**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | CC Docket No. 96-45          |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Federal-State Joint Board on     | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Universal Service                | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Hopi Telecommunications, Inc.    | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Petition for Designation as an   | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Eligible Telecommunications      | ** |                              |
| Carrier for the                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Hopi Reservation in Arizona      | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: January 31, 2007 Released: January 31, 2007**

By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau:

# introduction

1.  In this Order, we grant Hopi Telecommunications, Inc.'s (Hopi)
    request to be designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier
    (ETC) on the Hopi Reservation and on a small portion of the Navajo
    Reservation in Arizona[^1] pursuant to section 214(e)(6) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act).[^2] Hopi, a
    tribally-owned wireline carrier, seeks ETC designation in the study
    area where it purchased three local exchanges of CenturyTel of the
    Southwest (CenturyTel), a rural incumbent local exchange, to provide
    telecommunications services to areas, including underserved and
    unserved areas, on tribal lands. Applying the Commission's two-step
    analysis for ETC designations for tribal lands, we first conclude
    that the Commission has jurisdiction to determine whether Hopi
    should be designated an eligible telecommunications carrier. We also
    conclude that Hopi has satisfied the statutory eligibility
    requirements of section 214(e)(1) to be designated an ETC on the
    Reservation in Arizona.[^3]

# BACKGROUND

## Jurisdiction to Designate ETCs on Tribal Lands 

2.  Section 254(e) of the Act provides that "only an eligible
    telecommunications carrier designated under section 214(e) shall be
    eligible to receive specific Federal universal service support."[^4]
    Pursuant to section 214(e)(1), a common carrier designated as an ETC
    must offer and advertise the services supported by the federal
    universal service mechanisms throughout the designated service
    area.[^5] Section 214(e)(2) of the Act gives state commissions the
    primary responsibility for performing ETC designations.[^6] Section
    214(e)(6) directs the Commission, upon request, to designate as an
    ETC "a common carrier providing telephone exchange service and
    exchange access that is not subject to the jurisdiction of a State
    commission."[^7] Under section 214(e)(6), the Commission may, with
    respect to an area served by a rural telephone company, and shall,
    in all other cases, designate more than one common carrier as an ETC
    for a designated service area, consistent with the public interest,
    convenience, and necessity, so long as the requesting carrier meets
    the requirements of section 214(e)(1).[^8] Before designating an
    additional ETC for an area served by a rural telephone company, the
    Commission must determine that the designation is in the public
    interest.[^9] The Wireline Competition Bureau ("Bureau") has
    delegated authority to perform ETC designations.[^10]

3.  The Act is silent, however, on how to determine whether a state
    commission lacks jurisdiction, who makes the jurisdictional
    determination, and what to do if two entities -- for example, a
    state and a tribe -- both assert jurisdiction over the same
    telecommunications carrier. Therefore, in the *Twelfth Report and
    Order*, the Commission established that carriers serving tribal
    lands may first petition the Commission for a determination on
    whether the state has jurisdiction over the carrier.[^11] Under this
    framework, we undertake a two-step analysis. First, we determine
    whether a carrier providing service on tribal lands is subject to
    the jurisdiction of a state commission or whether it is subject to a
    tribal authority given the tribal interests involved. Second, if the
    carrier is not subject to the jurisdiction of a state commission, we
    consider the merits of the carrier's request to be designated as an
    ETC.

## Commission Requirements for ETC Designation

4.  An ETC petition must contain the following: (1) a certification and
    brief statement of supporting facts demonstrating that the
    petitioner is not subject to the jurisdiction of a state
    commission; (2) a certification that the petitioner offers or
    intends to offer all services designated for support by the
    Commission pursuant to section 254(c) of the Act; (3) a
    certification that the petitioner offers or intends to offer the
    supported services "either using its own facilities or a combination
    of its own facilities and resale of another carrier's services;" (4)
    a description of how the petitioner "advertise\[s\] the availability
    of \[supported\] services and the charges therefore using media of
    general distribution;" and (5) if the petitioner meets the
    definition of a "rural telephone company" pursuant to section 3(37)
    of the Act, an identification of the petitioner's study area, or, if
    the petitioner is not a rural telephone company, a detailed
    description of the geographic service area for which it requests an
    ETC designation from the Commission.[^12]

