Proposed Rule2026-06531
Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; Bridging the Digital Divide for Low-Income Consumers; Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support; Affordable Connectivity Program; Emergency Broadband Benefit Program
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 3, 2026
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks to ensure that Lifeline services are used to benefit and support eligible low-income Americans, that the program's funding is protected from waste, fraud, and abuse, and that service providers are in compliance with Commission rules. The Commission also seeks to update and streamline Lifeline and related rules.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 64 (Friday, April 3, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16871-16893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-06531]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 17-287, 09-197, 21-450, 20-445; FCC No. 26-8; FR
ID 338251]
Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; Bridging the
Digital Divide for Low-Income Consumers; Telecommunications Carriers
Eligible for Universal Service Support; Affordable Connectivity
Program; Emergency Broadband Benefit Program
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks to ensure that Lifeline services are used to benefit
and support eligible low-income Americans, that the program's funding
is protected from waste, fraud, and abuse, and that service providers
are in compliance with Commission rules. The
[[Page 16872]]
Commission also seeks to update and streamline Lifeline and related
rules.
DATES: Comments are due on or before May 4, 2026 and reply comments are
due on or before June 2, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be
submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of
time allowed by this document, you should advise the contact listed
below as soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section of
this document. You may submit comments identified by WC Docket No. 11-
42, 17-287, 09-197, 21-450, and 20-445, by any of the following
methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
[cir] Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[cir] Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by
the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[cir] Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S.
Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
[cir] Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> People with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#670104045257532701040449000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ceaefefb9bcb8cceaefefa2ebe3fa">[email protected]</span></a> or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice).
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Eric Wu, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0a6f786369247d7f4a6c6969246d657c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1f7a6d767c31686a5f797c7c31787069">[email protected]</span></a>
Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB), 202-418-7400 or TTY: 202-418-0484.
Requests for accommodations should be made as soon as possible in order
to allow the agency to satisfy such requests whenever possible. Send an
email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0d6d3d3858084f0d6d3d39ed7dfc6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="63050000565357230500004d040c15">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization et al., Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC Docket Nos. 11-41, 17-287, 09-197, 21-
450, and 20-445; FCC No. 26-8; adopted February 18, 2026 and released
February 23, 2026. The full text of this document is available for
public inspection during regular business hours at Commission's
headquarters 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554 or at the following
internet address: <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-8A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-8A1.pdf</a>.
Synopsis
I. Discussion
In the NPRM, the Commission takes a comprehensive look at the
Lifeline program and proposes reforms to enhance program integrity and
combat waste, fraud, and abuse. First, the Commission seeks comments on
changes to ensure that Lifeline support is used to benefit qualifying
low-income Americans consistent with section 254 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Act), through enhanced requirements
to ensure that program participants are legal beneficiaries of Lifeline
discounts, improved verification of household eligibility, an improved
enrollment and transfer experience for households, predictable minimum
service standards, ending the voice support phase-down, and preventing
duplicative support. Second, the Commission seeks comments on rule
changes that would optimize Lifeline program processes for integrity
and efficiency, including reforms applicable to the states that have
been permitted to opt out of using the NLAD and reduced reporting
burdens for ETCs. Third, the Commission seeks comments on changes that
would promote more principled service provider conduct, thereby
increasing program integrity protections and ensuring that ETCs that
participate in the Lifeline program comply with all rules. Finally, the
Commission seeks comments on changes to the Lifeline rules to
streamline them and minimize stakeholder confusion.
Ensuring Lifeline Services Are Used To Benefit Only Qualifying Low-
Income Americans Consistent With Section 254 of the Act
The Lifeline program was established to help ensure that low-income
Americans are able to receive affordable communications service. In
this section, the Commission seeks comments on proposals to ensure that
federal Lifeline benefits are only provided to the eligible recipients
permitted by federal law, to improve verification of household
eligibility, to ensure that consumers are enrolled with their preferred
provider, and changes to minimum service standards and voice service
phase-down. The Commission also seeks comments on additional program
integrity improvements concerning duplicative support.
Ensuring Federal Dollars Go to Their Intended Recipients
Today, all Lifeline program applicants must submit the last four
digits of their SSNs to participate in the federal Lifeline program.
This is a requirement designed to operate in a manner that limits the
program to U.S. citizens and qualified aliens that have lawfully valid
SSNs. However, there has been an increase in the number of SSNs
illegally obtained or assigned in recent years, with more than 2
million non-citizens illegally assigned SSNs in 2024 alone.
Consistent with the goal of ensuring taxpayer-funded benefits are
provided only to eligible recipients, the Commission seeks comments on
several steps to safeguard the Lifeline program. The Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)
is an important safeguard that protects federal funding by limiting
support for federal programs to qualified aliens. The Commission
tentatively concludes that Lifeline program support is a ``federal
public benefit'' that is available only to U.S. citizens and immigrants
with ``qualified alien'' status under the PRWORA, and the Commission
seeks comments on this tentative conclusion. The Commission notes that
the Lifeline benefit already is available only to citizens and
qualified aliens, but the Commission seeks comments on other
implications of a finding that Lifeline is a ``federal public
benefit,'' including that ``qualified aliens'' would be subject to a
five-year waiting period to participate in the Lifeline program if it
is also determined to be a ``means-tested public benefit.''
Section 401 of the PRWORA mandates that, ``[n]otwithstanding any
other provision of law,'' outside certain narrow exceptions, ``an alien
who is not
[[Page 16873]]
a qualified alien . . . is not eligible for any Federal public
benefit.'' ``Qualified aliens'' are subject to additional eligibility
requirements before they may receive benefits. For example, they may
not obtain ``any Federal means-tested public benefit'' until they have
been in the United States for five years with a qualified status. The
definition of ``qualified alien'' includes persons with a number of
immigration statuses allowing them to reside in the United States
legally; it does not include individuals who are here illegally. The
term ``financial means'' includes the ``income and resources'' of an
alien's spouse or sponsor in its calculation of the alien's total
assets.
The PRWORA broadly defines a ``Federal public benefit'' to include:
``(A) any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial
license provided by an agency of the United States or by appropriated
funds of the United States; and (B) any retirement, welfare, health,
disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food
assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for
which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household,
or family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by
appropriated funds of the United States.'' The United States Department
of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has explained that this
definition of ``Federal public benefit'' bars non-qualified aliens from
receiving ``[1] benefit[s] for which payments or assistance are
provided to [2] an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by
[3] an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the
United States.''
The PRWORA does not define the term ``Federal means-tested public
benefit.'' Nevertheless, OLC instructs the best reading of this term
means any federal public benefit for which the eligibility of an
individual, household, or family eligibility unit for benefits, or the
amount of such benefits, or both, are determined on the basis of the
income, resources, or financial need of the individual, household, or
unit--regardless of the funding sources for that federal public
benefit.
Applying OLC's guidance, the Commission tentatively concludes that
Lifeline benefits constitute ``Federal public benefits'' and ``Federal
means-tested public benefits'' for purposes of the PRWORA. As such,
Lifeline is not available to non-qualified aliens and will only be
available to qualified aliens on a means-tested basis. The Commission
seeks comments on this assessment.
The Commission tentatively concludes that Lifeline program
reimbursements paid to service providers are nonetheless ``[1]
benefit[s] for which payments or assistance are provided to [2] an
individual, household, or family eligibility unit by [3] an agency of
the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States.'' The
PRWORA provides that benefits may include ``payments'' or
``assistance.'' Thus, it is the Commission's current view that nothing
in the PRWORA requires that payments be made directly to individuals
for a program to qualify as a ``federal public benefit.'' In fact, some
programs that have been determined to be ``federal public benefits''
under the PRWORA provide payments directly to third parties or other
intermediaries on behalf of the beneficiary, including Section 8
housing assistance paid directly to property owners and federal student
assistance paid directly to educational institutions. The Commission
seeks comments on what effect, if any, the fact that Lifeline program
reimbursements are paid to service providers has on the applicability
of the PRWORA.
Does the fact that Lifeline benefits are already limited to
citizens and qualified aliens affect the PRWORA analysis? Would a
specific finding that Lifeline program support is a ``federal public
benefit'' under the PRWORA further protect the program against the
possibility of improper payments? If the Commission concludes that
Lifeline program support is a ``federal public benefit'' under the
PRWORA, would additional verifications beyond collection of the SSN be
necessary to ensure compliance with the PRWORA? If so, what
verifications would be needed?
The Commission also seeks comments on its tentative conclusion that
the Lifeline benefit qualifies as a ``means-tested public benefit''
under the PRWORA. As noted, the PRWORA does not define ``means-tested
public benefit,'' so the Commission applies the guidance from OLC that
a means-tested public benefit ``is best understood as any federal
public benefit for which the eligibility of an individual, household,
or family eligibility unit for benefits, or the amount of such
benefits, or both, are determined on the basis of the income,
resources, or financial need of the individual, household, or unit.''
The Lifeline program readily satisfies the plain meaning of this
definition. Tentatively concluding that the program is a federal public
benefit and eligibility plainly is determined based on, among other
things, income, resources, and financial need, the Commission seeks
comments on this analysis and whether there are other factors to be
considered. Are there reasons not to consider OLC's interpretation of
the term ``Federal means-tested public benefit'' controlling here and,
if not, what standard should be applied? Under this definition or
others, does the Lifeline program qualify as a means-tested public
benefit? Does the Lifeline program fall within any of the ``Federal
means-tested public benefits'' to which exemptions from the five-year
waiting period apply? If the program is determined to be a ``Federal
means-tested public benefit,'' should there be a transition period
before the de-enrollment of subscribers who have not completed the
five-year waiting period? If so, what would that transition period be?
If the Lifeline benefit is a ``means-tested public benefit'' under
the PRWORA, then with certain exceptions, qualified aliens would not be
eligible for Lifeline program benefits until five years after entry in
the United States as a qualified alien. The Commission seeks comments
on the best way to determine whether five years have passed since a
qualified alien's entry into the United States. Would resources from
the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program
assist with these verifications? Are there other methods that could be
used to confirm whether five years have passed since entry as a
qualified alien into the United States?
The Commission also seeks comments on whether its tentative
conclusion that the Lifeline benefit is a Federal public benefit under
the PRWORA implicates other existing statutory or regulatory
obligations. For example, would such a holding suggest other statutory
or regulatory obligations rest with the Commission, program providers,
or Lifeline beneficiaries once Lifeline is determined to be a Federal
public benefit? Similarly, the Commission asks the same question to the
extent that it determines the Lifeline benefit is a ``means-tested
public benefit'' under the PRWORA. Do Lifeline program eligibility
requirements sufficiently account for spouse or immigration sponsor
income and resources as required for ``means-tested public benefits''
for qualified aliens under the PRWORA? Would restrictions under the
PRWORA apply only to the Lifeline applicant, or would they also apply
to a benefit qualifying person, that is, a dependent whose enrollment
in a government assistance program makes the applicant's household
eligible for the Lifeline program, associated with the applicant?
[[Page 16874]]
Finally, the Commission seeks comments on other potential changes
regarding who should be eligible for Lifeline program support. Should
eligibility for the Lifeline program be otherwise changed? Should the
Commission adopt eligibility requirements in line with the Working
Families Tax Cut Act's Medicaid eligibility requirements for non-
citizens, under which the only non-citizens eligible were certain
lawfully admitted permanent residents, certain Cuban and Haitian
entrants, or individuals lawfully residing in the U.S. in accordance
with the Compact of Free Association? Are there other standards for
Lifeline eligibility that the Commission should consider applying?
The Commission seeks comments on additional measures that can be
taken to enhance protections to ensure that program participants are
qualified to receive Lifeline program discounts, including whether
there are resources that can be used to combat waste, fraud and abuse.
Enhancing Identity Verification and Lawful Status of Applicants
The Commission seeks comments on ways to enhance the integrity of
the identity verification process for Lifeline program applicants,
including potentially collecting the full nine-digit SSN from
applicants and ensuring that the Commission takes advantage of all
available resources to verify the identity and lawful status of
Lifeline program applicants. Verifying an applicant's identity is an
integral step to confirming eligibility.
Full Social Security Number Verification. Currently, Lifeline
applicants must provide the last four digits of their SSN (or Tribal
Identification number, for those who lack a SSN and are a member of a
Tribal nation) along with their full name, address, and date of birth
for identity verification. The Commission seeks comments on whether to
change the verification process to require the full nine digits of
applicants' SSNs, rather than only the last four digits. What impact
would this change have on the Lifeline program's goals of reducing
waste, fraud, and abuse? Is collecting the full SSN necessary for
identity verifications? What should be considered when balancing such
potential reductions in waste, fraud, and abuse against the increased
privacy and security considerations (including any increased security
costs) of collecting and protecting full SSNs? Would this change bring
Lifeline into greater or lesser alignment with similar programs,
including those that can form the basis for eligibility for Lifeline,
and what impact would the change have on administrative efficiencies
and cross-agency data matching? What other programs require the full
SSN? Are there deficiencies in verifying identity based on name,
address, date of birth, and last four digits of the SSN that would be
cured by collecting the full SSN; are there alternatives to collecting
the full SSN that would address those deficiencies that present fewer
privacy concerns? For example, should a four digit SSN be collected
from all subscribers and a full SSN only be collected if USAC is unable
to confirm the applicant's identity with the four digit SSN? Have any
other such programs undergone a change from requiring four to nine
digits of applicant SSNs, and what lessons can be learned from those
transitions? What legal considerations would impact this potential
collection of full SSNs? The Federal Information Security Modernization
Act (coupled with the specific requirements of NIST 800-53), the E-
Government Act of 2002, and related OMB guidance and Executive Orders
related to those two acts address processes for protecting highly-
sensitive, personally identifiable information such as full SSNs; are
there other federal laws or guidance that should be considered in
collecting full SSNs? As these laws already apply to the collection and
use of partial SSNs, what impact would they have on the collection of a
full SSN?
