71308 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

entry ‘‘Ozone (8-Hour, 1997): Muncie, adding in its place the entry ‘‘Ozone (8- § 52.770 Identification of plan. IN (Delaware County)’’; and Hour, 1997): Terre Haute, IN (Vigo * * * * * ■ f. Removing the entry for ‘‘Terre Haute County)’’. (e) * * * Hydrocarbon Control Strategy’’ and The revisions read as follows:

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Title Indiana date EPA approval Explanation

******* Ozone (8-Hour, 1997): Evansville, IN (Vanderburgh 6/20/2019 12/27/2019, [insert Federal Reg- 2nd limited maintenance plan. and Warrick Counties). ister citation].

******* Ozone (8-Hour, 1997): Fort Wayne, IN (Allen Coun- 6/20/2019 12/27/2019, [insert Federal Reg- 2nd limited maintenance plan. ty). ister citation]. Ozone (8-Hour, 1997): Jackson Co., IN (Jackson 6/20/2019 12/27/2019, [insert Federal Reg- 2nd limited maintenance plan. County). ister citation]. Ozone (8-Hour, 1997): Greene Co., IN (Greene 6/20/2019 12/27/2019, [insert Federal Reg- 2nd limited maintenance plan. County). ister citation].

******* Ozone (8-Hour, 1997): Muncie, IN (Delaware Coun- 6/20/2019 12/27/2019, [insert Federal Reg- 2nd limited maintenance plan. ty). ister citation].

******* Ozone (8-Hour, 1997): Terre Haute, IN (Vigo Coun- 6/20/2019 12/27/2019, [insert Federal Reg- 2nd limited maintenance plan. ty). ister citation].

*******

[FR Doc. 2019–27544 Filed 12–26–19; 8:45 am] Federal Communications Commission Americans obtain the communications BILLING CODE 6560–50–P will publish a document in the Federal services they need to participate in the Register announcing this effective date. digital economy. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 2. Today, the Commission continues FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Jodie Griffin, Wireline Competition that work to strengthen the Lifeline COMMISSION Bureau, 202–418–7550 or TTY: 202– program’s enrollment, recertification, 418–0484. and reimbursement processes so that limited Universal Service Fund (USF or 47 CFR Part 54 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a Fund) dollars are directed only toward summary of the Commission’s Fifth [WC Docket Nos. 17–287, 11–42 and 09– qualifying low-income consumers. 197; FCC 19–111; FRS 16302] Report and Order, Memorandum Specifically, restoring the states’ proper Opinion and Order and Order on role in designating eligible Bridging the Digital Divide for Low- Reconsideration (Order), in WC Docket telecommunications carriers (ETCs) to Income Consumers Nos. 17–287, 11–42 and 09–197; FCC participate in the Lifeline program, 19–111 adopted October 30, 2019 and AGENCY: Federal Communications clarify the obligations of participating released November 14, 2019. The full Commission. carriers, and take targeted steps to text of this document is available for ACTION: Final rule. improve compliance by Lifeline ETCs public inspection during regular and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in business hours in the FCC Reference SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal the program. The Commission also Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street Communications Commission clarifies several of the program’s rules in SW, Washington, DC 20554 or at the (Commission) acts to restore the response to petitions for reconsideration following internet address: https:// traditional role of states in the eligible and requests for clarification. telecommunications carrier (ETC) docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC- designation process. The Commission 19-111A1.pdf. II. Discussion also acts to strengthen the Lifeline Synopsis 3. In the Order, the Commission takes program’s enrollment, recertification, significant steps to promote the and reimbursement processes so that I. Introduction integrity, effectiveness, and efficiency of limited Universal Service Fund (USF or 1. The Commission’s Lifeline program the Lifeline program. First, the Fund) dollars are directed only toward plays a critical role in closing the digital Commission restores the traditional qualifying low-income consumers. divide for low-income Americans. state role in designating ETCs and DATES: Effective January 27, 2020, Abuse of the program, however, traditional ETC designation categories, except for amendatory instruction 7 continues to be a significant concern while taking steps to increase (§ 54.406(b)) which is effective February and undermines the Lifeline program’s transparency with states to improve 25, 2020 and amendatory instruction 8 integrity and effectiveness. oversight functions. Next, the (§ 54.406(a)) which is effective March Strengthening the accountability of the Commission amends the Lifeline 26, 2020 and amendatory instructions program is therefore essential to program rules to improve the integrity 6.b. (§ 54.404(b)(12)) and 11 ensuring that it effectively and of providers’ enrollment and (§ 54.410(f)), which are delayed. The efficiently helps qualifying low-income recertification processes, and also

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 71309

establishing protections to help prevent financial and technical capability to service area designated by the State improper payment claims before they provide service in its requested service commission.’’ The general rule, in other occur. Finally, the Commission acts to areas.’’ States have also performed words, is that state commissions are improve its rules regarding Lifeline audits, addressed consumer complaints, responsible for designating ETCs. auditing practices. and maintained valuable state matching 10. There are limited exceptions to 4. Respecting the States’ Role in programs. In doing all this, states have the rules. Later provisions in section Program Administration. For the brought to bear personnel and resources 214 address gaps in the ordinary Lifeline program to be successful, the far greater than the Commission alone designation process—areas where a state parties involved in its operations—from could offer. commission may be unable or ill-suited the Commission to the participating 6. By contrast, Congress cast the to exercise designation authority. The ETCs—must respect their particular Commission in a supporting role. For its Commission’s limited role in roles and obligations under the law. To part, the Commission merely designates designating ETCs falls within these that end, in the Order, the Commission carriers where states are ill suited to do gaps. first restores longstanding recognition of so—for example, where states lack 11. The first gap occurs where no the states’ primary role in the ETC jurisdiction, or in unserved areas where common carrier is willing to provide designation process, as established in no carrier is willing to provide USF supported services to all or part of an the Communications Act of 1934 as services. For the two decades since unserved community. In that case, amended (‘‘the Act’’), and restores the Congress passed the section 214(e)(3) generally orders the traditional categories of ETC and ETC Telecommunications Act of 1996, this is Commission and states to (1) identify obligations consistent with section how the Commission understood its the common carriers best able to serve 214(e)(1)(A) of the Act. role. these communities and (2) require them 5. Restoring States’ Traditional and 7. With the 2016 Lifeline Order (FCC to do so. The section divides Lawful Role in ETC Designations. 16–38; 81 FR 33026 (May 24, 2016)), the responsibility for this task along Congress made states—not the Commission departed from the jurisdictional lines: It orders state Commission—primarily responsible for parameters set by statutory text and commissions to address the provision of designating ETCs. And States have longstanding practice. First, that order intrastate services, and orders the vigorously exercised their oversight created a new type of ETC—the Lifeline Commission to address the provision of authority to combat waste, fraud, and Broadband Provider ETC. It then interstate services, as well as services in abuse in the Lifeline program. In some purported to preempt any state areas served by carriers outside of the cases, states have been the first to authority over this new ETC, demoting jurisdiction of state commissions. identify waste, fraud, and abuse by states from the job they had performed 12. The second gap occurs where ‘‘a ETCs—the Hawaii Public Utilities well. Finally, to fill the void it had common carrier providing telephone Commission first identified the issues created by preempting state authority, it exchange service and exchange access with Blue Jay’s overclaims of Tribal adopted a view of the Commission’s role . . . is not subject to the jurisdiction of subscribers, and the Oklahoma under section 214(e) that was expansive a State commission.’’ This provision Corporation Commission ‘‘first enough to permit the Commission to gives the Commission designation identified fraudulent funding requests exercise designation authority over authority over, for example, wireless from Icon Telecom.’’ More recently, an Lifeline Broadband Provider ETCs. In carriers operating in states lacking apparent violation of the Commission’s the Order, the Commission finds that jurisdiction over such carriers and non-usage rule was initially uncovered the actions taken by the Commission in certain Tribal carriers. Congress adopted by an investigation by the Oregon Public the 2016 Lifeline Order were contrary to section 214(e)(6) over a year after the Utility Commission. States have also both statutory text and sound public passage of the Telecommunications Act conducted further investigations of policy. The Commission restores the to rectify the ‘‘oversight’’ that a handful ETCs for which the FCC first identified lawful role of states in the ETC of common carriers might otherwise fall compliance issues. For example, in designation process. outside the jurisdiction of state 2013, following the consent decree 8. Section 214 and the 2016 Lifeline commissions. Without the fix of section resolving the Commission’s Order. To obtain universal service funds 214(e)(6), that oversight would leave investigation of Lifeline reseller for providing Lifeline service, a provider certain carriers—including most TerraCom regarding intracompany must be designated as an ‘‘eligible notably, Tribal carriers—wholly duplicate subscribers, the Indiana telecommunications carrier’’—or ineligible for universal service support. Utility Regulatory Commission ‘‘ETC’’—under section 214(e) of the Act. The legislative history confirms that the conducted its own investigation of Section 214(e)(1) of the Act establishes gap-filling section 214(e)(6) ‘‘w[ould] TerraCom and identified instances of eligibility requirements for ETCs. These apply to only a limited number of waste and abuse. States have also include that common carriers offer the carriers’’ and that it was not ‘‘intended filtered out ineligible carriers by services supported by the USF ‘‘support to restrict or expand the existing refusing designations to those with mechanisms’’ under section 254(c)— jurisdiction of State commissions over substandard services and weeded out Lifeline is one of four such any common carrier.’’ The Commission bad actors by revoking designations for ‘‘mechanisms’’—and that they advertise itself recognized that Congress had not unlawful practices. Most recently, in the availability of those services. intended section 214(e)(6) to ‘‘alter the May 2019, the Illinois Commerce 9. The next paragraph—214(e)(2)— basic framework of section 214(e), Commission (ICC) denied wireless orders state commissions to designate which gives the state commissions the reseller Q Link LLC’s request for a common carriers that meet these principal role in designating eligible Lifeline-only ETC designation. The ICC requirements as ETCs. In relevant part, telecommunications carriers under cited Q Link’s ‘‘inability to provide section 214(e)(2) provides that ‘‘[a] State section 214(e)(2).’’ accurate, consistent and reliable commission shall upon its own motion 13. That is the extent of the information’’ as ‘‘reason enough for it to or upon request designate a common Commission’s role in designating ETCs. deny Q Link’s request for ETC carrier that meets the requirements [for There is no suggestion in sections designation,’’ and found that Q Link eligibility in section 214(e)(1)] as an 214(e)(2), (3), or (6) that the Commission ‘‘failed to demonstrate it has the eligible telecommunications carrier for a can supersede the states’ designation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 71310 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

authority, or that the states’ designation Commission eliminates the Lifeline services that are supported by Federal authority is generally limited to specific Broadband Provider ETC category and universal service support mechanisms’’ services, such as intrastate services. restore the traditional state and Federal under section 254(c). The 2016 Lifeline While section 214(e)(3) limits state roles in designating ETCs under the Act. Order began by interpreting section authority to intrastate services in The Commission does this for two 214(e)(1)(A) not to require an ETC to unserved areas, this specific principal reasons. First, the Commission offer all supported services for the jurisdictional limitation only highlights concludes that the 2016 rules rested on mechanism for which it was designated; the absence of a general jurisdictional a legally insupportable construction of instead, the 2016 Lifeline Order limitation on states’ authority. Instead, section 214(e). Nothing in the 2016 concluded that the obligations in the text of section 214 makes clear that Lifeline Order or the record persuades section 214(e)(1)(A) could be ‘‘tailored Congress gave primary authority for ETC the Commission otherwise. Second, the to match’’ an ETC designation. This designations to the states, and that the Commission concludes that the Lifeline tailoring would allow ETCs to obtain a Commission’s role is merely to fill gaps Broadband Provider rules announced in designation to provide only one in the ordinary designation process. the 2016 Lifeline Order did not serve the supported service, and to trim from 14. This is how the Commission read public interest. Instead, the Commission their Lifeline offerings other services section 214 for nearly two decades— concludes that the record in the that the Commission has designated from the passage of the proceeding demonstrates that the under the Lifeline mechanism. Telecommunications Act until the 2016 traditional designation framework and 19. The statute says otherwise. Again, Lifeline Order. In 2000, the Commission ETC categories better serve the section 214(e)(1)(A) requires an ETC to reviewed the text and legislative history Commission’s direction to efficiently ‘‘offer . . . services’’ that are supported of section 214(e) and concluded that and responsibly promote universal by a universal service ‘‘mechanism[ ].’’ ‘‘state commissions have primary service. Tampering with this framework Lifeline—one of four such mechanisms responsibility for the designation of was not sound policy, nor did it under section 254(c)—supports both [ETCs] under section 214(e)(2).’’ In appropriately balance the interest in voice and broadband internet access 2005, it affirmed this conclusion and promoting competition or encouraging services. Participating in the Lifeline again noted that section 214(e)(2) new providers to participate in the program without assuming any ‘‘provides state commissions with the program, while also guarding the obligations with respect to voice service, primary responsibility for performing program against further waste, fraud, then, conflicts with the requirement in ETC designations.’’ In 2011, the and abuse. section 214(e)(1) that ETCs ‘‘offer the Commission again found that states 17. The Commission begins by services that are supported’’ by the have ‘‘primary jurisdiction to designate concluding that the approach embodied Lifeline program. Forbearance—not ETCs,’’ and that its role was to in the 2016 Lifeline Order was not interpretation—would have been the ‘‘designate[ ] ETCs where states lack supported by the statute. To explain this appropriate way for the Commission to jurisdiction.’’ Even the 2015 Lifeline conclusion, the Commission must refrain from enforcing what section Order and FNPRM (FCC 15–71; 80 FR retrace the long path that the 2016 214(e)(1)(A) plainly requires. But the 40923 (July 14, 2015) and 80 FR 42670 Lifeline Order took around the obstacle Commission did not use this (July 17, 2015)) recognized that posed by the statutory text. In brief, the mechanism here and, in any case, the ‘‘[s]ection 214(e)(2) assigns primary steps on this path were: (1) conditions for forbearance were not met. responsibility for designating ETCs to Reinterpreting section 214(e)(1) to mean the states.’’ that ETCs need not offer all supported Accordingly, the Commission finds that 15. The 2016 Lifeline Order services; (2) relying on this based on the language of section abandoned this longstanding reinterpretation to establish Lifeline 214(e)(1)(A), the Lifeline program is a interpretation. That order created a new broadband support as a ‘‘separate single, uniform support mechanism. category of ETC, which offered only a element of the Lifeline program;’’ (3) ETCs therefore must offer all Lifeline single supported Lifeline service reinterpreting section 214(e)(6) to supported services, unless the ETC (broadband internet access service) and suggest that state commissions have no qualifies for and avails itself of the was subject to the Commission’s (not authority to designate ETCs with respect forbearance granted in the 2016 Lifeline states’) designation authority. Arriving to supported interstate services; and (4) Order, which established limited at this unlikely outcome required preempting states from designating forbearance from section 214(e)(1)’s standing section 214(e) on its head: ETCs for the separate element of Lifeline service requirements, including (1) First, the 2016 Lifeline Order found that broadband support. The 2016 Lifeline targeted forbearance from obligations to section 214(e)(1) authorized an ETC to Order then filled the gap in designation offer broadband internet access service, offer only a single supported service authority it created by (5) reinterpreting and (2) conditional forbearance from rather than all services supported under out of existence the limit on FCC existing non-Lifeline only ETCs’ Lifeline the Lifeline program. This enabled the authority that an FCC-designated ETC voice obligations where several creation of the Lifeline Broadband must be a ‘‘common carrier providing objective competitive criteria are met. Provider ETC. Next, despite the absence telephone exchange service and 20. Second, and relatedly, it follows of any legal or factual conflict justifying exchange access’’ and, (6) alternatively, that Lifeline broadband internet access preemption, the 2016 Lifeline Order forbearing from that same limit on the service support is not a separate preempted state commissions from FCC’s authority. Each of these steps was ‘‘element’’ of the Lifeline program. After designating this new type of ETC. unlawful. concluding that section 214(e)(1) service Then—in part by forbearing from a limit 18. First, ETCs must offer each of the obligations could be tailored to on the Commission’s own authority— Lifeline supported services designated particular services, the 2016 Lifeline the 2016 Lifeline Order determined that by the Commission. Section 214(e)(1) Order deemed Lifeline broadband the Commission had newfound requires that a ‘‘common carrier internet access service support a authority to designate this new category designated as an eligible ‘‘separate element of the Lifeline of ETC under section 214(e)(6). telecommunications carrier’’ must, program.’’ But again, section 214(e)(1) 16. Restoring Traditional Designation ‘‘throughout the service area for which does not permit the a` la carte Roles and ETC Categories. The the designation is received,’’ ‘‘offer the designation of services; instead, it