5.  In the *ETC Designation Order*, released March 17, 2005, the
    Commission generally affirmed its earlier holdings and adopted
    additional requirements for ETC designation proceedings in which the
    Commission acts pursuant to section 214(e)(6) of the Act.[^13]
    Specifically, consistent with the recommendation of the
    Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, the Commission found
    that an ETC applicant must demonstrate: (1) a commitment and ability
    to provide services, including providing service to all customers
    within its proposed service area; (2) how it will remain functional
    in emergency situations; (3) that it will satisfy consumer
    protection and service quality standards; (4) that it offers local
    usage comparable to that offered by the incumbent LEC; and (5) an
    understanding that it may be required to provide equal access if all
    other ETCs in the designated service area relinquish their
    designations pursuant to section 214(e)(4) of the Act.[^14] These
    additional requirements are mandatory for all ETCs designated by the
    Commission.[^15] ETCs already designated by the Commission or ETC
    applicants that submitted applications prior to the effective date
    of the *ETC Designation Order* are required to make such showings in
    their annual certification filings.[^16]

## The Hopi Petition for ETC Designation on the Hopi and Navajo Reservations in Arizona

6.  Hopi acquired the study area consisting of the three local exchanges
    of CenturyTel, a rural incumbent local exchange company.[^17] The
    study area covers the Hopi Reservation and a small portion of the
    Navajo Reservation in Arizona.[^18] Hopi filed a petition requesting
    that the Commission grant it ETC designation concurrent with the
    closure of its Asset Purchase Agreement with CenturyTel.[^19] With
    the closure of the Asset Purchase Agreement on June 1, 2006, Hopi
    states that it is the incumbent LEC and a "rural telephone company"
    as defined by the Act.[^20] Hopi must be designated an ETC in order
    to be eligible to receive universal service support, including high
    cost support that CenturyTel was previously receiving.

7.  Hopi contends that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the
    Arizona Corporation Commission (Arizona Commission).[^21] Hopi
    states that it is a tribal corporation wholly owned by and subject
    to the jurisdiction of the Hopi Tribe, a federally-recognized Indian
    Tribe.[^22] Hopi also states that it will only provide service on
    the tribal lands and points out that the Commission has exercised
    jurisdiction over other tribally-owned carriers operating on tribal
    lands in Arizona.[^23]

8.  The Commission sought comment on the Hopi Petition.[^24] The
    National Tribal Telecommunications Association (NTTA) and the
    Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small
    Telecommunications Companies (OPASTCO) filed comments in support of
    the Petition.[^25] Significantly, the Arizona Commission did not
    comment.

# Discussion

9.  As discussed in detail below, we conclude that it is appropriate for
    the Commission to exercise jurisdiction over the Hopi Petition for
    ETC designation. We also find that Hopi has satisfied the statutory
    requirements for ETC eligibility under section 214(e)(1) of the Act.
    The service area for Hopi's ETC designation is defined as the study
    area of the rural incumbent LEC CenturyTel on the Hopi and Navajo
    Reservations, consisting of the Keams Canyon, Kykotsmovi, and
    Polacca local exchanges.

## Jurisdiction

10. In the *Twelfth Report and Order*, the Commission established the
    framework for the ETC designation process under section 214(e)(6) of
    the Act for carriers serving tribal lands.[^26] The Commission
    concluded that a carrier seeking ETC designation on tribal lands may
    petition the Commission without first seeking designation from the
    state commission.[^27] The carrier must notify the state commission
    by providing copies of its petition to the state commission.[^28]
    The Commission places the petition on public notice, establishing a
    comment and reply period, and sends the public notice to the state
    commission to ensure that the state commission is properly
    noticed.[^29] Under this framework, the carrier has the burden to
    prove that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the state
    commission.[^30]

11. The determination of whether the Commission has jurisdiction to
    consider an ETC petition for service on tribal lands is greatly
    informed by the participation of the tribe and the state commission
    or other state authorities.[^31] We are mindful that some state
    commissions will not object to the Commission's jurisdiction over
    designation of carriers serving tribal lands.[^32] Significantly,
    Hopi is a tribally-owned carrier operating only on tribal
    lands.[^33]

12. We find that Hopi has made a *prima facie* showing that the
    Commission has jurisdiction for designation of Hopi as an ETC on the
    Hopi Reservation and a small portion of the Navajo Nation
    Reservation. Under the framework established in the *Twelfth Report
    and Order*, Hopi filed its petition with the Commission and
    simultaneously served a copy on the Arizona Commission.[^34] In its
    Petition, Hopi asserts that the Commission has jurisdiction to
    consider the ETC designation petition because Hopi is a
    tribally-owned wireline carrier operating on tribal lands.[^35]
    Further, the Arizona Commission has not asserted jurisdiction in
    this matter. Finally, we have previously found that the Commission
    has jurisdiction to designate tribally-owned carriers operating on
    tribal lands in Arizona.[^36] We, therefore, find that the
    Commission has jurisdiction to consider Hopi's request for ETC
    designation.

