FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554 
CC Docket No. 96-45 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
In the Matter of 
Federal-State Joint Board on 
Universal Service; 
Promoting Deployment and 
Subscribership in Unserved 
And Underserved Areas, Including 
Tribal and Insular Areas 
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana 
Islands 
Petitions for Reconsideration filed by: 
Crow Tribal Council 
Florida Public Service Commission 
Fort Belknap Indian Community 
Goshute Indian Reservation 
National Telephone Cooperative Association 
Oglala Sioux Tribe 
Rosebud Sioux Tribe 
South Dakota Independent Telephone 
Coalition 
Western Wireless Corporation 
TWENTY-FIFTH ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION, REPORT AND ORDER, 
ORDER, AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 
Adopted: May 19, 2003 Released: May 21, 2003 
Comment Date: 30 days after publication in the Federal Register 
Reply Comment Date: 45 days after publication in the Federal Register 
By the Commission: Commissioner Copps approving in part, concurring in part and issuing a 
statement. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Paragraph 
I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 
II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................3 
FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION...................................................................................7 III. 
Petitions for Reconsideration...................................................................................7 A. 
B. Discussion................................................................................................................8 
ETC Designation Framework for Carriers Serving Tribal Lands................8 1. 
2. Definition of "Tribal lands" .......................................................................13 
3. Universal Service Low-Income Programs .................................................18 
4. Qualification Criteria for Enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up Service...........23 
IV. REPORT AND ORDER ADDRESSING THE FURTHER NOTICE OF 
PROPOSED RULEMAKING IN THE TWELFTH REPORT AND ORDER ...................25 
A. Background............................................................................................................25 
B. Discussion..............................................................................................................26 
V. ORDER ADDRESSING THE REQUEST OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF 
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS................................................................................28 
A. Background............................................................................................................28 
B. Discussion..............................................................................................................29 
VI. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ..................................................32 
A. Background............................................................................................................32 
B. Discussion..............................................................................................................33 
VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS .............................................................................................39 
A. Paperwork Reduction Act ......................................................................................39 
Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.............................................40 B. 
Effective Date of Amended Rules .........................................................................47 C. 
D. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis...................................................................48 
Filing of Comments and Reply Comments............................................................56 E. 
VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES....................................................................................................60 
APPENDIX A: FINAL RULES 
APPENDIX B: LIST OF NEAR RESERVATION AREAS 
2 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
INTRODUCTION I. 
1. In this Order, we address the requests of several petitioners to reconsider portions 
of the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice adopting rules to provide additional, 
targeted universal service support to low-income consumers on tribal lands and establishing a 
framework for the resolution of eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designations under 
section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act).1 The advancement 
of universal service on tribal lands remains a major policy goal of this Commission. Through 
our on-going dialogue with the tribes, as most recently exemplified by the Commission’s launch 
of the Indian Telecommunications Initiatives in Phoenix, Arizona on September 19, 2002, the 
Commission continues in its efforts to promote telecommunications subscribership within 
American Indian and Alaskan Native tribal communities. 
2. We affirm that the framework adopted by the Commission for resolution of ETC 
designations on tribal lands provides a reasonable means to facilitate the expeditious resolution 
of such requests, while balancing the respective federal, state, and tribal interests. We also 
conclude that the definition of “reservation” for purposes of the universal service programs 
remains the same as that adopted in the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice despite the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) subsequent modification of that definition for purposes of its 
direct assistance programs. We address several requests for reconsideration relating to the rule 
amendments to the universal service low-income programs adopted in the Twelfth Report and 
Order and Further Notice. We also clarify, on our own motion, the Commission’s rules 
regarding the qualification criteria for enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up service. In addition, we 
decline to adopt a rule that would require resolution of the merits of any request for ETC 
designation within six months of the filing date. We also decline to extend the enhanced lowincome 
programs to the Northern Mariana Islands. Finally, we seek further comment on 
potential modifications to our rules regarding availability of enhanced Federal Lifeline and Link- 
Up assistance to qualifying low-income consumers living “near reservations.” 
BACKGROUND II. 
3. On June 30, 2000, the Commission released the Twelfth Report and Order and 
Further Notice adopting amendments to the Commission’s universal service rules. The amended 
rules were designed to provide additional, targeted support under the universal service lowincome 
programs in order to create financial incentives for carriers to serve and deploy facilities 
on tribal lands.2 Specifically, the Commission adopted measures to provide up to $25 per month 
in additional federal Lifeline support and $70 per consumer in additional Link-Up support to 
ETCs serving qualifying low-income individuals living on tribal lands.3 The Commission 
1 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and 
Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular Areas, Twelfth Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96-45, 15 FCC Rcd 12208 (2000) (Twelfth 
Report and Order and Further Notice). 
2 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12213-14, para. 5. 
3 The Lifeline support program is designed to increase subscribership by reducing qualifying low-income 
consumers’ monthly basic local service charge. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.401. The Link-Up program assists qualifying 
low-income consumers in initiating telephone service by paying a portion of the service connection charge. See 47 
C.F.R. § 54.411. 
3 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
concluded that significantly lower-than-average incomes and subscribership levels on tribal lands 
warranted the adoption of additional measures designed to increase subscribership and improve 
access to telecommunications service.4 In so doing, the Commission noted that the lack of 
availability of telecommunications service on tribal lands is at odds with the statutory goal of 
ensuring access to such services to “[c]onsumers in all regions of the Nation, including lowincome 
consumers.”5 For purposes of identifying the geographic areas within which the rule 
amendments should apply, the Commission determined that the term “tribal lands” should 
include the BIA definitions of “reservation” and “near reservation” contained, at that time, in 
sections 20.1(v) and 20.1(r) of the BIA regulations, respectively.6 
4. On August 31, 2000, the Commission, on its own motion, released an order 
staying implementation of the enhanced federal Lifeline and Link-Up assistance rule 
amendments to the extent that they applied to qualifying low-income consumers living “near 
reservations.”7 Specifically, the Commission concluded that the term “near reservation,” as 
defined by BIA, includes wide geographic areas that do not possess the same characteristics that 
warranted the targeting of enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support to reservations, such as 
geographic isolation, high rates of poverty, and low telephone subscribership.8 The Commission 
sought comment on how to define alternative geographic areas that are adjacent to reservations 
in a manner that is consistent with our goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up to the 
most underserved areas of the Nation. 
5. In the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, the Commission also found 
that jurisdictional ambiguities associated with the question of whether a state may designate a 
carrier as an ETC may unnecessarily delay the provision of service on tribal lands.9 The 
Commission noted that, although section 214(e)(6) of the Act directs the Commission to perform 
the eligibility designation in instances where a carrier is not subject to the jurisdiction of a state 
commission, section 214(e) does not address how such jurisdictional determinations should be 
made or by whom. The Commission therefore established a framework to streamline the process 
for eligibility designations for carriers seeking to provide service on tribal lands.10 Specifically, 
the Commission concluded that carriers seeking eligibility designations for service provided on 
tribal lands may petition the Commission directly under section 214(e)(6), without first seeking 
designation from the relevant state commission.11 The Commission found that this framework 
4 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12225, paras. 28-29. 
5 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12221, para. 21 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 254(b)(3)). 
6 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12218-19, paras. 17-18. Subsequent to the release 
of the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, BIA modified these definitions. See 25 C.F.R. § 20.100. 
7 See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and 
Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular Areas, Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC 
Docket No. 96-45, 15 FCC Rcd 17112 (2000) (Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice). 
8 Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 17113, para. 3. 
9 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12266, para. 118. 
10 See Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12265-69, paras. 115-127. 
11 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12265-67, paras. 115, 120. Once a carrier files 
with the Commission a petition seeking ETC designation for service on tribal lands, the Commission undertakes a 
two-step analysis. First, the Commission determines whether a carrier providing service on tribal lands is subject to 
the jurisdiction of a state commission. Second, if the carrier is not subject to the jurisdiction of a state commission, 
(continued....) 
4 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
is consistent with the execution of its duty to preserve and advance universal service under 
section 254, principles of tribal sovereignty, and the unique federal trust relationship between 
Indian tribes and the federal government. 
6. The Commission rejected, however, the contention that section 214(e)(6) confers 
upon it the general authority to make ETC designations over all carriers providing service on 
tribal lands.12 The Commission concluded that the inquiry as to whether a state commission has 
authority to regulate the provision of telecommunications service on tribal lands is a 
particularized one, and thus specific to each state and the facts and circumstances surrounding 
the provision of service.13 
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION III. 
Petitions for Reconsideration A. 
7. In September 2000, petitions for reconsideration were filed in response to the 
Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice.14 Several petitioners request that the Commission 
reconsider the framework to resolve jurisdictional issues under section 214(e)(6) for carriers 
seeking ETC designation on tribal lands.15 Several petitioners also raise issues relating to the 
amendments to the universal service low-income programs adopted in the Twelfth Report and 
Order and Further Notice.16 
Discussion B. 
8. 
ETC Designation Framework for Carriers Serving Tribal Lands 
5 
1. 
As discussed in greater detail below, we deny petitions for reconsideration of the 
framework to resolve requests for ETC designations for carriers providing service on tribal 
(...continued from previous page) 
the Commission proceeds to rule on the carrier’s request to be designated as an ETC. See Federal-State Joint Board 
on Universal Service; Western Wireless Corporation Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications 
Carrier for the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 96-45, 
16 FCC Rcd 18133 (2001). 
12 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12261, para. 107. 
13 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12262, para. 108. 
14 Petitions for reconsideration were filed by the Crow Tribal Council (Crow), Florida Commission, Fork Belknap 
Indian Community (Fort Belknap), Goshute Indian Reservation (Goshute), NTCA, Oglala Sioux Tribe (Oglala), 
Qwest Corporation (Qwest), Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Rosebud), SBC Communications (SBC), SDITC, and Western 
Wireless Corporation (Western Wireless). Qwest and SBC subsequently filed requests to withdraw their petitions 
for reconsideration. See Request to Withdraw Petition for Reconsideration and Application of Stay of Order filed by 
SBC on Oct. 4, 2001; Letter from Craig J. Brown, Qwest, to Magalie Roman Salas, FCC, filed Dec. 3, 2001. These 
requests were granted. See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Changes to the Board of Directors of 
the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.; Requests to Withdraw Petitions for Reconsideration, Order, CC 
Docket Nos. 96-45, 97-21, 16 FCC Rcd 21424 (2001). 
