**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

) File No. EB-05-SE-116

)

Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200632100010

) FRN \# 0001699719

)

American Cellular Corporation ) NAL/Acct. No. 200632100011

) FRN \# 0003767324

)

Subsidiaries of Dobson Communications Corp. )

**NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE**

**Adopted: April 17, 2006 Released: April 18, 2006**

By the Commission:

#### I. INTRODUCTION {#i.-introduction .Style-Heading-4-+-Left}

1.  In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
    that Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. ("DCS") and American Cellular
    Corporation ("ACC") (collectively, "Dobson")[^1] apparently
    willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 20.18(d) and (f) of the
    Commission's Rules ("Rules"),[^2] by failing to provide Enhanced 911
    ("E911") Phase I service within six months of a valid request by the
    relevant Public Safety Answering Point ("PSAP") in a total of
    nine (9) instances, and failing to provide E911 Phase II service
    within six months of a valid request by the relevant PSAP in a total
    of forty-one (41) instances. For DCS's and ACC's apparent
    violations, we propose forfeitures totaling Seven Hundred Fifty
    Thousand Dollars (\$750,000).

#### II. BACKGROUND {#ii.-background .Style-Heading-4-+-Left}

2.  The Commission's wireless E911 rules ensure that the important
    public safety needs of wireless callers requiring emergency
    assistance are met as quickly as possible. Under Phase I of the E911
    rules, wireless carriers must provide designated PSAPs with both the
    telephone number of the mobile handset that originated the 911 call
    and the location of the base station or cell site that received the
    911 call.[^3] Wireless carriers are required to provide such
    information within six months of a valid request by a designated
    PSAP.

3.  The E911 Phase II rules require wireless carriers to provide
    designated PSAPs with the location of wireless 911 callers by
    longitude and latitude, a capability referred to as Automatic
    Location Identification ("ALI").[^4] Wireless carriers may provide
    ALI information by deploying either a network-based solution or a
    handset-based solution. [^5] If the carrier chooses to deploy a
    network-based solution, it must provide designated PSAPs with Phase
    II service to at least 50 percent of the PSAP's coverage area or at
    least 50 percent of its population within six months of a valid PSAP
    request, and to 100 percent of the PSAP's coverage area or 100
    percent of its population within 18 months of such a request.[^6] In
    addition, carriers choosing a network-based solution must provide
    the location information with an accuracy of 100 meters for 67
    percent of calls and 300 meters for 95 percent of calls.[^7]

4.  A PSAP request for Phase I or Phase II service is deemed valid if
    the PSAP can demonstrate that it will be capable of receiving and
    utilizing the Phase I or Phase II data no later than six months
    after its request. Specifically, a PSAP request is deemed valid if
    the PSAP can demonstrate that: (i) a mechanism is in place for
    recovering the PSAP's costs; (ii) it has ordered the equipment
    necessary to receive and utilize the E911 data to be installed no
    later than six months following its request; and (iii) it has made a
    timely request to the appropriate local exchange carrier (LEC) for
    the necessary trunking and other facilities, including any necessary
    ALI database upgrades.[^8] A carrier may request documentation
    predictive of a PSAP's readiness to receive and utilize the E911
    Phase I or Phase II service it has requested (commonly referred to
    as "*Richardson* documentation").[^9] Where a carrier requests such
    documentation from a PSAP within 15 days of receiving the PSAP's
    request for E911 service, the PSAP must respond within 15 days or
    the carrier's six-month implementation period will be tolled until
    such documentation is provided.[^10]

5.  DCS and ACC are mid-sized or Tier II carriers[^11] serving primarily
    rural and suburban markets in a total of 16 states. The companies
    previously relied primarily upon Time Division Multiple Access
    ("TDMA")-based networks, but have since completed overlaying their
    TDMA networks with Global System for Mobile Communications
    ("GSM")/General Packet Radio Service ("GPRS") technology.[^12] The
    companies utilize a network-based solution to provide Phase II
    service. In certain markets, DCS and ACC provide Phase II service
    utilizing a hardware-based network solution provided by Andrew
    Corporation ("Andrew"), while in other markets they provide Phase II
    service utilizing a software-based network solution provided by
    Polaris Wireless ("Polaris").

    **A. Informal Complaint**

6.  On April 14, 2005, the Enforcement Bureau received an informal
    complaint from the 911 State Administrator, Michigan State Police,
    on behalf of 14 Michigan PSAPs ("Complainant PSAPs").[^13] The
    complaint alleged that Dobson failed to timely implement E911 Phase
    I and Phase II service to two Michigan PSAPs (Midland and Roscommon
    Counties) and E911 Phase II service to 12 Michigan PSAPs (Alcona,
    Arenac, Baraga, Gogebic, Iosco, Mackinac, Marquette, Mecosta,
    Menominee, Osceola, Sanilac and Tuscola Counties). The complaint
    asserted that in early 2004, Dobson was in the process of purchasing
    NPI Wireless ("NPI"). The complaint further asserted that at that
    time, the Complainant PSAPs had pending requests for Phase I or II
    service with NPI or Dobson, and had met the readiness requirements
    under *City of Richardson*. Prior to completion of the sale of NPI's
    assets to Dobson on June 15, 2004, NPI sought an extension of time
    to fulfill the Phase II requests from the Complainant PSAPs located
    in NPI markets until December 31, 2004. Certain of the Complainant
    PSAPs granted this request.

7.  The complaint asserted, however, that in October 2004 Dobson
    requested an additional extension of time to deploy the pending
    Phase II requests for all of its Michigan market (including, in
    addition to the 14 Complainant PSAPs, numerous other Michigan PSAPs
    that had pending Phase II requests) until March 31, 2005, because of
    "a lack of corporate financial resources." The Michigan PSAPs denied
    this extension request, but they agreed to refrain from lodging a
    complaint with the FCC if Dobson met certain criteria.[^14] The
    criteria included: (1) Dobson's active pursuit of an implementation
    schedule for Phase II; (2) weekly updates on the progress and
    activity related to that schedule; and (3) immediate application to
    Michigan's cost recovery mechanism for CMRS providers. According to
    the complaint, Dobson failed to meet these criteria. The complaint
    further noted that on March 31, 2005, Dobson provided a revised
    deployment schedule, which was for a statewide "uncalibrated"
    deployment followed by accuracy-test driving.[^15] On April 11,
    2005, the Michigan 911 State Administrator notified Dobson on behalf
    of the Complainant PSAPs that its schedule for an uncalibrated
    deployment was unacceptable and that a complaint against Dobson
    would be lodged with the FCC.

8.  On May 4, 2005, the Enforcement Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry
    ("LOI") to Dobson seeking information concerning its E911
    implementation efforts with respect to the 14 Complainant PSAPs, as
    well as in other markets where Dobson had E911 requests that had
    been pending for more than six months.[^16] On May 24, 2005, Dobson
    submitted a partial LOI Response addressing its E911 implementation
    efforts with respect to the 14 Complainant PSAPs.[^17] On June 23,
    2005, Dobson submitted a Supplemental LOI Response addressing E911
    requests in other markets that had been pending for more than six
    months.[^18] On August 25, 2005, Dobson submitted a Second
    Supplemental LOI Response to provide an update on its E911
    implementation efforts with respect to the 14 Complainant
    PSAPs.[^19]

    **B. Complainant PSAPs**

9.  Dobson's May 24, 2005 LOI Response addressed its E911 implementation
    efforts with respect to the 14 Complainant PSAPs. As discussed
    below, Dobson's LOI Response indicated that it failed to implement
    Phase I service within six months in response to a valid request
    from one of these 14 PSAPs and that it failed to implement Phase II
    service within six months in response to valid requests from eleven
    of these 14 PSAPs.[^20] Seven of these PSAPs are in markets that
    were acquired by Dobson from NPI on June 15, 2004, three of these
    PSAPs are in markets that have been solely owned by Dobson, and one
    PSAP is located in a market owned by Dobson and in a market formerly
    owned by NPI.[^21] Dobson stated that because it was aware prior to
    the acquisition that NPI's facilities were not E911 compliant, it
    asked NPI to obtain extensions from the relevant Michigan PSAPs to
    at least December 31, 2004 for all outstanding Phase II requests in
    the NPI markets.[^22] NPI obtained extensions of the Phase II
    deployment deadlines until December 31, 2004 for certain, but not
    all, of these markets.[^23]

10. **Alcona County, Michigan.** DCS acquired the Alcona County
    (GSM-only) market when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15,
    2004.[^24] Upon acquiring this market, DCS obtained a copy of Alcona
    County's request for Phase II service dated November 1, 2003, as
    well as an agreement between Alcona County and NPI dated June 1,
    2004, which extended the deployment deadline until December
    31, 2004. DCS treated the request as valid and did not request
    *Richardson* documentation. Dobson stated in its LOI Response that
    DCS "deployed" Phase II service in Alcona County and initiated the
    transmission of ALI data on April 25, 2005.[^25] However, in its
    November 1, 2005 E911 Quarterly Report, DCS stated that it
    "considers a market as being E911 Phase II 'deployed' after \[it\]
    has completed testing of the installed hardware and software with
    the PSAP to confirm that the PSAP is receiving latitude and
    longitude information in the appropriate format."[^26] In its Second
    Supplemental LOI Response, Dobson indicated that DCS completed
    testing on June 13, 2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude
    and longitude information is being transmitted in the appropriate
    format.[^27] DCS's Quarterly Report also indicated that it
    "completed testing on June 13, 2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP that
    latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in the
    appropriate format."[^28] We observe an apparent inconsistency
    between Dobson's representations in its LOI Responses and the
    Quarterly Reports filed by DCS regarding when it "deployed" E911
    service to Alcona County. We note, however, with respect to either
    date, DCS apparently failed to timely deploy E911 service to Alcona
    County.[^29] DCS apparently did not complete deployment of Phase II
    service in Alcona County until at least April 22, 2005, almost four
    months after the extended December 31, 2004 deployment deadline.