## Analysis of Hopi's Petition for Designation as an ETC

13. Having determined that we have jurisdiction over the Hopi Petition,
    we now examine whether Hopi satisfies the requirements of section
    214 of the Act for the requested service area on the Hopi and Navajo
    Reservations. As explained below, we find that Hopi, a
    tribally-owned wireline carrier, meets the requirements of sections
    214(e)(1) and (e)(6) of the Act. We therefore designate Hopi as an
    ETC for the requested service area.

### Offering and Advertising the Supported Services

14. [Offering the Services Designated for Support]{.underline}. Hopi has
    demonstrated through the required certifications and related filings
    that it now offers, or will offer upon obtaining designation as an
    ETC, the services supported by the federal universal mechanisms.
    With the June 1, 2006 closure of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Hopi
    is authorized to provide wireline service in the requested service
    area.[^37] Hopi certifies that it now provides or will provide
    throughout its designated service area the services and
    functionalities enumerated in section 54.101(a) of the Commission's
    rules.[^38] Hopi also certifies that, in compliance with the
    Commission's Lifeline rules, it will make available and advertise
    enhanced Lifeline and Link-up services to qualifying low-income
    consumers.[^39] Hopi has also committed to serve unserved or
    underserved areas.[^40]

15. Hopi has committed to meet consumer protection and service quality
    standards as required by the *ETC Designation Order*. Although not
    subject to the jurisdiction of the Arizona Commission, Hopi has
    adopted consumer protection standards in its local exchange tariff
    that satisfy current Arizona Commission rules.[^41] Hopi also
    commits to provide: (1) annual reporting of unfulfilled service
    requests and of consumer complaints per 1,000 lines; (2) specific
    commitments to provide service to requesting customers in the area
    for which it is designated; and (3) specific commitments to improve
    its network.[^42]

16. [Offering the Supported Services Using a Carrier's Own
    Facilities]{.underline}. Hopi has demonstrated that it satisfies the
    requirement of section 214(e)(1)(A) of the Act that it will offer
    the supported services using either its own facilities or a
    combination of its own facilities and resale of another carrier's
    services.[^43] Hopi states that it intends to provide the supported
    services using the existing network infrastructure purchased from
    CenturyTel.[^44]

17. [Advertising Supported Services]{.underline}. Hopi has demonstrated
    that it satisfies the requirement of section 214(e)(1)(B) of the Act
    to advertise the availability of the supported services and related
    charges using media of general distribution, including radio,
    newspaper, and press releases.[^45] Hopi points out that, as a
    tribally-owned wireline carrier, it will work closely with the
    agencies of the tribal government to inform the public of its
    service.[^46] Hopi also has committed to specific methods to
    publicize the availability of Lifeline and Link-up services, such as
    personal outreach coordinated through tribal liaisons, advertising
    in the offices of social service agencies, and advertising via bill
    inserts and its website to provide information to those people most
    likely to qualify for Lifeline and Link-Up benefits.[^47] Thus, Hopi
    plans to use advertising to ensure that consumers within its
    designated service area are fully informed of its universal service
    offering.