15 See, e.g., Crow Petition; Fort Belknap Petition; Goshute Petition; Oglala Petition. 
16 See e.g., SDITC Petition; Florida Petition. FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
lands.17 We affirm the Commission’s prior conclusion that this framework facilitates the 
expeditious resolution of such requests, while balancing the relevant federal, state, and tribal 
interests in determining jurisdiction over carriers operating on tribal lands.18 In addition, we note 
that similar arguments were previously considered and rejected by the Commission in the 
Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice.19 We find no basis to now reconsider these 
issues.20 
9. Consistent with the Commission’s prior conclusion, we decline to adopt the 
suggestion of those petitioners contending that section 214(e)(6) provides the Commission with 
the authority to assume jurisdiction over all carriers seeking ETC designation for service on 
tribal lands.21 These petitioners contend that any exercise of state jurisdiction in designating 
ETCs on tribal lands is inconsistent with the federal trust responsibility to tribes and the principle 
of tribal sovereignty. As the Commission concluded in the Twelfth Report and Order and 
Further Notice, we do not believe that Congress intended the Commission to use section 
214(e)(6) to usurp the role of a state commission that has jurisdiction over a carrier providing 
service on tribal lands.22 To the contrary, in adopting section 214(e)(6), Congress recognized 
that some state commissions had asserted jurisdiction over tribal lands.23 Congress also 
acknowledged pending jurisdictional disputes between states and tribes and made clear that the 
adoption of section 214(e)(6) was not “intended to impact litigation regarding jurisdiction 
between State and federally-recognized tribal entities.”24 
10. We affirm that this framework is consistent with the federal trust responsibility to 
the tribes and the principle of tribal sovereignty.25 In establishing the framework for the 
designation of carriers serving tribal lands, the Commission was guided by the recognition of, 
and respect for, principles of tribal sovereignty and self-determination.26 The designation 
framework recognizes that the principles of tribal sovereignty may lead some carriers and tribes 
to be unwilling to submit jurisdictional questions relating to tribal lands to a state commission. 
The adopted framework therefore provides the opportunity for parties to submit this issue 
directly to the Commission for resolution. In addition, the availability of a federal forum allows 
carriers and tribes to avoid the potential costs and delays that would arise if they were required to 
17 See Crow Petition; Fort Belknap Petition; Goshute Petition; Oglala Petition; Rosebud Petition; SDITC Petition; 
Western Wireless Petition. 
18 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12265, para. 115. 
19 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12261-62, 12265-69, paras. 106-08, 115-27. 
20 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(b). 
21 See, e.g., Crow Petition at 2-7; Fort Belknap Petition at 1-3; Oglala Petition at 1-2; Rosebud Petition at 1-2. 
22 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12261, para. 107. See also Western Wireless 
Corporation Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier for the Pine Ridge Reservation in 
South Dakota; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 
96-45, 16 FCC Rcd 18145 (2001) (South Dakota Jurisdictional Order). 
23 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12261, para. 107. See 143 Cong. Rec. H10808 
(daily ed. Nov. 13, 1997) (statement of Rep. Hayworth). 
24 See Colloquy between Representatives Thune and Bliley, 143 Cong. Rec. H10808-09 (daily ed. Nov. 13, 1997). 
25 But see Crow Petition at 2-7; Fort Belknap Petition at 1-3; Oglala Petition at 1-2; Rosebud Petition at 1-2. 
26 See Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12266, para. 119. 
6 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
first challenge the jurisdictional issue in state proceedings and judicial appeals prior to requesting 
designation from this Commission under section 214(e)(6). 
11. For the reasons discussed above, we also decline to grant SDITC’s request that 
the Commission require the relevant state commission to make the threshold determination as to 
whether it has jurisdiction over a carrier offering service on tribal lands.27 In addition, we note 
that nothing in the Commission’s designation framework affects the ability of a carrier to seek 
designation from a state commission. The Commission’s framework merely provides carriers 
with the option to seek resolution of the threshold jurisdictional issue on tribal lands from this 
Commission.28 
12. We also decline to adopt Western Wireless’ suggestion that the Commission 
establish a standard whereby the Commission assumes jurisdiction under section 214(e)(6) in 
those instances in which the requesting carrier has obtained an agreement with the tribe and 
proposes to offer universal service that is targeted to the tribal land.29 In so doing, we note the 
admonition of the United States Supreme Court that “[g]eneralizations on this subject have 
become . . . treacherous.”30 Although the existence of a consensual relationship between the 
tribe and carrier regarding the provision of telecommunications service to tribal lands may be a 
significant factor in the jurisdictional analysis, we do not believe that it is prudent or necessary to 
establish such a fixed presumption. A careful analysis of the specific agreement between the 
tribe and carrier is necessary to determine its relevance to the jurisdictional determination.31 As 
noted in the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, the issue of whether a state 
commission lacks jurisdiction over a carrier is a particularized inquiry guided in each case by the 
principles of tribal sovereignty, federal Indian law, and treaties, as well as state law.32 The 
framework established by the Commission allows for the careful balancing of the respective 
federal, state, and tribal interests, including an examination of the relationship between the 
carrier and tribe, to make this determination on a case-by-case basis.33 We therefore decline to 
adopt Western Wireless’ proposal. 
Definition of “Tribal Lands” 2. 
13. Consistent with the request of NTCA,34 we confirm that the Commission’s 
definition of “tribal lands” for purposes of considering requests for ETC designation under 
section 214(e)(6) is identical to the definition of “tribal lands” utilized in the context of the 
27 SDITC Petition at 4-5. 
28 To avoid the potential for “forum-shopping” and the costs and confusion caused by a duplication of effort, the 
Commission has concluded that it will not entertain a jurisdictional determination if the carrier has submitted a 
request for designation to the state commission for the same geographic area within the state. See Twelfth Report 
and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12268-69, para. 126. 
29 Western Wireless Petition at 4-5. Western Wireless contends that such a standard would provide greater certainty 
at the outset regarding whether a carrier should apply to the state or Commission for ETC designation. See id. 
30 Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 148 (1973). 
31 See South Dakota Jurisdictional Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 18151-52, paras. 15-16. 
32 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12267, para. 122. 
33 See generally South Dakota Jurisdictional Order. 
34 See NCTA Petition at 1-5. 
7 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support programs.35 In the Twelfth Report and Order and 
Further Notice, the Commission adopted a definition of “tribal lands” that included “reservation” 
and “near reservation” areas, as defined, at that time, in sections 20.1(v) and (r) of the BIA 
regulations.36 Subsequently, the Commission became aware that the term “near reservation” 
included wide geographic areas, extending substantially beyond the boundaries of reservations, 
that do not possess the same characteristics that warranted the targeting of support to 
reservations. For example, areas such as Phoenix, Arizona and Sacramento, California are 
considered to be “near reservation areas,” even though they are not isolated and underserved. As 
a result, the Commission issued an order staying implementation of the enhanced Lifeline and 
Link-Up rules to the extent that they apply to qualifying low-income consumers located on “near 
reservation” areas.37 
14. We agree with NTCA that the Commission’s rationale for adopting a separate 
designation framework for carriers seeking designation on tribal lands does not extend to “near 
reservation” areas, as defined by BIA. As defined by BIA, near reservations are designated areas 
or communities that are adjacent or contiguous to reservations where financial assistance and 
social service programs are provided.38 Because these areas often extend substantially beyond 
the exterior boundaries of reservations, we do not believe they invoke the same jurisdictional 
concerns and principles of tribal sovereignty associated with areas within the exterior boundaries 
of reservations. Therefore, pending resolution of the issues presented in the Tribal Stay Order, 
petitions for designation filed under section 214(e)(6) relating to “near reservation” areas will not 
be considered as petitions relating to tribal lands.39 Petitioners seeking ETC designation in such 
areas must follow the procedures outlined in the Twelfth Report and Order for non-tribal lands 
prior to submitting a request for designation to this Commission under section 214(e)(6).40 
15. We also take this opportunity to confirm that the definition of “reservation” and 
“near reservation” for purposes of the universal service programs remains the same as that 
adopted in the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice.41 Therefore, within the context of 
the universal service programs, the term “reservation” means “any federally recognized Indian 
35 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12268, n.289. 
36 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12217-18, para. 16. BIA has subsequently 
modified its definition of both reservation and near reservation areas. See 25 C.F.R. § 20.100. See infra discussion. 
37 See Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice. 
38 See 25 C.F.R. § 20.100 (the definition of near reservation was previously contained in 25 C.F.R. § 20.1(r)) . 
39 As noted above, the Commission has stayed implementation of the enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up rules 
amendments to the extent that they apply to qualifying low-income consumers living “near reservations.” See Tribal 
Stay Order and Further Notice. In addition, 25 C.F.R. § 20.1(r), defining “near reservations,” has been replaced by 
25 C.F.R. § 20.100. The Commission seeks further comment on the issues set forth in the Tribal Stay Order and 
Further Notice in the attached Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 
40 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12263-64, paras. 112-13 (“[o]nly in those 
instances where a carrier provides the Commission with an affirmative statement from a court of competent 
jurisdiction or the state commission that it lacks jurisdiction to perform the designation will we consider section 
214(e)(6) designation requests from carriers serving non-tribal lands.”). 
41 See infra Appendix A, § 54.400(e). In the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, the 
Commission adopted BIA’s definition of “reservation” and “near reservation” contained, at that time, in 25 
C.F.R. § 20.1(v) and 20.1(r), respectively. Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd at 12218, para. 17. 
8 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
tribe’s reservation, Pueblo, or Colony, including former reservations in Oklahoma, Alaska 
Native regions established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688), 
and Indian allotments.”42 The term “near reservation” is defined as those areas or communities 
adjacent or contiguous to reservations which are designated by the Department of Interior’s 
Commission of Indian Affairs upon recommendation of the local Bureau of Indian Affairs 
Superintendent, which recommendation shall be based upon consultation with the tribal 
governing body of those reservations, as locales appropriate for the extension of financial 
assistance and/or social services, on the basis of such general criteria as: (1) Number of Indian 
people native to the reservation residing in the area, (2) a written designation by the tribal 
governing body that members of their tribe and family members who are Indian residing in the 
area, are socially, culturally and economically affiliated with their tribe and reservation; (3) 
geographical proximity of the area to the reservation, and (4) administrative feasibility of 
providing an adequate level of services to the area.43 
16. As noted above, the Commission defined the term “reservation” in a manner 
consistent with section 20.1(v) of the BIA regulations and stated that any future BIA 
modifications to the definition of “reservation” would also apply to the definitions adopted in the 
Twelfth Report and Order. 44 Following the release of the Twelfth Report and Order and Further 
Notice, BIA revised its definition of “reservation” in such a way as to no longer explicitly 
include “former reservations in Oklahoma” or “Indian allotments.” 45 Residence in a “service 
area,” rather than a “reservation,” is the new geographic eligibility requirement to receive 
financial assistance.46 As defined by BIA, “service area” means a geographic area, designated 
by the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, where financial assistance and social services 
programs are provided.47 Such a geographic area designation can include a reservation, near 
reservation, or other geographic location. Under this mechanism, tribes may also request 
alternative service area designations. As noted above, BIA has also eliminated section 20.1(r) 
defining near reservations and replaced it with a similar definition now contained in section 
20.100.48 
17. To alleviate the potential for ongoing administrative uncertainty, we conclude that 
any future modifications to the definition of “reservation” or “near reservation” will take effect 
in the context of the universal service programs only upon specific action by the Commission. In 
so doing, we decline to incorporate BIA’s recent revisions to the definition of “reservation.”49 
Notwithstanding the fact that BIA modifications did not include “former reservations in 
Oklahoma” and Indian allotments in its definition of “reservation,” BIA continues to provide 
42 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12218, para. 17. 
