WPCxZ 2  BHP cpiCG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)CG Times Italic (Scalable)3|c le)T1tional)HPLAIIAD.PRSx  @HQ#0^X@2< L ZV-3|jHP LaserJet IIISi LPT1tional)HPLAIIAD.PRSX\  P6G;HQ#0^Pxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""A.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxSxSxSrSrSrS{SiSiSiSiSxSxSxSxSxS{S{SS.SSSSz]SSuSiSiSk2g/a{S{SxSxSxoSoSZ?YSYSiSiSiS{S{S{S{SxxSkI8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ82C5d:?"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88SxoxxodAPoxdx]oxxxxo888SS8S]J]J;S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJSSSSSSSSS8SSSSSSSS].xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSd]xSxSxSxSxSxSx]oSoSoSoSSSSSS]]S.S]SS_SS]oSoSoAo.x]x]SS{xSxS]A]S]SoSoSoSx]x]x]x]xxSoJ8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SGGSSSSSS;SSSS;88``S++SSffSSxSi]]8`S;"xxSx`xxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xrxxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfo]f]oJoAoJJxJA.Jo]]xJoSJxffSfSSoJxJofx]fffxoASxxfJffff88SSSSxSSSxxxf8fSJ8"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYddddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdddddddd~d~d~d~ddddddddd8ddddoddd~d~d<|8tddddddlLkdkd~d~d~ddddddXCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"Ȑdhd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdxN`xoȐCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddddddddCddddddddo8dddddϐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddxoddddddodddddddddood8doddrddoddN8ooddddoNododdddooooȐdYCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"Ȑdsd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŐzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC2VMC/H"Sh5^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx:J2J2H2H2YHC2C26&6262?2?2?2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22==Ld2d2H2;SS88Y!42^x#"ddddHHddd2Hdd4HHYYddd2YYddd Y2!!dddddH=dYHHHHHHHHHHx!d2H282YdHdC2!2H,29HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd.dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHH=?8=8C,?'A,J2H,!F,C8[8J,C2H,H=92=22?,H,C=H8N===H?J!2HHH=,====!!2222HJ222HHH=!92,!d2DZM8R\V"Sh5^18PSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Sddoxd`xx8Jo]oxdxdS]xdd]]888SS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSS??.SJoJJ?JSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.dSdSdSdSdSooJdJdJdJdJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JdSxSxSxS]JxSdSdSdSdSoSoSoSxSdSdSdSdSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSS/SSSSSSSoS]S]S]/]/doSoSxSxSodSdSS?SSSS]S]S]SxSxSxSxSo]S]?8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SMMSSSSSS;SSSS;88SSS..SSffSSxSYSS8SS;"xxSxSxxS哓S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SfS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxfff]f]oJfA]JxSxJ8.oJo]]oJoSxJxffSfSS]J]Joff]fffffx8Sx]]fJffff88SSSSfxSSS]]]f8`SJ8"Sh5^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȰdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYddddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdddddxdxdxdxddddddddd8ddddddddododp8p8xddddxdxddLddddodododddddodpLCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"Ȑddd尰dCCȐzȰxCdzdodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYCȢx/c81,c P7Py.f81,f_ p^78wC;,[AXw P7XP7zC;,ZXz_ p^7XV"G($,hG P7hPH<!, ,< P7,P&z-b81,-b&_ x$&7X&6uC;,-/Xu&_ x$&7XX              2vZ yO()1~ yP(v\#X\  P6G;P# Federal Communications Commission `(##DA 972478  yxydddy )  s Before the _Federal Communications Commission  yO(jWashington, D.C. 20554 Đx  Y2#Xj\  P6G;[AXP#In the Matter of ,hhh) ` `  ,hhh)  Y2FederalState Joint Board on hh)ppXCC Docket No. 9645  Y2Universal Service ,hhh)  Xu2  X^ 2ORDER Đx  Y 2 Adopted: December 30, 1997hhppX Released: December 30, 1997(#(#` `  ,hhh  Y 2 By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:  Y2  Y2 I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I.INTRODUCTION  Y21. ` ` This Order addresses multiple petitions for waiver of the Commission's rule requiring that, in order to receive federal universal service support for state Lifeline programs, the state's consumer qualification criteria must be based solely on income or factors directly related to income. Several states have petitioned for waiver because they need time to conform their laws to this rule. In this Order, we grant temporary waivers of this rule to avoid interrupting Lifeline assistance for consumers who are currently receiving support. We deny other requests for a waiver.  