluating the program's impact on broadband
adoption among consumers.
45. Upload Internal Customer Accounts and Eligibility Proof Number
and Type. The Commission proposes to amend Sec. 54.404(b) of the rules
to require ETCs to upload their internal customer account numbers into
the NLAD when enrolling or rectifying subscribers in order to help
facilitate the examination of internal data to determine if improper
payments were made. The Commission also proposes amending Sec. Sec.
54.404(b) and 54.410(d) of the rules to require ETCs and the National
Verifier to collect and record the identification number or card number
indicated on the eligibility documentation (e.g., the SNAP card number
or Medicaid card number) and the type of eligibility proof used by a
subscriber to demonstrate eligibility for the Lifeline program. The
proposal would not apply where a subscriber's eligibility is verified
through an automated database. The Commission seeks comments on the
proposal.
46. Demonstrating Compliance with Usage Requirements. The
Commission also seeks comments on ways to ensure the accuracy of ETCs'
claims that subscribers are using their broadband internet access
service under the non-usage rule. The Commission asks whether it would
be possible for an ETC to pre-install an app on a subscriber's phone
that would ``use'' data without any action by the user? Could an ETC
fabricate usage in order to continue claiming support for a Lifeline
subscriber who is no longer using the service? The Commission invites
comments on whether it could require subscribers to use an app to
confirm usage. The Commission also seeks comments on any potential
privacy implications of modifying the usage requirement or requiring
the installation of a specific app or method of usage.
47. The Commission also seeks comments on amending Sec. 54.417 of
the Commission's rules to clarify an ETC's obligation to maintain
records that document compliance with the usage requirement. The
current rule requires ETCs to ``maintain records to document compliance
with all Commission and state requirements governing the Lifeline and
Tribal Link Up program for three full preceding calendar years and
provide that documentation to the Commission or Administrator upon
request. While the rule already applies to the usage requirement in
Sec. Sec. 54.405(e)(3) and 4.407(c) of the Commission's rules, the
Commission seeks comments on whether a more detailed explanation of
what documentation ETCs must maintain in the context of the non-usage
requirement would provide certainty to ETCs. If the Commission amended
Sec. 54.417 rule to give more specific guidance on document retention
in the context of the usage requirement, what documentation should ETCs
be required to maintain to show that data usage is ``undertaken by the
subscriber,'' and not by the ETC, as the Commission's rules require?
What are the costs and benefits of specially requiring ETCs to maintain
detailed usage records, which could be examined to show any trends that
reveal indications of potential usage fabrication (for example, an
account that only used data once every 30 days, at 2:00 a.m.)? Should
such usage data be maintained for the same general timeframe as other
compliance documentation under Sec. 54.417 of the rules?
48. De-enrollment Process. The Commission seeks comments on
amending Sec. 54.405(e)(1) of the rules to clarify ETCs' obligations
to act promptly to notify subscribers when the ETC has reason to
believe that the subscriber is not eligible for the Lifeline program.
Currently, the rule provides the
[[Page 71345]]
subscriber 30 days to demonstrate continued eligibility and a five-
business-day de-enrollment period if the subscriber fails to
demonstrate his or her eligibility. However, the rule does not specify
how quickly the ETC must act to send the subscriber the written notice
that begins the 30-day period. An ETC that unreasonably delays sending
the 30-day notice would violate the existing rule, but the Commission
also seeks comments on implementing a firm deadline to avoid future
confusion. The Commission seeks comments on whether it should amend
Sec. 54.405(e)(1) of the rules to require ETCs to send written notice
to the subscriber no later than five business days after the ETC has a
reasonable basis to believe that the subscriber is no longer eligible
for Lifeline service? Would amending the rule to allow the ETC five
business days to send the 30-day-de-enrollment notice be sufficient?
The Commission also seeks comments on amending Sec. 54.405 of its
rules to codify the de-enrollment process when the de-enrollment is
conducted by USAC under its authority as administrator of the Universal
Service Fund. Should the de-enrollment procedures operate differently
when USAC de-enrolls a subscriber from NLAD pursuant to an ETC's
request or a program integrity review, under its authority as
administrator of the Fund? Should USAC continue to rely on the ETC to
conduct subscriber outreach for program integrity reviews or other
situations, and if so, should the Commission's rules specifically
direct USAC to de-enroll or deny reimbursement for those subscribers if
the ETC is nonresponsive or delayed in its response? How should the
Commission ensure that subscribers are given an opportunity to
demonstrate continued eligibility before being de-enrolled? Are there
any other clarifications the Commission should make to its de-
enrollment rules?