43 The Commissioner of the Department of Interior’s Commission of Indian Affairs is required to publish such 
designations in the Federal Register. For administrative efficiency, we have compiled a comprehensive list of all 
“near reservation” designations published in the Federal Register to date. See Appendix B. 
44 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12219, para. 19. 
45 See 25 C.F.R. § 20.100. See also 66 Fed. Reg. 15029 (March 15, 2001). 
46 See 25 C.F.R. § 20.100. 
47 See 25 C.F.R. § 20.100. 
48 See 25 C.F.R. § 20.100. 
49 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12219, para. 19. 
9 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
financial assistance in these areas.50 Accordingly, we find that maintaining the current definition 
of “reservation” for universal service purposes will be consistent with BIA’s action in continuing 
to provide assistance in these areas, and with the Commission’s commitment to increase 
subscribership and improve access to telecommunications services. We believe that this will 
ensure that the definition of “reservation” will remain consistent with the underlying goals of the 
Commission’s enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up programs. 
3. 
18. 
Universal Service Low-Income Programs 
SDITC Petition. We grant SDITC’s request to reconsider the Commission’s 
finding that non-wireline carriers are eligible to receive Link-Up support for that portion of a 
handset that receives wireless signals.51 Upon reconsideration, we conclude that Link-Up should 
not offset any costs of a wireless handset.52 The Commission’s rules preclude Link-Up support 
for facilities or equipment that fall on the customer side of the demarcation point.53 Although the 
Commission has never defined a demarcation point for wireless service, it has generally treated 
wireless handsets for purposes of bundled marketing of equipment and services as Customer 
Premises Equipment (CPE),54 which is equipment that falls on the customer side of the 
demarcation point between customer and network facilities.55 At the same time, we recognize 
50 See Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Financial Assistance and Social Services Programs, 65 
Fed. Reg. 63144 at 63148, 63150-51 (2000) (indicating that Indian allotments were to be included under the new 
definition of service area). Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Technical Amendments to 
Financial Assistance and Social Services Programs, 66 Fed. Reg. 15029 (2000) (clarifying that an inconsistency in 
the final rule regarding eligibility in Alaska “could support an unintended interpretation that the BIA was denying 
service to persons previously served under the former regulations.”). 
51 SDITC Petition at 7-8. 
52 We note that this decision extends only to wireless handsets that constitute customer equipment. Certain types of 
wireless service are provided using a wireless access terminal that is owned by the carrier and is not considered 
“customer equipment.” Accordingly, such a unit would not be excluded from receiving Link-Up support under our 
rules. See also Petition of the State Independent Alliance and the Independent Telecommunications Group for a 
Declaratory Ruling that the Basic Universal Service Offering Provided by Western Wireless in Kansas is Subject to 
Regulation as Local Exchange Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket No. 00-239, 17 FCC Rcd 
14802, para. 23 (2002). Similarly, as noted in the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, if a fixed wireless 
service requires the installation of a receiver on a rooftop, for example, to bring service to a demarcation point, 
expanded Link-Up support could be used to offset the cost of installing such facilities. Twelfth Report and Order 
and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12240, para. 61. 
53 47 C.F.R. § 54.411(a)(3). The demarcation point is the “interface between the [public switched telephone 
network] and the inside wiring, and is the juncture at which the telecommunications carrier’s responsibilities end 
and the customer’s control begins.” See Review of Sections 68.104 and 68.213 of the Commission’s Rules 
Concerning Connection of Simple Inside Wiring to the Telephone Network and Petition for Modification of Section 
68.213 of the Commission’s Rules Filed by the Electronics Industries Association, Third Report and Order, CC 
Docket No. 88-57, 15 FCC Rcd 927, 929, para. 2 (2000) (Inside Wiring Order). 
54 See, e.g., Bundling of Cellular Customer Premises Equipment and Cellular Service, Report and Order, CC 
Docket No. 91-34, 7 FCC Rcd 4028, para. 9 (1992). 
55 Telecommunications Inside Wiring, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CS Docket. No. 95-184, 11 FCC Rcd 2747, 
2776 (1996). See Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace; Implementation of 
Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Review of 
Customer Premises Equipment And Enhanced Services Unbundling Rules In the Interexchange, Exchange Access 
And Local Exchange Markets, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-61, CC Docket No. 98-183, 16 FCC Rcd 7418, 
7450 (2001). 
10 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
that some portion of a wireless handset may perform functions analogous to the functions on the 
network side of the demarcation point, which, in the wireline context, would be eligible for Link- 
Up support. Nevertheless, under all the circumstances, we find that Link-Up should not support 
any costs of a wireless handset. In reaching this decision, we consider the difficulty of defining 
what portion, if any, of a wireless handset is on the network side of the demarcation point, as 
well as the difficulty in isolating the costs of such portion.56 We note that we make this finding 
regarding wireless handsets solely for purposes of determining what charges are eligible for 
Link-Up discounts. We further note that non-wireline carriers remain eligible to receive Link- 
Up support for the “customary charge for commencing telecommunications service,” as defined 
in section 54.411 of the Commission’s rules,57 including wireless activation fees. Where 
wireless telecommunications service is provided to an eligible resident of tribal lands, such 
charges may also continue to include “facilities-based” charges associated with the construction 
of facilities needed to initiate service, as provided in section 54.411(a)(3).58 
19. Florida Commission Petition. We deny the Florida Commission’s requests for 
reconsideration.59 We disagree with the Florida Commission’s contention that the expansion of 
the existing Lifeline program may be without clear statutory authority and without support in the 
record.60 As the Commission explained in the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, the 
authority to provide additional federal Lifeline and Link-Up assistance and broaden consumer 
qualification criteria for low-income consumers on tribal lands derives from sections 1, 4(i), 201, 
205, and section 254 of the Act.61 The Commission concluded that the unavailability or 
unaffordability of telecommunications service on tribal lands is at odds with its statutory goal of 
ensuring access to such services to “[c]onsumers in all regions of the Nation, including lowincome 
consumers.”62 The Commission further concluded that the lack of access to affordable 
telecommunications services on tribal lands is inconsistent with its statutory directive “to make 
available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the 
basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient Nationwide . . . wire and 
radio communication service, with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”63 The Commission 
also determined that its actions were consistent with its general authority to “perform any and all 
acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as 
may be necessary in the execution of its functions.”64 
20. In addition, the evidence and record before us at the time supported the expansion 
of the Lifeline and Link-Up program and nothing on reconsideration persuades us otherwise. In 
reaching the decision to enhance Lifeline and Link-Up assistance, the Commission relied on 
56 SDITC Petition at 7-8. 
57 See 47 C.F.R. § 54.411(a). 
58 47 C.F.R. § 54.411(a)(3). 
59 Florida Commission Petition at 3. 
60 Florida Commission Petition at 4. 
61 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12220-21, paras. 20-21 and authority cited therein. 
62 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12221, para. 21 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 254(b)(3)). 
63 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12221, para. 21 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 151). 
64 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12219-20, para. 20 n.45 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 
154(i)). 
11 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
statistical evidence that demonstrated that American Indian and Alaska Native communities on 
average have the lowest reported telephone subscribership levels in the country.65 For example, 
the Commission noted that, according to the most recent census data, although approximately 94 
percent of all Americans have a telephone, only 47 percent of Indians on reservations and other 
tribal lands have a telephone.66 In addition to these statistics, other statistical evidence, as well 
as the majority of comments, demonstrated that low incomes and poverty are the key reasons for 
low subscribership levels on tribal lands.67 Along with these conditions, the record also 
identified other factors as impediments to subscribership. These included: (1) the cost of basic 
service in certain areas (as high as $38 per month in some areas); (2) the cost of intrastate toll 
service (limited local calling areas); (3) inadequate telecommunications infrastructure and the 
cost of line extensions and facilities deployment in remote, sparsely populated areas; and (4) the 
lack of competitive service providers offering alternative technologies.68 Finally, the record 
demonstrated that non-Indian, low-income households on tribal lands may face the same or 
similar economic and geographic barriers as those faced by low-income Indian households.69 
After careful consideration of this evidence, the Commission concluded that specific and 
immediate action was needed to remedy the disproportionately lower levels of infrastructure 
deployment and subscribership prevalent among tribal communities to ensure affordable access 
to telecommunications services in these areas. 
21. We also reject the Florida Commission’s contention that the creation of a fourth 
tier of federal Lifeline support available to eligible telecommunications carriers serving 
qualifying low-income individuals living on tribal lands “may raise issues of discrimination.”70 
Specifically, the Florida Commission “questions whether there is any discriminatory impact by 
singling out Native American and Alaska tribal areas for the benefit of up to an additional $25.00 
per primary residential line.” The Florida Commission adds that “[i]f the goal is to increase 
subscribership for these populations, we respectfully request first increasing efforts to enroll 
qualified low-income Native Americans and Alaskan Natives in the already existing Lifeline and 
Link-Up programs.”71 
22. The goal of the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice was not, as the 
Florida Commission implies, to increase subscribership solely among low-income Native 
American and Alaskan Natives. As explained above, the Commission recognized that American 
Indian and Alaska Native communities, on average, have the lowest reported telephone 
subscribership levels in the country. In response, the Commission adopted amendments to its 
universal service rules to provide additional, targeted support under the low-income programs for 
all qualifying low-income individuals on tribal lands, as opposed to limiting these benefits solely 
65 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12223-24 , paras. 26-27 and footnotes cited 
therein. 
66 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12224, para. 27. 
67 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12223-24, paras. 26-27 and footnotes cited therein. 
68 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12220, para. 20 and footnotes cited therein. 
69 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12225, para. 29. 
70 Florida Commission Petition at 4. 
71 Florida Commission Petition at 4. 
12 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
to qualifying low-income tribal members on tribal lands.72 In addition, the Commission noted 
that its efforts in the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice represent only the first step in 
addressing the causes of low subscribership within underserved and unserved areas.73 The 
Commission therefore continues to monitor the causes of low subscribership throughout the 
Nation and will be addressing this important issue on an ongoing basis.74 Accordingly, we do 
not find that our rules raise issues of discrimination. 