11. **Arenac County, Michigan.** DCS acquired the Arenac County
    (GSM-only) market when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15,
    2004.[^30] Upon acquiring this market, DCS obtained a copy of Arenac
    County's request for Phase II service dated October 31, 2003, as
    well as an agreement between Arenac County and NPI dated April 30,
    2004, which extended the deployment deadline until December
    31, 2004. DCS treated the request as valid and did not request
    *Richardson* documentation. Dobson stated in its LOI Response that
    DCS deployed Phase II service and initiated the transmission of ALI
    data in Arenac County on April 21, 2005.[^31] Dobson's Second
    Supplemental LOI Response indicated, however, that it subsequently
    encountered technical issues regarding six sites and, on June 10,
    2005, the PSAP requested that it reinstate Phase I service and turn
    off Phase II service until deployment and accuracy issues were
    resolved.[^32] DCS's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated
    that it "completed testing on August 8, 2005 to demonstrate to the
    PSAP that latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in
    the appropriate format."[^33] Thus, DCS apparently did not complete
    deployment of Phase II service in Arenac County until at least April
    22, 2005, almost four months after the extended December 31, 2004
    deployment deadline.

12. **Baraga County, Michigan.** The Baraga County market has been held
    solely by ACC as part of the Michigan 1 RSA.[^34] ACC received a
    request for Phase II service from Baraga County on September 19,
    2003, requested *Richardson* documentation from Baraga County on
    that same date, and received documentation confirming that the
    request is valid on October 2, 2003. Dobson stated in its LOI
    Response that ACC deployed TDMA Phase II service and initiated the
    transmission of ALI data in Baraga County on May 5, 2005, but could
    not complete deployment of GSM Phase II service until mid-July when
    a third party provider performed necessary software upgrades.[^35]
    Dobson indicated its Second Supplemental LOI Response that ACC
    completed installation of the software and hardware necessary for
    the network-based Phase II solution for its GSM facilities on July
    8, 2005, and that ACC completed testing to demonstrate to the PSAP
    that latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in the
    appropriate format on July 12, 2005 for TDMA and on July 14, 2005
    for GSM.[^36] Thus, ACC apparently did not complete deployment of
    Phase II service in Baraga County until at least July 8, 2005,
    almost 22 months after Baraga County made its valid Phase II
    request.

13. **Gogebic County, Michigan.** The Gogebic County market has been
    held solely by ACC as part of the Michigan 1 RSA.[^37] ACC received
    a request for Phase II service from Gogebic County on February
    24, 2004. Although Dobson did not state that ACC requested
    *Richardson* documentation from Gogebic County within 15 days of
    receiving the Phase II request, it indicated that ACC received
    documentation confirming that the request is valid on April
    15, 2004. Dobson stated in its LOI Response that ACC deployed TDMA
    Phase II service and initiated the transmission of ALI data in
    Gogebic County on May 5, 2005, but could not complete deployment of
    GSM Phase II service until mid-July when a third party provider
    performed necessary software upgrades.[^38] Dobson indicated its
    Second Supplemental LOI Response that ACC completed installation of
    the software and hardware necessary for the network-based Phase II
    solution for its GSM facilities on July 8, 2005.[^39] ACC's November
    1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it completed testing to
    demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information are
    being transmitted in the appropriate format on July 12, 2005 for
    TDMA and on July 18, 2005 for GSM.[^40] Thus, ACC apparently did not
    complete deployment of Phase II service in Gogebic County until at
    least July 8, 2005, almost 17 months after Gogebic County made its
    valid Phase II request.

14. **Iosco County, Michigan**. DCS acquired the Iosco County (GSM-only)
    market when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15, 2004.[^41] Upon
    acquiring this market, DCS obtained a copy of Iosco County's request
    for Phase II service dated August 18, 2003, as well as an agreement
    between Iosco County and NPI dated May 4, 2004, which extended the
    deployment deadline until December 31, 2004. DCS treated the request
    as valid and did not request *Richardson* documentation. Dobson
    stated in its LOI Response that DCS deployed Phase II service and
    initiated the transmission of ALI data in Iosco County on April 22,
    2005.[^42] Dobson indicated in its Second Supplemental LOI Response
    that it completed testing on June 10, 2005 to demonstrate to the
    PSAP that latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in
    the appropriate format.[^43] Thus, DCS apparently did not complete
    deployment of Phase II service in Iosco County until at least April
    22, 2005, almost four months after the extended December 31, 2004
    deployment deadline.

15. **Mackinac County, Michigan**. DCS acquired the Mackinac County
    (GSM-only) market when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15,
    2004.[^44] Upon acquiring this market, DCS obtained a copy of
    Mackinac County's request for Phase II service dated February 3,
    2003, as well as an agreement between Mackinac County and NPI dated
    May 3, 2004, which extended the deployment deadline until December
    31, 2004. DCS treated the request as valid and did not request
    *Richardson* documentation. Dobson stated in its LOI Response that
    DCS deployed Phase II service and initiated the transmission of ALI
    data in Mackinac County on April 28, 2005.[^45] Dobson indicated in
    its Second Supplemental LOI Response that it completed testing on
    July 7, 2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude
    information is being transmitted in the appropriate format.[^46]
    Thus, DCS apparently did not complete deployment of Phase II service
    in Mackinac County until at least April 28, 2005, almost four months
    after the extended December 31, 2004 deployment deadline.

16. **Marquette County, Michigan**. The Marquette County market has been
    held solely by ACC as part of the Michigan 1 RSA.[^47] ACC received
    a valid request for Phase II service from Marquette County on April
    13, 2004. Dobson stated in its LOI Response that ACC deployed TDMA
    Phase II service and initiated the transmission of ALI data in
    Marquette County on May 4, 2005, but could not complete deployment
    of GSM Phase II service until mid-July when a third party provided
    performed necessary software upgrades.[^48] Dobson indicated in its
    Second Supplemental LOI Response that ACC completed testing of its
    TDMA facilities on July 7, 2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP that
    latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in the
    appropriate format.[^49] The Second Supplemental LOI Response also
    indicated that ACC encountered technical issues with the deployment
    of one GSM site and had to re-schedule testing to demonstrate to the
    PSAP that latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in
    the appropriate format for its GSM facilities.[^50] ACC's November
    1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it "completed installation
    of the necessary software and hardware of the network-based E911
    Phase II solution" on July 7, 2005 for TDMA and August 11, 2005 for
    GSM.[^51] Thus, ACC apparently did not complete deployment of Phase
    II service in Marquette County until at least August 11, 2005,
    almost 16 months after Marquette County filed its valid Phase II
    request.

17. **Midland County, Michigan (Phase I and II)**. DCS acquired the
    Midland County market when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15,
    2004.[^52] Midland County requested Phase I service from NPI on
    August 16, 2000, and requested Phase II service from NPI on January
    27, 2004.[^53] DCS stated that it did not receive a copy of Midland
    County's Phase I and Phase II requests until November 3, 2004. DCS
    treated the requests as valid and did not request *Richardson*
    documentation. Dobson stated in its LOI Response that DCS expected
    to deploy Phase I on or around May 27, 2005, and that the timing of
    Phase II deployment would be determined once Phase I is
    operational.[^54] Dobson's Second Supplemental LOI Response
    indicated that DCS completed Phase I deployment and "began working
    on Phase II deployment" on May 26, 2005.[^55] The Second
    Supplemental LOI Response also indicated that DCS completed testing
    on June 15, 2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and
    longitude information is being transmitted in the appropriate
    format.[^56] Thus, DCS apparently did not complete deployment of
    Phase I service in Midland County until May 26, 2005, and did not
    complete deployment of Phase II service in Midland County until June
    15, 2005, more than six months after it received the valid requests
    for Phase I and Phase II service.

18. **Mecosta County, Michigan.** DCS acquired the Mecosta County market
    when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15, 2004.[^57] Upon acquiring
    this market, DCS obtained a copy of Mecosta County's request for
    Phase II service dated April 1, 2004, as well as an agreement
    between Mecosta County and NPI dated April 28, 2004, which extended
    the deployment deadline until December 31, 2004. DCS treated the
    request as valid and did not request *Richardson* documentation.
    Dobson stated in its LOI Response that DCS deployed Phase II service
    and initiated the transmission of ALI data in Mecosta County on
    April 20, 2005.[^58] Dobson indicated in its Second Supplemental LOI
    Response that DCS completed testing on July 15, 2005 to demonstrate
    to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information is being
    transmitted in the appropriate format.[^59] Thus, DCS apparently did
    not complete deployment of Phase II service in Mecosta County until
    at least April 20, 2005, almost four months after the extended
    December 31, 2004 deployment deadline.

19. **Osceola County, Michigan.** Osceola County lies in a market owned
    by DCS as part of the Michigan 5 RSA and in a market formerly owned
    by NPI.[^60] DCS received a request for Phase II service from
    Osceola County on May 4, 2004, but responded on May 24, 2004 that it
    did not currently provide service in Osceola County and did not
    intend to do so until the NPI transaction is complete.[^61] Upon
    acquiring NPI's assets, DCS obtained a copy of Osceola County's
    request for Phase II service to NPI dated April 1, 2004, as well as
    an agreement between Osceola County and NPI dated April 28, 2004,
    which extended the deployment deadline until December 31, 2004. DCS
    treated the request as valid and did not request *Richardson*
    documentation. Dobson stated in its LOI Response that DCS deployed
    Phase II service and initiated the transmission of ALI data in
    Osceola County on April 19, 2005 for GSM and on April 25, 2005 for
    TDMA.[^62] Dobson indicated in its Second Supplemental LOI Response
    that DCS completed testing on June 2, 2005 to demonstrate to the
    PSAP that latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in
    the appropriate format.[^63] Thus, DCS apparently did not complete
    deployment of Phase II service in Osceola County until at least
    April 25, 2005, almost four months after the extended December 31,
    2004 deployment deadline.

20. **Roscommon County, Michigan.** DCS acquired the Roscommon County
    market when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15, 2004.[^64] Upon
    acquiring this market, DCS obtained a copy of Roscommon County's
    valid request for Phase II service dated October 28, 2003. DCS
    acknowledged that it was notified upon closing that NPI was unable
    to obtain an extension of the Phase II deployment deadline from
    Roscommon. Dobson stated in its LOI Response that DCS deployed Phase
    II service and initiated the transmission of ALI data in Roscommon
    County on April 21, 2005.[^65] In its Second Supplemental LOI
    Response, Dobson indicated that on June 9, 2005, the PSAP requested
    that it revert back to Phase I service on a temporary basis, and
    turn off Phase II service, until deployment and accuracy issues were
    resolved.[^66] The Second Supplemental LOI Response further
    indicated that DCS completed testing on July 27, 2005 to demonstrate
    to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information are being
    transmitted in the appropriate format.[^67] However, on July 29,
    2005, the PSAP again requested that DCS revert back to Phase I
    service until such time as accuracy can be improved.[^68] Thus, DCS
    apparently did not complete deployment of Phase II service in
    Roscommon County until at least April 21, 2005, approximately ten
    months after it acquired the market from NPI.