The Commission also seeks comments from Lifeline providers on
compliance with this potential collection and enhanced security
measures needed to safeguard consumer data. How much time should be
provided to carriers to come into compliance with the changed
requirement? Would carriers need to collect and store SSNs and if so,
why? Should carriers be allowed to enroll subscribers using enrollment
representatives' devices? What information or documents are retained by
the representative or the marketing company if that means that these
entities and persons (who may be unknown to the government) may be left
with even more personally identifiable information (PII) of the
enrollees? What can the Commission do so that providers and their
agents do not retain and illegally use applicants' PII? Are there other
ways that full SSNs could be used or checked that would not require
carriers to collect and store that information, including some form of
a verifier program? What security standards, if any, should the
Commission impose on carriers or others collecting full SSNs to ensure
SSNs are appropriately protected? In addition, the Commission seeks
comments on the impact of this potential change on Lifeline applicants,
including whether there are any groups that may be disproportionately
affected. What are the costs in terms of applicant privacy and security
considerations compared to the current practice of requiring the last
four digits of the applicant's SSN? Are there special privacy concerns
unique to Lifeline applicants that need to be considered? What might be
the impact on customer enrollment in Lifeline due to potential
applicant reluctance to provide full SSNs? Are there any additional
costs, benefits, or legal issues the Commission should consider before
also applying the full SSN requirement, as described, to individuals
applying for Tribal Link Up or Lifeline emergency support for survivors
of domestic violence? How are these potential concerns weighed against
the potential benefits to program integrity and safeguarding public
funds?
Resources for Verification of Identity and Lawful Status. To ensure
that identity verifications are as thorough as possible, and to ensure
that applicants satisfy the FCC's eligibility criteria, the Commission
proposes requiring USAC to use the SAVE program to conduct sufficiently
thorough identity verifications to ensure that the Lifeline program has
the most up to date and valid information on the identity of potential
Lifeline subscribers and seeks comment on this approach.
The Commission also seeks comments on other resources available to
conduct identity verifications of Lifeline program applicants,
including the U.S. Department of Treasury's Do Not Pay system and other
available federal government resources. How does the accuracy of
identity verifications under federal government resources compare to
identity verifications using commercial databases? The Commission seeks
comments on the cost-effectiveness of these resources and whether
benefits of using them outweigh the potential costs to USF. How would
administrative costs to implement these programs compare with costs to
use commercial services?
Are there data points other than the applicant's name, address,
date of birth and SSN (or Tribal identification number for Tribal
applicants that lack an SSN) that should be collected to facilitate
identity verifications? Could collecting the alien registration number,
arrival/departure record number, or naturalization/citizenship
certificate number facilitate identity verifications for certain
immigrants?
[[Page 16875]]
Consumer Choice During Enrollment and Transfer
The Commission proposes changes to enhance the Lifeline program's
requirements regarding consumer consent for enrollment and transfers to
a different service provider and seeks comment on other ways to protect
consumers and prevent fraud during the transfer process.
Consent requirements. The Commission proposes to require secondary
verification of a consumer's consent to enroll in the Lifeline program
or transfer to a new service provider and seeks comment on other ways
that the Commission can protect consumers in the enrollment and
transfer processes, such as specifying the methods by which consumers
can provide consent. In the Lifeline program, providers are required to
obtain consumer consent prior to submitting a subscriber's personal
information to the NLAD when enrolling or transferring the subscriber.
When enrolling a prospective subscriber, ETCs must provide prospective
subscribers with an eligibility certification form that, in part,
requires each prospective subscriber to initial his or her
acknowledgement of certain certifications. For example, prospective
subscribers must certify that they meet the income-based or program-
based eligibility criteria for receiving Lifeline, that the subscriber
will notify the carrier if for any reason he or she no longer satisfies
the criteria for receiving Lifeline, and the subscriber acknowledges
that providing false or fraudulent information to receive Lifeline
benefits is punishable by law.
The Commission proposes to require a secondary verification of
consent, that is, confirmation of consent via a method separate from
the application or transfer request, from a consumer before an
enrollment or transfer is effectuated. Current rules for enrollment
require providers to obtain completed application certification forms
from subscribers. Current procedures for benefit transfers require
providers to obtain a new, completed application form; review proof of
eligibility; and send the subscriber either a paper or electronic
consent request. The FCC OIG recommended that the Commission require
households to independently verify their new enrollment or transfer
requests through an affirmative response to a text or email in the
FCC's temporary Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) and Emergency
Broadband Benefit (EBB) program. FCC OIG investigations have shown that
too many consumers were enrolled in the Commission's affordability
programs without their knowledge or consent and without receiving
service. The enrollment of consumers who do not actually receive
services wastes limited universal service funds, and a transfer to a
new ETC without the consumer's consent violates principles of consumer
choice.
The Commission seeks comments on whether the Commission should
require households to independently verify their new enrollment and
transfer requests through an affirmative response to a text or email.
Would secondary verification of consent better protect consumers
against enrollments or transfers against their will? What privacy
considerations would be germane to requiring secondary verifications of
consent?
The Commission also seeks comments on processes for secondary
verifications of consent. Should USAC contact the consumer to confirm
that the consumer consented to the enrollment or transfer before an
enrollment or transfer is effectuated in the NLAD? In the alternative,
should the ETC contact the consumer and maintain records of the
secondary verification? What safeguards should be established to
prevent excessive outreach to consumers about enrollments and
transfers? What method(s) should be used for such a verification--text
message, email, physical address or another method? What effect would
requiring a form of secondary verification have on providers and
consumers, including the effect, if any, on survivors of domestic abuse
seeking to switch between participating providers? How would a
secondary verification requirement impact subscribers who do not yet
have a device or stable connection to respond to verification texts or
emails? Should such applicants be permitted to provide a secondary
verification after their service has been activated?
As to initial consent to enroll or transfer, the Commission seeks
comments on whether Commission rules should specify the method by which
consumers convey their initial consent to enroll or transfer a
consumer. ETCs are currently responsible for obtaining consent for an
enrollment or transfer and providing USAC with evidence of the consent
upon request. When enrolling a prospective subscriber, ETCs must
provide prospective subscribers with an eligibility certification form
that, in part, requires each prospective subscriber to initial his or
her acknowledgement of certain certifications. For example, prospective
subscribers must certify that they meet the income-based or program-
based eligibility criteria for receiving Lifeline, that the subscriber
will notify the carrier if for any reason he or she no longer satisfies
the criteria for receiving Lifeline, and the subscriber acknowledges
that providing false or fraudulent information to receive Lifeline
benefits is punishable by law. Should the Commission require providers
to submit evidence of consumer consent for each transfer transaction to
USAC? If so, what evidence would ensure or demonstrate consensual
enrollments and transfers? If providers are required to submit evidence
of consumer consent for each transfer transaction, what burdens and
administrative costs would this present? Is there a way to minimize
such burdens--e.g., have providers submit consumer consent data in the
NLAD to be reviewed on a sample basis according to certain criteria?
How should such submission of evidence take place?
There is currently no standard language used to obtain consent for
transfers to a new ETC from a consumer. How can the Commission ensure
that it is the enrolled subscribers who provide consent? With the
emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), how can the Commission
better protect the program from new types of identity theft and
identity fraud? Would a standardized language requirement better enable
the Commission to enforce the consent rules? What are some best
practices from other types of federal benefit programs that could be
utilized in the Lifeline program to obtain enrollment or transfer
consent? Should specific consent be required for changes to devices,
telephone numbers, email and residential addresses or other items?
Finally, the Commission seeks comments on whether to implement
requirements that providers input a consent timestamp in the NLAD when
enrolling or transferring a subscriber. Would this enhancement prevent
improper consumer transfers by ensuring the most recent consent from
the consumer was properly documented? The Commission also seeks
comments on best practices for encouraging providers to properly notify
consumers of their privacy policies and on how best to handle personal
information.
National Verifier eligibility verification expiration. Currently,
an applicant that is qualified as eligible by the National Verifier
will have 90 days from when they are qualified to enroll with an ETC.
The Commission seeks comments on whether to shorten the period for
which the qualified eligibility result can be used to enroll with an
ETC. Will shortening the period from 90 days help to guard against
waste, fraud, and abuse? Are 30 days or 60 days from
[[Page 16876]]
a qualified result sufficient time for an applicant to enroll with an
ETC?
Transfer Prohibitions. The Commission seeks comments on how
significant of an issue unwanted transfers are for Lifeline consumers
today and whether it is necessary to impose additional restrictions on
transfers in the Lifeline program. Currently, under the Commission's
Lifeline rules, subscribers are able to transfer their Lifeline-
supported service from one ETC to another with few restrictions. To
accomplish a benefit transfer, the initiating ETC must obtain the
affirmative consent of the subscriber to transfer the Lifeline benefit
prior to the initiation of the transfer in the NLAD. When an ETC
initiates a transfer in the NLAD, the system automatically transfers
the subscriber out of the old ETC's database and into the new ETC's
database.
In the event additional restrictions on transfers are warranted,
the Commission seeks comments on applying the one transfer per calendar
month limitation adopted for the ACP to the Lifeline program. Should
the limitation be modified, and if so, what modifications should be
made? How would freezing the ability to transfer for a specified
period, such as 60 or 90 days after enrollment, limit consumer choice?
Are there lessons from the Commission's codification and subsequent
elimination of port freezes in Lifeline to be considered? Would
eliminating the transfer framework altogether and instead requiring a
subscriber who wants to change ETCs to de-enroll and re-apply reduce
incidents of transfer issues and/or produce other benefits? The
Commission seeks comments on whether transfer-related rules should be
applied differently to fixed providers versus mobile providers, and if
so, how.
Finally, the Commission seeks comments on number portability issues
arising from the benefit transfer process in Lifeline. Are there
currently concerns associated with benefit transfers where service
providers fail to port subscriber phone numbers to newly identified
service providers in a manner consistent with the Commission's rules?
Should there be additional requirements or certain penalties for
providers that fail to port consumers' numbers in connection with
Lifeline service?
Disclosure language. The Commission seeks comments on whether to
require ETCs to make additional disclosures to consumers before
enrolling or transferring them. Although the Lifeline program does not
have extensive disclosure requirements, all materials describing the
service must clarify, in easily understood language, that it is a
Lifeline service, that Lifeline is a federal assistance program, that
the benefits are non-transferable to another individual, that only
eligible consumers may enroll, and that the program benefit is limited
to one discount per household. The Commission seeks comments on the
value of providing new or adjusted disclosures to consumers at the time
of enrollment or transfer, as well as the burden, if any, on providers.
Workable Minimum Service Standards
The Commission next inquires whether any changes are needed to
ensure a workable framework for minimum service standards in the
Lifeline program. In the 2016 Lifeline Report and Order (FCC 16-38)
published at 81 FR 33026, May 24, 2016, the Commission established
Lifeline minimum service standards with the goal of ensuring that the
service available to Lifeline subscribers was adequate to meet modern
needs. The Commission concluded that creating minimum service standards
furthered the Commission's statutory principle of ensuring that low-
income Americans have access to quality services, particularly those
``subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential customers,''
at ``just, reasonable, and affordable rates.'' The Commission further
determined that ``[b]ecause technology develops at a rapid pace, any
minimum standards [the Commission] set[s] would quickly become outdated
without a timely updating mechanism,'' and thus established formulas to
update these standards on an annual basis. The Commission established
minimum service standards and update mechanisms for fixed broadband
data usage allowance, fixed broadband speed, mobile broadband data
usage allowance, mobile broadband speed, and mobile voice minutes
allowance in the 2016 Lifeline Report and Order and instructed WCB to
annually publish updated standards on or before July 31, becoming
effective on December 1 of that year. The Commission now seeks comments
on the minimum service standards and any update mechanisms.
To better inform decisions in this area, the Commission seeks
comment on the low-income communications market more broadly and how
increased minimum service standards would alter it. Do any existing
Lifeline providers offer free-to-the-subscriber service that is more
robust than the minimum service standards? Do any existing Lifeline
providers offer any other benefits beyond talk, text, and data that
meet the minimum service standards? If providers offer additional
benefits, are they able to do so on the current subsidy level? What
effect could increase minimum service standards have on the market for
low-income communications service and on the number of providers who
offer Lifeline? What would be the effect if the Commission raised
minimum service standards to the point that providers are no longer
able to provide service without requiring a payment from customers? How
would this affect existing Lifeline subscribers or eligible households
who are not enrolled but are considering participating in the program?
Should minimum service standards be static or adjusted periodically?
Have service providers explored options to support the need for
increased usage allowances for Lifeline subscribers who are deaf, hard
of hearing, or have a speech disability and rely on video connection
for Video Relay Services and point-to-point calls and other bandwidth-
intensive accessibility functions? What role, if any, could AI tools
play in establishing minimum service standards?
Mobile broadband data capacity. The current mobile broadband usage
allowance minimum service standard is 4.5 GB per month. In the 2016
Lifeline Report and Order, the Commission established an initial
minimum service standard schedule, setting a 500 MB per month standard
beginning on December 1, 2016 that ramped up to 2 GB per month on
December 1, 2018 before switching to annual updates determined by
formulas and communications market data on December 1, 2019. The rules
provided that one formula should be used if broadband data was
published in the past 18 months, and another should be used if it was
not.
However, minimum service standards based on either of the 2016
Lifeline Report and Order's annual mobile broadband data usage
allowance formulas have never been implemented. Instead, the Commission
or WCB issued partial waivers of the Commission's rules on updating the
mobile broadband data usage minimum service standard in 2019, 2020,
2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 concluding that strict application of
the Commission's rules would not have been consistent with the public
interest. In each waiver order, it was noted that the automatic
formula, if not waived, would produce minimum mobile broadband data
capacity amounts larger than the amounts likely contemplated when the
2016 Lifeline Report and Order was adopted and could result in price
increases that make Lifeline service unaffordable, even after factoring
in Lifeline support, or could otherwise disrupt the low-income
[[Page 16877]]
broadband market. Using the formula prescribed by the Commission's
rules would have ``risk[ed] upsetting the careful balance [of service
quality and affordability] the Commission struck when establishing the
Lifeline minimum service standards in the 2016 Order.'' The mobile
broadband data capacity standard was increased in 2019 and 2020, at
pre-set, more modest amounts than the default level the formula would
have set, increasing it to 3 GB rather than 8.75 GB in 2019 and 4.5 GB
rather than 11.75 GB in 2020. WCB paused the most recent scheduled
mobile data usage allowance update, which would have increased the
standard more than sixfold to 29 GB on December 1, 2025, nearly double
the average monthly consumption amount of all smartphone users.
