Federal Communications Commission DA 17-1211
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization
Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal 
Service Support
Connect America Fund
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WC Docket No. 11-42
WC Docket No. 09-197
WC Docket No. 10-90
ORDER
Adopted:  December 18, 2017 Released:  December 18, 2017
By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau:
1. In this Order, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) grants in part the Michigan 
Public Service Commission’s (Michigan) request to extend an existing waiver giving Michigan additional 
time to implement Lifeline federal eligibility program changes in sections 54.400(j) and 54.409(a) of the 
Commission’s rules.
1
  Based on the record before us, we find that good cause exists to extend the waiver 
through the earlier of June 30, 2018, or the date on which Michigan has aligned its eligibility criteria with 
the Commission’s Lifeline eligibility rules and updated its eligibility database accordingly.
2. In the 2016 Lifeline Order, the Commission adopted changes to the Lifeline program’s 
eligibility rules.
2
  These changes took effect on December 2, 2016 and included removing certain federal 
programs as qualifying programs for Lifeline eligibility;
3
 adding the Veterans and Survivors Pension 
Benefit as a qualifying program;
4
 and removing state-specific Lifeline eligibility criteria.
5
  These changes 
were made to simplify enrollment in the Lifeline program, to focus enrollment on the most highly-used 
eligibility programs, and to foster long-term technical solutions with the National Verifier.
6
3. Michigan maintains a database that allows ETCs to determine subscriber eligibility for 
the Lifeline Program.
7
  In December 2016, the Bureau provided Michigan a waiver until December 31, 
1
 Request for Lifeline Waiver Extension for Michigan, WC Docket Nos. 11-42 et al. (filed Nov. 30, 2017) 
(Michigan Extension Request).  See also Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Order, 31 FCC Rcd 
12718, 12718, para. 1 (WCB 2016) (Waiver Order).  The Waiver Order did not waive the inclusion of the Veterans 
and Survivors Pension Benefit Program as a qualifying program.  Id. at 12719, para. 2. 
2
 Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, et al., Third Report and Order, Further Report and Order, and 
Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 3962, 4021-40, paras. 167-216 (2016) (2016 Lifeline Order).
3
 Id. at 4021, para. 167.
4
 Id.
5
 Id. at 4038, para. 212.
6
 Id. at 4022, para. 168.
7
 Waiver Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 12726, para. 23.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-1211
2
2017 to implement the streamlined federal eligibility criteria.
8
  In support of the original waiver request, 
Michigan stated that technical changes would be required to update the Michigan Lifeline Eligibility 
Database (MLED) and that the Michigan legislature would also need to make statutory eligibility 
changes.
9
  Michigan also provided information on the potential costs of updating the MLED.
10
4. On November 30, 2017, Michigan filed another request asking that the Bureau extend the 
previously granted waiver until December 31, 2018 to allow more time for a legislative fix and to make 
necessary changes to the MLED.
11
  On December 11, 2017, Michigan submitted an ex parte stating that it 
needed the entire year extension because any final legislative changes would not be made until after 
November 2018.
12
  The Telecommunications Association of Michigan filed a letter supporting 
Michigan’s request.
13
  
5. Generally, the Commission’s rules may be waived for good cause shown.
14
  The 
Commission may exercise its discretion to waive a rule where the particular facts make strict compliance 
inconsistent with the public interest.
15
  In addition, the Commission may take into account considerations 
of hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy on an individual basis.
16
  Waiver 
of the Commission’s rules is therefore appropriate only if special circumstances warrant a deviation from 
the general rule, and such a deviation will serve the public interest.
17
6. We find there is good cause to extend the Bureau’s previously granted waiver for 
Michigan through June 30, 2018, or until Michigan has aligned its eligibility criteria with the 
Commission’s Lifeline eligibility rules and updated its eligibility database accordingly, whichever is 
sooner.  Michigan’s database does not provide ETCs with the specific program that qualified the 
subscriber for Lifeline.
18
  As a result, an ETC relying on Michigan’s database would risk enrolling a 
customer who is only eligible for the Michigan state subsidy but not for the federal subsidy.  Accordingly, 
absent a waiver, ETCs in Michigan would need to manually verify every potential subscriber’s eligibility 
for the federal Lifeline discount.  Rendering Michigan’s eligibility database unusable could create 
8
 Waiver Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 12726, para. 23.