X2 II.BACKGROUND   Y22. ` ` On May 8, 1997, the Commission released an Order that established new federal universal service support mechanisms, consistent with the Communications Act of  Y}21934, as amended.)\}5@ zP(ԍ FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 9645, FCC 97157,  zP(12 FCC Rcd 8776 (rel. May 8, 1997) (Order). The Commission released an erratum correcting this Order on June4, 1997.) In the Order, the Commission revised its lowincome programs, Lifeline and Link Up. The Commission's Lifeline program reduces qualifying consumers' monthly  YQ2charges,ZQ5@ xP#(ԍ Currently, Lifeline support is provided in the form of a waiver of the federal subscriber line charge (SLC). To participate, states must generate a matching reduction in intrastate enduser charges. States may choose to participate in either of two Lifeline programs. Under Plan 1, qualifying consumers' monthly bills are reduced through a waiver of one half of the $3.50 federal SLC. The consumer's incumbent LEC receives the waived amount from the Lifeline Assistance Fund. The consumer's bill is further reduced by state support that"'0*(('" must match or exceed the federal contribution. Plan 2 provides for a waiver of the entire SLC (up to the amount matched by the state), and the consumer's bill may be reduced by twice the SLC (or more, if the state  zP (more than matched the value of the federal waiver). See 47 C.F.R.  69.104(j)(l). and Link Up provides federal support to reduce qualifying consumers' initial"Q0*((QQ" connection charges by up to one half. The Commission revised these programs to make them  X-available to lowincome consumers in every state and territory in the nation.Jc {O-ԍ Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8961.J To further increase the availability of Lifeline and Link Up, the Commission required states that provide intrastate Lifeline funds to establish Lifeline consumer qualification criteria based solely on  X-income or factors directly related to income.v|c {O -ԍ Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8973. See also 47 C.F.R.  54.409(a). v In so doing, the Commission intended to prohibit states from limiting Lifeline to only those lowincome consumers who are elderly or  Xv-have disabilities.Jvc {O5-ԍ Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8973.J For states that do not provide intrastate Lifeline funds, the Commission  X_-established federal default consumer qualification criteria.$_c {O-ԍ Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 897374. To qualify for Lifeline service pursuant to the federal default consumer qualification standard, consumers must participate in one of the following programs: Medicaid, food stamps, Supplementary Security Income (SSI), federal public housing assistance or Section 8, or Low Income Home  {O -Energy Assistance (LIHEAP). Id. at 8974.  X1-x3. ` ` In the Order, the Commission defined Lifeline service to include, at a minimum: singleparty service, voice grade access to the public switched telephone network (PSTN), Dual Tone Multifrequency (DTMF) signaling or its functional digital equivalent, access to emergency services, access to operator services, access to interexchange service,  X -access to directory assistance, and toll limitation.O c {O-ԍ  Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 89798980.O Eligible telecommunications carriers must provide Lifeline service, as defined by the Commission, to receive federal support for  X -providing Lifeline service.J c {Ox-ԍ Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8961.J  X{-x4. ` ` On October 2, 1997, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) filed a petition for a waiver of the requirement that its Lifeline consumer qualification criteria be  XM-based solely on income or factors directly related to income. Mc yO"-ԍ Petition for Waiver for the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, CC Docket No. 9645, (October 2, 1997) (PUCO Waiver Petition). PUCO asserts that, pursuant to  X6-Ohio state law, the consumer qualification criteria for its lowincome telephone assistance"6 