The Commission tentatively concludes to revise or eliminate the
existing mobile broadband usage allowance update rule. The Delete,
Delete, Delete Public Notice (DA 25-219 released March 12, 2025)
suggests that rules that have been repeatedly waived or that generate
unexpected or highly varied benefit and burden outcomes are rules
likely to be ill-suited to their purpose and therefore in need of
revision or deletion. The mobile broadband usage allowance update rule
meets this standard. Why has the existing mechanism produced results
that are so far out of step with actual data usage? How should the
Commission update this standard moving forward? How should a new update
mechanism operate? Assuming the 4.5 GB minimum service standard for
data allowance should be adjusted, what would the ideal standard be
when a new formula goes into effect? Should minimum service standards
reflect the broadband needs of an individual or the needs of a
household, assuming that the household would share the device for
mobile broadband use?
The Commission requests comment on a new approach that could be
used to adjust the minimum service standard. What formula should the
Commission or WCB use to determine the minimum service standards?
Should minimum service standards be a static amount or updated at a
regular cadence? If the minimum service standards increase, should the
standard increase by a set amount or a variable amount based on
marketplace and demographic data? For example, should minimum service
standards be tied to a measure of mobile data usage like average mobile
data usage in the U.S. or should it be tied to some other measure like
the federal poverty level or an inflation measure? How are the costs of
increased minimum service standards actually borne by providers--do
providers actually purchase the capacity necessary to support the
maximum allowance for each subscriber, or do they purchase the actual
capacity or the estimated capacity needed understanding that some
subscribers do not approach the maximum data capacity their plan
allows?
The Commission also seeks comments on the data sources to be used
to support any updated formula that is used to determine mobile
broadband minimum service standards. Should the Commission continue to
exclusively rely on the same data sources (i.e., the U.S. Census and
Communications Marketplace Report) but alter the formulas? What are the
third-party data sources that can be used to support a formula for
updated minimum service standards? If the Commission chooses to adopt a
new formula for predictable increases, how would the timing of
publications data sources be considered? Should the Commission use
onetime snapshots of the marketplace or data usage to inform minimum
service standards? Is there information available on mobile phone plan
offerings that the Commission can use? Can commenters provide
information on mobile phone plan offerings? How should the Commission
utilize any data about available plan offerings to inform its decision
on minimum service standards? If the Commission were to use this data
in an analysis, how should staff account for differences between plan
features like hotspot data, speeds, data thresholds, and congestion
throttling? Should the Commission rely on the data it collected on
usage and costs from the 2021 Lifeline Marketplace Report, published
June 2021 (<a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-373779A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-373779A1.pdf</a>)
even though the data collection was limited to nine providers? Should
the Commission use data from the Urban Rate Survey or other sources?
The Commission seeks to understand how changes in the minimum
service standards may impact the Lifeline marketplace and whether
changes in minimum service standards would impact provider
participation. How would minimum service standard changes impact
provider ability to offer no cost to the consumer plans and at what
data usage allowance? If providers that currently offer service at no
cost to the consumer were to increase prices, at what price point do
low-income Americans choose not to subscribe to Lifeline service?
Mobile broadband speeds. Updates to the mobile broadband speed
minimum service standard are subject to WCB discretion, with
instructions to alter it only ``if the [WCB] determines that it ought
to be adjusted after determining that, based on Form 477 data or other
relevant sources, the `substantial majority' principle is best
satisfied by an adjusted speed standard.'' The Commission reasoned in
the 2016 Lifeline Report and Order that ``the minimum service standards
for mobile broadband speeds may not need to be updated as frequently as
the mobile data usage allowance standard given the pace at which new
mobile technology generations are deployed.'' WCB has never updated the
standard. The current minimum service standard for mobile services
speed is 3G.
The Commission seeks comments on the existing mobile broadband
speed minimum service standard and whether it should be revised and
whether WCB should retain discretion to increase mobile broadband speed
minimum service standards. One argument against making changes at this
stage is that current market conditions do not necessarily indicate a
need to increase the standard. It is the Commission's understanding
that mobile broadband Lifeline subscribers often receive 4G LTE or 5G
service and that some providers have phased out providing 3G service
entirely, but in some areas, particularly rural ones, 3G remains the
fastest mobile service available at any price point. Does this meet the
Commission's obligation under section 254(b)(1) and (3) of the Act,
which requires the Commission to base policies on ensuring affordable
rates and the availability of reasonably comparable services? The
Commission seeks comments on these conclusions.
Fixed broadband data. Section 54.408(c)(1)(ii) of the Commission's
rules states that the fixed broadband usage allowance minimum service
standard shall be the greater of ``[a]n amount the Wireline Competition
Bureau deems appropriate, based on what a substantial majority of
American consumers already subscribe to'' or ``[t]he minimum standard
for data usage allowance for rate-of-return fixed broadband providers
set in the Connect America Fund.'' The Commission expressed the
``belie[f] that 70 percent of consumers constitutes a ``substantial
majority'' in the context of fixed broadband speeds.'' WCB has used
this appropriateness standard every year this increase mechanism has
been in effect and has never waived the increase or used the alternate
Connect America Fund standard. This resulted in a 1280 GB per month
standard in the most recent adjustment.
[[Page 16878]]
In 2016, the year the fixed broadband data usage allowance standard
was enacted, 52% of fixed broadband plans allowed for unlimited data.
This figure rose to 75% in 2024. While WCB has considerable latitude
under the appropriateness standard to set the fixed broadband data
usage allowance, it is difficult to argue that the ``substantial
majority'' of consumers does not already or will not soon subscribe to
an unlimited data offering. For this reason, the Commission tentatively
concludes that it should provide additional clarification regarding
revisions to the fixed broadband data usage allowance minimum service
standard. While it is not fiscally responsible to have an unlimited
fixed broadband usage allowance minimum service standard, are ETCs
amenable to providing unlimited fixed broadband data to Lifeline
subscribers at an affordable price? What would the price of unlimited
fixed broadband data be after the Lifeline benefit is applied? Should
an appropriateness standard be retained if it is no longer based on
what a ``substantial majority'' of consumers subscribe to? Would an
appropriateness standard that excludes unlimited data from the
substantial majority consideration sufficiently improve the formula? If
not, what alternate formula should be used to adjust the fixed
broadband data allowance minimum service standard? Is the current 1280
GB standard sufficient? Note that even after the Lifeline benefit is
applied, many fixed broadband plans require a substantial monthly fee.
Fixed broadband speed. Per Commission rules, WCB sets the fixed
broadband speed minimum service standard at the 30th percentile of
subscribed broadband speeds. However, if WCB does not publish the
minimum service standard on or before July 31, the minimum service
standard for the upcoming year will be the greater of the current
minimum service standard or the Connect America Fund speed standard for
rate-of-return fixed broadband providers (WCB has used the Connect
America Fund Broadband Loop Support speed, which is currently 25/3
Mbps). To maintain the minimum service standard at its current level,
25/3 Mbps, after increasing it in 2020, 2019, 2018, and 2017 from the
initial 10/1 Mbps standard, WCB has not published a new calculated
fixed broadband speed minimum service standard since 2020, instead
relying on its ability to rely on the greater of the current standard
or the Connect America Fund standard.
The Commission is not inclined to alter the fixed broadband speed
minimum service standard or its update mechanism. Fixed broadband
subscriptions make up a small percentage of the Lifeline program and
already tend to require an end-user fee. Fixed broadband speeds at or
above 25/3 Mbps may be unavailable from Lifeline ETCs in some rural
areas. The current mechanism allows for flexibility in whether to
increase it in light of these factors, while retaining a floor
preventing the minimum service standard from falling below the Connect
America Fund standard, an important baseline for rural service
performance. Raising the standard higher and regularly increasing it
could leave large portions of the country without Lifeline service that
meets this standard and increase prices to prohibitive rates in areas
where qualifying service is available, thus effectively leaving many
Lifeline consumers without a viable option for fixed broadband. The
Commission seeks comments on these conclusions. The Commission's rules
contemplate an exception from the minimum service standards for certain
fixed service providers who do not offer any service in an area that
meets the Commission's minimum service standards. Should this exception
be changed or eliminated, and if so, why and how? Are there ways that
the Commission can better understand consumer usage of fixed services
supported by the Lifeline program and how these differ from mobile
uses? Are there existing resources documenting such usage, or can
service providers readily share that information with the Commission?
Support for Consumers Reliant on Voice Services
The Commission seeks comments on whether to maintain support for
voice-only services in the Lifeline program and whether changes to the
ongoing phase-down of support for voice service are necessary. In the
2016 Lifeline Report and Order, the Commission enacted a rule to
gradually phase out Lifeline support for voice-only service. The
Commission reasoned that focusing Lifeline on broadband service, which
has become more vital to current communications needs than voice
service, best fulfills its section 254 ``responsibility to be a prudent
guardian of the public's resources,'' under the Act. The Commission
noted, however, that ``consumer migration to new technologies is not
always uniform, and certain measures to continue addressing the
affordability of voice service may be appropriate.''
In accordance with the 2016 Lifeline Report and Order, WCB carried
out the first step of the phase-down in Lifeline support for voice-only
services on December 1, 2019, when it allowed support to reduce from
$9.25 to $7.25. The second step occurred on December 1, 2020, from
$7.25 to $5.25. The 2016 Report and Order scheduled a complete phase-
out of Lifeline support for voice-only services on December 1, 2021,
when support for such services was to be eliminated in most areas. WCB,
however, has issued one-year waiver extensions every year since to
pause the phase-out of voice-only service. The most recent temporary
waiver is currently in effect and ends on December 1, 2026. Reasons for
the waivers have included the minority of Lifeline subscribers that
continue to subscribe to voice-only services, the heightened reliance
on voice service during the COVID-19 pandemic, the existence of
alternative low-income broadband benefit programs, the potential harm
from subscribers' lack of access to emergency services hotlines, the
fact that bundled services may not be fully utilized, and maintaining
service until the Commission determines whether to implement Commission
report recommendations and deregulatory Commission priorities.
The Commission seeks comments on whether to maintain support for
voice-only service at the current $5.25 amount. There are still more
than 160,000 subscribers to Lifeline voice-only or bundled plans that
do not meet the broadband minimum service standards, though this figure
is slowly but regularly decreasing. How vital is voice service to
consumers' ability to access public safety resources or to participate
in today's society? Does broadband service fulfill all the needs that
voice service does? How would ending support for voice-only services
affect accessibility for certain individuals with disabilities? Should
the Commission continue on the path toward ending Lifeline support for
voice-only service, but at a later date? Should the Commission
establish a metric that would trigger the phaseout of voice-only
support, such as when under a certain percentage of Lifeline
subscribers apply their benefit to voice-only service? If so, which
metric would be the most reliable method of assessing the need for
voice-only services? Can voice-only Lifeline subscribers find
alternative, affordable voice-only service? Will these subscribers
transition to qualifying bundled plans or stop subscribing to
communications service altogether? Would subscribers that switch to
bundled plans use their broadband component? How does
[[Page 16879]]
offering a cheaper alternative to the $9.25 standard broadband support
amount affect the contribution factor?
Finally, the Commission seeks comments on ancillary rule or
guidance changes to support changes to the existing minimum service
standards and their adjustment mechanisms proposed here and by
commenters.
Preventing Duplicative Support
The Commission seeks comments on whether changes to the one-per-
household rule are necessary or warranted to achieve program goals and
minimize waste, fraud, and abuse. Currently the Commission's rules
limit Lifeline service to one Lifeline discount per household. However,
based on the definition of household, there can be multiple households
within a single residence or address if they do not share income and
expenses, such as at group living facilities. A household already
receiving a Lifeline discount is therefore ineligible to receive an
additional Lifeline discount and ETCs must not seek reimbursement for
such duplicative discounts. In order to better enforce the one-per-
household rule and help prevent duplicative support, the Commission
established the National Verifier and the NLAD, which were fully
launched and implemented by 2020. In addition, in February 2018, the
Commission announced the availability of the Independent Economic
Household Worksheet, which subscribers were required to complete
beginning on July 1, 2018, certifying compliance with the one-per-
household rule in the event a subscriber shared an address with one or
more additional Lifeline subscribers. Although these mechanisms help
facilitate eligibility determinations in accordance with the one-per-
household rule, the ultimate responsibility to ensure compliance with
the rule remains with ETCs. In December 2019, the Enforcement Bureau
emphasized that ``[n]either the NLAD nor the National Verifier creates
a `safe harbor' that relieves ETCs of their responsibility for only
claiming Lifeline consumers who are actually eligible for the program
under the Commission's rules.'' Instead, ETCs ``remain fully liable if
they provide false, misleading, or fraudulent information'' and if they
provide duplicate Lifeline discounts.
Recently, a commenter noted that ETCs are unable to see how many
households are enrolled in Lifeline with other ETCs at a single
address. Lifeline rules require ETCs to query the NLAD to determine
whether a household is already receiving a Lifeline service. However,
the NLAD does not identify for ETCs the number of discounts provided by
other ETCs at an address. This shortcoming may, in some instances, make
it so an ETC cannot implement a reasonable system for preventing
duplicate discounts. The Commission seeks comments on whether USAC
should change the functionality of the NLAD to allow any ETC to see the
total number of discounts provided (across all ETCs) at a single
address. How could USAC prevent providers from using this information
inappropriately? Should USAC update this information in real time, each
month, at annual recertification, or at some other interval? Should
ETCs be required to check for this information only at initial
enrollment, each month, at annual recertification, or at some other
interval? Should USAC treat addresses it identifies as non-residential
differently? If so, how? What, if any, additional information is needed
for ETCs to implement a reasonable system for preventing duplicate
discounts? What are the costs and benefits of making this information
available and requiring ETCs to query the database for it? Would the
changes described to the NLAD also require changes to Lifeline rules?
What other internal controls could the Commission or USAC adopt to
prevent duplicative support? Could AI tools help USAC identity
instances of duplicative support?
