Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| **In the Matter of**             | *  | **CC Docket No. 94-102**     |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| **Revision of the Commission's   | ** |                              |
| Rules to Ensure Compatibility    |    |                              |
| with Enhanced 911 Emergency      | *  |                              |
| Calling Systems**                | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| **E911 Phase II Compliance       |    |                              |
| Deadlines for Tier III           | *  |                              |
| Carriers**                       | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: March 22, 2005 Released: April 1, 2005**

By the Commission:

Table of Contents

Heading Paragraph \#

I. Introduction 1

II\. Background 3

A. PHASE II REQUIREMENTS 3

B. APPLICABLE WAIVER STANDARDS 9

III\. DISCUSSION 12

A. Category 1: Carriers Electing a Handset-Based Solution in Conjunction
with a CDMA Upgrade 13

B. Category 2: Carriers electing network-based solutions 92

C. Category 3: Carriers Operating Roaming-Only Networks 109

D. Category 4: Carriers Electing a Handset-Based Solution in Conjunction
with a GSM Upgrade 116

E. Category 5: TDMA/AMPS Carriers Electing a Handset-Based Solution 134

F. Category 6: Other Requests 146

G. Reporting Requirements 172

IV\. CONCLUSION 173

V. ORDERING CLAUSES 175

# Introduction

1.  In this *Order*, we address forty requests for relief from the
    Commission's wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) Phase II requirements
    filed by or on behalf of small wireless carriers. We reaffirm the
    Commission's commitment to ensure that the Nation's wireless
    telephone users have timely access to emergency services using E911
    technology. Accordingly, as discussed in detail below, we have
    analyzed requests for extensions of the Commission's E911 deadlines
    and afford relief from such deadlines only when the requesting
    carrier has met the standard for seeking a waiver of the
    Commission's rules.[^1] Where carriers have met the standard, the
    relief we have afforded requires compliance with the Commission's
    rules and policies within the shortest practicable time.

2.  We take the following actions in this *Order*:

-   For carriers in the process of upgrading to CDMA technology[^2]
    (CDMA carriers) and deploying a handset-based location solution, we
    grant requests for additional time to deploy location-capable
    digital handsets to those carriers that have filed sufficient
    information to allow us to conclude they have met the waiver
    standards. We also afford additional time to allow the necessary
    network upgrades to these CDMA systems, to the extent the carriers
    have presented reasonable, specific schedules for such upgrades.[^3]
    In addition, we grant relief in cases where carriers requested and
    adequately supported a request for extension of the December 31,
    2005 deadline to ensure ninety-five percent penetration among their
    subscribers of location-capable handsets.

-   For carriers electing network-based location solutions, we grant
    limited relief where justified in individual cases.[^4]

-   We deny a request for long-term relief from the Phase II rules for
    carriers operating roaming-only networks and serving as a "carrier's
    carrier."[^5] We similarly deny these carriers' requests for waiver
    of the requirements set forth in the Commission's *King County*
    decision.[^6]

-   We deny requests from carriers electing handset-based location
    solutions and seeking indefinite or long-term relief, or presenting
    no specific schedules or plans for deployment, and which are (1)
    using or migrating to GSM technology[^7] (GSM carriers)[^8] or (2)
    using AMPS or TDMA/AMPS technology[^9] (TDMA/AMPS carriers) and not
    proposing to deploy a CDMA or GSM digital air interface.[^10]

-   We deny a request for general relaxation of the Phase II
    requirements for smaller wireless carriers filed by the Rural
    Telecommunications Group (RTG).[^11]

-   We require each Tier III carrier[^12] that has been granted
    individual relief in this *Order* to file an interim status report
    with the Commission on September 1, 2005, containing the following
    information: (1) the number of Phase I and Phase II requests
    received from Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) (including
    those the carrier may consider invalid) and the status of those
    requests, including whether the carrier and the PSAP have reached an
    alternative deployment date; (2) the carrier's specific technology
    choice; (3) status on ordering and/or installing necessary network
    equipment; (4) the date on which Phase II service was/will first be
    available in the carrier's network; and (5) if the carrier is
    pursuing a handset-based solution, (a) whether ALI-capable handsets
    are available, and whether the carrier has obtained ALI-capable
    handsets or has agreements in place to obtain these handsets;
    and (b) information on the carrier's progress towards satisfying the
    requirement that ninety-five percent of its subscriber base have
    location-capable handsets.

# Background

## PHASE II REQUIREMENTS

3.  The Commission's E911 Phase II rules require wireless carriers to
    provide PSAPs the Automatic Location Identification (ALI)
    information for 911 calls that satisfies specified accuracy
    requirements. Carriers can provide ALI information by deploying
    location information technology in their networks (a network-based
    solution),[^13] Global Positioning System (GPS) technology in the
    subscribers' handsets (a handset-based solution),[^14] or a
    combination of location technology in both the network and handsets
    (a hybrid solution).[^15] Depending on the technology employed, the
    carrier must identify the location of the caller within certain
    accuracy and reliability standards.[^16] The Commission's rules
    contain phased-in approaches for both network-based and
    handset-based location technologies, requiring carriers to deploy
    Phase II service commencing October 1, 2001, or within six months of
    receiving a PSAP request, whichever is later.[^17]

4.  In addition to the requirement to deploy the facilities necessary to
    deliver location information, a wireless carrier that elects to
    employ a handset or hybrid solution must meet the handset deployment
    benchmarks set forth in Section 20.18(g)(1) of the Commission's
    rules.[^18] Carriers must comply with the handset deployment
    benchmarks independent of any PSAP request for Phase II service.
    Specifically, the Commission's rules establish the following
    deadlines, some of which already have passed, for carriers electing
    a handset or hybrid-based solution:

-   Begin selling and activating location-capable handsets no later than
    October 1, 2001;

-   Ensure that at least twenty-five percent of all new handsets
    activated are location-capable no later than December 31, 2001;

-   Ensure that at least fifty percent of all new handsets activated are
    location-capable no later than June 30, 2002;

-   Ensure that one-hundred percent of all new handsets activated are
    location-capable no later than December 31, 2002; and

-   Ensure that penetration of location-capable handsets among their
    subscribers reaches ninety-five percent no later than December 31,
    2005.[^19]

5.  In its wireless E911 *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*, the Commission
    granted a temporary stay of Phase II deadlines for Tier III carriers
    that had filed petitions for relief.[^20] Specifically, the
    Commission required Tier III carriers that employ a network-based
    location technology to provide:

-   Phase II E911 service to at least fifty percent of the PSAP's
    coverage area or population beginning September 1, 2003 or within
    six months of a PSAP request, whichever is later; and

-   Phase II E911 service to one-hundred percent of the PSAP's coverage
    area or population by September 1, 2004 or within eighteen months of
    a PSAP request, whichever is later.[^21]

6.  The *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order* required Tier III carriers that
    employ a handset-based location technology to:

-   Begin selling and activating location-capable handsets no later than
    September 1, 2003;

-   Ensure that at least twenty-five percent of all new handsets
    activated are location-capable no later than November 30, 2003;

-   Ensure that at least fifty percent of all new handsets activated are
    location-capable no later than May 31, 2004;

-   Ensure that one-hundred percent of all new handsets activated are
    location-capable no later than November 30, 2004; and

-   Ensure that penetration of location-capable handsets among their
    subscribers reaches ninety-five percent no later than December 31,
    2005.[^22]

7.  Furthermore, the *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order* provided that, once
    a PSAP request is received, that Tier III carriers shall, within six
    months or by September 1, 2003, whichever is later, install any
    hardware and/or software in their networks to enable the provision
    of Phase II service.[^23]

8.  Following adoption of the *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*, a number
    of Tier III carriers which had not previously requested extensions,
    and thus were not covered by that *Order,* filed petitions for
    relief.[^24] Other Tier III carriers, which already had been granted
    relief, sought additional relief.[^25] In response, in the *Order to
    Stay*, the Commission described the types of showings required to
    justify waiver of the wireless E911 rules, opened a window for those
    Tier III carriers to file supplemental information to support their
    requests for relief, and required the filing of status reports
    detailing the carriers' efforts to deploy Phase II E911
    services.[^26] The Commission also stayed the application of the
    wireless E911 rules for those Tier III carriers seeking relief,
    pending a ruling on their waiver petitions.[^27] The stay permitted
    additional time for the Tier III carriers to supplement the record
    and for the Commission to address the issues presented in the
    requests for relief.[^28]

## APPLICABLE WAIVER STANDARDS

9.  The Commission has recognized that smaller carriers may face
    extraordinary circumstances in meeting one or more of the deadlines
    for Phase II deployment.[^29] Section 1.3 of the Commission's Rules
    establishes that the Commission may grant relief from its rules for
    good cause shown.[^30] The Commission generally finds good cause to
    grant a waiver of its rules where the particular facts make strict
    compliance inconsistent with the public interest if applied to the
    petitioner and when the relief requested would not undermine the
    policy objective of the rule in question.[^31] A petitioner must
    demonstrate that, in view of unique or unusual factual
    circumstances, application of the rule(s) would be inequitable,
    unduly burdensome, or contrary to the public interest.[^32]

10. In the *Order to Stay*, the Commission provided specific guidance on
    the types of factual showings that would provide sufficient support
    for a waiver request.[^33] The Commission emphasized that carriers
    must provide clear evidence supporting the grounds they rely upon in
    seeking relief. For example, to the extent that a carrier bases its
    request for relief on delays that were beyond its control, it must
    submit specific evidence substantiating the claim, such as
    documentation of the carrier's good faith efforts to meet with
    outside sources whose equipment or services were necessary to meet
    the Commission's benchmarks.[^34] If a carrier claims that it is
    technically infeasible to meet the Commission's accuracy standards,
    it must provide "concrete, specific plans to address the accuracy
    standards and . . . \[its\] testing data and other evidence to
    demonstrate \[its\] inability to meet the accuracy
    requirements."[^35] As the Commission repeatedly has cautioned,
    carriers may not rely only on generalized statements about technical
    infeasibility. Instead, they must provide detailed technical data on
    the particular portions of their network or items of equipment that
    prevent them from complying with E911 requirements. To the extent
    that a carrier is requesting a waiver in order to accommodate its
    transition from one air interface to another, it must demonstrate "a
    clear path to full compliance" by, for example, providing concrete
    evidence of its documented commitment to a date certain for that
    transition to be accomplished.[^36] When carriers rely on a claim of
    financial hardship as grounds for a waiver, they must provide
    sufficient and specific factual information.[^37] A carrier's
    justification for a waiver on extraordinary financial hardship
    grounds may be strengthened by documentation demonstrating that it
    has used its best efforts to obtain financing for the required
    upgrades available from federal, state, or local funding
    sources.[^38] In addition, carriers seeking relief are expected to
    work with state and local E911 coordinators and with all affected
    PSAPs in their service area, so that community expectations are
    consistent with the carriers' projected compliance deadlines.[^39]

11. Finally, distinct from the Commission's rules and established
    precedent regarding waivers of our E911 requirements, we note that
    in December 2004, Congress enacted the Ensuring Needed Help Arrives
    Near Callers Employing 911 Act of 2004 (*ENHANCE 911 Act*).[^40] The
    *ENHANCE 911 Act* directed the Commission to grant qualified Tier
    III carriers' requests for relief of the December 31, 2005
    ninety-five percent penetration deadline for location-capable
    handsets, as set forth in Section 20.18(g)(1)(v) of the Commission's
    Rules, if "strict enforcement of the requirements of that section
    would result in consumers having decreased access to emergency
    services."[^41] While we apply the *ENHANCE 911 Act* standard in
    this *Order*, we recognize that the *ENHANCE 911 Act* was enacted
    after many of the waiver requests had been filed, and thus those
    waiver requests did not explicitly address application of the Act's
    waiver standard. Nothing in this *Order* precludes a qualified Tier
    III carrier[^42] from seeking further relief under the *ENHANCE 911
    Act's* standard.

# DISCUSSION

12. We have reviewed the forty Tier III petitions for relief from our
    E911 requirements, together with their supplemental filings. They
    fall into six categories: (1) carriers deploying a handset-based
    solution in conjunction with a CDMA upgrade; (2) carriers electing a
    network-based solution; (3) carriers operating roaming-only networks
    ("carriers' carriers"); (4) carriers electing a handset-based
    solution in conjunction with a GSM upgrade; (5) AMPS/TDMA carriers
    electing a handset-based solution; and (6) other requests. We
    address each category below.

## Category 1: Carriers Electing a Handset-Based Solution in Conjunction with a CDMA Upgrade 

13. The first category is comprised of carriers that have already
    upgraded or are in the process of upgrading their networks to the
    CDMA air interface, and deploying a handset-based Assisted GPS
    (A-GPS) location technology.[^43] These carriers have requested
    waivers of the Tier III location-capable handset deployment
    benchmarks. We note at the outset that A-GPS technology is now a
    standard feature of a wide range of CDMA handsets. The two largest
    CDMA carriers, Sprint and Verizon Wireless, currently sell only
    A-GPS-enabled handsets.[^44] The success of these and other CDMA
    carriers[^45] in deploying location-capable handsets in accordance
    with the timeframes established in the Commission's rules and the
    *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order* indicates that location-capable
    handsets are readily available. Additionally, carriers have begun
    deploying the network equipment necessary to calculate and deliver
    A-GPS-derived location information to large numbers of PSAPs across
    the country.[^46] Because location-capable handsets and network
    equipment using A-GPS technology are now available to CDMA carriers,
    it is reasonable to expect that availability will increase as
    manufacturers continue to adjust their product lines to meet the
    demands of CDMA carriers, including Tier III carriers.

14. Some Tier III CDMA carriers using a handset-based solution seek
    relief from the interim benchmarks adopted in the *Non-Nationwide
    Carriers Order* as well as temporary exclusions for legacy networks
    where CDMA upgrades are under way. In addition, some of the Tier III
    CDMA carriers request relief from the December 31, 2005 ninety-five
    percent handset penetration deadline. We discuss these requests
    below.

15. **ACS Wireless, Inc. (ACSW):** ACSW currently serves the state of
    Alaska through a TDMA and AMPS network that it is upgrading to
    CDMA.[^47] ACSW requested an extension from September 1, 2003 to
    January 31, 2004 to begin selling and activating location-capable
    handsets.[^48] ACSW also sought modification of the one-hundred
    percent benchmark for activated handsets: *i.e.*, rather than have
    one-hundred percent of new activations location-capable by November
    30, 2004, ACSW requested that it be permitted to ensure that ninety
    percent of all new handset activations in Anchorage and Fairbanks be
    location-capable by May 30, 2005 and that ninety percent of all new
    handset activations in the remaining portion of its service area in
    Alaska be location-capable by December 31, 2005.[^49] ACSW also
    sought an extension from December 31, 2005 to December 31, 2007 to
    ensure that penetration of location-capable handsets reaches
    ninety-five percent.[^50] It also requested forbearance from the
    Phase II accuracy and reliability standards until December 31,
    2008.[^51]

16. *Benchmark relief*. We find that good cause exists to grant ACSW
    relief from the interim benchmarks for location-capable handsets. As
    the upgrade to CDMA progresses, ACSW has committed to selling and
    activating only location-capable handsets.[^52] The Commission has
    recognized that such upgrades present deployment challenges and may
    be a basis for an extension. Carriers, however, must provide
    concrete evidence of their planned deployment.[^53] ACSW, through
    its waiver request and supplement, has provided both a path to
    compliance and evidence of its progress down that path. We are
    particularly encouraged by the fact that ACSW has completed the CDMA
    upgrade at 121 of its 150 sites.[^54] Additionally, ACSW is working
    with the local PSAPs in its area to keep them informed of ACSW's
    deployment schedule,[^55] consistent with the Commission's
    expectations set forth in the *Order to Stay*.

17. We recognize that granting ACSW relief to allow its handset
    deployment to coincide with its CDMA upgrade could mean that analog
    and TDMA customers will, in some cases, not receive Phase II service
    until ACSW finishes its transition to CDMA. We believe, however,
    that requiring ACSW to invest its resources to upgrade analog and
    TDMA networks with location technologies, despite the fact they soon
    will be replaced, could unnecessarily delay expansion and
    improvement of ACSW's services, and could even threaten its
    financial viability. We are persuaded by the fact that ACSW faces no
    pending PSAP requests for Phase II service in the areas that remain
    to be upgraded to CDMA.[^56] We also find that it is reasonable to
    allow ACSW to continue to sell and activate non-CDMA handsets
    without location capability to its customers in areas where its CDMA
    upgrade has not been completed. However, once the upgrade to CDMA is
    completed, ACSW must comply with the requirement of the E911 rules
    that all digital handsets activated be location-capable.[^57]

18. We grant ACSW relief with respect to the interim benchmarks.[^58]
    Specifically, we grant ACSW's request for a waiver to provide and
    activate location-capable handsets by January 31, 2004 instead of by
    September 1, 2003. We also grant ACSW relief from the deadline for
    requiring that one-hundred percent of all new handsets activated are
    location capable. We grant ACSW an extension until May 30, 2005 to
    ensure that one-hundred percent of all new handset activations in
    Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska are location-capable and until
    December 31, 2005 to ensure that one-hundred percent of all new
    handset activations statewide are location-capable.[^59] This waiver
    will allow ACSW to continue selling and activating
    non-location-capable analog and TDMA handsets in areas where its
    CDMA rollout has not been completed. We require, however, that as
    ACSW upgrades its network, it must begin selling and activating only
    location-capable CDMA handsets in the upgraded areas, consistent
    with the plan set out in its January 26, 2005 filing.[^60]

19. *Handset Penetration*. In light of our decision to grant ACSW an
    extension of the interim benchmark requirements, we correspondingly
    grant ACSW a limited extension of the December 31, 2005 deadline for
    ensuring that ninety-five percent of its subscriber base have
    location capable handsets. We recognize that ACSW will require a
    sufficient period of time to ensure that the location-capable
    handsets that it sells and activates are sufficiently integrated
    into its customer base. Further, we are persuaded by ACSW's
    assertion that it faces unique challenges during the final stages of
    its CDMA construction program due to the small population it serves
    and the cost of deploying CDMA sites in rural and remote areas.[^61]
    ACSW explained that it has made progress in deploying its CDMA
    network in the major population centers, but cannot achieve the
    ninety-five percent penetration deadline broadly throughout its
    customer base until it is able to complete its CDMA build-out.[^62]
    ACSW also noted that it would be able to provide E911 Phase II
    location data for its Anchorage CDMA subscribers by February 2005,
    and will be prepared to provide such services to the Fairbanks
    Northstar Borough, but was unaware of any other PSAP in Alaska that
    has the means to receive E911 Phase II location data.[^63]

20. For the foregoing reasons, we provide ACSW with a limited extension
    of the location-capable handset penetration deadline. The
    *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order* provided carriers with a timeframe
    of thirteen months from the date that one-hundred percent of all new
    handset activations are location-capable to the date that
    ninety-five percent of its subscriber base's handsets are
    location-capable.[^64] We believe that a thirteen-month timeframe
    should provide ACSW with an adequate period of time to ensure that
    its embedded customer base uses location-capable handsets. Because
    we extend ACSW's deadline for ensuring that one-hundred percent of
    all new handset activations are location-capable to May 30, 2005
    (for Anchorage and Fairbanks) and December 31, 2005 (for other areas
    within Alaska), we afford ACSW an additional thirteen months from
    these dates to ensure that the handset penetration rate among its
    subscribers reaches ninety-five percent. Accordingly, ACSW must
    ensure that ninety-five percent of its subscriber base has
    location-capable handsets by June 30, 2006 (for Anchorage and
    Fairbanks) and by January 31, 2007 (for all other areas in Alaska).

21. We note that this relief from the ninety-five percent handset
    penetration requirement is more limited than ACSW requested. ACSW
    sought relief from the ninety-five percent handset penetration
    deadline from December 31, 2005 until December 31, 2007. We do not
    believe that such an extended period of time is adequately supported
    or necessary. Further, we believe that our countervailing public
    policy interest in ensuring that carriers comply with the
    location-capable handset penetration requirement as quickly as
    possibly overrides ACSW's request for more protracted relief.[^65]

22. **Alaska DigiTel, LLC (Alaska DigiTel):** Alaska DigiTel operates
    both a CDMA network and a roaming-only GSM network in parts of
    Alaska, and describes itself as a small carrier (16,000 subscribers)
    with limited financial resources. In an August 29, 2003 filing,
    Alaska DigiTel requested a limited waiver and extension of time to
    comply with both the Phase I and Phase II E911 rules.[^66] Alaska
    DigiTel requested a waiver and extension of the E911 requirement
    concerning the installation of the network equipment necessary to
    deliver Phase I or Phase II service to the PSAP to June 30, 2005 for
    both Phase I and Phase II.[^67] Additionally, Alaska DigiTel sought
    relief from the interim location-capable handset activation
    benchmarks in the Commission's E911 rules.[^68] Alaska DigiTel
    requested that the Commission grant it an extension of the September
    1, 2003 deadline to commence selling and activating location-capable
    handsets until June 30, 2005.[^69] Alaska DigiTel subsequently
    reported that location-capable handsets for CDMA are available and
    anticipated that one-hundred percent of its new handset sales will
    be location-capable by December 31, 2005, instead of by November 30,
    2004 as required under the Commission's rules.[^70] Although Alaska
    DigiTel noted that it would not be able to meet the December 31,
    2005 deadline that ninety-five percent of handsets among its
    subscribers be location-capable, it has not sought relief from this
    requirement.[^71]

23. *Deployment of Network Equipment*. Alaska DigiTel claimed that,
    although its CDMA network is Phase I capable, the costs of
    delivering Phase I service to the PSAPs would be substantial.[^72]
    It further claimed that the need to upgrade its existing CDMA
    network to allow a handset-based technology to transmit Phase II
    location information would result in such a severe financial strain
    that it would jeopardize the company as an on-going concern.[^73]
    Sections 20.18(d) and (g)(2) of the Commission's Rules condition the
    requirement to deploy network equipment for delivery of location
    information to the PSAPs upon a PSAP making a valid request for
    service.[^74] Absent a request, the carrier is not required to
    deploy any equipment into its network for the delivery of this
    information. Because no valid PSAP request is currently pending,
    according to the carrier,[^75] it has no current obligation to
    deploy Phase I and it is uncertain when it will face such an
    obligation. Hence, no waiver is needed at this point for Phase I or
    Phase II compliance. We therefore dismiss as premature Alaska
    DigiTel's request for waiver of sections 20.18(d), (f), and (g)(2)
    of the Commission's rules.

24. In any event, we note that Alaska DigiTel has not sufficiently
    substantiated its request for waiver of the Commission's Phase I and
    Phase II E911 requirements based on financial hardship.
    Specifically, Alaska DigiTel did not provide specific documentation
    supporting its claim of financial hardship, including any efforts to
    obtain financing, as required under the Commission's waiver
    standards.[^76] Indeed, under Alaska statutes, municipalities can
    set surcharges to recover wireless 911 costs, and a wireless carrier
    is entitled to recovery of Phase I costs.[^77] Alaska DigiTel would
    need to explain why such sources of support are inadequate.

25. *Benchmark relief*. We deny Alaska DigiTel's request for waiver of
    the interim benchmarks, *i.e.*, its proposal to begin selling and
    activating location-capable handsets on June 30, 2005 instead of
    September 1, 2003, and to satisfy the one-hundred percent sale and
    activation benchmark on December 31, 2005 instead of November
    30, 2004. As explained above, Alaska DigiTel did not provide
    sufficient evidence to demonstrate financial hardship, and did not
    otherwise show that it is technically infeasible to meet the
    accuracy standards.[^78] Absent such showings, Alaska DigiTel's
    waiver request does not persuade us that it cannot satisfy the
    applicable benchmarks. As Alaska DigiTel acknowledged,
    location-capable handsets are now readily available for CDMA
    carriers.[^79] Accordingly, the Commission's rules require Alaska
    DigiTel to sell and activate location-capable handsets according to
    the scheduled benchmarks in the Commission's rules, independent of
    whether it has pending PSAP requests for Phase II service.[^80]
    While Alaska DigiTel may be facing challenging circumstances, we
    cannot afford the relief it seeks without the submission of a waiver
    request that complies with our requirements. We therefore encourage
    Alaska DigiTel to file a renewed request for waiver of our rules in
    accordance with the guidance we provide above for meeting our waiver
    standard.[^81]

26. **Cellular Mobile Systems of St. Cloud, LLC (CMS):** CMS provides
    AMPS and TDMA service in Minnesota and is migrating to CDMA.[^82]
    CMS requested limited relief from the requirement that it install
    network equipment for the delivery of Phase II service to its PSAPs,
    as required by section 20.18(g)(2) of the Commission's Rules.[^83]
    CMS also requested an extension of the interim benchmarks for
    handset deployment. Specifically, CMS requested that the following
    deadlines all be extended until September 27, 2004: (1) the
    September 1, 2003 deadline to begin selling and activating
    location-capable handsets, (2) the November 30, 2003 deadline to
    ensure that at least twenty-five percent of all handsets sold and
    activated are location-capable, and (3) the May 31, 2004 deadline to
    ensure that fifty percent of all handsets sold and activated are
    location-capable. Further, CMS requested that the November 30, 2004
    deadline to ensure that one-hundred percent of all new handsets sold
    and activated are location-capable be extended until December 31,
    2004.[^84] CMS did not request an extension of the December 31, 2005
    ninety-five percent handset penetration requirement.[^85]

27. *Deployment of Network Equipment.* CMS indicated that it had not
    received a valid PSAP request for Phase II service.[^86] CMS also
    stated that it is working with the State of Minnesota on a revised
    deployment plan.[^87] We find CMS's request for relief premature as
    it relates to installing the necessary hardware and software in its
    network to enable Phase II E911 service within six months of a valid
    PSAP request. The requirements in Section 20.18(g)(2) are contingent
    upon a PSAP making a valid request for service, which requires that
    the PSAP be capable of receiving and utilizing the data elements
    associated with Phase II service.[^88] Absent a valid request, the
    carrier is not required to deploy equipment into its network for the
    delivery of this information.[^89] We thus find that because CMS has
    no current obligation to deploy Phase II service, and because it has
    worked out a coordinated plan for deployment of E911 Phase II with
    the State of Minnesota,[^90] no waiver is needed at this time. We
    therefore dismiss CMS's request for a waiver of section 20.18(g)(2)
    concerning the installation of network equipment for the delivery of
    Phase II service.