0*''PPf"  X-program is based on age and disability, in addition to income.D c yOy-ԍ PUCO Waiver Petition at 2.D PUCO asked for a waiver of section 54.409(a) so that its currently participating lowincome consumers may continue to benefit from federal Lifeline support. In a December 10, 1997 filing elaborating on its petition for a waiver, PUCO stated that its existing lowincome assistance program is  X-scheduled to expire on December 31, 1999. Xc yO-ԍ Letter from Steven T. Nourse, Ohio Assistant Attorney General, to William F. Caton, FCC, CC Docket No. 9645 (December 10, 1997). PUCO further asserted that it currently is  X-reviewing its policies concerning lowincome telephone assistance to make them more consistent with Commission rules. x  XH-x5. ` ` PUCO also seeks a waiver of section 54.401(a)(3), which requires all eligible  X1-telecommunications carriers to provide tolllimitation service free of charge.D 1c yO-ԍ PUCO Waiver Petition at 2.D PUCO appears  X -to assert that, because state law allows Lifeline participants to purchase only certain nonbasic services, including toll limitation, and because those services must be provided at the tariffed  X -rate,F @c yO-ԍ PUCO Waiver Petition at 23.F PUCO may not require service providers to provide tolllimitation services freeof X -charge to Lifeline consumers.D c yOV-ԍ PUCO Waiver Petition at 3.D  X -x6. ` ` On October 29, 1997, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Idaho PUC) submitted a request for a temporary waiver of the rule requiring states that provide intrastate Lifeline funds to establish Lifeline consumer qualification criteria based solely on income or  Xb-factors directly related to income.b` c yOs-ԍ Idaho Public Utilities Commission's Petition for Waiver and Request for Expedited Ruling, CC Docket No. 9645 (Oct. 29, 1997) (Idaho PUC Waiver Request). The Idaho PUC contended that Idaho state law limits Lifeline service to consumers who participate in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance  X4-Program and are at least 60yearsold.H4 c yO-ԍ Idaho PUC Waiver Request at 2.H The Idaho PUC further explained that the Idaho legislature will convene January 12, 1998, and any statutory amendments likely will not  X-become effective until July 1, 1998.HH c yO"-ԍ Idaho PUC Waiver Request at 2.H The Idaho PUC maintains that it will propose that the legislature amend its Lifeline statute to eliminate the consumer qualification criterion based on"0*''PP'"  X-age, and thus bring the statute into compliance with Commission rules.Hc yOy-ԍ Idaho PUC Waiver Request at 2.H The Idaho PUC  X-therefore seeks a temporary waiver until July 1, 1998 of section 54.409(a), in order to allow Idaho's existing Lifeline consumers to continue to benefit from federal Lifeline support until  X-July 1, 1998.HXc yO-ԍ Idaho PUC Waiver Request at 2.H x  X-x7. ` ` On November 12, 1997, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Minnesota  Xv-PUC) filed a request for a temporary waiver until August 1, 1998 of section 54.409(a).vc yO -ԍ Minnesota Public Utilities Commission's Request for Waiver, CC Docket No. 9645, (Nov. 12, 1997) (Minnesota PUC Wavier Request). The Minnesota PUC stated that Minnesota state law currently requires Lifeline consumer  XH-qualification criteria to be based on both income and age or disability.HH@c yO9-ԍ Minnesota Waiver Request at 1.H The Minnesota PUC stated that the Minnesota legislature will begin its 1998 legislative session in February, and any changes in legislation that bring Minnesota's Lifeline consumer qualification criteria into  X -compliance with Commission rules likely will not become effective until August 1, 1998.H c yO-ԍ Minnesota Waiver Request at 2.H According to the Minnesota PUC, a task force is scheduled to submit a report to the state legislature by January 15, 1998, explaining how to bring Minnesota's Lifeline consumer  X -qualification criteria into compliance with Commission rules.H ` c yO-ԍ Minnesota Waiver Request at 2.H  X-x8. ` ` On December 4, 1997, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) submitted a request for an expedited waiver of section 54.409(a) with respect to its two telephone  Xb-assistance programs for lowincome consumers.b c yO-ԍ Request of the Arizona Corporation Commission for Expedited