21. **Dobson's Response.** Dobson attributed its failure to timely
    implement Phase II service for the Complainant PSAPs to several
    factors. First, Dobson asserted that it failed to "adequately
    anticipate the enormous technical effort that would be required to
    deploy E911 Phase II in a relatively short time to satisfy so many
    requests due on the same date."[^69] Specifically, Dobson noted that
    a number of PSAPs had requested Phase II deployment with six month
    deadlines that would fall close together.[^70] In addition, Dobson
    cited its acquisition of the NPI markets. Dobson noted, in this
    connection, that NPI's facilities were not E911 Phase II compliant
    and could not be upgraded to E911 Phase II capability.[^71] Dobson
    indicated that it began to design, develop and construct a new GSM
    switch in Michigan in May 2004, prior to acquisition of NPI's
    assets; completed construction of the new GSM switching facilities
    in September 2004; and finally completed migration of all of its
    Michigan cell sites, including the 350+ newly acquired NPI cell
    cites, to the new GSM switch in November 2004.[^72] Dobson asserted
    that it was unable to begin Phase II deployment until it completed
    this transition in November 2004.

22. Dobson further asserted that it failed to "anticipate vendor
    failures in terms of key equipment."[^73] In this regard, Dobson
    indicated that Andrew, the hardware-based E911 solution vendor on
    which it had initially relied, was unable to deliver sufficient
    equipment to meet deployment requirements by the deployment
    deadline, and Dobson ultimately had to switch to Polaris to deploy a
    software solution in the Michigan markets.[^74]

23. Moreover, Dobson stated that its E911 Project Manager apparently
    misinterpreted the PSAPs' forbearance from filing complaints with
    the FCC as "tacit approval" to Dobson's extending the deployment
    deadline.[^75] Dobson stated that the E911 Project Manager met with
    representatives of the Michigan PSAPs on October 21, 2004; informed
    the PSAPs that even if its E911 solution vendor were able to timely
    deliver equipment by the December 31, 2004 deployment deadline, the
    vendor would need additional time to install the equipment; and
    requested an additional three months extension of the deployment
    deadline until March 31, 2005.[^76] Dobson admitted that "\[it\]
    cannot be denied that the PSAPs refused to agree to the extension
    for deployment."[^77] However, it maintained that the PSAPs
    expressed their willingness to take no action with the FCC if Dobson
    provided continued progress updates to the PSAPs on a weekly basis
    and deployment occurred by the then-promised March 31, 2005
    deployment deadline. Dobson claimed that the E911 Project Manager
    "viewed the PSAPs' forbearance as *de facto* concurrence with an
    alternative deployment date and so reported to Dobson's
    management."[^78] Dobson acknowledged that the E911 Project Manager
    did not adequately communicate with the PSAPs and that Dobson's
    management did not adequately challenge his reports that all of the
    PSAPs were "on board" with the extended deadlines for
    deployment.[^79]

24. Dobson further noted that upon receiving a copy of the Michigan 911
    State Administrator's informal complaint to the FCC on April 14,
    2005, it immediately initiated an internal inquiry into its E911
    compliance efforts throughout Dobson's markets.[^80] This effort
    resulted, among other things, in removing oversight of E911 matters
    from the E911 Project Manager; re-establishing contacts with the
    PSAPs to confirm their understanding of the current deployment
    schedule; engaging outside counsel to investigate the status of all
    of the Michigan Phase I and Phase II requests pending before Dobson;
    and a restatement and clarification of Dobson policies with respect
    to the treatment of E911 requests.[^81]

    **C. Other PSAPs**

25. Dobson's June 23, 2005 Supplemental LOI Response identified
    additional PSAPs in Michigan and in several other states which had
    requests for Phase I or Phase II service that had been pending for
    more than six months. As set forth below, Dobson's Supplemental
    Response indicated that it failed to implement Phase I service
    within six months of a valid request from eight PSAPs and that it
    failed to implement Phase II service within six months of valid
    requests from 30 PSAPs.[^82]

26. **Clare County, Michigan.** DCS acquired the Clare County market
    when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15, 2004.[^83] Upon acquiring
    this market, DCS obtained a copy of Clare County's request for Phase
    II service dated March 8, 2004,[^84] as well as an agreement between
    Clare County and NPI dated April 29, 2004, which extended the
    deployment deadline until December 31, 2004. DCS treated the request
    as valid and did not request *Richardson* documentation. With
    respect to Clare County and the other non-Complainant Michigan PSAPs
    discussed below, Dobson referenced its LOI Response but did not
    otherwise discuss the steps it took to implement E911 service.
    Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI Response that DCS completed
    internal testing of its E911 Phase II solution on April 21, 2005,
    and completed its "formal acceptance" on June 7, 2005.[^85] Dobson
    further noted, however, that DCS subsequently encountered technical
    difficulties and would work to resolve the issues. DCS's November 1,
    2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it "completed installation of
    the necessary software and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase
    II solution" on April 21, 2005, and that it "completed testing on
    July 8, 2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude
    information is being transmitted in the appropriate format."[^86]
    Thus, DCS apparently did not complete deployment of Phase II service
    in Clare County until at least April 21, 2005, almost four months
    after the extended December 31, 2004 deployment deadline.

27. **Crawford County, Michigan.** DCS acquired the Crawford County
    market when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15, 2004.[^87] Upon
    acquiring this market, DCS obtained a copy of Crawford County's
    request for Phase II service dated October 23, 2003, as well as an
    agreement between Crawford County and NPI dated April 28, 2004,
    which extended the deployment deadline until December 31, 2004. DCS
    indicated it treated the request as valid and did not request
    *Richardson* documentation. Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI
    Response that DCS deployed Phase II service on April 27, 2005, and
    completed its formal acceptance on June 15, 2005.[^88] DCS's
    November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it "completed
    installation of the necessary software and hardware of the
    network-based E911 Phase II solution" on April 27, 2005, and that it
    "completed testing on July 6, 2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP that
    latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in the
    appropriate format."[^89] Thus, DCS apparently did not complete
    deployment of Phase II service in Crawford County until at least
    April 27, 2005, almost four months after the extended December 31,
    2004 deployment deadline.

28. **Dickinson County, Michigan.** ACC received a request for Phase II
    service from Dickinson County on February 5, 2004, requested
    *Richardson* documentation on February 6, 2004, and received
    documentation confirming that the request was valid on February 19,
    2004.[^90] Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI Response that ACC
    deployed TDMA Phase II service to Dickinson County on May 5, 2005,
    and was currently working to complete testing by June 24, 2005.[^91]
    Dobson indicated that ACC would not be completing deployment of GSM
    Phase II service until mid-July, when an equipment vendor performed
    software upgrades for its cell sites. ACC's November 1, 2005
    Quarterly Report indicated that it "completed installation of the
    necessary software and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II
    solution" on July 12, 2005 for TDMA and on July 14, 2005 for
    GSM.[^92] Thus, ACC apparently did not complete deployment of Phase
    II service to Dickinson County until July 14, 2005, more than 17
    months after Dickinson County made its valid Phase II request.

29. **Houghton County, Michigan.** ACC received a request for Phase II
    service from Houghton County on January 9, 2004, requested
    *Richardson* documentation on January 14, 2004, and received
    documentation confirming that the request was valid on January 21,
    2004.[^93] Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI Response that ACC
    deployed TDMA Phase II service to Houghton County on May 5, 2005,
    and was currently working to complete formal acceptance by June 24,
    2005.[^94] Dobson indicated that it would not be completing
    deployment of GSM Phase II service until mid-July, when an equipment
    vendor performed software upgrades for its cell sites. ACC's
    November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it "completed
    installation of the necessary software and hardware of the
    network-based E911 Phase II solution" on July 12, 2005 for TDMA and
    on July 14, 2005 for GSM.[^95] Thus, ACC apparently did not complete
    deployment of Phase II service to Houghton County until at least
    July 14, 2005, more than 18 months after Houghton County made its
    valid Phase II request.

30. **Isabella County, Michigan.** DCS acquired the Isabella County
    (GSM-only) market when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15,
    2004.[^96] Upon acquiring this market, DCS obtained a copy of
    Isabella County's request for Phase II service dated April 21, 2004,
    as well as an agreement between Isabella County and NPI dated April
    28, 2004, which extended the deployment deadline until December
    31, 2004. DCS treated the request as valid and did not request
    *Richardson* documentation. Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI
    Response that DCS deployed Phase II service on April 20, 2005, and
    that DCS intended to complete its formal acceptance on June 22,
    2005.[^97] However, Dobson noted that it encountered difficulties
    with two base stations and would continue to work to resolve the
    problem. DCS's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it
    "completed installation of the necessary software and hardware of
    the network-based E911 Phase II solution" on April 20, 2005, and
    that it "completed testing on July 7, 2005 to demonstrate to the
    PSAP that latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in
    the appropriate format."[^98] DCS further stated in its Quarterly
    Report that it reverted back to Phase I on July 8, 2005, at the
    request of the PSAP.[^99] Thus, DCS apparently did not complete
    deployment of Phase II service in Isabella County until at least
    April 20, 2005, almost four months after the extended December 31,
    2004 deployment deadline.

31. **Kalkaska County, Michigan.** DCS received a valid request for
    Phase II service from Kalkaska County on October 14, 2004.[^100]
    Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI Response that DCS completed
    internal testing of its E911 Phase II software solution on April 22,
    2005, and completed its formal acceptance with the PSAP on June 14,
    2005.[^101] DCS's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that
    it "completed installation of the necessary software and hardware of
    the network-based E911 Phase II solution" on April 25, 2005, and
    that it "completed testing on July 8, 2005 to demonstrate to the
    PSAP that latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in
    the appropriate format."[^102] Thus, DCS apparently did not complete
    deployment of Phase II service in Kalkaska County until at least
    April 25, 2005, more than five months after Kalkaska County made its
    valid Phase II request.