Qualification Criteria for Enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up Service 4. 
23. We also clarify, on our own motion, the federal default qualification criteria for 
enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up service as set forth in section 54.409(c) of the Commission’s 
rules. As discussed above, in the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, the Commission 
modified its universal service rules to increase access to telecommunications services among 
low-income individuals on tribal lands. In particular, the Commission created a fourth tier of 
federal Lifeline support to substantially reduce the cost of basic telephone service for such 
individuals. In addition, the Commission revised its rules governing the Link-Up program to 
provide increased federal support to reduce the costs of initial connection charges and line 
extension charges. Finally, the Commission broadened the federal default qualification criteria 
to enable low-income individuals living on tribal lands to qualify for this enhanced support by 
certifying their participation in certain additional means-tested assistance programs.75 We make 
this clarification to ensure that those otherwise eligible to participate in the enhanced programs 
will have the full opportunity to do so. 
24. We take this opportunity to clarify that a low-income individual living on tribal 
lands in a state that mandates state Lifeline support shall be eligible for Tiers One, Two, Three, 
and Four of federal Lifeline support if the consumer meets the eligibility criteria established by 
the state for such support. If the consumer does not meet the eligibility criteria established by the 
state for such support, or if the consumer lives in a state that does not mandate state Lifeline 
support, the consumer living on tribal lands may qualify for Tiers One, Two, and Four of federal 
Lifeline support if the consumer participates in at least one of the following nine programs: 
Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance, Tribally-Administered Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families, Head Start (only those meeting its income qualifying standard), the National 
School Lunch Program’s free lunch program, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security 
Income, Federal Public Housing Assistance (Section 8) or the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program.76 In addition, such consumer may still be eligible to receive Tier Three of 
federal Lifeline support, as described in section 54.403(a)(3) of the Commission’s rules, if the 
ETC offering the Lifeline service provides carrier-matching funds.77 We strongly encourage 
eligible carriers to ensure that customer service representatives handling inquiries about the 
universal service low-income programs, especially enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up, are trained 
72 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12225, paras. 29-31. 
73 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12213-14, para. 5. 
74 See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Recommended Decision, FCC 03J-2, 
paras. 15-19 (rel. Apr. 2, 2003) (Recommended Decision). 
75 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12245, para. 68. 
76 See infra Appendix A, § 54.409 (c). 
77 See 47 C.F.R. § 54.409(c). 
13 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
with regard to the operative eligibility criteria as clarified in this Order. We also take this 
opportunity to reiterate that the Commission’s rules require eligible carriers to publicize the 
availability of Lifeline and Link-Up services in a manner reasonably designed to reach those 
likely to qualify for those services.78 
IV. REPORT AND ORDER ADDRESSING THE FURTHER NOTICE OF 
PROPOSED RULEMAKING IN THE TWELFTH REPORT AND ORDER 
Background A. 
25. In the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, the Commission sought 
comment on whether to adopt a rule that would require resolution, by the Commission or a state 
commission, on the merits of any request for ETC designation within a six-month period, or 
some shorter period.79 The Commission noted that lengthy delays in addressing requests for 
designation may hinder the availability of affordable telecommunications service in many highcost 
areas. The Commission committed to resolve, within six months of the date filed, all ETC 
designation requests for non-tribal lands that are properly before it pursuant to section 
214(e)(6).80 In addition, the Commission committed to resolve, within six months of release of 
an order resolving the jurisdictional issue, any request for ETC designation on tribal lands.81 
Several parties filed comments in response to this Further Notice.82 
Discussion B. 
26. We decline to adopt a rule at this time that would require state commissions to 
resolve the merits of any request for designation under section 214(e) within six months or some 
shorter period. We conclude that such action is unnecessary at this time. In so doing, we note 
that a number of ETC designation requests pending at the time of release of the Twelfth Report 
and Order and Further Notice have been resolved by state commissions.83 We commend these 
state commissions for resolving those designation requests. We continue to encourage state 
commissions to act with the appropriate analysis yet as expeditiously as possible on all such 
requests. In addition, we note that a state’s action on ETC designation requests may be reviewed 
78 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.405 and 54.411. 
79 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12277, paras. 151-152. 
80 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12265, para. 114. 
81 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12267, para. 121. 
82 The following parties filed comments in response to this Further Notice: California Public Utilities Commission 
(California Commission), Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority, Competitive Universal Service 
Coalition (CUSC), Florida Public Service Commission (Florida Commission), National Telephone Cooperative 
Association (NTCA), Regulatory Commission of Alaska, South Dakota Independent Telephone Coalition (SDITC), 
United States Telecom Association (USTA), and WorldCom. 
83 See, e.g., Western Wireless Corporation Designated Eligible Carrier Application, Order on Remand, Case No. 
PU-1564-98-428 (ND PSC rel. Oct. 3, 2001); WWC License LLC, d.b.a. Cellular One, Order Granting Request for 
Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Status, Docket No. 199 IAC 39.2(4) (Iowa Dept. of Commerce Util. Bd. rel. 
Nov. 21, 2000). See also NTCA Comments at 3 (noting that state commissions in Arkansas, California, Kansas, 
Maryland, Minnesota, North Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin have recently issued decisions granting carrier 
ETC designations). 
14 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
under section 253 as a potential barrier to entry.84 Although we continue to encourage states to 
address such requests in a timely manner, we find no need for further action at this time. 
27. In addition, we disagree with those commenters who suggest that the Commission 
should adopt a rule requiring resolution within six months of all ETC designations filed with the 
Commission, including requests for designation on tribal lands.85 In the Twelfth Report and 
Order and Further Notice, the Commission committed to resolve the merits of any request for 
designation on tribal lands within six months of release of an order resolving the jurisdictional 
issue.86 We decline, however, to extend this commitment to resolution of the jurisdictional 
issues presented in tribal ETC designation proceedings.87 As the Commission noted in the 
Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, the determination of whether a state commission 
lacks jurisdiction over a carrier providing service on tribal lands is a legally complex inquiry that 
may require additional time to fully address. The Commission also has specifically committed to 
resolving, within six months from the date filed, all designation requests for non-tribal lands that 
are properly before it pursuant to section 214(e)(6).88 The Commission has acted expeditiously 
on all ETC requests filed since the release of the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice.89 
We conclude, therefore, that no further measures beyond those adopted in the Twelfth Report and 
Order and Further Notice are required at this time to expedite the resolution of ETC designation 
requests filed before this Commission. 
V. ORDER ADDRESSING THE REQUEST OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF 
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 
Background A. 
28. In a letter dated September 11, 2000, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands’ (CNMI) requested that the Commission extend to the Northern Mariana Islands the 
same measures adopted by the Commission to promote subscribership and infrastructure 
deployment on tribal lands.90 CNMI maintains that the rationale for enhancing Lifeline and 
84 See, e.g., Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Western Wireless Corporation Petition for Preemption 
of an Order of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 96-45, 15 FCC 
Rcd 15168 (2000) (Section 214(e) Declaratory Ruling). 
85 See generally Competitive Universal Service Coalition Comments filed Sept. 2, 2000; WorldCom Comments 
filed Aug. 7, 2000. But see California Commission Comments filed Aug. 4, 2000 at 3; Florida Commission 
Comments filed Aug. 4, 2000 at 3-4; NTCA Comments filed Sept. 1, 2000; SDITC Comments filed Aug. 7, 2000 at 
2-3. 
86 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12267, para. 121. 
87 See CUSC Comments at 19. 
88 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12265, para. 114. 
89 See, e.g., Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Western Wireless Corporation Petition for 
Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier for the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 96-45, FCC 01-283 (rel. Oct. 5, 2001); Federal-State Joint Board 
on Universal Service; Guam Cellular and Paging, Inc. d/b/a Guamcell Communications Petition for Designation as 
an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the Territory of Guam, Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket 
No. 96-45, 17 FCC Rcd 1502 (2002). 
90 Letter from Thomas K. Crowe, Counsel for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to Magalie R. 
Salas, FCC, dated September 11, 2000 (CNMI ex parte). 
15 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
Link-Up support and broadening the eligibility criteria for support on tribal lands applies to the 
Northern Mariana Islands. 
Discussion B. 
29. We decline, at this time, to extend to the Northern Mariana Islands the same 
measures that were adopted to promote subscribership on tribal lands. The record is insufficient 
to establish that the Northern Mariana Islands has the same impediments to subscribership and 
infrastructure investment as tribal lands. 
30. The actions taken by the Commission in the Twelfth Report and Order and 
Further Notice were designed to address impediments to subscribership and infrastructure 
investment on tribal lands, where high cost service and low subscribership are most egregious. 
The Commission identified a number of factors that are primary impediments to subscribership 
on tribal lands, including the cost of basic service, the cost of intrastate toll service, inadequate 
telecommunications infrastructure and the cost of line extensions, and the lack of competitive 
service providers offering alternative technologies. 91 We find that CNMI has not provided any 
information that would allow us to identify the main impediments to subscribership on the 
Northern Mariana Islands (e.g., geographic isolation, limited local calling areas, cost of basic 
service). CNMI merely asserts that the Northern Mariana Islands has low telephone penetration 
rates, low income levels, and a trust relationship with the federal government that is similar to 
that of tribal communities.92 Given the lack of specific information in the record, we cannot 
conclude that the enhanced low-income programs established for tribal lands would be effective 
in addressing the causes of low subscribership rates on the Northern Mariana Islands. 
31. We note that the Commission specifically chose not to apply the actions taken in 
the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice more generally to all high-cost areas and all 
insular areas, which would have included the Northern Mariana Islands. 93 The Commission 
found that, although the record demonstrated that subscribership levels are below the national 
average in other low-income, rural areas and in certain insular areas, it did not permit a 
determination that the factors causing low subscribership on tribal lands are the same factors 
causing low subscribership among other populations.94 We find that CNMI has not provided any 
evidence that would lead us to depart from this determination. Specifically, CNMI has not 
demonstrated that the Northern Mariana Islands has low penetration rates and low per capita 
incomes that are similar to those on tribal lands.95 Although CNMI provides 1995 data 
suggesting that telephone penetration rates and per capita incomes on the Northern Mariana 
Islands are below the national average, even these statistics exceed those that exist on tribal 
lands. In the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, the Commission noted that 
subscribership on reservations was approximately 47 percent and per capita incomes were only 
$4,478.96 By comparison, CNMI indicates that the subscribership rates in the Northern Mariana 
91 See Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12220, para. 20. 
92 CNMI ex parte at 5. 
93 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12226, paras. 32-33 and footnotes cited therein. 