Waiver of 47 C.F.R.  54.409(a), CC Docket No. 9645, (December 4, 1997) (Arizona Waiver Request). On December 12, 1997, U S West filed  XK-comments to the ACC's petition.XKH c yOD -ԍ Comments of U S West Communications, Inc. on the Arizona Corporation Commission's Petition for Expedited Waiver of 47 C.F.R.  54.409(a), CC Docket No. 9645, filed December 12, 1997 (US West comments). The first program, the Arizona Low Income Telephone Assistance Program (ALITAP) applies to all local exchange carriers (LECs) in Arizona and,  X-pursuant to state statute, bases consumer qualification on age and income.Fhc yO6%-ԍ Arizona Waiver Request at 2.F The ACC seeks a temporary waiver until July 30, 1998 of section 54.409(a) with respect to ALITAP, at which"0*''PPd" time, the ACC anticipates, the Arizona legislature will have made the amendments necessary  X-to bring the program into conformity with section 54.409(a).Fc yOb-ԍ Arizona Waiver Request at 1.F The ACC also requests that,  X-until July 30, 1998, consumers who meet the federal default consumer qualification criteria be permitted to benefit from federal Lifeline support, even if those consumers are ineligible for  X-support under the state lowincome program.Xc yO-ԍ Arizona Waiver Request at 1, n.1. In a December 10, 1997, letter, the ACC reiterated its argument that, until its state consumer qualification criteria are amended to comport with the Commission's rules, the federal  {O= -default criteria should apply in Arizona. See letter from Paul A. Bullis, Arizona Corporation Commission, to Magalie Roman Salas, FCC, CC Docket No. 9645, dated December 10, 1997. The ACC further states in its letter that it will be addressing a recommendation from its staff to adopt the federal default criteria as its state  {O -criteria. Id. at 1. x  Xv-x9. ` ` In addition, the ACC seeks a waiver of section 54.409(a) for an indefinite period of time with respect to its other lowincome assistance program, the Telephone  XH-Assistance Program (TAP).Hc {O-ԍ Arizona Waiver Request at 1. See also U S West comments at 5 (agreeing with the ACC that the Commission should waive section 54.409(a) for an indefinite time with regard TAP). The ACC explains that TAP is available only to customers of U S West who are lowincome and disabled or in need of medical assistance. The ACC further explains that it established TAP as part of a U S West rate case pursuant to which U S West  X -receives approximately $1 million annually.I . c yO-ԍ Arizona Waiver Request at 1, 3.I The ACC states that TAP customers receive a credit of $13.43 (U S West's local service rate) and a $3.50 waiver of the federal subscriber  X -line charge.H c yOD-ԍ Arizona Waiver Request at 23.H The ACC seeks a waiver indefinitely of section 54.409(a) so that the "TAP program for the medically needy or disabled can remain in place and [U S West] can receive federal matching funds for this program in the future." The ACC asserts that if it is directed to change TAP's consumer qualification criteria, TAP participants would be able to receive no  Xy-more than a $10.50 reduction in their monthly bill.H yN c yOx-ԍ Arizona Waiver Request at 34.H  XK-x 10. ` ` U S West asks us to issue a declaratory ruling that ALITAP's and TAP's consumer qualification criteria comport with section 54.409, "even though one of the eligibility criteria for ALITAP is related to age and the eligibility criteria for TAP are related  X-to medical need and disability."F!c yO$-ԍ U S West comments at 2, 45.F U S West requests that, if we do not issue such a ruling,"n!0*''PP "  X-we grant a permanent waiver of section 54.409(a) with regard to ALITAP.A"c yOy-ԍ U S West comments at 5.A U S West  X-further requests that, with respect to TAP, we waive section 54.409(a) for an indefinite time.A#Xc yO-ԍ U S West comments at 5.A Finally, U S West maintains that it would not be able, by January 1, 1998, to make the necessary changes to its billing system if the Commission were to allow, until July 30, 1998, consumers who meet the federal default consumer qualification criteria, but who do not  X-necessarily meet the state criteria, to benefit from federal Lifeline support.C$c yO& -ԍ U S West comments at 78.C U S West asserts that if the Commission were to reach such a conclusion, U S West would be required to "have  X_-its billing system in Arizona ready to handle three Lifeline programs" by January 1, 1998.C%_xc yO -ԍ U S West comments at 78.C  X1- III.xDISCUSSION  X -x 11. ` ` Under section 1.3 of our rules, we may waive any provision of our rules and  X -orders if "good cause" is shown.