49. Distribution of Free Handsets. The Commission also seeks
further comments on the practice of in-person distribution of free
handsets. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on ways to
minimize the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse stemming from the in-
person distribution of free handsets upon enrollment in the Lifeline
program. The Commission seeks comments on requiring ETCs to charge
Lifeline subscribers a fee in exchange for receiving a handset or
device in person at enrollment. How prevalent is the in-person
distribution of free handsets today and is this practice primarily
associated with free-to-the-end-user Lifeline plans? Would the
restriction eliminate incentives for ineligible consumers to attempt to
enroll in Lifeline and does the promise of an immediate free phone
along with a free service provide improper incentives to potential
subscribers? The Commission asks whether it has the statutory authority
to prohibit ETCs from distributing free handsets to Lifeline
subscribers or otherwise regulate the distribution of handsets to ETCs.
Does the longstanding program restriction on support for equipment used
for the supported service justify a new requirement that all Lifeline
subscribers must pay a fee for the handsets used to provide the
supported service? The Commission seeks comments on whether important
changes to NLAD and the roll-out of National Verifier have reduced the
opportunities for fraud that were associated with the distribution of
free handsets. The Commission seeks comments on other alternatives,
such as delaying the distribution of free handsets or allowing the in-
person distribution of handsets only to Lifeline subscribers who,
either up front or through a payment plan, have paid an end-user fee.
Would those alternatives help eliminate fraud within the program? What
would be the impact on program participation if Lifeline subscribers
had to pay a fee in exchange for a handset? Would a fee create
significant barriers to participating in the Lifeline program? If the
Commission were to implement this requirement, how much should the fee
be for a handset? The Commission seeks comment on the impact of
limiting distribution of handsets would have on other activities, such
as in-person training on handset use. The Commission also asks if it
were to require ETCs to charge Lifeline subscribers a nominal fee for
handsets distributed in person, is there a significant risk that ETCs
would not actually collect that fee from Lifeline subscribers, and how
could the Commission monitor and enforce an ETC's compliance with that
requirement. The Commission also notes that it recently sought comment
on whether it should impose a maximum discount level for Lifeline
services, which would require customers to pay a portion of the costs
of the supported service. Would requiring that carriers charge Lifeline
customers a fee in exchange for a handset constitute a minimum charge
for Lifeline service? Would requiring ETCs to assess a regular fee on
subscribers for the Lifeline supported service mitigate any problems
associated with providing in-person free handsets?
50. Certifying Privacy Protection Training Efforts. The Commission
seeks comment on requiring ETCs and state agencies with access to the
USAC NLAD and National Verifier systems to certify that they have given
their employees, agents, and representatives appropriate privacy
training before those individuals may access the NLAD or National
Verifier systems. In an effort to ensure that Lifeline subscribers'
personal information is kept private and secure, the Commission has
repeatedly directed USAC to implement strict standards in how it
handles and gives external access to the Lifeline subscriber data that
it receives as the administrator of the Lifeline program. The
Commission has not, however, specifically required ETCs and state
agencies to train their personnel in appropriate privacy precautions
for accessing and handling personal information. A lack of such a
training requirement could result in employees, agents, and
representatives of ETCs or state agencies accessing highly sensitive
information about Lifeline applicants or subscribers without having
received sufficient instruction in the appropriate use and disposal of
that data. In implementing a certification requirement for entities
with NLAD and National Verifier access, the Commission seeks comments
on the sufficiency of an ETC's customer proprietary network information
(CPNI) certification to certify the effective training of their staff
accessing these systems. The Commission also seeks comment on the scope
and focus of existing ETC training programs and whether they address
any unique personal information issues that arise when submitting
Lifeline information to USAC that are not adequately addressed by the
CPNI rules. Is there a need for a Lifeline-specific rule mandating
training beyond what is put forward in the Commission's CPNI rules? The
NPRM also seeks comments on the scope of ETCs' existing training
programs and whether they include contractors, sub-contractors, agents,
representatives, and other individuals that might interact with
personal information being used in NLAD or the National Verifier. The
Commission also seeks comments on the availability of existing privacy
training resources for state agencies that have access to personal data
in NLAD or National Verifier. Are there existing state agency privacy
training programs that would satisfy the same purposes of a Lifeline-
specific privacy training? Should state agencies' privacy training
[[Page 71346]]
cover the same type of data protection standards as would be required
by telecommunications carriers under the Commission's CPNI rules? If
not, how should the training differ? The Commission also seeks comments
on how a privacy training and certification requirement should be
implemented. Should USAC conduct the training directly, or make a
training available if an ETC or state agency does not conduct their
own? The Commission proposes requiring ETCs and state agencies to
certify in their NLAD and National Verifier access agreements that they
have implemented compliant training programs or require their relevant
employees, agents, and representatives to complete USAC's training
prior to using USAC's system to access Lifeline applicant or subscriber
personal information, and we seek comments on the approach. Finally, to
further confirm that Lifeline subscriber's personal information is
appropriately protected, the Commission seeks comments on a proposal to
require state commissions and ETCs to provide written confirmation that
they have conducted background investigations of their staff with
access to the NLAD or National Verifier systems. The Commission seeks
comments on existing practices regarding employee background
investigations and the burdens associated with a requirement to
regularly provide such information to USAC.
51. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on
Small Entities, and Significant Alternative Considered. 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.''
52. The FNPRM seeks comments on several policies that would revise
the program's goals and promote the availability of modern services for
low-income families, and also reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the
program. Several of the policies would increase the economic burdens on
small entities, and certain changes would lessen the economic impact on
small entities. Requiring ETCs to upload its internal customer account
numbers and to provide a subscriber's eligibility proof number and type
are some of the measures proposed that are intended to help eliminate
waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program. Moreover, the proposal
to codify the de-enrollment obligations help ensure that ETCs do not
unreasonably delay in sending out 30-day notices to subscribers that
may no longer be eligible for Lifeline. In those instances in which a
policy would increase burdens on small entities, it is 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 FNPRM and this IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions
and taking action in the proceeding.
IV. Ordering Clauses
53. Accordingly, it is ordered, that pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1-4, 201, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201, 214, 254, and 403, and
Sec. 1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.2, the Fifth Report and
Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Order on Reconsideration, and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, is adopted.
54. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of the Fifth Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order and
Order on Reconsideration, Further and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54
Communications Common Carriers, internet, Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 54 as follows:
PART 54--UNIVERSAL SERVICE
0
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.
0
2. Amend Sec. 54.404 by revising paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 54.404 The National Lifeline Accountability Database.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) Eligible telecommunications carriers must transmit to the
Database in a format prescribed by the Administrator each new and
existing Lifeline subscriber's full name; full residential address;
date of birth and the last four digits of the subscriber's Social
Security number or Tribal Identification number, if the subscriber is a
member of a Tribal nation and does not have a Social Security number;
the type of documentation and associated identification number used to
demonstrate eligibility, if applicable; the telephone number associated
with the Lifeline service; the ETC's internal account number or
identification number associated with that subscriber; subscriber non-
usage information; identity of the enrollment representative; time the
subscriber was enrolled; the date on which the Lifeline service was
initiated; the date on which the Lifeline service was terminated, if it
has been terminated; the amount of support being sought for that
subscriber; and the means through which the subscriber qualified for
Lifeline.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 54.405 by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 54.405 Carrier obligation to offer Lifeline.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) De-enrollment generally. If an eligible telecommunications
carrier has a reasonable basis to believe that a Lifeline subscriber no
longer meets the criteria to be considered a qualifying low-income
consumer under Sec. 54.409, within five business days the carrier must
notify the subscriber of impending termination of his or her Lifeline
service. Notification of impending
[[Page 71347]]
termination must be sent in writing separate from the subscriber's
monthly bill, if one is provided, and must be written in clear, easily
understood language. A carrier providing Lifeline service in a state
that has dispute resolution procedures applicable to Lifeline
termination that requires, at a minimum, written notification of
impending termination, must comply with the applicable state
requirements. The carrier must allow a subscriber 30 days following the
date of the impending termination letter required to demonstrate
continued eligibility. A subscriber making such a demonstration must
present proof of continued eligibility to the carrier consistent with
applicable annual re-certification requirements, as described in Sec.
54.410(f). An eligible telecommunications carrier must de-enroll any
subscriber who fails to demonstrate eligibility within five business
days after the expiration of the subscriber's time to respond. A
carrier providing Lifeline service in a state that has dispute
resolution procedures applicable to Lifeline termination must comply
with the applicable state requirements.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 54.410 by revising paragraph (d)(2)(vii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 54.410 Subscriber eligibility determination and certification.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(vii) If the subscriber is seeking to qualify for Lifeline under
the program-based criteria, as set forth in Sec. 54.409, the name of
the qualifying assistance program from which the subscriber, his or her
dependents, or his or her household receives benefits, the subscriber's
associated identification number, and the type of documentation the
subscriber is submitting to demonstrate participation in that program,
if necessary; and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-27221 Filed 12-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P