94 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12226, para. 32. 
95 CNMI ex parte at 4. 
96 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12223-24, paras. 26-27. 
16 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
Islands is 61 percent and per capita income is $6,897. We therefore deny CNMI’s request to 
extend to the Northern Mariana Islands the same measures adopted by the Commission to boost 
subscribership levels on tribal lands. As noted, however, the Commission continues to monitor 
the causes of low subscribership and develop appropriate measures to address these causes as 
necessary. 
FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING VI. 
Background A. 
32. On August 31, 2000, the Commission stayed the implementation of the enhanced 
federal Lifeline and Link-Up assistance rule amendments to the extent that they apply to 
qualifying low-income consumers living “near reservations.”97 In so doing, the Commission 
concluded that the term “near reservation,” as defined by BIA at the time, includes wide 
geographic areas that do not possess the same characteristics that warranted the targeting of 
enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support to reservations, such as geographic isolation, high rates 
of poverty, and low telephone subscribership.98 The Commission therefore stayed application of 
enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support on near reservation areas. At that time, the Commission 
sought further comment on whether and, if so, how it should identify geographic areas that are 
adjacent to the reservations, consistent with the goal of targeted enhanced Lifeline and Link- 
Up.99 The Commission indicated that the stay would remain in effect pending resolution of the 
issues raised in the Further Notice. A few commenters filed in response to this Further Notice.100 
Discussion B. 
33. We seek further comment on the proposals in the record to identify geographic 
areas that are adjacent to the reservations, consistent with the goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline 
and Link-Up to the most underserved areas of the Nation. As set forth in the Tribal Stay and 
Order, the term “near reservation,” as defined by BIA at the time of adoption of the Twelfth 
Report and Order and Further Notice and codified in our rules in this Order,101 includes wide 
geographic areas that do not possess the same characteristics that warrant the targeting of support 
to reservations, such as geographic isolation, high rates of poverty, and low telephone 
subscribership.102 As several commenters note, this definition of “near reservation” incorporates 
many highly populated, urban areas across the Nation, including major cities such as Phoenix, 
97 See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and 
Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular Areas, Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC 
Docket No. 96-45, 15 FCC Rcd 17112 (2000) (Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice). 
98 Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 17113, para. 3. As set forth above, in this Order we adopt 
the previous BIA definition of “near reservation” and codify it in our rules. See supra para. 14. 
99 Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 17113, paras. 5-6. 
100 The following parties filed comments in response to the Further Notice: AT&T, SBC, United States Cellular 
Corporation (USCC), Verizon, and Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Washington UTC). 
Reply comments were filed by AT&T and USCC. 
101 See supra para. 14. We note that BIA’s current definition of “near reservation” is not narrower than its prior 
definition. See 25 C.F.R. § 20.100. 
102 Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 17113, para. 3. 
17 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
Sacramento, Seattle, and Las Vegas.103 As set forth in the Tribal Stay and Order, we continue to 
find that using this definition of “near reservation” will not target enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up 
appropriately. 
34. We issue this Further Notice to obtain more detailed information on proposals 
contained in the current record, as well as additional proposals that may be more consistent with 
our goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support to only the most underserved areas 
of our Nation and that may impose fewer administrative burdens.104 For instance, USCC 
recommends excluding major metropolitan areas from the enhanced low-income programs by 
excluding Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs) from receiving enhanced lowincome 
support.105 Washington UTC suggests that enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support be 
provided in the entirety of any telephone exchange that contains all or any portion of a tribal 
reservation.106 In addition, Smith Bagley, Inc. (SBI) proposes that a person qualify for enhanced 
Lifeline and Link-Up benefits if he or she resides within 50 miles of a recognized Native 
American reservation and in a county that has a population density of no more than 50 persons 
per square mile.107 
35. We seek comment on data that addresses whether these proposed target areas 
share the same characteristics of reservation areas. For example, SBI fails to explain why it 
recommends choosing a population density of 50 persons per square mile.108 We seek record 
support regarding these issues. Moreover, the proposals of USCC, Washington UTC, and SBI 
may not adequately ensure that the enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support mechanisms are 
targeted only to those areas that share the same attributes as reservations. For example, we 
believe that these proposals may not exclude large cities from the definition of “near 
reservation.”109 We seek comment on how these proposals may be tailored to exclude such large 
cities. 
103 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 2-3; SBC Comments at 1; Verizon Comments at 1-2. 
104 We note that the Commission is also seeking comment on how to define areas that are adjacent to tribal lands 
where it might be appropriate to provide tribal lands bidding credits. The Commission’s current tribal lands bidding 
credits program grants credits to winning bidders who deploy facilities and provide service to federally-recognized 
tribal areas that have a telephone service penetration rate below 70 percent. See Extending Wireless 
Telecommunications Services to Tribal Lands, Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 99-266, paras. 1, 32-33 (rel. Mar. 14, 2003). 
105 USCC Comments at 6-7. A CMSA is a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) that has a population of one 
million or more, has separate component areas can be identified within the entire area by meeting certain statistical 
standards, and in which local opinion indicates there is support for the component areas. An MSA is an area that 
includes: (1) at least one city with 50,000 or more inhabitants, or (2) a Census Bureau-defined urbanized area (of at 
least 50,000 inhabitants) and a total metropolitan population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in New England). See 
<http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html>. 
106 Washington UTC Comments at 4-5. 
107 Letter from David LaFuria, counsel for Smith Bagley, Inc. to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, dated August 22, 2002 
(SBI Letter). 
108 See SBI Letter generally. 
109 See, e.g., USCC Comments at 6-7 (acknowledging that cities as large as Yakima, WA would be included in its 
definition of “near reservation”); SBI Letter at Near Lands Comparative Analysis Arizona & New Mexico (showing 
that its proposal would include Flagstaff, AZ). 
18 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
36. We seek comment on how to minimize any administrative burdens raised by these 
proposals. For example, SBI proposes that the Commission produce and distribute maps 
outlining all areas that are within a 50 mile radius of a reservation in which the county contains 
less than 50 persons per square mile.110 We believe that the Commission may not be the 
appropriate entity to undertake such tasks because it has no particular expertise with regard to 
such mapmaking. In addition, we are not aware of any current map that contains all reservations 
as defined by the Commission.111 We seek comment on alternative sources for such maps. We 
seek comment on the feasibility of having prospective ETCs bear the cost and burden of 
producing their own maps showing the areas in which they request ETC designation. 
37. We also seek comment on additional proposals for defining the geographic areas 
that are near reservations to ensure that enhanced Lifeline and Link Up support is targeted to 
qualifying low-income consumers living in areas adjacent to, or near, reservations that share 
many of the same characteristics as the reservations. We request that commenters provide 
detailed information to assist us in determining how enhanced Lifeline and Link Up support 
should be targeted. Such information should include the population of the geographical area, the 
number of income-eligible subscribers, the distance of each area from the nearest reservation, 
whether there is any legal recognition of that area by the BIA, whether the area includes or is 
part of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA),112 and the level of telephone subscribership in the 
area. Wireline Competition Bureau staff have estimated, through analysis of recent Census data 
of a sampling of zip codes in near reservation areas,113 that the level of telephone subscribership 
in Indian households is lower than the level of telephone subscribership for all households.114 
We ask commenters to provide their own data comparing the level of telephone subscribership in 
Indian households in near reservation areas with the level of telephone subscribership in all 
households in near reservation areas, or comment on the Bureau’s preliminary estimates. Bureau 
staff have also estimated that a greater percentage of Indian households in near reservation areas 
have incomes under $25,000, compared to all households in near reservation areas.115 We ask 
110 SBI Letter at 4-5. 
111 See Appendix A, 47 C.F.R. § 54.400(e). 
112 See supra n. 105. 
113 See 2000 Census Data at <http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html> (analysis excluded MSAs); 
Appendix B (List of Near Reservation Areas). 
114 For example, in near reservation areas in Arizona, telephone subscribership for Indian households was estimated 
to be 88.1% compared to 95.6% for all households. In near reservation areas in Montana, telephone subscribership 
for Indian households was estimated to be 83.7% compared to 95.1% for all households. In near reservation areas in 
New Mexico, telephone subscribership for Indian households was estimated to be 88.5% compared to 95.3% for all 
households. In near reservation areas in South Dakota, telephone subscribership for Indian households was 
estimated to be 74.8% compared to 95.2% for all households. See 2000 Census Data at 
<http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html> (analysis excluded zip codes in MSAs); Appendix B (List of 
Near Reservation Areas). 
115 For example, in near reservation areas in Arizona sampled by the Bureau, 46.1% of Indian households had annual 
incomes under $25,000 compared to 37.2% for all households. In near reservation areas in Montana, 62.4% of 
Indian households had annual incomes under $25,000 compared to 43.1% for all households. In near reservation 
areas in New Mexico, 43.6% of Indian households had annual incomes under $25,000 compared to 37.9% for all 
households. In near reservation areas in South Dakota, 67.2% of Indian households had annual incomes under 
$25,000 compared to 48.4% for all households. See 2000 Census Data at 
<http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html> (analysis excluded zip codes in MSAs); Appendix B (List of 
Near Reservation Areas). 
19 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
commenters to provide their own data comparing the percentage of low-income Indian 
households in near reservation areas with the percentage of all low-income households in near 
reservation areas, or comment on the Bureau’s preliminary estimates.116 We note that the 
Bureau’s most recent penetration report indicates that there is a correlation between low levels of 
household income and low levels of telephone subscribership.117 
38. Finally, we seek comment on the effect of any proposed “near reservation” 
definitions on the ETC designation process. As explained above, we conclude that, pending 
resolution of the “near reservation” definition, petitions for ETC designation relating to near 
reservation areas will not be considered as petitions relating to tribal lands. Petitioners seeking 
ETC designation in such areas must follow the procedures outlined in the Twelfth Report and 
Order and Further Notice for non-tribal lands prior to submitting a request for designation to the 
Commission under section 214(e)(6).118 The Commission reached this conclusion because it 
believed that near reservation areas do not invoke the same jurisdictional concerns and principles 
of tribal sovereignty that are associated with areas within the boundaries of reservations. 
Accordingly, we request that any proposed definitions of "near reservation" also include a 
discussion of the impact of such definition on the ETC designation process. 
VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 
Paperwork Reduction Act A. 
39. The action contained herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and found to impose new reporting and/or recordkeeping 
requirements or burdens on the public. Implementation of these modified reporting and/or 
recordkeeping requirements will be subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) as prescribed by the PRA, and will go into effect upon announcement in the Federal 
Register. 
Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis B. 
40. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),119 an Initial Regulatory 
116 According to the Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG), a family of four with an income at or below $25,000 is just 
above 135% of the FPG. See 2003 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia, 68 
Fed. Reg. 6456-58 (2003). A family of four with a yearly income of $24,840 is at 135% of the FPG. Id. We note 
that issues related to the federal low-income programs, Lifeline and Link-Up, have been raised in a different 
proceeding. See Recommended Decision, FCC 03J-2 at paras. 15-19 (recommending, inter alia, that the 
Commission add an income-based criteria of 135% of the FPG to the current default eligibility criteria). See 
generally Recommended Decision, FCC 03J-2. 
117 Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, Telephone Penetration by Income by State, at 7, Chart 1 (rel. May 20, 2003) (Telephone Penetration 
Report) (households with the lowest incomes had the lowest telephone penetration rates). 
118 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12263-64, paras. 112-13 (“[o]nly in those 
instances where a carrier provides the Commission with an affirmative statement from a court of competent 
jurisdiction or the state commission that it lacks jurisdiction to perform the designation will we consider section 
214(e)(6) designation requests from carriers serving non-tribal lands.”). 
119 See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., has been amended by the Contract with America 
Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). 
20 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice.120 
The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Further Notice, 
including comment on the IRFA. In addition, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 
and IRFA were included in the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice.121 In compliance 
with the RFA, this present FRFA supplements the FRFA contained in the Twelfth Report and 
Order and Further Notice to the extent that changes to that Order adopted here on 
reconsideration require changes in the conclusions reached in the FRFA.122 
Need for and Objectives of the Order 1. 
41. The Commission issues this Order to ensure that enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up 
support is targeted to the only the most underserved segments of our Nation. The Commission 
takes this action as part of its implementation of the Act’s mandate that “[c]onsumers in all 
regions of the Nation . . . have access to telecommunications and information services . . ..”123 In 
this Order, we affirm that the framework adopted by the Commission for resolution of ETC 
designations on tribal lands provides a reasonable means to facilitate the expeditious resolution 
of such requests, while balancing the respective federal, state, and tribal interests. In addition, 
we conclude that the definition of “reservation” for purposes of the universal service programs 
remains the same as that adopted in the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice despite the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) subsequent modification of that definition for purposes of its 
direct assistance programs. We also clarify the Commission’s rules regarding the qualification 
criteria for enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up service. 
2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in 
Response to the IRFA 
42. We received no comments directly in response to the IRFA in this proceeding. 
However, we reconsider our conclusion that Link-Up support should offset a portion of the costs 
of a wireless handset. Pending resolution of the issues presented in the Tribal Stay Order, we 
also conclude that carriers seeking designation as an ETC on “near reservation” areas must 
follow the procedures established for non-tribal designations in the Twelfth Report and Order 
and Further Notice. 
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
Rules Will Apply 
43. In the FRFA at paragraphs 162-178 of the Twelfth Report and Order and Further 
Notice, we described and estimated the number of small entities that would be affected by the 
new universal service rules and amendments for low-income consumers residing on tribal lands. 
The rule amendments adopted herein apply to the same entities affected by the rules adopted in 
that order. We therefore incorporate by reference paragraphs 162-178 of the Twelfth Report and 
120 Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 17115-25, paras. 8-36. 
121 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12278-89, paras. 155-183. 
122 See 5 U.S.C. § 604. 
123 47 U.S.C. § 254. 
21 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
Order and Further Notice.124 
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements 
44. The actions taken herein will require carriers seeking designation as an ETC on 
near reservation areas to file such requests with the relevant state commission. Pending 
resolution of the issues presented in the Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice, only in those 
instances where a carrier provides the Commission with an affirmative statement from a court of 
competent jurisdiction or the state commission that it lacks jurisdiction to perform the 
designation will we consider section 214(e)(6) designation requests from carriers serving near 
reservation areas. 
5. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 
45. In this Order, we confirm that the definition of “reservation” for purposes of the 
universal service programs remains the same as that adopted in the Twelfth Report and Order 
and Further Notice. This decision will not result in a significant economic impact on small 
entities. We also conclude that Link-Up support should not offset any costs of a wireless 
handset. Given that Link-Up support is a one-time reduction in the eligible consumer’s 
connection charge, we do not believe that this decision will result in a significant economic 
impact on any small wireless entities. 
Report to Congress 6. 
46. The Commission will send a copy of this Order, including this FRFA, in a report 
to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). 
In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. § 604(b). 
Effective Date of Amended Rules C. 
47. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C § 553(d),125 the rule amendments adopted herein shall take 
effect thirty (30) days after publication in the Federal Register. 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis D. 
48. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, (RFA),126 the 
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic effect on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the FNPRM. 
Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses 
to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadline for comments on the FNPRM provided below in 
124 Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 12281-87, paras. 162-78. 
125 5 U.S.C. § 553(d). 
126 See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 
22 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
the Comment Filing Procedures section. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.127 
In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal 
Register.128 
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 1. 
49. This FNPRM is being issued in order to ensure that enhanced Lifeline and Link- 
Up support is targeted to the most underserved segments of our Nation. The Commission sought 
comment on the same questions present herein in the Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice.129 
This FNPRM seeks to bolster the record on how to define the geographic areas that are adjacent 
to reservations or are otherwise part of the reservation’s community of interest, in a manner that 
is consistent with our goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support to the most 
underserved segments of the Nation. This action is taken pursuant to the Act’s mandate that 
“[c]onsumers in all regions of the Nation . . . have access to telecommunications and information 
services. . . .”130 
Legal Basis 2. 
50. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the FNPRM is 
contained in sections 1-4, 201-205 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 
U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 201-205 and 254. 
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply 
51. In the IRFA at paragraphs 11-31 of Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice, we 
described and estimated the number of small entities that would be affected by the determination 
to stay application of the enhanced low-income programs to “near reservation” areas and to 
consider alternative definitions. The proposals discussed in this FNPRM apply to the same 
entities. We therefore incorporate by reference paragraphs 11-31 of the Tribal Stay Order and 
Further Notice.131 
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements 
52. The measures under consideration in this FNPRM may, if adopted, result in 
additional reporting or other compliance requirements. A modified definition of “near 
reservation” may impact reporting requirements for carriers eligible to receive enhanced Lifeline 
and Link-Up. For example, such carriers may be required to compile maps or derive other 
means to determine whether qualifying low-income customers fall within any designated 
geographic areas. In addition, if the current stay is lifted and an alternative definition of “near 
127 See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a). 
128 See id. 
129 See generally Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice. 
130 47 U.S.C. § 254. 
131 Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 17112, paras. 11-31. 
23 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
reservation” is adopted, eligible carriers may be required to submit data regarding an increased 
number of qualifying low-income consumers. Such increased reporting requirements would be 
offset by increased opportunities to receive universal service support. 
5. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 
53. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has 
considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives 
(among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, 
consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small 
entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.132 
54. In the FNPRM, we outline the various alternative proposals that have been 
suggested to the Commission in response to the Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice. We seek 
comment on the cost and benefits of each of these alternative proposals, including the potential 
administrative burdens involved in implementing such proposals on eligible carriers. The 
Commission’s rules relating to the receipt of enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support apply 
equally to all eligible carriers providing service to qualifying low-income consumers. The 
proposals presented herein are consistent with these standards. 
6. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the 
Proposed Rules 
55. None. 
Filing of Comments and Reply Comments E. 
56. We invite comment on the issues and questions set forth in the Further Notice 
above. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 
1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register, and reply comments on or before 45 days after publication in the Federal Register. 
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or 
by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. 
Reg. 24121 (1998). 
57. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet 
to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission 
must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this 
proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each 
docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, 
commenters should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the 
applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by 
Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an email 
to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, "get 
132 5 U.S.C. § 603(c). 
24 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
form." A sample form and directions will be sent in reply. Parties who choose to file by paper 
must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking 
number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies 
for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger 
delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 
(although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The 
Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 
paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 110, 
Washington, D.C. 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed 
of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 
20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed 
to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554. All filings must be addressed to the 
Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Parties 
also should send four (4) paper copies of their filings to Sheryl Todd, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, Rm. 5-A520, S.W., Washington, DC 20554. 
58. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information 
collections are due on or before 45 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. 
Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the 
proposed and/or modified information collections on or before 60 days after date of publication 
in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any 
comments on the information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, 
Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 
20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Edward Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room 
10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503 or via the Internet to 
edward.springer@omb.eop.gov. 
59. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, 
large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0531 (voice), 202-418-7365 (tty). 
VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES 
60. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
sections 1-4, 214(e), and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 
151-154, 214(e), and 254, and section 1.429 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.429, this 
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION, REPORT AND ORDER, ORDER, AND FURTHER 
NOTICE IS ADOPTED. The collections of information contained within this Order are 
contingent upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will 
publish a notice announcing the effective date of the collections of information. 
61. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned petitions for 
reconsideration of the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice ARE DENIED, to the 
extent discussed herein. 
62. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration of the National 
Telephone Cooperative Association, filed on September 5, 2000, IS GRANTED, to the extent 
25 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
discussed herein. 
63. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration of the South 
Dakota Independent Telephone Coalition, filed on September 5, 2000, IS GRANTED IN PART 
AND DENIED IN PART, to the extent discussed herein. 
64. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 54 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. 
Part 54, IS AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A attached hereto, effective thirty (30) days 
after the publication of this ORDER in the Federal Register. 
65. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this 
Order, including the Initial and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Marlene H. Dortch 
Secretary 
26 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
APPENDIX A – FINAL RULES 
Part 54 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 
PART 54 – UNIVERSAL SERVICE 
Subpart E – Universal Service Support for Low-Income Consumers. 
1. Section 54.400 is amended by revising paragraph (e) and the note to paragraph (e) to read 
as follows: 
Terms and definitions. § 54.400 
* * * * * 
(e) Eligible resident of Tribal lands. An “eligible resident of Tribal lands” is a “qualifying lowincome 
consumer,” as defined in paragraph (a) of this section, living on or near a reservation. A 
“reservation” is defined as any federally recognized Indian tribe’s reservation, Pueblo, or 
Colony, including former reservations in Oklahoma, Alaska Native regions established pursuant 
to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688), and Indian allotments. “Near 
reservation” is defined as those areas or communities adjacent or contiguous to reservations 
which are designated by the Department of Interior’s Commission of Indian Affairs upon 
recommendation of the local Bureau of Indian Affairs Superintendent, which recommendation 
shall be based upon consultation with the tribal governing body of those reservations, as locales 
appropriate for the extension of financial assistance and/or social services, on the basis of such 
general criteria as: (1) Number of Indian people native to the reservation residing in the area, (2) 
a written designation by the tribal governing body that members of their tribe and family 
members who are Indian residing in the area, are socially, culturally and economically affiliated 
with their tribe and reservation; (3) geographical proximity of the area to the reservation, and (4) 
administrative feasibility of providing an adequate level of services to the area. 
