[Federal Register: June 22, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 119)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34629-34631]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22jn04-34]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 36 and 54
[WC Docket No. 03-109; FCC 04-87]
Lifeline and Link-Up
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether the
inclusion of a broader income-based criterion in the federal default
eligibility criteria would further increase Lifeline/Link-Up
subscription rates. The actions the Commission takes will result in a
more inclusive and robust Lifeline/Link-Up program, consistent with the
statutory goals of maintaining affordability and access of low-income
consumers to supported services, while ensuring that support is used
for its intended purpose.
DATES: Comments are due on or before August 23, 2004. Reply comments
are due on or before October 5, 2004.
ADDRESSES: All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary,
Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further filing instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Lipp, Attorney, and Karen
Franklin, Attorney, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications
Access Policy, (202) 418-7400.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 03-109, FCC 04-
87, released on April 29, 2004. A companion Report and Order was also
released in WC Docket No. 03-109, FCC 04-87 on April 29, 1004. 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. Introduction
1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment
on whether the inclusion of a broader income-based criterion in the
federal default eligibility criteria would further increase Lifeline/
Link-Up subscription rates. The actions we take will result in a more
inclusive and robust Lifeline/Link-Up program, consistent with the
statutory goals of maintaining affordability and access of low-income
consumers to supported services, while ensuring that support is used
for its intended purpose.
II. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Income-based Criterion
2. We seek comment on whether the income-based criterion in the
federal default eligibility criteria should be increased to 150% of the
Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG) to make phone service affordable to
more low-income individuals and families. Although most commenters
supported adding an income-based criterion, a number of those
commenters supported a higher income-based standard than the interim
measure that we adopt. Specifically, those commenters preferred that a
consumer whose household income is at or below 150% of the FPG should
be eligible for Lifeline/Link-Up support. Commenters argue that adding
a higher FPG level would bring Lifeline/Link-Up support in line with
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), a current
qualifying Lifeline/Link-Up program that uses an income-based standard
of 150% as an eligibility criterion. Commenters also point out the
inequity that currently exists between a hypothetical low-income
consumer who does not participate in LIHEAP and therefore does not
qualify for Lifeline, and another hypothetical low-income consumer with
the same income who participates in LIHEAP and Lifeline. In particular,
low-income consumers are not eligible for LIHEAP if they rent a house
or apartment with utilities included, yet they may have essentially the
same income as consumers who pay for utilities separately. It is
possible that a non-trivial number of low-income consumers may fall
into this category. Furthermore, adding a higher FPG level may also
help to increase participation among low-income consumers who do not
currently qualify for Lifeline/Link-Up because they are on waiting
lists for Section 8 housing, are not eligible for Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) because they are not elderly or disabled, have been cut
off from Food Stamps because of work requirements, or do not qualify
for Medicaid due to complex eligibility requirements. Adding a higher
FPG level could also help respond to the decrease in participation
rates prevalent in at least one current Lifeline/Link-Up qualifying
program and one adopted in this Order, Food Stamps and Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), respectively.
3. Applying the same methodology used to analyze the 135% of the
FPG
[[Page 34630]]
income-based criterion, our staff analysis estimates that broadening
the income-based criterion to 150% of the FPG may only have a minimal
impact on national telephone penetration rates, but could add many new
Lifeline subscribers; potentially resulting in an additional $200
million increase in Lifeline expenditures over the levels predicted for
implementation of a 135% standard. We seek comment on this analysis.
Commenters should discuss the staff analysis contained in Appendix K
(see full document), the advantages and disadvantages of a broader
income-based standard and the potential burden to the fund. When
considering their response, commenters should refer to Appendix F (see
full document) for estimated income requirements for various sizes of
households at or below 150% of the FPG.
B. Lifeline Advertising Requirements
4. Although we adopt the Joint Board's recommendation to issue
outreach guidelines, rather than specific requirements, on further
reflection, we think it would be beneficial to explore whether adoption
of rules governing the advertisement of the Lifeline/Link-Up program
would strengthen the operation of these programs. For instance, we seek
comment on whether the Commission should require eligible
telecommunication carriers (ETCs) to print and distribute posters,
flyers, or other print media advertising Lifeline/Link-Up to State,
Federal, or tribal public assistance agencies in their service areas.
If a percentage of the population in a given area speaks a language
other than English, should ETCs be required to distribute materials in
that language? If so, what should the benchmark percentage be?
III. Procedural Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
5. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared the present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the
policies and rules proposed in this FNPRM. Written public comments are
requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM. 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.
B. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
6. The Commission is required by section 254 of the Act to
promulgate rules to implement the universal service provisions of
section 254. On May 8, 1997, the Commission released an Order, 62 FR
32862, June 17, 1997, that adopted rules that reformed its system of
universal service support mechanisms so that universal service is
preserved and advanced as markets move toward competition. Among other
things, the Commission adopted a mechanism to provide discounted
monthly telephone service and installation charges to low-income
households. Over the last few years, important changes in the low-
income community and the Joint Board's Recommended Decision prompt us
to review the low-income universal service support mechanism.
7. In this FNPRM, we seek comment on whether the income-based
criterion in the federal default eligibility criteria should be
increased to 150% of the FPG to make phone service more affordable to
more low-income individuals and families. Applying the same methodology
used to analyze the 135% of the FPG income-based criterion, the
Commission staff analysis estimates that broadening the income-based
criterion to 150% of the FPG may only have a minimal impact on national
telephone penetration rates, but could add many new Lifeline
subscribers. Therefore, we seek comment on whether a broader income-
based criterion should be added even when there could be only a minimal
impact to the national telephone penetration rate.
C. Legal Basis
8. This FNPRM is adopted pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), (4j), 201-
205, 251, 252, and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), (j), 201-205, 251, 252, and 303.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
Rules Will Apply
9. 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 rules adopted herein. 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, unless the Commission has developed one or more definitions that
are appropriate to its activities. 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) meets
any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
10. We have described in detail, supra, in the FRFA, the categories
of entities that may be directly affected by any rules or proposals
adopted in our efforts to reform the universal service low-income
support mechanism. For this IRFA, we hereby incorporate those entity
descriptions by reference.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
11. The FNPRM seeks comment on potential changes to the Federal
default income-based eligibility criterion for the low-income support
mechanism. This potential change will not impact reporting or
recordkeeping requirements; however, it could impact the overall pool
of eligible applicants.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
12. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach
impacting small business, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing
compliance and 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 part thereof, for small entities.
13. In this FNPRM, we seek comment on whether the Commission should
adopt a broader income-based criterion. If a broader income-based
criterion is adopted, this could change the size of the overall pool of
eligible applicants for universal service support for low-income
subscribers.
G. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
14. None.
H. Filing Procedures
15. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, interested
[[Page 34631]]
parties may file comments are due on or before August 23, 2004. Reply
comments are due on or before October 5, 2004. In order to facilitate
review of comments and reply comments, parties should include the name
of the filing party and the date of the filing on all pleadings.
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing
System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.
16. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic
file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs. Generally, only
one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. 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 ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words
in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and directions
will be sent in reply. Or you may obtain a copy of the ASCII Electronic
Transmittal Form (FORM-ET) at http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/email.html.
17. Parties that choose to file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. 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, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-
delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at a new
location in downtown Washington, DC. The address is 236 Massachusetts
Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this
location will be 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.
18. 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are sending this type of
document or using this delivery method It should be addressed for
. . . delivery to . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE.,
paper filings for the Commission's Suite 110, Washington, DC
Secretary. 20002 (8 a.m. to 7 p.m.)
Other messenger-delivered documents, 9300 East Hampton Drive,
including documents sent by overnight Capitol Heights, MD 20743 (8
mail (other than United States Postal a.m. to 5:30 p.m.)
Service Express Mail and Priority
Mail).
United States Postal Service first- 445 12th Street, SW.,
class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Washington, DC 20554.
Mail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
comments on diskette. These diskettes, plus one paper copy, should be
submitted to: Sheryl Todd, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications, at the filing
window at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC
20002. Such a submission 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, proceeding (including the docket number, in
this case WC Docket No. 03-109, type of pleading (comment or reply
comment), 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. In addition,
commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street,
SW., Room CYB402, Washington, DC 20554 (see alternative addresses for
delivery by hand or messenger).
20. Regardless of whether parties choose to file electronically or
by paper, parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in
this docket with the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-B402, Washington,
DC 20554 (see alternative addresses for delivery by hand or messenger)
(telephone 800-378-3160) or via Web site http://www.BCPIWEB.com.
21. 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, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone (800) 378-3160, or via Web site http://www.BCPIWEB.com.
I. Further Information
22. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio
recording, and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by
contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 voice, (202) 418-7365 TTY, or
bmillin@fcc.gov. This FNPRM can also be downloaded in Microsoft Word
and ASCII formats at http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/universal_service/lowincome.html
.
IV. Ordering Clauses
23. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 201-
205, 214, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 36
Communications common carrier, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telephone.
47 CFR Part 54
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-13997 Filed 6-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P