### Public Interest Analysis

18. As explained below, we conclude that it is consistent with the
    public interest, convenience, and necessity to designate Hopi as an
    ETC for the requested service area that is served by the rural
    incumbent LEC, CenturyTel. We conclude that Hopi has satisfied its
    burden of proof in establishing that its universal service offering
    in the service area will provide benefits to rural consumers.[^48]

19. Prior to designating an ETC pursuant to section 214(e)(6) of the
    Act, the Commission determines whether such designation is in the
    public interest.[^49] In the *ETC Designation Order*, the Commission
    adopted one set of criteria for evaluating the public interest for
    ETC designations for both rural and non-rural areas.[^50] In
    determining the public interest, the benefits of increased consumer
    choice and the unique advantages and disadvantages of the
    applicant's service offering are considered.[^51] As the Commission
    noted in the *ETC Designation Order*, however, the same factors may
    be analyzed differently or may warrant a different outcome depending
    on the specifics of the proposed service area and whether it is
    rural or non-rural.[^52] In particular, the "creamskimming" analysis
    is limited to designations in rural service areas.[^53] Thus, when
    an ETC applicant seeks designation below the study area of a rural
    telephone company, a creamskimming analysis is conducted to compare
    the population density of the wire centers in which the ETC
    applicant seeks designation against that of the wire centers in the
    study area in which the ETC applicant does not seek
    designation.[^54]

20. We find that Hopi's universal service offering will provide a
    variety of benefits to consumers, including providing upgraded
    capacity and service to unserved areas. Hopi states that the network
    of CenturyTel is currently at capacity and not available to serve
    some portions of the service area.[^55] Hopi states that universal
    service support will enable Hopi to construct facilities that,
    according to Hopi, may not otherwise be built on the Reservation,
    and thus enable additional services to be available to consumers on
    the Reservation.[^56]

21. In addition, Hopi will also use support to offer a basic universal
    service package to subscribers who are eligible for Lifeline
    support.[^57] Hopi has committed to provide service to any
    requesting customers within its designated service area.[^58] Hopi
    also will offer a local calling plan that includes unlimited local
    calling among the three exchanges, which is the same as offered by
    CenturyTel.[^59]

22. Hopi has also made service quality commitments as required by the
    *ETC Designation Order*, including compliance with applicable
    consumer protection and service quality standards.[^60] Likewise,
    Hopi has committed to report annually to the Commission on the
    number of complaints per 1,000 lines and how many requests for
    service from potential customers were unfulfilled.[^61] In addition,
    Hopi's commitments to use a combination of various media channels to
    advertise its service offerings satisfy section 214(e)(1)(B) of the
    Act.[^62] As the Commission has stated previously, because an ETC
    receives universal service only to the extent that it serves
    customers, strong economic incentives exist, in addition to the
    statutory obligation, for Hopi to advertise it's universal service
    offering in its designated area.[^63]

23. Finally, because Hopi has purchased the assets of CenturyTel and is
    seeking designation for CenturyTel's entire study area, we are not
    concerned about creamskimming. Rural creamskimming occurs when
    competitors seek to serve only the low-cost, high revenue customers
    in a rural telephone company's study area.[^64] Hopi is not seeking
    to do this here. Thus, we find that designation of Hopi, a
    tribally-owned wireline carrier, as an ETC on the Reservation is in
    the public interest.

### Designated Service Area

24. Under section 214(e)(1), a carrier designated as an ETC is eligible
    to receive universal service support throughout the service area for
    which the designation is received.[^65] We conclude that Hopi's
    "service area" is the study area of the rural incumbent LEC
    CenturyTel on the Hopi and Navajo Reservations, consisting of the
    Keams Canyon, Kykotsmovi, and Polacca local exchanges.[^66] We
    therefore designate Hopi as an ETC on the Reservation in the
    requested area previously served by the rural telephone company,
    CenturyTel of the Southwest.

### Regulatory Oversight

25. We note that Hopi is required under section 254(e) of the Act to use
    high-cost support "only for the provision, maintenance, and
    upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is
    intended" and must, under sections 54.313 and 54.314 of the
    Commission's rules, certify annually that it is in compliance with
    this requirement.[^67] In its Petition, Hopi certified to the
    Commission that, consistent with sections 54.313 and 54.314 of the
    Commission's rules, all federal high-cost support will be used "only
    for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and
    services for which the support is intended" pursuant to section
    254(e) of the Act in the area for which Hopi is designated as an
    ETC.[^68] Furthermore, because Hopi is a tribally-owned wireline
    rural incumbent LEC, we find good cause exists to make the ETC
    designation effective as of the date of closure of the Purchase
    Asset Agreement. This is necessary to ensure that universal service
    support payments are not interrupted solely because of the
    acquisition of certain CenturyTel assets by Hopi. We direct Hopi to
    make all required filings with the Universal Service Administrative
    Company (USAC) under Parts 36, 54, and 69 of the Commission's rules
    so that it may be eligible to receive high-cost support from the
    date of closure of the Purchase Asset Agreement.[^69] To the extent
    necessary, we extend the applicable ETC filing deadlines for 60 days
    from the release of the Order so that Hopi may make the necessary
    filings.[^70] We also direct USAC to work with Hopi as necessary for
    Hopi to make the required filings with USAC.