28. *Benchmark relief*. We find that good cause exists to grant the
    relief sought by CMS concerning the interim benchmarks for handset
    deployments. As CMS noted in its waiver request, the intent of the
    Commission's E911 rules is to "meet important public safety needs as
    quickly as reasonably possible."[^91] As a TDMA carrier relying on a
    handset-based solution, CMS was hampered by the unexpected
    unavailability of location-capable handsets for the TDMA air
    interface. As CMS noted in its petition, the two largest carriers
    then using TDMA, AT&T and Cingular, announced they were migrating to
    a GSM protocol.[^92] As a result, CMS maintained that handset
    manufacturers abandoned plans to introduce TDMA handsets capable of
    determining and transmitting location information.[^93] Although CMS
    subsequently decided to transition its network to the CDMA air
    interface, for which location-capable handsets are readily
    available, this process necessarily will take some time to
    implement.[^94]

29. Moreover, we are persuaded that CMS is acting in good faith in
    requesting additional relief based on its coordination of its
    deployment schedule with the administrator of the Minnesota E-911
    Statewide Program.[^95] In the *Order to Stay*, the Commission
    explained that carriers seeking additional time would be expected to
    coordinate their efforts with the state and local E911 coordinators
    and all affected local PSAPs.[^96] The Commission also indicated
    that it would take notice of such efforts as a sign of a carrier's
    good faith in requesting additional relief.[^97] As CMS indicated in
    its petition and its amendment, the plan it proposed has been
    coordinated with and agreed to by the administrator of the Minnesota
    E-911 Statewide Program.[^98]

30. In addition, CMS's petition sets forth a plan for achieving full
    compliance.[^99] As the Commission stated in the *Order to Stay*, in
    order for a carrier to receive a grant of additional time, it must
    set out a plan showing a clear path to full compliance.[^100] The
    schedule CMS set forth in its petition will allow it to meet the
    final location-capable handset benchmark of December 31, 2005, when
    it also must achieve a ninety-five percent penetration rate for
    location-capable handsets among its subscribers. We thus find that
    allowing this carrier to focus its efforts on achieving full
    compliance will better serve the objective of promoting ubiquitous
    access to E911.

31. For the foregoing reasons, we grant CMS's waiver request for relief
    from the interim deadlines for the sale and activation of
    location-capable handsets. Specifically, we grant CMS relief, from
    September 1, 2003 until September 27, 2004 to begin selling and
    activating location-capable handsets, and from November 30, 2003 and
    May 31, 2004, respectively, until September 27, 2004, to ensure that
    twenty-five percent and fifty percent of all new handset activations
    are location-capable. We also grant CMS's request for extension from
    November 30, 2004 until December 31, 2004, for the date on which
    one-hundred percent of all new handsets sold and activated must be
    location-capable. We note that we continue to require CMS to comply
    with the December 31, 2005 deadline to ensure ninety-five percent
    penetration of location-capable handsets among its subscribers.

32. **Cellular Phone of Kentucky, Inc. (CPK):** CPK operates a TDMA
    network in Kentucky that it is upgrading to CDMA. CPK sought the
    following extensions: (1) from September 1, 2003 to October 4, 2004
    to begin selling location-capable handsets; (2) from November 30,
    2003 to October 31, 2005 to ensure that twenty-five percent of all
    new handset activations are location-capable; (3) from May 31, 2004
    to February 28, 2006 to ensure that fifty percent of all new handset
    activations are location-capable; (4) from November 30, 2004 to June
    30, 2006 to ensure that one-hundred percent of all new digital
    handset activations are location-capable; and (5) from December 31,
    2005 to January 31, 2007 to ensure that penetration of
    location-capable handsets among its subscribers reaches ninety-five
    percent.[^101]

33. CPK maintained that the migration away from TDMA technology by the
    larger carriers has resulted in reluctance on the part of equipment
    manufacturers to develop location-capable handsets for the TDMA
    air-interface.[^102] As a result, CPK is transitioning its network
    to the CDMA air interface, for which location-capable handsets are
    readily available. CPK claimed that the process will take some time
    to implement and seeks relief from the Commission's E911 handset
    requirements as described above.

34. *Benchmark Relief*. We find that good cause exists to grant CPK a
    limited extension of the interim benchmarks. As the Commission has
    recognized, Tier III carriers transitioning from one air interface
    to another may face difficulty in meeting their Phase II
    requirements.[^103] The Commission, however, also recognized the
    need for such carriers to have a plan to achieving full compliance
    as a factor to be considered in granting additional relief.[^104]
    CPK has such a plan to complete its CDMA upgrade. We also take note
    of CPK's coordination efforts with its local PSAPs.[^105] As CPK
    states, it routinely meets with the local PSAPs in its area to set
    and monitor deployment goals for Phase II E911 service.[^106]

35. We are concerned, however, by the protracted rollout of
    location-capable handsets proposed by CPK. While the deployment plan
    set out by CPK achieves full compliance, it does so eighteen months
    later than the Commission's Rules require. As we have noted,
    location-capable CDMA handsets are readily available.[^107]
    Accordingly, we do not believe the extended timeframes proposed by
    CPK are warranted. While we understand that CPK will need time to
    deploy its CDMA upgrade, we believe that a more aggressive approach
    to handset deployment should accompany that rollout. We therefore
    require that CPK begin activating only location-capable handsets as
    it completes its CDMA upgrade. This should ensure that consumers in
    CPK's service area will have access to location-capable handsets as
    CPK enables the CDMA air interface.

36. We therefore grant in part CPK's request for relief from the interim
    deadlines for the sale and activation of location-capable handsets.
    Specifically, we extend the date to begin selling and activating
    location-capable handsets from September 1, 2003 to October 4, 2004;
    extend the date to ensure that twenty-five percent of all new
    handsets sold and activated are location-capable from November 30,
    2003 to October 31, 2005; extend the date to ensure that fifty
    percent of all new handsets sold and activated are location-capable
    from May 31, 2004 to November 30, 2005; and extend the date to
    ensure that one-hundred percent of all new handset activations are
    location-capable from November 30, 2004 to December 31, 2005. We
    believe that these limited extensions are appropriate because, by
    CPK's estimate, its CDMA upgrade should be substantially complete by
    the date it is required to ensure that one-hundred percent of all
    new handset activations are location-capable.[^108] If the estimated
    completion date has changed, such that additional relief is
    necessary,[^109] CPK should file an appropriate waiver request.

37. *Handset Penetration*. In light of our decision to grant CPK an
    extension of the interim benchmark requirements, we correspondingly
    grant CPK a limited extension of the December 31, 2005 deadline for
    ensuring that ninety-five percent of its subscriber base has
    location-capable handsets. We recognize that CPK will require a
    sufficient period of time to ensure that the location-capable
    handsets that it sells and activates are sufficiently integrated
    into its customer base. Further, CPK stated that its rural
    non-prepaid subscribers historically have tended to hold onto their
    cellular handsets for much longer than customers in larger,
    metropolitan markets.[^110] We acknowledge that CPK faces unique
    challenges in satisfying the ninety-five percent handset penetration
    requirement.

38. The *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order* provided carriers with a
    timeframe of thirteen months from the date that one-hundred percent
    of all new handset activations are location-capable to the date that
    ninety-five percent of its subscriber base's handsets are
    location-capable.[^111] We believe that a thirteen-month timeframe
    should provide CPK with an adequate period of time to ensure that
    its embedded customer base uses location-capable handsets. Because
    we extend CPK's deadline for ensuring that one-hundred percent of
    all new handset activations are location-capable to December 31,
    2005, we afford CPK an additional thirteen months from these dates
    to ensure that the handset penetration rate among its subscribers
    reaches ninety-five percent. Accordingly, CPK must ensure that
    ninety-five percent of its subscriber base has location-capable
    handsets by January 31, 2007.[^112]

39. **Cellular South Licenses, Inc. (Cellular South):** Cellular South
    operates in portions of Mississippi, Tennessee, Florida, and
    Alabama, using AMPS and TDMA air interfaces in some areas and CDMA
    in others.[^113] In its waiver request, Cellular South stated that
    it is upgrading its AMPS and TDMA networks to CDMA.[^114] It
    requested additional time equal to that granted other Tier III
    carriers in the *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*.[^115]

40. In December 2004, Cellular South informed the Commission that its
    CDMA network was fully deployed across its service area in the first
    quarter of 2004.[^116] Cellular South also reported that it is
    selling location-capable handsets in all markets and that it is
    Phase II compliant. Cellular South further stated that it has
    successfully deployed Phase II service where it had PSAP
    requests.[^117] Cellular South has not requested relief from the
    December 31, 2005 ninety-five percent handset penetration
    requirement, but expressed concerns about its ability to ensure that
    its customers adopt location-capable handsets in sufficient numbers
    to meet this requirement.[^118]

41. *Benchmark Relief*. We find that good cause exists to grant the
    relief sought by Cellular South. As a TDMA carrier, Cellular South
    originally intended to deploy a network-based solution.[^119]
    Subsequently, however, it determined that it would be more prudent
    to deploy a handset-based location technology, and decided to do so
    in conjunction with a CDMA upgrade to its network.[^120] As the
    Commission has recognized, Tier III carriers transitioning from one
    air interface to another may face difficulty in meeting their Phase
    II requirements.[^121] The Commission, however, also recognized the
    need for such carriers to have a plan to achieving full compliance
    as a factor to be considered in granting additional relief.[^122]
    Cellular South has such a plan to complete its CDMA upgrade. The
    schedule Cellular South set forth will allow it to meet the
    deadlines previously established in the *Non-Nationwide Carriers
    Order*. We also take note of Cellular South's coordination efforts
    with its local PSAPs. Cellular South indicated in its interim report
    that it was coordinating with the PSAP administrators in
    Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee to ensure that Cellular
    South and the PSAPs have a coordinated plan to bring E911 to those
    states.[^123] A waiver proponent's consultation with its PSAPs is an
    important factor in determining whether a waiver is warranted.[^124]

42. For the foregoing reasons, we grant Cellular South's waiver request
    for relief from the interim deadlines for the sale and activation of
    location-capable handsets. Therefore, Cellular South is granted
    relief to: (a) begin selling and activating location-capable
    handsets no later than September 1, 2003; (b) ensure that at least
    twenty-five percent of all new handsets activated are
    location-capable no later than November 30, 2003; (c) ensure that at
    least fifty percent of all new handsets activated are
    location-capable no later than May 31, 2004; and (d) ensure that
    one-hundred percent of all new digital handsets activated are
    location-capable no later than November 30, 2004. We note that we
    continue to require Cellular South to comply with the December 31,
    2005 deadline to ensure ninety-five percent penetration of
    location-capable handsets among its subscribers.

43. **Custer Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Custer):** Custer operates an
    analog and TDMA network in Idaho and is converting to CDMA.[^125]
    Custer stated that it was deploying a handset-based location
    solution in conjunction with its conversion to CDMA, scheduled for
    July 1, 2004.[^126] Custer requested that the following deadlines be
    extended until November 1, 2004: the September 1, 2003 deadline to
    begin selling and activating location-capable handsets; the November
    30, 2003 deadline to ensure that at least twenty-five percent of all
    handsets sold and activated are location-capable; and the May 31,
    2004 deadline to ensure that fifty percent of all handsets sold and
    activated are location-capable.[^127] Custer noted that as of
    November 1, 2004, all handsets sold will be location-capable,[^128]
    which is ahead of the Commission's November 30, 2004 deadline for
    ensuring that one-hundred percent of all phones activated are
    location-capable. Custer further explained that by beginning to sell
    and activate only capable handsets by its requested date, it will be
    able to meet the December 31, 2005 deadline to achieve ninety-five
    percent penetration of location-capable handsets.[^129]

44. *Benchmark Relief*. We believe that relief from the interim
    benchmarks is warranted. While Custer initially requested an
    additional year to come into compliance, it now requests only
    minimal benchmark relief. Additionally, we are encouraged by
    Custer's efforts in working with local PSAPs to ensure a coordinated
    deployment.[^130]

45. We therefore grant Custer's requests to extend the date for
    initiating the sale and activation of location-capable CDMA handsets
    from September 30, 2003 until November 1, 2004, the date for
    ensuring that at least twenty-five percent of handsets activated are
    location-capable from November 30, 2003 until November 1, 2004, and
    the date for ensuring that at least fifty percent of handsets
    activated are location-capable from May 31, 2004 until November
    1, 2004. Custer will continue to be subject to the December 31, 2005
    deadline for achieving ninety-five percent penetration of
    location-capable handsets among its subscribers.

46. **Iowa RSA 2 Limited Partnership dba Lyrix Wireless (Lyrix):** Lyrix
    operates an analog and CDMA network in Iowa.[^131] Lyrix sought a
    waiver only of the September 1, 2003 deadline for beginning to sell
    and activate location-capable handsets until November 30,
    2003.[^132]

47. *Benchmark Relief*. We find that good cause exists to grant Lyrix's
    request for waiver of the initial benchmark. Lyrix's request for
    relief is minimal, and Lyrix has shown a plan to achieve full
    compliance that is within the parameters established by the
    *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*, with the exception of this initial
    benchmark to begin selling and activating location-capable handsets.
    For these reasons, we find that Lyrix's request would not undermine
    the overall policy objectives of ensuring access to E911.
    Accordingly, we grant Lyrix's request for an extension of the
    deadline to begin selling and activating location-capable handsets
    from September 1, 2003 until November 30, 2003.

48. **Leaco Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Leaco):** Leaco provides
    analog and TDMA-based service in rural New Mexico.[^133] Leaco
    sought the following extensions: (1) from September 1, 2003 to March
    1, 2005 to begin selling and activating location-capable
    handsets; (2) from November 30, 2003 to March 1, 2005 to ensure that
    twenty-five percent of all new activations are location-capable; (3)
    from May 31, 2004 to June 1, 2005 to ensure that fifty percent of
    all new handset activations are location-capable; and (4) from
    November 30, 2004 to September 1, 2005 to ensure that one-hundred
    percent of all new handset activations are location-capable.[^134]

49. Leaco decided to transition its TDMA network to CDMA.[^135] Leaco
    selected a handset-based solution, but claimed that the unexpected
    industry abandonment of TDMA, the unavailability of TDMA handsets,
    and the need to overhaul its entire network, combined with the
    technical incompatibility of a network-based solution in its rural
    service area, left it with no reasonable alternative but to seek a
    waiver.[^136]

50. *Benchmark Relief*. We find that good cause exists to grant the
    relief requested by Leaco. Leaco has made substantial progress from
    an initial request that was highly speculative to laying out a clear
    path to compliance that needs only minimal benchmark relief.[^137]
    We find sufficient evidence that Leaco is making significant effort
    to achieve full compliance with the Commission's E911 requirements.
    Additionally, we find that Leaco's diligence in keeping the state
    and PSAPs in its area informed of its deployment plans warrant this
    grant of relief.[^138]

51. We therefore grant Leaco's requests to: (1) extend the date for
    initiating the sale and activation of location-capable CDMA handsets
    from September 1, 2003 until March 1, 2005; (2) extend the date to
    ensure that twenty-five percent of all new handset activations are
    location-capable from November 30, 2003 to March 1, 2005; (3) extend
    the date to ensure that fifty percent of all handset activations are
    location-capable from May 31, 2004 until June 1, 2005; (4) extend
    the date to ensure that one-hundred percent of all new handset
    activations are location capable from November 30, 2004 until
    September 1, 2005. Leaco will continue to be subject to the December
    31, 2005 deadline for achieving ninety-five percent penetration of
    location-capable handsets among its subscribers.[^139]

52. **Litchfield County Cellular, Inc. dba Ramcell of Kentucky, LLC
    (LCC):** LCC provides service in six rural counties in Kentucky, and
    is upgrading its current TDMA network to CDMA.[^140] LCC requested
    the following extensions: (1) from November 30, 2003 to October 31,
    2005 to ensure that twenty-five percent of all new handset
    activations are location-capable; (2) from May 31, 2004 to February
    28, 2006 to ensure that fifty percent of all new handset activations
    are location-capable; (3) from November 30, 2004 to June 30, 2006 to
    ensure that one-hundred percent of all new digital handset
    activations are location-capable; and (4) from December 31, 2005 to
    January 31, 2007 to ensure that penetration of location-capable
    handsets among its subscribers reaches ninety-five percent.[^141]

53. LCC maintained that the migration away from TDMA technology by the
    larger carriers has resulted in reluctance on the part of equipment
    manufacturers to develop location-capable handsets for the TDMA
    air-interface.[^142] As a result, LCC is transitioning its network
    to the CDMA air interface, for which location-capable handsets are
    readily available. LCC claimed that the process will take some time
    to implement and seeks relief from the Commission's E911 handset
    requirements as described above.

54. *Benchmark Relief*. We find that good cause exists to grant LCC a
    limited extension of the interim benchmarks. As the Commission has
    recognized, Tier III carriers transitioning from one air interface
    to another may face difficulty in meeting their Phase II
    requirements.[^143] The Commission, however, also recognized the
    need for such carriers to have a plan to achieving full compliance
    as a factor to be considered in granting additional relief.[^144]
    LCC has such a plan to complete its CDMA upgrade. We also take note
    of LCC's coordination efforts with its local PSAPs.[^145] As LCC
    states, it routinely meets with the local PSAPs in its area to set
    and monitor deployment goals for Phase II E911 service.[^146]

55. We are concerned, however, by the protracted rollout of
    location-capable handsets proposed by LCC. While the deployment plan
    set out by LCC achieves full compliance, it does so eighteen months
    later than the Commission's Rules require. As we have noted,
    location-capable CDMA handsets are readily available.[^147]
    Accordingly, we do not believe the extended timeframes proposed by
    LCC are warranted. While we understand that LCC will need time to
    deploy its CDMA upgrade, we believe that a more aggressive approach
    to handset deployment should accompany that rollout. We therefore
    require that LCC begin activating only location-capable handsets as
    it completes its CDMA upgrade. This should ensure that consumers in
    LCC's service area will have access to location-capable handsets as
    LCC enables the CDMA air interface.

56. We therefore grant in part LCC's request for relief from the interim
    deadlines for the sale and activation of location-capable handsets.
    Specifically, we extend the date to begin selling and activation
    location-capable handsets from September 1, 2003 to October 4, 2004;
    extend the date to ensure that twenty-five percent of all new
    handsets sold and activated are location-capable from November 30,
    2003 to October 31, 2005; extend the date to ensure that fifty
    percent of all new handsets sold and activated are location-capable
    from May 31, 2004 to November 30, 2005; and extend the date to
    ensure that one-hundred percent of all new handset activations are
    location-capable from November 30, 2004 to December 31, 2005. We
    believe that these limited extensions are appropriate because, by
    LCC's estimate, its CDMA upgrade should be substantially complete by
    the date it is required to ensure that one-hundred percent of all
    new handset activations are location-capable.[^148] If the estimated
    completion date has changed, such that additional relief is
    necessary,[^149] LCC should file an appropriate waiver request.

57. *Handset Penetration*. In light of our decision to grant LCC an
    extension of the interim benchmark requirements, we correspondingly
    grant LCC a limited extension of the December 31, 2005 deadline for
    ensuring that ninety-five percent of its subscriber base have
    location capable handsets. We recognize that LCC will require a
    sufficient period of time to ensure that the location-capable
    handsets that it sells and activates are sufficiently integrated
    into its customer base. Further, LCC notes that the majority of its
    existing customer base currently has non-location-capable TDMA
    handsets, and it states that its rural non-prepaid subscribers have
    historically tended to hold onto their cellular handsets for much
    longer than customers in larger, metropolitan markets.[^150] We
    acknowledge that LCC faces unique challenges in satisfying the
    ninety-five percent handset penetration requirement.

58. The *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order* provided carriers with a
    timeframe of thirteen months from the date that one-hundred percent
    of all new handset activations are location-capable to the date that
    ninety-five percent of its subscriber base's handsets are
    location-capable.[^151] We believe that a thirteen-month timeframe
    should provide LCC with an adequate period of time to ensure that
    its embedded customer base uses location-capable handsets. Because
    we extend LCC's deadline for ensuring that one-hundred percent of
    all new handset activations are location-capable to December 31,
    2005, we afford LCC an additional thirteen months from these dates
    to ensure that the handset penetration rate among its subscribers
    reaches ninety-five percent. Accordingly, LCC must ensure that
    ninety-five percent of its subscriber base has location-capable
    handsets by January 31, 2007.[^152]

59. **Missouri RSA No. 7 Limited Partnership dba Mid-Missouri Cellular
    (MMC):** MMC operates an analog and TDMA network and is in the
    process of upgrading to CDMA.[^153] MMC requested a waiver to extend
    both the September 1, 2003 deadline for beginning the sale and
    activation of location-capable handsets, and the November 30, 2003
    deadline for ensuring that at least twenty-five percent of all new
    handsets activated are location-capable, until the first quarter of
    2004.[^154] MMC subsequently stated that it only was seeking a very
    limited waiver of the rules to allow up to twenty-five percent of
    its new activations to be made with handsets that are not
    ALI-capable.[^155] MMC requested relief from the requirement that
    one-hundred percent of all new handsets activations be
    location-capable by November 30, 2004, until it receives designation
    as an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) for purposes of
    receipt of universal service funding.[^156] MMC stated that on
    August 5, 2004, the Missouri Public Service Commission denied its
    request for ETC designation, which it contends was essential to its
    plans for upgrading the rural-most portions of its service area to
    CDMA.[^157] MMC sought rehearing by the MPSC.[^158]

60. *Benchmark Relief*. As the Commission has recognized, Tier III
    carriers transitioning from one air interface to another may face
    difficulty in meeting their Phase II requirements. However, Tier III
    carriers requesting a waiver of the Phase II deployment requirements
    must demonstrate a path to achieving full compliance.[^159]
    Furthermore, carriers claiming financial hardship must provide
    specific factual information in support of their claims, including
    efforts to obtain financing from available sources. MMC has upgraded
    eighteen of its twenty-seven cell sites with the CDMA air
    interface[^160] and is currently selling only location-capable
    handsets in those areas that it has upgraded to CDMA.[^161] MMC has
    sought universal service funding in order to finance the remaining
    build-out of its CDMA network.

61. We decline to grant MMC indefinite relief from the November 30, 2004
    requirement for selling only location-capable handsets. While we
    appreciate MMC's efforts to obtain financing by applying for ETC
    status with the state of Missouri, the outcome of this proceeding is
    uncertain, and MMC has not otherwise provided specific financial
    information to support its financial hardship. Furthermore, MMC has
    not explained why it has not sought funding from any other available
    federal, state, or local sources. However, in light of the fact that
    MMC reported that it is not in receipt of any pending Phase II
    requests, we grant MMC an additional six months from the date of
    release of this *Order* to ensure that one-hundred percent of all
    new digital handsets activated are location-capable. Furthermore,
    MMC will continue to be subject to the December 31, 2005 deadline
    for achieving ninety-five percent penetration of location-capable
    handsets among its subscribers.

62. **North Carolina RSA 3 dba Carolina West Wireless (Carolina West):**
    Carolina West previously operated an AMPS and TDMA network that it
    has since upgraded to CDMA.[^162] It commenced Phase II service and
    started activating only location-capable handsets on June 18,
    2004.[^163] Carolina West sought to have the date for initiating
    sale of location-capable handsets extended from September 30, 2003
    until June 18, 2004; the date for ensuring that twenty-five percent
    of all new handset activations are location-capable extended from
    November 30, 2003 until June 18, 2004; and the date for ensuring
    that fifty percent of all new handset activations are
    location-capable extended from May 31, 2004 until June 18,
    2004.[^164] Carolina West stated that the PSAPs in its service area
    have consented to this schedule.[^165]

63. *Benchmark Relief*. We find that the relief requested by Carolina
    West would not undermine our overall policy objective of ensuring
    access to enhanced 911 services. As an initial matter, we note that
    Carolina West has transformed its waiver request from one that
    initially sought an additional nine months of relief to one that
    requests minimal benchmark relief.[^166] We find such progress
    constitutes sufficient evidence that Carolina West is striving to
    achieve full compliance with the Commission's E911 requirements.
    Additionally, we note Carolina West's diligence in working with and
    informing the PSAPs in its service area, which serves as further
    evidence of its good faith efforts to achieve compliance.[^167]

64. We therefore grant Carolina West's request that the date for
    initiating sale and activation of location-capable handsets be
    extended from September 30, 2003 until June 18, 2004; that the date
    for ensuring that twenty-five percent of all new handset activations
    are location-capable be extended from November 30, 2003 until June
    18, 2004; and that the date for ensuring that fifty percent of all
    new handset activations are location-capable be extended from May
    31, 2004 until June 18, 2004. Carolina West will continue to be
    subject to the December 31, 2005 deadline for achieving ninety-five
    percent penetration of location-capable handsets among its
    subscribers.[^168]

65. **Northwest Missouri Cellular Limited Partnership (Northwest
    Missouri):** Northwest Missouri operated an AMPS and TDMA network
    that it planned to upgrade to CDMA. It requested extensions of both
    the September 1, 2003 deadline for initiating the sale and
    activation of location-capable handsets and the November 30, 2003
    deadline for ensuring that at least twenty-five percent of all new
    handset activations were location-capable.[^169] Northwest Missouri
    sought the requested relief to better coordinate its rollout of CDMA
    with its offering of location-capable handsets.[^170] We have
    confirmed that the migration was completed in the summer of 2004 and
    that, since November 30, 2004, Northwest Missouri has been
    activating only location-capable handsets, consistent with the
    requirement adopted in the *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*.[^171]

66. *Benchmark Relief*. We find that good cause exists to grant the
    relief requested. We do not believe that the minimal interim
    benchmark relief sought by Northwest Missouri will undermine the
    overall policy objective of the Commission's E911 rules. We
    therefore grant the relief Northwest Missouri seeks and extend the
    September 1, 2003 deadline for initiating the sale and activation of
    location-capable handsets until May 31, 2004 and the November 30,
    2003 deadline for ensuring that at least twenty-five percent of all
    new handset activations are location-capable until May 31, 2004.
    Northwest Missouri will continue to be subject to the December 31,
    2005 deadline for achieving ninety-five percent penetration of
    location-capable handsets among its subscribers.