=& c yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  1.3.= The standard for good cause requires the petitioner to demonstrate that special circumstances warrant deviation from the rules, and that such a  X -deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule.' c {O-ԍ See Northwest Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) and Wait Rcdio v.  {O-FCC, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972).  X-x 12. ` ` In this instance, we find that the Idaho PUC, Minnesota PUC, and ACC have demonstrated that special circumstances warrant a temporary waiver of section 54.409(a). Specifically, in Idaho, Minnesota, and Arizona, Lifeline consumer qualification criteria are codified by state law, and amendments to such laws likely will not become effective until July 1, 1998, August 1, 1998, and July 30, 1998, respectively. In addition, we find that it will serve the public interest to ensure that there is no disruption of federal Lifeline support to existing Lifeline consumers in these states while their respective legislatures amend their statutes to bring them into conformity with Commission rules. Thus, consumers in Idaho, Minnesota, and Arizona who currently are eligible to receive lowincome assistance pursuant to applicable state laws will be eligible to benefit from the appropriate new level of federal Lifeline support and state matching support until July 1, 1998, August 1, 1998, and July 30, 1998, respectively. Petitioners assert that they will work diligently to encourage their respective legislatures to amend their Lifeline statutes so that they are consistent with Commission rules. We therefore anticipate that extension of these temporary waivers will not"e '0*''PP1" be necessary beyond next summer.  X-x 13. ` ` We deny PUCO's request for a waiver of section 54.409(a) for an indefinite period of time, and instead grant PUCO a temporary waiver of section 54.409(a) until December 31, 1998. We find special circumstances in the fact that Ohio's Lifeline consumer qualification criteria are codified by state law. We further find that a temporary waiver of section 54.409(a) serves the public interest by allowing currently participating Lifeline consumers in Ohio to continue to benefit from federal Lifeline support. Current Lifeline consumers should not be prohibited from benefitting from federal Lifeline support solely because the state may not have had adequate time to modify its law to comport with federal rules. We conclude, however, that it would not serve the public interest to allow Ohio to limit Lifeline assistance for an indefinite time to only those lowincome consumers who are disabled or in need of medical assistance. We find that granting PUCO a waiver until December 31, 1998, will provide ample time to enable Ohio to conform its laws to federal  X -Lifeline assistance requirements.( c yO7-ԍ The fact that at least three states expect to modify their laws by summer 1998 further supports this conclusion. Although Ohio's Lifeline program is scheduled to expire December 31, 1999, it would not serve the public interest to grant PUCO a waiver until that  X-time for the following reasons. In the Order the Commission sought, in revising its low X{-income programs, to expand the availability of Lifeline.J){ c {OL-ԍ Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8973.J The Commission agreed with the Joint Board that, in order to be eligible for federal support, states must base Lifeline consumer  XM-qualification criteria solely on income or factors directly related to income.J*Mc {O-ԍ Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8973.J Consistent with  X6-the public interest and the Commission's objectives in the Order, we find that we should grant PUCO a temporary waiver of section 54.409(a) until December 31, 1998.  