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 71311

groups ETC service offerings by underscores that the states’ designation barrier to investment and competition in universal service mechanism. authority is not so limited under section the Lifeline marketplace.’’ 21. The notion of separate, service- 214(e)(2); if Congress had intended to 27. This reasoning stumbles from the specific ‘‘elements’’ has no statutory limit states’ designation authority under gate because section 706 does not basis. The 2016 Lifeline Order patches 214(e)(2) to intrastate services, it would furnish a basis for the preemption of together authority for this inventive have expressly done so. states’ designation authority. The approach by referring to sections 24. Fourth, the 2016 Lifeline Order’s Commission has previously concluded 214(e)(3), 214(e)(1), 254(e), and the 2014 decision to preempt states from that the directives in section 706 to E-Rate Order (FCC 14–99; 79 FR 49160 designating Lifeline Broadband Provider promote broadband deployment ‘‘are (Aug. 19, 2014)). Standing alone, these ETCs was unlawful. This preemption better interpreted as hortatory, and not authorities provide little support for the rested largely on the ground that as grants of regulatory authority.’’ But 2016 Lifeline Order’s novel allowing state commissions to designate even if section 706 did confer regulatory interpretation: The three statutory those ETCs would hinder the goals of authority, it would be trumped by the provisions respectively confer Federal universal service and dampen more specific grants of authority in designation authority in unserved areas, broadband competition. The section 214(e). ‘‘[I]t is a commonplace of specify which carriers can receive Commission disagrees with both statutory construction that the specific universal service support, and govern justifications and find that this governs the general.’’ In contrast to how that support can be used. And they preemption analysis was otherwise sections 214(e)(2) and 214(e)(6), which offer no more support for the notion of flawed in several respects. expressly confer designation authority, a universal service ‘‘element’’ when 25. As an initial matter, no conflict section 706 merely directs the read together. Accordingly, the with Federal law justifies preemption. Commission and states to encourage the Commission concludes that the 2016 As the 2016 Lifeline Order explains, deployment of broadband services and Lifeline Order’s distinction underlying ‘‘[F]ederal law preempts any conflicting generally instructs the Commission to Lifeline Broadband Provider state laws or regulatory actions that take action to accelerate deployment if designations fails on its own terms. would prohibit a private party from it finds advanced telecommunications 22. Third, section 214(e)(6) does not complying with [F]ederal law or that capability is not being deployed in a suggest that state commissions lack the ‘stand[ ] as an obstacle to the reasonable and timely fashion. The authority to designate ETCs with respect accomplishment and execution’ of specific grant of designation authority to to supported interstate services. The [F]ederal objectives.’’ Here, while states prevails over section 706’s general 2016 Lifeline Order found it ambiguous Congress established the goal of language regarding broadband whether, for the Commission to have promoting broadband deployment in deployment. jurisdiction under section 214(e)(6), a section 254(b), it also placed the 28. Furthermore, as a practical matter, carrier seeking ETC designation must be primary responsibility for designating the preemption regime instituted by the (1) entirely outside a state commission’s ETCs on state commissions in section 2016 Lifeline Order created confusion jurisdiction or (2) only outside a state 214(e)(2). Read together, these and anomalies in the division of labor commission’s jurisdiction with respect provisions establish that section 254(b) between the Commission and the states to a particular service, even if a state seeks to promote broadband deployment that the Commission’s new approach commission retains general jurisdiction to the extent possible within the state- avoids. The 2016 Lifeline Order over the carrier. Seizing on this focused designation process set forth in preempted states from designating supposed ambiguity, the 2016 Lifeline section 214. Disregarding section Lifeline Broadband Providers, but left Order held that section 214(e)(6) 214(e)(2), the 2016 Lifeline Order found untouched states’ designation authority provided the Commission the authority a purported ‘‘conflict[ ]’’ between state over traditional ETCs—who in some to take over designations where a carrier designation of Lifeline Broadband cases could effectively become Lifeline provides only a service that is Providers and the Commission’s Broadband Provider ETCs without jurisdictionally interstate (for example, implementation of the goals of section seeking FCC designation. The 2016 broadband internet access service). 254(b). But this ‘‘conflict’’ assumes, Lifeline Order also suggests that states 23. The Commission sees no such without explanation, that the relevant could oversee federally designated ambiguity. First, the jurisdictional goal under section 254(b) is promoting Lifeline Broadband Providers in their nature of a particular service that a broadband deployment in the abstract, jurisdictions vis-a`-vis consumer carrier offers is irrelevant for the unconstrained by the state-focused protection. In other words, the 2016 purposes of determining whether the designation process mandated by Lifeline Order preempted state authority carrier itself is ‘‘subject to the section 214. The Commission finds that to designate Lifeline Broadband jurisdiction of a State commission.’’ no such conflict exists, and that the Provider ETCs, but left states with And while section 214(e)(6) may not principles listed in section 254(b) may uncertain residual authority to oversee address the situation where specific not lawfully be construed in a manner and impose conditions on Lifeline services fall outside the jurisdiction of a that would ignore or override other Broadband Provider ETCs. The state commission, there is a ready statutory provisions, including the state- Commission finds that the arbitrariness explanation for that silence: Section focused framework of section 214(e). of this result is another reason for 214(e)(1) does not countenance the 26. In addition, the 2016 Lifeline reversing the Commission’s preemption separate designation of specific Order wrongly relied on section 706 as decision. interstate services. Sealing this authority for preemption. Section 706, 29. Conversely, the Commission finds conclusion is the fact that other among other things, directs the that the state designation process provisions in section 214(e) plainly Commission to focus its efforts on furthers Federal universal service contemplate states designating ETCs removing barriers to investment in goals—it does not ‘‘thwart’’ them. As that provide both interstate and ‘‘advanced telecommunications explained further, the traditional state intrastate services. The fact that services.’’ The 2016 Lifeline Order designation role better serves section Congress expressly limited states’ found that the burdens of obtaining 254(b)’s policy goals by facilitating designation authority under section separate designations from states ran thorough state reviews of carriers 214(e)(3) to intrastate services afoul of this directive by posing ‘‘a seeking ETC designations, as well as

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 71312 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

state monitoring of carriers who have the carrier need not provide telephone 35. The traditional framework also received ETC designations. This helps exchange service or exchange access for has the advantage of providing strong prevent, detect, and curb waste, fraud, any length of time beyond when the state and Federal oversight of ETCs. The and abuse in the program, which in turn carrier’s ETC application is pending at cooperative federalism that exists under promotes the efficient and responsible the Commission. the traditional framework provides use of limited program funds. States’ 32. The effect is to remove the phrase states certainty with respect to their role traditional designation role also ‘‘providing telephone exchange access in monitoring and enforcing the encourages states to maintain their own service and exchange access’’ from the activities of ETCs. This in turn support programs, furthering the statute. By emptying the word encourages states to devote staff and universal service goals. ‘‘providing’’ of all meaning, the resources to thoroughly reviewing ETC 30. The Commission notes that the Commission’s interpretations violate the designation applications and policing reversal of the preemption decision in canon of statutory construction dictating ETCs, providing a stronger system for the 2016 Lifeline Order in no way that a statute should be interpreted in a promoting the efficient use of universal conflicts with the Commission’s manner that gives effect to each of its service funds, protecting Lifeline determination in other contexts—such words and clauses. If Congress intended consumers, and reducing waste, fraud, as in the Restoring Internet Freedom for the provision to have the overly and abuse than if states did not serve Order (83 FR 7852 (Feb. 22, 2018))—that broad meaning that the Commission these critical roles. States have a record broadband internet access service is ascribed to it in the 2016 Lifeline Order, of more than twenty years of sound jurisdictionally interstate and that Congress would have used more performance in their statutory role and inconsistent state and local regulation expansive language in section 214(e)(6). monitoring the ETCs they designate. As may be preempted on that ground. The Commission therefore finds that the NARUC has noted, states have been Several commenters argue otherwise, 2016 Lifeline Order’s interpretations of ‘‘crucial’’ in ‘‘policing the [F]ederal fund relying on the premise that states’ ETC section 214(e)(6) unlawfully expanded to eliminate bad actors.’’ Many states designation authority under section the Commission’s jurisdiction to have robust processes for analyzing ETC 214(e)(2) can be preempted simply designate ETCs. designation petitions, addressing because of the interstate nature of 33. Sixth, and finally, the 2016 concerns with Lifeline-supported broadband internet access service. This Lifeline Order’s alternative forbearance services, ensuring that the ETCs they argument ignores the fact that section from section 214(e)(6)’s requirement designate satisfy the Lifeline service and 214 itself expressly confers on state that carriers be providing telephone other requirements, and preventing and commissions the primary responsibility exchange service and exchange access identifying waste, fraud, and abuse in to designate carriers that are subject to was improper. Section 10 provides that the Lifeline program. States’ traditional state jurisdiction. It also ignores—the designation role has also encouraged the the Commission may forbear from absence of a conflict justifying continuation of state matching applying provisions of the Act to preemption. The Commission therefore programs. carriers and services—not that it can finds no inconsistency between the 36. By contrast, state commenters reversal of the unlawful preemption in forbear from statutory limitations on its explain in the record that the stand- the 2016 Lifeline Order and the own authority. To read section 10 alone Federal Lifeline Broadband Commission’s preemption of otherwise would render statutory Provider ETC category ‘‘complicates inconsistent state and local regulation of constraints on the Commission administration,’’ ‘‘frustrates’’ state broadband internet access services in meaningless: Take, for example, the policies and procedures, ‘‘undermine[s] other contexts. absurdity of the Commission forbearing state programs,’’ and ‘‘adds an 31. Fifth, the 2016 Lifeline Order from the limitations imposed by the unnecessary layer of complexity to the unlawfully expanded the Commission’s phrase ‘‘interstate or foreign’’ in the ETC framework.’’ State commenters also designation authority under section Communications Act. This would express concern that the Lifeline 214(e)(6). Section 214(e)(6) gives the expand the Commission’s authority to Broadband Provider ETC designation Commission designation authority only all telecommunications services, creates uncertainty with respect to ‘‘in the case of a common carrier obliterating the jurisdictional divide states’ role in monitoring and enforcing providing telephone exchange access established by Congress. Clearly, ETC activities, and engenders consumer service and exchange access that is not Congress did not intend the confusion. subject to the jurisdiction of a State Commission to use forbearance to so 37. This burdensome creation cannot commission.’’ The limit on the aggrandize itself. Here, the qualifying be justified on the grounds that it is Commission’s authority is clear: The language ‘‘providing telephone necessary to promote competition, as Commission’s designation authority exchange service and exchange access’’ some commenters maintain. To the under section 214(e)(6) is predicated, in limits the category of carriers that the contrary, the traditional state role has part, on a common carrier ‘‘providing Commission may designate under not resulted in a lack of competition in telephone exchange access service or section 214(e)(6). It therefore constrains the Lifeline marketplace or lack of exchange access.’’ Yet the 2016 Lifeline the Commission’s authority—not the affordable broadband internet access Order interpreted this limit on the authority of ETCs. Section 10 does not service for Lifeline consumers. The Commission’s authority to mean (1) that authorize the Commission to forbear traditional designation roles and ETC the supported service need not be from the limitation on its own authority. categories better allow the Commission telephone exchange service or exchange 34. The Traditional ETC Designation and states to appropriately balance the access, (2) that the carrier itself need not Framework Best Promotes the Goals of interest in encouraging more providers provide telephone exchange service or the Lifeline Program. In addition to to participate in the Lifeline program exchange access, (3) that the carrier lacking legal authority for the 2016 and promote competitive broadband need not have any facilities to provide approach, the Commission options, innovation, and choice for telephone exchange service or exchange independently concludes that the goals Lifeline consumers, while also guarding access, (4) that the carrier need not have of the Lifeline program are best served the program against further waste, fraud, any customers for telephone exchange when states play the primary role in and abuse. Existing ETCs continue to service or exchange access, and (5) that ETC designations. participate in the Lifeline program