26. Hopi has committed to meeting each of the criteria required by the
    *ETC Designation Order* and will annually submit information
    detailing how it has satisfied the criteria.[^71] These records and
    documentation must be filed with the Commission and the Universal
    Service Administrative Company (USAC) on October 1 of each year,
    beginning October 1, 2007.[^72] As noted above, Hopi has also
    committed to providing applicable consumer protection and service
    quality standards.[^73]

27. We find that reliance on Hopi's commitments is reasonable and
    consistent with the public interest, the Act, and the Fifth Circuit
    decision in *Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC*.[^74] We
    conclude that fulfillment of these additional reporting requirements
    will further the Commission's goal of ensuring that Hopi satisfies
    its obligation under section 214(e) of the Act to provide supported
    services throughout its designated service area.[^75]

28. We note that the Commission may institute an inquiry on its own
    motion to examine any ETC's records and documentation to ensure that
    the high-cost support it receives is being used "only for the
    provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services" in
    the areas where it is designated as an ETC.[^76] Hopi is required to
    provide such records and documentation to the Commission and USAC
    upon request. We further emphasize that, if Hopi fails to fulfill
    the requirements of the Act, the Commission's rules, or the terms of
    this Order after it begins receiving universal service support, the
    Commission may exercise its authority to revoke Hopi's ETC
    designation.[^77] The Commission also may assess forfeitures for
    violations of Commission rules and orders.[^78]

## Anti-Drug Abuse Act Certification

29. Pursuant to section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, no
    applicant is eligible for any new, modified, or renewed instrument
    of authorization from the Commission, including authorizations
    issued pursuant to section 214 of the Act, unless the applicant
    certifies that neither it, nor any party to its application, is
    subject to a denial of federal benefits, including Commission
    benefits.[^79] Hopi has provided a certification consistent with the
    requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.[^80] We find that
    Hopi's certification satisfies the requirements of the Anti-Drug
    Abuse Act of 1988, as codified in sections 1.2001-1.2003 of the
    Commission's rules.

# ordering clauses

30. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained
    in section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §
    214(e)(6), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91,
    0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
    0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), Hopi Telecommunications, Inc. IS
    DESIGNATED AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER, effective as of
    June 1, 2006, for portions of its licensed service area on the Hopi
    and Navajo Nation Reservations in Arizona, to the extent described
    herein.

31. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201,
    202 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
    §§ 151, 154(i), 155(c), 201, 202, and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291,
    and 1.3 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and
    1.3, the ETC filing deadlines required by to Parts 36, 54, and 69 of
    the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Parts 36, 54, and 69, ARE WAIVED,
    to the extent described herein, for 60 days from the date of this
    Order so that Hopi Telecommunications, Inc. may be eligible to
    receive high-cost support from June 1, 2006.

32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hopi Telecommunications, Inc. SHALL
    SUBMIT additional information pursuant to section 54.209 of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.209, no later than October 1,
    2007, as part of its annual reporting requirements.

33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order SHALL BE TRANSMITTED
    by the Wireline Competition Bureau to the Arizona Corporation
    Commission and to the Universal Service Administrative Company.

34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to section 1.103 of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F. R. § 1.103, this Order SHALL BE
    EFFECTIVE upon release.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Thomas J. Navin

Chief

Wireline Competition Bureau

[^1]: We refer to the Hopi and Navajo reservations collectively as the
    "Reservation" throughout this Order.

[^2]: Hopi Telecommunications, Inc. Petition for Designation as an
    Eligible Telecommunications Carrier, CC Docket No. 96-45 (filed Feb.
    21, 2006) (Hopi Petition or Petition). On February 22, 2006, Hopi
    filed Appendices B (signed Verification) and C (Anti-Drug Abuse
    Certification) to the Petition. Letter from David Cosson, Counsel
    for Hopi Telecommunications, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
    Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 96-45, filed Feb.
    22, 2006 (Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively). On February 23,
    2006, Hopi filed a Section 254(e) Certification, attesting that all
    universal service support funds will be used for the purpose for
    which they are intended. Letter from Brent Kennedy, General Manager,
    Hopi Telecommunications, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
    Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 96-45, filed Feb.
    23, 2006 (Section 254(e) Certification).

