FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 8, Pages 6653 to 6954, Supplement (February-March 2012) Page: 6,720
iii, 6653-6954 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
days after the date of the letter to demonstrate that his or her Lifeline service should not be terminated.370
In order to protect the program against waste, fraud, and abuse, we amend our rules to codify the
proposed de-enrollment procedure.37'
142. We amend section 54.405 of the Commission's rules to require ETCs to de-enroll within
30 days Lifeline subscribers who do not respond to the carrier's or state's attempts to re-certify the
subscriber within a 30-day period. When contacting their Lifeline subscribers to perform the annual re-
certification process, ETCs (or the state Lifeline program administrator, where applicable) must notify
their subscribers in writing that failure to respond to the re-certification request could result in de-
enrollment from that carrier's Lifeline program. By codifying a specific requirement that all ETCs de-
enroll subscribers for non-responsiveness, we will ensure that support is not distributed where subscribers
fail to evidence their ongoing eligibility for Lifeline.
143. We similarly amend section 54.405 of our rules to provide that, where the carrier has a
reasonable basis to believe that the subscriber no longer meets the Lifeline-qualifying criteria (including
instances where a subscriber informs the ETC or the state that he or she is ineligible for Lifeline), the
ETC must send notification of impending termination in writing separate from the subscriber's monthly
bill. Carriers must allow subscribers 30 days following the date of the impending termination letter in
which to demonstrate continued eligibility.37
144. We do not anticipate that the de-enrollment processes we adopt today will unreasonably
burden low-income consumers. As stated above, ETCs in federal default states currently de-enroll
Lifeline subscribers for failure to respond to an ETC's verification survey. However, no standardized de-
enrollment process is presently in place to provide subscribers with notice of impending de-enrollment
and an opportunity to demonstrate their continued eligibility for Lifeline. The processes we adopt here
will ensure that Lifeline subscribers are notified of their impending de-enrollment and are given an
additional period of time during which they may re-certify to their continued eligibility.
145. Moreover, we adopt a requirement above that ETCs must inform consumers about the
annual re-certification requirement on the certification form that is completed upon initial program
enrollment and annually thereafter.373 On their annual re-certification materials, ETCs or the program
administrator,as as applicable, must clearly and succinctly inform subscribers that they are being contacted
to re-certify their continuing eligibility for Lifeline. The subscribers must be informed that if they fail to
respond, they will be considered ineligible for Lifeline and de-enrolled from the program.374 ETCs and
states may also choose to notify subscribers about the re-certification requirements in their Lifeline
outreach materials.37s By taking these actions, ETCs and states will ensure that consumers are aware of
the importance of responding to re-certification efforts, and that they are not inadvertently disconnected
37o Id at 2872, Appendix A, 47 C.F.R. 54.405(e) (proposed rule).
37' For commenters supporting adoption of a de-enrollment requirement for non-responders, see DC PSC Comments
at 6; TracFone Comments at 32; Ml PSC Comments at 8.
372 See id. In such cases, section 54.405(d) of the Commnission's rules currently requires ETCs to allow subscribers
60 days following the date of impending termination to demonstrate continued program eligibility. See 47 C.F.R.
54.405(d). We amend section 54.405 of the Commission's rules to reduce that period of time to 30 days, in order to
more effectively reduce instances of waste, fraud, and abuse in the program.
373 See supra para. 116.
374 See also MI PSC Comments at 8.
375" See MI PSC Comments at 8; Consumer Groups Comments at 25-26.6720
FCC 12-11
I
Federal Communications Commission
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 8, Pages 6653 to 6954, Supplement (February-March 2012), book, 2012; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc111169/m1/78/?rotate=90: accessed June 3, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.