67. **Sagebrush Cellular, Inc., Nemont Communications, Inc., and
    Triangle Communication System, Inc. (Sagebrush Carriers):** The
    Sagebrush Carriers share a switch used to provide analog and CDMA
    service in Montana.[^172] They began selling and activating
    location-capable handsets ahead of the September 1, 2003 deadline,
    but were unsure if sufficient handsets would be available to meet
    the other benchmarks.[^173] Consequently, the Sagebrush Carriers
    requested extensions from November 30, 2003 to May 31, 2004 to
    ensure that at least twenty-five percent of all new handsets
    activated are location-capable; from May 31, 2004 to November 30,
    2004 to ensure that at least fifty percent of all new handsets
    activated are location-capable; from November 30, 2004 to May 31,
    2005 to ensure that one-hundred percent of all new digital handsets
    activated are location-capable; and from December 31, 2005 to June
    30, 2006 to ensure that penetration of location-capable handsets
    among its subscribers reaches ninety-five percent.[^174] In a
    supplement filed in response to the Commission's *Order to Stay*,
    the Sagebrush Carriers reported that they had been unable to obtain
    location-capable handsets that offer the same coverage range as
    handsets that do not provide location information, and that
    customers were returning the location-capable handsets because of
    their reduced range.[^175] Based on these experiences with
    deployment, the Sagebrush Carriers reiterated their previous request
    for waiver.[^176] In their most recent filing, the Sagebrush
    Carriers requested a permanent waiver of the December 31, 2005
    ninety-five percent handset penetration requirement.[^177]

68. *Benchmark Relief*. We find that good cause exists to grant the
    Sagebrush Carriers relief from the interim benchmarks as requested.
    As the Commission stated in the *Order to Stay*, under extraordinary
    conditions like those faced by the Sagebrush Carriers, additional
    relief may be warranted.[^178] As the Sagebrush Carriers explain in
    their filings, they face certain challenges as location-capable
    handsets evolve to provide a greater range of service than the
    analog handsets currently used by the Sagebrush Carriers'
    subscribers.[^179] We are, however, encouraged by the fact that the
    Sagebrush Carriers exceeded the Commission's requirement for
    beginning to sell and activate location-capable handsets, as they
    reported that since early November 2003 all new activations were
    one-hundred percent location-capable.[^180] Moreover, since none of
    the PSAPs in the Sagebrush Carriers' service area is capable of
    receiving Phase II information,[^181] subscribers will not be harmed
    by a grant of additional time. We thus find that granting limited
    relief to the Sagebrush Carriers will not undermine the overall
    policy objective of the Commission's E911 requirements.

69. For the foregoing reasons, we grant the Sagebrush Carriers' request
    for relief from the interim benchmarks. Specifically, we grant an
    extension from November 30, 2003 to May 31, 2004 to ensure that at
    least twenty-five percent of all new handsets activated are
    location-capable; from May 31, 2004 to November 30, 2004 to ensure
    that at least fifty percent of all new handsets activated are
    location-capable; and from November 30, 2004 to May 31, 2005 to
    ensure that one-hundred percent of all new digital handsets
    activated are location-capable.

70. *Handset Penetration*. In light of our decision to grant the
    Sagebrush Carriers an extension of the interim benchmark
    requirements, we correspondingly grant them a limited extension of
    the December 31, 2005 deadline for ensuring that ninety-five percent
    of its subscriber base have location-capable handsets. We recognize
    that the Sagebrush Carriers will require a sufficient period of time
    to ensure that the location-capable handsets that they sell and
    activate are sufficiently integrated into their customer base.
    Further, we acknowledge that the Sagebrush Carriers face unique
    challenges in satisfying the ninety-five percent handset penetration
    requirement. In its most recent filing, the Sagebrush Carriers
    reported that it continues to be their experience that subscribers
    are returning location-capable handsets due to their reduced
    range.[^182] The Sagebrush Carriers claimed that manufacturers are
    not improving the coverage capabilities of location-capable handsets
    for use in the large, sparsely populated areas that they serve with
    cell sites designed to cover the largest area possible.[^183] As a
    result, the Sagebrush Carriers reported a change-over rate of one to
    one and a half percent per month from non-location capable handsets
    to location-capable handsets, despite efforts to encourage adoption
    of location-capable handsets with contract release and better rate
    plan offers.[^184]

71. The *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order* provided carriers with a
    timeframe of thirteen months from the date that one-hundred percent
    of all new handset activations are location-capable to the date that
    ninety-five percent of its subscriber base's handsets are
    location-capable.[^185] We believe that a thirteen-month timeframe
    should provide the Sagebrush Carriers with an adequate period of
    time to ensure that their embedded customer base uses
    location-capable handsets. Because we extend the Sagebrush Carriers'
    deadline for ensuring that one-hundred percent of all new handset
    activations are location-capable to May 31, 2005, we afford the
    Sagebrush Carriers an additional thirteen months from this date to
    ensure that the handset penetration rate among their subscribers
    reaches ninety-five percent. Accordingly, the Sagebrush Carriers
    must ensure that ninety-five percent of their subscriber base has
    location-capable handsets by June 30, 2006.

72. We note that the relief that we are affording the Sagebrush Carriers
    is more limited than their requested relief. The Sagebrush Carriers
    requested a permanent waiver of the December 31, 2005 ninety-five
    percent handset penetration requirement.[^186] While we are
    sympathetic to the Sagebrush Carriers' explanation that their
    subscribers prefer the longer-range analog handsets, we do not think
    a permanent waiver is consistent with maximizing consumers' access
    to emergency services. We remain open, however, to a more limited
    waiver should Sagebrush demonstrate that one is warranted..[^187]

73. **South Canaan Cellular Communications Company, L.P. (South
    Canaan):** South Canaan provides AMPS and TDMA service in
    Pennsylvania, and is in the process of upgrading to CDMA.[^188] It
    commenced selling and activating location-capable handsets prior to
    the September 1, 2003 compliance deadline,[^189] and reported that
    as of December 21, 2004, it was selling only compliant phones.
    [^190] Essentially, then, South Canaan sought relief until December
    21, 2004, of the following deadlines: the November 30, 2003 deadline
    to ensure that at least twenty-five percent of all new handsets
    activated are location-capable; the May 31, 2004 deadline to ensure
    that at least fifty percent of all new handsets activated are
    location-capable; and the November 30, 2004 deadline to ensure that
    one-hundred percent of all new digital handsets activated are
    location-capable.[^191] South Canaan also requested an extension
    from December 31, 2005 until December 31, 2007 to ensure that
    ninety-five percent of its subscribers have location-capable
    handsets.[^192]

74. South Canaan has received a request for Phase II service from one of
    the PSAPs in its service area, in Pike County, and has worked with
    this PSAP to develop a deployment schedule with a compliance date of
    February 15, 2005.[^193] South Canaan also devised a subscriber
    education campaign, to coincide with its CDMA roll-out, to encourage
    analog customers to adopt location-capable handsets, which includes
    a marketing effort explaining that digital handset are necessary to
    enable the provision of location information, and incentives such as
    rebates for turning in analog phones.[^194] Based on these
    campaigns, South Canaan anticipates that it will be able to meet the
    ninety-five percent activation benchmark by the end of 2007.[^195]

75. *Benchmark Relief*. We find that good cause exists to grant South
    Canaan a waiver of the interim handset activation benchmark
    requirements. South Canaan's efforts to keep the Commission informed
    of its progress through its multiple progress reports indicate to us
    the importance that this carrier places on ensuring its compliance.
    South Canaan has voluntarily filed quarterly updates to keep the
    Commission current on both its upgrade to CDMA and its work with the
    local PSAPs in its area. We are encouraged by South Canaan's
    imminent completion of its CDMA upgrade, based upon the timeframes
    it has provided the Commission in its quarterly reports.[^196] Such
    diligence evidences South Canaan's commitment to achieving full
    compliance with the Commission's E911 requirements, which is the
    type of showing the Commission explained it would need from Tier III
    carriers to grant additional relief.[^197] Additionally, we find
    that South Canaan's diligence in working with and informing the
    PSAPs in its service area of its deployment schedule signals good
    faith efforts to achieve compliance with the Commission's
    requirements.[^198]

76. For these reasons, we grant South Canaan relief from the interim
    benchmarks. Specifically, we grant South Canaan an extension from
    November 30, 2003 until December 21, 2004 to ensure that at least
    twenty-five percent of all new handsets activated are
    location-capable; from May 31, 2004 until December 21, 2004 to
    ensure that at least fifty percent of all new handsets activated are
    location-capable; and from November 30, 2004 until December 21, 2004
    to ensure that one-hundred percent of all new digital handsets
    activated are location-capable.

77. *Handset Penetration*. In light of our decision to grant South
    Canaan an extension of the interim benchmark requirements, we
    correspondingly grant South Canaan a limited extension of the
    December 31, 2005 deadline for ensuring that ninety-five percent of
    its subscriber base have location-capable handsets. The
    *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order* provided carriers with a timeframe
    of thirteen months from the date that one-hundred percent of all new
    handset activations are location-capable to the date that
    ninety-five percent of its subscriber base's handsets are
    location-capable.[^199] We believe that a thirteen-month timeframe
    should provide South Canaan with an adequate period of time to
    ensure that its embedded customer base uses location-capable
    handsets. Because we extend South Canaan's deadline for ensuring
    that one-hundred percent of all new handset activations are
    location-capable to December 31, 2004, we afford South Canaan an
    additional thirteen months from this date to ensure that the handset
    penetration rate among its subscribers reaches ninety-five percent.
    Accordingly, South Canaan must ensure that ninety-five percent of
    its subscriber base has location-capable handsets by January 31,
    2006.

78. We note that this relief from the ninety-five percent handset
    penetration requirement is more limited than South Canaan requested.
    South Canaan sought relief from the ninety-five percent handset
    penetration deadline from December 31, 2005 until December 31, 2007.
    We do not believe that such an extended period of time is adequately
    supported or necessary. Further, we believe that our countervailing
    public policy interest in ensuring that carriers comply with the
    location-capable handset penetration requirement as quickly as
    possibly overrides South Canaan's request for more protracted
    relief.[^200]

79. **South No. 5 RSA LP dba Brazos Cellular Communications, LLC
    (Brazos):** Brazos provides TDMA service in rural Texas and is
    upgrading to CDMA.[^201] Brazos sought the following extensions of
    the Commission's deadline: from September 1, 2003 until July 1, 2005
    to begin selling and activating location-capable handsets; from
    November 30, 2003 until July 1, 2005 to ensure that at least
    twenty-five percent of handsets activated are location-capable; from
    May 31, 2004 until September 1, 2005 to ensure that at least fifty
    percent of handsets activated are location-capable; and from
    November 30, 2004 until December 31, 2005 to ensure that one-hundred
    percent of handsets activated are location-capable.[^202] Brazos
    does not request relief from the ninety-five percent requirement,
    indicating that it will use its best efforts to encourage
    subscribers to convert.[^203]

80. *Benchmark Relief*. We find good cause exists to grant Brazos a
    limited waiver to permit it to coordinate its location-capable
    handset deployment with its CDMA upgrade. Brazos' need for
    additional time is due in part to its transitioning from a TDMA air
    interface to CDMA.[^204] Brazos maintained that the migration from
    TDMA technology by the larger carriers resulted in reluctance on the
    part of equipment manufacturers to develop location-capable handsets
    for the TDMA air-interface.[^205] Brazos decided to transition its
    network to the CDMA air interface, a process that will take some
    time to implement. The Commission recognized that the transition
    from one air interface to another takes some time to implement, and
    requested that carriers seeking additional relief for this purpose
    provide a plan to achieve full compliance, which Brazos has
    provided.[^206]

81. We are also encouraged by Brazos' efforts to coordinate its
    deployment plan with its local PSAPs. Brazos stated that the local
    PSAPs are agreeable to its Phase II schedule, which will achieve
    Phase II capability prior to PSAP readiness.[^207] Brazos stated
    that it has discussed its deployment plan with the Texas Council of
    Governments, which coordinates E911 efforts in the state of Texas,
    and that it and the local PSAPs are aware of the transition period
    Brazos has set out in its requests.[^208] In evaluating Brazos'
    waiver request we have taken into account its consultation with
    PSAPs in its service area and the Texas Council of Governments, as
    such consultation is an important factor in determining whether a
    waiver is warranted.[^209]

82. For the foregoing reasons, we find that granting relief to Brazos
    would not undermine our policy objective of ensuring access to E911
    service. We therefore, grant Brazos' requests for the following
    extensions: from September 30, 2003 to July 1, 2005 to begin selling
    and activating location-capable handsets; from November 30, 2003 to
    July 1, 2005 to ensure that at least twenty-five percent of handsets
    activated are location-capable; from May 31, 2004 to September 1,
    2005 to ensure that at least fifty percent handsets activated are
    location-capable; and from November 30, 2004 to December 31, 2005 to
    ensure that one-hundred percent of handsets activated are
    location-capable.

83. The *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order* provided carriers with a
    timeframe of thirteen months from the date that one-hundred percent
    of all new handset activations are location-capable to the date that
    ninety-five percent of its subscriber base's handsets are
    location-capable.[^210] We believe that a thirteen-month timeframe
    should provide Brazos with an adequate period of time to ensure that
    its embedded customer base uses location-capable handsets. Because
    we extend Brazos' deadline for ensuring that one-hundred percent of
    all new handset activations are location-capable to December 31,
    2005, we afford Brazos an additional thirteen months from this date
    to ensure that the handset penetration rate among its subscribers
    reaches ninety-five percent. Accordingly, Brazos must ensure that
    ninety-five percent of its subscriber base has location-capable
    handsets by January 31, 2006.[^211]

84. **Wilkes Cellular, Inc. (Wilkes):** Wilkes provides analog service
    in rural Georgia. Wilkes stated that it receives switching services
    from Alltel and therefore must follow Alltel in using a
    handset-based solution.[^212] Wilkes added that it would utilize a
    handset solution and install a digital overlay over its analog
    cellular network, with the digital network expected to be in place
    by early 2004.[^213] While Wilkes did not state which digital
    interface it will be using, we infer from its association with
    Alltel that it will upgrade to CDMA technology. Wilkes further
    stated that it had not received a Phase II request, but anticipated
    that Phase II service would be available by April 1, 2004.[^214]

85. Wilkes requested a seven-month extension of each of the benchmarks
    for activating location-capable handsets.[^215] Wilkes thus
    requested that we grant extensions of the following deadlines: (1)
    from September 1, 2003 until April 1, 2004 to begin selling and
    activating location-capable handsets; (2) from November 30, 2003
    until June 30, 2004 to ensure that at least twenty-five percent of
    handsets activated are location-capable; (3) from May 31, 2004 until
    December 31, 2004 to ensure that at least fifty percent of handsets
    activated are location-capable, and (4) from November 30, 2004 until
    June 30, 2005 to ensure that one-hundred percent of handsets sold
    are location capable.

86. *Benchmark Relief*. We find good cause exists to grant Wilkes waiver
    relief to permit it to coordinate its location-capable handset
    deployment with its CDMA upgrade. Wilkes' need for additional time
    is due to transitioning from an analog air interface to CDMA. The
    Commission recognized that the transition from one air interface to
    another takes some time to implement, and requested that carriers
    seeking additional relief for this purpose provide a plan to achieve
    full compliance, which Wilkes has provided. Furthermore, since
    Wilkes had not yet received a request for Phase II service, we find
    that granting the relief requested would not undermine our policy
    objective of ensuring access to E911 service. We therefore, grant
    Wilkes' requests for the following extensions: from September 30,
    2003 to April 1, 2004 to begin selling and activating
    location-capable handsets; from November 30, 2003 to June 30, 2004
    to ensure that at least twenty-five percent of handsets activated
    are location-capable; from May 31, 2004 to December 31, 2004 to
    ensure that at least fifty percent handsets activated are
    location-capable; and from November 30, 2004 to June 30, 2005 to
    ensure that one-hundred percent of handsets activated are
    location-capable.

87. The *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order* provided carriers with a
    timeframe of thirteen months from the date that one-hundred percent
    of all new handset activations are location-capable to the date that
    ninety-five percent of its subscriber base's handsets are
    location-capable.[^216] We believe that a thirteen-month timeframe
    should provide Wilkes with an adequate period of time to ensure that
    its embedded customer base uses location-capable handsets. Because
    we extend Wilkes' deadline for ensuring that one-hundred percent of
    all new handset activations are location-capable to June 30, 2005,
    we afford Wilkes an additional thirteen months from this date to
    ensure that the handset penetration rate among its subscribers
    reaches ninety-five percent. Accordingly, Wilkes must ensure that
    ninety-five percent of its subscriber base has location-capable
    handsets by July 31, 2006.[^217]

88. **Wireless Communications Venture (WCV)**: WCV provides service in
    Minnesota.[^218] In a June 2004 amendment to its waiver petition,
    WCV reported that the upgrade of its network from TDMA to CDMA was
    complete.[^219] WCV sought an extension of the date to begin selling
    and activating location-capable handsets from September 30, 2003 to
    September 27, 2004.[^220] It also sought an extension from November
    30, 2003 to September 27, 2004 to meet the requirement that at least
    twenty-five percent of handsets activated are location-capable; and
    from May 31, 2004 to September 27, 2004 to meet the requirement that
    at least fifty percent of handsets activated are
    location-capable.[^221]

89. *Benchmark Relief*. We find that good cause exists to grant the
    relief sought by WCV. We are persuaded by WCV's petition because it
    set out a plan to achieving full compliance.[^222] The schedule WCV
    set out in its petition will allow it to meet the final benchmark of
    December 31, 2005, when it must achieve a ninety-five percent
    penetration rate for location-capable handsets among its
    subscribers. We thus find that allowing this carrier to focus its
    efforts on achieving full compliance will better serve the
    Commission's interest in ensuring ubiquitous access to E911 service.

90. Moreover, we are persuaded that WCV is acting in good faith in
    requesting additional relief, based on its reported efforts to
    coordinate its deployment schedule with the administrator of the
    Minnesota E-911 Statewide Program.[^223] WCV and the administrator
    of the Minnesota Statewide 9-1-1 Project agreed upon a deployment
    timetable.[^224] In the *Order to Stay*, the Commission explained
    that carriers seeking additional time would be expected to
    coordinate their efforts with the state and local E911 coordinators
    and all affected local PSAPs.[^225]

91. For these reasons, we grant WCV's waiver request for relief from the
    interim deadlines for the sale and activation of location-capable
    handsets. Specifically, we grant WCV the following relief: from
    September 30, 2003 to September 27, 2004 to begin selling and
    activating location-capable handsets; from November 30, 2003 to
    September 27, 2004 to meet the requirement that at least twenty-five
    percent of handsets activated are location-capable; from May 31,
    2004 to September 27, 2004 to meet the requirement that at least
    fifty percent of handsets activated are location-capable; and from
    November 30, 2004 to December 31, 2004 by which one-hundred percent
    of all handsets activated are location-capable.

## Category 2: Carriers electing network-based solutions

92. The next category of Tier III carriers consists of requests for
    relief by carriers employing network-based solutions. By definition,
    these solutions work with existing handsets and thus do not require
    handset replacement or upgrades. Carriers are permitted to phase in
    deployment over an eighteen month period and, as compared to
    carriers utilizing handset-based technologies, are allowed to meet
    the broader location parameters of the accuracy standard for
    network-based technologies.[^226] Once deployed, network-based
    solutions reportedly can be readily adapted to support multiple air
    interfaces and network upgrades, *e.g.*, analog, TDMA, CDMA or
    GSM.[^227]

93. **Highland Cellular, LLC (Highland):** Highland operates a TDMA
    network in rural West Virginia, and is transitioning to a GSM
    network.[^228] It requested that the Commission grant a two year
    extension of the Phase II deployment and accuracy requirements for
    its GSM network.[^229] Highland set forth an eight-step plan for
    deploying its GSM network-based solution, and also a schedule for
    compliance, anticipating that its TDMA customers would begin
    migrating to its GSM network in November 2004.[^230]

94. In its subsequent January 15, 2004 Interim Report, Highland stated
    it was able to launch its GSM network in October 2003, and that
    twelve percent of its customer base already had begun the transition
    from TDMA to GSM phones.[^231] With respect to its Phase II status,
    Highland stated that it was still reviewing vendor and technology
    options for network-based solutions based on either Time Delay of
    Arrival (TDOA) or Timing Advance/Network Measurement Report (TA/NMR)
    technologies.[^232] Highland further reported that it had received
    Phase II requests from six PSAPs, and that it had been actively
    working with the PSAPs in its community with respect to E911
    deployment.[^233] Highland projected that network-based solutions
    will meet the accuracy requirements in only three of the ten
    counties it is licensed to serve.[^234] However, Highland indicated
    that the GSM cell sites it was deploying would provide significant
    improvements in accuracy as compared to the TDMA segment of its
    system.[^235] Highland also added that its lenders may refuse to
    finance additional Phase II deployment costs.[^236] Highland claimed
    that the foregoing factors will make it very challenging to meet the
    current Phase II accuracy requirements for a network-based
    solution.[^237]

95. In its most recent report, Highland stated that the migration of its
    customer base to GSM increased to fifty-two percent during 2004, and
    projected this number to increase to eighty percent by the end of
    2005.[^238] However, Highland reported that despite making progress
    in working with and evaluating network-based solutions from various
    vendors, it believed that the topography and cell density of its
    network was such that none of the technology options would allow the
    company to meet the FCC's accuracy requirements.[^239] Highland
    added that it had reached accord with the PSAPs that the public
    would be best served by deployment of technology that provides the
    best long-term accuracy standard, and that it continued to be
    engaged in further discussions with technology vendors.[^240]

96. *Deployment of Network Equipment*. We find that Highland has made
    substantial progress in converting its network to GSM and has worked
    earnestly, in cooperation with the PSAPs, to seek a network-based
    solution that would meet the Commission's Phase II accuracy
    requirements. Highland has engaged in an extensive process of
    furnishing its vendors technical network information, while
    constructing new GSM cell sites, to find a way to meet the
    Commission's accuracy requirements.[^241] Highland submitted
    evidence that with its current cell site layout, in many areas of
    its network there is insufficient RF signal to permit triangulation
    to work.[^242] Highland also reported that the manufacturer will not
    support an ALI TDMA solution for either network-based or
    handset-based technologies.[^243]

97. Based on the foregoing reasons, we grant Highland an extension from
    September 1, 2003 to September 1, 2005 to provide Phase II service
    to at least fifty percent of either the PSAP's coverage area or its
    population, or within six months of a PSAP request, whichever is
    later, and from September 1, 2004 to September 1, 2006 to provide
    Phase II service to one-hundred percent of a PSAP's coverage area or
    population, or within eighteen months of a PSAP request, whichever
    is later.

98. **N.E. Colorado Cellular, Inc. (NECC):** In its initial waiver
    request, NECC reported that it operated an AMPS network in Colorado
    and acquired a CDMA network in Nebraska, and that it was converting
    both networks to GSM.[^244] NECC elected to deploy a network-based
    location solution, but for its GSM networks only.[^245] NECC
    proposed to implement Phase II service in Colorado within six months
    of a valid PSAP request, and by January 2005 in Nebraska.[^246] NECC
    later estimated that Phase II service would first be available on
    its GSM network by November 2004.[^247]

99. In both states, however, NECC stated that it would be unable to meet
    the Phase II accuracy standards, due to the inability to obtain the
    proper cell site triangulation.[^248] Particularly in Nebraska, NECC
    stated that coverage beyond the major highways had just begun, and
    that its ability to be in compliance with the accuracy standards
    would improve as more towers in its planned 300 tower build-out were
    constructed.[^249] NECC thus requested a waiver of the accuracy
    requirements for both its Colorado and Nebraska service areas
    through 2007, to allow it to provide location data within 500 meters
    for fifty percent of the calls,[^250] instead of one-hundred meters
    for sixty-seven percent of calls and 300 meters for ninety-five
    percent of calls, as required under Section 20.18(h)(1).

100. NECC indicated that it was communicating regularly and had a good
     working relationship with the PSAPs in its service areas.[^251] In
     Colorado, NECC indicated that it had received four Phase II
     requests and would be implementing Phase II service for two of the
     PSAPs as of November 15, 2004, and the remaining two by January 15,
     2005.[^252] NECC stated that these implementations are in the
     portion of its service areas where both GSM and AMPS service are
     provided.[^253] As for Nebraska, NECC reported no Phase II
     requests, but expected five requests in May 2004.[^254]

101. In a separate request filed in 2004, NECC sought a waiver specific
     to its network in Colorado to permit it to migrate analog customers
     to its GSM platform.[^255] NECC expected seventy percent of its
     subscriber base in Colorado to be migrated to GSM by the end of
     2004.[^256] However, NECC cited to certain analog customers who
     desire to retain their analog phones, favoring coverage over Phase
     II service capability.[^257] NECC added that it expected to
     complete its GSM upgrade by first quarter 2005,[^258] and that
     there was no Phase II solution for the analog portion of its
     network.[^259] NECC foresaw a need for a two-year timetable to
     migrate the remainder of its analog customers to digital.[^260]

102. *Deployment of Network Equipment*. First, with respect to the GSM
     portions of its network, NECC does not require an extension of the
     Commission's Phase II rules and thus we dismiss this request. NECC
     indicated it would have Phase II service capability in its GSM
     network by November 2004, and with respect to its Colorado service
     areas, that it has responded, or would be responding, to the four
     PSAP requests. Moreover, in Nebraska, if NECC received the PSAP
     requests expected in May 2004, we assume, as we have not been
     notified otherwise, that NECC implemented Phase II service for
     those PSAPs as well.[^261] Further, NECC's filings indicate that,
     in its Colorado service areas, its GSM network deployment is
     proceeding close to the schedule that it has anticipated. In
     addition, the migration of its customer base to the GSM network is
     significantly progressing.

103. However, with respect to its analog customers, we conclude that
     grant of a waiver regarding NECC's deployment of a Phase II network
     solution work is warranted.[^262] As NECC indicated, there is no
     Phase II solution for analog handsets. Further, we find that NECC
     diligently has pursued a program of upgrading its analog network to
     GSM while undertaking efforts to migrate its analog customers to
     GSM. Therefore, we grant NECC an extension of two years from the
     date of its request, or until November 17, 2006, to ensure that all
     of its analog customers are transitioned to GSM and thus are
     offered Phase II services.

104. *Accuracy Requirements*. We deny NECC's request for waiver of the
     accuracy requirement through 2007 because we do not believe it was
     sufficiently supported and, in any event, is overbroad. NECC did
     not provide any testing data or other evidence to support its
     request for an accuracy level of 500 meters for fifty percent of
     calls, or for the need for relief through 2007. In addition, NECC
     submitted no information from its technology vendor concerning the
     levels of accuracy that can reasonably be achieved as its GSM
     network is built out. Such information is of particular
     significance to our consideration of this waiver request.[^263]
     NECC did not distinguish between those segments of its GSM network
     that already are built, and which presumably could achieve better
     accuracy, and those segments not upgraded with GSM. Moreover, given
     its representations of its deployment schedule for approximately
     300 additional towers for its Nebraska build-out beyond the major
     highways, NECC should have been able to develop a more specific
     schedule for meeting the Phase II requirements, rather than
     requesting the blanket relief it seeks through 2007.