The Commission also seeks comments on whether to revisit the one-
per-household rule. Should the Commission revise its rule to make it a
one-per-residence rule? If the Commission moved to a one-per-residence
rule, how should instances be handled where more than one household
receiving Lifeline benefits currently resides at the same address--for
example, should such current Lifeline beneficiaries be allowed to keep
their discount, despite the rule change? For new applicants, how should
multiple households applying for Lifeline at the same residence be
handled--for example, should the Commission provide benefits to the
first applicant to enter an approved application into the NLAD? What
dispute resolution processes does the Commission need to have in place
if such a rule change were made?
Alternatively, should the Commission adopt a cap on the number of
households who receive discounts at a particular address (and if so,
should this cap differ for non-residential addresses)? Should the
Commission make any one-per-residence limit or larger cap on the number
of households at an address a rebuttable presumption, and if so, what
types of evidence should be considered to rebut that presumption?
Should the Commission redefine an independent economic household, and
if so, how should it be redefined? Have circumstances changed since the
Commission last considered whether to keep the one-per-household rule
in 2012? What would be the likely effect of different approaches on the
cost of the Lifeline program, its ability to serve low-income
individuals and households, and the Universal Service Fund contribution
factor? How often have commenters found that subscribers were
wrongfully rejected as receiving duplicate discounts? How often do
commenters estimate that duplicate Lifeline support has been improperly
granted under the current system? Would program integrity and low-
income household needs be better served by focusing on tracking usage
requirements rather than duplicates? If so, why?
In addition, the Commission proposes to codify the rule,
established over a decade ago, that in addition to querying the NLAD
for duplicate discounts at a single residence an ``ETC must also search
its own internal records to ensure that it does not already provide
Lifeline-supported service to someone at that residential address.''
The Commission proposes codifying the rule in Sec. 54.410(a) of the
Commission's rules, because this internal check is one example of a
policy and procedure ETCs must implement ``for ensuring that their
Lifeline subscribers are eligible to receive Lifeline services.''
Commission codification of the rule is not intended to suggest that
this requirement was not already in force. Nor is the codification
intended to suggest that every specific policy and procedure required
by Commission rule Sec. 54.410(a) must be explicitly cited in that
rule in order to apply to ETCs. The standard for such internal policies
and procedures is that they must at least encompass a ``reasonable
system for preventing duplicates'' or other violations of Lifeline
rules, under the totality of the circumstances.
Optimizing Lifeline Program Processes for Integrity and Efficiency
The Commission seeks comments on whether to undertake additional
changes to optimize Lifeline program processes, including whether the
Lifeline program should continue to permit different eligibility
verification processes for NLAD opt-out states and whether to
streamline the annual reporting forms for ETCs.
Opt-Out State Reforms
The Commission seeks comments on whether to continue to permit the
Lifeline program ``opt-out'' states to
[[Page 16880]]
utilize their own program integrity processes different from federal
processes. When the Commission implemented the NLAD to help prevent
consumers from receiving duplicative Lifeline support, it allowed
states to opt out of using the NLAD if they had their own systems to
check for duplicative Lifeline support that were at least as robust as
the NLAD and covered all ETCs operating in the state and their
subscribers. After the launch of the National Verifier, WCB elected to
allow the National Verifier to rely on state processes to facilitate
eligibility determinations in NLAD opt-out states. Although the
National Verifier has been deployed in all states and territories, in
Lifeline it operates differently in Texas and Oregon, which are ``NLAD
opt-out'' states. In those states, the state public utility
commissions, or their administrators, facilitate verification of a
consumer's eligibility to participate in Lifeline. With respect to the
opt-out states, USAC uses state Lifeline subscriber files to populate
the NLAD. In partnership with these states, USAC also samples state
eligibility information and documentation to assess whether that state
eligibility determinations are made in accordance with Commission
rules. In contrast, under the ACP, the Commission did not permit states
to opt out of the NLAD or take a modified approach to use of the
National Verifier.
The Commission has concerns that the current approach, which allows
opt-out states to conduct their own verification processes, creates
greater opportunities for waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline
program. For example, WCB recently revoked California's opt-out status
because, among other things, recent changes to California state law no
longer requiring applicants to submit SSNs for verification purposes
impaired the efficacy of California's eligibility verification,
duplicate detection, and identify theft prevention procedures. More
broadly, FCC OIG recently found that providers across opt-out states
received nearly $5 million in Lifeline reimbursements for deceased
individuals across five years. The Commission seeks comments on whether
the Lifeline program should continue to permit different eligibility
verification processes for NLAD opt-out states and whether the
experience in opt-out states has demonstrated that allowing for
alternative systems provides net benefits to states, providers,
consumers, and the Lifeline program in general.
The Commission seeks comments on whether states and ETCs have found
that state alternatives were more or less efficient or confusing than
the federal system. What are some examples or insights that demonstrate
the efficiency or inefficiency of state-specific Lifeline verification
processes compared to the federal system? In particular, have ETCs
working in both NLAD states and opt-out states found it difficult to
navigate the different systems or receive accurate and timely
reimbursements? Are there benefits to having uniform Lifeline
eligibility verification and duplicate checking processes nationwide?
Are there any differences in eligibility verification accuracy between
the processes in NLAD opt-out states and the typical National Verifier
eligibility verification process? Do NLAD opt-out states and states
with a modified National Verifier approach that relies on state
eligibility determinations adhere to requirements that their processes
be as robust as federal processes and that state eligibility
determinations meet the objectives of the National Verifier? Would
moving to a single administrator system that covers all states address
the concerns underlying FCC OIG recommendations for greater
coordination between USAC and opt-out states and for opt-out states to
maintain databases similar to the Representative Accountability
Database? What are the benefits of utilizing state-specific processes
for Lifeline eligibility verification compared to the federal National
Verifier system? Could those be adopted by the National Verifier? Is
the additional administrative complexity associated with coordinating
eligibility verification with NLAD opt-out states justified by
commensurate benefits, such as streamlining the process of applying for
both federal and state benefits in one application? Would moving all
processes to the standardized process allow the Commission to make any
needed changes to processes on a quicker timeline? If the Commission
were to require NLAD opt-out states to use the National Verifier for
eligibility checks for Lifeline in the same manner as in other states,
how would this affect those opt-out states and how much time should be
afforded for the transition? Have there been any lessons learned from
the California transition?
How does the consumer experience with the Lifeline application and
recertification differ in NLAD opt-out states versus other states? Do
commenters have specific consumer feedback or complaints that highlight
these differences? If the Commission requires a single federal Lifeline
verification system across all states, would service providers be able
to integrate federal Lifeline applications with state Lifeline
applications to minimize administrative burdens on consumers? What
changes would help service providers with this integration? Are there
different state documentation practices that benefit consumers while
protecting program integrity that should be adopted by the National
Verifier, if the Commission were to consider mandating nationwide
reliance on the National Verifier for Lifeline? What are other
potential impacts on consumers to consider?
Minimizing Reporting Burdens
The Commission seeks comments on ways to improve program efficiency
while also reducing regulatory reporting burdens on ETCs participating
in Lifeline, particularly small businesses, while ensuring that the
integrity of the program is protected. Several commenters in the
Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding have suggested various ways of
streamlining FCC Form 481 and FCC Form 555, the two Lifeline program
forms that ETCs are required to file annually, including combining the
forms, having those (and other) forms' filing deadlines set for the
same date, limiting the number of entities to which the forms must be
submitted, removing certain filing requirements from the forms, or
eliminating the forms outright. ETCs report financial and operations
data on the FCC Form 481 and recertification results on the FCC Form
555.
Some commenters raised the possibility of combining all or parts of
FCC Form 481 and FCC Form 555, and possibly other FCC forms. The
Commission notes that these forms differ (at least currently) in
various ways, including who must submit the form (all ETCs or Lifeline-
only ETCs), when and to what entities they must be submitted, and what
the specific consequences are for failing to submit the form. The
Commission seeks comments on whether combining these forms would reduce
reporting burdens, how best to combine these forms, whether combining
them would create more or less confusion for ETCs, what rules would
need to be amended to combine the forms, and a reasonable deadline for
combining these forms.
Alternatively, the Commission seeks comments on the costs and
benefits of synchronizing the filing deadlines for the FCC Form 481
(currently due annually on July 1) and FCC Form 555 (currently due
annually on January 31). Would it be preferable to synchronize filing
dates for those two forms (or even additional FCC forms)? Would it be
more or less burdensome on ETCs to file many separate (or combined)
forms all
[[Page 16881]]
at once, particularly for those ETCs that are small businesses?
As to commenters' request that the Commission limits the entities
to which these forms must be submitted or create a coordinated portal
where the FCC, USAC, and other relevant entities can access the
filings, the Commission seeks comments on the costs and benefits,
including the effect on ease of access to the information and any
concerns regarding privacy or confidential information, including how
such concerns could be mitigated. In addition, the Commission seeks
comments on experiences with One Portal, where some carriers can submit
certain portions of FCC Form 481 (which states and other entities
cannot access directly) and FCC Form 555 (which states and other
entities can access directly).
Commenters in the Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding have suggested
revising or eliminating certain reporting requirements. The Commission
seeks comments on what, if any, specific reporting requirements should
be eliminated in connection with FCC Form 481 and FCC Form 555. For
example, the same or similar reporting requirements in FCC Form 481's
High-Cost portion were previously eliminated: (1) network outage
reporting, (2) complaint reporting, and (3) certification of compliance
with service quality standards and consumer protection rules. The
Commission seeks comments on whether to eliminate these and other
requirements in the Lifeline portion of FCC Form 481, including: (1)
certification of compliance with Lifeline rules regarding applicable
minimum service standards, (2) certification that the carrier is able
to function in emergency situations in compliance with Lifeline rules,
and (3) descriptions of the terms and conditions of voice telephony
service plans offered to Lifeline subscribers. Similarly, the
Commission seeks comments on whether to amend or eliminate any of the
recertification-related data captured on FCC Form 555 and whether
certifications should continue to be made by a corporate officer of the
ETC.
For each of these requirements, the Commission seeks comments on
the costs and benefits of requiring such information be reported on the
annual forms, especially for information that may be collected
elsewhere (e.g., the Commission's consumer complaint system and outage
reporting system). If commenters believe this information should still
be collected from ETCs, the Commission request specific recommendations
on how to revise the requirements to make the data more useful for
individual and aggregate analysis. The Commission also seeks comments
on whether commenters have specific revisions to the questions, as they
exist on the current forms, to make them clearer or less burdensome.
Finally, the Commission seeks comments on other ways to amend forms
or USAC practices to improve processes or promote integrity. For
example, should corporate officers submitting reimbursement requests be
required to certify compliance with specific key program rules, rather
than with all rules? With respect to non-compliance in Lifeline
generally and the changes proposed in the NPRM, what additional
information, if any, should USAC or the Commission provide in its
notices of non-compliance or debt demand letters to carriers? Are there
changes the Commission can make to further ensure that Lifeline
carriers are notified of the basis for recovery, and are able to
respond appropriately?
Promoting Principled Service Provider Conduct
ETC Compliance Plans
The Commission examines whether changes are needed to the
conditions placed on non-facilities-based ETCs to participate in the
Lifeline program under the Commission's grant of forbearance from the
statute's ``own facilities'' requirement. The Commission also seeks
comments on how to improve program integrity related to non-facilities-
based ETCs and inquire about potential amendments to the standards and
processes for compliance plans that are needed for an ETC to receive
forbearance from the Act.
The ``own facilities'' requirement of section 214(e)(1)(A) of the
Act mandates that ETCs receiving USF support must provide the supported
services, e.g., voice or broadband, either wholly or partly through use
of their own facilities, and not be a pure reseller of another
carrier's services. In the 2012 Lifeline Report and Order (FCC 12-11)
published at 77 FR 12952, March 2, 2012, the Commission granted blanket
forbearance from the own facilities requirement subject to certain
conditions, finding that the use of the ETC's own facilities in
providing Lifeline-supported service was not necessary to ensure just
and reasonable rates or to protect the public interest, and that
forbearance was in the public interest as long as certain conditions
were met. Carriers were required to comply with all 911 and enhanced
911 service obligations. They also were required to submit and receive
approval from WCB for a compliance plan including certain required
information concerning how the carrier will comply with all Lifeline
program service requirements and program integrity obligations.
Some program integrity concerns that have plagued the Lifeline
program in recent years disproportionately involve certain non-
facilities-based ETCs that operate under the Commission's grant of
forbearance, including Q Link Wireless, American Broadband, TracFone
Wireless, and Total Call Mobile, to name several examples. Of the
examples listed, Q Link Wireless committed the most egregious program
integrity violations. Q Link and its owner, Issa Asad, were charged
with conspiring to knowingly submit and causing to be submitted false
and fraudulent claims to the Lifeline program for customers who were
not using Lifeline-supported services consistent with FCC usage
regulations, including customers who never activated their supported
services. On October 15, 2024, Q Link and Issa Asad pled guilty to
several offenses involving their Lifeline misconduct including theft of
government funds and defrauding the United States. Q Link and Issa Asad
agreed to pay more than $110 million to resolve criminal charges and
civil claims arising under the False Claims Act related to these
violations. On July 24, 2025, Asad received a sentence of 60 months'
imprisonment. In light of this history, the Commission seeks comments
on changes to the conditions placed on non-facilities-based ETCs
subject to forbearance that would promote Lifeline program integrity.
Compliance Plan Requirements. The Commission seeks comments on
what, if any, changes to current compliance plan requirements may be
necessary. At a minimum, Lifeline compliance plans currently must
include: (1) information about the carrier and the Lifeline plans it
intends to offer, including detailed information demonstrating that the
carrier is financially and technically capable of providing the
supported Lifeline service in compliance with the Commission's rules;
(2) detailed information, including geographic locations, of the
carrier's current service offerings, the terms and conditions of each
Lifeline service plan offering, and all other certifications required
under Sec. 54.202 of the Commission's rules; (3) a detailed
explanation of how the carrier will comply with the Commission's rules
relating to the determination of subscriber eligibility for Lifeline
services; (4) a detailed explanation of how the carrier will comply
with the forbearance conditions relating to public safety and 911/E-911
access; (5) a
[[Page 16882]]
detailed explanation of how the carrier will comply with the
Commission's marketing and disclosure requirements for participation in
Lifeline; and (6) a detailed explanation of the carrier's procedures
and efforts to prevent program integrity issues in connection with
Lifeline funds.