32. **Keweenaw County, Michigan.** ACC received a valid request for
    Phase II service from Keweenaw County on November 24, 2004.[^103]
    Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI Response that ACC deployed
    TDMA Phase II service to Keweenaw County on May 5, 2005, and was
    currently working to complete formal acceptance by June 24,
    2005.[^104] Dobson indicated that ACC would not be completing
    deployment of GSM Phase II service until mid-July, when an equipment
    vendor performed software upgrades for its cell sites. ACC's
    November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it "completed
    installation of the necessary software and hardware of the
    network-based E911 Phase II solution" on July 14, 2005 for GSM and
    on July 17, 2005 for TDMA.[^105] Thus, ACC apparently did not
    complete deployment of Phase II service to Keweenaw County until at
    least July 17, 2005, more than seven months after Keweenaw County
    made its valid Phase II request.

33. **Lake County, Michigan**. DCS received a request for Phase II
    service from Lake County on October 29, 2003, requested *Richardson*
    documentation on December 22, 2003, and received documentation
    confirming that the request was valid on January 29, 2004.[^106]
    Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI Response that DCS deployed
    Phase II service to Lake County on April 19, 2005, and completed its
    formal acceptance on June 1, 2005.[^107] DCS's November 1, 2005
    Quarterly Report confirmed that it "completed installation of the
    necessary software and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II
    solution" on April 19, 2005, and that it "completed testing on June
    1, 2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude
    information is being transmitted in the appropriate format."[^108]
    Thus, DCS apparently did not complete deployment of Phase II service
    to Lake County until at least April 19, 2005, almost 18 months after
    Lake County made its valid Phase II request.

34. **Leelanau County, Michigan**. DCS received a request for Phase II
    service from Leelanau County on February 2, 2004, requested
    *Richardson* documentation on February 6, 2004, and received
    documentation confirming that the request was valid on February 14,
    2004.[^109] Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI Response that DCS
    deployed Phase II service to Leelanau County on April 25, 2005, and
    completed its formal acceptance on June 14, 2005.[^110] DCS's
    November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it "completed
    installation of the necessary software and hardware of the
    network-based E911 Phase II solution" on April 25, 2005, and that it
    "completed testing on July 12, 2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP that
    latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in the
    appropriate format."[^111] Thus, DCS apparently did not complete
    deployment of Phase II service to Leelanau County until at least
    April 25, 2005, more than 14 months after Leelanau County made its
    valid Phase II request.

35. **Mason and Oceana Counties, Michigan.** DCS received a request for
    Phase II service from Mason-Oceana 911 on October 3, 2003, requested
    *Richardson* documentation on October 7, 2003, and received
    documentation confirming that the request was valid on October 17,
    2003.[^112] Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI Response that DCS
    deployed Phase II service to Oceana County on April 19, 2005, and
    completed its formal acceptance with Oceana County on June 1,
    2005.[^113] Dobson further noted, however, that DCS had encountered
    difficulties with one site in Mason County and was working to
    resolve the issue. DCS's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated
    that it "completed installation of the necessary software and
    hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II solution" on April 19,
    2005, and that it "completed testing on July 6, 2005 to demonstrate
    to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information is being
    transmitted in the appropriate format."[^114] Thus, DCS apparently
    did not complete deployment of Phase II service to Mason and Oceana
    Counties until at least April 19, 2005, more than 17 months after
    Mason-Oceana 911 made its valid Phase II request.

36. **Newaygo County, Michigan.** DCS acquired the Newaygo County
    (GSM-only) market when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15,
    2004.[^115] DCS stated that it did not receive a copy of the Phase
    II request from NPI in 2003; rather, it received a valid request
    directly from the PSAP during a meeting with various Michigan PSAPs
    on October 21, 2004. Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI Response
    that DCS deployed Phase II service on April 29, 2005, and that it
    completed its formal acceptance on June 2, 2005.[^116] DCS's
    November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it "completed
    installation of the necessary software and hardware of the
    network-based E911 Phase II solution" on April 29, 2005, and that it
    "completed testing on June 3, 2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP that
    latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in the
    appropriate format."[^117] Thus, DCS apparently did not complete
    deployment of Phase II service in Newaygo County until at least
    April 29, 2005, more than six months after it received the valid
    Phase II request from Newaygo County.

37. **Ontonagon County, Michigan.** ACC received a request for Phase II
    service from Ontonagon County on April 23, 2004, requested
    *Richardson* documentation on May 14, 2004, and received
    documentation confirming that the request was valid on May 20,
    2004.[^118] Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI Response that ACC
    deployed TDMA Phase II service to Ontonagon County on May 5, 2005,
    and was currently working to complete formal acceptance by June 24,
    2005.[^119] Dobson indicated that ACC would not be completing
    deployment of GSM Phase II service until mid-July, when an equipment
    vendor performed software upgrades for its cell sites. ACC's
    November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it "completed
    installation of the necessary software and hardware of the
    network-based E911 Phase II solution" on June 23, 2005 for TDMA and
    on July 14, 2005 for GSM.[^120] Thus, ACC apparently did not
    complete deployment of Phase II service to Dickinson County until at
    least July 14, 2005, more than 15 months after Ontonagon County made
    its valid Phase II request.

38. **Anchorage, Alaska (Phase I and II).** DCS received valid requests
    for Phase I and Phase II service from the Anchorage Police
    Department on May 4, 2004.[^121] Dobson indicated in its
    Supplemental LOI Response that DCS attempted to deploy Phase I
    service on May 27, 2005, but discovered that it did not have the
    necessary connectivity in place.[^122] Dobson stated that to rectify
    the problem, DCS would have to re-order additional SS7 lines. DCS's
    November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that the necessary
    trunks were ordered from the LEC on July 25, 2005, DCS received the
    trunks in August 2005, and deployed Phase I service on August 18,
    2005.[^123] DCS's Quarterly Report further indicated that it
    "completed installation of the necessary software and hardware of
    the network-based E911 Phase II solution" on October 28, 2005.[^124]
    Thus, DCS apparently did not complete deployment of Phase I service
    to Anchorage until August 18, 2005, more than 15 months after
    Anchorage made its valid Phase I request, and did not complete
    deployment of Phase II service to Anchorage until at least October
    28, 2005, more than 17 months after Anchorage made its valid Phase
    II request.

39. **Montgomery County, Kansas.** ACC received a request for Phase II
    service from Montgomery County on July 15, 2002, requested
    *Richardson* documentation from the PSAP on October 29, 2002, and
    received such documentation confirming that the request was valid on
    November 25, 2002.[^125] Dobson noted in its Supplemental LOI
    Response that Andrew provided ACC with a market plan for delivering
    a potential Phase II solution on October 20, 2003; that Andrew and
    ACC representatives corresponded regularly from at least January
    2004 until July 2004 regarding the need for a population map to
    identify what type of coverage Andrew's solution would reach, but
    the map was not produced; and that it is no longer using Andrew in
    this market, but has instead shifted to utilizing Polaris. Dobson
    further noted that it expected to complete all internal testing of
    the implemented solution by July 15, 2005, after which it would
    schedule formal acceptance.[^126] ACC's November 1, 2005 Quarterly
    Report indicated that it "completed deployment of the necessary
    software and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II solution"
    on August 30, 2005.[^127] Thus, ACC apparently did not complete
    deployment of Phase II service to Montgomery County until at least
    August 30, 2005, more than three years after Montgomery County made
    its valid Phase II request.

40. **Barren and Metcalfe Counties, Kentucky.** ACC received a request
    for Phase II service from the Barren-Metcalfe E9-1-1 for Barren and
    Metcalfe Counties on May 4, 2004, requested *Richardson*
    documentation from the PSAP on May 14, 2004, and received
    documentation confirming that the request was valid on May 27,
    2004.[^128] Dobson noted that ACC only operates one cell site in
    these counties, making use of the Andrew solution impractical, but
    did not otherwise discuss what steps it took to implement Phase II
    service in these counties. Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI
    Response that ACC completed internal testing of the Polaris solution
    on June 13, 2005, and had scheduled formal acceptance for Barren
    County on June 23, 2005 and for Metcalfe County on June 28,
    2005.[^129] ACC's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that
    it "completed deployment of the necessary software and hardware of
    the network-based E911 Phase II solution for both Barren and
    Metcalfe Counties" on July 27, 2005.[^130] Thus, ACC apparently did
    not complete deployment of Phase II service in Barren and Metcalfe
    Counties until at least June 13, 2005, more than 13 months after
    receiving a valid Phase II request from Barren-Metcalfe E9-1-1.

41. **Adair County, Kentucky.** ACC received a request for Phase II
    service from Adair County on May 19, 2004, requested *Richardson*
    documentation from the PSAP on May 19, 2004, and received
    documentation confirming that the request was valid on May 26,
    2004.[^131] Dobson noted that ACC only has two cell sites in this
    county, making Phase II deployment technically problematic, but did
    not otherwise discuss what steps it took to implement Phase II
    service in Adair County. Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI
    Response that ACC completed internal testing of the Polaris solution
    on June 13, 2005, and completed formal acceptance on June 21,
    2005.[^132] However, during acceptance testing, ACC and the PSAP
    encountered a problem relating to one particular sector of testing,
    and both parties were working to resolve the issue. ACC's November
    1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it "completed deployment of
    the necessary software and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase
    II solution" in Adair County on July 20, 2005.[^133] Thus, ACC
    apparently did not complete deployment of Phase II service until at
    least June 13, 2005, more than 13 months after receiving a valid
    Phase II request from Adair County.

42. **Hardin County, Kentucky.** ACC received a request for Phase II
    service from Hardin County on June 1, 2004, requested *Richardson*
    documentation from the PSAP on June 3, 2004, and received
    documentation confirming that the request was valid on July 7,
    2004.[^134] Dobson stated that it attempted to call Hardin County to
    discuss ACC's current deployment efforts multiple times in June 2005
    with no success, but did not otherwise discuss what steps it took to
    implement Phase II service in Hardin County. Dobson stated in its
    Supplemental LOI Response that ACC completed internal testing on
    June 13, 2003, and attempted to complete formal acceptance on June
    21, 2005, but encountered technical difficulties.[^135] ACC's
    November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it "completed
    deployment of the necessary software and hardware of the
    network-based E911 Phase II solution" in Hardin County on July 14,
    2005.[^136] Thus, ACC apparently did not complete deployment of
    Phase II service until July 14, 2005, more than 12 months after
    receiving a valid Phase II request from Hardin County.