105. While we do not believe that NECC has met our standards for waiver
     of the Commission's accuracy requirements, we note that we would be
     receptive to a renewed request for waiver that would contain the
     specific information necessary to justify such a request as
     described above. Specifically, NECC should provide testing data or
     other information from a technology vendor to demonstrate its
     inability to meet the accuracy requirements, and provide specific
     plans towards meeting the accuracy requirements.[^264] We also are
     mindful of the fact that NECC reported that it will work with the
     PSAPs regarding the location accuracy data that it will be able to
     achieve as it builds out its GSM network,[^265] and we encourage
     NECC to continue these efforts.

106. **Southern Illinois RSA Partnership dba First Cellular of Southern
     Illinois (First Cellular):** First Cellular operates an AMPS and
     CDMA network that is being converted to GSM. In an August 26, 2003
     Petition, First Cellular requested a waiver of the requirement that
     carriers deploying a network-based solution follow a schedule
     beginning September 1, 2003, to ensure they provide Phase II
     service to at least fifty percent of the PSAP's coverage area or
     population, and September 1, 2004 to ensure they provide Phase II
     service to one-hundred percent of the PSAP's coverage area or
     population.[^266] First Cellular reported that the vendor initially
     selected for a network-based Phase II solution unexpectedly
     determined that it was unable to solve compatibility problems
     between its equipment and First Cellular's cellular system
     equipment.[^267] First Cellular requested a waiver of up to
     twenty-four months to deploy its network-based solution.

107. In a November 10, 2003 Supplement, First Cellular stated that it
     planned to deploy a Phase II solution for CDMA and AMPS by summer
     2004, with GSM Phase II deployment to occur as soon as possible
     upon completion of the GSM overlay throughout its service
     area.[^268] In a January 14, 2004 Interim Report, First Cellular
     projected installation of the GSM network within seven to twenty
     months, with initial deployment in summer 2004.[^269] First
     Cellular also reported it was negotiating funding through a capital
     lease agreement and planned to submit costs for Phase II deployment
     to the State of Illinois for potential reimbursement.[^270]

108. *Deployment of Network Equipment*. First Cellular also submitted
     that it had received seven Phase II requests, but that the
     requesting PSAPs were not yet ready to receive or use Phase II
     data.[^271] Consequently, we dismiss First Cellular's request for
     waiver, without prejudice, as unnecessary. Carriers only are
     required to respond to valid PSAP requests.[^272] Furthermore,
     carriers have six months following a valid PSAP request to provide
     E911 service to at least fifty percent of the PSAP's coverage area
     or population, and eighteen months to provide E911 service to
     one-hundred percent of the PSAP's coverage area or population.

## Category 3: Carriers Operating Roaming-Only Networks 

109. Twelve carriers, operating under a "carriers' carrier" business
     model (the Commnet Carriers), sought relief from various E911
     requirements.[^273] Under the carriers' carrier business model,
     each of the Commnet Carriers provides roaming-only service to
     subscribers of other carriers and has no subscribers of its
     own.[^274] Each of the carriers utilizes a switching facility
     locating outside of its market and thus some distance from the
     PSAP.[^275] Further, each operates in rural areas using analog,
     TDMA, or GSM technologies.[^276] The Commnet Carriers stated that
     handset-based solutions are not available for any of their network
     technologies.[^277] In addition, due to the nature of their
     networks, they also claimed that network-based solutions,
     necessarily requiring triangulation, are not feasible.[^278] Only
     one of the Commnet Carriers, MoCelCo, LLC, has received a Phase II
     request.[^279]

110. The Commnet Carriers requested a permanent or long-term (at least 5
     years) waiver of the Phase II requirements.[^280] Alternatively,
     they requested that they be declared in compliance with all E911
     obligations, on the basis that the Commission's E911 rules were not
     intended to apply to carriers providing roaming-only service.[^281]
     The Commnet Carriers also sought a waiver of the Commission's
     ruling in the *King County* case that the 911 selective router is
     the demarcation point for allocating costs between a wireless
     carrier and a PSAP E911 obligations.[^282]

111. *Applicability of Phase II Requirements*. The Commission has made
     clear that wireless carriers providing services similar to
     commercial mobile radio services are subject to the E911
     rules.[^283] Specifically, the Commission specified criteria for
     determining which licensees should be subject to its E911
     requirements. It required compliance by those licensees: (1) that
     offered real-time, two-way switched voice service, interconnected
     with the public switched network, either on a stand-alone basis or
     packaged with other telecommunications services; (2) whose
     customers clearly expected access to 911 and E911; (3) that
     competed with analog and broadband PCS providers; and (4) where it
     is technically and operationally feasible to provide enhanced 911
     service.[^284]

112. All of these criteria apply to carriers providing roaming-only
     service. First, roaming-only service, like service provided by
     licensees with customers of their own, interconnects to the public
     switched network. Further, roaming-only service provided by
     carriers' carriers is indistinguishable from service provided by
     the caller's "home" wireless service provider, and, therefore,
     consumers of roaming-only service would have the same expectations
     as when using their home network with respect to having access to
     E911 service. Additionally, carriers' carriers clearly compete with
     other facilities-based CMRS licensees. Finally, as other
     facilities-based licensees have shown through their deployment of
     the infrastructure necessary for E911 to occur, it is technically
     feasible to comply with the Commission's rules, and, as explained
     more fully below, it also is technically feasible for carriers'
     carriers to comply as well. Accordingly, we reject the Commnet
     Carriers' argument that the Commission's E911 rules were not
     intended to apply to roaming-only service providers.

113. *Phase II Requirements*. Having established that carriers' carriers
     are subject to the Commission's E911 requirements, we next address
     the Commnet Carriers' request for a permanent or long-term
     extension to comply with the Phase II rules. IIn view of the
     critical importance of the Commission's E911 rules to public
     safety, the Commission has insisted that carriers seeking relief
     must provide specific evidence in support of their request, as well
     as a clear path to full compliance, and cannot rely on generalized
     assertions of technical infeasibility.[^285] The Commnet Carriers'
     petition fails to meet this standard. The Commnet Carriers made
     only conclusory assertions that they have no handset-based or
     network-based options to provide Phase II service, presented no
     plan whatsoever for compliance, and offered no evidence of any
     efforts to work with vendors to investigate potential solutions. We
     would require substantial further justification, on a case-by-case
     basis, and in more focused requests for relief, in order to
     consider these waiver requests, as well as information describing
     efforts to cooperate with PSAPs requesting Phase II service.
     Accordingly, we deny the Commnet Carriers' request for a permanent
     or long-term waiver of the Commission's Phase II rules. We note
     that we would be receptive to renewed and specific requests for
     waiver, provided such requests meet our waiver standards.

114. *King County Demarcation Point*. We also deny the Commnet Carriers'
     request for a waiver of the requirements set forth in the
     Commission's *King County Order*. The *King County Order*
     established the 911 selective router as the demarcation point for
     allocating E911 implementation costs between wireless carriers and
     PSAPs, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary between the
     parties.[^286] The Commnet Carriers contended that, given that
     their switches are located outside of their service areas, it would
     be prohibitively expensive for them to establish dedicated
     facilities between their mobile switching centers and the 911
     selective router.[^287] The Commnet Carriers requested that the
     Commission grant them a waiver of the King County Order such that
     the demarcation point is the wireless carrier switch, rather than
     the 911 selective router.[^288] They also argued that although the
     King County Order allows for alternate cost allocation arrangements
     between carriers and PSAPs, the PSAPs have no incentive to even
     engage in negotiations to share these costs.[^289]

115. In the *King County Order,* the Commission specifically considered
     and rejected the establishment of a different demarcation point for
     small rural wireless carriers.[^290] The Commission concluded that,
     since the risk incurred where a dispatcher cannot locate a 911
     wireless caller does not vary with the size of the wireless carrier
     that picks up the call, the E911 requirements should apply equally
     to small and rural carriers and to larger carriers.[^291]
     Furthermore, the Commission advised that, when its rules impose a
     disproportionate burden on a particular carrier, the carrier should
     work with the public safety entities involved to mitigate the
     burden, and, if necessary, seek individual relief from the
     Commission.[^292] We note that the Commnet Carriers have provided
     no evidence that they have even attempted to work with the PSAPs
     with respect to implementation costs. The Commnet Carriers have not
     adequately substantiated their request for waiver of the
     demarcation point established in the *King County* *Order*. We note
     that the Commnet Carriers have assumed worst-case conditions,
     *e.g.*, that lengthy dedicated T-1 lines are the only way to
     deliver E911 calls to the 911 selective router, that no cost
     recovery from other available federal, state, or local sources is
     available, and that the PSAPs will not be willing to negotiate
     solutions for sharing implementation costs. Moreover, the Commnet
     Carriers have not provided specific information regarding the
     actual or projected cost of the E911 infrastructure they would
     incur. For the foregoing reasons, we deny the Commnet Carriers'
     waiver request to establish the mobile switching center as the
     demarcation point.

## Category 4: Carriers Electing a Handset-Based Solution in Conjunction with a GSM Upgrade

116. The three nationwide Tier I carriers using the GSM air interface
     initially planned to employ a handset-based location technology
     called Enhanced-Observed Time Difference (E-OTD).[^293] Challenges
     arose during testing and development of this technology, however,
     and the Tier I GSM carriers now use or are deploying network-based
     solutions for Phase II.[^294] Several Tier II and Tier III carriers
     also are employing network-based solutions.[^295] The Tier III
     carriers in the instant category which currently use or are
     planning to use the GSM air interface, however, have sought waivers
     to permit them to deploy a handset-based solution for their GSM
     networks. These carriers recognize that location-capable GSM
     handsets are not available, but claim that this solution is
     best-suited to their rural or remote service areas. The carriers in
     this category generally request lengthy or indefinite relief until
     location-capable GSM handsets become available. As discussed below,
     we have reviewed these carriers' individual requests and have
     afforded relief where appropriate. We note that we fully expect, in
     cases where we have provided carriers relief to satisfy a revised
     deployment schedule, that these carriers will comply with these
     revised dates and benchmarks. We further note that, in the event
     that location-capable GSM handsets remain unavailable, we would
     expect carriers to actively explore other location technologies in
     order to achieve Phase II capability. Carriers should not assume
     that we would act favorably on future requests for relief on this
     basis.

117. **Arctic Slope Telephone Association Cooperative, Inc. (ASTAC):**
     ASTAC provides analog and TDMA-based cellular service to the North
     Slope of Alaska, and is migrating its network to GSM.[^296] ASTAC
     selected a handset-based solution to achieve Phase II compliance,
     because the characteristics of its network do not permit the
     necessary triangulation that network-based solutions require.[^297]
     ASTAC stated that it planned to complete the overlay of its network
     with GSM by September 2005, but the unavailability of
     location-capable GSM handsets would make it impossible to meet the
     handset deployment benchmarks.[^298] ASTAC requested extensions of
     the following deadlines: (1) from September 1, 2003 until July 1,
     2005 to begin selling and activating location-capable handset; (2)
     from November 30, 2003 until July 1, 2005 to ensure that at least
     twenty-five percent of handsets activated are location-capable; (3)
     from May 31, 2004 until October 1, 2005 to ensure that at least
     fifty percent of handsets activated are location-capable; and
     November 30, 2004 until December 31, 2005 to ensure that
     one-hundred percent of handsets activated are
     location-capable.[^299] ASTAC reported that it was on schedule to
     meet the December 31, 2005 ninety-five percent handset penetration
     requirement.[^300]

118. ASTAC stated that, as each segment of the system is converted to
     GSM, it planned to offer location-capable handsets to customers
     served by those cell sites, assuming equipment vendors can deliver
     such handsets.[^301] ASTAC also noted that it was investigating the
     use of software defined radios in its GSM overlay network, which
     also would be an upgrade to a CDMA interface.[^302] ASTAC reported
     that it has been working closely with state emergency services
     administrators with respect to E911 deployment, and that the sole
     PSAP in ASTAC's territory is not expected to have Phase II
     capability in the near future due to lack of state funds.[^303] In
     its January 8, 2004 Second Interim Report, ASTAC indicated that it
     expected location-capable GSM handsets to be available during the
     fourth quarter of 2004, when it expected to begin deployment of its
     GSM upgrade.[^304]

119. *Benchmark Relief*. We find that ASTAC has been diligent in
     pursuing a location solution for its network. Further, we believe
     that ASTAC has satisfied the Commission's standards for seeking
     relief of the Commission's Phase II implementation requirements.
     Given its rural service area, ASTAC has chosen to pursue a
     handset-based solution, and ASTAC has been making progress towards
     completing its GSM overlay to enable such a solution. Furthermore,
     ASTAC has been meeting with vendors, coordinating its efforts with
     the PSAP, and has provided a clear path to full compliance with
     respect to its transition to GSM. ASTAC, through no fault of its
     own, is dependent on the availability of location-capable GSM
     handsets.

120. For these reasons, we grant ASTAC the following extensions: (1)
     from September 1, 2003 until July 1, 2005 to begin selling and
     activating location-capable handset; (2) from November 30, 2003
     until July 1, 2005 to ensure that at least twenty-five percent of
     handsets activated are location-capable; (3) from May 31, 2004
     until October 1, 2005 to ensure that at least fifty percent of
     handsets activated are location-capable; and November 30, 2004
     until December 31, 2005 to ensure that one-hundred percent of
     handsets activated are location-capable.

121. **Edge Wireless Licenses, LLC (Edge):** Edge operates TDMA networks
     in Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, and California. Edge provides
     roaming-only GSM service in Idaho and Wyoming, and both roaming and
     home GSM service in Oregon and California.[^305] Edge stated that
     because it operates in a predominantly rural area, it had selected
     a handset-based location technology for both its TDMA and GSM
     network, as a network-based solution may not meet the Phase II
     accuracy and reliability standards for its rural network.[^306]
     Edge sought a waiver of the Commission's Phase II requirements with
     respect to the sale and activation of location-capable handsets,
     based on the fact that there are no location-capable TDMA or GSM
     handsets available.[^307] Edge stated that there is no reasonable
     way for it to comply with the September 1, 2003 deadline to
     commence the sale and activation of location-capable handsets for
     either its TDMA or GSM network, as such handsets were not
     available.[^308]

122. Edge stated that it installed Phase II-compatible GSM network
     equipment and will install the required software and equipment at
     its Medford, Oregon switch after location-capable handsets are
     commercially available and distributed to Edge subscribers.[^309]
     Edge reported that it has no agreements in place to obtain
     location-capable handsets, but it anticipated that Phase II service
     will be available on its GSM network in the second half of
     2005.[^310] Edge further stated that it is unlikely it will achieve
     ninety-five location-capable handset penetration by December 31,
     2005, but did not specifically seek a waiver of this
     requirement.[^311] Edge noted that it has been actively working
     with the PSAPs in its service area regarding the deployment of
     Phase II service,[^312] and it does not appear the Edge has
     received any valid Phase II PSAP requests.[^313]

123. *Benchmark Relief*. Given its rural service area, we find it
     reasonable for Edge to pursue a handset-based solution, and Edge
     has made progress towards completing its GSM overlay and installing
     Phase II-compatible network equipment to enable such a solution.
     However, Edge has not provided sufficient information to warrant a
     waiver of the Commission's rules. Edge has not provided details
     with respect to its efforts to meet with vendors, and with PSAPs,
     and has not provided specific schedules and a clear path to full
     compliance with respect to its transition to GSM. Furthermore, Edge
     has not provided any dates for when it plans to commence activation
     of location-capable handsets.

124. However, given that Edge has been working with the PSAPs in its
     area regarding the deployment of Phase II service, that no PSAPs in
     Edge's service area have requested Phase II service, and that Edge
     is dependent on the availability of location-capable GSM handsets,
     we will grant Edge a limited extension of time to comply with the
     Commission's rules. We would expect that during this time Edge
     would submit a waiver request that provides a clear path toward
     full compliance and evidence of Edge working with vendors and PSAPs
     toward that end. Specifically, we grant Edge the following
     extensions: (1) from September 1, 2003 until July 1, 2005 to begin
     selling and activating location-capable handsets; (2) from November
     30, 2003 until July 1, 2005 to ensure that at least twenty-five
     percent of handsets activated are location-capable; (3) from May
     31, 2004 until October 1, 2005 to ensure that at least fifty
     percent of handsets activated are location-capable; and November
     30, 2004 until December 31, 2005 to ensure that one-hundred percent
     of handsets activated are location-capable.[^314]

125. **Key Communications, LLC (Key) and Keystone Wireless, LLC
     (Keystone)**: Key and Keystone operate GSM networks in West
     Virginia and Pennsylvania, respectively. In a jointly filed
     petition, the carriers stated that due to the failure of handset
     manufacturers to make available location-capable GSM handsets, they
     decided to pursue a hybrid Phase II solution.[^315] The carriers
     explained that the installation of a Nortel solution, based on
     Timing Advance/Network Measurement Report (TA/NMR) technology,
     involves a network-based component, followed by deployment of A-GPS
     handsets.[^316] They noted that the network component alone does
     not meet the accuracy requirements contained in the Commission's
     rules, but that it offers a greater level of accuracy than Phase I
     service.[^317] The carriers stated that A-GPS handsets are not
     likely to be available until the third or fourth quarter of
     2005.[^318] Even once the handsets are deployed, the carriers
     submitted that the system still may not be capable of meeting the
     accuracy requirements of the Commission's rules.[^319]

126. Key reported that it has informed requesting PSAPs of its plan to
     implement a hybrid Phase II solution and that the involved PSAPs
     are satisfied with the proposed implementation schedule.[^320]
     Keystone also reported that it has informed the requesting PSAPs of
     its plan to implement a hybrid solution, but that the involved
     PSAPs have expressed some concern about Keystone's implementation
     schedule.[^321] The carriers requested extensions from September 1,
     2003 until October 1, 2006 to commence the sale and activation of
     location-capable handsets, from November 30, 2003 until December
     31, 2006 to ensure that at least twenty-five percent of handsets
     activated are location-capable, from May 31, 2004 to June 30, 2007
     to ensure that at least fifty percent of handsets activated are
     location-capable, and from November 30, 2004 to December 31, 2007
     to ensure that one-hundred percent of handsets activated are
     location-capable.[^322] Furthermore, Key and Keystone requested a
     stay of the Section 20.18(h) accuracy requirements until December
     31, 2011, or twelve months from receipt of a valid E911 Phase II
     request, whichever is later.[^323]

127. *Benchmark relief*. We find that good cause exists to grant limited
     relief to Key and Keystone. It appears that they have stayed
     abreast of technological developments and modified their plans
     accordingly in an effort to achieve compliance, as evidenced by
     their decision to explore the TA/NMR solution. However, in light of
     the fact that the carriers stated that A-GPS handsets would be
     available by third or fourth quarter 2005, we will grant more
     limited extensions than requested. Specifically, we grant Key and
     Keystone the following extensions: (1) from September 1, 2003 until
     July 1, 2005 to begin selling and activating location-capable
     handsets; (2) from November 30, 2003 until July 1, 2005 to ensure
     that at least twenty-five percent of handsets activated are
     location-capable; (3) from May 31, 2004 until October 1, 2005 to
     ensure that at least fifty percent of handsets activated are
     location-capable; and (4) from November 30, 2004 until December 31,
     2005 to ensure that one-hundred percent of handsets activated are
     location-capable. We believe that the relief granted properly
     balances the expected availability of location-capable handsets for
     GSM networks with the critical need to ensure that Phase II
     services are made available as quickly as possible.

128. The *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order* provided carriers with a
     timeframe of thirteen months from the date that one-hundred percent
     of all new handset activations are location-capable to the date
     that ninety-five percent of its subscriber base's handsets are
     location-capable.[^324] We believe that a thirteen-month timeframe
     should provide Key and Keystone with an adequate period of time to
     ensure that their embedded customer base uses location-capable
     handsets. Because we extend Key's and Keystone's deadlines for
     ensuring that one-hundred percent of all new handset activations
     are location-capable to December 31, 2005, we afford Key and
     Keystone an additional thirteen months from this date to ensure
     that the handset penetration rate among their subscribers reaches
     ninety-five percent. Accordingly, Key and Keystone must ensure that
     ninety-five percent of their subscriber bases has location-capable
     handsets by January 31, 2006. [^325]

129. *Accuracy requirements*. We deny Key's and Keystone's requests for
     relief from the accuracy requirements as premature. As the carriers
     indicate, the accuracy of their planned systems cannot be known
     until they are installed and activated.[^326] Accordingly, the
     carriers may submit a more specific request for relief in the
     future should they determine, after installation, that such a
     waiver is needed.[^327]

130. **Enterprise Wireless PCS, L.L.C. (Enterprise):**[^328] Enterprise
     operates analog and TDMA networks in Georgia, Alabama, and South
     Carolina, and is migrating these networks to GSM. Enterprise sought
     waivers of the September 1, 2003 deadline to commence sale and
     activation of location-capable handsets, the November 30, 2003
     deadline to ensure that at least twenty-five percent of handsets
     activated are location-capable, and the May 31, 2004 deadline to
     ensure that at least fifty percent of handsets activated are
     location-capable.[^329] The carrier planned to meet the November
     30, 2004 deadline to ensure that one-hundred percent of handsets
     activated are location-capable.

131. Enterprise stated that network-based solutions are incapable of
     performing triangulation from isolated rural sites, and that
     location-capable GSM handsets do not exist.[^330] Enterprise
     intended to deploy a GSM handset-based Phase II solution as part of
     its GSM network overbuild as soon as location-capable handsets
     became available.[^331] Enterprise also reasoned that the waiver
     would not come at the cost of delay or prejudice to public safety
     in its service territory, as there were no pending Phase II
     requests.[^332] In a November 2003 Supplement, Enterprise stated
     that it had definitive plans to proceed with a GSM overlay and had
     already implemented GSM at a number of cell sites.[^333] Enterprise
     argued that grant of its waiver would preserve the handset-solution
     option, if and when location-capable GSM handsets become available,
     while denial might well preclude it from ever being able to deploy
     a Phase II solution that meets the accuracy requirements.[^334]

132. *Benchmark Relief*. We find that Enterprise has been diligent in
     pursuing a location solution for its network. Further, we believe
     that Enterprise has satisfied the Commission's standards for
     seeking relief of the Commission's Phase II implementation
     requirements. Given its rural service area, Enterprise has chosen
     to pursue a handset-based solution, and it has been making progress
     towards completing its GSM overlay to enable such a solution.
     Furthermore, Enterprise has provided a clear path to full
     compliance with respect to its transition to GSM. Enterprise,
     through no fault of its own, is dependent on the availability of
     location-capable GSM handsets. Accordingly, we grant the following
     extensions, as requested: (1) from September 1, 2003 until November
     30, 2004 to begin selling and activating location-capable
     handsets; (2) from November 30, 2003 until November 30, 2004 to
     ensure that at least twenty-five percent of handsets activated are
     location-capable; and (3) from May 31, 2004 until November 30, 2004
     to ensure that at least fifty percent of handsets activated are
     location-capable.

133. Finally, we note that we are perplexed by Enterprise's request for
     relief, including its statement that it expected to meet the
     November 30, 2004 deadline to ensure that one-hundred percent of
     handsets activated are location-capable, given the fact that GSM
     location-capable handsets are not yet available. We would have
     expected Enterprise to have further supplemented its request for
     relief in light of the fact that GSM location-capable handsets are
     not yet available. If changed circumstances have affected
     Enterprise's need for relief of the Commission's sale and
     activation benchmarks, we would expect Enterprise to submit further
     requests for waiver relief. Further, in the event that Enterprise
     anticipates that it cannot comply with the December 31, 2005
     ninety-five percent handset penetration deadline, Enterprise should
     file an appropriate and timely request for relief, including under
     the standard articulated in the *ENHANCE 911 Act.*[^335]

## Category 5: TDMA/AMPS Carriers Electing a Handset-Based Solution

134. The carriers in this section request extended relief from
     application of the Commission's E911 rules, including extension of
     the initial and interim benchmarks for selling and activating
     location-capable handsets. They note, for example, that
     location-capable handsets are not available for TDMA or AMPS and
     that their customers will be reluctant to purchase location-capable
     handsets for other air interfaces until such service actually is
     available. The carriers also assert that their local PSAPs have not
     requested Phase II service and are not likely to do so in the near
     future.

135. **Copper Valley Wireless, Inc. (CVW):** CVW operates in a sparsely
     populated area of Alaska, serving 1162 subscribers as of April
     2004.[^336] CVW stated that it uses Plexsys analog equipment which
     has been discontinued and no longer is supported.[^337]
     Accordingly, there are no network equipment and software upgrades
     available to enable processing or transmitting of ALI data using
     its analog network.[^338] CVW explained that it had no other choice
     but to modernize its network to either CDMA or GSM, which it
     anticipated would be complete by December 31, 2005.[^339] CVW
     requested that the Commission waive all interim benchmarks for
     selling and activating location-capable handsets, and instead allow
     CVW until December 31, 2005 to not only begin selling and
     activating location-capable handsets, but to begin selling and
     activating only location-capable handsets.[^340] CVW did not
     request a waiver of the December 31, 2005 ninety-five percent
     penetration requirement. Further, CVW has not received any Phase I
     or II requests.[^341]

136. *Benchmark relief*. We find that good cause exists to grant CVW a
     waiver of the interim benchmark requirements. Since its analog
     network no longer was being supported, it had no options for
     implementing Phase II capability absent a digital upgrade. We are
     thus encouraged by CVW's efforts at choosing a technology that will
     allow it to come into compliance, including specifying a timeframe
     for completing its upgrade. Completion of its digital upgrade will
     afford CVW more options to achieve Phase II capability. Under these
     circumstances, the steps CVW has taken towards achieving compliance
     demonstrate a commitment to satisfying our requirements and warrant
     an extension. We also find it significant to our decision to grant
     CVW relief that its local PSAPs have not made any requests for
     receiving Phase I or Phase II service. We encourage CVW to
     coordinate its efforts in connection with its upgrade with the
     PSAPs in its service area. In this way, CVW can ensure that
     community expectations are consistent with its projected plans for
     achieving compliance.