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 71313

based on their traditional state finds that there was no policy basis to program statistics and other information designations and in some cases have depart from the framework established available on its website. Making the expanded their Lifeline offerings to new by Congress, and that, in any case, the additional subscribership data available states, and new providers continue to Commission lacked the authority to do increases program transparency and receive traditional state ETC so. For these reasons, the Commission continues to promote accountability in designations, permitting them to here concludes that the approach in the the Lifeline program. Better insight into participate in the Lifeline program. As 2016 Lifeline Order is foreclosed by the the program also will provide states of October 1, 2019, for the September plain text of section 214 and hence was with another tool in detecting anomalies data month, the National Lifeline contrary to law. Moreover, to the extent that might indicate wasteful and Accountability Database (NLAD) data that the statute is ambiguous, the fraudulent activity in the Lifeline indicates that approximately 355 unique Commission believes that the reading of program. holding companies claimed Lifeline section 214 endorsed in the Order far 43. The Commission also agrees with support for providing approximately 3.8 better comports with the Act’s language, state commenters that sharing million Lifeline subscribers with structure, and policy objectives, for the information regarding trends related to Lifeline-supported broadband internet reasons stated herein, and is thus at eligibility check failures, for example, access service that meets the minimum a reasonable exercise of the will enable states to recognize Commission’s minimum service discretion delegated by Congress. compliance issues and act standards. 40. Consistent with the actions to appropriately. The states play an 38. Other Considerations. restore states’ traditional ETC important role in identifying and Importantly, the elimination of Lifeline designation role, § 54.201(j) of the rules stopping wasteful and fraudulent Broadband Provider designations does is eliminated, which precluded states activity in the Lifeline program, and the not preclude new providers from from designating Lifeline Broadband Commission finds that it is essential to entering the Lifeline program or prevent Providers. The rule change will become the integrity of the program that Lifeline subscribers from receiving effective January 27, 2020. In addition, evidence of suspicious activity is shared Lifeline discounts for qualifying because of the elimination of the with the appropriate state officials. broadband internet access service under Lifeline Broadband Provider Therefore, the Commission instructs current rules. Providers interested in designations, §§ 54.202(d)(1) through (3) USAC to develop a process by which it participating in the Lifeline program and (e) and 54.205(c) of the rules are will share with the Commission staff, remain able to obtain ETC status eliminated. The Commission finds that the Commission’s Office of Inspector through existing state designation there is no need for a transition period General (OIG), and relevant state processes or from the Commission before the rule changes take effect agencies’ information regarding where the Commission has designation because, currently, no provider has a suspicious activity. To further the authority under section 214(e)(6). Federal Lifeline Broadband Provider sharing of information regarding such Further, Lifeline customers are able to designation. The rule changes will activity, USAC should work with state receive discounts on Lifeline service become effective January 27, 2020. personnel to identify appropriate state offerings that include broadband 41. Increased Transparency with officials who should have access to internet access service. The Commission Stated to Improve Program Oversight. these reports. USAC is instructed to also clarifies that while section 254(e) The Commission next directs the make suspicious reports and trends authorizes the Commission to provide Universal Service Administrative Lifeline reimbursements only to ETCs, Company (USAC) to take a number of available upon request from the state the statute and Lifeline program rules measures intended to increase the officials, and USAC is cautioned to do not preclude ETCs from offering transparency of the Lifeline program ensure that the sharing of data, which broadband internet access service and support enforcement against could potentially contain sensitive satisfying the Lifeline minimum service program non-compliance. In the 2017 information, complies with the Privacy standards through affiliated broadband Lifeline Order and NPRM (FCC 17–155; Act and any other restrictions. The internet access service providers that 83 FR 2075 and 83 FR 2104 (Jan. 16, record is clear that the states value the operate under the ETC’s existing 2018)), the Commission sought information, and the Commission designation. However, the Commission comment on the types of reports USAC encourages the states to use the data makes clear that where ETCs offer should make available to states and provided in a way that furthers the qualifying broadband internet access information that should be shared with integrity of the Lifeline program. service to Lifeline subscribers through the relevant state agencies to increase 44. Improving Program Integrity in such affiliated entities, only the ETC is transparency and accountability within Program Enrollment and Recertification. eligible to receive reimbursement from the Lifeline program. State agencies The Commission next turns to the Lifeline program, and the ETC support the proposal that USAC notify improving the Lifeline program’s remains legally responsible for ensuring the Commission and state agencies of enrollment and recertification compliance with the requirements and suspicious ETC activity within the procedures to prevent waste, fraud, and obligations for ETCs in the statute and Lifeline program and encouraged further abuse in the program. First, the in the rules, as well as all Lifeline data sharing as an additional means for Commission establishes new rules and program rules and reporting weeding out waste, fraud, and abuse in limitations on ETCs’ use of enrollment requirements. the Lifeline program. representatives to remove incentives to 39. Conclusion. In the 2016 Lifeline 42. In light of the support, the commit fraud and abuse in the Lifeline Order, the Commission interfered with Commission directs USAC to compile eligibility determination process. a process that has functioned smoothly and make available on its website Second, the Commission acts to for over twenty years, without a program aggregate subscribership data, improve the integrity of Lifeline compelling reason, and without the including data broken out at the county enrollments and direct USAC to proper authority to do so. For over level and by service type. USAC shall continue targeted reviews of enrollment twenty years, state commissions have compile and present the data in a way documentation. Finally, the performed well in their statutory role of that will be most clear to the states and Commission requires additional designating ETCs. The Commission the public. USAC already makes documentation during the annual

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 71314 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

recertification process for certain has long held that ETCs are liable for investigations and reports have Lifeline subscribers. rule violations committed by their provided more indications that 45. Preventing Waste, Fraud, and agents or representatives, but there is no enrollment representative commissions Abuse by Enrollment Representatives. specific Commission rule targeting create incentives that increase the The Commission first concludes that enrollment representative misbehavior. likelihood of waste, fraud, and abuse in ETCs should be prohibited from paying 47. Since the 2012 Lifeline Order (FCC the program. The Commission OIG’s commissions based on the number of 12–11; 77 FR 12952 (March 2, 2012)), 2018 Semiannual Report to Congress submitted Lifeline applications or there have been reports of ETCs hiring noted that a Lifeline enrollment agent approved enrollments to individuals enrollment representatives who did not ‘‘pled guilty to conspiracy to commit who enroll Lifeline subscribers or who comply with the Lifeline program rules wire fraud’’ and was ordered to pay verify eligibility of Lifeline subscribers for eligibility determinations. It is restitution to the Commission of over on behalf of ETCs. In this context, the common practice for ETCs to offer $200,000 for having enrolled ‘‘850–950 Commission understands commissions for agents to enroll non-existent Lifeline customers in the ‘‘commissions’’ to broadly include consumers in the Lifeline program. program’’ and having received direct financial compensation or other However, even ETCs have commission for those fake enrollments. incentives such as non-cash rewards acknowledged the mixed incentives 50. Finally, in October 2018, the and travel incentives. In addition, the these compensation schemes foster, Commission released the largest Notice Commission codifies the requirement with TracFone, for example, filing a of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture that USAC register all Lifeline ETC petition asking the Commission to (NAL) to date against a Lifeline provider enrollment representatives. For these ‘‘prohibit[ ] incentive-based agent when it proposed a $63 million purposes, the Commission defines an compensation.’’ Moreover, members of forfeiture against American Broadband enrollment representative as an Congress have expressed concern to the & Telecommunications Company employee, agent, contractor, or Commission about the use of enrollment (American Broadband). American subcontractor, acting on behalf of an representatives who fraudulently enroll Broadband’s agents apparently ETC or third-party organization, who subscribers in the Lifeline program. repeatedly enrolled ineligible or fake directly or indirectly provides 48. The Commission also has tangible subscribers and relied on master agents information to USAC or a state entity evidence of enrollment representative and sales agents paid on commission. administering the Lifeline Program for impropriety leading to waste and abuse Over 42,000 customers were apparently the purpose of eligibility verification, of the program. In December 2016, the claimed by American Broadband over enrollment, recertification, subscriber Commission’s Enforcement Bureau the NAL period, and many of those were personal information updates, benefit entered into a Consent Decree with claimed due to improper enrollments by transfers, or de-enrollment. The Lifeline ETC Total Call Mobile (TCM), the agents. Commission also makes clear that ETCs where TCM admitted it used a 51. In the 2017 Lifeline Order and are ultimately responsible for ensuring commission compensation system for NPRM, the Commission sought that all enrollment representatives enrolling Lifeline subscribers that had comment on prohibiting an ETC from register with USAC, and ETCs will be resulted in ‘‘[h]undreds of TCM field offering or providing ETC personnel subject to enforcement action if an agents [engaging] in fraudulent practices with commissions based on enrollments individual who has not registered with to enroll consumers who were . . . or verification of eligibility and on USAC acts as an enrollment otherwise not eligible for the Lifeline codifying a requirement that ETC representative on that ETC’s behalf. The program.’’ TCM had ‘‘sought and representatives who enroll consumers in combination of (1) prohibiting ETCs received reimbursement for tens of Lifeline must register with USAC. The from paying commissions to individuals thousands of consumers who did not Commission stated its belief that who enroll Lifeline subscribers or who meet the Lifeline eligibility prohibiting commissions related to provide information for eligibility requirements,’’ and TCM agreed to pay enrolling subscribers in the Lifeline verification, recertification and changes a fine of $30 million dollars for violating program ‘‘may benefit ratepayers by to subscribers’ information, and (2) the Lifeline rules. reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in the requiring registration of each individual 49. Even with public reports of program.’’ It also noted that many ETCs enrollment representative, will help to enrollment abuse and successful use commissions as a means of ensure accountability and prompt ETCs enforcement actions against Lifeline compensating sales employees and to crack down on improper behavior ETCs, the Commission’s insight into the contractors and that such compensation before it happens, thereby preventing day-to-day enrollment operations of all schemes ‘‘can encourage the employees waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline ETCs is limited. The General and agents of ETCs to enroll subscribers program. Accounting Office (GAO) raised in the program regardless of eligibility, 46. Prohibiting Enrollment concerns in 2017, when it confirmed in enroll consumers in the program Representative Commissions. Much of a report on its performance audit of the without their consent, or engage in other the waste, fraud, and abuse in the program that, after conducting extensive practices that increase waste, fraud, and Lifeline program revealed by audits, data review and covert investigations abuse in the program.’’ enforcement investigations, and into ETC Lifeline enrollment practices, 52. In response to the 2017 Lifeline criminal proceedings has involved non- the Commission and USAC ‘‘have Order and NPRM, numerous compliance by the ETC employees and limited knowledge about potentially commenters supported limiting or contractors charged with reviewing adverse incentives that providers might prohibiting ETCs from offering or applicants’ eligibility documentation offer employees to enroll [Lifeline] providing commissions to sales agents and enrolling new Lifeline subscribers. subscribers’’ but noted that apparent or employees who verify the eligibility However, the Commission’s rules have findings of large-scale improper of potential Lifeline subscribers. Some thus far not directly addressed the enrollments from enforcement commenters suggested that the common practice by ETCs of providing investigations was cause for concern. Commission should only address commissions for enrollment The GAO raised similar concerns commissions for third-party sales agents representatives to enroll consumers in regarding the recertification process. or representatives. However, while an the Lifeline program. The Commission Since that report was issued, additional ETC may have more supervision over its

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 71315

direct employees than third-party sales the conduct of the agents hired by the rules.... [including] data agents or representatives, the company ranged from enrolling manipulation to defeat NLAD Commission does not believe that subscribers who were apparently not protections, using personally identifying employees are immune from the eligible and apparently falsifying information of an eligible subscriber to financial motivation that commissions eligibility documentation, to apparently enroll non-eligible subscribers, and might offer to commit potentially creating false identities and enrolling obtaining false certifications from fraudulent activity. Several commenters false and deceased individuals into the subscribers.’’ In light of recent also suggested that any limitation on program. While an ETC is liable for the developments, such as the American commissions was unnecessary or actions of its agents and representatives, Broadband NAL where several needed further evaluation in light of the and the Commission has the authority to enrollment representatives allegedly rollout of the National Verifier. While recover improper reimbursements engaged in the aforementioned practices the National Verifier plays an important distributed to ETCs, the record and the OIG Report citing of an role in helping to address waste, fraud, demonstrates that the liability has not enrollment representative who suffered and abuse in the program, the been sufficient to successfully deter criminal penalties for fraudulently Commission does not believe that it will fraud committed by employees and enrolling subscribers in Lifeline, the eliminate the financial incentives for agents. The Commission believes Commission concludes that codifying in individuals to attempt to defraud the prohibiting ETCs from offering the Commission’s rules the requirement Lifeline program. Commissions based commissions to certain employees or that specified ETC enrollment on the number of Lifeline applications agents, along with other measures taken representatives must register with USAC or successful Lifeline enrollments are in the Order, will prevent improper would help to combat waste, fraud, and one such incentive, and by limiting enrollments before they happen. abuse. 55. Enrollment Representative them, the Commission removes a 57. Several commenters supported a Registration with USAC. To further financial incentive for committing Commission rule requiring that ETCs’ prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, the fraudulent activity. enrollment representatives register with 53. Based on the record and to limit Commission next requires that all ETC USAC to submit information to the a potential source for fraud or abuse in enrollment representatives register with NLAD or National Verifier. The the program, the Commission prohibits USAC to access USAC’s Lifeline Commission agrees the requirement ETCs from offering or providing systems in the process of Lifeline would provide clarity to all parties and commissions to enrollment enrollment, benefit transfers, subscriber representatives and their direct information updates, recertification, and would assist the Commission and USAC supervisors based on the number of de-enrollment. In July 2017, USAC was in detecting and investigating potential consumers who apply for or are enrolled directed to require enrollment waste, fraud, or abuse by an ETC’s in the Lifeline program with that representatives of ETCs to register with enrollment representatives. The eligible telecommunications carrier. USAC to enable USAC to both verify the Commission therefore amends the This restriction applies to employees, identity of individual enrollment Commission’s rules and requires each agents, officers, or contractors working representatives and ‘‘determine the ETC enrollment representative to on behalf of the ETC who enroll Lifeline ETC(s) he or she works for.’’ USAC was register with USAC and obtain a unique applicants, review eligibility documents directed to provide each enrollment representative identification number. or recertification forms, including sales representative with a unique identifier When enrolling or recertifying and field agents, and any direct to be used by the enrollment individuals in the Lifeline Program, supervisors of those individuals, representative to interact with NLAD ETCs must use the Lifeline Program whether employed by the ETC or and to lock enrollment representatives Application Form ‘‘in all states and employed by a third-party contractor of out of the NLAD ‘‘for a set period of territories to obtain the information the ETC. For purposes of the rule, an time after too many invalid subscriber necessary to evaluate whether a ETC’s payment to a third-party entity entry attempts.’’ USAC was further consumer is eligible to receive Lifeline that in turn provides commissions to an directed to incorporate the data gained service and to obtain the consumer’s enrollment representative is subject to from the enrollment representative certifications,’’ and the Lifeline Program the prohibition. This restriction is not registration system into its audit Annual Recertification Form ‘‘in all intended to prevent ETCs from using findings and to report any suspected states and territories to recertify the customer service representatives to abuse by individual enrollment eligibility [of] subscribers who are assist consumers in the Lifeline representatives to the Commission’s OIG receiving Lifeline service.’’ As such, an application and recertification ‘‘for evaluation as to whether civil or ETC will be in violation of section processes. The Commission adds criminal action is appropriate and to the 54.410 of the Commission’s rules, as § 54.406(b) of the Commission’s rules to Enforcement Bureau for administrative well as this new rule, if the ETC’s prohibit ETCs from utilizing action and remedies.’’ enrollment representative enrolling a commission structures for those 56. The Commission then asked for consumer in Lifeline or submitting a enrollment representatives involved in public comment on codifying a rule to consumer’s recertification form does not the eligibility determination, enrollment require enrollment representative enter their representative identification process, or recertification process. These registration in the 2017 Lifeline Order number as required by the rule and by changes will become effective February and NPRM. The Commission sought Section 5 of the Lifeline Program 25, 2020. comment on having the representative Application Form and Section 5 of the 54. The Commission expects that the registration identifiers be used when Lifeline Program Annual Recertification targeted prohibition of certain practices enrolling consumers via the National Form. ETCs are responsible for ensuring by ETC employees and agents will help Verifier, as well as when interacting that their enrollment representatives reduce the incentive for enrollment, with the NLAD. The Commission complete this registration process. This customer service, and recertification reiterated that it is ‘‘aware of certain registration process does not absolve employees to commit fraud against the practices of sales representatives ETCs of Commission rule or state law Lifeline program. In the Commission’s resulting in improper enrollments or violations committed by their investigation of American Broadband, otherwise violating the Lifeline enrollment representatives or other