[^3]: 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1).

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(e).

[^5]: 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1).

[^6]: 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(2); *see Promoting Deployment and
    Subscribership in Unserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular
    Areas*, CC Docket No. 96-45, Twelfth Report and Order, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC
    Rcd 12208, 12255, para. 93 (2000) (*Twelfth Report and Order*).

[^7]: 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(6). *See, e.g., Virginia Cellular, LLC Petition
    for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier for the
    Commonwealth of Virginia,* CC Docket No. 96-45, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 1563 (2004) (*Virginia Cellular Order*)*;
    Highland Cellular, Inc. Petition for Designation as an Eligible
    Telecommunications Carrier for the Commonwealth of Virginia,* CC
    Docket No. 96-45, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 6422
    (2004) (*Highland Cellular Order*).

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(6).

[^9]: *Id.*

[^10]: *See* *Procedures for FCC Designation of Eligible
    Telecommunications Carriers Pursuant to Section 214(e)(6) of the
    Communications Act*, CC docket No. 96-45, Public Notice, 12 FCC Rcd
    22947, 22948 (1997) (*Section 214(e)(6) Public Notice*). The
    Wireline Competition Bureau was previously named the Common Carrier
    Bureau.

[^11]: *Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and
    Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular Areas, Smith Bagley,
    Inc., Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority, Western
    Wireless Corporation, Wyoming, Cellco Partnership d/b/a/ Bell
    Atlantic Mobile, Inc., Petitions for Designation as an Eligible
    Telecommunications Carrier and for Related Waivers to Provide
    Universal Service,* CC Docket No. 96-45, Twelfth Report and Order,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 12208, 12265, paras. 115-27 (2000) (*Twelfth
    Report and Order*), *aff'd Promoting Deployment and Subscribership
    in Unserved and Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular
    Areas*, CC Docket No. 96-45, Twenty-Fifth Order on Reconsideration,
    Report and Order, Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
    18 FCC Rcd 10958, 10964, n.28 (2003) (*Tribal Recon. Order*).

[^12]: *See* *Procedures for FCC Designation of Eligible
    Telecommunications Carriers Pursuant to Section 214(e)(6) of the
    Communications Act*, CC Docket No. 96-45, Public Notice, 12 FCC Rcd
    22947, 22948-49 (1997) (*Section 214(e)(6) Public Notice*); 47
    U.S.C. § 3(37).

[^13]: *See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service*, CC Docket
    No. 96-45, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 6371 (2005) (*ETC
    Designation Order*); *see also Virginia Cellular, LLC Petition for
    Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier for the
    Commonwealth of Virginia,* CC Docket No. 96-45, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 1563, 1564, 1565, 1575-76, 1584-85, paras. 1,
    4, 27, 28, 46 (2004) (*Virginia Cellular)*; *Highland Cellular, Inc.
    Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier
    for the Commonwealth of Virginia,* CC Docket No. 96-45, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 6422, 6438, paras. 1, 33 (2004)
    (*Highland Cellular).*

[^14]: *See ETC Designation Order,* 20 FCC Rcd at 6380, para. 20,
    *citing Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service*, CC Docket
    No. 96-45, Recommended Decision, 19 FCC Rcd 4259, para. 5 (2004)
    (*Recommended Decision*).

[^15]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.202(a).

[^16]: *See id;* 47 C.F.R. § 54.202(c).

[^17]: Letter from David Cosson, Counsel for Hopi Telecommunications,
    Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, CC Docket No. 96-45, filed Sept. 29, 2006 (Purchase
    Closure *Ex Parte* Letter). Hopi closed the purchase of the assets
    and subscriber base of CenturyTel of the Southwest on June 1, 2006.
    *Id*.

[^18]: Hopi Petition at 2. The three exchanges are Keams Canyon,
    Kykotsmovi, and Polacca. *Id*.; *see* Purchase Closure *Ex Parte*
    Letter.

[^19]: Hopi Petition at 2; *see* Purchase Closure *Ex Parte* Letter.

[^20]: *See* Hopi Petition at 2.

[^21]: *Id*.