137. For the foregoing reasons, we grant CVW's request to extend from
     September 1, 2003 until December 31, 2005 the deadline to begin the
     sale and activation of location-capable handsets. We waive the
     interim benchmark dates for CVW to ensure that twenty-five and
     fifty percent of all new handset activations are location-capable.
     Finally, we grant an extension from November 30, 2004 until
     December 31, 2005 to ensure that one-hundred percent of all new
     handset activations are location-capable.[^342]

138. **Cordova Wireless Communications, Inc. (Cordova):** Cordova
     operates an analog network between the Chugach and Wrangell
     mountain ranges and the Gulf of Alaska, encompassing five square
     miles of land and two square miles of water.[^343] Cordova serves
     300 customers with two cell towers that are mainly directed out to
     sea to accommodate a commercial fishing-oriented customer
     base.[^344] Cordova elected a handset-based location solution, as
     it would be impossible to triangulate using only its two
     towers.[^345] Approximately seventy percent of Cordova's customers
     are commercial fisherman, and thus Cordova argued that these
     customers have an alternative means of contacting emergency
     services that may provide location information.[^346] Cordova
     stated that it was committed to eventually replacing its switch
     with a digital upgrade, but claimed that emergency location systems
     would be redundant for the fishing vessels used by its most of its
     customers, and that the \$1 million expense of a replacement switch
     and network upgrade would lead to bankruptcy.[^347] Cordova
     reported that it has not received any Phase I or Phase II PSAP
     requests, and that there is no public safety entity capable of
     utilizing Phase II data in its service area.[^348] Cordova stated
     that it may be in a position to implement Phase II as early as
     September 30, 2006.[^349] Cordova also indicated that it does not
     expect to meet the December 31, 2005 for achieving a ninety-five
     penetration rate for location-capable handsets.[^350]

139. *Benchmark Relief*. We understand that Cordova serves a small and
     sparsely-populated area, but the sparseness of that area may only
     amplify the need to provide E911 Phase II location information. Our
     concerns are somewhat allayed by the fact that many of the
     subscribers to Cordova's service have an alternative means of
     contacting emergency services that may provide location
     information. On the other hand, that necessarily means that its
     remaining land-based customers do not have such options available
     to them. We also are mindful of the financial costs described by
     Cordova involved with implementing a digital upgrade, its efforts
     to expand its network to generate more revenue,[^351] and the fact
     that no PSAP has made a request for either Phase I or Phase II
     service. Given its rural service area, we find it reasonable for
     Cordova to have chosen to pursue a handset-based solution, but
     Cordova has not indicated whether it has made any efforts to meet
     with vendors, and has not provided specific schedules and a clear
     path to full compliance with respect to its transition to a digital
     air interface. Cordova also has not indicated whether it can seek
     financing from federal, state, or local sources. Furthermore,
     Cordova is quite non-specific in terms of the relief it seeks, as
     it has not provided any dates for when it might anticipate being
     able to commence activation of location-capable handsets. Due to
     the shortcomings in Cordova's request, we are unable to grant
     Cordova the full relief that may be warranted.

140. Given that no PSAPs in Cordova's service area have requested E911
     service, however, and the particular factual, technical, and
     economic circumstances concerning Cordova's network, we will grant
     Cordova a limited extension of time to comply with the Commission's
     rules until such time it can file a request for waiver that meets
     our waiver standards. Specifically, we grant Cordova the following
     extensions from the Commission's interim benchmarks: (1) from
     September 1, 2003 until September 1, 2005 to begin selling and
     activating location-capable handset; (2) from November 30, 2003
     until September 1, 2005 to ensure that at least twenty-five percent
     of handsets activated are location-capable; (3) from May 31, 2004
     until December 1, 2005 to ensure that at least fifty percent of
     handsets activated are location-capable; and (4) from November 30,
     2004 until December 31, 2005 to ensure that one-hundred percent of
     handsets activated are location-capable.

141. Finally, we note that while we are sympathetic to Cordova's
     circumstances, we cannot afford Cordova the relief that it seeks
     without the submission of a waiver request that complies with our
     requirements. We therefore encourage Cordova, given the unique
     challenges it faces, to file a renewed request for waiver of our
     rules in accordance with the guidance we provide above for meeting
     our waiver standard.[^352]

142. **OTZ Telecommunications, Inc. (OTZ):** OTZ operates a single-cell
     TDMA system serving 175 customers in a small Eskimo community above
     the Arctic Circle supplied mainly by cargo planes.[^353] OTZ stated
     that location-capable TDMA handsets are not available and because
     of its low subscribership, it cannot afford to upgrade its network
     from TDMA to another digital network to begin selling
     location-capable handsets.[^354] OTZ estimated that the cost to
     upgrade its facilities would be \$1 million and would exceed \$5700
     per customer to cover its upfront switch replacement costs.[^355]
     As a result, OTZ asserted that it simply cannot afford to implement
     the network upgrades necessary to enable a Phase II solution.[^356]
     OTZ indicated that it has not received any Phase I or Phase II
     requests, nor is the single PSAP in its area equipped to handle
     receipt of wireless location information.[^357] OTZ requested that
     the deadlines to begin selling and activating handsets be extended
     until such time as a cost-effective solution is developed that does
     not prematurely negate OTZ's current plant investment, until an
     effective cost recovery mechanism is established that will mitigate
     the burdens on OTZ's customers of a technology overlay, or until
     OTZ's present equipment has reached the end of its useful life and
     needs replacement.[^358]

143. *Benchmark Relief*. We understand that OTZ serves a small, isolated
     and sparsely-populated area, but the sparseness of that area may
     only amplify the need to provide E911 Phase II location
     information. We also are mindful of the financial costs described
     by OTZ involved with implementing a digital upgrade, and the fact
     that the PSAP has not made a request for either Phase I or Phase II
     service, nor is it capable of receiving location data. Given its
     rural service area, we find it reasonable for OTZ to have chosen to
     pursue a handset-based solution, but OTZ has not indicated whether
     it has made any efforts to meet with vendors, and has not provided
     specific schedules and a clear path to full compliance with respect
     to its transition to a digital air interface. OTZ also has not
     indicated whether it can seek financing from federal, state, or
     local sources. Furthermore, OTZ has not provided specific schedules
     or any dates for when it might anticipate being able to commence
     activation of location-capable handsets. Due to the shortcomings in
     OTZ's request, we are unable to grant OTZ the full relief that may
     be warranted.

144. Given that the PSAP in OTZ's service area has not requested E911
     service, however, and the particular factual, technical, and
     economic circumstances concerning OTZ's network, we will grant OTZ
     a limited extension of time to comply with the Commission's rules
     until such time it can file a request for waiver that meets our
     waiver standards. Specifically, we grant OTZ the following
     extensions: (1) from September 1, 2003 until September 1, 2005 to
     begin selling and activating location-capable handset; (2) from
     November 30, 2003 until September 1, 2005 to ensure that at least
     twenty-five percent of handsets activated are location-capable; (3)
     from May 31, 2004 until December 1, 2005 to ensure that at least
     fifty percent of handsets activated are location-capable; and (4)
     from November 30, 2004 until December 31, 2005 to ensure that
     one-hundred percent of handsets activated are location-capable.

145. Finally, we note that while we are sympathetic to OTZ's
     circumstances, we cannot afford OTZ the relief that it seeks
     without the submission of a waiver request that complies with our
     requirements. We therefore encourage OTZ, given the unique
     challenges it faces, to file a renewed request for waiver of our
     rules in accordance with the guidance we provide above for meeting
     our waiver standard.[^359]

## Category 6: Other Requests

146. In this category, we address petitions filed by both network-based
     and handset-based carriers. The petitions present a range of
     relatively minor issues, including license transfers or other
     changed circumstances that make certain of these petitions moot, as
     well as requests for nominal benchmark relief.

147. **Alabama Wireless, Inc.:** On August 24, 2001, Alabama Wireless
     requested a waiver seeking additional time to deploy a
     handset-based Phase II solution.[^360] Subsequently, in an August
     29, 2003 letter, Alabama Wireless indicated that it sold its
     license to Verizon on January 19, 2002 and that its E911 request
     may thus be dismissed as moot.[^361] In this regard, Alabama
     Wireless filed a request to withdraw its petition.[^362]
     Accordingly, we dismiss Alabama Wireless' request for waiver as
     moot.

148. **Amarillo License, L.P. and High Plains Wireless, L.P. (Amarillo
     and High Plains):** Amarillo and High Plains provide Phase II
     service through a network-based solution.[^363] In January 2005,
     Amarillo and High Plains submitted a supplement to their earlier
     requests for an extension of time until June 30, 2005 to provide
     Phase II E911 service to the entire PSAP area within their service
     territories.[^364] Specifically, the supplement included a copy of
     an electronic mail message from the PSAP indicating its consent to
     the revised implementation schedule proposed by Amarillo and High
     Plains.[^365]

149. We find Amarillo and High Plains' extension request unnecessary. A
     carrier and a PSAP may establish deadlines different than those
     required under the Commission's rules.[^366] When a carrier and a
     PSAP reach such an agreement, a waiver of the Commission's rules is
     unnecessary. As the carriers and the PSAP have reached agreement on
     a revised implementation schedule, we dismiss as moot Amarillo's
     and High Plains' petition for waiver.

150. **Blanca Telephone Company (Blanca):** Blanca originally requested
     extension of the twenty-five percent benchmark from November 30,
     2003 to May 30, 2004, the fifty percent benchmark from May 31, 2004
     to November 30, 2004, the one-hundred percent benchmark from
     November 30, 2004 to May 30, 2005, and the ninety-five percent
     location-capable handset penetration benchmark from December 31,
     2005 until June 30, 2006.[^367] Blanca requested this relief
     because it had been told by its vendors that they would be unable
     to provide location-capable handsets in sufficient quantities to
     enable Blanca to meet the benchmark requirements.[^368] However,
     Blanca subsequently reported that it would in fact be able to order
     location-capable handsets in sufficient quantities by the end of
     November 2003.[^369] It thus modified its waiver request to seek an
     extension only of the November 30, 2003 deadline, until May 30,
     2004, to ensure that at least twenty-five percent of handsets
     activated are location-capable.[^370] Otherwise, Blanca expected to
     timely reach the fifty percent and one-hundred percent
     benchmarks.[^371]

151. It appears that Blanca has significantly accelerated its deployment
     of location-capable handsets beyond that required by the
     *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order* and has taken substantial,
     effective steps to comply with the Phase II rules. Accordingly, we
     find good cause to grant Blanca's request for a limited waiver of
     the November 30, 2003 deadline for ensuring that at least
     twenty-five percent of handsets activated are location-capable
     until May 30, 2004 benchmark. We dismiss as moot Blanca's August 1,
     2003 request for waiver of additional relief to extend the deadline
     for the fifty percent benchmark from May 31, 2004 to November 30,
     2004, the one-hundred percent benchmark from November 30, 2004 to
     May 30, 2005, and the ninety-five percent location-capable handset
     penetration benchmark from December 31, 2005 until June 30, 2006.

152. **ComScape Telecommunications of Raleigh-Durham License, Inc.
     (ComScape):** ComScape provides CDMA-based service in two regions
     in North Carolina. ComScape earlier had requested for its
     Wilmington License affiliate the same relief afforded other Tier
     III carriers under the Commission's *Non-Nationwide Carriers
     Order*.[^372] The *Order to Stay* granted this request, thus
     allowing additional time for its Wilmington License affiliate to
     comply with the E911 interim benchmarks.[^373] In its request being
     addressed herein, ComScape sought the same relief granted in the
     *Order to Stay* to its Wilmington License affiliate for its
     Raleigh-Durham affiliate.[^374] In a joint January 2004 Interim
     Report, ComScape stated that it had not received any PSAP requests
     but intended to meet any valid Phase II requests within six months
     of receipt.[^375] It also stated that location-capable handsets are
     available, that it would continue to obtain them, and that it
     anticipated that it will be able to comply with the Tier III
     deployment schedule, including the December 31, 2005 ninety-five
     percent handset penetration deadline.[^376] We grant ComScape's
     request to extend the relief granted in the *Order to Stay* to its
     Raleigh-Durham affiliate.

153. **Corr Wireless Communications, LLC (Corr):** Corr provides GSM and
     TDMA service in Alabama.[^377] It provides Phase II service through
     a network-based solution.[^378] Corr sought relief from the
     September 1, 2003 deadline to begin providing Phase II service to
     at least fifty percent of the PSAP's coverage area or population,
     as established by the *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*, to January
     15, 2004, in order to complete its initial deployment of
     network-based Phase II location solutions in response to PSAP
     requests.[^379] In its January 2004 Interim Report, Corr stated
     that it completed installation of the Phase II network-based system
     throughout its TDMA network in mid-December 2003, and that the
     system is fully operational.[^380] Corr also reported that
     installation and integration of the Phase II solution into Corr's
     GSM overlay network was expected shortly and that, as of January
     14, 2004, its vendor had declared the system ready for commercial
     application.

154. We find that relief is warranted in this case. Corr was granted an
     extension under the *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*, as well as a
     stay under the *Order to Stay*. While the stay was in place, Corr
     completed its network upgrade so that its system was fully
     operational. Based on the foregoing reasons, we grant Corr an
     extension from September 1, 2003 to January 15, 2004 to begin
     providing Phase II service to at least fifty percent of either the
     PSAP's coverage area or its population.

155. **Great Western Cellular Holdings, L.L.C. (GWCH):** GWCH filed a
     petition for waiver on November 6, 2002 seeking modification of the
     implementation deadlines.[^381] At that time, GWCH was in the
     process of building out its network and had only recently initiated
     service.[^382] In an August 1, 2003 report, GWCH stated that it had
     moved to a "carrier's carrier" business model, under which it would
     provide roaming services to other carriers' subscribers but would
     not have any subscribers of its own. [^383] GWCH requested an
     interim waiver of the Phase II rules while it completed its network
     build-out. [^384]

156. On March 19, 2004, however, GWCH filed a petition to withdraw its
     request without prejudice, citing recent favorable developments in
     its E911 compliance capabilities and efforts, particularly in the
     expected performance of a network-based solution.[^385] GWCH stated
     that it had selected a network-based solution vendor, was working
     with the Minnesota State 911 Project Manager to provide a plan to
     meet Phase II compliance by December 31, 2005,[^386] and had
     arranged an alternative deployment date in accordance with the
     Phase II rules.[^387] It therefore requested to withdraw its
     petition on the grounds that its request for relief was premature.
     [^388] We grant GWCH's petition to withdraw its petition for
     waiver.

157. **Minnesota Southern Cellular Telephone Company dba HickoryTech
     Wireless (Hickory Tech):** Hickory Tech operated a TDMA network in
     Minnesota. In an August 25, 2003 Petition, Hickory Tech stated that
     it would deploy a network-based solution and sought a waiver
     seeking additional time to complete deployment and testing and a
     waiver of the accuracy requirements until December 31, 2005.[^389]
     Hickory Tech also requested a waiver of the handset deployment
     requirements, in recognition of the possibility that it would
     implement a handset-based solution in some of its licensed areas in
     the future.[^390]

158. Subsequently, Hickory Tech was acquired by Western Wireless
     Corporation, a Tier II carrier employing a handset-based
     solution.[^391] According to Western Wireless, it had received
     approval of its E911 migration plan for Hickory Tech's service area
     from the Minnesota Statewide 9-1-1 Program Manager, and under this
     plan expected to complete Hickory Tech's migration and on-going
     E911 deployments by the end of June 2004.[^392] In subsequent
     reports, Western Wireless indicated that it has completed Phase II
     deployments covering nearly its entire network in Minnesota and had
     met all pending Phase II requests.[^393] In view of these changed
     circumstances, including the acquisition of Hickory Tech by Western
     Wireless, the change implemented by Western Wireless to a
     location-based technology, Western Wireless' agreement with the
     State of Minnesota on its deployment plan, and the reported
     successful Phase II deployment by Western Wireless, we dismiss the
     Hickory Tech petition as moot.

159. **Missouri RSA \# 5 Partnership dba Chariton Valley Wireless
     Services (Chariton Valley):** Chariton Valley operates a TDMA
     network in Missouri, recently completed a GSM overlay, and plans to
     employ a network-based location solution.[^394] Chariton Valley was
     granted relief in the *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order.* In August
     2003, Chariton Valley stated that on January 24, 2003 it had
     received one Phase II request in Macon County, Missouri but that an
     upgrade to its switch, originally scheduled for September 12, 2003,
     was delayed by its switch vendor until October 17, 2003.[^395]
     Chariton Valley requested a temporary Phase II waiver under which
     it would begin providing enhanced Phase II 911 services to at least
     fifty percent of the Macon County PSAP's coverage area or
     population on September 1, 2004, instead of by July 24, 2004 (six
     months following the PSAP's request) and to one-hundred percent of
     the Macon County PSAP's coverage area or population by September 1,
     2005, instead of by July 24, 2005 (eighteen months following the
     PSAP's request).[^396] For any new PSAP requests, Chariton Valley
     requested that its deadline for providing enhanced Phase II 911
     services to at least fifty percent of a PSAP's coverage area or
     population begin on September 1, 2004 or within six months of a
     PSAP request, whichever is later, and to one-hundred percent of the
     PSAP's coverage area or population by September 1, 2005 or within
     eighteen months of a PSAP request, whichever is later.[^397] In a
     January 2004 Interim Report, Chariton Valley stated that it would
     provide Phase II service to one-hundred percent of the Macon County
     PSAP service area by April 30, 2004, that it had not received any
     additional Phase II requests, and that it fully expected to be able
     to provide Phase II service within six months of any new Phase II
     requests.[^398]

160. On March 10, 2005, Chariton Valley reported substantially changed
     circumstances, citing to internal management problems, and mounting
     cost and accuracy issues that developed with its location solution
     vendor.[^399] As an initial matter, Chariton Valley updated its
     January 2004 Second Interim Report to indicate that it received two
     additional PSAP requests for Phase II service, from Shelby County
     on April 20, 2004, and from Chariton County on September 10,
     2004.[^400] Chariton Valley then reported that it would be unable
     to meet either of these new requests, as well as the initial Macon
     County request, until October 18, 2005.[^401] Accordingly, Chariton
     Valley now requests the following extensions of the requirement to
     begin providing E-911 Phase II services to at least fifty percent
     of a PSAP's coverage area or population: (1) with respect to the
     Macon County, from July 24, 2004 until October 18, 2005, (2) for
     Shelby County, from October 20, 2004 until October 18, 2005,
     and (3) for Chariton County, from March 10, 2005 until October
     18, 2005. With respect to Macon County only, Chariton Valley also
     sought relief from July 24, 2005 until October 18, 2005 to begin
     providing Phase II services to one-hundred percent of the PSAP's
     coverage area or population. For any new PSAP requests received by
     April 17, 2005, Chariton Valley requested an extension until
     October 18, 2005 to begin providing Phase II service to fifty
     percent of a PSAP's coverage area or population.[^402]

161. Chariton Valley has entered into discussions for a "first office
     application" with a new E-911 vendor that it believes can provide
     the most accurate, cost-effective, and timely Phase II solution,
     and now expects to have a Phase II solution implemented by October
     18, 2005. [^403] Although Chariton Valley's new General Manager has
     been keeping the Macon, Shelby, and Chariton County PSAPs apprised
     of its implementation schedule,[^404] neither the Macon County PSAP
     nor the Shelby County PSAP were willing to extend their
     requests.[^405] Notwithstanding its acknowledged inability to make
     "any measurable progress" with its former Phase II vendor,[^406]
     Chariton Valley stated that its new vendor's solution may prove to
     be relatively more accurate and affordable and thus of potential
     future benefit to similarly situated Tier III carriers.[^407] Most
     recently, Chariton Valley reported that it had the concurrence of
     all three PSAPs to its revised implementation schedule.[^408]

162. *Deployment of Network Equipment*. As an initial matter, we are
     concerned that Chariton Valley waited until March 10, 2005 to
     notify the Commission that it would not meet its previously
     reported date of April 30, 2004 by which it expected to be able to
     provide Phase II services. We caution carriers to keep us apprised
     should they fail to meet previously-reported implementation dates.
     In any event, under the Commission's E911 rules, a carrier and a
     PSAP may agree to a deployment schedule that allows for different
     timeframes than under the Commission's rules.[^409] As Chariton
     Valley and the PSAPs in Macon County, Shelby County, and Chariton
     County have reached such an agreement, we dismiss as moot Chariton
     Valley's petition for waiver.

163. **North Dakota PCS Alliance (Alliance):** Alliance was granted a
     stay in the October 10, 2003 *Order to Stay* based on a petition
     for relief filed on July 31, 2002, shortly after adoption of the
     *Non-Nationwide Carrier Order*.[^410] In a November 10, 2003
     letter, the North Dakota Network Company stated that it was granted
     relief in the *Non-Nationwide Carrier Order* and, as the
     successor-in-interest to Alliance, the request for relief in the
     Alliance Petition should be considered moot.[^411] Accordingly, we
     dismiss the Alliance Petition as moot.

164. **RSA 1 Limited Partnership dba Cellular 29 Plus (Cellular 29):**
     Cellular 29 provides analog and digital CDMA service in Iowa, and
     has selected a handset-based solution. Cellular 29 sought waiver of
     the September 1, 2003 benchmark to begin selling and activating
     location-capable handsets.[^412] According to its filings, Cellular
     29 began selling and activating location-capable handsets in late
     October or early November 2003.[^413] The relief sought by Cellular
     29 is minimal, as it was able to begin selling and activating
     location-capable handsets within two months of September 1, 2003.
     Additionally, as Cellular 29 indicated in its supplement, at the
     time of its request, none of the PSAPs in its service area had
     requested either Phase I or Phase II service.[^414] For these
     reasons, we find good cause to grant Cellular 29's request for
     waiver of the September 1, 2003 benchmark.

165. **Sussex Cellular, Inc. (Sussex):** Sussex operates an AMPS-based
     system and has elected to provide Phase II location information
     through a network-based solution.[^415] In an earlier filing,
     Sussex indicated that it would employ a handset-based solution for
     its analog network in rural New Jersey and requested a waiver of
     the benchmark requirements.[^416] Sussex has no PSAP requests for
     Phase II service.[^417] Because Sussex has elected to fulfill its
     E911 obligations through a network-based system, it is no longer
     required to comply with the handset deployment deadlines. We
     therefore dismiss as moot its request for relief from those
     requirements.

166. **Rural Telecommunication Group (RTG) Petition:** RTG is a trade
     association representing rural carriers.[^418] On August 29, 2003,
     RTG filed a petition requesting a waiver and temporary limited stay
     of portions of the wireless E911 rules as they applied to small
     carriers with 100,000 or fewer subscribers, as of December 31,
     2003, operating in rural areas.[^419] RTG proposed revised
     schedules for these carriers based upon the air interface and
     location technology a carrier employs.[^420] For those carriers
     with fewer than three cell sites in a licensed service area and
     deploying a network-based solution, RTG requested that they be
     allowed an extension of twenty-four months of a PSAP request to
     provide Phase II service to one-hundred percent of a PSAP's
     coverage area or population.[^421] For carriers with three or more
     cell sites, but with a sufficiently low "Tower Density
     Factor,"[^422] RTG also requested that they be allowed twenty-four
     months from a PSAP's request to come into compliance with the
     accuracy standards, provided such carriers commit to deploying
     state-of-the-art network-based Phase II technology.[^423]

167. RTG also proposed an alternative handset deployment schedules for
     Tier IV carriers. Specifically, RTG requested a six-month extension
     of the Tier III handset deployment benchmarks for CDMA carriers
     relying on a handset-based solution, and a twelve-month extension
     for TDMA carriers that are converting to CDMA.[^424] Carries who
     were relying on a CDMA handset solution, and received a PSAP
     request on or before September 1, 2003, would be given six months
     of the PSAP request, or by March 1, 2004, whichever is later, to
     deploy Phase II capability.[^425] Tier IV CDMA carriers who were
     formerly relying on TDMA technology, and who receive a PSAP request
     on or before March 1, 2004, must meet these requirements within six
     months of a request or by September 1, 2004, whichever is
     later.[^426] Tier IV carriers relying on GSM handsets would be
     given an additional twenty-four months to meet the handset
     deployment and penetration benchmarks established for Tier III
     carriers.[^427] Tier IV carriers relying on a GSM handset solution
     who have already received a PSAP request prior to March 1, 2005
     would be granted a stay until six months after receipt of the PSAP
     request or by September 1, 2005, whichever is later.[^428]

168. Alternatively, RTG proposed making handset deployment deadlines
     contingent upon a PSAP request for Phase II service.[^429]
     Specifically, once a valid PSAP request is received, a carrier must
     begin selling and activating location-capable handsets no later
     than six months after receipt; ensure that at least twenty-five
     percent of handsets activated are location-capable no later than
     nine months after receipt, ensure that at least fifty percent are
     location-capable no later than fifteen months after receipt, ensure
     one-hundred percent no later than twenty-one months after receipt,
     and achieve ninety-five percent penetration no later than
     fifty-seven months after receipt.[^430]

169. For the reasons discussed below, we deny RTG's requested relief. In
     this *Order*, and throughout the course of this proceeding, the
     Commission has provided Tier III carriers additional amounts of
     time to comply with the Phase II requirements. The Commission has
     granted such relief only in cases where carriers provided the
     Commission with concrete, specific plans, including technical data
     and sufficient and specific factual information. In contrast, RTG's
     petition does not provide the type of specific information we need
     to properly evaluate whether granting relief is warranted. For
     example, RTG does not identify the particular carriers to whom its
     request would apply, nor does it explain why the carriers it
     represents cannot meet the deployment or accuracy requirements.
     While RTG raises valid issues concerning the problems facing rural
     carriers as a general matter, a more individually tailored approach
     would best address the twin goals of ensuring that E-911 services
     are made available as soon as possible while avoiding unnecessary
     burdens on rural carriers.

170. In addition, we find that RTG's proposed relief, as it applies to
     carriers employing a network-based solution, to be overbroad. RTG's
     proposal would apply to all carriers who elect a network-based
     solution, regardless of whether any carrier could comply with the
     Phase II requirements by employing an alternative solution, such as
     a handset-based solution. Further, RTG's claim that deployment of
     network-based solutions would require substantial resources does
     not account for the fact that in many cases carriers may be
     reimbursed from state funds or other sources.[^431] RTG also
     presents insufficient evidence to support the specific definitions
     it proposes and does not fully explain the connection between cell
     site density and the requested extensions in meeting the accuracy
     requirements. For example, RTG does not explain how the requested
     extension would assist the carriers in eventually meeting the
     accuracy requirements.

171. We also find that RTG's proposed alternate deployment schedule for
     carriers employing a handset-based solution is overbroad. RTG's
     proposal would grant additional time to carriers, even though our
     record indicates location-capable CDMA handsets and associated
     network equipment are now readily available.[^432] Additionally,
     the general delays in handset deployment sought by RTG could result
     in unnecessary and unjustified delays in Phase II implementation
     for carriers who do not in fact require further relief. For the
     foregoing reasons, we deny RTG's request for relief.