43. **Green County, Kentucky**. ACC received a valid request for Phase
    II service from Green County on July 17, 2003.[^137] On February 10,
    2004, Dobson's E911 Project Manager notified Green County that ACC
    was preparing a market plan, noting however that an alternative
    solution might be required since ACC only operated one cell site in
    the county. In March 2004, Andrew completed the market plan, which
    demonstrated the lack of viability with only one operating cell site
    in the county. In July 2004, the E911 Project Manager requested a
    meeting to discuss the problems associated with the single cell
    density problem but did not receive a response from the PSAP. Dobson
    stated that ACC completed internal testing of the Polaris solution
    on June 13, 2003, and completed formal acceptance on June 16,
    2005.[^138] However, ACC encountered technical difficulties with one
    particular TDMA cell site and planned to continue to work to resolve
    it. ACC's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it
    "completed deployment of the necessary software and hardware of the
    network-based E911 Phase II solution" in Green County on July 19,
    2005.[^139] The Quarterly Report noted that ACC encountered
    technical difficulties that it has resolved. Thus, ACC apparently
    did not complete deployment of Phase II service until July 19, 2005,
    approximately two years after receiving a valid Phase II request
    from Green County.

44. **Frederick County, Maryland (Phase I and II).** DCS received a
    request for Phase I service from Frederick County on June 7, 2004,
    and a request for Phase II service on June 14, 2004.[^140] On June
    14, 2004, DCS requested information regarding a nondisclosure
    agreement for Phase I, as well as *Richardson* documentation, and
    received a signed NDA and the requested *Richardson* documentation
    on July 19, 2004. Dobson indicated in its Supplemental LOI response
    that DCS encountered difficulty in establishing trunks to the
    selective router and had not yet deployed Phase I or Phase II
    service in Frederick County.[^141] DCS's November 1, 2005 Quarterly
    Report indicated that it deployed Phase I service on October 20,
    2005, and that it also "completed deployment of the necessary
    software and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II solution"
    on October 20, 2005.[^142] Thus, DCS apparently did not complete
    deployment of Phase I and II service to Frederick County until at
    least October 20, 2005, more than 15 months after Frederick County
    made its valid Phase I and II requests.

45. **Carroll County, Missouri (Phase I and II)**. DCS received valid
    requests for Phase I and II service from Carroll County on August 4,
    2004.[^143] Dobson noted that, between December 2004 and February
    2005, its E911 Project Manager repeatedly received incomplete cell
    site data from internal Dobson sources, which delayed deployment of
    Phase I.[^144] Dobson also noted that DCS ordered the necessary
    trunks from the LEC in mid-March 2005, but the LEC did not provide
    the trunks on the scheduled May 16, 2005 delivery date, pushing the
    Phase I deployment date back further. DCS's November 1, 2005
    Quarterly Report indicated that it deployed Phase I service on July
    15, 2005, and that it "completed testing to demonstrate to the PSAP
    that latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in the
    appropriate format" on September 26, 2005.[^145] Thus, DCS
    apparently did not complete deployment of Phase I service to Carroll
    County until July 15, 2005, almost a year after Carroll County made
    its valid Phase I request, and did not complete deployment of Phase
    II service to Carroll County until September 26, 2005, more than 13
    months after Carroll County made its valid Phase II request.

46. **Schoharie County, New York (Phase I and II)**. ACC received a
    valid request for Phase II service from Schoharie County on
    September 20, 2004.[^146] Dobson stated that ACC identified
    technical difficulties in implementing Phase II service since it
    operates on only two cell sites in Schoharie County and initially
    worked with Andrew to develop a market plan that would provide a
    viable Phase II solution. Subsequently, ACC shifted to the Polaris
    solution in this market. Dobson indicated in its Supplemental LOI
    Response that ACC deployed TDMA Phase II service on May 24, 2005,
    and also attempted to deploy GSM Phase II service on that date but
    encountered technical difficulties which it was trying to remedy. On
    June 17, 2005, Dobson's E911 Project Manager discovered that due to
    an oversight he had not scheduled any activities relating to GSM
    Phase I deployment in this county.[^147] ACC's November 1, 2005
    Quarterly Report indicated that it deployed TDMA Phase II service on
    May 24, 2005.[^148] The Quarterly Report also indicated that ACC
    deployed GSM Phase I service on October 20, 2005, and, on that same
    date, "completed deployment of the necessary software and hardware
    of the network-based E911 Phase II solution" for GSM Phase II
    service.[^149] Thus, ACC apparently did not complete deployment of
    Phase I and Phase II service until October 20, 2005, more than a
    year after Schoharie County made its valid Phase II request.

47. **Otsego County, New York.** ACC received a valid request for Phase
    II service from Otsego County on February 20, 2004.[^150] Dobson
    stated that ACC identified technical difficulties in implementing
    Phase II service due to a 'string-of-pearls' cell site configuration
    and initially worked with Andrew to develop a market plan that would
    provide a viable Phase II solution. Subsequently, ACC shifted to the
    Polaris solution in this market. Dobson indicated in its
    Supplemental LOI Response that ACC deployed Phase II service,
    including formal acceptance, on May 24, 2005. However, ACC's
    November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it deployed GSM
    Phase II service on May 24, 2005, but that it "completed deployment
    of the necessary software and hardware of the network-based E911
    Phase II solution" for TDMA Phase II service on July 19, 2005.[^151]
    Thus, ACC apparently did not complete deployment of Phase II service
    until July 19, 2005, almost 17 months after Otsego County made its
    valid Phase II request.

48. **Steuben County, New York (Phase I and II)**. DCS received a valid
    request for Phase I and II service from Steuben County on November
    3, 2004.[^152] On December 1, 2004, Dobson's E911 Project Manager
    requested necessary cell site data from internal Dobson personnel
    and received an incomplete version of the cell site data on February
    8, 2005, which was not finalized until May 12, 2005. DCS
    subsequently ordered trunks from the LEC and was still awaiting
    delivery of the trunks at the time it submitted its Supplemental LOI
    Response. DCS's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it
    had difficulties establishing connectivity with the LEC, and finally
    deployed both Phase I and Phase II on October 26, 2005.[^153] Thus,
    DCS apparently did not complete deployment of Phase I or Phase II
    service until October 26, 2005, almost one year after Steuben County
    made its valid Phase I and II requests.

49. **Barbour County, West Virginia (Phase I).** ACC received a valid
    request for Phase I service from Barbour County on June 8,
    2004.[^154] Dobson asserted that its E911 Project Manager contacted
    Barbour County and set a tentative deployment date of March 18,
    2005, to which Barbour County orally consented. Dobson further
    asserted that in early May 2005 (after Dobson's tentative deployment
    date), the E911 Project Manager began accumulating cell site data
    for Barbour County. Dobson noted that ACC was awaiting delivery of
    the only open item, the p-ANIs[^155] which had been ordered from the
    LEC, before it could test for final deployment. ACC's November 1,
    2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it deployed Phase I service in
    Barbour County on July 19, 2005.[^156] Thus, ACC apparently did not
    complete deployment of Phase I service until July 19, 2005, more
    than one year after Barbour County made its valid Phase I request.

50. **Lewis and Gilmer Counties, West Virginia (Phase I and II)**. ACC
    received valid requests for Phase I and II service on behalf of both
    Lewis and Gilmer Counties on December 20, 2004.[^157] Dobson
    asserted that its E911 Project Manager communicated with Lewis and
    Gilmer Counties regarding the technical difficulties it faced in
    implementing Phase II service due to a string-of-pearls cell site
    configuration in Lewis County and the fact that there is only a
    single cell site in Gilmer County. In early May 2005, Dobson's E911
    Project Manager began accumulating cell site data necessary for
    deployment of the Polaris Phase II solution. Dobson stated in its
    Supplemental LOI Response that ACC was awaiting certain technical
    data ordered from the LEC before it could test for final deployment
    and that it expected to schedule final Phase I testing on or around
    June 24, 2005. Dobson stated that ACC expected to complete internal
    Phase II testing by July 31, 2005, after which it would schedule
    formal acceptance.[^158] ACC's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report
    indicated that it completed deployment of Phase I service in Lewis
    and Gilmer Counties on July 19, 2005.[^159] ACC's Quarterly Report
    also indicated that it "completed installation of the necessary
    software and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II solution"
    and "completed testing to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and
    longitude information is being transmitted in the appropriate
    format" in both Lewis and Gilmer Counties on October 31, 2005. Thus,
    ACC apparently did not complete deployment of Phase I service in
    Lewis and Gilmer Counties until July 19, 2005, approximately seven
    months after receiving valid requests for Phase I service for these
    two PSAPs, and that it did not complete deployment of Phase II
    service in Lewis and Gilmer Counties until October 31, 2005,
    approximately ten months after receiving valid requests for Phase II
    service for these two PSAPs.

51. **Harrison, Marion, Monongalia, Preston, and Taylor Counties, West
    Virginia**. ACC received valid requests for Phase II service from
    the North Central West Virginia MECCA 911 on behalf of Harrison,
    Marion, Monongalia, Preston and Taylor Counties on September 2,
    2003.[^160] In light of difficulties anticipated due to low cell
    site density in these counties, Dobson's E911 Project Manager met
    with all five of the individual county PSAP directors on March
    26, 2004. At this meeting, the E911 Project Manager requested and
    received oral agreement from the five PSAPs to extend the deployment
    schedule until July 1, 2004. Dobson noted that ACC ordered Phase II
    equipment from Andrew and necessary GPS antennas in June 2004; that
    the GPS antennas were delivered on July 1, 2004 and installed in
    October 2004; and that the Andrew equipment was delivered in
    September 2004 and installed in November 2004. Dobson further noted
    that ACC ordered additional required equipment in December 2004, and
    completed installation of this equipment in June 2005. Dobson stated
    that ACC expected to complete all internal testing by July 1, 2005,
    after which it would schedule formal acceptance.[^161] ACC's
    November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it "completed
    installation of the necessary software and hardware of the
    network-based E911 Phase II solution" and "completed testing to
    demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information is
    being transmitted in the appropriate format" in all five counties
    between August 22 and August 24, 2005.[^162] Thus, ACC apparently
    did not complete deployment of Phase II service in these five
    counties until between August 22 and 24, 2005, approximately two
    years after receiving valid Phase II requests for these five PSAPs
    and eleven months after Dobson's extended deployment deadline of
    July 1, 2004.

#### III. DISCUSSION {#iii.-discussion .Style-Heading-4-+-Left}

52. Under Section 503(b)(1)(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended ("Act"), any person who is determined by the Commission to
    have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of
    the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission
    shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.[^163]
    To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a
    notice of apparent liability and the person against whom such notice
    has been issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no
    such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.[^164] The Commission will
    then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the
    evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission
    rule.[^165] As set forth in detail below, we conclude under this
    standard that Dobson is apparently liable for forfeiture for its
    apparent willful and repeated violations of Section 20.18(d) and (f)
    of the Rules.