Are there additional data points, fields or explanations that
compliance plans should capture? Should compliance plans include
descriptions of the company's corporate structure? If so, should the
structure also identify and describe any parent companies, affiliates,
or subsidiaries? If an applicant is a subsidiary of a parent company,
should the applicant include information about how resources, operating
infrastructure, and other support may be shared with the parent company
to support providing service to Lifeline recipients? How should this
information be included in an application without disclosing
unnecessary confidential information of the parent company? Should
compliance plans identify any unaffiliated third-party companies that
will be used to assist the Lifeline program applicant with providing
Lifeline program services to consumers and provide an explanation of
the third-party's role in those efforts? Should compliance plans
identify any resale wholesalers the ETC will use to obtain facilities-
based services? Should the compliance plan include copies of such
contracts? Should Lifeline-only ETCs be required to update any changes
to those arrangements? Are there restrictions that should be placed on
such arrangements? Should compliance plan corporate structure
descriptions report ownership by any foreign persons or foreign
entities? Should corporate ownership by a foreign person or entity
seeking approval of a new compliance plan require separate review by
U.S. national security agencies before approval can be granted? Should
review of compliance plans include assessing whether the entities or
their equipment are included on the list of communications equipment
and services (``covered list'') that are deemed to pose an unacceptable
risk to United States national security or the security and safety of
United States persons? Should compliance plans identify corporate
officers and their relevant experience? Should compliance plans
identify top level management and explain their experience in providing
telecommunications or related services to consumers? Should companies
be required to have compliance officers, and if so, should compliance
officers be required to certify that the company complies with its
Lifeline program obligations? Should providers be required to identify
the procedures they will use to prepare and certify claims for
reimbursement? If not, why? Should they require disclosure of all
instances in which the company or its senior officers have been (1)
involved or charged with criminal wrongdoing, or actions giving rise to
criminal wrongdoing, (2) subject to investigations into possible
violations of the False Claims Act or other similar laws, and debt
collection efforts by state or federal agencies, or (3) engaged in
waste, fraud, or abuse of federal funding? Should compliance plans
explain how ETCs will monitor their agents who enroll subscribers on
their behalf? Should compliance plans require ETCs to explain the steps
they will take to ensure that agents hired by contractors to enroll
subscribers on their behalf will be trained and their activities be
monitored? Should marketing companies be required to report to the ETCs
they work for when an agent they employ is barred from RAD? Audits and
program integrity reviews conducted by USAC have revealed many
compliance problems in the Lifeline program. Should Lifeline program
rules or compliance plans require an annual audit to evaluate rule
compliance? Should Lifeline compliance plans require that ETCs disclose
allegations or evidence of waste, fraud, and abuse?
For a compliance plan to be approved, the ETC must demonstrate that
it is financially and technically capable of operating in the Lifeline
program. Among the relevant financial and technical capability
considerations are whether the applicant previously offered ``services
to non-Lifeline consumers, how long it has been in business, whether
the applicant intends to rely exclusively on USF disbursements to
operate, whether the applicant receives or will receive revenue from
other sources, and whether it has been subject to enforcement actions
or ETC revocation proceedings in any state.'' What other information
should be required to demonstrate the provider is a bona fide
telecommunications provider? Should Lifeline compliance plans include
audited, or if not available, unaudited financial statements, and if
so, how many years of past financial statements should be included?
Should applicants be required to provide information about other
significant financial resources or transactions that the companies
would use to support, or are material to, their participation in the
Lifeline program? What is the appropriate scope of financial resource
information that should be reported? For example, should this include
advertisement revenue, revenue generated from selling customer
information, etc., or should the required information be limited to
financial ownership? Should compliance plans include information about
any non-Lifeline communications service revenue that could be used to
support operations for the services provided to Lifeline subscribers,
and should this information include data about other revenue sources
not tied to providing communications services but that might support
the Lifeline ETC in its overall operations? Financial ratios are
commonly used to measure a company's financial health. For example, the
times interest earned (TIE) ratio measures a company's ability to meet
its interest obligations using its operating earnings. The TIE ratio is
calculated by dividing earnings before interest and taxes (or EBIT) by
total interest expense. Should the Commission require the ETC to
demonstrate financial health using the TIE ratio and/or other financial
ratios? If so, what ratio or ratios should be required and what is an
acceptable value for each such ratio? Should the Lifeline-only ETC and
the Lifeline compliance plan requirement be formally incorporated into
the codified rules? Should a providers' manuals and processes of
policies and procedures that they provide to their employees and agents
be attached as appendices to the compliance plan? Should compliance
plans include subscriber counts, and if so, how many years of past data
should be submitted? If an approved ETC is submitting an amendment of
its compliance plan for approval, should the amended compliance plan
contain recent or current subscriber counts, and if so, should it
include a breakdown of the number of Lifeline subscribers and non-
Lifeline program subscribers? Should compliance plans include a
discussion of the databases and transactional processing systems that
applicants will use, for example, for enrolling or billing Lifeline
consumers? Should compliance plans include measures the service
provider is taking and will take to comply with Lifeline program rules,
including how it will track usage and other program requirements?
Should a discussion of such databases and transactional processing
systems discuss how fraud by agents, third party companies involved in
assisting customers, and others with access to the systems will be
prevented with respect to enrollment and transfers-in? Should this
requested
[[Page 16883]]
information be required for all third-party activities or limited to
specific activities such as customer outreach services? Should
compliance plans include a detailed explanation of the company's
Lifeline program compliance training and other internal controls?
Should ETCs be mandated to provide employees with compliance training
on Lifeline program rules and other internal controls? Should there be
certain minimum training requirements, and if so, what should those
minimum requirements be? Should compliance plans include consumer
protection plans such as a porting guidance script to be used for
consumers in the event that an ETC fails to respond? What other
financial and technical capability information should be included in
compliance plans?
The Commission seeks comments on what changes, if any, should be
made to the Lifeline compliance plan requirements beyond those
discussed above. Are there changes to the requirements that should be
made that will result in consistency and efficiencies in WCB's review
and processing of compliance plans? Are there current regulatory
processes at the Commission that WCB should leverage to assist in such
reviews such as seeking public comment on submitted compliance plans?
Are there certain conditions that should be attached to compliance
plans, once approved, that would result in automatic termination of the
compliance plan if the condition is violated? The Commission seeks
comments on what the conditions should be for terminating a Lifeline
compliance plan. Should Lifeline compliance plans terminate when ETCs
are found guilty of committing fraud or other misconduct in the
Lifeline program? Should compliance plans terminate when ETCs change
corporate ownership or control without notifying the Commission and
receiving approval of an updated compliance plan? Or should ETCs be
permitted to restart participation in the Lifeline program and continue
under their previously approved compliance plan if they establish to
the Commission's satisfaction that they have returned to their prior
corporate structure and control? Under what circumstances should
Lifeline compliance plans terminate? Should compliance plans have an
expiration date at which time they must be re-submitted and re-
approved? If so, how long should that period be? How often should WCB
review approved compliance plans? Should all compliance plan amendments
require WCB approval? Which compliance plans amendments should require
WCB approval? Should providers be required to submit compliance plans
annually or at some other interval? Or alternatively, should providers
be required to update their compliance plans as circumstances change,
e.g., if they offer a new Lifeline plan or if they have an inordinate
number of non-usage de-enrollments? How would re-approval work
logistically? Should the frequency of compliance plan submissions be
based on the number of subscribers that a provider has? The Commission
seeks comments on the cost and benefits of more frequent compliance
plan submission for providers, USAC, and the Commission. Are there ways
that the reporting burden can be reduced while still collecting the
necessary information? Finally, how often should the Commission require
providers to submit updated compliance plans? Should a provider be
allowed time to revise and resubmit a compliance plan if updates are
required and the resubmitted compliance plan was deficient?
Letters of Credit. The Commission seeks comments on whether
requiring non-facilities-based ETCs to obtain letters of credit as
required by carriers in the Commission's USF High Cost programs would
promote program integrity and ensure continuity of service for
subscribers in the event their ETC faces significant recoveries due to
violations of program rules. Since 2011, the Commission has required
recipients of High Cost program support authorized through a
competitive process to obtain letters of credit as a financial
guarantee that the service provider has access to the necessary funds
to complete the network buildout as committed in their winning bid.
Non-facilities-based ETCs face minimal capital expenditures because
they do not deploy their own networks, but many may be paying more in
operating expenses than facilities-based carriers because they lease
network capacity. Adopting a letter of credit requirement for the
Lifeline program would ensure that ETCs can reimburse the USF for
recovered funds or pay fines due to program rule violations, and allow
the ETC to use ongoing USF support to continue paying network leases to
wholesalers to maintain continuity of service for subscribers. Would
requiring letters of credit from non-facilities based providers seeking
to enter the Lifeline program ensure continuity of service in these
circumstances? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of
requiring non-facilities-based ETCs to obtain letters of credit? If the
Commission adopts a letter of credit requirement, should it apply to
all non-facilities-based ETCs currently operating under approved
compliance plans, or just those whose compliance plans will be granted
in the future? If the Commission were to require letters of credit,
under what circumstances should the Commission draw on the letters of
credit (e.g., compliance plan violations, findings of improper
payments, unpaid notices of apparent liability or forfeiture orders)?
Relatedly, what documentation should be required for the Commission to
draw on the letters of credit?
The Commission also seeks comments on the standards for letters of
credit, including the value of the letter of credit and standards for
the issuing bank the Commission should adopt if it requires letters of
credit for non-facilities-based ETCs. High Cost support recipients, for
example, in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF), are required to
maintain letters of credit that increase in value on an annual basis,
but may reduce the value of their letters of credit upon certification
that they have met certain deployment obligations. How should the
Commission determine the value of a letter of credit in the Lifeline
program? Should it be based on subscriber count, or other factors?
Should the value be higher than the proceeds the carrier would receive
from the expected number of Lifeline subscribers that the carrier plans
to serve plus an additional percentage? Most relevant to the
Commission's inquiry concerning potential changes to Lifeline program
requirements, the current standards for High Cost mechanisms that
require letters of credit require that the entity issuing the letter
must be a United States bank insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) that meets the criteria to be considered ``well
capitalized'' as determined by the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). Each agency has
codified nearly identical criteria to determine a bank's capitalization
status and whether it is ``well capitalized.'' For a bank to be well
capitalized, the regulations also require a confirmation from the bank
that it is not subject to certain regulatory actions from its
supervising agency. What should the standards for the bank issuing the
letter of credit be? Should the Commission adopt the letter of credit
standards noted in this paragraph for use by the Lifeline program?
Should the Commission permit only U.S. banks to issue letters of
credit? Should the
[[Page 16884]]
Commission require that the issuing bank be insured by the FDIC? Should
the Commission require the issuing bank to have at least a certain
credit rating? What should the Commission require the issuing bank's
credit rating to be? Would alternative financial instruments such as a
surety bond or performance bond achieve the same goals to ensure
program integrity?
Revocation of Compliance Plans. The Commission seeks comments on
the instances in which a compliance plan should be revoked. If an
approved entity receives an unfavorable outcome in an enforcement
action, e.g., a forfeiture order, should that result in revocation of
WCB's approval of the entity's Lifeline compliance plan? What other
situations should result in the revocation of a non-facilities-based
ETC's Lifeline program compliance plan? Would material deviation from
an approved compliance plan merit revocation? Should such consequences
be determined on a case-by-case basis, as the particular violation
warrants? For an ETC that has already received approval of its
compliance plan, but a change in circumstances warrants submission and
approval of an updated compliance plan, e.g., due to a change in
corporate ownership or control, should the provider's participation in
the Lifeline program be immediately revoked if it fails to submit an
updated compliance plan or an updated compliance plan is not approved?
Is revocation of a compliance plan subject to the Administrative
Procedure Act's (APA) notice requirements for revocation of a license?
Noting that the APA notice requirements are subject to exceptions ``in
cases of willfulness or those in which public health, interest, or
safety requires otherwise,'' if those requirements apply, in what
circumstances would those exceptions apply? In the event that WCB
revokes a non-facilities-based ETC's compliance plan, the Commission
would want to ensure the continuity of service for Lifeline subscribers
served by that carrier. Should the Commission develop rules or
processes for moving subscribers of an ETC with a revoked compliance
plan to another ETC? How should the Commission determine which ETC
should serve those subscribers or otherwise determine the best way for
those subscribers to continue to receive service through the provider
of their choosing? In these circumstances, how could the Commission
ensure that the ETC whose compliance plan has been revoked complies
with the Commission's number portability requirements?
Reimbursement for Services That Consumers Actually Use
ETCs are permitted to offer Lifeline service without assessing and
collecting a monthly fee, but must adhere to certain specified usage
requirements. ETCs that offer Lifeline services where they assess and
collect a monthly fee currently are not required to monitor usage for
subscribers on such plans. However, the Commission has identified
several instances in which ETCs may be attempting to evade the usage
requirement by offering plans with billing arrangements structured to
appear compliant with Sec. 54.407(c) of the Commission's rules, but
that may not be. To prevent attempts to evade usage requirements and to
minimize waste, fraud, and abuse in the program, the Commission
proposes to amend its rules to require usage tracking and non-usage de-
enrollment for all Lifeline service plans regardless of whether a
monthly fee is assessed and collected. The Commission anticipates that
this action would further encourage ETCs to stop offering existing
plans structured to circumvent the Commission's usage rule from the
market, eliminate future attempts to create novel, but ultimately non-
compliant billing arrangements, and require more transparency and
accountability from those ETCs that use plans currently meeting the
``assess and collect'' standard.
Section 54.407(c) of the Commission's rules requires ETCs that do
not ``assess and collect a monthly fee from [their] subscribers'' to
de-enroll subscribers that have not used their Lifeline service within
the last 30 days, plus a 15-day cure period. Lifeline subscribers are
deemed to have ``used'' their service if they have completed an
outbound call; used data; purchased minutes or data from their
participating provider; answered an incoming call from anyone who is
not their provider or provider's representative; responded to direct
contact from their provider confirming intent to receive Lifeline
service; or sent a text message. Providers are responsible for tracking
subscriber usage and retaining appropriate usage documentation to
demonstrate compliance with the usage requirements. ETCs that do assess
and collect monthly fees from their subscribers are not currently
required to track usage or de-enroll their subscribers for non-usage.