[^22]: *Id*.

[^23]: *See id*. at 3 and n.6 (*citing* *Designation of Fort Mohave
    Telecommunications, Inc., Gila River Telecommunications, Inc., San
    Carlos Telecommunications, Inc., and Tohono O'Odham Utility
    Authority as Eligible Telecommunications Carriers Pursuant to
    Section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act*, AAD/USB File No.
    98-28, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 4547 (Wireline Comp.
    Bur. 1998)); *see also Petition of Saddleback Communications for
    Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Pursuant to
    Section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act*, CC Docket No. 96-45,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22433 (Wireline Comp. Bur.
    1998).

[^24]: *See Parties are Invited to Comment on the Petition of Hopi
    Telecommunications, Inc. for Designation as an Eligible
    Telecommunications Carrier in the Hopi and Navajo Reservations in
    the State of Arizona*, CC Docket No. 96-45, Public Notice, DA 06-615
    (rel. March 17, 2006).

[^25]: *See generally* NTAA Comments, CC Docket No. 96-45, filed April
    6, 2006; OPASTCO Comments, CC Docket No. 96-45, filed April 6, 2006.

[^26]: *Twelfth Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 12265-12269, paras.
    115-127. In the *Twelfth Report and Order*, the Commission noted
    that the legislative history of section 214(e)(6) made clear that
    the class of carriers covered by this provision was "dominated by
    tribally-owned carriers," although certainly not limited to these.
    *Id*. at 12261, para. 106.

[^27]: *Id*. at 12266, para. 120.

[^28]: *Id*.

[^29]: *Id*.

[^30]: *Id*.

[^31]: *Id*. at 12268, para. 124.

[^32]: *Id*.

[^33]: Hopi Petition at 2.

[^34]: Letter from David Cosson, Counsel for Hopi Telecommunications,
    Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, CC Docket No. 96-45, filed Oct. 3, 2006 (attaching
    signed Certificate of Service certifying service of the Petition on
    Feb. 21, 2006 via U.S. Mail, first-class postage pre-paid, to
    Arizona Corporation Commission, Utilities Division ).

[^35]: *See* Hopi Petition at 2.

[^36]: *See* *Designation of Fort Mohave Telecommunications, Inc., Gila
    River Telecommunications, Inc., San Carlos Telecommunications, Inc.,
    and Tohono O'Odham Utility Authority as Eligible Telecommunications
    Carriers Pursuant to Section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act*,
    AAD/USB File No. 98-28, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd
    4547 (Com. Carrier Bur. 1998); *see also Petition of Saddleback
    Communications for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications
    Carrier Pursuant to Section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act*, CC
    Docket No. 96-45, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22433
    (Com. Carrier Bur. 1998). The Arizona Commission "recognizes that it
    has no jurisdiction over utility services provided by Indian tribes
    on the reservation, if the tribe asserts jurisdiction;" however, it
    has found jurisdiction over nontribally-owned carriers seeking ETC
    designation on tribal lands. *Compare* Petition of Saddleback
    Communications for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications
    Carrier, CC Docket No. 96-45, Attach. G, filed June 2, 1998 *to*
    *Public Notice Smith Bagley, Inc. Petitions to Redefine the Service
    Area of Table Top Telephones Company on Tribal Lands Within the
    State of Arizona*, CC Docket No. 96-45, 16 FCC Rcd 7559 (Com. Car.
    Bur. 2001).

[^37]: *See* Hopi Petition at 2; Purchase Closure *Ex Parte* Letter.

[^38]: *Id*. at 3-4.

[^39]: *Id*. at 5-10.

[^40]: *See id*. at 12.

[^41]: *Id*. at 15.

[^42]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 54.209; *Virginia Cellular*, 19 FCC Rcd at
    1584-85, para. 46; *see also* Hopi Petition at 11-15. Hopi has
    provided detailed information on how it will use universal service
    support to expand its service throughout the requested service area.
    *See* *id.* at 11-14.

[^43]: *See* Hopi Petition at 11-14.

[^44]: *Id*.

[^45]: *Id*. at 6; 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1)(B).

[^46]: *See* Hopi Petition at 4.

[^47]: *Id*. at 5-8.

[^48]: *See Virginia Cellular*, 19 FCC Rcd at 1574-75, para. 26;
    *Highland Cellular*, 19 FCC Rcd at 6431, para. 20.