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 71316 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

employees. The rule shall become fraudulent behavior by specific characterize their enrollment effective March 26, 2020. enrollment representatives, especially representatives as direct employees to 58. For the purposes of the ETC because it is not uncommon for minimize USAC’s ability to oversee representative registration system, all enrollment representatives to be enrollment representative activity, enrollment representatives must register employed by multiple ETCs. The creating an avenue for waste, fraud, and with USAC and receive a unique requested enrollment representative abuse. As such, the Commission identifier. In order to register, each such information is narrowly tailored and is believes that it is appropriate for this ETC enrollment representative must no broader than necessary to verify the registration requirement to include provide information that USAC, after identity of the enrollment representative direct ETC employees, better consultation with the Bureau and the before providing him or her access to positioning the Commission, USAC, and Office of Managing Director, determines the NLAD and National Verifier and to even ETCs to address potentially is necessary to identify and contact him enable USAC to monitor the activities of fraudulent activity. or her; this information may include specific enrollment representatives. 61. One stakeholder group specifically first and last name, date of birth, the last Furthermore, this information will suggested that the Commission issue a four digits of his or her social security allow USAC and others to take action Public Notice seeking further comment number, personal email address, and against an enrollment representative on the enrollment representative residential address. It is critical that who has engaged in noncompliant or registration requirement. However, the USAC confirms that individuals that fraudulent behavior and prevent such a Commission provided ample notice to interact with its systems are actually representative from enrolling or stakeholders and sought comment on a who they claim to be, and the recertifying Lifeline subscribers for any range of issues impacting this effort in Commission expects that this ETC. Given the sensitive nature of this the 2017 Lifeline Order and NPRM. The information would allow USAC to information, the Commission directs 2017 Lifeline Order and NPRM sought conduct a successful identity check USAC to comply with both the Privacy comment on the codification process during the registration process for the Act of 1974 and the Federal Information generally, how the Commission should vast majority of registrants. In light of Security Management Act of 2002. In define an ETC enrollment ETCs’ concerns about requiring their implementing this change, the representative, what information should employees to submit the last four digits Commission recognizes that USAC may, be solicited for this database, and what of their social security number to the for administrative efficiency, privacy and security practices should be registration system, the Commission consolidate the registration system used to safeguard this information. permits USAC to make the submission codified in the Order with existing or These are all considerations that the of such information optional. However, future registration processes that it uses Commission acts on, and the suggestion the Commission notes that if a registrant to allow access to its technological that stakeholders did not have ample declines to provide the last four digits systems (for example, allowing notice or time to comment on these of his or her social security number, that authorized certifying officers to log into issues is not supported by the factual registration may be significantly less the Lifeline Claims System). history of this proceeding. likely to be automatically validated 62. TracFone Wireless, Inc. through the third-party identity check, 60. The Commission believes that (TracFone) also raised several proposals thus requiring the registrant to provide these security measures and the for addressing different aspects of the additional documentation confirming narrowly tailored nature of the personal enrollment representative registration his or her identity to complete the information that USAC is collecting process. TracFone suggested that the registration process. Once issued, the address the concerns that stakeholders Commission prohibit third party agents representative identification number have recently expressed regarding a from representing more than one will be tied to a specific enrollment registration requirement. These Lifeline provider at any one time. representative and will not be stakeholders also raised concerns about However, the Commission believes that transferable. To ensure compliance, the the application of any registration such a prohibition would be overly Commission also concludes that ETCs requirement to direct ETC employees broad and unsupported by the are responsible for the proper and suggested that any direct ETC proceeding’s record. TracFone also enrollment of their representatives in employees not be required to submit the argued that registration should only be this system, as an ETC’s enrollment same level of personal information as required for individuals involved in the representative needs to be registered agents or representatives not directly eligibility verification process if those with USAC prior to enrolling or employed by an ETC. However, limiting individuals are compensated with recertifying consumers in the Lifeline the personal information collected for commissions. However, since the Order program and prior to completing and those individuals to the individual’s prohibits commissions for enrollment submitting the Lifeline Program name and business contact information representatives and their supervisors, Application Form and Lifeline Program would impede USAC’s ability to applying the registration requirement Annual Recertification forms. independently verify the identity of only to representatives who receive 59. The Commission recognizes the registered individuals and could commission-based compensation would concern with collecting and retaining obscure potential duplicate render the requirement meaningless. personal information from ETC registrations. Also, in addition to USAC and the Commission would lose enrollment representatives; however, documenting fraudulent activity from the ability to monitor enrollment such information is necessary to verify sales agents and external representatives’ practices and to the identity of the person completing representatives, the Commission has proactively address potential fraud enrollment representative activities, and documented apparently fraudulent committed by these individuals. to assign that individual a unique practices executed by direct ETC 63. As part of the enrollment identification number to access the employees. A two-tiered approach to representative registration process, the NLAD and the National Verifier. In registering enrollment representatives Commission also requires individual particular, it is essential that USAC and would create an unacceptable risk of enrollment representatives with direct the Commission be able to monitor for fake or duplicate accounts and could access to USAC’s systems to sign a user and detect patterns of noncompliant or give ETCs the opportunity to improperly agreement for NLAD and the National

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 71317

Verifier before gaining access to NLAD be part of the same household if they do another Lifeline subscriber, the or the National Verifier. The not contribute to and share in the Commission finds it necessary to restrict Commission directs USAC to develop a household income and expenses. The the recordation of the IEH worksheet in user agreement that requires these IEH worksheet asks several questions the NLAD. Accordingly, the enrollment representatives to that help the ETC and subscriber Commission amends § 54.404(b)(3) of acknowledge that they will only use determine if the subscriber is an the Commission’s rules to permit ETCs NLAD and the National Verifier for the independent household in the event to record an IEH worksheet in the NLAD specified purposes and that their access that another subscriber lives at the same only when the NLAD has alerted the to either or both databases may be address. The Commission’s rules require ETC that the prospective subscriber suspended or terminated for that the IEH worksheet certifying shares the same residential address as unauthorized or unlawful use. compliance with the one-subscription- another Lifeline subscriber is a Individual enrollment representatives per-household rule be completed at the reasonable approach to support USAC’s with direct access to these systems must time of enrollment if the consumer efforts in identifying duplicate re-submit the user agreements annually resides at the same address as another addresses. ETCs shall not record an IEH and must also confirm in USAC’s individual receiving a Lifeline benefit worksheet in NLAD in any other database that their contact information and during any recertification in which situation. These changes shall be is up to date within 30 days of any the subscriber changes households, and effective January 27, 2020. change in such information. This will as a result, shares an address with 68. Finally, the rule does not alter ensure that enrollment representatives’ another Lifeline subscriber. However, an ETCs’ conduct in NLAD opt-out states information in the database remains ETC often will record the collection of (California, Oregon, and Texas) because current and that the enrollment an IEH worksheet in the NLAD and note the rule only covers the information that representative is still actively using the that the applicant is in an independent ETCs submit to the NLAD. More National Verifier or the NLAD on behalf economic household, even if the specifically, ETCs in NLAD opt-out of the ETC. In operating the ETC subscriber does not share an address states must continue to follow the representative registration system, with other Lifeline subscribers. relevant state laws, regulations, or USAC shall have the authority to protect 66. In the 2017 Lifeline Order and agency instructions. To be clear, the integrity of its registration system NPRM, the Commission sought because this rule change impacts the by, among other things, locking the comment on the practice of collecting recordation of IEH worksheets in the NLAD and National Verifier accounts of and recording worksheets from all NLAD and not the use of the IEH ETC enrollment representatives with a subscribers, regardless of whether that worksheet itself, ETCs are still prolonged inactive period (i.e., subscriber shares an address with permitted to collect IEH worksheets consecutive months) or a pattern of another Lifeline subscriber and asked prior to enrollment. ETCs may not suspicious activity, such as unusual whether that practice makes it more record that subscriber’s IEH form in the rates of invalid enrollment attempts. difficult for USAC to detect improper NLAD, however, unless the NLAD has While a representative’s account is activity. Noting that the ‘‘[p]rophylactic alerted the ETC that the subscriber locked, the representative will lose the use of the household worksheet can shares an address with another Lifeline ability to enter, alter, remove, or view therefore subvert the duplicate address subscriber. subscriber information in the NLAD and protections and may result in increased 69. Deceased Subscribers. In its National Verifier systems. waste, fraud, and abuse,’’ the report, GAO identified 6,378 deceased 64. Enrollment Process Commission asked whether it should individuals that remained enrolled in Improvement—Independent Economic amend its rules to permit the use of the Lifeline even though they were reported Household Worksheets. Next the form only in instances where the ETC as deceased for over a year before Commission amends the rules to limit has been notified that the applicant enrollment or recertification. To combat when an ETC can record an shares the same residential address as this issue, USAC was directed to de- Independent Economic Household (IEH) another Lifeline subscriber. enroll the subscribers GAO identified as worksheet in the NLAD. Specifically, an 67. Some commenters argue that it is deceased, and going forward on a ETC will be permitted to do so only important that providers be able to quarterly basis, to check a sample of where the consumer completing the collect the IEH worksheet from the subscribers against the Social Security worksheet shares an address with applicant at the time of enrollment Death Master File and to de-enroll another Lifeline subscriber. This because providers may not receive a real subscribers and recoup reimbursements limitation will assist USAC’s efforts to time notification that the applicant as appropriate. Since then, USAC has detect improper duplicate addresses shares an address with another Lifeline added a check of the Social Security among Lifeline subscribers listed in the customer. Others are generally Death Master File when validating a NLAD and will reduce administrative supportive of the Commission’s consumer’s identity, which prevents a burdens on USAC. proposal to restrict the collection of the consumer appearing on the Social 65. The Commission’s rules limit IEH worksheets. The Commission Security Death Master File from Lifeline service to one subscription per recognizes the strong preference that enrolling in the program unless the household. There are instances, some ETCs have for routinely collecting consumer successfully disputes the however, where multiple subscribers the IEH worksheet at the outset from automated result through share the same residential address but Lifeline applicants, regardless of documentation. In the 2017 Lifeline are considered independent economic whether that applicant shares an Order and NPRM, the Commission households under the Lifeline program address with another Lifeline customer. sought comment on whether it should rules. For example, multiple subscribers Upon a review of the record, the codify USAC’s current practice of cross- living in a shelter may share the same Commission finds no compelling reason checking a subscriber’s information address, or multiple subscribers may to prohibit the practice of collecting the against the Social Security Death Master provide the same apartment building IEH worksheet from all applicants, but File at the time of enrollment and address without a unit number. in order to more readily identify recertification. Commenters agree that a Alternatively, subscribers might share through use of the ‘‘IEH flag’’ which codification of USAC’s current practice the same home address, but would not subscribers share an address with is a reasonable way to help control

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 71318 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

waste, fraud, and abuse. Accordingly, for reimbursement must be no more re-certify the subscriber’s eligibility or is the Commission adds a new rule, than the number of qualifying notified by the National Verifier or the § 54.404(b)(12), notifying ETCs that they subscribers the ETC directly serves as of relevant state administrator that the must not enroll a prospective Lifeline the snapshot date as indicated by the subscriber is unable to be re-certified, subscriber if the NLAD or National data in the NLAD. In the three NLAD the ETC shall proceed with the de- Verifier cannot identify the subscriber opt-out states, ETCs may also base enrollment requirements in as living, unless that subscriber can claims for reimbursement on any reports § 54.405(e)(4) of the rules. produce documentation demonstrating or information the state administrator 74. Amending the Commission’s rules his or her identity and status as living. provides to the ETC concerning which to require this additional recertification The revised rules prohibit ETCs from subscribers can be claimed. The step closes off another avenue for waste, claiming subscribers that are identified Commission directs USAC to continue fraud, and abuse within the Lifeline as deceased for purposes of requesting to base its Lifeline claims and program by requiring additional or receiving reimbursement from reimbursement process on the number documentation from subscribers whose Lifeline. The changes contain new or of qualifying subscribers the ETC serves eligibility was previously confirmed modified information collection on the snapshot date. USAC shall base through an eligibility database but are requirements, which will not be the reimbursement on data available in no longer included in any eligibility effective until approved by the Office of NLAD, future USAC systems that record database. This change balances the need Management and Budget. The effective program enrollment, or on data to increase the integrity of the Lifeline date will be announced in a future provided by a state administrator for the program by ensuring that subscribers Federal Register document. NLAD opt-out states. Section 54.407(a) continue to demonstrate eligibility each 70. If an ETC has claimed is amended to reflect the requirement. year, with the limited burden of reimbursement for a period during The rule change will become effective providing additional documentation which a subscriber was deceased, USAC January 27, 2020. only when the situation warrants it. The is directed to reclaim reimbursements 72. Recertification—Improving proposal is supported by state agency back to the time of enrollment or Recertification Integrity. The commenters, many of whom noted the recertification if the subscriber was Commission next amends the importance of verifying eligibility in deceased and listed on the Social Commission’s rules to require ETCs to situations where a subscriber’s Security Death Master File at the time collect eligibility documentation from eligibility cannot be determined through of enrollment or recertification. The the subscriber at the time of a check of a database. The National Commission also directs USAC to recertification in certain circumstances. Lifeline Association and ETCs also note continue its efforts to prevent ETCs from In the 2017 Lifeline Order and NPRM, their support for the requirement. claiming and seeking reimbursement for the Commission acknowledged that the 75. Some commenters express subscribers identified as deceased and current rules allow a subscriber to self- concern that this requirement would be listed on the Social Security Death certify that he or she continues to be burdensome for low-income subscribers Master File. Specifically, USAC shall eligible for the Lifeline program, even if because it would require them to continue sampling existing subscribers a database indicates that the subscriber’s produce additional documentation. on a quarterly basis and, for any participation in a qualifying program Smith Bagley, Inc. (SBI) also argues that subscriber identified as deceased has changed and his or her eligibility subscribers aged 60 years or older and according to the Social Security Death cannot be determined by querying any residing on Tribal lands should be Master File, USAC shall first require available state or Federal eligibility or exempt from the requirement to produce ETCs to provide ‘‘proof of life’’ income database. The Commission additional documentation if their documentation and then de-enroll any asked for comment ‘‘on prohibiting eligibility cannot be first determined subscribers who cannot produce such subscribers from self-certifying their through a database check. SBI contends documentation to successfully dispute continued eligibility during the Lifeline that if such a customer can no longer be the Social Security Death Master File program’s annual recertification process verified as a Medicaid participant in a match. if the consumer is no longer database, ‘‘it is statistically likely that 71. Reimbursement Process. The participating in the program they used they also qualify via household income Commission next revises the rules to to demonstrate their initial eligibility for or [Supplemental Security Income]’’ include a limitation on the subscribers the program.’’ because, among SBI’s Lifeline customers for which an ETC may claim and receive 73. To help ensure the integrity of the aged 60 years or older, ‘‘approximately reimbursement. In the 2017 Lifeline recertification process, the Commission 39% qualified via household income Order and NPRM, the Commission amends the Commission’s rules to compared to 12% of its entire Lifeline sought comment on whether it should require ETCs to collect eligibility base.’’ SBI contends that for this subset amend its rules to require that documentation from the subscriber at of subscribers, requiring the submission disbursements be based on the the time of recertification if the of eligibility documentation would be subscribers enrolled in NLAD as a way subscriber’s eligibility was previously particularly burdensome because of to prevent reimbursements for fictitious verified through a state or Federal mobility restrictions and other or ‘‘phantom’’ subscribers that are not in eligibility or income database and the difficulties. The Commission is NLAD and are improperly claimed by subscriber’s continued eligibility can no cognizant of the burdens that providing providers. Section 54.407 of the longer be verified through that same additional documentation can have on Commission’s rules provides that database or another eligibility database. some low-income consumers, including reimbursement for providing Lifeline The rule change creates a more rigorous those over the age of 60, and so the rule service will be provided directly to the and verifiable recertification process is tailored to only require supporting ETC ‘‘based on the number of actually and is tailored to provide additional documentation when eligibility was qualifying low-income customers it focus on subscribers who have changes confirmed through a database check, the serves directly as of the first day of the in their eligibility from year to year. The subscriber is no longer included in that month.’’ The Commission now codifies Commission also amends the rules to database, and eligibility cannot the requirement that the number of accommodate this process in the otherwise be verified through a check of eligible subscribers an ETC may claim National Verifier. If the ETC is unable to another state or Federal eligibility or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 71319