Note to Paragraph (e): This paragraph (e) is stayed to the extent that it applies to qualifying lowincome 
consumers living “near reservations.” 
2. Section 54.409 is amended by revising the third sentence of paragraph (a), and the first 
and third sentence of paragraph (c) to read as follows: 
Consumer qualification for Lifeline § 54.409 
(a) * * * A state containing geographic areas included in the definition of “reservation” and 
“near reservation,” as defined in § 54.400(e), must ensure that its qualification criteria are 
reasonably designed to apply to low-income individuals living in such areas. 
* * * * * 
(c) A consumer that lives on a reservation or near a reservation, but does not meet the 
qualifications for Lifeline specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, nonetheless shall be 
a “qualifying low-income consumer” as defined in § 54.400(a) and thus an “eligible resident of 
Tribal lands” as defined in § 54.400(e) and shall qualify to receive Tiers One, Two, and Four 
Lifeline service if the individual participates in one of the following federal assistance programs: 
Bureau of Indian affairs general assistance; Tribally administered Temporary Assistance for 
FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
Needy Families; Head Start (only those meeting its income qualifying standard); or National 
School Lunch Program’s free lunch program. * * * To receive Lifeline support under this 
paragraph for the eligible resident of Tribal lands, the eligible telecommunications carrier 
offering the Lifeline service to such consumer must obtain the consumer’s signature on a 
document certifying under penalty of perjury that the consumer receives benefits from at least 
one of the programs mentioned in this paragraph or paragraph (b) of this section, and lives on or 
near a reservation, as defined in § 54.400(e). * * * 
2 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
APPENDIX B – LIST OF NEAR RESERVATION AREAS 
This list encompasses areas in all states that have been given a “near reservation” designation by 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior. 
Arizona 
Tribe: Pascua Yaqui 
Pima County, Arizona communities of South Tucson, Old Pascua Village and Yoem Pueblo. 
Tribe: Tonto Apache Indians of Arizona 
The communities of Gisela, Payson, and Star Valley in the State of Arizona. 
Tribe: Colorado River 
Bouse, Ehrenberg, Parker, Salome, Lake Havasu City, Kingman, Bull Head City, Holiday 
Shores, Mohave Valley, Havasu Valley 
Tribe: Fort Apache 
Pine Top, Lakeside, Eager, Showlow, Nutrioso, Holbrook, Overgaard, Alpine, Taylor, 
Springerville, Herber, Globe, St. Johns, Snowflake, Winslow 
Tribe: Majave-Apache 
Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale 
Tribe: Queehan, Cocopah 
Gadsen, Roll, San Luis, Somerton, Tacna, Yuma, Wellton 
Tribe: Hopi 
Holbrook, Winslow, Flagstaff, Grand Canyon, Page 
Tribe: Navajo 
Grand Canyon, Joseph City, Marble Canyon, Flagstaff, Snowflake, Holbrook, Page, Wupatki, 
Winslow 
Tribe: Papago 
Tucson, Why, South Tucson, Ajo, Gila Bend, Sasabe, Case Grande, Sahuarita, Coolidge, 
Marana, Florence, Red Rock, Eloy, Cortaro, Toltec, Picacho, Buckeye, Arizona City, Stanfield 
Tribe: Ak-Chin 
Chandler, Mobile, Laveen, Stanfield, Casa Grande, Gila Bend, Phoenix, Midway, Eleven Mile 
Corner, Kyrene, Coolidge, Florence, Buckeye, Maricopa 
Tribe: Gila River 
Chandler, LaPalma, Eloy, Ocotillo, Casa Grande, Gilbert, Higley, Kyrene, Rittenhouse, 
Hightown, Queen Creek, Gila Bend, Stanfield, Chandler Hts, Florence, Mobile, Maricopa, 
Coolidge, Boree Corners, Avondale, Randolf, Tempe, Phoenix, Guadalupe, Mesa, Glendale, 
Litchfield, Laveen, Eleven Mile Corner, Buckeye, Cotton Bowl, Tolleson, Apache Junction 
3 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
Tribe: Salt River Pima-Maricopa 
Tempe, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale 
Tribe: San Carlos 
Miami, Superior, Eden, Thatcher, Pima, Safford, Hayden, Winkleman, Globe, Port Thomas, 
Showlow 
Tribe: Hualapai 
Kingman, Seligman, Nelson, Grand Canyon, Williams, Flagstaff 
Tribe: Yavapai (Prescott) 
Prescott 
Tribe: Yavapai (Apache) 
Jerome, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, Rimrock, McGuire< ville, Camp Verde, Lake Montezuma 
Tribe: Kalbab-Palute 
Fredonia, Arizona; St. George, Utah; Kanob, Utah; Cedar City, Utah 
California 
Tribe: Big Sandy Rancheria 
The counties of Madera, Fresno and Kings in the State of California. 
Tribe: Big Valley Rancheria 
The counties of Lake and Sonoma in the State of California. 
Tribe: Bishop Reservation 
The counties of Mono and Inyo in the State of California. 
Tribe: Cedarville Rancheria 
The county of Modoc in the State of California. 
Tribe: Cortina Rancheria 
The counties of Glenn, Colusa, Yolo and Sacramento in the State of California. 
Tribe: Dry Creek Rancheria 
The county of Sonoma in the State of California. 
Tribe: Fort Bidwell Reservation 
The county of Modoc in the State of California. The counties of Lake and Klamath in the State 
of Oregon. 
Tribe: Greenville Rancheria 
The counties of Plumas, Lassen, Shasta, Tehama, Butte, Yuba and Sutter in the State of 
California. 
4 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
Tribe: Hopland Reservation 
The counties of Mendocino and Sonoma in the State of California. 
Tribe: Karuk Tribe of California 
The counties of Siskiyou, northeastern Humboldt from State Highway 96 milepost HUM 28.61 
north to the Siskiyou County Line in the State of California. 
Tribe: Laytonville Rancheria 
The counties of Mendocino, Lake and Humboldt in the State of California. 
Tribe: Mechoopda Indian Tribe of the Chico Rancheria 
The county of Butte in the State of California. 
Tribe: Mooretown Rancheria 
The county of Butte in the State of California. 
Tribe: North Fork Rancheria 
The counties of Madera, Mariposa and Fresno in the State of California. 
Tribe: Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians 
The counties of Fresno, Madera and Mariposa in the State of California. 
Tribe: Pinoleville Reservation 
The counties of Mendocino, Sonoma, Lake and Napa in the State of California. 
Tribe: Redding Rancheria 
The county of Trinity and the western two-thirds of Shasta in the State of California. 
Tribe: Redwood Valley Rancheria 
The counties of Mendocino and Sonoma in the State of California. 
Tribe: Coast Indian Community of the Resighini Rancheria 
The county of Del Norte in the State of California. 
Tribe: Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria 
The counties of Humboldt and Del Norte in the State of California. 
Tribe: Round Valley Reservation 
The counties of Trinity, Mendocino, Lake and Sonoma in the State of California. 
Tribe: Scotts Valley Rancheria 
The counties of Mendocino, Lake, Sonoma and Contra Costa in the State of California. 
Tribe: Sherwood Valley Rancheria 
The counties of Mendocino, Lake and Sonoma in the State of California. 
Tribe: Shingle Springs Rancheria 
The counties of El Dorado, Sacramento, Placer and Yolo in the State of California. 
5 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
Tribe: Smith River Rancheria 
The counties of Del Norte and Humboldt in the State of California. The counties of Curry, 
Josephine and Coos in the State of Oregon. 
Tribe: Susanville Indian Rancheria 
The county of Lassen in the State of California. 
Tribe: Tule River Reservation 
The county of Tulare in the State of California. 
Tribe: Tuolumne Rancheria 
The county of Tuolumne in the State of California. 
Tribe: Yurok Tribe 
The counties of Humboldt and Del Norte in the State of California. 
Colorado 
Tribe: Navajo 
La Plata, Cortez, Bayfield, Durango, Ignacio, and Towaoc 
Idaho 
Tribe: Shoshone-Bannock 
Counties of Bingham, Power, Bannock and Caribou 
Tribe: Battle Mountain Indian Colony of the Te-Moak Band of the Western Shoshone, 
Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Duck Valley Shoshone-Pauite, Duckwater 
Shoshone Tribe, Elko Community Committee, Ely Colony of Western Shoshone, Te-Moak 
Bands of the Western Shoshone, South Fork Community Committee organization. 
The Nevada counties of Elko, Eureka, Lander, Nye, and White Pine inclusively; the community 
of Winnemucca, Nevada; the Utah county of Tooele; the Idaho counties of Ada, Canyon, 
Elmore, and Owyhee. 
Tribe: Nez Perce Tribe 
The towns of Lewiston, Kendrick, Grangeville, and Cottonwood in Idaho, and the towns of 
Asotin and Clarkston in Washington. 
Louisiana 
Tribe: Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana 
The Saint Mary Parish in the State of Louisiana 
Tribe: Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana 
Parishes of Allen Jefferson Davis, Louisiana 
Tribe: Tunica-Biloxi Indians of Louisiana 
Parishes of Avoyelles and Rapids, Louisiana 
6 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
Michigan 
Tribe: Bay Mills Indian Community 
The counties of Chippewa, Luce and Mackinac in the State of Michigan. 
Tribe: Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians 
The counties of Grand Traverse, Charlevoix, Leelanau, Benzie, Manistee and Antrim in the State 
of Michigan. 
Tribe: Hannahville Indian Community 
The counties of Delta, Menominee and Dickinson in the State of Michigan. 
Tribe: Keweenaw Bay Indian Community 
The counties of Baraga, Iron, Houghton, Marquette, Ontonagon, Dickinson, Gogebic and 
Keweenaw in the State of Michigan. 
Tribe: Lac Vieux Desert 
The counties of Gogebic, Ontonogin and Iron in the State of Michigan. 
Tribe: Saginaw Chippewa 
The counties of Isabella, Arenac, Osceola, Mecosta, Montcalm, Midland, Gratiot, Gladwin and 
Midland in the State of Michigan. 
Tribe: Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Michigan 
The counties of Chippewa, Mackinac, Luce, Alger, Schoolcraft, Delta and Marquette in the State 
of Michigan. 
Mississippi 
Tribe: Choctaw 
Counties of Neshoba, Leake, Newton, Kemper, Scott, Attala, Lauderdale, Winston, Noxubee, 
Clarke, Smith and Jones 
Montana 
Tribe: Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana 
The communities of Cut Bank, Dupuyer, and Valier in the State of Montana. 