[^49]: 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(6); 47 C.F.R. § 54.202(c). *See ETC
    Designation Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 6388-6396, paras. 40-57; *Virginia
    Cellular Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 1575, para. 27; *Highland Cellular
    Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 6431-32, para. 21. In determining whether the
    public interest is served in an ETC petition, the Commission places
    the burden on the ETC applicant. *ETC Designation Order*, 20 FCC Rcd
    at 6390, para. 44.

[^50]: *ETC Designation Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 6389-90, paras. 42-43. A
    carrier "creamskims" when it serves only the least expensive
    customers, thereby undercutting the incumbent LEC's ability to
    provide service throughout the entire study area. *See Federal-State
    Joint Board on Universal Service*, Report and Order, CC Docket No.
    96-45, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 8881-82, para. 189 (1997).

[^51]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.202(c).

[^52]: *Id*. at 6390, para. 43.

[^53]: *ETC Designation Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 6390, para. 42.

[^54]: *Id*. at 6392-95, paras. 48-53.

[^55]: *See* Hopi Petition at 11.

[^56]: *See* *id*. at 13-14.

[^57]: *See* *id.* at 5.

[^58]: *See id.* at 11-13.

[^59]: *Id.* at 15.

[^60]: *Id.* at 15; *see ETC Designation Order,* 20 FCC Rcd at 6384,
    para. 28.

[^61]: Hopi Petition at 11-15; *see ETC Designation Order,* 20 FCC Rcd
    at 6402, para. 69.

[^62]: Hopi Petition at 11.

[^63]: *See Virginia Cellular Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 1574, para. 25*.*

[^64]: *See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service*, CC Docket
    No. 96-45, Recommended Decision, 12 FCC Rcd 87, 180, para. 172
    (1996).

[^65]: 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1).

[^66]: *See* Hopi Petition at 3. Hopi requests that its service area be
    designated as the geographic area included in CenturyTel's study
    area. *Id*. at n.3.

[^67]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(e); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.313, 54.314.

[^68]: *See* Hopi Petition at 17; February 23, 2006 *Ex Parte*, Attach.
    at 1.

[^69]: *See generally* 47 C.F.R. Parts 36, 54, and 69.

[^70]: Generally, the Commission may waive its rules for good cause
    shown. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. The Commission may exercise its
    discretion to waive a rule where the particular facts make strict
    compliance inconsistent with the public interest. *See* *Northeast
    Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC*, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
    (*Northeast Cellular*). In addition, the Commission may take into
    account considerations of hardship, equity, or more effective
    implementation of overall policy on an individual basis. *See* *WAIT
    Radio v. FCC*, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969), *cert. denied*,
    409 U.S. 1027 (1972); *Northeast Cellular*, 897 F.2d at 1166. Waiver
    of the Commission's rules is therefore appropriate only if special
    circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such
    deviation will serve the public interest. For all of the reasons
    discussed above, we find good cause to waive the applicable ETC
    filing deadlines, including those that may have expired from June 1,
    2006, until the release date of this Order.

[^71]: *See* Hopi Petition at 11.

[^72]: *See ETC Designation Order,* 20 FCC Rcd at 6401-2, paras. 68-69.

[^73]: Hopi Petition at 15; *see supra* paras. 15 and 21.

[^74]: *Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC*, 183 F.3d 393,
    417-18 (5^th^ Cir. 1999).

[^75]: 47 U.S.C. § 214(e).

[^76]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 220, 403; 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.313, 54.314.

[^77]: *See Declaratory Ruling*, 15 FCC Rcd at 15174, para. 15. *See
    also* 47 U.S.C. § 254(e).

[^78]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^79]: 21 U.S.C. § 862; 47 C.F.R. § 1.2002(a). Section 1.2002(b)
    provides that a "party to the application" shall include: "(1) If
    the applicant is an individual, that individual; (2) If the
    applicant is a corporation or unincorporated association, all
    officers, directors, or persons holding 5% or more of the
    outstanding stock or shares (voting/and or non-voting) of the
    petitioner; and (3) If the applicant is a partnership, all
    non-limited partners and any limited partners holding a 5% or more
    interest in the partnership." 47 C.F.R. § 1.2002(b); *see Section
    214(e)(6) Public Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 22949.

[^80]: *See* Hopi Petition at 17, App. C.