The Commission established this Lifeline usage rule in the 2012
Lifeline Report and Order. The purpose of the rule was to ``reduce
waste and inefficiencies in the Lifeline program by eliminating support
for subscribers who are not using the service and reducing any
incentives ETCs may have to continue to report line counts for
subscribers that have discontinued their service.'' The Commission
stated that the usage rule applies only to ``services for which
subscribers do not receive monthly bills and do not have any regular
billing relationship with the ETC'' and thus ``do not have regular
contact with the ETC that would provide a reasonable opportunity to
ascertain a continued desire to continue to receive Lifeline
benefits.'' The Commission in its 2016 Lifeline Report and Order
``emphasize[d] that only if a carrier bills on a monthly basis and
collects or makes a good faith effort to collect any money owned within
a reasonable amount of time will the carrier not be subject to the non-
usage requirements.'' The Commission in 2012 declined to extend the
usage rule to plans that meet the rule's assess and collect standard,
stating that plans subject to monthly assessment and collection ``do
not present the same risk of inactivity as subscribers of pre-paid
services'' because there is financial incentive for the consumer not to
continue subscribing to Lifeline service it does not use or intend to
use.
As mentioned, some Lifeline providers offered paid plans that
appear structured to conceal the fact they lacked a regular billing
relationship between ETC and subscriber and monthly assessment and
collection. One type of plan required subscribers to pay an upfront
annual fee. The ETC would then decrement one-twelfth of this lump sum
monthly to provide the appearance of a monthly assessment and
collection and avoid the need to comply with usage requirements. Under
such plans, subscribers are not regularly billed and collection of a
fee occurs annually, with the only monthly accounting activity being a
funding transfer between the ETC's own accounts. In a recent response
to this activity, WCB released a Public Notice in 2024 clarifying that
``[i]f an ETC assesses and collects an end-user fee but does not do so
on a monthly basis, the usage requirement applies to that subscriber. A
one-time fee or a fee collected from the subscriber annually and
decremented on a monthly basis does not satisfy the rule's requirement
to assess and collect a monthly fee.''
A few other ETCs have begun offering consumer payment plans using
accounts held by the provider, sometimes known as ``digital wallets.''
Under these plans, upon enrollment, subscribers are required to deposit
funds into a refundable digital wallet account that is largely
controlled by the ETC, with
[[Page 16885]]
some or limited engagement by the subscriber.
The Commission tentatively concludes that the usage tracking
requirements currently codified in Sec. 54.407 (c)(1) through (2) of
the Commission's rules should apply to all Lifeline service plans,
rather than only those that do not require the assessment and
collection of a monthly fee. Despite a rule, implementing order, and
follow-on guidance requiring usage tracking and de-enrollment on plans
for which ETC and subscriber do not have a regular billing relationship
that includes the ETC both assessing and collecting a fee from the
subscriber on a monthly basis, some ETCs remain non-compliant and have
even adopted more complex plans that purport to, but do not actually,
satisfy the Commission's billing standard. This effort seems to be in
furtherance of avoiding the Lifeline program requirement to track usage
and de-enroll for non-usage. The Commission believes that applying a
blanket standard is necessary to ensure program integrity and will
discourage ETCs from creating new plans that attempt to evade usage
requirements, the terms of which may be inscrutable to consumers.
Requiring ETCs to preserve usage data in all circumstances will provide
transparency into Lifeline subscriber usage overall and enhance the
ability of the Commission and USAC to recover for non-usage. In
addition, even with plans where a monthly fee is assessed and
collected, a basic showing of usage will ensure that scarce USF dollars
are going where they are truly needed. The Commission seeks comments on
this tentative conclusion.
The Commission seeks comments on any alternative method of ensuring
that ETCs properly comply with the Commission's usage requirements and
any other ways to further the underlying policy goal of preventing
disbursement of USF support to Lifeline services that go unused? Would
requiring ETCs to seek Commission approval of each new service plan,
including billing and collection processes, before they can offer it to
Lifeline subscribers prevent usage rule non-compliance? Would there be
any burdens or barriers that the Commission and USAC would encounter in
administering these types of approvals? What would the scope of such
review be? Would it implicate privacy or confidential business practice
considerations? How much would it delay new offerings from coming to
market? Would it inhibit novel, compliant offerings? Are there
conditions under which a prepayment-based plan is equivalent to
debiting a customer's credit card on file? What level of customer
engagement is sufficient to meet the ``assess and collect'' standard
(e.g., monthly opt-in versus opt-out)? What changes to the Commission's
rules would establish clear parameters for such plans and ensure
support is not wasted on service not needed by a qualifying low-income
household?
The Commission also tentatively concludes that applying the usage
rule to all Lifeline plans would reduce inactivity, and help to curtail
waste of limited USF dollars. In the 2012 Lifeline Report and Order,
the Commission stated that due to the lessened risk of inactivity
regularly billed plans pose, applying usage tracking to them would not
be worth the corresponding administrative burdens, though it recognized
that this policy may result in the Lifeline program subsidizing some
service plans that are not being used. The Commission now wishes to
reexamine this calculus. The Commission is currently engaging with
stakeholders on its wide-ranging Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding,
which aims to overhaul Commission rules to spur communications
investment, expansion, and innovation. The Public Notice launching the
proceeding explains that the Commission has `` `a correlative duty to
evaluate its policies over time to ascertain whether they work--that
is, whether they actually produce the benefits the Commission
originally predicted they would.' '' Has applying the usage rule only
to plans that do not require the assessment and collection of a monthly
fee adequately eliminated waste in the Lifeline program? Should
subscribers be permitted to receive monthly Lifeline support if they do
not use their service just because they pay for a portion of it? How
prevalent are these situations? What benefits, if any, do subscribers
of subsidized, infrequently used or unused service see? How does
subsidizing infrequently used or unused service benefit American
society? How could funds that currently support underutilized service
be better spent? How burdensome would requiring usage tracking and de-
enrollment for non-usage on all Lifeline plans be on USAC, the
Commission, and providers? Would requiring usage tracking and non-usage
de-enrollment for all plans result in fewer new ETC designation
requests or increase ETC designation relinquishment? How would
extending the usage rule to all Lifeline plans affect service offerings
or participation in Lifeline? Would more providers offer free-to-the-
subscriber service if they were required to monitor usage for all
plans? One commenter in the Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding advocated
for the elimination of the usage rule on the ground of consumer choice
because it requires low-income consumers to ``face the difficult
choice'' between no-cost services subject to usage requirements and
services not subject to usage requirements that require payment to the
ETC. Does the Commission's proposal eliminate these concerns?
The Commission requires all Lifeline providers to comply with the
usage rules by certifying their adherence to the usage requirements,
under penalty of perjury, when submitting claims. The Commission seeks
comments on whether, in addition to certification requirements, the
Commission should require providers to demonstrate usage of supported
service along with reimbursement claims. What are the benefits and
burdens associated with this approach? Should each individual claim
include proof of usage or would a sample be sufficient? What are
different ways for providers to demonstrate subscriber usage consistent
with the rules? What sort of proof should the Commission require if
adopting this approach? Would requiring the submission of proof of
usage further protect program integrity and help ensure that providers
are tracking and monitoring usage by subscribers? Is it practicable for
the Commission to rely on usage data submitted as part of the claims to
help inform or set the minimum service standards for the program each
year? Should providers be required to identify how they monitor
compliance with program usage rules? Should providers be required to
identify any third-parties that provide information related to their
compliance with program usage rules? The Commission seeks comments on
the privacy concerns associated with requiring submission of detailed
usage data along with claim submission. What specific data would be
necessary to collect, and how could any submission process be designed
to address and mitigate privacy concerns? Are there other methods of
ensuring usage the Commission could employ to ensure that limited USF
resources are going toward service that is being used by subscribers?
What capabilities does the Commission have to enforce compliance?
Commission rules require that providers retain documentation that
demonstrates compliance with program requirements. The Commission seeks
comments on whether these rules should be modified to identify the
methods of tracking usage and the documentation that providers must
[[Page 16886]]
maintain to comply with its usage rules. While the definitions as to
what constitutes usage are simple and uniform, providers use many
formats. Can carriers provide recommendations for best-practice
processes for usage reporting that should be recommended for mobile
broadband providers? Fixed service? For example, should the Commission
require providers to maintain original call detail records for calls,
text, and data, which are logs that contain records of many events that
qualify as usage activity. What are the benefits and burdens associated
with such an approach? What other documents could providers retain to
prove compliance with the Commission's usage rules? Would defining it
as a ``formatted collection of information about a chargeable event for
use in billing and accounting'' be appropriate? What alternative forms
of proof should the Commission consider? What records demonstrate the
purchase of minutes or data? What records should be sufficient to
establish that a subscriber is responding to direct contact from the
carrier and confirming that he or she wants to continue receiving
Lifeline service? How can the Commission ensure that the records
retained are authentic and generated through the subscriber's bona fide
activity, and not through automatic data usage by an application?
The Commission tentatively concludes that providers should not
track usage through a Commission, USAC, or provider-sponsored phone
application due to privacy and practical download concerns. Should the
Commission put specifications or restrictions on how the provider
collects usage data of Lifeline participants? Should the Commission
require the ETCs to submit any usage data to the Commission? And if so,
what data would be collected? How could the Commission design such a
data collection so that it adhered to the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act of 1996? Who would have access to this data? Would location
data be collected? Would it collect any communications content, media
consumption information, or browsing history? How would the data be
protected from unauthorized access and use? What notice would
subscribers be provided about the collection and use of their usage
data? How could the Commission ensure that the monitoring activity of
the app itself would not register as qualifying use? How can ETCs
ensure that existing subscribers with currently in use devices download
the app? The Commission tentatively concludes to continue to collect
certification information about usage data, but invite comment on this
proposal.
What corresponding changes, if any, to the usage rules should the
Commission make if it applies usage tracking and non-usage de-
enrollment to all Lifeline plans? Should the 30-day usage period or 15-
day cure period be extended? Would a 30-day opportunity to cure make
sense, given the typical length of billing cycles? Why might consumers
fail to use their service for 30 days or more? How long would ETCs need
to come into compliance with the Commission's proposed change requiring
usage tracking on all service plans, regardless of whether a monthly
fee is assessed and collected?
What changes should be made to the current activation standard?
Should the Commission modify or eliminate the Lifeline service
activation requirement in Sec. 54.407(c)(1) of the Commission's rules?
Is the current definition of the Lifeline service activation
requirement as ``whatever means specified by the carrier'' so vague as
to undermine its ability to combat the waste of claiming service
inaccessible or unused by the subscriber? Is the purpose of the
Lifeline service activation requirement largely duplicative to the
requirement in Sec. 54.401(a) of the Commission's rules that Lifeline
must be a service that ``provides qualifying low-income consumers with
voice telephony service or broadband internet access?'' Should the
activation requirement be changed to ``An eligible telecommunications
carrier shall not receive universal service support for a subscriber to
such Lifeline service until the subscriber can demonstrate, through
action that they undertake, that they have been provided with voice
telephony service or broadband internet access though completion of an
outbound call, sending a text message or usage of date''? Is there a
better approach for establishing activation?
ETC Agreements With Non-ETCs
The Commission next seeks comments on whether additional rules or
enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure that the Lifeline
program provides reimbursements only to ETCs that ``directly'' serve
their Lifeline program subscribers. Under section 254(e) of the Act,
only carriers designated as ETCs may receive reimbursement for
providing Lifeline service. The Commission's rules specify that
reimbursement is only made available to an ETC for the ``number of
actual qualifying low-income customers . . . that the eligible
telecommunications carrier serves directly as of the first of the
month.'' Under the Lifeline rules, direct service is defined as ``the
provision of service directly to the qualifying low-income consumer,''
and Lifeline service is a ``non-transferable retail service offering
provided directly to qualifying low-income consumers.''
Recently, the Commission has been made aware of certain situations
where ETCs have entered into agreements with non-ETCs whereby the ETC
allows the non-ETC to offer Lifeline service using the ETC's name. The
ETC obtains reimbursement from the Commission for the customers that
the non-ETC reports to the ETC, and ultimately the ETC transfers the
majority of the reimbursement to the non-ETC. These situations raise
questions about whether the ETC is receiving reimbursement despite not
directly providing service to the customer, and the non-ETC is
providing Lifeline service despite not being an approved Lifeline ETC.
The Commission is aware of several such cases occurring as the ACP
ended.
Such arrangements may be distinguished from permissible marketing
agreements that an ETC may enter into to bring in more customers that
the ETC directly serves, or other arrangements to provide services to
ETCs such as customer call centers and collection agents. As noted in
the 2019 Lifeline Report and Order (FCC 19-11) published at 84 FR
71308, December 27, 2019, date ETCs have entered into marketing
agreements with enrollment representatives or sales agents to help ETCs
market to and enroll consumers. While there are no prohibitions against
ETCs using enrollment representatives, the Commission has placed
certain restrictions on such activity, including the establishment of
the Representative Accountability Database and prohibitions against
commissions, to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse. Should ETCs be
required to notify the Commission in advance of entering into
agreements with third-parties to market Lifeline services?
The Commission also seeks comments on whether to broaden the
definition of ``enrollment representative'' for Lifeline as done with
ACP or go further to address any agents of an ETC, and whether to place
additional restrictions on such agents and non-ETCs in their Lifeline
related activities and compensation. The Commission seeks comments on
whether to adopt any additional rules or other mechanisms to address
arrangements in which an ETC receives reimbursement for service it does
not directly provide and passes on some of the money to non-ETCs who
are impermissibly providing Lifeline
[[Page 16887]]
service. Currently, if an ETC is found to have violated an applicable
Commission rule or order, then the ETC may be subject to recovery of
funds and penalties authorized by the Communications Act, including,
but not limited to monetary forfeitures. Typically, investigation and
sanctions efforts are undertaken by the Enforcement Bureau.
Additionally, such individuals may be subject to investigation by FCC
OIG and further sanctions from state regulatory entities and the U.S.