53. The fundamental issue in this case is whether Dobson apparently
    violated the Commission's rules by willfully or repeatedly failing
    to timely provide E911 Phase I and Phase II service in response to
    valid PSAP requests. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, we
    conclude that DCS and ACC are each apparently liable for a
    forfeiture of \$375,000 for a total forfeiture in the amount of
    \$750,000 for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section
    20.18(d) and (f) of the Rules.

    **A. Failure to Timely Provide E911**

54. As noted above, the E911 Phase I rules require wireless carriers to
    provide designated PSAPs with both the telephone number of the
    mobile handset that originated the 911 call and the location of the
    base station or cell site that received the 911 call, within six
    months of a valid request by a designated PSAP. Under the E911 Phase
    II rules, wireless carriers must provide designated PSAPs with the
    location of wireless 911 callers, using either a network-based or
    handset-based solution. Carriers, such as Dobson, which choose to
    deploy a network-based Phase II solution must provide Phase II
    service to at least 50 percent of the PSAP's coverage area or at
    least 50 percent of its population within six months of a valid PSAP
    request, and to 100 percent of the PSAP's coverage area or 100
    percent of its population within 18 months of such a request. With
    respect to the Complainant PSAPs, the record before us establishes
    that Dobson apparently failed to timely provide Phase I service in
    response to one valid PSAP request and failed to timely deploy Phase
    II service in response to eleven valid PSAP requests.[^166] With
    respect to the other PSAPs, the record establishes that Dobson
    apparently failed to timely provide Phase I service in response to
    eight valid PSAP requests and failed to timely deploy Phase II
    service in response to 30 valid PSAP requests.[^167] Accordingly,
    based on the preponderance of the evidence, we find that Dobson
    apparently failed to timely provide Phase I service in response to
    valid PSAP requests in violation of Section 20.18(d) of the Rules in
    nine instances, and apparently failed to timely provide Phase II
    service in response to valid PSAP requests in violation of Section
    20.18(f) of the Rules in 41 instances. We note that 25 of these 50
    violations occurred in markets in which DCS is the system licensee,
    and 25 occurred in markets in which ACC is the system licensee.

    **B. Proposed Forfeiture**

55. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide
    that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the
    provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture
    penalty. Based upon the record before us, Dobson's apparent
    violations of Section 20.18(d) and (f) of the Rules were willful and
    repeated.

56. Under Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act,[^168] we may assess a common
    carrier a forfeiture of up to \$130,000 for each violation, or for
    each day of a continuing violation up to a maximum of \$1,325,000
    for a single act or failure to act. Additionally, in assessing an
    appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors set
    forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act ,[^169] which includes "the
    nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with
    respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice
    may require," as well as guidelines set forth in the Commission's
    Forfeiture Policy Statement.[^170]

57. The Commission's *Forfeiture Policy Statement* and Section 1.80 of
    the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of
    Sections 20.18(d) and 20.18(f). Nevertheless, the Commission has
    stated that the "omission of a specific rule violation from the list
    \... \[establishing base forfeiture amounts\] should not signal that
    the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or
    unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's
    obligation, to know and comply with all of the Commission's
    rules."[^171] Thus, the Commission retains its discretion to issue
    forfeitures on a case-by-case basis,[^172] and has assessed
    forfeiture liability,[^173] for rule violations irrespective of
    whether corresponding base forfeiture amounts have been established.

58. The record establishes that Dobson apparently failed to timely
    provide E911 Phase I service in nine instances and to timely provide
    E911 Phase II service in 41 instances. Thus, Dobson apparently
    failed to timely provide E911 service in a total of 50 instances. As
    noted above, 25 of these 50 violations occurred in markets in which
    DCS is the system licensee, and 25 occurred in markets in which ACC
    is the system licensee.

59. Having considered the statutory factors enumerated above, we
    conclude that a substantial proposed forfeiture is warranted. First,
    we find that the violations here are egregious. Violations of E911
    requirements are extremely serious, given the critical function
    these requirements serve in promoting and safeguarding life and
    property.[^174] Further, we note that nine of the 50 violations
    involved Dobson's failure to timely provide Phase I service. The
    Phase I requirements set forth in Section 20.18(d) have been in
    effect for over seven years. We also believe that a substantial
    proposed forfeiture is warranted based on the continuous and
    repeated nature of the violations. In this regard, we take into
    account the substantial number of violations and the fact that a
    number of the violations involved valid PSAP requests that had been
    pending for as long as two or three years. Finally, we take into
    account Dobson's size and ability to pay a forfeiture in determining
    the appropriate forfeiture amount. We note, in this connection, that
    Dobson is the largest independent rural wireless carrier and the
    ninth largest wireless carrier in the country. Dobson owns more than
    sixty wireless markets in 16 states and serves more than 1.6 million
    subscribers. Dobson generated more than \$1 billion in revenue in
    2004,[^175] and for the first nine months of 2005 showed a 17%
    increase in revenues over the previous nine months.[^176] As the
    Commission made clear in the *Forfeiture Policy Statement*, large or
    highly profitable communications entities, such as Dobson, could
    expect forfeitures higher than those reflected in the base
    amounts.[^177] In view of Dobson's size and ability to pay, we
    believe that a substantial proposed forfeiture is appropriate in
    order for the proposed forfeiture to serve as an effective deterrent
    to future violations the E911 requirements.

60. We recognize that Dobson has encountered some difficulties in
    developing its Phase II solution, including delays in the delivery
    of equipment and necessary facilities, which impeded timely
    deployment.[^178] It is well established that "an assertion that a
    vendor, manufacturer, or other entity was unable to supply compliant
    products will not excuse noncompliance" with E911
    requirements.[^179] On the other hand, a carrier's "concrete and
    timely actions" taken with a vendor, manufacturer, or other entity
    may be considered as possible mitigation factors in an enforcement
    context.[^180] Based on the record before us, we conclude that
    Dobson has not shown that it exercised the level of diligence
    expected of carriers in addressing the deployment of E911 services
    to warrant any mitigation. Rather, the record indicates that Dobson
    may not have dedicated sufficient resources and attention to E911
    implementation at a time when it was actively expanding its wireless
    market holdings and converting its network from TDMA to GSM
    technology. Moreover, it appears that many of the violations
    stemmed, in part, from a lack of corporate oversight of the Dobson
    employee charged with the important function of managing Dobson's
    deployment of E911. We also note that nine of the 50 apparent
    violations involved Dobson's failure to timely provide Phase I
    service, which does not present the same technical challenges as
    Phase II deployment.

61. Accordingly, based on the egregious, continuous and repeated nature
    of the violations and Dobson's ability to pay a forfeiture, we
    propose an aggregate forfeiture of \$750,000 for Dobson's apparent
    willful and repeated violations of Section 20.18(d) and (f) of the
    Rules. While the proposed forfeiture amount is substantial, we note
    that it is significantly lower than the straightforward application
    of the applicable maximum statutory forfeiture amount.[^181] Because
    DCS and ACC each apparently failed to timely provide E911 service in
    25 instances, each system licensee is apparently liable for half of
    the total proposed forfeiture amount, \$375,000.

#### IV. CONCLUSION {#iv.-conclusion .Style-Heading-4-+-Left}

62. We conclude that DCS and ACC both apparently willfully and
    repeatedly violated Section 20.18(d) and (f) of the Rules by failing
    to fulfill valid requests for Phase I and Phase II E911 service to
    the above-listed PSAPs within six months of the date of the request.
    For these violations, we propose forfeitures totaling \$750,000.

#### V. ORDERING CLAUSES {#v.-ordering-clauses .Style-Heading-4-+-Left}

63. **ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED** that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of
    the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, Dobson Cellular Systems,
    Inc. and American Cellular Corporation are each **NOTIFIED** of its
    **APPARENT LIABILITY** **FOR A FORFEITURE** for willful and repeated
    violations of Section 20.18(d) and (f) of the Rules as follows:

    \(a\) Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. in the amount of three hundred
    seventy five thousand dollars (\$375,000); and

    \(b\) American Cellular Corporation in the amount of three hundred
    seventy five thousand dollars (\$375,000).

64. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the
    Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of
    Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. and
    American Cellular Corporation **SHALL PAY** the full amount of the
    proposed forfeitures or **SHALL FILE** written statement(s) seeking
    reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeitures.

65. Payment of the forfeitures shall be made in the manner provided for
    in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this
    Order. If the forfeitures are not paid within the period specified,
    the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection
    pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.[^182] Payment of the
    forfeitures must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to
    the order of the Federal Communications Commission. Payment by check
    or money order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission,
    P.O. Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340. Payment by overnight
    mail may be sent to Mellon Bank/LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room
    1540670, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Payment by wire transfer may be made
    to ABA Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account
    number 911-6106. Requests for payment of the full amount of the NAL
    under an installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing
    Director -- Financial Operations, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Room
    1A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.[^183] The payments should note the
    following:

    \(a\) Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. \-- NAL/Acct. No. 200632100010
    and FRN \# 0001699719; and

    \(b\) American Cellular Corporation \-- NAL/Acct. No. 200632100011
    and FRN \# 0003767324.

66. The response(s), if any, must be mailed to the Office of the
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
    Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau -- Spectrum
    Enforcement Division, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced
    in the caption.

67. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture
    in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner
    submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year
    period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally
    accepted accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and
    objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's
    current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must
    specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the
    financial documentation submitted.[^184]

68. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that a copy of this Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and
    certified mail return receipt requested to Ronald L. Ripley, Senior
    Vice President and General Counsel, Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc.
    and American Cellular Corporation, 14201 Wireless Way, Oklahoma
    City, Oklahoma 73134, and to Lawrence J. Movshin, Esq., and
    Timothy J. Cooney, Esq., Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP, 2300 N Street,
    N.W., Suite 700, Washington DC 20037-1128.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

[^1]: Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. and American Cellular Corporation
    are sister companies and wholly-owned subsidiaries of Dobson
    Communications Corporation.

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(d) and (f).

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(d).

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(e).

[^5]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(f) and (g). Network-based location
    solutions employ equipment and/or software added to the 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,
    *Network-based Location Technology*. Handset-based 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,
    *Location-capable Handsets*.