## Reporting Requirements

172. To assist in monitoring Tier III carriers' E911 deployment
     progress, we require, as a condition of the relief granted to
     individual Tier III carriers in this *Order*, that each such
     carrier file an interim status report (Interim Report). The Interim
     Report will be due on September 1, 2005, by which time we expect
     these carriers to have made significant progress towards deploying
     E911 service. This report is intended to provide specific,
     verifiable information to allow us to monitor Tier III carriers'
     progress closely and determine whether Tier III carriers are on
     track for compliance with each of the benchmarks of this *Order*
     and with other applicable provisions of the E911 rules. The Interim
     Report will include the following information: (1) the number of
     Phase I and Phase II requests received from Public Safety Answering
     Points (PSAPs) (including those the carrier may consider invalid)
     and the status of those requests, including whether the carrier and
     the PSAP have reached an alternative deployment date; (2) the
     carrier's specific technology choice; (3) status on ordering and/or
     installing necessary network equipment; (4) the date on which Phase
     II service was/will first be available in the carrier's network;
     and (5) if the carrier is pursuing a handset-based solution, (a)
     whether ALI-capable handsets are available, and whether the carrier
     has obtained ALI-capable handsets or has agreements in place to
     obtain these handsets; and (b) information on the carrier's
     progress towards ensuring that ninety-five percent of its
     subscriber base has location-capable handsets.

# CONCLUSION

173. We remain committed to ensuring that E911 services, and
     particularly Phase II ALI services, are made available to the
     public as quickly as possible. However, we must balance this goal
     with the financial and technical limitations faced by certain
     carriers. Therefore, we granted relief of Phase II implementation
     deadlines only in cases where carriers have sufficiently met our
     stringent standards for obtaining a waiver of our rules. We
     strongly encourage carriers to coordinate their implementation
     efforts with the affected PSAPs to ensure that the expectations of
     public safety agencies are aligned with the carriers' deployment
     plans.

174. We remind carriers that the Commission has not hesitated to
     exercise its enforcement authority in circumstances in which such
     action served the public interest.[^433] The Commission trusts that
     those carriers afforded relief will now focus their resources on
     overcoming any obstacles that they may face in ensuring timely
     compliance with their current E911 deployment obligations. The
     Commission expects that any Tier III carrier that has been granted
     relief in this *Order* will adhere to its revised deployment
     schedule. In the event that carriers fail to take the concrete
     steps necessary to implement, in good faith, any revised deployment
     schedule, the Commission may refer such carriers to the Enforcement
     Bureau for appropriate action.

#  ORDERING CLAUSES

175. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the Commission's exercise
     of authority under Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, that the
     foregoing *Order* IS ADOPTED.

176. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the requests for relief of the wireless
     E911 rules by ACS Wireless, Inc.; Cellular Phone of Kentucky, Inc.;
     Cordova Wireless Communications, Inc.; Edge Wireless Licenses, LLC;
     Litchfield County Cellular, Inc. dba Ramcell of Kentucky, LLC; Key
     Communications, LLC and Keystone Wireless, LLC; Missouri RSA No. 7
     Limited Partnership dba Mid-Missouri Cellular; OTZ
     Telecommunications, Inc.; Sagebrush Cellular, Inc., Nemont
     Communications, Inc., and Triangle Communication System, Inc.; and
     South Canaan Cellular Communications Company, L.P. ARE GRANTED TO
     THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN BUT ARE OTHERWISE DENIED.

177. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the request for relief filed by Alaska
     DigiTel, LLC of the network equipment deployment requirements IS
     DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the request for relief filed by
     Alaska DigiTel, LLC of the Phase II benchmark requirements IS
     DENIED.

178. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the request for relief filed by
     Cellular Mobile Systems of St. Cloud, LLC of the network equipment
     deployment requirements IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the
     request for relief filed by Cellular Mobile Systems of St. Cloud,
     LLC of the Phase II benchmark requirements IS GRANTED.

179. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the request for relief filed by N.E.
     Colorado Cellular, Inc. of the network equipment deployment
     requirements IS DISMISSED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART and the
     request for relief filed by N.E. Colorado Cellular, Inc. of the
     accuracy requirements IS DENIED.

180. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the requests for relief of the wireless
     E911 rules filed by Arctic Slope Telephone Association Cooperative,
     Inc.; Cellular South Licenses, Inc.; ComScape Telecommunications of
     Raleigh-Durham License, Inc.; Copper Valley Wireless, Inc.; Corr
     Wireless Communications LLC; Custer Telephone Cooperative,
     Inc.**;** Enterprise Wireless PCS, L.L.C.; Highland Cellular, LLC;
     Iowa RSA 2 Limited Partnership dba Lyrix Wireless; Leaco Rural
     Telephone Cooperative, Inc.; North Carolina RSA 3 dba Carolina West
     Wireless; Northwest Missouri Cellular Limited Partnership; RSA 1
     Limited Partnership dba Cellular 29 Plus; South No. 5 RSA LP dba
     Brazos Cellular Communications, LLC; Wilkes Cellular, Inc.; and
     Wireless Communications Venture ARE GRANTED.

181. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the request for relief filed by
     Southern Illinois RSA Partnership dba First Cellular of Southern
     Illinois IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

182. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Petition for Limited and Temporary
     Waiver of Deadlines for Implementation of Phase II E911 on the Same
     Basis as Other Tier III Wireless Carriers, and for Waiver of *King
     County* Demarcation Point Ruling filed by Commnet Wireless, Inc.
     *et al.* IS DENIED.

183. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the requests for relief of the E911
     Phase II rules filed by Alabama Wireless, Inc.; Amarillo License,
     L.P. and High Plains Wireless, L.P.; Minnesota Southern Cellular
     Telephone Company dba HickoryTech Wireless; Missouri RSA #5
     Partnership dba Chariton Valley Wireless Services; North Dakota PCS
     Alliance; and Sussex Cellular, Inc. ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT.

184. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the additional time requested by Blanca
     Telephone Company to meet the twenty-five percent benchmark for
     location-capable handset activations IS GRANTED and that its
     requests for further relief ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT.

185. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the March 19, 2004 Petition to Withdraw
     by Great Western Cellular Holdings, L.L.C. IS GRANTED and its
     November 6, 2002 Petition for Waiver IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.

186. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Waiver and Request for
     Temporary Limited Stay filed by the Rural Telecommunications Group
     IS DENIED.

187. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those Tier III carriers granted
     individual waiver relief herein must file an Interim Report on
     their progress and anticipated compliance with the terms and
     conditions set forth herein and with the Commission's wireless E911
     rules.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch\
Secretary

[^1]: Where we grant relief for deadlines that have occurred in the
    past, we grant such relief *nunc pro tunc*. *Nunc pro tunc* is a
    phrase applied to acts allowed to be done after the time when they
    should be done, with a retroactive effect, *i.e.*, with the same
    effect as if regularly done.

[^2]: Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) is a digital wireless
    telephone standard that, though mainly used in the United States,
    has been deployed around the world.

[^3]: The carriers in this group are: ACS Wireless, Inc.; Alaska
    DigiTel, LLC; Cellular Mobile Systems of St. Cloud, LLC; Cellular
    Phone of Kentucky; Cellular South Licenses, Inc.; Custer Telephone
    Cooperative, Inc.; Iowa RSA 2 Limited Partnership dba Lyrix
    Wireless; Leaco Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc.; Litchfield County
    Cellular, Inc. dba Ramcell of Kentucky; Missouri RSA No. 7 Limited
    Partnership dba Mid-Missouri Cellular; North Carolina RSA 3 dba
    Carolina West; Northwest Missouri Cellular Limited Partnership;
    Sagebrush Cellular, Nemont Communications, Inc., and Triangle
    Communications Systems, Inc.; South Canaan Cellular Communications
    Company, L.P.; South No. 5 RSA LP dba Brazos Cellular
    Communications, LLC; Wilkes Cellular, Inc.; and Wireless
    Communications Venture. Unless otherwise noted, all carrier
    petitions and reports are filed in CC Docket No. 94-102 and may be
    viewed in the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at:
    http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi.

[^4]: The carriers in this category include: Highland Cellular, LLC;
    N.E. Colorado Cellular, Inc.; and Southern Illinois RSA Partnership
    dba First Cellular of Illinois.

[^5]: These carriers jointly filed and include Commnet Wireless, Inc.,
    Commnet of Arizona, LLC, Commnet of Delaware, LLC, Elbert County
    Wireless, LLC, Chama Wireless, LLC, Excomm, LLC, Commnet PCS, Inc.,
    MoCelCo, LLC, Tennessee Cellular Telephone Company, Commnet Capital,
    LLC, Comment of Florida, LLC, and Prairie Wireless, LLC.

[^6]: *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    *Order on Reconsideration*, 17 FCC Rcd 14789 (2002) (*King County
    Order on Reconsideration*).

[^7]: The Global Systems for Mobile (GSM) digital wireless telephone
    standard is used in the United States, as well as in Europe.

[^8]: The carriers in this group are: Arctic Slope Telephone Association
    Cooperative, Inc.; Edge Wireless Licenses, LLC; Key Communication,
    LLC and Keystone Wireless, LLC; and Enterprise Wireless PCS, L.L.C.

[^9]: Compared with CDMA and GSM, Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA)
    is an earlier-generation digital wireless telephone standard used in
    the United States. The Analog Mobile Phone System (AMPS) standard
    was the initial wireless telephone standard used in the United
    States.

[^10]: These carriers include Copper Valley Wireless, Inc.; Cordova
    Wireless Communications, Inc.; and OTZ Telecommunications, Inc.

[^11]: *See* RTG Petition for Waiver and Request for Temporary Limited
    Stay of Section 20.18 of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed Aug. 29, 2003.

[^12]: Tier III carriers are defined as non-nationwide Commercial Mobile
    Radio Service (CMRS) providers with no more than 500,000 subscribers
    as of the end of 2001. *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules to
    Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems,
    Phase II Compliance Deadlines for Non-Nationwide Carriers, CC Docket
    No. 94-102, *Order to Stay*, 17 FCC Rcd 14841, 14848 ¶ 22 (2002)
    (*Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*). By comparison, Tier II carriers
    are those not among the five carriers with national footprints (the
    Tier I carriers) and that had over 500,000 subscribers as of the end
    of 2001. *See id*. at 14843, 14847 ¶¶ 7, 22.

[^13]: Network-based location solutions employ equipment and/or software
    added to wireless carrier networks to calculate and report the
    location of handsets dialing 911. These solutions do not require
    changes or special hardware or software in wireless handsets. *See*
    47 C.F.R. § 20.3(c), *Network-based Location Technology*.

[^14]: Handset-based location solutions employ special
    location-determining hardware and/or software in wireless handsets,
    often in addition to network upgrades, to identify and report the
    location of handsets calling 911. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.3(c),
    *Location-Capable Handsets.*

[^15]: Hybrid solutions combine network-based equipment with
    handset-based location technologies to provide more robust methods
    of determining the location of a caller through the use of multiple
    inputs.  For example, Verizon Wireless has deployed an assisted-GPS
    (A-GPS) system combined with an advanced forward link trilateration
    (A-FLT) system. *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
    Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Request
    for Waiver by Verizon Wireless, CC Docket No. 94-102, *Order*, 16
    FCC Rcd 18364, 18366, 18370 ¶¶ 8, 17 (2001).

[^16]: The standards for Phase II location accuracy and reliability are
    as follows: (1) for network-based technologies, 100 meters for 67
    percent of calls, and 300 meters for 95 percent of calls, and (2)
    for handset-based technologies, 50 meters for 67 percent of calls,
    and 150 meters for 95 percent of calls. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(h).

[^17]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 20.18(f), (g)(2). Specifically, licensees who
    employ a network-based location technology must provide Phase II
    E911 service to at least fifty percent of their coverage area or
    fifty percent of their population beginning October 1, 2001, or
    within six months of a PSAP request, whichever is later; and to
    one-hundred percent of their coverage area or one-hundred percent of
    their population within eighteen months of such a request or by
    October 1, 2002, whichever is later. Licensees who employ a
    handset-based location technology must install any hardware and/or
    software in their networks to enable the provision of Phase II
    service beginning October 1, 2001, or within six months of a PSAP
    request, whichever is later.

[^18]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(g)(1).

[^19]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(g)(1).

[^20]: *See Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 14852-14853 ¶¶
    32-33. The Commission also granted relief for Tier II carriers. *See
    id*. at 14849 ¶¶ 26-27.

[^21]: *See* *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 14852 ¶ 32.

[^22]: *See id*. at 14852-53 ¶ 33.

[^23]: *Id*.

[^24]: Carriers which filed later requests for extensions are: Amarillo
    License, L.P. and High Plains Wireless, L.P. (jointly); ComScape
    Telecommunications of Wilmington License, Inc.; Duluth PCS, Inc.;
    Elkhart Telephone Co. dba Epic Touch Co.; Litchfield County
    Cellular, Inc. dba Ramcell of Oregon; North Carolina RSA 1
    Partnership; NSP LC; and Texas RSA 15B2 Limited Partnership dba Five
    Star Wireless.

[^25]: Carriers that requested additional relief from that granted in
    the *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order* are: Arctic Slope Telephone
    Association Cooperative, Inc.; Bachow/Coastel, L.L.C.; Blanca
    Telephone Company; Cellular Mobile Systems of St. Cloud, LLC; Copper
    Valley Wireless; Cordova Wireless; Corr Wireless Communications,
    LLC; Edge Wireless; Highland Cellular, LLC; Iowa RAS 2 Limited
    Partnership dba Lyrix Wireless; Leaco Rural Telephone Cooperative,
    Inc.; Minnesota Southern Wireless Company dba HickoryTech; Missouri
    RSA No. 5 Partnership dba Chariton Valley; Missouri RSA No. 7
    Limited Partnership dba Mid-Missouri Cellular; N.E. Colorado
    Cellular, Inc., NECO PCS, Inc., and Wireless II, LLC; OTZ
    Telecommunications, Inc.; Public Service Cellular, Inc. and
    Enterprise Wireless PCS, L.L.C.; RSA 1 Limited Partnership dba
    Cellular 29 Plus; Sagebrush Cellular, Inc., Nemont Communications,
    Inc., and Triangle Communication Systems, Inc.; South Canaan
    Cellular Communications Company, L.P.; South No. 5 RSA LP dba Brazos
    Cellular Communications, LLC; Sussex Cellular, Inc.; Wilkes
    Cellular, Inc.; and Wireless Communications Venture.

[^26]: *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    *Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd 20987 (2003) (*Order to Stay*). Tier III
    carriers granted relief under the *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order* or
    the *Order to Stay* must file annual reports detailing: (1) the
    number of Phase I and Phase II requests from PSAPs (including those
    the carrier may consider invalid); (2) the carrier's specific
    technology choice (*i.e*., network-based or handset-based solution,
    as well as the type of technology used); (3) the status on ordering
    and/or installing necessary network equipment; (4) information on
    whether ALI-capable handsets are now available, and whether the
    carrier has obtained ALI-capable handsets or has agreements in place
    to obtain these handsets (if the carrier is pursuing a handset-based
    solution); (5) the estimated date on which Phase II service will
    first be available in the carrier's network; and (6) information on
    whether the carrier is on schedule to meet the ultimate
    implementation date of December 31, 2005 (if the carrier is pursuing
    a handset-based solution). *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*, 17 FCC
    Rcd at 14843 ¶ 35; *Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20997-98 ¶ 30.

[^27]: *See* *Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20989 ¶ 3.

[^28]: *See id.* at 20994-96 ¶¶ 17-21.

[^29]: *See Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 14846 ¶ 20;
    *Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20987 ¶ 2.

[^30]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. *See also* Section 1.925 of the rules, 47 C.F.R.
    § 1.925(b)(3).

[^31]: *See WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1969), *appeal
    after remand*, 459 F.2d 1203 (D.C. Cir. 1972), *cert. denied*, 409
    U.S. 1027 (1972) (*WAIT Radio*); *see also Northeast Cellular Tel.
    Co. v. FCC*, 897 F.2d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1990). 

[^32]: *See* *WAIT Radio*, 418 F.2d 1159.

[^33]: *See Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20996-97 ¶¶ 22-29.

[^34]: *See id*. at 20996-97 ¶ 25.

[^35]: *Id.* at 20997 ¶ 26 (citing *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*, 17
    FCC Rcd at 14853 ¶ 41).

[^36]: Id. at 20997 ¶ 27.

[^37]: *See id*. at 20997 ¶ 29. We note that the Commission generally is
    disinclined to find that financial hardship alone is a sufficient
    reason for an extension of the E911 implementation deadlines. *Id.*

[^38]: *See id*.

[^39]: *See id*. at 20997 ¶ 28. The Commission advised carriers that
    they should provide supporting documentation of their efforts to
    coordinate with the PSAPs or E911 coordinators as evidence of their
    good faith efforts. *Id.*

[^40]: National Telecommunications and Information Administration
    Organization Act -- Amendment, Pub. L. No. 108-494, 118 Stat. 3986
    (2004).

[^41]: *Id.* at § 107, 118 Stat. 3986, 3991.

[^42]: The *ENHANCE 911 Act* defines a "qualified Tier III carrier" as
    "a provider of commercial mobile service (as defined in section
    332(d) of the Communications Act or 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d)) that had
    500,000 or fewer subscribers as of December 31, 2001." *Id.* at §
    107(b), 118 Stat. 3986, 3991.

[^43]: A-GPS location technologies have two components: the handset,
    which contains a GPS chip, and network equipment, which assists the
    GPS chip in locating the caller and delivering that location
    information to the PSAP.

[^44]: Sprint began activating only location-capable handsets in June
    2003. As of August 2, 2004, it offered more than twenty different
    GPS-enabled handset models, and sold over twenty-six million
    GPS-enabled handsets. *See* Sprint Eleventh Quarterly E911
    Implementation Report, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 2, 2004, at
    6. As of December 31, 2003, Verizon Wireless offered only
    A-GPS-capable handsets. On February 1, 2005, the company stated that
    these handsets included all thirty-one handset models then currently
    sold, and that it planned to continue to add more A-GPS capable
    phones. *See* Verizon Wireless Enhanced 911 Status Report, CC Docket
    No. 94-102, filed Feb. 1, 2005, at 2.

[^45]: ALLTEL Communications reported that as of November 1, 2003,
    ninety-eight percent of new handset activations were A-GPS-equipped
    and that it was offering twelve A-GPS handset models. ALLTEL
    believed it met the May 31, 2004 Tier II threshold requirements that
    one-hundred percent of all new digital handsets must be
    location-capable. *See* ALLTEL Communications, Inc. E-911 Eighth
    Quarterly Report, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 3, 2004, at 2. As
    of November 30, 2003, Leap Wireless reported that eighty-six percent
    of handsets it sold were location-capable and that 99.44 percent of
    handsets were location-capable as of May 30, 2004. Leap further
    indicated that Phase II was deployed to eighty-one PSAPs in five
    states as of July 30, 2004. *See* Leap Wireless Eighth E911
    Quarterly Report, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 1, 2004, at 1-2.
    As of April 2004, Qwest Wireless reported that all handsets sold and
    activated were location-capable. *See* Qwest Wireless LLC
    Implementation Status Report, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 2,
    2004, at 3. As of May 2004, United States Cellular reported that
    over ninety-five percent of the total handsets it sold were
    location-capable and that Phase II was deployed to 185 PSAPs. *See*
    United States Cellular Corporation Quarterly E911 Implementation
    Report, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 2, 2004, at 5-6. As of June
    2004, Western Wireless reported that nineteen models it sold have
    A-GPS capability and that all but "a few" handsets were GPS-capable
    as of June 2004. *See* Quarterly Report of Western Wireless
    Corporation on its Enhanced 911 Phase II Deployment, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed Aug. 2, 2004, at 2-3.

[^46]: As of the close of the 2nd Quarter of 2004, Sprint reported that
    it had deployed Phase II capability to a total of 1041 PSAPs in
    thirty-two states and the District of Columbia. *See* Sprint
    Eleventh Quarterly E911 Implementation Report, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    filed Aug. 2, 2004 at i. Verizon Wireless reported that, as of April
    15, 2004, it provided Phase II service to 1,285 PSAPs in
    thirty-three states. *See* Verizon Wireless Enhanced 911 Status
    Report, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed July 30, 2004 at 1.

[^47]: *See* ACS Wireless Petition for Limited Waiver and Forbearance,
    CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Nov. 14, 2003 (ACSW Waiver Petition).
    ACSW submitted that its CDMA deployment will proceed in three
    stages: (1) December 31, 2003 for completion of coverage of
    Anchorage and Matanuska Valley (fifty percent of Alaska's population
    and over fifty percent of ACSW's subscriber base); (2) December 31,
    2004 for coverage of all other major population centers including
    Fairbanks, Juneau, and the Kenai Peninsula (seventy-five percent of
    Alaska's population and over eighty-five percent of ACSW's
    subscriber base); and (3) December 31, 2005 for remaining coverage
    areas, including remote locations and smaller-populated communities.
    In an update filed on January 14, 2005, ACSW indicated that it had
    substantially completed Stages I and II. ACSW reported, however,
    that it will need to revise its Stage III deployment to push out the
    construction of the twenty-nine remaining sites until December 31,
    2006 due to budgetary constraints and the short construction season
    in Alaska, specifically in the very remote and rural areas. *See*
    Update to ACS Wireless Petition for Limited Waiver and Forbearance,
    CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Jan. 14, 2005 (ACSW Waiver Petition
    Update).

[^48]: *See* ACSW Waiver Petition at 12. In earlier filings, ACSW
    requested relief from the interim benchmarks so that it could deploy
    its CDMA network. *See* ACS Wireless Petition for Limited Waiver, CC
    Docket No. 94-102, filed Dec. 3, 2001. ACSW was granted a stay
    consistent with the dates set forth in the *Non-Nationwide Carriers
    Order*.

[^49]: *See* ACS Wireless' Supplement to its Petition for Limited Waiver
    and Forbearance, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Jan. 26, 2005 at 7-8
    (ACSW 2005 Supplement).

[^50]: *Id.* at 8.

[^51]: *Id*. at 11-13. ACSW's forbearance request, as made in the ACSW
    Waiver Petition and ACSW Waiver Petition Update, was addressed
    separately and denied. *See* Petition for Forbearance From E911
    Accuracy Standards Imposed on Tier III Carriers For Locating
    Wireless Subscribers Under Rule Section 20.18(h); Petition for
    Limited Waiver and Forbearance by ACS Wireless, Inc., *Order*, DA
    05-420 (PSCID rel. Feb. 14, 2005).

[^52]: *See* ACSW Waiver Petition at 12; ACSW Waiver Petition Update at
    4.

[^53]: *See supra* ¶ 10.

[^54]: *See* ACSW 2005 Supplement at 4.

[^55]: *See id.* at 13; ACSW Waiver Petition Update at 4.

[^56]: *See* ACSW 2005 Supplement at 2. ACSW did report that it received
    a request for Phase II service from the Anchorage PSAP. The
    Anchorage PSAP has requested that ACSW begin delivering Phase I and
    Phase II information by February 14, 2005. ACSW reported that it
    will comply with that request. *See* ACSW Waiver Petition Update at
    4.

[^57]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(g)(1)(iv).

[^58]: We note that where we grant relief of the interim
    location-capable handset deployment benchmarks, we do not negate the
    independent obligation to install any necessary hardware or software
    into the network to respond to a valid PSAP request for Phase II
    service.

[^59]: We note that ACSW requests that it be allowed until May 30, 2005
    to ensure that *ninety* percent of all new handset activations in
    Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska are location-capable and until
    December 31, 2005 to ensure that *ninety* percent of all new handset
    activations statewide are location-capable. Our rules do not set
    forth a benchmark to ensure that ninety percent of new handset
    activations are location-capable; rather, our rules contemplate
    that, ultimately, one-hundred percent of new handset activations are
    location-capable. We require that ACSW adhere to this one-hundred
    percent benchmark.

[^60]: *See* ACSW 2005 Supplement at 2.

[^61]: *See id.* at 4. For example, ACSW pointed to the lack of highways
    that cannot accommodate large trucks delivering CDMA equipment and
    the corresponding need to barge the equipment to the communities and
    use helicopters to transport the completed site to the designated
    locations. ACSW added that poor weather conditions common to the
    area and the short construction season further hamper its efforts to
    complete its CDMA build-out to remote areas. *See id*. at 4-5, 8-9.

[^62]: *See id*. at 8.

[^63]: *See id*. at 9. ACSW added that there are no local PSAPs for many
    of the smaller communities in its service area. *Id*.

[^64]: Pursuant to the *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*, Tier III
    carriers are required to ensure that one-hundred percent of handsets
    activated are location-capable by November 30, 2004, and that they
    achieve ninety-five percent penetration of location-capable handsets
    among their subscribers by December 31, 2005. *See* *Non-Nationwide
    Carriers Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 14852-53 ¶ 33.

[^65]: Our decision does not preclude ACSW from seeking additional
    relief of the handset penetration deadline under the standard
    articulated in the *ENHANCE 911 Act*. *See supra* ¶ 11.

[^66]: *See* Alaska DigiTel, LLC Request for a Limited Waiver and
    Extension of the Commission's Phase II E911 Rules, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed Aug. 29, 2003 (Alaska DigiTel Waiver Petition).

[^67]: *Id*. at 2-3.

[^68]: *Id*.

[^69]: *Id*.

[^70]: *See* Alaska DigiTel, LLC Enhanced 911 Tier III Interim Report,
    CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Jan. 15, 2004, at 3 (Alaska DigiTel 2004
    Interim Report).

[^71]: *Id*.

[^72]: *See id*. at 4.

[^73]: *Id*.

[^74]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 20.18(d), (g)(2).

[^75]: Alaska DigiTel states that it received a combined Phase I and
    Phase II request from the Anchorage, Alaska PSAP on May 15, 2003,
    but was later informed that the city was not prepared to implement
    E911 and would issue a revised notice once it could process E911
    calls. *See* Alaska DigiTel Waiver Petition at 3-4.

[^76]: *See supra* ¶ 10.

[^77]: Alaska Statutes 29.35.131, 911 Surcharge.

[^78]: *See Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20997 ¶ 29. Alaska DigiTel
    only stated that it would be premature to enter into any agreements
    with handset vendors until it has upgraded its CDMA network. *See*
    Alaska DigiTel Waiver Petition at 4; Alaska DigiTel 2004 Interim
    Report at 2.

[^79]: *See* Alaska DigiTel 2004 Interim Report at 1.

[^80]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(g). *See supra* ¶ 5 (discussing the
    modified deployment schedule for Tier III carriers).

[^81]: We further advise Alaska DigitTel that if it anticipates that it
    cannot comply with the December 31, 2005 handset penetration
    deadline, it should file an appropriate and timely request for
    relief, including under the standard articulated in the *ENHANCE 911
    Act*. *See supra* ¶ 11.

[^82]: *See* Cellular Mobile Systems of St. Cloud, LLC Petition for
    Waiver of Section 20.18(g) of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed Aug. 28, 2003 (CMS Waiver Petition).