Department of Justice. And when the violations implicate improper
Lifeline disbursements, the Commission seeks recovery of associated
funds. Recoveries for violations of Lifeline program rules as well as
forfeitures, come from ETCs. Is there also a basis for seeking recovery
directly from the non-ETC involved in these relationships?
Should the Commission track every layer of provider marketing from
the enrollment representative to the provider? Should the Commission
require that every enrollment representative provide their photo along
with their ID? Should Commission rules require criminal background
checks before an RAD ID is issued? If so, what crimes should disqualify
an applicant from the RAD? Should ETCs or USAC be responsible for
criminal background checks? How else can the Commission ensure that the
agent information in RAD reflects accurate information? RAD currently
only requires an email address to register in RAD. Similarly, how can
the Commission ensure that an agent listed in NLAD as being linked to
an enrollment or transfer is in fact an individual that is interacting
with the enrollee? Should the Commission require the geolocation of the
agent at the time of enrollment or transfer or subscribers he or she is
ostensibly assisting? How should the Commission penalize providers and
their enrollment representatives that submit false or non-bona fide
information to USAC's information systems including the National
Verifier, NLAD and RAD? Should the Commission suspend or debar such
providers and their enrollment representatives? Should carriers be
continued to allowed API access to the Administrator's databases? Is
there an alternative to an API that will continue to allow consumers to
enroll while better protecting the program from potential waste, fraud
and abuse?
Updating Lifeline Rule Text
The Commission seeks comments on whether to streamline the existing
program rules in light of the establishment of the National Verifier
and the sunset of the EBB program and ACP.
National Verifier Updates. The Commission makes several proposals
to streamline Lifeline program rules to reflect the functionality of
the National Verifier. There are portions of the Commission's rules
that pre-date the establishment of the National Verifier and continue
to contemplate Lifeline ETCs completing certain activities that USAC,
the National Verifier, the NLAD, or state administrators perform.
First, the Lifeline rules contemplate that ETCs will contact Lifeline
subscribers as part of the annual recertification process and give
subscribers 60 days to complete the recertification process. Such
outreach now can be done by the National Verifier or state
administrators, although providers may voluntarily also encourage their
subscribers to respond to recertification efforts. Second, the Lifeline
rules currently discuss pathways for eligibility determinations that
are no longer available with the full launch of the National Verifier.
The Commission seeks comments on updating Lifeline program rules to
reflect these improved eligibility determination processes now that the
National Verifier has fully launched.
Third, the Commission proposes to revise the rule for de-enrollment
under Sec. 54.405(e)(4) of the Commission's rules given that the
National Verifier can notify and de-enroll subscribers who fail to
recertify their continued eligibility or fail to submit one-per-
household recertifications. Fourth, the Commission proposes to update
and consolidate Sec. 54.410(b) through (d), (f), (h), and (i) of the
Commission's rules, to reflect that the National Verifier and state
administrators (rather than ETCs) make the initial determinations of
eligibility and annual recertifications, and to update Sec. 54.410(d)
of the Commission's rules to reflect the creation of FCC Form 5629, a
program application form. Fifth, the Commission proposes to edit Sec.
54.417 of the Commission's rules to reflect that the effective date of
the rule was set at February 17, 2016. The Commission seeks comments on
whether there are any concerns about updating the language of each of
these rules and how to amend that language while avoiding confusion
regarding ETCs' continuing compliance obligations.
The Commission seeks comments on whether and how to change
additional portions of the rules to reflect streamlined practices.
Would the possible confusion and costs of updating rule identifiers
(e.g., eliminating Sec. 54.410(h) of the Commission's rules, which
addresses the National Verifier transition, and recodifying the
following subsection) outweigh the benefits of having the rules more
accurately reflect the current state of the program? Are there any
technical changes needed to program rules to correct typographical
errors?
Deleting EBB and ACP Rules. As previously noted, the ACP (which
succeeded the EBB program) effectively ended June 1, 2024, because
funding for the program had been exhausted. As a result, there are no
longer subscribers in these programs or a basis to enroll new
subscribers. Therefore, the Commission tentatively concludes to delete
the EBB program and ACP rules from the Code of Federal Regulations,
including rules regarding the Affordable Connectivity Outreach Grant
Program. This conclusion is consistent with the Delete, Delete, Delete
proceeding's goal to ``review [the FCC's] rules to identify and
eliminate those that are unnecessary in light of current
circumstances.'' The Commission's proposal to delete the EBB program
and ACP rules is not intended to have any substantive impact on the
interpretation and implementation of the rules in the few instances
where they serve some on-going function. Specifically, the Commission
intends that providers must continue to retain documentation in
accordance with the rules, even after they are deleted. Requiring
providers to continue complying with the documentation retention rules
in place when the program was still operating does not create a burden
on providers because it does not force new requirements upon them.
Furthermore, deletion of the rules will not result in unfair surprise,
as there will be no new providers, applicants, or subscribers in the
programs. To help avoid misunderstandings regarding the continued
document retention requirements, the Commission proposed an amendment
to Lifeline Sec. 54.417 of the Commission's rules to make clear that
the EBB program's, ACP's, and Affordable Connectivity Outreach Grant
Program's recordkeeping requirements remain in effect even after their
deletion. The Commission seeks comments on whether there are any
concerns with deleting these rules in their entirety, including any
basis for concluding record retention or audit requirements would be
undermined by this deletion or that enforcement or recovery actions
related to these programs would be affected. How can the Commission
ensure that providers to EBB and ACP continue to be able to make
downward revisions for the program if they identify past issues with
[[Page 16888]]
their filings that resulted in improper claims? Is the Commission's
proposed amendment to the Lifeline rules sufficient to maintain
enforcement of the recordkeeping and audit rules and does the rule's
placement in Lifeline create confusion? Are any additional changes to
the Commission's rules needed to ensure that ACP providers that only
held authorizations to participate in ACP and no other Commission
licenses needed in order to pursue recovery, enforcement, or other
actions for violations those providers may have committee under the
ACP? If commenters raise any such concerns, the Commission asks that
they include specific legal support for their conclusions, if any, and
any recommendations for how to amend the rules without impacting
retention requirements, recovery actions, and enforcement. The
Commission also seeks comments on whether there are any other EBB
program or ACP rules beyond document retention that continue to serve a
purpose and would be undermined by being deleted.
In addition, the Commission seeks comments on deleting the portion
of Sec. 54.400(s)(3) of the Commission's rules that allows domestic
violence survivors seeking to obtain an emergency Lifeline benefit to
prove they are suffering ``financial hardship'' by using the ACP's
alternative verification process under Sec. 54.1806(a)(2) of the
Commission's rules to verify a member of the survivor's household
received a Federal Pell Grant. The Commission tentatively concludes
that this portion of the rule is no longer necessary, because survivors
will still be able to show financial hardship through the National
Verifier. Moreover, the alternative verification process was a specific
approach allowed under the Consolidated Appropriations Act and its
unique circumstances amid the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than a process
required under the Safe Connections Act, which is the focus of Sec.
54.400(s)(3) of the Commission's rules. The Commission believes it
would be unnecessary and administratively burdensome to continue to
allow alternative verification processes, or approve new ones, for
verifying only one form of eligibility criteria (i.e., Federal Pell
Grants) for only a narrow sub-category of a low-income benefit program
(i.e., survivor Lifeline emergency support). The Commission believes
this is particularly true here, because the Lifeline emergency benefit
for survivors is time-limited and the eligibility determination for
that emergency benefit does not necessarily qualify a subscriber for
continued support under Lifeline.
Benefits and Costs
The Commission seeks comments on the benefits and costs of these
proposed rule changes. The Commission expects its proposed reforms will
affect both low-income consumers and service providers. The Commission
seeks comments on both the benefits and costs of each proposed rule
change and also the totality of the rule changes proposed. Will the
proposed changes lead to more competition and/or better service
offerings for consumers? Will consumers face any increased costs or
nonmonetary burdens as a result of the proposed rule changes? What are
the benefits to service providers of minimizing reporting burdens? How
will service providers overall benefit from improved service provider
conduct? Will there be any costs to service providers to implement the
improved program processes? Will any costs to service providers result
in costs to the consumer? To what extent will the proposed rule changes
impact USF expenditures?
II. Procedural Matters
A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
This document contains proposed new or modified information
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific
comments on how to further reduce the information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires
that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-
and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that
``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.'' Accordingly, the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) concerning the possible impact of potential rule and/or policy
changes contained in the NPRM on small entities. The Commission invites
the general public, in particular small businesses, to comment on the
IRFA. Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM
indicated in the DATES section of this document and must have a
separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the
IRFA.
Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Commission rule Sec. 1.1206(b), 47 CFR
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by Commission rule Sec. 1.49(f) or
for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic
filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral
ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed
through the electronic comment filing system available for that
proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml,
.ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should
familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-
9, a summary of this document will be available on <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
[[Page 16889]]
C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by RFA, the Commission has prepared this IRFA of the
policies and rules proposed in the NPRM assessing the possible
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission request written public comments on this IRFA. Comments
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments specified in the DATES section of this document.
In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published
in the Federal Register.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
The Commission is required by section 254 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, to promulgate rules to implement the universal
service provisions of section 254. The Lifeline program was implemented
in 1985 in the wake of the 1984 divestiture of AT&T. On May 8, 1997,
the Commission adopted rules to reform its system of universal service
support mechanisms so that universal service is preserved and advanced
as markets move toward competition. The Lifeline program is
administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC),
the Administrator of the universal service support programs, under
Commission direction, although many key attributes of the Lifeline
program are currently implemented at the state level, including
consumer eligibility, eligible telecommunication carrier (ETC)
designations, outreach, and verification. Lifeline support is passed on
to the subscriber by the ETC, which provides discounts to eligible
households and receives reimbursement from the universal service fund
(USF or Fund) for the provision of such discounts.
In the NPRM, the Commission considers ways to promote principled
service provider conduct, consumer protection and program integrity
enhancements to ensure Lifeline services are actually used to benefit
low-income consumers and ways to optimize Lifeline program processes
for integrity and efficiency. Refinements to the Lifeline program under
consideration include: enhancing verification processes; ensuring
Lifeline ETC compliance with all Lifeline program rules; enhancing the
enrollment and transfer experience for households; revisiting non-usage
rules; improving minimum service standards; ending the voice-only
service phase-down; preventing duplicative support; optimizing Lifeline
program integrity and efficiency processes; reforming opt-out state
requirements; minimizing reporting burdens for ETCs; streamlining
Lifeline rule text; and other updates that may be appropriate to make
the current Lifeline program's rules reflect how the program currently
operates.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The SBA
establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to
use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses;
agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such
programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing
so.
The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore
describes three broad groups of small entities that could be directly
affected by its actions. In general, a small business is an independent
business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States,
which translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, ``small
organizations'' are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently
owned and operated and not dominant their field. While the Commission
does not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that
criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees.
Finally, ``small governmental jurisdictions'' are defined as cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts with populations of less than fifty thousand. Based on the
2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that at
least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a
population of less than 50,000.
The rules proposed in the NPRM will apply to small entities in the
industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding
SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S. Census data
regarding the estimated number of small firms in each identified
industry, the Commission concludes that the proposed rules will impact
a substantial number of small entities. Where available, the Commission
also provides additional information regarding the number of
potentially affected entities in the industries identified in Table 1--
2022 U.S. Census Bureau Data by NAICS Code, Table 2--Telecommunications
Service Provider Data and Table 3--Cable Entities Data.
Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping,
and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of
proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
The NPRM seeks comment on proposed rules that would improve the
Lifeline program by promoting principled service provider conduct,
implementing consumer protection and program integrity enhancements to
ensure Lifeline services are actually used to benefit low-income
consumers and optimizing Lifeline program processes for integrity and
efficiency. Small entities that voluntarily choose to participate in
the Lifeline program, may face costs associated with new or modified
recordkeeping, reporting, and other compliance obligations. Small
entities may need to hire professionals to comply with the requirements
that may be adopted as a result of the proposals and matters discussed
in the NPRM. Compliance costs may include requirements associated with
consent collection, de-enrollment, consumer eligibility evaluation, as
well as technical and programmatic costs to adjust internal Lifeline
databases and compliances practices for covered providers. For example,
in the NPRM the Commission inquires about whether the Commission should
require service providers to obtain an affirmative response to a text
or email to verify consumers' new enrollment and transfer requests and
submit this evidence of consumer consent for each transfer
[[Page 16890]]
transaction to the Universal Service Administrative Company and whether
the Commission should require service providers to enter the date and
time in the National Lifeline Accountability Database (NLAD) that
households provided their enrollment or transfer consent. As another
example, the Commission also inquires about whether to modify the
Commission's rules to identify the methods of tracking usage and the
documentation that providers must maintain to comply with its non-usage
rules.
In assessing the cost of compliance for small entities, at this
time the Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance with the
potential rule changes that may be adopted. In accordance with the
Commission's requests for comments in the NPRM, small entities are
encouraged to provide specific information pertaining to the costs,
benefits, and impacts of any potential reporting, recordkeeping, or
compliance requirements the Commission discusses. The Commission
expects the comments received to include information on the costs and
benefits, and other pertinent matters that should help us identify and
evaluate relevant issues for small entities, including compliance costs
and other burdens (as well as countervailing benefits), so that the
Commission may develop final rules that minimize such costs and address
such issues to the extent possible.
Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any
significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish
the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any
significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is
required to include alternatives such as: ``(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
The NPRM seeks comment throughout on the burdens of the proposed
rules, and any alternatives, on providers, which includes small
providers. Additionally, the NPRM seeks comment on the ways in which
program changes to the Lifeline program might impact both consumers and
service providers, which includes small providers, participating in the
Lifeline program. Further, the NPRM seeks comments on ways to reduce
regulatory reporting burdens on ETCs participating in Lifeline,
particularly small businesses.
In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comments on adjusting minimum
service standards in the low income communications market.
Specifically, the NPRM seeks comments on whether small businesses would
be disproportionately impacted if minimum service standards were
increased and what the impact would be on those small service
providers. Further, the Commission seeks comments on ways to reduce
reporting burdens on Lifeline ETCs who are small businesses. Annually,
ETCs must file FCC Form 481 to report financial and operations data and
FCC Form 555 to report recertification results. In the NPRM, the
Commission seeks comment on the possibility of combining these two
forms and other FCC forms or moving the filing deadlines to the same
date and whether it would be more or less burdensome for ETCs that are
small businesses to file combined forms or to require multiple forms
filed on the same date. The Commission also seeks comments on ways to
amend or eliminate certain information that is required on these forms
or whether to entirely eliminate the use of certain forms.