Tribe: Crow Tribe of Montana 
City of Hardin, Montana 
Tribe: Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes 
Cities of Harlem and Dodson, Montana 
Tribe: Northern Cheyenne 
Ashland, Montana 
7 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
Nevada 
Tribe: The Nevada counties of Humboldt, Washoe, Story, Pershing, Churchill, Douglas, 
Mineral, Lyon, Esmeralda, Clark and Nye. 
Tribe: Fallon Paiute Shoshone; Fort McDermitt Paiute Shoshone; Lovelock Paiute; Pyramid 
Lake Paiute; Reno Sparks Indian Colony’s Summit Lake Paiute; Walker River Paiute; Washoe 
Tribe of Nevada and California; Winnemucca Indian Colony; Yerington Paiute; and Yomba 
Shoshone 
The county of Carson City in the State of Nevada 
Tribe: Battle Mountain Indian Colony of the Te-Moak Band of the Western Shoshone, 
Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Duck Valley Shoshone-Pauite, Duckwater 
Shoshone Tribe, Elko Community Committee, Ely Colony of Western Shoshone, Te-Moak 
Bands of the Western Shoshone, South Fork Community Committee organization. 
The Nevada counties of Elko, Eureka, Lander, Nye, and White Pine inclusively; the community 
of Winnemucca, Nevada; the Utah county of Tooele; the Idaho counties of Ada, Canyon, 
Elmore, and Owyhee. 
New Mexico 
Tribe: Pueblo of San Juan, New Mexico 
Communities within five miles from the reservation border, including Alcade, Arroyo Seco, 
Chamita, Chili, El Llano, El Quique, Espanola, Guachupange, Hernandez, La Mesilla, San 
Pedro, Santa Cruz and Velarde, New Mexico. 
Tribe: Navajo 
Farmington, Aztec, Bloomfield, Magdalena, Cuba, Kirtland, Grants, Milan, Socorro, Gallup 
North Carolina 
Tribe: Cherokee 
Counties of Cherokee, Graham, Haywood, Jackson and Swain 
North Dakota 
Tribe: Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians 
Rolette County, North Dakota 
Tribe: Devils Lake Sioux Tribe 
Cities of Devils Lake, Minnewaukan, Oberon and Sheyenne, North Dakota 
Oklahoma 
Tribe: Kaw, Otoe-Missouria, Ponca, Tonkawa, Pawnee 
North Boundary- From the west of Grant County, along the Oklahoma-Kansas state line, to the 
east boundary of Kay County. East Boundary- Commencing northeast corner of Kay County, 
south on Kay County line to Kaw City thence southwest to the Arkansas River, following 
8 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
Arkansas River to Cimarron Turnpike. South Boundary- From juncture of Arkansas River and 
Cimarron Turnpike, west on Cimarron Turnpike to State Highway 18, south on State Highway 
18 to the Cimarron River, west along the Cimarron River to Coyle, Oklahoma, thence along 
State Highway 33 west to Kingfisher, Oklahoma. West Boundary- Commencing at Kingfisher, 
Oklahoma, north on State Highway 81 to the Garfield County line, west along the Garfield 
County line to the west boundary of Garfield County, thence north along the west boundaries of 
Garfield and Grant Counties to the Oklahoma-Kansas state line. 
Tribe: Chyenne-Arapaho 
Woodward, Major, Kingfisher, Canadian, Blaine, Dewey, Custer, Washita, Beckham, Roger 
Mills Counties and that southeastern portion of Ellis County which falls within the former 
reservation boundaries. 
Tribe: Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Oklahoma, 
Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, Sac and Fox Tribe of Oklahoma. 
All of Payne County north of the Cimarron River except that part which lies within the 
boundaries of the Pawnee Tribe’s former reservation; and all the area within a six-mile-wide 
strip of land in Logan, Oklahoma, and Cleveland Counties, beginning at the extreme southwest 
corner of Payne County where the line intersects with the Cimarron River, then running due 
south to the South Canadian River (all within the State of Oklahoma). 
Oregon 
Tribe: Burns Paiute 
The Communities of Burns and Hines in the State of Oregon and those public domain allotments 
in Harney County, Oregon inhabited by members of the Burns Paiute Tribe. 
Tribe: Yakama Indian Nation 
The community of Celilo Village in the State of Oregon 
Tribe: Umatilla 
Counties of Umatilla and Union; Celilo Village in Wasco county 
Tribe: Warm Springs Confederated Tribes 
Counties of Jefferson, Wasco, Clackamas, Marion, Linn, Crook, Deschutes, and Hood River (all 
within the State of Oregon). 
Tribe: Fort Bidwell Reservation 
The county of Modoc in the State of California. The counties of Lake and Klamath in the State 
of Oregon. 
Tribe: Smith River Rancheria 
The counties of Del Norte and Humboldt in the State of California. The counties of Curry, 
Josephine and Coos in the State of Oregon. 
Tribe: Confederated Tribe of the Siletz Indians 
The counties of Washington, Clackamas, and Multnomah (all of the above within the State of 
Oregon). 
9 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
South Dakota 
Tribe: Cheyenne River Sioux 
The community of Faith, South Dakota (only that area falling within the city limits of Faith, 
South Dakota. 
Tribe: Rosebud Sioux 
The South Dakota counties of Gregory, Melette, Tripp, and Lyman (excluding that portion of 
Lyman County which falls within the boundaries of the Lower Brule Indian Reservation). 
Tribe: Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux 
The communities of Waubay, South Dakota and Wilmot, South Dakota. 
Utah 
Tribe: Kalbab-Palute 
Fredonia, Arizona; St. George, Utah; Kanob, Utah; Cedar City, Utah 
Tribe: Battle Mountain Indian Colony of the Te-Moak Band of the Western Shoshone, 
Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Duck Valley Shoshone-Pauite, Duckwater 
Shoshone Tribe, Elko Community Committee, Ely Colony of Western Shoshone, Te-Moak 
Bands of the Western Shoshone, South Fork Community Committee organization. 
The Nevada counties of Elko, Eureka, Lander, Nye, and White Pine inclusively; the community 
of Winnemucca, Nevada; the Utah county of Tooele; the Idaho counties of Ada, Canyon, 
Elmore, and Owyhee. 
Washington 
Tribe: Muckleshoot 
The counties of King and Pierce in the State of Washington. 
Tribe: Nisqually 
Thurston, County and pierce County in the State of Washington. 
Tribe: Nooksack 
Whatcom County and Skagit County in the State of Washington. 
Tribe: Suquamish 
Counties of Mason, Kitsap, Thurston, Snohomish, King and Pierce in the State of Washington. 
Tribe: Swinomish 
Skagit County in the State of Washington. 
Tribe: Quinault Indian Nation 
The counties of Grays Harbor and Jefferson in the State of Washington 
Tribe: Skokomish Indian Tribe of the Skokomish Reservation of Washington 
Mason County within the State of Washington 
10 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
Tribe: Lummi 
County of Whatcom in the State of Washington 
Tribe: Klallam 
County of Kitsap in the State of Washington 
Tribe: Puyallup 
Counties of King, Pierce, Kitsap, Thurston, in the State of Washington 
Tribe: Tulalip 
County of Snohomish in the State of Washington 
Tribe: Hoh 
Counties of Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor and King in the State of Washington 
Tribe: Quileute 
Forks, Washington 
Tribe: Colville Confederated Tribes 
Counties of Ferry, Stevens, Okanogan, Grant, and Douglas 
Tribe: Nez Perce Tribe 
The towns of Lewiston, Kendrick, Grangeville, and Cottonwood in Idaho, and the towns of 
Asotin and Clarkston in Washington. 
Tribe: Kalispel Tribe 
Counties of Pend Oreille, Stevens, and Spokane (all within the State of Washington). 
Tribe: Spokane 
Counties of Spokane, Lincoln, Stevens and Pend Oreille (all within the State of Washington). 
Tribe: Chehalis Confederated Tribes 
Counties of Grays Harbor, Lewis, Thurston, Cowlitz, and Mason (all within the State of 
Washington). 
Tribe: Shoalwater Bay 
Counties of Grays Harbor and Pacific (all within the State of Washington). 
Tribe: Squaxin Island 
Counties of Mason, Kitsap, Pierce, and Thurston (all within the State of Washington). 
Tribe: Confederated Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation 
Counties of Klickitat, Grant, Yakima, and Skamania; towns of Wenatchee and Ellensburg (all 
within the State of Washington). 
11 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
Wyoming 
Tribe: Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River reservation of Wyoming and Shoshone Tribe of the 
Wind River Reservation of Wyoming 
Cities of Lander and Riverton, Wyoming 
12 FCC 03-115 Federal Communications Commission 
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS, 
APPROVING IN PART, CONCURRING IN PART 
Although I support the Order we adopt today, I concur in part because I fear that our Further 
Re: 
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Promoting Deployment and 
Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular 
Areas 
Three years ago, the Commission adopted an official policy statement to guide interactions 
between the agency and tribal governments. For the first time in its history, the Commission formally 
affirmed the principles of tribal sovereignty and federal trust responsibility. The Commission committed 
to consult with tribal governments before taking action affecting tribal land and resources and committed 
to address persistent communications problems like low penetration in Indian communities. 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking falls short of the vision and commitment expressed in our official policy 
statement. For the second time in three years, we seek comment on how the Commission can ensure that 
tribal members living near tribal lands can benefit from the same enhanced Lifeline and Link Up 
available to those living on tribal lands. As the Commission already has recognized, lands adjacent to 
reservations have been considered tribal lands for purposes of other federal programs targeted to 
federally-recognized Indian tribes. Many of these near reservation areas share the same high rates of 
poverty, low telephone subscribership and geographic isolation found on tribal lands. Moreover, rates of 
unemployment on tribal lands of 20 and 30 and 40 percent often compel members to move off 
reservations to adjacent areas where job prospects are brighter. I understand that the Commission’s prior 
definition of near reservation inadvertently included highly populated urban areas not targeted for 
enhanced support. Nonetheless, I believe that it is high time for the Commission to choose an appropriate 
limiting principle for near reservation areas and resolve this issue once and for all. 
By seeking another round of comment we only further delay enhancing tribal communities’ 
access to telecommunications. As a result, we delay these same communities’ access to education, 
commerce, government and public services. Native Americans should not be the last Americans to reap 
the benefits of the Information Age. We need to work harder to honor the commitment we made in our 
policy statement to address low penetration rates in Indian Country. I remain hopeful that in this 
proceeding we finally will identify the effective mechanism to address support for subscribership and 
facilities deployment in Indian communities in near reservation areas. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues and with tribal governments and communities to make this happen. 
13