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(f). In 2002, the Commission temporarily stayed
    certain E911 Phase II deadlines for Tier II and Tier III carriers.
    *Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with
    Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Phase II Compliance
    Deadlines for Non-Nationwide CMRS Carriers*, Order to Stay, CC
    Docket No. 94-102, 17 FCC Rcd 14841 (2002) ("*Order to Stay"*). For
    Tier II carriers choosing to deploy a network-based Phase II
    solution, the Commission provided that carriers must provide Phase
    II service to at least 50 percent of the PSAP's coverage area or
    population beginning March 1, 2003, or within six months of a PSAP
    request, whichever is later; and to 100 percent of the PSAP's
    coverage area or population by March 1, 2004, or within 18 months of
    such a request, whichever is later. *Id.* at 17851, ¶ 26.

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(h)(1).

[^8]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(j)(1), (2); *see also Revision of the
    Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911
    Emergency Calling Systems*, *Petition of City of Richardson, Texas*,
    Order, 16 FCC Rcd 18982, 18982 ¶ 1 (2001) ("*City of Richardson*"),
    *recon. granted in part, denied in part,* *Revision of the
    Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911
    Emergency Calling Systems*, *Petition of City of Richardson, Texas*,
    Order on Reconsideration, 17 FCC Rcd 24282 (2002) ("*Richardson
    Reconsideration"*).

[^9]: *See Richardson Reconsideration*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24283, ¶ 5.

[^10]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(j)(3); *see also Richardson Reconsideration*,
    17 FCC Rcd at 24284, ¶ 10. A wireless carrier is free to request
    readiness documentation from a PSAP more than 15 days after receipt
    of the PSAP's E911 service request, but in this event, the PSAP's
    failure to provide the documentation within 15 days will not toll
    the six-month implementation period. *Id.*

[^11]: The Commission has defined "Tier II" carriers to include
    Commercial Mobile Radio Service ("CMRS") carriers that had over
    500,000 subscribers as of the end of 2001. *Order to Stay*, 17 FCC
    Rcd at 14848, ¶ 22.

[^12]: Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. E911 Quarterly Report, CC Docket
    No. 94-102, filed February 1, 2006.

[^13]: Letter from Harriet Miller-Brown, State 911 Administrator,
    Michigan State Police, to Kathryn Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum
    Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (April 14, 2005) ("Informal
    Complaint").

[^14]: The Michigan PSAPs formally denied Dobson's extension request and
    outlined the criteria for refraining from filing a complaint with
    the FCC in letters to the E911 Project Manager dated November 1,
    2004 and November 30, 2004. Informal Complaint, Attachments A and B.

[^15]: Informal Complaint, Attachment I. The March 31, 2005 deployment
    schedule explained that an "uncalibrated" deployment means that the
    caller's latitude and longitude information may or may not be within
    the FCC's accuracy standards. *Id.*

[^16]: Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum
    Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Ronald L. Ripley,
    Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Dobson Cellular Systems,
    Inc. (May 4, 2005).

[^17]: Letter from Ronald L. Ripley, Senior Vice President and General
    Counsel, Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. (May 24, 2005) ("LOI
    Response").

[^18]: Letter from Ronald L. Ripley, Senior Vice President and General
    Counsel, Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. (June 23, 2005)
    ("Supplemental LOI Response").

[^19]: Letter from Lawrence J. Movshin and Timothy J. Cooney (August 25,
    2005) ("Second Supplemental LOI Response").

[^20]: We note that the Michigan 911 State Administrator's informal
    complaint alleged that Dobson had failed to timely implement Phase I
    service to two Michigan PSAPs and Phase II service to 14 Michigan
    PSAPs. However, Dobson's LOI response indicated that Phase I service
    had in fact been deployed in Roscommon County, Michigan prior to its
    acquisition of this market on June 15, 2004. LOI Response,
    Attachment A, at 1. Further, Dobson's LOI Response indicated that it
    treated Phase II requests from Menominee County, Sanilac County, and
    Tuscola County, Michigan as invalid, because it made timely requests
    for *Richardson* documentation from these counties, but did not
    receive responses from these counties demonstrating their readiness
    to receive and utilize Phase II information. *Id*. at 3-4. Thus, we
    find herein that Dobson apparently failed to implement Phase I
    service within six months in response to a valid request from one of
    the Complainant PSAPs and to implement Phase II service within six
    months in response to valid requests from eleven of the Complainant
    PSAPs.

[^21]: LOI Response, Attachment A, at 2-4.

[^22]: LOI Response at 4. Under Section 20.18(j)(5) of the Rules, a
    carrier and a PSAP may establish, by mutual consent, Phase I and
    Phase II deployment deadlines different from those imposed in the
    rules. 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(j)(5).

[^23]: LOI Response, Attachment A, at 2-4.

[^24]: *Id.* at 2.

[^25]: *Id.* at 12.

[^26]: Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. E911 Quarterly Report, CC Docket
    No. 94-102, filed November 1, 2005 ("DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly
    Report"), at 1. ACC's November 1, 2005 E911 Quarterly Report
    includes a similar statement. American Cellular Corporation E911
    Quarterly Report, CC Docket No. 94-102, filed November 1, 2005 ("ACC
    November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report"), at 1. Tier II carriers, such as
    Dobson and ACC, are required to submit quarterly reports to the
    Commission providing detailed information regarding the status of
    all pending Phase I and Phase II requests and their compliance with
    applicable provisions of the E911 rules. *Order to Stay*, 17 FCC Rcd
    at 14851-53 ¶¶ 28-31.

[^27]: Second Supplemental LOI Response at 1.

[^28]: *Id.*, Appendix A, at 3.

[^29]: Likewise, with respect to other PSAPs discussed below, we observe
    an apparent inconsistency between Dobson's representations in its
    LOI Responses and the Quarterly Reports filed by DCS and ACC
    regarding when they "deployed" E911 service. As with Alcona County,
    we find that, using either date, DCS or ACC apparently failed to
    timely provide E911 service to these PSAPs.

[^30]: LOI Response, Attachment A, at 2.

[^31]: *Id.* at 12.

[^32]: Second Supplemental LOI Response at 1.

[^33]: DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 4.

[^34]: LOI Response, Attachment A, at 2.

[^35]: *Id.* at 12.

[^36]: Second Supplemental LOI Response at 1.

[^37]: LOI Response, Attachment A, at 2.

[^38]: *Id*. at 12.

[^39]: Second Supplemental LOI Response at 1.

[^40]: ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 9.

[^41]: LOI Response, Attachment A, at 2.

[^42]: *Id.* at 12.

[^43]: Second Supplemental LOI Response at 2. Dobson also indicated that
    the PSAP subsequently requested that Dobson revert back to Phase I
    until such time as accuracy can be improved. *Id.*

[^44]: LOI Response, Attachment A, at 3.

[^45]: *Id.* at 12.

[^46]: Second Supplemental LOI Response at 2.

[^47]: LOI Response, Attachment A, at 3.

[^48]: *Id.* at 12.

[^49]: Second Supplemental LOI Response at 2.

[^50]: *Id.*

[^51]: ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 7. ACC's
    November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report did not address when it completed
    testing to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude
    information is being transmitted in the appropriate format.

[^52]: LOI Response, Attachment A, at 1.

[^53]: *Id*. at 1, 3.

[^54]: *Id.* at 5, 12.

[^55]: Second Supplemental LOI Response at 2.

[^56]: *Id.*

[^57]: LOI Response, Attachment A, at 3.

[^58]: *Id.* at 12.

[^59]: Second Supplemental LOI Response at 3.

[^60]: LOI Response, Attachment A, at 3.

[^61]: Although Dobson stated in its LOI Response that DCS informed
    Osceola County that it did not currently provide service in Osceola
    County and did not intend to do so until the NPI transaction was
    complete, DCS's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it
    received a request for Phase I service from Osceola County on
    September 1, 2000, and deployed Phase I service in Osceola County on
    April 25, 2002. DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A,
    at 5. Thus, DCS apparently had previously provided service in
    Osceola County.

[^62]: LOI Response, Attachment A, at 13.

[^63]: Second Supplemental LOI Response at 3.

[^64]: LOI Response, Attachment A, at 4.

[^65]: *Id.* at 13.

[^66]: Second Supplemental LOI Response at 3.

[^67]: *Id.*

[^68]: *Id.*

[^69]: LOI Response at 2.

[^70]: *Id.* at 3-4.

[^71]: *Id.*, Appendix A, at 6.

[^72]: *Id.*

[^73]: *Id.,* Appendix A, at 6-7.

[^74]: *Id.*

[^75]: *Id.* at 4.

[^76]: *Id.*, Appendix A, at 7-8.

[^77]: *Id.*

[^78]: *Id.*

[^79]: *Id.* at 4.

[^80]: *Id.*

[^81]: *Id.* at 4-5.

[^82]: Although Dobson's Supplemental LOI Response identified numerous
    other Phase I and Phase II requests that had been pending for more
    than six months, some of these requests appeared to be invalid
    because the PSAP failed to provide *Richardson* documentation in
    response to a timely request from DCS or ACC. In addition, some of
    the PSAPs had entered into agreements with DCS or ACC to extend the
    six-month implementation deadline. Finally, in some cases, there was
    insufficient information in the record to find that DCS or ACC
    failed to timely implement Phase I or Phase II service in apparent
    violation of the rules.

[^83]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13,
    at 19.

[^84]: Dobson indicated that Clare County's Phase II request was
    incorrectly addressed to T-Mobile, which subsequently informed Clare
    County that the request should have been sent to NPI. Dobson stated
    that it has not seen any evidence that the request was in fact
    re-addressed to NPI. Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B,
    Response to Question 13, at 20. However, given that Clare County
    entered into an agreement with NPI to extend the deployment deadline
    until December 31, 2004, it is reasonable to presume that the
    request was re-addressed to NPI.

[^85]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13,
    at 20. Dobson does not explain in the Supplemental LOI Response what
    it means by "formal acceptance." However, it appears that this means
    that it has completed testing to demonstrate to the PSAP that
    latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in the
    appropriate format and presented this testing to the PSAP for
    acceptance.

[^86]: DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 5.

[^87]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13,
    at 19.

[^88]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13,
    at 20.

[^89]: DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 5.

[^90]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13,
    at 22.

[^91]: *Id*.

[^92]: ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 8. ACC's
    November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report did not address when it completed
    testing to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude
    information is being transmitted in the appropriate format.

[^93]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13,
    at 23.

[^94]: *Id*.

[^95]: ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 8. ACC's
    November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report did not address when it completed
    testing to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude
    information is being transmitted in the appropriate format.