[^83]: *See id.* at 7 n.16.

[^84]: *See* CMS Waiver Petition at 9; Amendment to Cellular Mobile
    Systems of St. Cloud, LLC Petition for Waiver of Section 20.18(g) of
    the Commission's Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed June 30, 2004 at
    1-2 (CMS Amendment).

[^85]: *See* CMS Waiver Petition at 9 n.24. However, CMS noted that it
    is possible that it might not meet the December 31, 2005 handset
    penetration deadline. *See* Second Interim Report Regarding E911
    Phase II Deployment: Cellular Mobile Systems of St. Cloud, LLC, CC
    Docket No. 94-102, filed Jan. 14, 2004 at 2-3 (CMS Second Interim
    Report). In the event that CMS anticipates that it cannot comply
    with the December 31, 2005 handset penetration deadline, CMS must
    file an appropriate and timely request for relief.

[^86]: *See* CMS Second Interim Report at 1. CMS reported that it
    received a "blanket request" from the State of Minnesota for both
    Phase I and Phase II service, but that the Phase II component is not
    a valid request because the PSAPs in its service area are not
    capable of receiving Phase II information. *See id.*

[^87]: *See* *id.* at 2.

[^88]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(j).

[^89]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(g)(2).

[^90]: Minnesota coordinates its E911 deployment efforts through a
    central state administrator.

[^91]: CMS Waiver Petition at 7 (*citing* Revision of the Commission's
    Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling
    Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, *Fourth Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 17442, 17449 ¶ 17 (2000)).

[^92]: *See id*. at 3.

[^93]: *See id*.

[^94]: *See* CMS Amendment at 2-3.

[^95]: *See* CMS Second Interim Report at 2.

[^96]: *See Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20997 ¶ 28.

[^97]: *See id*.

[^98]: *See* CMS Amendment at 3.

[^99]: *See* CMS Waiver Petition at 9.

[^100]: *See Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20997 ¶ 27.

[^101]: *See* Cellular Phone of Kentucky, Inc., Supplement and Further
    Petition for Limited Waiver and Extension of Time, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed Apr. 14, 2004 at 2 (CPK April 2004 Supplement);
    Cellular Phone of Kentucky, Inc., Supplement and Further Petition
    for Limited Waiver and Extension of Time, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    filed Dec. 22, 2004 at 1 (CPK December 2004 Supplement). *See*
    Cellular Phone of Kentucky, Inc., Supplement and Further Petition
    for Limited Waiver and Extension of Time, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    filed Apr. 14, 2004 at 2 (CPK April 2004 Supplement); Cellular Phone
    of Kentucky, Inc., Supplement and Further Petition for Limited
    Waiver and Extension of Time, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Dec. 22,
    2004 at 1 (CPK December 2004 Supplement). CPK reports that it met
    the October 4, 2004 date to begin selling location-capable handsets.
    *See* CPK December 2004 Supplement at 2. CPK initially filed its
    request in August 2003. *See* Cellular Phone of Kentucky, Inc.,
    Petition for Limited Waiver and Extension of Time, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed Aug. 29, 2003 (CPK Waiver Petition).

[^102]: *See* CPK April 2004 Supplement at 4.

[^103]: *See* *Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20997 ¶ 27.

[^104]: *Id*.

[^105]: *See* CPK April 2004 Supplement at 6.

[^106]: *Id*.

[^107]: *See supra* ¶ 13.

[^108]: Specifically, CPK expects the final work to be completed by the
    second quarter of 2006. *See* CPK April 2004 Supplement at 5.

[^109]: We note that CPK originally stated that work would commence in
    the third or fourth quarter of 2004. *See id*; CPK Waiver Petition
    at 3. Subsequently, it stated that work would begin in the first
    quarter of 2005, but did not state whether the delay in commencing
    construction affected the estimated completion date. *See* CPK
    December 2004 Supplement at 2.

[^110]: *See* CPK December 2004 Supplement at 2.

[^111]: Pursuant to the *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*, Tier III
    carriers are required to ensure that one-hundred percent of handsets
    activated are location-capable by November 30, 2004, and that they
    achieve ninety-five percent penetration of location-capable handsets
    among their subscribers by December 31, 2005. *See* *Non-Nationwide
    Carriers Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 14852-53 ¶ 33.

[^112]: Because we grant CPK the relief it requested of the handset
    penetration deadline under our established rules and precedent, we
    find it unnecessary to address the standard articulated in the
    *ENHANCE 911 Act*. *See supra* ¶ 11.

[^113]: *See* Cellular South Licenses, Inc. Petition for Extension of
    the Implementation Deadline for Phase II of Enhanced 911 Services,
    CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Dec. 17, 2002, at 3 (Cellular South
    Waiver Petition).

[^114]: *See id.* at 3.

[^115]: *See supra* ¶ 5. The relief requested by Cellular South would
    require it to: (a) begin activating location-capable handsets no
    later than September 1, 2003; (b) ensure that at least twenty-five
    percent of all new handsets activated are location-capable no later
    than November 30, 2003; (c) ensure that at least fifty percent of
    all new handsets activated are location-capable no later than May
    31, 2004; and (d) ensure that one-hundred percent of all new digital
    handsets activated are location-capable no later than November 30,
    2004.

[^116]: Staff contacted counsel for Cellular South on December 16, 2004
    for this update.

[^117]: *See* Cellular South Licenses, Inc. Enhanced 911 Tier III
    Interim Report, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 1, 2003, at 3
    (Cellular South Interim Report).

[^118]: *See id*. at 4.

[^119]: *See* Cellular South Waiver Petition at 2.

[^120]: *Id*.

[^121]: *See* *Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20997 ¶ 27.

[^122]: *Id*.

[^123]: *See* Cellular South Interim Report at 1-2.

[^124]: *See Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20997 ¶ 28.

[^125]: *See* Phase II Interim Report and Request for Waiver, CC Docket
    No. 94-102, filed Oct. 23, 2003, at 3 (Custer Waiver Petition).

[^126]: *See id.* at 2.

[^127]: *See* Supplement to Phase II Interim Report and Request for
    Waiver, CC Docket No. 94-102 at 1, filed Sept. 10, 2004 (Custer
    Supplement).

[^128]: *See id*.

[^129]: *See id*. Custer originally requested the following relief: (1)
    to begin selling and activating location-capable handsets by
    September 30, 2004; (2) ensure that at least twenty-five percent of
    all new CDMA handsets activated are location-capable by January 1,
    2005; (3) ensure that at least fifty percent of all new CDMA
    handsets activated are location-capable by June 30, 2005; (4) ensure
    that one-hundred percent of all new CDMA handsets activations are
    location-capable by December 31, 2005; and (5) ensure that
    ninety-five percent of all CDMA subscribers have location-capable
    handsets by December 31, 2006. *See* Custer Waiver Petition at 4.

[^130]: *See* Custer Supplement at 1-2.

[^131]: *See* Petition of Iowa RSA 2 Limited Partnership Petition for
    Waiver of Section 20.18 of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed Aug. 25, 2003 (Lyrix 2003 Waiver Petition).

[^132]: *See* Supplement to Petition of Iowa RSA 2 Limited Partnership
    Petition for Waiver of Section 20.18 of the Commission's Rules, CC
    Docket No. 94-102, filed Nov. 10, 2003 (Lyrix Supplemented Waiver
    Request). In its initial petition, Lyrix had also requested relief
    from the November 30, 2003 deadline to ensure that at least
    twenty-five percent of handsets activated are location-capable,
    citing concern about the availability of location-capable handsets.
    *See* Lyrix 2003 Waiver Petition at 2. Lyrix withdrew that request
    when it supplemented its waiver filing. *See* Lyrix Supplemented
    Waiver Request at 2.

[^133]: *See* Interim Report Regarding E911 Phase II Deployment Leaco
    Cellular, Inc*.*, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed July 31, 2003, at 2
    (Leaco July 2003 Interim Report); Leaco Rural Telephone Cooperative,
    Inc. Petition for Waiver of Section 20.18(g) of the Commission's
    Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 11, 2003, at 2 (Leaco Waiver
    Petition).

[^134]: *See* Amendment to Leaco Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
    Petition for Waiver of Section 20.18(g) of the Commission's Rules,
    CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 31, 2004 at 2 (Leaco Amended
    Petition).

[^135]: *See id*. at 2.

[^136]: *See id*. at iv, 3-5.

[^137]: In filings as recent as January 2004, Leaco had not determined
    to which air interface it planned to migrate. *See* Second Interim
    Report Regarding E911 Phase II Deployment, Leaco Rural Telephone
    Cooperative, Inc*.*, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Jan. 4, 2004.

[^138]: *See* Leaco Amended Petition at 3.

[^139]: Leaco did not request a waiver of the December 31, 2005 deadline
    for achieving ninety-five percent handset penetration. However,
    Leaco expressed concerns about its ability to meet this deadline
    given its timeframe for its transition to CDMA and the reluctance of
    its customers to adopt new location-capable handsets. *See* Second
    Interim Report Regarding E911 Phase II Deployment, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed Nov. 11, 2003, at 2. In the event that Leaco
    anticipates that it cannot comply with the December 31, 2005 handset
    penetration deadline, Leaco should file an appropriate and timely
    request for relief, including under the standard articulated in the
    *ENHANCE 911 Act*. *See supra* ¶ 11.

[^140]: *See* Litchfield County Cellular, Inc. Petition for Limited
    Waiver and Extension of Time, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 29,
    2003 at 1-3 (LCC Waiver Petition). LCC subsequently filed
    supplemental information and modified its initial waiver request.
    *See* Litchfield County Cellular, Inc. Supplement and Request for
    Further Waiver, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed April 14, 2004 (LCC
    April 2004 Supplement); Litchfield County Cellular Inc. Interim
    Report, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed April 19, 2004; Litchfield
    County Cellular, Inc. Supplement and Further Petition for Limited
    Waiver and Extension of Time, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Dec. 22,
    2004 (LCC December 2004 Supplement).

[^141]: *See* LCC Waiver Petition at 2; Litchfield December Supplement
    at 1. LCC reports that it met the October 4, 2004 date to begin
    selling location-capable handsets. *See* LCC December 2004
    Supplement at 2.

[^142]: *See* LCC April 2004 Supplement at 4.

[^143]: *See* *Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20997 ¶ 27.

[^144]: *Id*.

[^145]: *See* LCC April 2004 Supplement at 6.

[^146]: *Id*.

[^147]: *See supra* ¶ 13.

[^148]: Specifically, LCC expects the final work to be completed by the
    second quarter of 2006. *See* LCC April 2004 Supplement at 5.

[^149]: We note that LCC originally stated that work would commence in
    the third or fourth quarter of 2004. *See id*; LCC Waiver Petition
    at 3-4. Subsequently, it stated that work would begin in the first
    quarter of 2005, but did not state whether the delay in commencing
    construction affected the estimated completion date. *See* LCC
    December 2004 Supplement at 2.

[^150]: *See* LCC December 2004 Supplement at 2.

[^151]: Pursuant to the *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*, Tier III
    carriers are required to ensure that one-hundred percent of handsets
    activated are location-capable by November 30, 2004, and that they
    achieve ninety-five percent penetration of location-capable handsets
    among their subscribers by December 31, 2005. *See* *Non-Nationwide
    Carriers Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 14852-53 ¶ 33.

[^152]: Because we grant LCC the relief it requested of the handset
    penetration deadline under our established rules and precedent, we
    find it unnecessary to address the standard articulated in the
    *ENHANCE 911 Act*. *See supra* ¶ 11.

[^153]: *See* Petition of Missouri RSA No. 7 Limited Partnership for
    Waiver of Section 20.18 of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed Aug. 25, 2003 (MMC 2003 Waiver Petition).

[^154]: *See id*. at 1. MMC did not provide a specific date other than
    stating that it requested relief until the "first quarter" of 2004.
    We thus assume that it requested relief until March 31, 2004. We
    caution petitioners to provide specific dates when requesting
    relief. MMC did not request relief from the May 31, 2004 benchmark
    to ensure that at least fifty percent of handsets activated are
    location-capable, or from the November 30, 2004 benchmark to ensure
    that one-hundred percent of handsets activated are location-capable.

[^155]: *See* Petition of Missouri RSA No. 7 Limited Partnership dba
    Mid-Missouri Cellular for Waiver of Section 20.18 of the
    Commission's Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Nov 5, 2004, at 8
    n.12 (MMC 2004 Waiver Petition). We assume based on this subsequent
    filing that MMC no longer was seeking relief from the initial
    (September 1, 2003) and twenty-five percent (November 30, 2003)
    benchmark requirements.

[^156]: *See id*. at 7-9.

[^157]: *Id*. at 6, 8.

[^158]: *Id*. at 6. By contacting counsel for MMC by telephone, staff
    was informed that the MPSC issued an order on November 30^th^, 2004,
    effectively denying MMC's application for ETC status. Counsel for
    MMC further indicated that it continues to pursue MMC's application
    for ETC designation with the MPSC.

[^159]: *See* *Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20997 ¶ 27.

[^160]: *See* MMC 2004 Waiver Petition at 6.

[^161]: *Id*. at 7.

[^162]: *See* North Carolina RSA 3 Cellular Telephone Company dba
    Carolina West Wireless Petition for Extension of the Handset
    Activation Schedule Beginning November 30, 2003 for Phase II of
    Enhanced 911 Services, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Nov. 20, 2003 at
    3 (Carolina West 2003 Waiver Petition); *see also* Supplement to
    North Carolina RSA 3 Cellular Telephone Company dba Carolina West
    Wireless Petition for Extension of the Handset Activation Schedule
    Beginning November 30, 2003 for Phase II of Enhanced 911 Services,
    CC Docket No. 94-102, filed June 28, 2004 at 1-2 (Carolina West June
    2004 Supplement).

[^163]: *See* Carolina West June 2004 Supplement at 2.

[^164]: *See id.* at 2. Carolina West did not seek extension of the
    deadline for achieving the one-hundred percent benchmark, which it
    expected to achieve before the November 30, 2004 deadline. *See id.*

[^165]: *See id*. at 6.

[^166]: *See id.*

[^167]: *See supra* ¶ 10.

[^168]: We note that Carolina West expressed reservations about its
    ability to meet this benchmark. *See* Carolina West June 2004
    Supplement at 2. In the event that Carolina West anticipates that it
    cannot comply with the December 31, 2005 handset penetration
    deadline, Carolina West should file an appropriate and timely
    request for relief, including under the standard articulated in the
    *ENHANCE 911 Act*. *See supra* ¶ 11.

[^169]: *See* Petition of Northwest Missouri Cellular Limited
    Partnership for Waiver of Section 20.18 of the Commission's Rules,
    CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 25, 2003 (Northwest Missouri Waiver
    Petition). Northwest Missouri did not specify dates for which it
    expected to achieve compliance. However, we can infer that since it
    requested relief only from the initial September 1, 2003 deadline to
    commence activation and sale of location-capable handsets, and the
    November 30, 2003 deadline to ensure that at least twenty-five
    percent of handsets activated are location-capable, that it
    requested relief with respect to both of these deadlines until the
    next benchmark of May 31, 2004, by which date it must ensure that
    fifty percent of handsets activated are location-capable. We caution
    carriers to provide specific dates when filing requests for
    extensions of the Phase II benchmark requirements.

[^170]: *See* Supplement to Petition of Northwest Missouri Cellular
    Limited Partnership for Waiver of Section 20.18 of the Commission's
    Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Nov. 10, 2003 at 2.

[^171]: Staff contacted counsel for Northwest Missouri to obtain this
    information.

[^172]: *See* Sagebrush E911 Phase II Interim Report and Request for
    Waiver of the Compliance Deadlines, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug.
    1, 2003 at 1 n.1 (Sagebrush August 2003 Interim Report).

[^173]: *See id.* at 2.

[^174]: *See id*.

[^175]: *See* Sagebrush Supplement to E911 Phase II Interim Report and
    Request for Waiver of the Compliance Deadlines, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed Nov. 7, 2003 at 1-2 (Sagebrush 2003 Supplement).

[^176]: *Id*. Sagebrush reported that twenty-one percent of all new
    handset activations were location-capable by October 2003. *Id*.

[^177]: *See* Second Supplement to E911 Phase II Interim Report and
    Request for Waiver of the Compliance Deadlines and Request for
    Clarification, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Jan. 7, 2005 at 4
    (Sagebrush 2005 Supplement).

[^178]: *See Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20994 ¶ 17.

[^179]: *See* Sagebrush 2003 Supplement at 1.

[^180]: *See* *id*. at 4.

[^181]: *See id*. at 5.

[^182]: *See id*. at 2.

[^183]: *See id*. at 2-3.

[^184]: *See id*. at 4-5.

[^185]: Pursuant to the *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*, Tier III
    carriers are required to ensure that one-hundred percent of handsets
    activated are location-capable by November 30, 2004, and that they
    achieve ninety-five percent penetration of location-capable handsets
    among their subscribers by December 31, 2005. *See* *Non-Nationwide
    Carriers Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 14852-53 ¶ 33.

[^186]: *See* Sagebrush 2005 Supplement at 4. The Sagebrush Carriers
    requested clarification of whether carriers are to include
    subscribers having analog handsets in calculating the penetration
    among their subscribers of location-capable handsets. *See id*. We
    clarify that we intended no such exclusion. Therefore, in meeting
    the December 31, 2005 deadline, carriers must achieve ninety-five
    percent penetration among their subscribers of location-capable
    handsets, regardless of whether certain subscribers use analog
    handsets. We note that the Sagebrush Carriers stated it was not
    likely they would meet the December 31, 2005 deadline even if analog
    handsets were excluded from this computation. *See id*.

[^187]: *See supra* ¶ 21. Our decision does not preclude the Sagebrush
    Carriers from seeking additional relief of the handset penetration
    deadline under the standard articulated in the *ENHANCE 911 Act*.
    *See supra* ¶ 11.

[^188]: *See* Petition for Waiver of Section 20.18 of the Commission's
    Rules, South Canaan Cellular Communications Company, L.P., CC Docket
    No. 94-102, filed Aug. 1, 2003, at 2-3 (South Canaan 2003 Waiver
    Petition).

[^189]: *See* Supplement to Petition for Waiver of Section 20.18 of the
    Commission's Rules, South Canaan Cellular Communications Company,
    L.P., CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Nov. 10, 2003, at 2 (South Canaan
    2003 Supplement).

[^190]: *See* E911 Phase II Interim Implementation Report, South Canaan
    Cellular Communications Company, L.P., CC Docket No. 94-102, filed
    Dec. 21, 2004, at 1-2 (South Canaan Dec. 2004 Report).

[^191]: We note that South Canaan initially had requested more extensive
    relief from the interim benchmarks. Specifically, South Canaan
    requested the following deployment schedule: begin selling and
    activating location-capable CDMA handsets by January 1, 2005; ensure
    that twenty-five percent of new CDMA handsets activated are
    location-capable by March 31, 2005; ensure that fifty percent of new
    CDMA handsets activated are location-capable by September 30, 2005;
    ensure that one-hundred percent of all new CDMA handsets activated
    are location-capable by March 31, 2006; and ensure that ninety-five
    percent of CDMA subscribers have location-capable handsets by
    December 31, 2007. *See* South Canaan 2003 Waiver Petition at 8. It
    subsequently modified its request in light of its progress in
    deploying its CDMA upgrade. *See* South Canaan Dec. 2004 Report at
    1-2.

[^192]: *See* South Canaan 2003 Waiver Petition at 8; *see also* E911
    Phase II Interim Implementation Report, South Canaan Cellular
    Communications Company, L.P., CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Jan. 15,
    2004, at 3 (South Canaan Jan. 2005 Report).

[^193]: *See* South Canaan Jan. 2005 Report at 2.

[^194]: *See id.* at 2. The campaign will include free and
    heavily-discounted location-capable handsets to customers that enter
    into a new two-year agreement for service. *Id*.

[^195]: *See* *Id*.

[^196]: *See* South Canaan Jan. 2005 Report at 1 (anticipating digital
    conversion of its remaining site by February 15, 2005).

[^197]: *See supra* ¶ 10.

[^198]: *See* South Canaan Dec. 2004 Report at 1. *See also* *supra* ¶
    10.

[^199]: Pursuant to the *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*, Tier III
    carriers are required to ensure that one-hundred percent of handsets
    activated are location-capable by November 30, 2004, and that they
    achieve ninety-five percent penetration of location-capable handsets
    among their subscribers by December 31, 2005. *See* *Non-Nationwide
    Carriers Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 14852-53 ¶ 33.

[^200]: *See supra* ¶ 21. Our decision does not preclude the South
    Canaan from seeking additional relief of the handset penetration
    deadline under the standard articulated in the *ENHANCE 911 Act*.
    *See supra* ¶ 11.

[^201]: *See* South No. 5 RSA LP Petition for Waiver of Section 20.18(g)
    of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 8, 2003
    at 2 (Brazos 2003 Waiver Petition).

[^202]: *See* Further Supplement to South No. 5 RSA LP Petition and
    Request For Additional Waiver of Section 20.18(g) of the
    Commission's Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed June 8, 2004, at 3
    (Brazos June 2004 Supplement). Brazos initially requested interim
    relief to extend the deadline to begin selling and activating
    handsets and the deadline to meet the twenty-five percent
    requirement to July 1, 2004; to extend the fifty percent deadline to
    September 1, 2004; and to extend the one-hundred percent deadline to
    December 31, 2004. *See* Brazos 2003 Waiver Petition at 9.

[^203]: *See* Brazos June 2004 Supplement at 4. In an earlier filing,
    Brazos indicated that it was unlikely to be fully Phase II compliant
    by December 31, 2005, because many of its customers, approximately
    fifteen percent, use three watt analog phones and would be reluctant
    to accept location-capable digital handsets due to their relatively
    smaller ranges. *See* Brazos 2003 Waiver Petition at 3-4.

[^204]: *See* Brazos 2003 Waiver Petition at 2.

[^205]: *See* Brazos 2003 Supplement at 2.

[^206]: *See Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20997 ¶ 27.

[^207]: *See* Brazos June 2004 Supplement at 4.

[^208]: *See id.*

[^209]: *See supra* ¶ 29.

[^210]: Pursuant to the *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*, Tier III
    carriers are required to ensure that one-hundred percent of handsets
    activated are location-capable by November 30, 2004, and that they
    achieve ninety-five percent penetration of location-capable handsets
    among their subscribers by December 31, 2005. *See* *Non-Nationwide
    Carriers Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 14852-53 ¶ 33.

[^211]: Because we relied on our established rules and precedent in
    granting the relief of the handset penetration deadline to Brazos,
    we find it unnecessary to address the standard articulated in the
    *ENHANCE 911 Act*. Our decision, however, does not preclude Brazos
    from seeking additional relief of the handset penetration deadline
    under the standard articulated in the *ENHANCE 911 Act*. *See supra*
    ¶ 11.

[^212]: *See* E911 Phase II Interim Report and Request for Waiver of the
    Compliance Deadlines, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 1, 2003, at
    1-2 (Wilkes Interim Report).

[^213]: *See id*.

[^214]: *See id*. at 2-3.

[^215]: *See id*. at 2.

[^216]: Pursuant to the *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*, Tier III
    carriers are required to ensure that one-hundred percent of handsets
    activated are location-capable by November 30, 2004, and that they
    achieve ninety-five percent penetration of location-capable handsets
    among their subscribers by December 31, 2005. *See* *Non-Nationwide
    Carriers Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 14852-53 ¶ 33.

[^217]: Because we relied on our established rules and precedent in
    granting the relief of the handset penetration deadline to Wilkes,
    we find it unnecessary to address the standard articulated in the
    *ENHANCE 911 Act*. Our decision, however, does not preclude Wilkes
    from seeking additional relief of the handset penetration deadline
    under the standard articulated in the *ENHANCE 911 Act*. *See supra*
    ¶ 11.

[^218]: *See* Wireless Communications Venture Petition for Waiver of
    Section 20.18(g) of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    filed Aug. 28, 2003, at 5 (WCV 2003 Waiver Petition).

[^219]: *See* Amendment to Wireless Communications Venture Petition for
    Waiver of Section 20.18(g) of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed June 30, 2004, at 2 (WCV 2004 Amended Waiver
    Petition).

[^220]: *See id.* at 1.

[^221]: *Id*. In its original petition, WCV also sought relief from the
    one-hundred percent benchmark to December 31, 2004. *See* WCV 2003
    Waiver Petition at 10. WCV subsequently reported that it met this
    requested deadline. *See* Second Supplement to Wireless
    Communications Venture Petition for Waiver of Section 20.19(g) of
    the Commission's Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Jan. 24, 2005,
    at 1.

[^222]: *See Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20997 ¶ 27.

[^223]: *See* WCV Second Interim Report Regarding E911 Phase II
    deployment Wireless Communications Venture, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    filed Jan. 14, 2004, at 2 (WCV Second Interim Report).

[^224]: *Id*. at 2-3.

[^225]: *See Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20997 ¶ 28.

[^226]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(h)(1) (requiring an accuracy of
    one-hundred meters for sixty-seven percent of calls, and 300 meters
    for ninety-five percent of calls).

[^227]: *See, e.g.*, Andrew Corporation description of its Geometrix
    technology, at
    http://www.andrew.com/products/wireless_call_loc/geometrix_e911_upgrd.aspx.

[^228]: *See* Request of Highland Cellular, LLC for A Limited Waiver and
    Extension of the Commission's Phase II Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    filed Aug. 29, 2003, at 1-2 (Highland Waiver Request).

[^229]: *See* Highland Waiver Request at 2-3. Although Highland did not
    provide specific dates for extension of our requirements, we presume
    that, by requesting an additional two years, it asked for the
    following relief: (1) from September 1, 2003 to September 1, 2005 to
    provide Phase II service to at least fifty percent of the PSAP's
    coverage area or population, or within six months of a PSAP request,
    whichever is later, and (2) from September 1, 2004 to September 1,
    2006 to provide Phase II service to one-hundred percent of the
    PSAP's coverage area or population, or within eighteen months of a
    PSAP request, whichever is later.

[^230]: *Id.* at 4-5. The eight steps are as follows: (1) obtaining
    proposals from GSM-based network location vendors; (2) obtaining
    vendor engineering studies on achievable accuracy levels; (3)
    selecting a vendor based on pricing and technical details; (4)
    identifying a deployment plan; (5) conducting the necessary tower
    and cell site upgrades; (6) installing equipment at cell sites and
    within the switch; (7) network integration and testing; and (8)
    testing with PSAPs.

[^231]: *See* Highland Cellular, Inc. E911 Interim Compliance Report, CC
    Docket No. 94-102, filed Jan. 15, 2004, at 1 (Highland 2004 Interim
    Report).