The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic impact
and alternatives for small entities following the review of comments
filed in response to the NPRM, including cost and benefit analyses.
Having data on the costs and economic impact of proposals and possible
approaches the Commission discusses will allow the Commission to better
evaluate options and alternatives to minimize any significant economic
impact on small entities that may result from the proposals and
approaches, if adopted. The Commission's evaluation of this information
will shape the final alternatives it considers to minimize any
significant economic impact that may occur on small entities, the final
conclusions it reaches and any final rules it promulgates in this
proceeding.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
None.
III. Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained in
section 1, 4(i), 4(j), 254, 345, and 403 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 254, 345, and 403;
that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures set
forth in Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on or before May 4, 2026 and reply comments are due
on or before June 2, 2026.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 54 as follows:
PART 54--UNIVERSAL SERVICE
0
1. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220,
229, 254, 303(r), 403, 1004, 1302, 1601-1609, and 1752, unless
otherwise noted.
Subpart E--Universal Service Support for Low-Income Consumers
0
2. Amend Sec. 54.400 by revising paragraph (s)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 54.400 Terms and definitions.
* * * * *
(s) * * *
(3) At least one member of the household has received a Federal
Pell Grant under section 401 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1070a) in the current award year, if such award is verifiable
through the National Verifier or National Lifeline Accountability
Database;
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 54.403 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 54.403 Lifeline support amount.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) Basic support amount. Federal Lifeline support in the amount of
$9.25 per month will be made available to an
[[Page 16891]]
eligible telecommunications carrier providing broadband service,
subject to the minimum service standards set forth in Sec. 54.408, to
a qualifying low-income consumer if that carrier certifies to the
Administrator that it will pass through the full amount of support to
the qualifying low-income consumer and that it has received any non-
federal regulatory approvals necessary to implement the rate reduction.
(2) Voice-only support amount. Federal Lifeline support in the
amount of $5.25 per month will be made available to an eligible
telecommunications carrier providing standalone voice service, subject
to the minimum service standards set forth in Sec. 54.408, or voice
service with broadband below the minimum standards set forth in Sec.
54.408, to a qualifying low-income consumer if that carrier certifies
to the Administrator that it will pass through the full amount of
support to the qualifying low-income consumer and that it has received
any non-federal regulatory approvals necessary to implement the rate
reduction.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 54.404 by revising paragraphs (b)(6) and (c)(4) to read
as follows:
Sec. 54.404 The National Lifeline Accountability Database.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) Eligible telecommunications carriers must transmit to the
Database in a format prescribed by the Administrator each new and
existing Lifeline subscriber's full name; full residential address;
date of birth and the subscriber's Social Security number or Tribal
Identification number, if the subscriber is a member of a Tribal nation
and does not have a Social Security number; the telephone number
associated with the Lifeline service; the date on which the Lifeline
service was initiated; the date on which the Lifeline service was
terminated, if it has been terminated; the amount of support being
sought for that subscriber; and the means through which the subscriber
qualified for Lifeline.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) All eligible telecommunications carriers must transmit to the
Database in a format prescribed by the Administrator each new and
existing Link Up recipient's full name; residential address; date of
birth; and the subscriber's Social Security number, or Tribal
identification number if the subscriber is a member of a Tribal nation
and does not have a Social Security number; the telephone number
associated with the Link Up support; and the date of service
activation. Where two or more eligible telecommunications carriers
transmit the information required by this paragraph to the Database for
the same subscriber, only the eligible telecommunications carrier whose
information was received and processed by the Database first, as
determined by the Administrator, will be entitled to reimbursement from
the Fund for that subscriber.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 54.405 revising paragraph (e)(4) and by adding new
paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 54.405 Carrier obligation to offer Lifeline.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(4) De-enrollment for failure to re-certify. Notwithstanding
paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a Lifeline subscriber who does not
respond to attempts to obtain re-certification of the subscriber's
continued eligibility as required by Sec. 54.410(f) or who fails to
provide the annual one-per-household re-certifications as required by
Sec. 54.410(f) must be de-enrolled. Prior to de-enrollment under this
paragraph, the subscriber must be notified, using clear, easily
understood language, that failure to respond to the re-certification
request will trigger de-enrollment. A subscriber must be given 60 days
to respond to recertification efforts. If a subscriber does not respond
to the notice of impending de-enrollment, the subscriber must be de-
enrolled from Lifeline within five business days after the expiration
of the subscriber's time to respond to the re-certification efforts.
* * * * *
(f) Secondary consent verification for enrollment and transfers. An
eligible telecommunications carrier shall not seek or receive
reimbursement through the Lifeline program for service provided to a
subscriber who has not verified their new enrollment request through an
affirmative response to a text or email using the contact information
furnished during the application process.
0
6. Amend Sec. 54.407 by revising the introductory text of paragraph
(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 54.407 Reimbursement for offering Lifeline.
* * * * *
(c) An eligible telecommunications carrier offering a Lifeline
service:
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 54.408 by revising paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(A) to read as
follows:
Sec. 54.408 Minimum service standards.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) An amount the Wireline Competition Bureau deems appropriate,
based on what a substantial majority of American consumers who have
limited data plans already subscribe to, after analyzing Urban Rate
Survey data and other relevant data; or
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 54.409 by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 54.409 Consumer qualification for Lifeline.
* * * * *
(d) Lifeline program support is a federal public benefit restricted
to U.S. citizens and qualified aliens under the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. 1611 et seq.
0
9. Amend Sec. 54.410 by deleting paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii),
(c)(2)(i) through (iii), and (i) and revising paragraphs (a) through
(d), (f), and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 54.410 Subscriber eligibility determination and certification.
(a) All eligible telecommunications carriers must implement
policies and procedures for ensuring that their Lifeline subscribers
are eligible to receive Lifeline services. Such policies and procedures
include, but are not limited to, an eligible telecommunications carrier
checking its own electronic systems, whether such systems are
maintained by the participating provider or a third party, to confirm
that the household is not already receiving another Lifeline benefit
from that carrier. ETC and their agents may not provide false
information to the National Verifier, NLAD, or RAD. An eligible
telecommunications carrier may not provide a consumer with an activated
device that it represents enables use of Lifeline-supported service,
nor may it activate service that it represents to be Lifeline service,
unless and until it has:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The National Verifier, state Lifeline administrator, or other
state agency is responsible for the initial determination that a
prospective subscriber meets the income-based eligibility criteria
provided for in Sec. 54.409(a)(1). An eligible telecommunications
carrier:
(i) Must not seek reimbursement for providing Lifeline to a
subscriber,
[[Page 16892]]
unless the carrier has received a certification of eligibility from the
National Verifier, state Lifeline administrator, or other state agency
that the prospective subscriber complies with the requirements set
forth in paragraph (d) of this section and has confirmed the
subscriber's income-based eligibility using the following procedures:
(A) If the National Verifier, state Lifeline administrator, or
other state agency can determine a prospective subscriber's income-
based eligibility by accessing one or more databases containing
information regarding the subscriber's income (``income databases''),
the National Verifier, state Lifeline administrator, or other state
agency must access such income databases and determine whether the
prospective subscriber qualifies for Lifeline.
(B) If the National Verifier, state Lifeline administrator, or
other state agency cannot determine a prospective subscriber's income-
based eligibility by accessing income databases, the National Verifier,
state Lifeline administrator, or other state agency must review
documentation that establishes that the prospective subscriber meets
the income-eligibility criteria set forth in Sec. 54.409(a)(1).
Acceptable documentation of income eligibility includes the prior
year's state, federal, or Tribal tax return; current income statement
from an employer or paycheck stub; a Social Security statement of
benefits; a Veterans Administration statement of benefits; a
retirement/pension statement of benefits; an Unemployment/Workers'
Compensation statement of benefit; federal or Tribal notice letter of
participation in General Assistance; or a divorce decree, child support
award, or other official document containing income information. If the
prospective subscriber presents documentation of income that does not
cover a full year, such as current pay stubs, the prospective
subscriber must present the same type of documentation covering three
consecutive months within the previous twelve months.
(ii) Must securely retain copies of documentation, consistent with
Sec. 54.417, demonstrating the eligible telecommunications carrier
received notice that the National Verifier, state Lifeline
administrator, or other state agency determined a prospective
subscriber's income-based eligibility for Lifeline meet the income
eligibility criteria set forth in Sec. 54.409(a)(1).
(c) * * *
(1) The National Verifier, state Lifeline administrator, or other
state agency is responsible for the initial determination that a
prospective subscriber meets the program-based criteria set forth in
Sec. 54.409(a)(2) or (b). An eligible telecommunications carrier:
(i) Must not seek reimbursement for providing Lifeline to a
subscriber unless the carrier has received a certification of
eligibility from the National Verifier, state Lifeline administrator,
or other state agency that the prospective subscriber complies with the
requirements set forth in paragraph (d) of this section and has
confirmed the subscriber's program-based eligibility using the
following procedures:
(A) If the National Verifier, state Lifeline administrator, or
other state agency can determine a prospective subscriber's program-
based eligibility for Lifeline by accessing one or more databases
containing information regarding enrollment in qualifying assistance
programs (``eligibility databases''), the National Verifier, state
Lifeline administrator, or other state agency must access such
eligibility databases to determine whether the prospective subscriber
qualifies for Lifeline based on participation in a qualifying
assistance program; or
(B) If the National Verifier, state Lifeline administrator, or
other state agency cannot determine a prospective subscriber's program-
based eligibility for Lifeline by accessing eligibility databases, the
National Verifier, state Lifeline administrator, or other state agency
must review documentation demonstrating that a prospective subscriber
qualifies for Lifeline under the program-based eligibility
requirements. Acceptable documentation of program eligibility includes
the current or prior year's statement of benefits from a qualifying
assistance program, a notice or letter of participation in a qualifying
assistance program, program participation documents, or another
official document demonstrating that the prospective subscriber, one or
more of the prospective subscriber's dependents or the prospective
subscriber's household receives benefits from a qualifying assistance
program.
(ii) Must securely retain copies of the documentation, consistent
with Sec. 54.417, demonstrating the eligible telecommunications
carrier received notice that the National Verifier, state Lifeline
administrator, or other state agency determined a subscriber's program-
based eligibility for Lifeline.
(d) Eligibility certification form. Eligible telecommunications
carriers and state Lifeline administrators or other state agencies must
provide prospective subscribers the Federal eligibility certification
form.
(1) * * *
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) The National Verifier, the state Lifeline administrator, or
other state agency must annually re-certify all subscribers.
(2) In order to re-certify a subscriber's eligibility, the National
Verifier, the state Lifeline administrator, or other state agency must
confirm a subscriber's current eligibility to receive Lifeline by:
(i) * * *
* * * * *
(iii) If the subscriber's program-based or income-based eligibility
for Lifeline cannot be determined by accessing one or more eligibility
databases, then the subscriber must provide a signed certification
confirming the subscriber's continued eligibility. If the subscriber's
eligibility was previously confirmed through an eligibility database
during enrollment or a prior recertification and the subscriber is no
longer included in any eligibility database, the subscriber must
provide both an Annual Recertification Form and documentation meeting
the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) or (c)(1)(i)(B) of this
section to complete the process. The subscriber must use the Wireline
Competition Bureau-approved universal Annual Recertification Form,
except where state law, state regulation, a state Lifeline
administrator, or a state agency requires eligible telecommunications
carriers to use state-specific Lifeline recertification forms.
(3) The National Verifier, state Lifeline administrator, or other
state agency must provide to each eligible telecommunications carrier
the results of its annual re-certification efforts with respect to that
eligible telecommunications carrier's subscribers.
(4) If an eligible telecommunications carrier has been notified by
the National Verifier, a state Lifeline administrator, or other state
agency that it is unable to re-certify a subscriber, the eligible
telecommunications carrier must comply with the de-enrollment
requirements provided for in Sec. 54.405(e)(4).
* * * * *
(h) Survivors of domestic violence. All survivors seeking to
receive emergency communications support from the Lifeline program must
have their eligibility to participate in the program confirmed through
the National Verifier. The National Verifier will also transition
survivors approaching the end of their six-month emergency
[[Page 16893]]
support period in a manner consistent with the requirements at
paragraph (f) of this section, and the National Verifier will de-enroll
survivors whose continued eligibility to participate in the Lifeline
program cannot be confirmed, consistent with Sec. 54.405(e)(6).
0
10. Amend Sec. 54.417 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 54.417 Recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(b) If an eligible telecommunications carrier provides Lifeline
discounted wholesale services to a reseller, it must obtain a
certification from that reseller that it is complying with all
Commission requirements governing the Lifeline and Tribal Link Up
program. The eligible telecommunications carrier must retain the
reseller certification for the three full preceding calendar years and
provide that documentation to the Commission or Administrator upon
request.
(c) Upon deletion of the rules in subparts P, R, and S of this
part, all those subparts' requirements regarding recordkeeping and
providing records to the Commission or Administrator upon request will
remain in force as they existed prior to the deletion of those rules.
The deletion of the rules in subparts P, R, and S of this part will
also have no impact on the ability of the Commission or the
Administrator to engage in audits or enforcement, recovery, or other
actions for violations of the rules as they existed prior to the
deletion of those rules.
Subpart P--[Removed and Reserved]
0
11. Remove and reserve subpart P, consisting of 54.1600 through
54.1612.
Sec. Sec. 54.1600 through 54.1612 [Removed and Reserved]
* * * * *
Subpart R--[Removed and Reserved]
0
12. Remove and reserve subpart R, consisting of 54.1800 through
54.1814.
Sec. Sec. 54.1800 through 54.1814 [Removed and Reserved]
* * * * *
Subpart S--[Removed and Reserved]
0
13. Remove and reserve subpart S, consisting of 54.1900 through
54.1904.
Sec. Sec. 54.1900 through 54.1904 [Removed and Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-06531 Filed 4-2-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 3, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.