income database. Accordingly, the reimbursement threshold to a purely recommendations from USAC, Commission declines to implement risk-based model. including any experts it may hire, based SBI’s suggestion to permit Lifeline 78. Finding that targeted tools are on standard methodologies for subscribers on Tribal lands over the age necessary to identify abusers of the identifying risk-based factors and of 60 to self-certify their eligibility when program and to ensure that USAC’s developing risk registers. As such, the they cannot otherwise be verified procedures are sufficient to properly Commission declines to direct OMD or through a database. Recognizing that it administer the Lifeline program, the USAC to seek comment on the risk may be a challenge for some to submit Commission adopts a new approach that register from any particular documentation in accordance with this will use risk-based factors—rather than stakeholders, but instead anticipate that rule, but this yearly requirement the level of Lifeline disbursements—to OMD and the Bureau will direct USAC balances the need to maintain the identify ETCs that must complete to use auditing best practices, including integrity of the Lifeline program while Biennial Audits pursuant to § 54.420(a) the GAO Yellow Book, for identifying minimizing the burden on individual of the Commission’s rules. As one risk-based factors and developing the subscribers. Also declining to commenter argues, ‘‘the number of recommendations for the risk register. implement the recommendation of the subscribers served by a provider,’’ and The Commission expects that such Oklahoma Corporation Commission’s thus the level of reimbursements made efforts by USAC to develop the risk Public Utility Division to eliminate all to the provider, ‘‘is not indicative of its register will follow relevant Federal self-certifications, as finding that the risk profile.’’ The Commission agrees guidance on evaluating and managing self-certification process at the time of that the amount of reimbursements risk. The Commission highlights that recertification strikes a balance by should not be the only factor to consider the approach is designed to maintain limiting administrative burdens on in determining when a Biennial Audit is the integrity of the audit process such program participants while still necessary under § 54.420(a) of the rules. that the risk register will serve its maintaining the integrity of the Lifeline Accordingly, the Commission directs intended purpose of aiding in the program by enforcing a verifiable USAC to develop and submit for detection and prevention of fraud, process by which to confirm eligibility. approval by OMD and the Bureau a list waste, and abuse in the program. The 76. The Commission therefore amends of proposed risk-based factors that Commission notes that it already uses § 54.410(f) of the Commission’s rules to would trigger a Biennial Audit under the approach for other Lifeline audit reflect these changes, and directs USAC § 54.420(a) of the Commission’s rules in plans. For example, the FCC and USAC accordance with the guidance provided to update the recertification forms as do not share the annual risk analyses in the GAO’s Yellow Book and the necessary to reflect these changes. The used to select auditees pursuant to the Office of Management and Budget changes contain new or modified Beneficiary and Contributor Audit (OMB) Circular No. A–123, information collection requirements, Program. The Commission further notes Management’s Responsibility for which will not be effective until that, pursuant to the guidance in OMB Internal Control. A risk-based approach approved by the Office of Management Circular A–123, it is within the for biennial audits will incorporate a and Budget. The effective date will be Commission’s discretion to adopt an wider range of risk factors that will announced in a future Federal Register approach ‘‘that will ensure the greatest better identify waste, fraud, and abuse document. Any recertification initiated financial benefit for the government,’’ in the program because these factors on or after the effective date must and the Commission believes that this will target potential violations rather risk-based approach will do so by comply with the amended rules. than only companies that happen to directing resources toward audits where 77. Risk-Based Auditing. The receive a certain level of Lifeline instances of waste, fraud, and abuse are Commission next modifies the Lifeline reimbursements. To ensure the efficient more likely to be revealed. Finally, the program’s audit requirements to better and effective implementation of the approach will ensure that the target potential non-compliance and approach, the Commission directs OMD development of the risk register will reduce burdens on some ETCs. and the Bureau, in conjunction with remain flexible so that USAC can adjust Participants in the Lifeline program are USAC, to update the Biennial Audit the risk register to meet any changes in subject to substantial oversight and Plan as necessary to reflect the changes the Lifeline program. The changes will compliance reviews. With oversight made herein and otherwise become effective January 27, 2020. from the Commission’s Office of the implemented since the development Managing Director (OMD), USAC is and release of the last Biennial Audit 80. The Commission also addresses responsible for conducting, either itself Plan. Commenters generally welcome several outstanding petitions to resolve or through third parties, Beneficiary and this move to a targeted, risk-based pending questions pertaining to the Contributor Audit Program (BCAP) approach, noting that this approach will rules and oversight of the Lifeline audits and Payment Quality Assurance be much more effective at weeding out program and to provide clarity to (PQA) reviews of program participants. waste, fraud, and abuse than the current program participants. The Commission More recently, USAC has conducted method. The move also would likely addresses USTelecom’s petition for additional reviews as requested in the result in cost savings for ETCs that were reconsideration and clarification of the July 2017 Letter to USAC. Additionally, targeted simply due to their size. Risk- 2016 Lifeline Order; the National under the Commission’s Biennial Audit based audits will direct resources to Association of State Utility Consumer framework, ETCs receiving $5 million or where they are needed more—the Advocates (NASUCA) petition for more in reimbursements from the monitoring of providers that exhibit reconsideration of the 2016 Lifeline Lifeline program are required to obtain certain risk factors that warrant further Order; the petitions of USTelecom and an independent audit that is intended investigation through an audit. General Communication, Inc. (GCI) and ‘‘to assess the ETC’s overall compliance 79. ETC commenters request that the the joint petition of NTCA—the Rural with the program’s requirements.’’ In Commission work with stakeholders in Broadband Association (NTCA) and the 2017 Lifeline Order and NPRM, the developing the risk register. While the WTA—Advocates for Rural Broadband Commission sought comment on its Commission appreciates ETCs’ interest (WTA) seeking reconsideration of the proposal to modify the Biennial Audit in developing risk-based factors, it is 2016 Lifeline Order; the National requirements from a $5 million important that the Commission receive Lifeline Association (NaLA) 2018

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 71320 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

petition for declaratory ruling that the consumer migrations to new already serving the Census block to Commission allow ETCs to seek technologies are not always uniform, continue to provide stand-alone Lifeline reimbursement for eligible subscribers and (3) that measures to continue voice service. Accordingly, the during the non-usage cure period; and addressing the affordability of voice Commission denies USTelecom’s TracFone’s 2012 petition for declaratory service may still be appropriate request for reconsideration of the ruling and interim relief regarding consistent with the objectives of requirement that the last ETC in a actions taken by the Puerto Rico sections 254(b)(1), (b)(3), and 254(i) of Census block continue offering Lifeline Telecommunications Regulatory Board the Act. Based on its consideration of standalone-voice service. to address duplicate Lifeline subscribers these factors, the Commission 86. Backup Power. The Commission identified by the Board. The concluded that, consistent with its next addresses a June 23, 2016, Commission partially grants the ‘‘responsibility to be a prudent guardian NASUCA petition for reconsideration of petitions of USTelecom and GCI and the of the public’s resources,’’ continued the 2016 Lifeline Order arguing that, joint petition of NTCA and WTA and support for voice services should among other issues, the Order did not the Commission dismisses as moot or prioritize in an ‘‘administrable way, ‘‘require that payment arrangements be denies the other petitions. those areas where the Commission offered for back-up power for Lifeline 81. ETC Service Obligations. Pending anticipates there to be the greatest likely customers.’’ NASUCA requests that the before the Commission is USTelecom’s need for doing so,’’ and that it made the Commission ‘‘at the very least require Petition for Reconsideration and most sense to provide any continued Lifeline ETCs to offer [Lifeline Clarification of the 2016 Lifeline Order. support for stand-alone voice to the last subscribers] extended payment plans for The Commission dismisses as moot ETC serving the Census block. The the back-up power option’’ or permit USTelecom’s requests that the Commission acknowledged that this ‘‘back-up power [to] be provided at no Commission (1) extend the effective support could be targeted in other ways additional cost to the Lifeline date for the requirement to offer (e.g., based on other geographies, or consumer.’’ CenturyLink, GVNW and Lifeline-supported broadband internet demographic criteria), but was not USTelecom opposed this portion of access service, and (2) apply to non- persuaded that these other approaches NASUCA’s petition for reconsideration Lifeline Broadband Providers the would be easily administrable. The and argue that the Commission should Commission’s clarification that for Commission also determined that it reject or decline to consider NASUCA’s Lifeline Broadband Providers, ‘‘media of made the most sense to provide this back-up power proposals for Lifeline general distribution’’ in section continued support to the single, existing consumers. The Commission declines to 214(e)(1)(B)’s advertising requirement ETC serving the Census block rather grant NASUCA’s request. means media reasonably calculated to than requiring the designation of a new 87. NASUCA’s arguments concerning reach ‘‘the specific audience that makes provider for this purpose. Lifeline support for backup power up the demographic for a particular 84. Finding that the Commission’s arrangements do not warrant service offering.’’ The requirement to decision to require the last ETC serving reconsideration of the 2016 Lifeline offer Lifeline-supported broadband a Census block to continue offering Order. NASUCA’s petition does not internet access service took effect on Lifeline-supported voice service is not point to any errors of fact or law in the December 2, 2016. The Fifth Report and inconsistent with the decision and 2016 Lifeline Order. Instead, NASUCA’s Order, eliminates the Lifeline supporting rationale for shifting Lifeline petition reprises the same arguments Broadband Provider category. As a dollars from voice service to broadband that NASUCA made in its comments result, the Commission’s clarification internet access service. As explained in responding to the 2015 Lifeline Order concerning the advertising requirements the 2016 Lifeline Order, the Commission and FNPRM and requests a change in for Lifeline Broadband Providers no adopted this requirement after the Commission’s policies that would longer applies to any ETC. Accordingly, considering a number of factors, allow Lifeline support for backup the Commission dismisses the requests including the objectives of section power. The Commission’s current rules as moot. 254(b), and also narrowly tailored this do not require Lifeline providers to 82. The Commission denies approach to meet the needs of areas allow Lifeline consumers to make USTelecom’s request for reconsideration where the Commission anticipated the installment payments for backup power of the requirement that the last ETC in greatest likely need for addressing the and do not provide Lifeline support for a Census block continue to offer Lifeline affordability of stand-alone voice backup power options. The approach is stand-alone voice service. USTelecom services. USTelecom has not consistent with the Commission’s argues that this requirement is demonstrated that the Commission determination in 2015 and 2016 that ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ and is erred in considering these factors or backup power is a matter of consumer inconsistent with the Commission’s adopting a narrowly tailored solution to choice and should be funded by decision to shift Lifeline support from address them. individual consumers. Specifically, in voice service to broadband internet 85. While USTelecom argues that the the Ensuring Continuity of 911 access service. Two parties filed existence of one ETC does not correlate Communications Reconsideration Order comments opposing USTelecom’s to the absence of multiple voice (FCC 15–98; 80 FR 62470 (Oct. 16, request for reconsideration of this providers, and that the rates of non-ETC 2015)), the Commission recognized the requirement. voice providers would not be higher in importance of ‘‘ensur[ing] that all 83. USTelecom’s arguments do not Census blocks where there is only one (including low-income) consumers have warrant reconsideration of this ETC, USTelecom’s petition fails to the ability to communicate during a requirement. The Commission adopted provide any specific evidence to power outage,’’ but ultimately found the requirement in the 2016 Lifeline support those arguments. USTelecom that its previous conclusion that backup Order, notwithstanding its conclusion also has not demonstrated that the power is a matter of consumer choice to that the Lifeline program should Commission erred in determining that be funded by individual consumers transition to focus more on broadband focusing on Census blocks with one ETC ‘‘appropriately balanced competing internet access services, after was the most readily administrable interests in ensuring that consumers had considering (1) the historical approach, or that it made the most sense the ability to purchase backup power.’’ importance of voice service, (2) that to require the single existing ETC Given the Commission’s prior, thorough

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 71321

consideration of backup power issues providers before the National Verifier assess and collect from its subscribers a for all consumers, including low-income launched. On reconsideration, the monthly charge could not receive consumers, the fact that the 2016 Commission agrees that the 2015 support for subscribers who had either Lifeline Order does not adopt Lifeline Order and FNPRM did not not activated service, or who had not NASUCA’s backup power proposals for explicitly notice the Commission’s used the service within a consecutive Lifeline consumers does not warrant intent to require rolling recertification 60-day period. In this way, ETCs would reconsideration of the 2016 Lifeline before the National Verifier launched. only receive support for eligible low- Order. Although the APA does not require that income subscribers who actually use the 88. Rolling Recertification. The the notice ‘‘specify every precise service. ETCs were also required to Commission next partially grants the proposal which [the agency] may notify their subscribers of possible de- petitions of USTelecom and GCI and the ultimately adopt as a rule’’ or that the enrollment at the end of the 60-day joint petition of NTCA and WTA final rule ‘‘be the one proposed in the period if the subscriber failed to use the (collectively, Petitioners) that request NPRM,’’ the final rule must be a Lifeline supported service during the reconsideration of the 2016 decision to ‘‘‘logical outgrowth’ of its notice.’’ A next 30 days. In the 2016 Lifeline Order, implement rolling recertification prior rule is considered a ‘‘logical outgrowth’’ the Commission shortened the non- to the implementation of the National of the Notice if a party should have usage period from 60 to 30 days, along Verifier. Petitioners argue that the anticipated that the rule ultimately with a corresponding reduction in the Commission failed to provide sufficient adopted was possible. time allotted for service providers to notice of the rule change prior to 91. Here, the Commission agrees that notify their subscribers of possible adoption in the 2016 Lifeline Order. The a party could not be expected to have termination from 30 to 15 days. Per the Petitioners raise strong arguments that anticipated that a notice of proposed change, ETCs must notify subscribers of the logical outgrowth standard is not rulemaking seeking comment on the possible de-enrollment on the 30th day satisfied here. In light of the Petitioners’ National Verifier’s role in the of non-usage and de-enroll the arguments and the desire to develop a recertification process would result in a subscriber if, during the subsequent 15 full and complete record, the rule requiring ETCs to recertify days, the subscriber has not used the Commission hereby grants the petitions subscribers every 12 months as service. for reconsideration as they apply to the measured from each subscriber’s service 94. NaLA’s petition for declaratory discrete rule and reverses the rolling initiation date, even in states where the ruling requested that the Commission recertification requirement for ETCs National Verifier has not launched. permit Lifeline ETCs to seek pending future disposition of the issues Accordingly, the Commission reverses, reimbursement for all Lifeline raised. solely on notice grounds, the rolling subscribers served on the first day of the 89. In the 2016 Lifeline Order, the recertification requirement on ETCs. As month, including those subscribers Commission mandated rolling of the effective date of the Order, ETCs receiving free-to-the-end-user Lifeline recertification, which required an ETC will not be required to complete service who are in the 15-day cure to recertify each Lifeline customer’s recertification of a Lifeline customer’s period per the Commission’s non-usage eligibility every 12 months, as measured eligibility by the anniversary of that rules. NaLA states that USAC’s website from the customer’s service initiation customer’s service initiation date. changed its guidance from allowing date, except in states where the National Instead, the recertification process must reimbursement for Lifeline subscribers Verifier, state Lifeline administrator, or merely be completed on an annual basis during the 15-day cure period of the other state agency conducts the pursuant to the revised § 54.410(f)(1) of non-usage rule to disallowing ETCs to recertification. The Commission found the Commission’s rules. The claim reimbursement for subscribers that the change would create Commission notes that ETCs, USAC, during the 15-day cure period. NaLA administrative efficiencies while and the National Verifier may continue further states that disallowing avoiding the imposition of undue to use a rolling recertification approach, reimbursement for those subscribers burdens on providers, USAC, or the as that would meet the requirement for enrolled during the 15-day cure period National Verifier. Previously, ETCs were annual recertification. Recertifications would be arbitrary and capricious simply required to annually certify the for all eligible Lifeline subscribers must because it ignores the language of continued eligibility of subscribers, be completed by the end of each § 54.407(a) and disregards ETCs’ except for those in states where the state calendar year, unless the requirement ‘‘reasonable reliance on the initial Lifeline administrator or other state otherwise is waived by the Bureau or guidance’’ provided by USAC. NaLA agency conducts the recertification. In Commission. All other Commission also asserts that disallowing the 2015 Lifeline Order and FNPRM, the guidance and rules with respect to the reimbursement for subscribers in the 15- Commission sought comment on the recertification process remain in effect. day cure period for non-usage National Verifier’s role in the 92. Reimbursement Under the Usage potentially would constitute a recertification process and other Requirement. The Commission next regulatory taking without just potential National Verifier functions, denies the Petition for Declaratory compensation, in violation of the United but did not propose or seek specific Ruling filed by NaLA asking the States Constitution. comment on changes to the Commission to permit ETCs to seek 95. SBI, Sprint Corporation, and Q recertification process in states where reimbursement ‘‘for all Lifeline eligible Link Wireless all filed comments in the National Verifier had not yet subscribers served as of the first day of support of NaLA’s Petition. SBI states launched. the month’’ pursuant to the that the Lifeline rules ‘‘entitle SBI to 90. Petitioners contend that the Commission’s non-usage rules, reimbursement for all Lifeline language of the 2015 Lifeline Order and ‘‘including those subscribers that are in customers it serves directly as of the FNPRM did not provide adequate an applicable 15-day cure period first of the month’’ making ‘‘SBI entitled notice, as required by the following 30 days of non-usage.’’ to reimbursement for a customer whose Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 93. In the 2012 Lifeline Order, as a ‘cure’ period includes the snapshot that the Commission was contemplating measure intended to reduce waste in the date.’’ It further states that nowhere do revising § 54.410(f)(1) to implement a program, the Commission introduced a the rules require ‘‘SBI to go back after rolling recertification requirement for requirement that an ETC that did not the end of the ‘cure’ period and return