[^96]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13,
    at 20.

[^97]: *Id*.

[^98]: DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 4.

[^99]: *See* paragraph 52 *infra.*

[^100]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 18.

[^101]: *Id.*

[^102]: DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 1.

[^103]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 23.

[^104]: *Id*.

[^105]: ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 8. ACC's
    November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report did not address when it completed
    testing to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude
    information is being transmitted in the appropriate format.

[^106]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 19. We note that a wireless carrier may request readiness
    documentation from a PSAP more than 15 days after receipt of the
    PSAP's E911 service request, but in this event, the PSAP's failure
    to provide the documentation within 15 days will not toll the
    six-month implementation period. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(j)(3); *see
    also Richardson Reconsideration*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24284,\
    ¶ 10. Thus, Lake County's failure to provide *Richardson*
    documentation within 15 days of DCS's untimely request did not toll
    the six-month implementation period.

[^107]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 19.

[^108]: DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 1.

[^109]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 19.

[^110]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 19.

[^111]: DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 1.

[^112]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 18. Although Dobson indicated that DCS owned and operated
    this market prior to June 2004, when it acquired NPI's assets in
    Michigan, it also stated that DCS obtained a copy of the Phase II
    request made by Mason-Oceana 911 to NPI on January 29, 2003, along
    with an agreement, dated April 29, 2003, to extend NPI's Phase II
    deployment deadline until December 31, 2004. *Id.* It is unclear
    from this statement whether DCS relied on this extension granted to
    NPI, or what the basis for such reliance was, given that it owned
    and operated the market prior to its acquisition of NPI's assets.

[^113]: *Id.*

[^114]: DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 1.

[^115]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 21.

[^116]: *Id*.

[^117]: DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 5.

[^118]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 22.

[^119]: *Id*.

[^120]: ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 8. ACC's
    November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report did not address when it completed
    testing to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude
    information is being transmitted in the appropriate format.

[^121]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 1.

[^122]: *Id.* at 2.

[^123]: DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 1.

[^124]: *Id.* DCS's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report did not address
    when it completed testing to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude
    and longitude information is being transmitted in the appropriate
    format.

[^125]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 27.

[^126]: *Id.* at 28.

[^127]: ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 11. The
    Quarterly Report did not address when it completed testing to
    demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information is
    being transmitted in the appropriate format.

[^128]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 6.

[^129]: *Id.*

[^130]: ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 1.

[^131]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 10.

[^132]: *Id.*

[^133]: ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 3.

[^134]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 12. Because Hardin County did not provide the *Richardson*
    documentation within 15 days of ACC's request, the six-month
    implementation period was tolled briefly, until it provided the
    documentation on July 7, 2004. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(j)(3).

[^135]: *Id.*

[^136]: ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 3.

[^137]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 13.

[^138]: *Id.*

[^139]: ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 3.

[^140]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 4.

[^141]: *Id.* at 4-5.

[^142]: DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 9. DCS's
    Quarterly Report did not address when it completed testing to
    demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information is
    being transmitted in the appropriate format.

[^143]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 2.

[^144]: *Id.* at 3.

[^145]: DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 9.

[^146]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 28.

[^147]: ACC received a valid request for Phase I service from Schoharie
    County on November 4, 2002, and deployed TDMA Phase I in Schoharie
    County on November 11, 2003. ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report,
    Appendix A, at 11. When ACC subsequently overlayed its TDMA network
    with GSM technology in Schoharie County, it apparently failed to
    deploy GSM Phase I service.

[^148]: ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 11.

[^149]: *Id.* The Quarterly Report did not address when ACC completed
    testing for GSM Phase II to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude
    and longitude information is being transmitted in the appropriate
    format.

[^150]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 28.

[^151]: ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 11.

[^152]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 29.

[^153]: DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 10.

[^154]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 17.

[^155]: Pseudo-Automatic Number Identification or "p-ANI" is "a number,
    consisting of the same number of digits as ANI, that is not a North
    American Numbering Plan telephone directory number and may be used
    in place of an ANI to convey special meaning." The special meaning
    assigned to the p-ANI is determined by agreements between the system
    originating the call, intermediate systems routing and handling the
    call, and the destination system. 47 C.F.R. § 20.3.

[^156]: ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 11.

[^157]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 14-15.

[^158]: *Id.* at 15.

[^159]: ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 7.

[^160]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question
    13, at 16-17.

[^161]: *Id.* at 17.

[^162]: ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 5-6.

[^163]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1). Section
    312(f)(1) of the Act defines "willful" as "the conscious and
    deliberate commission or omission of \[any\] act, irrespective of
    any intent to violate" the law. 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). The
    legislative history of Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that
    this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b)
    of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th^ Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982),
    and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b)
    context. *See, e.g., Southern California Broadcasting Co.,* 6 FCC
    Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991) ("*Southern California*"). The Commission may
    also assess a forfeiture for violations that are merely repeated,
    and not willful. *See,* *e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc.*, 16 FCC
    Rcd 1359 (2001) ("*Callais Cablevision*") (issuing a notice of
    apparent liability for forfeiture for, *inter alia*, a cable
    television operator's repeated signal leakage). The term "repeated"
    means that the act was committed or omitted more than once, or lasts
    more than one day. *Callais Cablevision*, 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, ¶ 9;
    *Southern California*, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, ¶ 5.

[^164]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).

[^165]: *See, e.g.,* *SBC Communications, Inc.*, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591,
    ¶ 4 (2002).

[^166]: *See* discussion at paragraphs 9-20, *supra.* Following receipt
    of Dobson's LOI responses, the Enforcement Bureau received
    additional complaints from the Michigan 911 State Administrator and
    the Michigan Communication Directors Association which asserted that
    Dobson's Phase II deployment in Michigan has not yielded a level of
    accuracy that the PSAPs can rely upon or that meets the FCC's
    accuracy standards. We note that the issue of location accuracy as a
    general matter is being addressed via the Network Reliability and
    Interoperability Council ("NRIC") process. *See* NRIC VII FOCUS
    GROUP 1A, Near Term Issues for Emergency/E9-1-1 Services, Final
    Report, December 16, 2005, available at
    http://www.nric.org/fg/index.html. Accordingly, we do not address
    this issue herein.

[^167]: *See* discussion at paragraphs 25-51, *supra.*

[^168]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B). The Commission twice amended Section
    1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(3), to increase the
    maxima forfeiture amounts, in accordance with the inflation
    adjustment requirements contained in the Debt Collection Improvement
    Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2461. *See Amendment of Section 1.80 of the
    Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
    Inflation,* 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (adjusting the maximum statutory
    amounts from \$100,000/\$1,000,000 to \$120,000/\$1,200,000);
    *Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment
    of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,* 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004)
    (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts from \$120,000/\$1,200,000
    to \$130,000/\$1,325,000); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(c).

[^169]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

[^170]: *See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment
    of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture
    Guidelines,* 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17115 (1997), *recon. denied*, 15 FCC
    Rcd 303 (1999) ("*Forfeiture Policy Statement*").

[^171]: *Id.* at 12 FCC Rcd at 17099 ¶ 22.

[^172]: *Id.*

[^173]: *See Callais Cablevision, Inc.,* 17 FCC Rcd 22626, 22630 ¶¶
    19-20 (2002) (assessing an aggregate \$133,000 forfeiture
    irrespective of the absence of an established base forfeiture for
    violations of the cable signal leakage standards); *Midwest
    Television, Inc.*, 20 FCC Rcd 3959 (Enf. Bur. 2005) (assessing a
    \$20,000 proposed forfeiture irrespective of the absence of an
    established base forfeiture for failure to broadcast emergency
    information accessible to hearing impaired viewers); *A-O
    Broadcasting Corp.,* 31 Communications Reg. (P&F) 411 ¶ 22 (2003),
    *forfeiture ordered,* 20 FCC Rcd 756 (2005) (assessing a \$28,000
    forfeiture, *inter alia,* irrespective of the absence of an
    established base forfeiture for violations of radio frequency
    exposure limits).

[^174]: *See Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems,* Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20850, 20852 ¶ 2 (1999), *clarified,*
    16 FCC Rcd 18982 (2001); *see also T-Mobile USA, Inc.,* 18 FCC Rcd
    3501, 3504 ¶ 7 (2003); *Sprint Spectrum LP d/b/a Sprint PCS,* 19 FCC
    Rcd 19901, 19906 ¶ 12 (Enf. Bur. 2004), *consent decree ordered*, 20
    FCC Rcd 12328 (Enf. Bur. 2005).

[^175]: Dobson Communications Corporation 2004 Annual Report to
    Shareholders, www.dobson.net.

[^176]: Dobson Communications Corporation Form 424B3 (Prospectus),
    February 10, 2006, at 25.

[^177]: Specifically, the Commission stated:

    > \[O\]n the other end of the spectrum of potential violations, we
    > recognize that for large or highly profitable communication
    > entities, the base forfeiture amounts \... are generally low. In
    > this regard, we are mindful that, as Congress has stated, for a
    > forfeiture to be an effective deterrent against these entities,
    > the forfeiture must be issued at a high level \.... For this
    > reason, we caution all entities and individuals that, independent
    > from the uniform base forfeiture amounts \..., we intend to take
    > into account the subsequent violator\'s ability to pay in
    > determining the amount of a forfeiture to guarantee that
    > forfeitures issued against large or highly profitable entities are
    > not considered merely an affordable cost of doing business. Such
    > large or highly profitable entities should expect in this regard
    > that the forfeiture amount set out in a Notice of Apparent
    > Liability against them may in many cases be above, or even well
    > above, the relevant base amount.

    *Forfeiture Policy Statement*, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099-100.

[^178]: *See* paragraphs 40-41, 43, 46-47 and 50-51 *supra.*

[^179]: *Order to Stay*, 17 FCC Rcd at 14854 ¶ 37; *Revision of the
    Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility of Enhanced 911 Emergency
    Calling Systems, Request for Waiver by Sprint Spectrum LP d/b/a
    Sprint PCS,* 16 FCC Rcd 18330, 18340 ¶ 32 (2001); *Revision of the
    Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility of Enhanced 911 Emergency
    Calling Systems, Request for Waiver by AT&T Wireless Services,* 16
    FCC Rcd 18253, 18261 ¶ 26 (2001).

[^180]: *Id.*

[^181]: *See* paragraph 56 *supra*.

[^182]: 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).

[^183]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.

[^184]: *Id.*