X-x 14. ` ` We deny the ACC's and U S West's request for an indefinite waiver of section 54.409(a) with respect to TAP, the lowincome program exclusively for U S West consumers. As stated above, consumers in Arizona who currently receive lowincome assistance, including TAP participants, may, until July 30, 1998, continue to receive federal Lifeline assistance. Beginning July 30, 1998, consumers who meet Arizona's new consumer qualification criteria, including current TAP participants who meet such criteria, may receive federal Lifeline assistance. We emphasize that the ACC and U S West may continue to offer lowincome consumers who also are disabled or in need of medical assistance, i.e., TAP consumers, a support amount that is higher than that offered to consumers who meet only incomebased criteria. Although the federal support mechanisms will provide a maximum of $7.00 to qualifying consumers, states are not limited in the amount of Lifeline assistance they provide, nor are states prohibited from offering different levels of assistance to different"D*0*''PP<" classes of consumers.  X-x15. ` ` We deny the ACC petition to the extent that it requests that consumers who meet the federal default consumer qualification criteria in Arizona be allowed to benefit from federal Lifeline support. We find that our conclusion will prevent the unfortunate result of beginning to provide federal Lifeline assistance to consumers who qualify for assistance under the federal default criteria, and then terminating such support shortly thereafter if those consumers do not qualify pursuant to the new consumer qualification criteria adopted by the  XH-state legislatures.+Hc yO -ԍ States that provide intrastate support may establish their own consumer qualification criteria, provided  {O -such criteria are based on income or factors directly related to income. See Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8973. Moreover, providing such assistance would reduce states' incentives to act expeditiously to conform their Lifeline consumer qualification requirements to the broad qualification standard established by Commission rules. We conclude, therefore, that it would not serve the public interest to provide Lifeline assistance to consumers who meet the federal default consumer qualification criteria where state qualification criteria for support are not based solely on income or factors directly related to income. Because Arizona will continue to use its current lowincome consumer qualification criteria until July 30, 1998, we need not address U S West's request regarding retroactive credits for qualifying lowincome consumers.  Xy-x 16. ` ` Finally, we deny the PUCO's request for a waiver of our rule requiring eligible telecommunications carriers to offer toll limitation to Lifeline consumers freeofcharge. Even though tolllimitation service currently is offered to Ohio's lowincome consumers at the  X4-tariffed rate, we affirm our decision in the Order that eligible telecommunications carriers must offer tolllimitation service freeofcharge pursuant to the revised Lifeline program to  X-receive federal support. Furthermore, we reiterate that, as provided in the Order, tolllimitation provided freeofcharge to qualifying lowincome consumers is included in the definition of telecommunications services that will be supported by the universal service  X-support mechanisms.O,"c {O-ԍ  Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 89798980.O We are not persuaded that eligible telecommunications carriers in Ohio should be relieved of this obligation to provide lowincome consumers with toll X-limitation services freeofcharge.-Xc yO-ԍ We note that carriers that wish to obtain federal support for providing Lifeline service may be able to amend their tariffs, or seek permission from the state commission to provide toll limitation to Lifeline consumers freeofcharge.  Xi- IV.xORDERING CLAUSE  XR-  X;-x17. ` ` It is THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 214, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 214, and 254 and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.409 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and" -0*''PP[" 54.409 that the petitions of the Idaho PUC, Minnesota PUC, PUCO, and ACC are GRANTED to the extent set forth above, and are otherwise DENIED. x` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `   x` ` A. Richard Metzger, Jr.  X_-x` ` Chief, Common Carrier Bureau