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 71322 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

the Lifeline subsidy [because] there is are in a 15-day non-usage cure period mandate that subscribers ‘‘be permitted nothing to return since SBI was regardless of whether the subscriber’s physically to occupy portions of the providing service during that period.’’ 15-day cure period includes the ETC’s network and airtime . . . without Sprint states that ‘‘service providers snapshot date. Additionally, the just compensation.’’ There is a simple incur significant costs for accounts in Commission notes that a group of ETCs problem with the argument: Any actual mandatory cure status’’ as that with at least some overlap with the use of an ETC’s network—even the subscriber’s account ‘‘remains active, current NaLA Petitioners acknowledged sending of a single text message—would and the service provider continues to that the Commission’s rules require establish subscriber ‘‘usage,’’ entitling incur the costs associated with an active ETCs to keep Lifeline subscribers the ETC to reimbursement. In other account.’’ Both Sprint and SBI argue enrolled in the program during the cure words, the Commission’s rules deny that inefficiencies result from an ETC period without requesting compensation only where there is no not being able to claim a subscriber reimbursement for that service. use—and therefore, under Q-Link’s during the cure period but then filing 98. The Commission also rejects formulation, no physical occupation. for reimbursement if the subscriber NaLA’s argument that § 54.407(a) and Where there is actual use during this 15- ultimately ends up using the service (c)(2) of the Commission’s rules are day period, ETCs would receive during the cure period. Q Link reiterates inconsistent and in conflict. Section compensation. NaLA’s argument that mandating 54.407(c)(2) prohibits ETCs providing 100. The potential taking, then, is Lifeline service to subscribers in a cure free-to-the-end-user Lifeline service merely the burden of providing a wholly period but prohibiting ETCs from from claiming support for subscribers unused service for fifteen days. While claiming such subscribers would effect who have not used their Lifeline service NaLA and other commenters provide no a regulatory taking. in the last consecutive thirty days or information on the weight of the 96. The Commission denies NaLA’s who have not cured their non-usage. burden, it is far from the kind of Petition requesting permission to seek While § 54.407(a) of the rules generally permanent condemnation of physical reimbursement for subscribers who have provides for the payment of property that typifies a per se taking. not used the Lifeline supported service reimbursements to ETCs for qualifying Nor would it amount to a regulatory in 30 consecutive days. The non-usage subscribers in the NLAD on the first day taking: (1) The economic impact of a 15- rule states that an ETC offering free-to- of the month, § 54.407(c)(2) of the rules day period of uncompensated service the-end-user Lifeline service ‘‘shall only places a specific restriction on the would be light; (2) the rule would not continue to receive universal service general rule declaring which subscribers upend any reasonable investment- support reimbursement for such Lifeline an ETC can claim for reimbursement. backed expectation; and (3) any service provided to subscribers who The specific language in a rule prevails interference could not fairly be have used the service within the last 30 over more general language. Because the characterized as a ‘‘physical invasion by days . . . .’’ ETCs are further obligated specific language of § 54.407(c)(2) of the government,’’ notwithstanding Q-Link’s to provide a subscriber who has not rules provides a limitation on the arguments to the contrary. used her or his service within those 30 general reimbursement rule of 101. For these reasons, the days ‘‘15 days’ notice . . . that the § 54.407(a) and also clearly states that Commission denies NaLA’s Petition. subscriber’s failure to use the Lifeline an ETC ‘‘shall only continue to receive ETCs are not entitled to reimbursement service within the 15-day notice period universal service support during the 15-day cure period for a will result in service termination for reimbursement’’ for subscribers who subscriber who has not used the service non-usage.’’ Read together, the plain have used their service within a 30 within 30 consecutive days unless the language of the rules does not confer consecutive day period, it is not subscriber cures the non-usage, after any right for the ETC to receive arbitrary for the Commission to which the ETC may seek reimbursement during the 15-day cure determine that ETCs are not owed reimbursement. period. The rules expressly state that payment for the 15-day notification 102. State Efforts to Eradicate ETCs can seek reimbursement only for period required by § 54.405(c)(3) that Duplicate Claims. The Commission subscribers who use their service within falls beyond the 30-day non-usage denies a TracFone Petition for a consecutive 30-day period. The 15-day period per the rule. The Commission Declaratory Ruling and Interim Relief cure period serves as a notification to also notes that the alternative to the 15- filed in 2012 concerning actions taken the subscriber that she must use her day cure period is to require an ETC to by the Puerto Rico Telecommunications service, or it will be automatically immediately de-enroll a subscriber from Regulatory Board (Board or TRB) to terminated at the end of the 15 days. the Lifeline program on day 30 of non- address duplicate Lifeline subscribers as NaLA’s argument that it should be able usage, which would result in the identified by the Board. The regulations to seek support during the 15-day notice subscriber’s service being disconnected and processes enacted by the Board to and cure period is intended effectively with no notice to the subscriber and address duplicative Lifeline support in to extend the non-usage period by 50%. would therefore be contrary to the Puerto Rico were valid and not subject 97. The Commission is not persuaded public interest. to preemption by the Commission. by NaLA’s argument for granting the 99. Finally, the Commission disagrees Specifically, the Commission finds that petition because it relied on informal with NaLA’s argument that requiring the Board was not required to adopt the staff guidance and USAC’s website. ETCs to provide uncompensated service interim procedures concerning Commission precedent is clear that during the 15-day cure period would duplicate Lifeline subscribers outlined carriers must rely on the Commission’s violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth in the Commission’s 2011 Duplicative rules and orders even in the face of Amendment. The Takings Clause Payments Order (FCC 11–97; 76 FR conflicting informal advice or opinion prohibits the government from taking 38040 (June 29, 2011)) because those from USAC or Commission staff. NaLA ‘‘private property . . . for public use, procedures established a minimum set and others must rely on the plain without just compensation.’’ While of requirements for USAC to use to language of the non-usage rules, as NaLA’s Petition does not elaborate on address duplicate Lifeline subscribers codified by the Commission, which the argument, Q-Link explains that that USAC identified through in-depth state that ETCs will not be eligible to be denying compensation during the 15- data validations and other similar reimbursed for those subscribers who day cure period would effectively audits. In addition, the Commission

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 71323

finds that the Board’s de-enrollment recommended that the Commission the Commission considers more procedures did not conflict with or issue a ruling (1) that Puerto Rico comprehensive resolution of this and serve as an obstacle to the de-enrollment consumers who are eligible for Lifeline other issues raised in the 2011 Lifeline procedures adopted by the Commission be allowed to maintain one Lifeline and Link Up NPRM (FCC 11–32 [76 FR and, as a result, were not subject to service per household, even if they had 16482 (March 23, 2011)]).’’ Then, in preemption. The Commission also notes received duplicate Lifeline service 2012, the Commission adopted a that many of the policy concerns raised previously, and (2) clarifying that states number of Lifeline program reforms and by TracFone and commenters that operate their own systems for codified a more permanent approach to concerning the Board’s process have identifying duplicates are required, as a address duplicative support. either been addressed by (1) changes the condition of opting out of the Federal Specifically, in the 2012 Lifeline Order, Board made to its duplicate policies and duplicate resolution process, to include the Commission created and mandated procedures soon after TracFone’s safeguards to allow eligible consumers the use by ETCs of the NLAD with petition was filed, (2) the fact that the to receive one Lifeline service per specified features and functionalities Board filed a request to opt out of the household. designed to ensure that multiple ETCs NLAD in November 2012, or (3) the fact 105. Several commenters point to the do not seek and receive reimbursement that the NLAD now conducts duplicate duplicates resolution measures adopted for the same subscriber. checks for Puerto Rico subscribers by the Commission and raise concerns 107. The Commission finds that the following the Bureau’s 2015 grant of that the Board process for addressing Board’s actions did not run afoul of the Puerto Rico’s request to opt into the duplicates deviates from the process the rules or the Act. Under section 254(f) of FCC outlined in the 2011 Duplicative NLAD. the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 103. According to TracFone’s Petition, Payments Order, the 2012 Lifeline ‘‘[a] State may adopt regulations not the Board sent letters to TracFone and Order, and the June 2011 Guidance inconsistent with the Commission’s several other ETCs in January and Letter (DA 11–1082). NASUCA, for rules to preserve and advance universal February 2012 together with a list of example, argues the Commission should service.’’ In addition, ‘‘[a] State may duplicate subscribers, and instructed clarify that state systems that opt out of adopt regulations to provide for the ETCs to de-enroll these subscribers following the Federal approach must additional definitions and standards to by a specified date. TracFone argues include both the functional capabilities preserve and advance universal service that the Board letters instructing ETCs and safeguards equivalent to those within that State only to the extent that to de-enroll the consumers violate (1) administered by USAC. Sprint and the intent of section 254(b)(3) of the PRTC argue that the Board should adopt such regulations adopt additional Communications Act, which establishes the FCC’s processes and procedures. specific, predictable, and sufficient as a core principle the goal that Sprint, PRTC, and T-Mobile point to the mechanisms to support such definitions consumers in all regions of the Nation, need for nationwide consistency in or standards that do not rely on or ‘‘including low-income consumers,’’ addressing the duplicates issue. PR burden Federal universal service have access to affordable Wireless agrees with Tracfone that the support mechanisms.’’ In the 2011 USF/ telecommunications services, and (2) Board’s processes are inconsistent with ICC Transformation Order (FCC 11–161; the rules and procedures governing de- Federal procedures. Several commenters 76 FR 73830 (Nov. 29, 2011)), the enrollment of ‘‘duplicates’’ established raise concerns that the process Commission stated that section 254(f) by the Commission on an interim basis established by the Board will result in permitted states to impose additional in 2011 and those later adopted on a consumers being barred from receiving reporting requirements as long as they permanent basis in 2012. TracFone service for an extended period of time ‘‘do not create burdens that thwart argues that the Board should be required (from four months to a year) if they are achievement of the universal service to adopt the Industry Duplicate determined to be receiving service from reforms set forth in this Order.’’ The Resolution Process outlined by the more than one carrier. One commenter Commission concludes the Board’s Commission in its 2011 Duplicative also raises concerns regarding how the policies and procedures did not rely on Payments Order. TracFone also points Board was addressing situations where or burden Federal universal service to the opt-out process outlined in the there are multiple households at a single support mechanisms. In fact, the 2012 Lifeline Order, which codified a address. Board’s policies were assisting the permanent approach for addressing 106. The Commission has taken a Federal universal service program by duplicates in the Federal rules, and number of important steps to create addressing the Lifeline duplicates issue, argues that the Board did not follow the robust processes and procedures to consistent with the overall objectives of process, and that the Board’s process address the issue of duplicative Lifeline the 2011 Duplicative Payments Order has the potential to leave residents support. In the Commission’s 2011 and were being undertaken and without service, in violation of the 2012 Duplicative Payments Order, the implemented using the Board’s own Lifeline Order. Finally, TracFone Commission clarified that qualifying resources. The Board is responsible for requests that the Commission issue an low-income consumers may receive no regulating telecommunications services order concluding that the directives to more than a single Lifeline benefit and in Puerto Rico. In accordance with ETCs contained in the Board’s letters are established the requirement that an statutes adopted by the Puerto Rico unlawful and preempted. ETC, upon notification from USAC, de- General Assembly, the Board has a 104. Multiple commenters filed in enroll any subscriber that is receiving mandate to ‘‘preserve and promote support of TracFone’s Petition, agreeing multiple benefits in violation of that universal service through predictable, that the Commission should issue a rule. The Commission also directed the specific and sufficient support declaratory ruling and arguing that the Bureau to send a letter to USAC to mechanisms’’ and to ensure that the Board’s actions directing TracFone and implement an administrative process to Lifeline subsidy is limited to ‘‘a single other ETCs to de-enroll duplicate detect and resolve duplicative claims wireless telephone line or to a single subscribers were unlawful, contrary to that was consistent with the proposed wireless service for the family unit.’’ It universal service program policy and Industry Duplicate Resolution Process was with this mandate in mind that the inconsistent with Federal procedures. submitted by a group of ETCs. This was Board took action to address duplicate NASUCA, in its comments, also intended as an interim process, ‘‘while Lifeline recipients after the Board