[^232]: *See id*. at 2. TDOA uses equipment installed at carrier base
    stations to triangulate a call's location based on differences in
    the arrival times of a handset's signal at three or more of the cell
    sites. TA/NMR is a refinement of GSM-based Phase I E911 service,
    identifying the cell and sector and then using timing information
    and signal strength information from adjacent cells to calculate an
    improved location solution.

[^233]: *See id*.

[^234]: *See id*. at 4-5.

[^235]: *See id*. at 5.

[^236]: *See id*.

[^237]: *See* i*d*.

[^238]: *See* Highland Cellular, Inc. Update to E911 Interim Compliance
    Report, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Feb. 9, 2005, at 1.

[^239]: *See id*. at 2.

[^240]: *See id*.

[^241]: *See* Highland 2004 Interim Report at 2-3.

[^242]: *See id*. at 4.

[^243]: *See* Highland Waiver Request at 4.

[^244]: *See* Request for a Limited Waiver and Extension of the
    Commission's Phase II E911 Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Sept.
    5, 2003, at 2 (NECC Waiver Request).

[^245]: *See* Enhanced 911 Tier III Interim Report, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed Jan. 15, 2004, at 1 (NECC Jan. 2004 Interim Report);
    N.E. Colorado Cellular, Inc. Petition for Extension of the
    Implementation Schedules Beginning September 1, 2003 for Phase II of
    Enhanced 911 Services, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Nov. 17, 2004, at
    2 (NECC 2004 Petition). NECC explained that the AMPS product line in
    Colorado does not support a network-based Phase II location
    solution. *See* NECC Jan. 2004 Interim Report at 1.

[^246]: *See* NECC Waiver Request at 8.

[^247]: *See* NECC Jan. 2004 Interim Report at 2.

[^248]: *See id*; NECC Jan. 2004 Interim Report at 1-2.

[^249]: *See* NECC Jan. 2004 Interim Report at 1-2.

[^250]: *See* N.E. Colorado Cellular, Inc. Supplement to Petition for
    Extension of the Implementation Schedule for Phase II of Enhanced
    911 Services, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Nov. 10, 2003, at 4 (NECC
    2003 Supplement).

[^251]: *See* NECC Jan. 2004 Interim Report at 1.

[^252]: *See* NECC 2004 Petition at 2.

[^253]: *See id*.

[^254]: *See* NECC Jan. 2004 Interim Report at 1.

[^255]: *See* NECC 2004 Petition at 2.

[^256]: *See* NECC Jan. 2004 Interim Report at 2.

[^257]: *See* NECC 2004 Petition at 3-4.

[^258]: *See* *id*. at 3.

[^259]: *See id*. at 4; NECC 2003 Supplement at 2-3.

[^260]: *See* NECC 2004 Petition at 4.

[^261]: *See* NECC 2003 Supplement at 4.

[^262]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(f).

[^263]: *See supra* ¶ 9.

[^264]: *See supra* ¶ 10.

[^265]: *See* January 2004 Interim Report at 1.

[^266]: *See* Southern Illinois RSA Partnership dba First Cellular of
    Southern Illinois Petition for Extension of the Implementation
    Schedule Beginning September 1, 2003 for Phase II of Enhanced 911
    Services, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 26, 2003, at 1 (First
    Cellular August 2003 Petition).

[^267]: *See id*. at 3.

[^268]: *See* Southern Illinois RSA Partnership dba First Cellular of
    Southern Illinois Supplement to Petition for Extension of the
    Implementation Schedule for Phase II of Enhanced 911 Services, CC
    Docket No. 94-102, filed Nov. 10, 2003, at 3 (representing that the
    Phase II solution from its selected vendor would support its planned
    GSM system as well as the current AMPS and CDMA systems).

[^269]: *See* Enhanced 911 Tier III Interim Report, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed Jan. 14, 2004, at 2.

[^270]: *See id*. at 2.

[^271]: *See id*. at 1.

[^272]: Under the Commission's rules, a carrier is required to provide
    E911 only if the PSAP requesting service is capable of receiving and
    utilizing the data and a mechanism for recovering PSAP costs is in
    place. 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(j).

[^273]: *See* Petition for Limited and Temporary Waiver of Deadlines for
    Implementation of Phase II E911 on the Same Basis as Other Tier III
    Wireless Carriers, and for Waiver of *King County* Demarcation Point
    Ruling, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Sept. 9, 2002 (Commnet
    Petition); Amendment and Supplement to Petition for Waiver of
    Deadlines for Implementation of Phase II E911 and for Waiver of
    *King County* Demarcation Point Ruling, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed
    Aug. 15, 2003 (Commnet Amendment*)*. The carriers, jointly filing,
    include Commnet Wireless, Inc.; Commnet of Arizona, LLC; Commnet of
    Delaware, LLC; Elbert County Wireless, LLC; Chama Wireless LLC.;
    Excomm, LLC; Commnet PCS, Inc.; MoCelCo, LLC; Tennessee Cellular
    Telephone Company; Commnet Capital, LLC; Commnet of Florida, LLC;
    and Prairie Wireless, LLC. *See* Commnet Amendment at 2-3.

[^274]: *See* Commnet Amendment at 1, 4.

[^275]: *See id*. at ii, 3.

[^276]: *See id*. at 3, 4.

[^277]: *See id*. at 4.

[^278]: *See id*. at 4-5.

[^279]: *See id*. at 5.

[^280]: *See id*. at 6.

[^281]: *See id*. at 6-7.

[^282]: *See* Commnet Amendment at 8 (*citing* Revision of the
    Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911
    Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, *Order on
    Reconsideration*, 17 FCC Rcd 14789, 14792-93, ¶¶ 8, 10 (2002) (*King
    County Order*)).

[^283]: *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    IB Docket No. 99-67, *Report and Order and Second Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 18 FCC Rcd 25340, 25346 ¶¶ 15-16.

[^284]: *Id*. at 25343.

[^285]: *See supra* ¶ 10.

[^286]: *See King County Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 14792-93, ¶¶ 8, 10.

[^287]: *See* Commnet Petition at 13-14; Commnet Amendment at 9-10.

[^288]: *See* Comment Petition at ii. Alternatively, the Commnet
    Carriers suggested that PSAPs should be obligated to pay one-half
    the cost of separate, dedicated T-1 connections for 911 traffic.
    *See* Commnet Amendment at 6 n. 10.

[^289]: *See* Commnet Amendment at 10 n. 15.

[^290]: *See King County Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 14796 ¶ 18.

[^291]: *See id*.

[^292]: *See id*.

[^293]: *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    *Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 17442 (2000).
    E-OTD is a positioning method that generally relies upon measuring
    the time at which signals from the Base Transceiver Station arrive
    at two geographically dispersed locations \-- the mobile
    phone/station and a fixed measuring point known as the Location
    Measurement Unit, whose location is known.

[^294]: *See, e.g.,* Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
    Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, T-Mobile
    USA, Inc. Amended Request for Limited Modification of E911 Phase II
    Implementation Plan, 17 FCC Rcd 24908 (2002).

[^295]: *See* Amarillo License, L.P. and High Plains Wireless, L.P
    Interim Report, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Jan. 15, 2004, at 2 and
    Modified Request for Further Modification, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    filed Feb. 27, 2004, at 4; Corr Wireless Communications, LLC Interim
    Report, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Jan. 15, 2004, at 1-2; PCS
    License Company L.L.C. Phase II E911 Implementation Report, CC
    Docket No. 94-102, filed May 3, 2004, at 3.

[^296]: *See* Arctic Slope Telephone Association Cooperative, Inc.
    Petition for Waiver of Section 20.18(g) of the Commission's Rules,
    CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 11, 2003, at 2 (ASTAC Petition).

[^297]: *See id*. at 2-3.

[^298]: *See id*. at 2, 6, 9.

[^299]: *See id*. at 11-12.

[^300]: *See* Second Interim Report Regarding E911 Phase II Deployment
    Arctic Slope Telephone Association Cooperative, Inc*.*, CC Docket
    No. 94-102, filed Jan. 8, 2004, at 2 (Second Interim Report). ASTAC
    also mentioned, however, that it was possible that it may not meet
    this deadline. *See id*. In the event that ASTAC anticipates that it
    cannot comply with the December 31, 2005 handset penetration
    deadline, ASTAC should file an appropriate and timely request for
    relief.

[^301]: *See* Supplement to Arctic Slope Telephone Association
    Cooperative, Inc. Petition for Waiver of Section 20.18(g) of the
    Commission's Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Dec. 1, 2003, at 3
    (ASTAC Dec. 2003 Supplement).

[^302]: *See id*.

[^303]: *See id*. at 5.

[^304]: *See* Second Interim Report at 2. We note that location-capable
    GSM handsets are not yet available.

[^305]: *See* Edge Wireless Licenses, LLC E911 Interim Report, CC Docket
    No. 94-102, filed Jan. 15, 2004, at 1 (Edge Interim Report).

[^306]: *See* Request for a Limited Waiver and Extension of the
    Commission's Phase II E911 Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Sept.
    2, 2003, at 2 (Edge Waiver Request); Edge Interim Report at 2.

[^307]: *See* Edge Waiver Request at 3-4; Edge Interim Report at 1. Edge
    did not offer any specific dates for when it would be able to meet
    the location-capable handset activation benchmarks.

[^308]: *See id*.

[^309]: *See* Edge Interim Report at 2.

[^310]: *See id*. at 3. Edge noted that it currently provides Phase II
    service in four counties in Oregon using the TDMA/Airbiquity
    solution. *See id*.

[^311]: *See id*.

[^312]: *See id*. at 1.

[^313]: *See id*. at 2

[^314]: In the event that Edge anticipates that it cannot comply with
    the December 31, 2005 handset penetration deadline, Edge should file
    an appropriate and timely request for relief, including under the
    standard articulated in the *ENHANCE 911 Act*. *See supra* ¶ 11.

[^315]: *See* Supplement to Petition for Waiver of Deadlines for
    Implementation of Phase II E911, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Dec.
    10, 2003, at 2-3 (Key and Keystone Supplement). In an earlier
    petition, the carriers explained that they were considering a
    handset-based Phase II solution, because the terrain in their
    coverage areas precludes network-based triangulation. *See* Petition
    for Waiver of Deadlines for Implementation of Phase II E911, CC
    Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 21, 2003, at 1, 3-4 (Key and Keystone
    Aug. 2003 Petition). *See also* Key Communications, LLC Tier III
    Carrier Interim Report Fourth Quarter 2004, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    filed Jan. 3, 2005, at 2 (Key Interim Report) and Keystone Wireless,
    LLC Tier III Carrier Interim Report Fourth Quarter 2004, CC Docket
    No. 94-102, filed Jan. 3, 2005, at 2 (Keystone Interim Report) (each
    stating that only a minor portion of its service area is potentially
    susceptible to triangulation techniques).

[^316]: *See* Second Supplement to Petition for Waiver of Deadlines for
    Implementation of Phase II E911, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Jan. 3,
    2005, at 1-2 (Key and Keystone Second Supplement).

[^317]: *See* Key and Keystone Supplement at 3-4.

[^318]: *See* Key and Keystone Second Supplement at 2.

[^319]: *See id*. at 3-4 (submitting that Nortel cannot guarantee that
    even with full implementation of the TA/NMR technology, the Phase II
    accuracy requirements will be met).

[^320]: *See* Key Interim Report at 3.

[^321]: *See* Keystone Interim Report at 3. Keystone added that it has
    retained Intrado to assist it in working with the PSAPs to resolve
    their concerns. *See id*.

[^322]: *See* Key and Keystone Second Supplement at 4.

[^323]: *See id*.

[^324]: Pursuant to the *Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*, Tier III
    carriers are required to ensure that one-hundred percent of handsets
    activated are location-capable by November 30, 2004, and that they
    achieve ninety-five percent penetration of location-capable handsets
    among their subscribers by December 31, 2005. *See* *Non-Nationwide
    Carriers Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 14852-53 ¶ 33.

[^325]: Because we relied on our established rules and precedent in
    granting the relief of the handset penetration deadline to Key and
    Keystone, we find it unnecessary to address the standard articulated
    in the *ENHANCE 911 Act*. Our decision, however, does not preclude
    Key and Keystone from seeking additional relief of the handset
    penetration deadline under the standard articulated in the *ENHANCE
    911 Act*. *See supra* ¶ 11.

[^326]: *See* Key and Keystone Second Supplement at 3-4.

[^327]: *See supra* ¶¶ 10, 105.

[^328]: Enterprise originally filed its request for relief as a joint
    filing with Public Service Cellular, Inc. (PSC). *See* Petition of
    Public Service Cellular, Inc. and Enterprise Wireless PCS, L.L.C.
    for Limited Waiver of Section 20.18(g) of the Commission's Rules, CC
    Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 25, 2003 (PSC and Enterprise
    Petition). FCC licenses held by PSC recently were acquired by ALLTEL
    Communications, Inc. *See* FCC File No. 0001993328. Counsel for PSC
    subsequently filed a letter to amend the joint filing to withdraw
    the portion pertaining to PSC. *See* Letter from Carl W. Northrop
    and W. Ray Rutngamlug, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, dated Mar. 7, 2005. Accordingly,
    we will address only those portions of the petitions filed jointly
    by PSC and Enterprise that are applicable to Enterprise.

[^329]: *See* PSC and Enterprise Petition at 1.

[^330]: *See id*. at 2, 4.

[^331]: *See id*. at 5.

[^332]: *See id*.

[^333]: *See* Supplement to Petition of Public Service Cellular, Inc.
    and Enterprise Wireless PCS, L.L.C. for Limited Waiver of Section
    20.18(g) of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Nov.
    10, 2003, at 2.

[^334]: *See id*. at 2-3.

[^335]: *See supra* ¶ 11.

[^336]: *See* Copper Valley Wireless, Inc. Request for Waiver or
    Temporary Stay, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed June 3, 2004, at 4 (CVW
    Waiver Request).

[^337]: *See id*. at 2.

[^338]: *See id*. at 5.

[^339]: *See id.* at 5. We note that in a subsequent filing in the local
    number portability proceeding, CVW stated that it elected to upgrade
    its network with the CDMA air interface, and that the new equipment
    would be installed and operational by February 25, 2006. *See*
    Petition for Waiver of Extension of Time, CC Docket No. 95-116,
    filed Dec. 23, 2004, at 11. However, CVW has not subsequently
    amended its E911-related waiver request to reflect any changes to
    either its selection of a new digital air interface or its schedule
    for implementing a new air interface.

[^340]: *See* CVW Waiver Request at 1, 6.

[^341]: *See id*. at 3.

[^342]: We advise CVW that if it anticipates that it cannot comply with
    the December 31, 2005 handset penetration deadline, CVW should file
    an appropriate and timely request for relief, including under the
    standard articulated in the *ENHANCE 911 Act*. *See supra* ¶ 11.

[^343]: *See* Cordova Wireless Petition for Waiver of Section 20.18(g)
    of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 7, 2003,
    at 2 (Cordova Petition).

[^344]: *See id*. at 2.

[^345]: *See id*. at 5 n.11.

[^346]: *See id.* at 2-4. As Cordova stated in its waiver request, many
    of its customers are on fishing vessels, which are required to carry
    location tracking systems. *See id*. at 4. The remaining
    non-sea-based customers total ninety. *See id*. at 4-5.

[^347]: *See id*. at 5-7.

[^348]: *See* Second Interim Report Regarding E911 Phase II Deployment,
    Cordova Wireless Communications, Inc., CC Docket No. 94-102, filed
    Jan. 14, 2004, at 1 (Cordova Second Interim Report).

[^349]: *See* *id*. at 3.

[^350]: *See id*.

[^351]: *See id*. at 2.

[^352]: In light of the fact that Cordova mentioned that it was possible
    that it may not meet the December 31, 2005 handset penetration
    deadline, we also encourage Cordova to file an appropriate and
    timely request for relief of this requirement, including under the
    standard articulated in the *ENHANCE 911 Act*. *See supra* ¶ 11.

[^353]: *See* OTZ Telecommunications, Inc. Petition for Waiver of
    Section 20.18(g) of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    filed Aug. 25, 2003, at 2 (OTZ Petition); Second Interim Report
    Regarding E911 Phase II Deployment OTZ Telecommunications, Inc*.*,
    CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Jan.8, 2004, at 1-2 (OTZ Second Interim
    Report). Given that OTZ's network consists of a single cell site, it
    is not possible to accomplish triangulation using a network-based
    location solution. See *OTZ* Petition at 2.

[^354]: *See* OTZ Petition at 3-5; *OTZ Second Interim Report* at 1-2.

[^355]: *See* OTZ Petition at 4.

[^356]: *See id*. OTZ has provided the Commission with specific
    financial information to establish these estimates.

[^357]: *See id*. at 7.

[^358]: *See* *id*. at 10.

[^359]: We advise OTZ that if it anticipates that it cannot comply with
    the December 31, 2005 handset penetration deadline, it should file
    an appropriate and timely request for relief, including under the
    standard articulated in the *ENHANCE 911 Act*. *See supra* ¶ 11.

[^360]: *See* Request for Limited Phase II E911 Waiver, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed Aug. 24, 2001, at 2.

[^361]: See E911 Extension Request, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Feb. 22,
    2005, at 1.

[^362]: See Letter from David J. Kaufman to Joel Taubenblatt, Acting
    Chief, Policy Division (Feb. 23, 2005).

[^363]: *See* Seventh Further Modified Request for Further Modification
    of Deadlines of Amarillo License, L.P. for Station KNKA574 and High
    Plains Wireless, L.P. for Station KNLF919 on Implementation of
    Wireless Enhanced 911 Phase II Automatic Location Identification
    (ALI) System*,* CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Dec. 23, 2004, at 2.

[^364]: *See* Supplement to Seventh Further Modified Request for Further
    Modification of Deadlines of Amarillo License, L.P. for Station
    KNKA574 and High Plains Wireless, L.P. for Station KNLF919 on
    Implementation of Wireless Enhanced 911 Phase II Automatic Location
    Identification (ALI) System*,* CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Jan. 31,
    2005.

[^365]: *See id*.

[^366]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(j)(5) ("Nothing in this section shall
    prevent Public Safety Answering Points and carriers from
    establishing, by mutual consent, deadlines different from those
    imposed for carrier and PSAP compliance in paragraphs (d), (f), and
    (g)(2) of this section.").

[^367]: *See* Blanca Telephone Company E911 Phase II Interim Report and
    Request for Waiver of the Compliance Deadlines, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed Aug. 1, 2003.

[^368]: *See id*. at 1-2.

[^369]: *See* Blanca Telephone Company Supplement to E911 Phase II
    Interim Report and Request for Waiver of the Compliance Deadlines,
    CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Nov. 7, 2003, at 1.

[^370]: *See id*. at 1-2.

[^371]: *See id*. at 2.

[^372]: *See* Report and Request for Modification of Deadlines of
    ComScape Telecommunications of Wilmington License, Inc. on Plan for
    Implementation of Wireless Enhanced 911 Phase II Automatic Location
    Identification (ALI) System for Station KNLG700, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed Aug. 19, 2002.

[^373]: *See* *Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20999 ¶ 33.

[^374]: *See* Report and Request for Modification of Deadlines of
    ComScape Telecommunications of Raleigh Durham License, Inc. on Plan
    for Implementation of Wireless Enhanced 911 Phase II Automatic
    Location Identification (ALI) System for Station KNLG699, CC Docket
    No. 94-102, filed Oct. 23, 2003.

[^375]: *See* Interim Report on Implementation of Wireless Enhanced 911
    Phase II Automatic Location Identification (ALI) of ComScape
    Telecommunications of Raleigh Durham License, Inc. for Station
    KNL699 and of ComScape Telecommunications of Wilmington License,
    Inc. for Station KNLG700, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Jan. 13, 2004,
    at 2-3.

[^376]: *See id.* at 3.

[^377]: *See* Interim Report for Tier III Carriers; Corr Wireless
    Communications, LLC, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Jan. 15, 2004, at 2
    (Corr Jan. 2004 Interim Report).

[^378]: *See id*. at 1.

[^379]: *See* Further Supplement to Corr Wireless Communications, LLC's
    Emergency Petition for Short-Term Waiver, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    filed Dec. 16, 2003, at 1.

[^380]: *See* Corr Jan. 2004 Interim Report at 2.

[^381]: Great Western Cellular Holdings, L.L.C. Petition for Waiver of
    the Commission's E911 Implementation Deadlines, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed Nov. 6, 2002.

[^382]: *See id.* at 2.

[^383]: *See* Great Western Cellular Holdings, L.L.C. Tier III Carrier
    Interim Report, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 1, 2003 at 1.

[^384]: *See id.* at 2.

[^385]: *See* Great Western Cellular Holdings, L.L.C. Petition to
    Withdraw Petition for Waiver Without Prejudice, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed Mar. 19, 2004 at 1 (GWCH Petition to Withdraw).

[^386]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(j)(5).

[^387]: *See* GWCH Petition to Withdraw at 3-4.

[^388]: *See id.*

[^389]: *See* Petition of Minnesota Southern Wireless Company dba
    Hickory Tech for Waiver of Section 20.18 of the Commission\'s Rules,
    CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 25, 2003, at ii-iii.

[^390]: *See id.* at iii.

[^391]: *See* Quarterly Report of Western Wireless Corporation on its
    Enhanced 911 Phase II Deployment, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Feb.
    2, 2004, at 10.

[^392]: *See id.*

[^393]: *See* Quarterly Report of Western Wireless Corporation on its
    Enhanced 911 Phase II Deployment, CC Docket 94-102, filed Aug. 2,
    2004 at 9; Quarterly Report of Western Wireless Corporation on its
    Enhanced 911 Phase II Deployment, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Nov.
    1, 2004, Appendix A at 1-4.

[^394]: *See* Missouri RSA \# 5 Partnership Petition for Waiver of
    Section 20.18(f) of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    filed August 27, 2003, at 1-2 (Chariton Valley Petition); Second
    Supplement and Amendment to Missouri RSA \# 5 Partnership Petition
    for Waiver of Section 20.18(f) of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket
    No. 94-102, filed Mar.10, 2005, at 2 (Chariton Valley Supplement).

[^395]: *See* Chariton Valley Petition at 3-6.

[^396]: *See id.* at 9-10.

[^397]: *Id.*

[^398]: *See* Second Interim Report Regarding E911 Phase II Deployment,
    Missouri RSA #5 Partnership dba Chariton Valley Wireless Services,
    CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Jan. 14, 2004, at 1-2 (Second Interim
    Report).

[^399]: *See* Chariton Valley Supplement at 4-5. Specifically, Chariton
    Valley stated that it had to replace its General Manager responsible
    for overseeing its Phase II implementation process, and that its
    costs for its chosen location solution were rising while its
    location vendor was unable to confirm it could meet the Commission's
    accuracy requirements.

[^400]: *See* *id*. at 3.

[^401]: *See id*.

[^402]: *See id*. at 4.

[^403]: *See id*. at 5-6.

[^404]: *See id*. at 6.

[^405]: *See id*. at 5.

[^406]: *See id*. at 8.

[^407]: *See id*. According to Chariton Valley, its new vendor, GBSD
    Technologies, Inc., utilizes automatic direction finding technology,
    which is a new type of angle of arrival technology designed for use
    in rural markets. *See id*. at 9.

[^408]: See Third Supplement to Missouri RSA \# 5 Partnership Petition
    for Waiver of Section 20.18(f) of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket
    No. 94-102, filed Mar. 18, 2005, at 1; Fourth Supplement to Missouri
    RSA \# 5 Partnership Petition for Waiver of Section 20.18(f) of the
    Commission's Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Mar. 22, 2005, at
    1-2.

[^409]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(j)(5).

[^410]: *See* North Dakota PCS Alliance Petition for Waiver of E911
    Phase II Location Technology Implementation Rules, CC Docket No.
    94-102, filed July 30, 2002.

[^411]: *See* Letter from Steven D. Lyme, CEO/General Manager North
    Dakota Network Co. to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, dated Nov. 10,
    2003.

[^412]: *See* Supplement to Petition of RSA 1 Limited Partnership dba
    Cellular 29 Plus for Waiver of Section 20.18 of the Commission's
    Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Nov. 10, 2003 at 2 (Cellular 29
    Supplement).

[^413]: *See* Cellular 29 Supplement at 2. Cellular 29 does not provide
    a specific date, rather it states in the supplement that "within the
    past two weeks, Cellular 29 \[received\] the ALI-handsets."

[^414]: *See id*. at 3.

[^415]: *See* Sussex Cellular, Inc. Amendment of E-911 Phase II
    Implementation Plan, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Nov. 10, 2003
    (Sussex 2003 Amendment). In its amended implementation plan, Sussex
    stated that because a handset-based solution is not technically
    feasible for its AMPS system and the expense of a digital conversion
    cannot be justified, it has elected a network-based solution. *See
    id*. at 1.

[^416]: *See* Sussex Cellular, Inc. Petition for Waiver of Sections
    20.18(e) and (g) of the Commission\'s Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    filed Sept. 28, 2001.

[^417]: *See* Enhanced 911 Tier III Interim Report, Sussex Cellular,
    Inc., CC Docket no. 94-102, filed Jan. 14, 2004, at 2.

[^418]: RTG describes itself as an organized group of rural
    telecommunications provides who have joined to provide
    telecommunications technologies to remote and underserved sections
    of the country, including wireless services*. See* Petition for
    Waiver and Request for Temporary Limited Stay of Section 20.18 of
    the Commission's Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed Aug. 29, 2003 at
    1, n. 1 (RTG Petition).

[^419]: *See id*. at 3-4. RTG proposes that carriers with 100,000 or
    fewer subscribers be classified as "Tier IV" carriers. *See id*. at
    3-4.

[^420]: *See id.* at 9-11.

[^421]: *See id.* at 4-5.

[^422]: *See id*. at 5-6 and n.10. The TDF is intended to be used as a
    proxy to determine average density and distance between cell towers,
    to approximate ALI capabilities.

[^423]: *See id.* at 5-7.

[^424]: *See id*. at 7-11.

[^425]: *See id*. at 11.

[^426]: *See id*.

[^427]: *See id*. at 12.

[^428]: *See id*.

[^429]: *See id.* at 13.

[^430]: *See id*. at 13-14.

[^431]: *See, e.g., supra* ¶ 11 and *Order to Stay*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20997
    ¶ 29.

[^432]: *See supra* ¶ 9.

[^433]: *See, e.g*., AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Notice of Apparent
    Liability and Forfeiture, File No. EB-02-TS-018 (May 20, 2002);
    T-Mobile USA, Notice of Apparent Liability and Forfeiture, File No.
    EB-02-TS-624 (Mar. 5, 2003).