9
 Waiver Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 12722, para. 10; Comments of the Michigan Public Service Commission, WC 
Docket No. 11-42 et al., at 3, 5 (filed Oct. 21, 2016).  
10
 Waiver Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 12722, para. 10; Comments of the Michigan Public Service Commission, WC 
Docket No. 11-42 et al., at 4 (filed Oct. 21, 2016).    
11
 Michigan Extension Request at 3.   
12
 Letter from Sally A. Talberg, Chairman, Michigan Public Service Commission, et al., to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 11-42 et al., at 2 (filed Dec. 11, 2017).  Michigan further states that “[d]uring 2017, 
there have been discussions among interested stakeholders, but nothing formal has yet been drafted or introduced by 
the Legislature” and describes its discussions with the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) 
concerning the “possible creation of a new database or access to an existing database to be used by USAC to verify 
federal eligibility of consumers.”  Id. at 1-2. 
13
 Letter from Michael A. Holmes, General Counsel, Telecommunications Association of Michigan, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 11-42 et al., at 3 (filed Dec. 7, 2017) (Agreeing with Michigan’s assertions 
that the inconsistencies in Michigan’s state statutory eligibility criteria and the federal eligibility criteria will inter 
alia “increase the administrative burden for Lifeline providers and the state level administrators (like TAM) of 
Lifeline programs”.).
14
 47 CFR § 1.3.
15
 Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
16
 WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969); Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166.
17
 Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166.
18
 See Michigan Extension Request at 2-3.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-1211
3
significant burdens on consumers and ETCs and introduce substantial inefficiency to the enrollment and 
eligibility determination process, and would also undermine the state’s investment in an eligibility 
verification database.  We accordingly find that the potential harm that could result from failing to extend 
the Bureau’s previously-granted waiver for Michigan outweighs the desire to bring about these eligibility 
changes sooner.  Based on the record, extending the waiver for this period will have minimal financial 
impact on the Fund.
19
7. At the same time, we decline to grant Michigan’s request to extend the waiver through 
December 31, 2018.
20
   We find that based on the record before us, continuing the Bureau’s waiver for 
Michigan through June 30, 2018 at the latest is an appropriate extension that provides Michigan sufficient 
additional time to make the changes necessary to implement the federal eligibility criteria while ensuring 
the eligibility changes are not unreasonably delayed.
8. Additionally, we clarify that if Michigan does not update its database such that ETCs 
may rely on that database to determine whether a consumer is eligible for Lifeline under the revised 
federal eligibility rules by June 30, 2018,
21
 ETCs will be responsible for ensuring that subscribers enrolled 
or recertified after that date are eligible under the Commission’s revised eligibility criteria.  As in other 
states, ETCs may elect to rely on the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to conduct the 
eligibility recertification process.  We also direct USAC to conduct outreach to ETCs operating in 
Michigan so that they may be prepared to conduct eligibility determinations without relying on 
Michigan’s eligibility database if that database is not updated by the expiration of this waiver period.
9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 
and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 
0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, that the request for Lifeline 
waiver extension filed by the Michigan Public Service Commission is GRANTED IN PART and 
DENIED IN PART.
10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 
0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, that sections 54.400(j) and 
54.409(a) of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 54.400(j) and 54.409(a) ARE WAIVED to the limited 
extent provided herein.
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission’s 
rules, 47 CFR § 1.102(b)(1), this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kris Anne Monteith
Chief
Wireline Competition Bureau
19
 Letter from Sally A. Talberg, Chairman, Michigan Public Service Commission, et al., to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 11-42 et al., at 2 (filed Dec. 11, 2017) (stating that based on generalizing USAC 
national eligibility program data to Michigan, “[t]he financial impact appears to be minimal if Michigan’s waiver 
were extended one year.”).   
20
 Michigan Extension Request at 3.
21
 We note that Michigan’s eligibility database can satisfy the revised eligibility rules by informing ETCs whether a 
prospective subscriber is eligible for the federal Lifeline benefit under the revised eligibility criteria even if the 
database does not inform the ETC of the specific program through which the subscriber’s eligibility was verified. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-1211
4