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 71324 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

became aware that this was a significant and notify subscribers that they had 35 designed to work in unison to make concern in Puerto Rico. According to days to either choose a provider or begin voice and broadband services more the Board, based on a review of receiving service from only the default affordable to low-income households information it had requested from ETCs provider. After the 35-day timeframe, and to strengthen the efficiency and on a quarterly basis, ‘‘the Board became USAC was directed to notify the integrity of the Lifeline program’s aware of many cases where the provider regarding the subscribers that administration. However, each of the subscribed participants were receiving should be de-enrolled. The Board separate Lifeline reforms the the service from more than one carrier.’’ process enabled consumers to appeal Commission undertakes in the Fifth 108. The actions of the Board were the Board decision regarding their Report and Order, Memorandum not in conflict with the rules and thus duplicate status and, as later amended, Opinion, and Order and Order on did not trigger the criteria for Federal also enabled subscribers to continue to Reconsideration serves a discrete preemption. When the Board sent the receive service ‘‘with the service to function. Therefore, it is the intent that letters to TracFone concerning duplicate which the subsidy was first applied.’’ each of the rules adopted shall be Lifeline subscribers in January and As a result, the Board process allowed severable. If any of the rules is declared February of 2012, only the subscribers to dispute the Board’s invalid or unenforceable for any reason, Commission’s interim procedures findings and continue to receive service it is the Commission’s intent that the established in the 2011 Duplicative while also addressing the duplicates remaining rules shall remain in full Payments Order were in effect. The rule issue, which was in line with the overall force and effect. regarding de-enrollment adopted in the approach the Bureau recommended for 2011 Duplicative Payments Order USAC to follow. IV. Procedural Matters specified that, ‘‘upon notification by the 110. TracFone’s claims that the Board Administrator to any ETC’’ that a failed to make the required opt-out A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis subscriber is already receiving Lifeline filing (claims which were made before 112. The Order contains new service from another ETC, ‘‘the ETC the opt-out deadline occurred) are not information collection requirements shall de-enroll the subscriber from accurate. At the time the Board sent the participation in that ETC’s Lifeline letters to TracFone concerning duplicate subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act program within 5 business days.’’ The Lifeline subscribers, the Commission’s of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. It policy adopted by the Board, however, changes in the 2012 Lifeline Order to will be submitted to the OMB for review did not relate to duplicates identified by adopt more permanent duplicate under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the Administrator but, rather, to those procedures and establish the NLAD, and the general public, and other Federal duplicates identified by the Board. The permit states to opt out of the NLAD, agencies will be invited to comment on Board regulations specified that the were not yet in effect. In the 2012 the revised information collection Board would identify duplicates and Lifeline Order, the Commission requirements contained in the that ETCs would have no more than 10 approvingly acknowledged that some proceeding. In addition, the working days (from the date the Board states had already developed their own Commission noted that pursuant to the duplicates notice was sent) to notify systems to check for duplicative Lifeline Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of consumers they were ineligible for the support, stating its intent not to inhibit 2002, Public Law 107–198, the service. The Board also adopted other state progress. The Commission also Commission previously sought specific policies related to duplicates, but these clarified that ‘‘[w]e allow states to opt- comment on how it might further policies did not conflict with or serve as out of the duplicates database reduce the information collection an obstacle to the Commission’s rules. requirements outlined in the Order if burden on small business concerns with While the Commission stated in its 2011 they certify one time to the Commission fewer than 25 employees. Duplicative Payments Order that ‘‘these that they have a comprehensive system new rules would apply to ETCs in all in place to check for duplicative B. Congressional Review Act states, regardless of that state’s status as [F]ederal Lifeline support that is as at 113. The Commission has determined, a [F]ederal default state or a non-default least as robust as the processes adopted and the Administrator of the Office of state,’’ the 2011 Duplicative Payments by the Commission and that covers all Information and Regulatory Affairs, Order did not explicitly bar states from ETCs operating in the state and their Office of Management and Budget, imposing their own policies and subscribers.’’ In October 2012, the concurs that the rules are non-major procedures, unless such regulations Bureau issued a public notice outlining under the Congressional Review Act, 5 were ‘‘in conflict with or serve[d] as an the process states must follow to opt out obstacle to implementation of the de- of the NLAD. The Board made a filing U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will enrollment procedures’’ adopted in the with the Commission seeking to opt out send a copy of the Fifth Report and 2011 Duplicative Payments Order. The of the NLAD and the duplicates Order, Memorandum Opinion and Commission finds the Board’s policies resolution process in November 2012 in Order and Order on Reconsideration to were neither in conflict with nor an which the Board described the system Congress and the Government obstacle to implementation of the and processes it had in place to check Accountability Office pursuant to 5 Commission’s 2011 Duplicative for duplicative Lifeline support. U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Payments Order procedures. Therefore, TracFone’s claims that the Commission will send a copy of the 109. Indeed, the Commission finds Board failed to make the required opt- Fifth Report and Order, Memorandum that the Board’s process was consistent out filing are not accurate. For all of Opinion and Order and Order on with the overall approach that the these reasons, the Commission denies Reconsideration, including the FRFA, to Bureau directed USAC to follow in the TracFone’s petition. the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the June 2011 Guidance Letter. There, the SBA. A copy of the Fifth Report and Bureau directed USAC, in cases where III. Severability Order, Memorandum Opinion and the duplicate subscriber was the same 111. All of the actions taken by the Order and Order on Reconsideration individual at the same address, to Commission in the Fifth Report and and the FRFA (or summaries thereof) identify duplicative subscribers and Order, Memorandum Opinion and will also be published in the Federal notify ETCs, identify a ‘‘default ETC,’’ Order and Order on Reconsideration are Register.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 71325

C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis during the Lifeline enrollment process previously verified through a state or 114. As required by the Regulatory to register with USAC. The Commission Federal eligibility or income database Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the amends its rules to require each ETC and the subscriber’s continued Commission has prepared a Final enrollment representative to register eligibility can no longer be verified Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) with USAC and obtain a unique through that same database or another relating to the Fifth Report and Order, registration number prior to accessing eligibility database. The rule change and Memorandum Opinion and Order the NLAD or National Verifier. creates a more verifiable recertification and Order on Reconsideration. The Ultimately, ETCs are responsible for process and is tailored to provide Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ensuring that their enrollment additional focus on subscribers who (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. representatives complete the registration have changes in their eligibility from 115. Need for, and Objectives of, the process. year to year. The Commission also 118. The Commission also amends its Final Rules. The Commission is amends its rules to accommodate the rules regarding the recordation of required by section 254 of the process in the National Verifier. If the information related to the Independent Communications Act of 1934, as ETC is unable to re-certify the Economic Household (IEH) Worksheet. amended, to promulgate rules to subscriber’s eligibility or is notified by The Commission finds that amending the National Verifier or the relevant implement the universal service § 54.404(b)(3) of the Commission’s rules state administrator that the subscriber is provisions of section 254. The Lifeline to permit ETCs to record an IEH unable to be re-certified, the ETC shall program was implemented in 1985 in worksheet in the NLAD only when the proceed with the de-enrollment the wake of the 1984 divestiture of NLAD has alerted the ETC that the requirements in § 54.405(e)(4) of the AT&T. On May 8, 1997, the Commission prospective subscriber shares the same rules. adopted rules to reform its system of residential address as another Lifeline 120. The Commission also amends its universal service support mechanisms subscriber is a reasonable approach to recertification rules to require ETCs to so that universal service is preserved support USAC’s efforts in identifying collect eligibility documentation from and advanced as markets move toward duplicate addresses. ETCs shall not the subscriber at the time of competition. Since the 2012 Lifeline record an IEH worksheet in NLAD in recertification if the subscriber’s Order, the Commission has acted to any other situation. Additionally, to eligibility was previously verified address waste, fraud, and abuse in the further combat waste, fraud, and abuse through a state or Federal eligibility or Lifeline program and improved program in the Lifeline program, the Commission income database and the subscriber’s administration and accountability. In adds a new rule, § 54.404(b)(12), continued eligibility can no longer be the Order, the Commission eliminates notifying ETCs that they must not enroll verified through that same database or the Lifeline Broadband Provider (LBP) a prospective Lifeline subscriber if the another one. The Commission also designation category and the Federal NLAD or National Verifier cannot modifies § 54.420(a) of the rules, designation process for Lifeline identify the subscriber as living, unless regarding biennial audits by removing Broadband Providers. The Commission that subscriber can produce the $5 million reimbursement threshold also takes steps to strengthen the documentation demonstrating his or her and implementing a purely risk-based reliability and integrity of the Lifeline identity and status as living. The revised model. program’s enrollment, recertification, rule prohibits ETCs from claiming 121. The Commission acts on several reimbursement, and audit processes. subscribers that are identified as Petitions for Reconsideration and 116. Pursuant to these objectives, the deceased for purposes of requesting or requests to clarify ETCs’ obligations Commission adopts changes to its receiving reimbursement from Lifeline. under the Lifeline program. The Lifeline program rules. First, to restore If an ETC has claimed reimbursement Commission dismisses as moot the traditional categories of eligible for a period during which a subscriber USTelecom’s request that the telecommunications carriers (ETC) and was deceased, USAC is directed to Commission extend the effective date ETC obligations, the Commission reclaim reimbursements back to the for the requirement to offer Lifeline- eliminates the Lifeline Broadband time of enrollment or recertification if supported broadband internet access Provider ETC category and the Federal the subscriber was deceased and listed service and apply to non-Lifeline designation process for Lifeline on the Social Security Death Master File Broadband Providers a clarification Broadband Providers. Accordingly, the at the time of enrollment or extended to Lifeline Broadband Commission eliminates § 54.201(j) of the recertification. Providers regarding an advertising rules, which precluded states from 119. The Commission also modifies requirement. The Commission also designating Lifeline Broadband § 54.407 of the rules to clarify that the denies USTelecom’s request for Providers. In addition, the Commission number of eligible subscribers that an reconsideration of the requirement that also eliminates §§ 54.202(d)(1) through ETC may claim for reimbursement must the last ETC in a Census block continue (3) and (e) and 54.205(c) of the rules. be the number of qualifying subscribers to offer Lifeline standalone voice 117. To further improve the integrity the ETC directly serves as of the service. The Commission denies the of the Lifeline enrollment process, the snapshot date as indicated by the Petition for Reconsideration of the Order prohibits ETCs from offering or NLAD. In the case of NLAD opt-out National Association of State Utility paying commissions to enrollment states (California, Oregon, and Texas), Consumer Advocates, in which the representatives or their direct ETCs may also base claims for petitioners objected to the Commission’s supervisors based on the number of reimbursement on any reports or previous decision not to require ETCs to Lifeline applications submitted or information the state administrator provide back-up power payment enrollments approved. Additionally, to provides to the ETC concerning the arrangements or other options to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in the subscribers that can be claimed. The Lifeline consumers. The Commission Lifeline program, the Commission Commission amends § 54.410(f)(2)(iii) of also clarifies when an ETC may seek further requires all ETC enrollment the rules to require ETCs to collect reimbursement for subscribers who are representatives who provide eligibility documentation from the within the cure period that is triggered information to USAC or a state entity subscriber at the time of recertification by the non-usage rules. The Commission administering a state Lifeline program if the subscriber’s eligibility was also grants requests for reconsideration

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 71326 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

of the Commission’s rolling tax data filed by nonprofits with the direct supervisors based on the number recertification requirement filed by Internal Revenue Service (IRS). of Lifeline applications submitted or USTelecom, NTCA and WCA (jointly), 126. Finally, the small entity enrollments approved and requires that and GCI and revises § 54.410(f)(1) of the described as a ‘‘small governmental enrollment representatives register with rules by removing the rolling jurisdiction’’ is defined generally as USAC. The Order further modifies the recertification requirement and ‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns, rules regarding the recertification reinstating the requirement that townships, villages, school districts, or process, and now requires Lifeline recertifications be completed annually. special districts, with a population of subscribers to provide supporting Furthermore, the Commission also less than fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census documentation to prove eligibility when denies a TracFone Petition for Bureau data from the 2012 Census of the subscriber’s continued eligibility Declaratory Ruling and Interim Relief Governments indicates that there were cannot be verified in a state or Federal filed in 2012 concerning actions taken 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions eligibility database. While the changes by the Puerto Rico Telecommunication consisting of general purpose will require ETCs to undertake Regulatory Board to address duplicate governments and special purpose additional steps to ensure compliance Lifeline subscribers as defined by that governments in the United States. Of with the new rules, the rules will board. this number there were 37,132 general strengthen the Lifeline program by 122. Summary of Significant Issues purpose governments (county, removing avenues for fraud. Raised by Public Comments to the IRFA. municipal, and town or township) with 131. Limiting the Recordation of IEH The Commission received no comments populations of less than 50,000 and Worksheets. The Commission modifies in direct response to the IRFA contained 12,184 special purpose governments the rules to limit the recording of an IEH in the 2017 Lifeline Order and NPRM. (independent school districts and worksheet in USAC’s Lifeline systems 123. Description and Estimate of the special districts) with populations of only to situations where the Lifeline Number of Small Entities to Which less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census subscriber resides at the same address as Rules May Apply. The RFA directs Bureau data for most types of another Lifeline subscriber. Requiring agencies to provide a description of and, governments in the local government ETCs to record the collection of an IEH where feasible, an estimate of the category show that the majority of these worksheet only where the Lifeline number of small entities that may be governments have populations of less subscriber resides at a duplicate address affected by the proposed rules, if than 50,000. Based on the data the decreases the burden on the carrier by adopted. The RFA generally defines the Commission estimates that at least reducing the situations in which an ETC term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 49,316 local government jurisdictions must record the worksheet. meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ fall in the category of ‘‘small 132. Modifications to the Biennial ‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental jurisdictions.’’ governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition, 127. The small entities that may be Audit Rule. The Commission modifies the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same affected are Wireline Providers, its rules to require that a risk-based meaning as the term ‘‘small business Wireless Carriers and Service Providers approach be used to identify ETCs that concern’’ under the Small Business Act. and internet Service Providers. must complete independent audits A small business concern is one that: (1) 128. Description of Projected pursuant to § 54.420(a) of the Is independently owned and operated; Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Commission’s rules rather the level of (2) is not dominant in its field of Compliance Requirements for Small USF reimbursements. Under the new operation; and (3) satisfies any Entities. A number of the rule changes standard, which replaces the outdated additional criteria established by the will result in additional reporting, threshold that limited third-party Small Business Administration (SBA). recordkeeping, or compliance biennial audits to those providers that 124. Small Businesses, Small requirements for small entities. For all receive at least $5 million in Lifeline Organizations, Small Governmental of the rule changes, the Commission has reimbursements, ETCs that receive less Jurisdictions. The Commission’s actions, determined that the benefit the rule than $5 million in Lifeline over time, may affect small entities that change will bring for the Lifeline reimbursements may now be subject to are not easily categorized at present. program outweighs the burden of the an independent audit pursuant to the Therefore, at the outset, three broad increased requirements. Other rule rule. groups of small entities that could be changes decrease reporting, 133. Steps Taken to Minimize the directly affected herein. First, while recordkeeping, or compliance Significant Economic Impact on Small there are industry specific size requirements for small entities. The Entities, and Significant Alternatives standards for small businesses that are Commission noted the applicable rule Considered. The RFA requires an used in the regulatory flexibility changes impacting small entities. agency to describe any significant, analysis, according to data from the 129. Compliance burdens. The rules specifically small business, alternatives SBA’s Office of Advocacy, in general a implemented impose some compliance that it has considered in reaching its small business is an independent burdens on small entities by requiring proposed approach, which may include business having fewer than 500 them to become familiar with the new the following four alternatives (among employees. These types of small rules to comply with them. For several others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of businesses represent 99.9% of all of the new rules, the burden of differing compliance or reporting businesses in the United States which becoming familiar with the new rule in requirements or timetables that take into translates to 29.6 million businesses. order to comply with it is the only account the resources available to small 125. Next, the type of small entity additional burden the rule imposes. entities; (2) the clarification, described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is 130. Improving Program Integrity in consolidation, or simplification of generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise Program Enrollment and Recertification. compliance and reporting requirements which is independently owned and The Commission modifies its rules to under the rule for such small entities; operated and is not dominant in its improve the integrity within the Lifeline (3) the use of performance rather than field.’’ Nationwide, as of August 2016, program. The Order prohibits ETCs from design standards; and (4) an exemption there were approximately 356,494 small offering or providing commissions to from coverage of the rule, or any part organizations based on registration and enrollment representatives and their thereof, for such small entities.’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 71327

134. The rulemaking could impose Management and Budget. The Federal Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. minimal additional burdens on small Communications Commission will 801(a)(1)(A). entities. In the Order, the Commission publish a document in the Federal 144. It is further ordered that the modifies certain Lifeline rules to target Register announcing the effective date. Commission’s Consumer and funding to areas where it is most 137. It is further ordered, that, Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference needed. In developing the rules, the pursuant to the authority contained in Information Center, shall send a copy of Commission worked to ensure the sections 1–4 and 254 of the the Fifth Report and Order, burdens associated with implementing Communications Act of 1934, as Memorandum Opinion and Order and these rules would be minimized for all amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154 and 254, Order on Reconsideration including the service providers, including small and § 1.429 of the Commission’s rules, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to entities. In taking these actions, the 47 CFR 1.429, the Petition for the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Commission considered potential Reconsideration and Clarification filed Small Business Administration. impacts on service providers, including by United States Telecom Association List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54 small entities. The Commission on June 23, 2016 is granted in part, considered alternatives to the dismissed in part and denied in part. Communications common carriers, rulemaking changes that increase 138. It is further ordered that, internet, Telecommunications, projected reporting, recordkeeping and pursuant to the authority contained in Telephone, Reporting and other compliance requirements for small sections 1–4 and 254 of the recordkeeping requirements. entities. The Commission’s decision to Communications Act of 1934, as amend the rules to permit an ETC to Federal Communications Commission. amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154 and 254, Marlene Dortch, record an IEH worksheet in NLAD only and § 1.429 of the Commission’s rules, Secretary. in situations where a consumer shares 47 CFR 1.429, the Petition for an address with another Lifeline Reconsideration filed by National Final Rules subscriber allows ETCs, including small Association of State Utility Consumer entities, to continue collecting For the reasons discussed in the Advocates on June 23, 2016 is denied. preamble, the Federal Communications worksheets from subscribers at the 139. It is further ordered that, enrollment process. The Commission Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 as pursuant to authority contained in follows: considered the comments urging for no sections 1–4 and 254 of the change to that process and found no Communications Act of 1934, as PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE compelling reason to prohibit the amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154 and 254, practice. By not disturbing the practice the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed ■ 1. The authority citation for part 54 of collecting worksheets at the outset, by National Lifeline Association on continues to read as follows: the Commission minimized the burden February 7, 2018 is denied. Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, on small entities. Given the narrow and 140. It is further ordered, pursuant to targeted scope of the changes being 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and the authority contained in sections 1–4 1302, unless otherwise noted. made, no alternative readily presents and 254 of the Communications Act of itself to limit the burdens on small 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154 § 54.201 [Amended] business or organizations. The and 254, that the Emergency Petition for ■ 2. Effective January 27, 2020, amend identified increase in burden is minimal Declaratory Ruling and For Interim § 54.201 by removing paragraph (j). and outweighed by the advantages in Relief filed by TracFone on February 22, combating waste, fraud, and abuse in 2012 is denied. § 54.202 [Amended] the program. 141. It is further ordered, pursuant to ■ 3. Effective January 27, 2020, amend V. Ordering Clauses the authority contained in sections 1–4 § 54.202 by removing paragraphs (d) and 135. Accordingly, it is ordered, that and 254 of the Communications Act of (e). 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154 pursuant to the authority contained in § 54.205 [Amended] sections 1–4, 201, 254, and 403 of the and 254, and § 1.429 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the ■ 4. Effective January 27, 2020, amend amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 201, 214, Petition for Reconsideration and § 54.205 by removing paragraph (c). 254, and 403, and § 1.2 of the Clarification filed by NTCA—The Rural ■ 5. Effective January 27, 2020, amend Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.2, the Broadband Association—and WTA— § 54.400 by adding paragraph (p) to read Fifth Report and Order, Memorandum Advocates for Rural Broadband—on as follows: Opinion and Order and Order on June 23, 2016 is granted in part. § 54.400 Terms and definitions. Reconsideration is adopted and will be 142. It is further ordered, pursuant to effective January 27, 2020, except to the the authority contained in sections 1–4 * * * * * extent provided herein. and 254 of the Communications Act of (p) Enrollment representatives. An 136. It is further ordered, that part 54 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154 employee, agent, contractor, or of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR part and 254, and § 1.429 of the subcontractor, acting on behalf of an 54, is amended and such rule Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the eligible telecommunications carrier or amendments shall be effective January Petition for Reconsideration and/or third-party entity, who directly or 27, 2020, except for the amendments to Clarification filed by General indirectly provides information to the § 54.406(b), which shall be effective Communication, Inc. on June 23, 2016 Universal Service Administrative February 25, 2020; amendments to is granted in part. Company or a state entity administering § 54.406(a), which shall be effective 143. It is further ordered that the the Lifeline Program for the purpose of March 26, 2020; and §§ 54.404(b)(12) Commission shall send a copy of the eligibility verification, enrollment, and 54.410(f), containing new or Fifth Report and Order, Memorandum recertification, subscriber personal modified information collection Opinion and Order and Order on information updates, benefit transfers, requirements, which will not be Reconsideration to the Government or de-enrollment. effective until approved by the Office of Accountability Office pursuant to the ■ 6. Amend § 54.404 by:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 71328 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

■ a. Effective January 27, 2020, revising § 54.406 Activities of representatives of ■ 9. Effective January 27, 2020, amend paragraph (b)(3); and eligible telecommunications carriers. § 54.407 by revising paragraph (a) to ■ b. Effective upon publication of a rule (a) Enrollment representative read as follows: document in the Federal Register registration. An eligible § 54.407 Reimbursement for offering announcing the effective date, adding telecommunications carrier must Lifeline. paragraph (b)(12). require that enrollment representatives The revision and addition read as register with the Universal Service (a) Universal Service support for follows: Administrative Company before the providing Lifeline shall be provided enrollment representative can provide directly to an eligible § 54.404 The National Lifeline telecommunications carrier based on the information directly or indirectly to the Accountability Database. number of actual qualifying low-income National Lifeline Accountability customers listed in the National Lifeline * * * * * Database or the National Verifier. Accountability Database that the eligible (b) * * * (1) As part of the registration process, telecommunications carrier serves (3) If the Database indicates that eligible telecommunications carriers directly as of the first of the month. another individual at the prospective must require that all enrollment Eligible telecommunications carriers subscriber’s residential address is representatives must provide the operating in a state that has provided currently receiving a Lifeline service, Universal Service Administrative the Commission with an approved valid the eligible telecommunications carrier Company with identifying information, must not seek and will not receive certification pursuant to § 54.404(a) which may include first and last name, must comply with that state Lifeline reimbursement for providing date of birth, the last four digits of his service to that prospective subscriber, administrator’s process for determining or her social security number, email the number of subscribers to be claimed unless the prospective subscriber has address, and residential address. certified, pursuant to § 54.410(d), that to for each month, and in those states Enrollment representatives will be Universal Service support for providing the best of his or her knowledge, no one assigned a unique identifier, which in his or her household is already Lifeline shall be provided directly to the must be used for: eligible telecommunications carrier receiving a Lifeline service. This (i) Accessing the National Lifeline certification may be collected by the based on that number of actual Accountability Database; qualifying low-income customers, eligible telecommunications carrier (ii) Accessing the National Verifier; prior to initial enrollment, but the according to the state administrator or (iii) Accessing any Lifeline eligibility other state agency’s process. certification shall not be recorded in the database; and * * * * * Database unless the eligible (iv) Completing any Lifeline ■ telecommunications carrier receives a enrollment or recertification forms. 10. Effective January 27, 2020, amend notification from the Database or state (2) Eligible telecommunications § 54.410 by revising paragraph (g) to administrator that another Lifeline carriers must ensure that enrollment read as follows: subscriber resides at the same address as representatives shall not use another § 54.410 Subscriber eligibility the prospective subscriber. person’s unique identifier to enroll determination and certification. * * * * * Lifeline subscribers, recertify Lifeline * * * * * (12) An eligible telecommunications subscribers, or access the National (g) One-Per-Household Worksheet. If carrier must not enroll or claim for Lifeline Accountability Database or the prospective subscriber shares an reimbursement a prospective subscriber National Verifier. address with one or more existing in Lifeline if the National Lifeline (3) Eligible telecommunications Lifeline subscribers according to the Accountability Database or National carriers must ensure that enrollment National Lifeline Accountability Verifier cannot verify the identity of the representatives shall regularly recertify Database or National Verifier, the subscriber or the subscriber’s status as their status with the Universal Service prospective subscriber must complete a alive, unless the subscriber produces Administrative Company to maintain form certifying compliance with the documentation to demonstrate his or their unique identifier and maintain one-per-household rule upon initial her identity and status as alive. access to the systems that rely on a valid enrollment. Eligible * * * * * unique identifier. Eligible telecommunications carriers must fulfill ■ 7. Effective February 25, 2020, add telecommunications carriers must also the requirement in this paragraph (g) by § 54.406 to read as follows: ensure that enrollment representatives using the Household Worksheet, as shall update their registration provided by the Wireline Competition § 54.406 Activities of representatives of information within 30 days of any Bureau. Where state law, state eligible telecommunications carriers. change in such information. regulation, a state Lifeline (a) [Reserved] (4) Enrollment representatives are not administrator, or a state agency requires (b) Prohibition of commissions for required to register with the Universal eligible telecommunications carriers to enrollment representatives. An eligible Service Administrative Company if the use state-specific Lifeline enrollment telecommunications carrier shall not enrollment representative operates forms, eligible telecommunications offer or provide to enrollment solely in a state that has been approved carriers may use those forms in place of representatives or their direct by the Commission to administer the the Commission’s Household supervisors any commission Lifeline program without reliance on the Worksheet. At re-certification, if there compensation that is based on the Universal Service Administrative are changes to the subscriber’s number of consumers who apply for or Company’s systems. The exemption in household that would prevent the are enrolled in the Lifeline program this paragraph (a)(4) will not apply to subscriber from accurately certifying to with that eligible telecommunications any part of a state’s administration of paragraph (d)(3)(vi) of this section, then carrier. the Lifeline program that relies on the the subscriber must complete a new ■ 8. Effective March 26, 2020, § 54.406 Universal Service Administrative Household Worksheet. Eligible is further amended by adding paragraph Company’s systems. telecommunications carriers must mark (a) to read as follows: * * * * * subscribers as having completed a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 71329

Household Worksheet in the National through an eligibility database during ACTION: Notification of determination of Lifeline Accountability Database if and enrollment or a prior recertification and non-compliance; declaration of a only if the subscriber shares an address the subscriber is no longer included in moratorium. with an existing Lifeline subscriber, as any eligibility database, the National reported by the National Lifeline Verifier, state Lifeline administrator, or SUMMARY: In accordance with the Accountability Database. state agency must obtain both an Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act), * * * * * approved Annual Recertification Form the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) ■ and documentation meeting the 11. Effective upon publication of a has determined that the Commonwealth rule document in the Federal Register requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) or (c)(1)(i)(B) from that subscriber to of Virginia has failed to carry out its announcing the effective date, § 54.410 responsibilities under the Atlantic is further amended by revising complete the certification process. Entities responsible for re-certification States Marine Fisheries Commission’s paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2)(iii), and (f)(3)(iii) (Commission) Interstate Fishery to read as follows: under this section must use the Wireline Competition Bureau-approved universal Management Plan (ISFMP) for Atlantic § 54.410 Subscriber eligibility Annual Recertification Form, except Menhaden and that the measure determination and certification. where state law, state regulation, a state Virginia has failed to implement and * * * * * Lifeline administrator, or a state agency enforce is necessary for the conservation (f) * * * requires eligible telecommunications of the Atlantic menhaden resource. This (1) All eligible telecommunications carriers to use state-specific Lifeline determination is consistent with the carriers must annually re-certify all recertification forms, or where the findings of the Commission on October subscribers, except for subscribers in National Verifier Recertification Form is 31, 2019. Pursuant to the Atlantic states where the National Verifier, state required. Coastal Act, a Federal moratorium on fishing for Atlantic menhaden in Lifeline administrator, or other state * * * * * agency is responsible for the annual re- Virginia state waters and possession and ■ 12. Effective January 27, 2020, amend landing of Atlantic menhaden harvested certification of subscribers’ Lifeline § 54.420 by revising paragraphs (a) eligibility. in Virginia State waters is hereby introductory text and (a)(1) to read as declared and will be effective on June (2) * * * follows: (iii) If the subscriber’s program-based 17, 2020. The moratorium will be or income-based eligibility for Lifeline § 54.420 Low income program audits. terminated when the Commission notifies the Secretary that Virginia is cannot be determined by accessing one (a) Independent audit requirements found to have come back into or more eligibility databases, then the for eligible telecommunications carriers. compliance with the Commission’s eligible telecommunications carrier Eligible telecommunications carriers ISFMP for Atlantic menhaden. must obtain a signed certification from identified by USAC must obtain a third- the subscriber confirming the party biennial audit of their compliance DATES: June 17, 2020. subscriber’s continued eligibility. If the with the rules in this subpart. Such FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: subscriber’s eligibility was previously engagements shall be agreed upon Derek Orner, Fishery Management confirmed through an eligibility performance attestations to assess the Specialist, (301) 427–8567, database during enrollment or a prior company’s overall compliance with the [email protected]. recertification and the subscriber is no rules in this subpart and the company’s SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: longer included in any eligibility internal controls regarding the database, the eligible regulatory requirements in this subpart. Non-Compliance Statutory Background telecommunications carrier must obtain (1) Eligible telecommunications The Atlantic Coastal Act, 16 U.S.C. both an Annual Recertification Form carriers will be selected for audit based 5101 et seq., sets forth a non-compliance and documentation meeting the on risk-based criteria developed by review and determination process that requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) or USAC and approved by the Office of is triggered when the Commission finds (c)(1)(i)(B) from that subscriber to Managing Director and the Wireline that a State has not implemented complete the process. Eligible Competition Bureau. measures specified in an ISFMP and telecommunications carriers must use * * * * * refers that determination to the the Wireline Competition Bureau- [FR Doc. 2019–27220 Filed 12–26–19; 8:45 am] Secretary for review and potential approved universal Annual BILLING CODE 6712–01–P concurrence. Recertification Form, except where state The Atlantic Coastal Act’s non- law, state regulation, a state Lifeline compliance process involves two stages administrator, or a state agency requires DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE of decision-making. In the first stage, the eligible telecommunications carriers to Secretary must make two findings: (1) use state-specific Lifeline recertification National Oceanic and Atmospheric Whether the State in question has failed forms. Administration to carry out its responsibility under the * * * * * Commission ISFMP; and if so (2) (3) * * * 50 CFR Part 697 whether the measures that the State (iii) If the subscriber’s program-based failed to implement and enforce are or income-based eligibility for Lifeline RIN 0648–XV136 necessary for the conservation of the cannot be determined by accessing one Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative fishery in question. These initial or more eligibility databases, then the Management Act Provisions; Atlantic findings must be made within 30 days National Verifier, state Lifeline Menhaden Fishery after receipt of the Commission’s non- administrator, or state agency must compliance referral and consequently, obtain a signed certification from the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries this first stage of decision-making is subscriber confirming the subscriber’s Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and referred to as the 30-Day Determination. continued eligibility. If the subscriber’s Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), A positive 30-Day Determination eligibility was previously confirmed Commerce. triggers the second stage of Atlantic

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM 27DER1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES