*Pages 1--26 from  Microsoft Word - 56492.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 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 
 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  Commissions  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  DCSs  and  ACCs  apparent  violations,  we  propose  forfeitures  totaling  Seven  Hundred  Fifty  Thousand  Dollars  ($  750,000). 

 II.  BACKGROUND 
 2.  The  Commissions  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- 
 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). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 2 
 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  PSAPs  coverage  area 
 or  at  least  50  percent  of  its  population  within  six  months  of  a  valid  PSAP  request,  and  to  100  percent  of  the  PSAPs  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  PSAPs  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  PSAPs  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  PSAPs  request  for  E911  service,  the  PSAP 
 must  respond  within  15  days  or  the  carriers  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 
 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  Commissions  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 
 PSAPs  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  PSAPs  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  Commissions  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  Commissions  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  PSAPs  E911  service  request,  but  in  this  event,  the  PSAPs  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. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 3 
 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  NPIs  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)  Dobsons  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  Michigans  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 

 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  Dobsons  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  callers  latitude  and  longitude  information  may  or  may  not  be  within  the  FCCs  accuracy  standards.  Id. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 4 
 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.  Dobsons  May  24,  2005  LOI  Response  addressed  its  E911  implementation  efforts  with  respect  to  the  14  Complainant  PSAPs.  As  discussed  below,  Dobsons  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  NPIs  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  NPIs  assets  on  June  15,  2004.  24  Upon  acquiring  this  market,  DCS  obtained  a  copy  of 

 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  Administrators  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,  Dobsons  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,  Dobsons  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. 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 5 
 Alcona  Countys  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  DCSs  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  Dobsons  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  NPIs  assets  on  June  15,  2004.  30  Upon  acquiring  this  market,  DCS  obtained  a  copy  of 

 Arenac  Countys  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  Dobsons  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  DCSs  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 
 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.  ACCs  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  Dobsons 
 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. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 6 
 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  ACCs  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  NPIs  assets  on  June  15,  2004.  41  Upon  acquiring  this  market,  DCS  obtained  a  copy  of  Iosco 
 Countys  request  for  Phase  II  service  dated  August  18,  2003,  as  well  as  an  agreement  between  Iosco 
 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. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 7 
 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  NPIs  assets  on  June  15,  2004.  44  Upon  acquiring  this  market,  DCS  obtained  a  copy  of 
 Mackinac  Countys  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  ACCs  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 
 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.  ACCs  November  1,  2005  Quarterly  Report  did  not 
 (continued  ) 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 8 
 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  NPIs  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  Countys  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  Dobsons  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  NPIs  assets  on  June  15,  2004.  57  Upon  acquiring  this  market,  DCS  obtained  a  copy  of  Mecosta 
 Countys  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 

 Continued  from  previous  page 
 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. 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 9 
 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  NPIs  assets,  DCS  obtained  a  copy  of  Osceola  Countys  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  NPIs  assets  on  June  15,  2004.  64  Upon  acquiring  this  market,  DCS  obtained  a  copy  of 
 Roscommon  Countys  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.  Dobsons  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 

 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,  DCSs  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. 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 10 
 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  NPIs 
 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  NPIs  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  Dobsons  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  Dobsons  management.  78  Dobson 
 acknowledged  that  the  E911  Project  Manager  did  not  adequately  communicate  with  the  PSAPs  and  that  Dobsons  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  Administrators  informal  complaint  to  the  FCC  on  April  14,  2005,  it  immediately  initiated  an  internal 

 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. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 11 
 inquiry  into  its  E911  compliance  efforts  throughout  Dobsons  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.  Dobsons  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,  Dobsons  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  NPIs  assets  on  June  15,  2004.  83  Upon  acquiring  this  market,  DCS  obtained  a  copy  of  Clare  Countys 

 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.  DCSs 
 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 

 80  Id. 
 81  Id.  at  4-  5. 
 82  Although  Dobsons  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  Countys  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. 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 12 
 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  NPIs  assets  on  June  15,  2004.  87  Upon  acquiring  this  market,  DCS  obtained  a  copy  of 
 Crawford  Countys  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  DCSs  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.  ACCs  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.  ACCs  November  1,  2005  Quarterly  Report  indicated  that  it  completed  installation  of  the  necessary  software  and  hardware  of  the  network-  based 

 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.  ACCs  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. 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 13 
 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  NPIs  assets  on  June  15,  2004.  96  Upon  acquiring  this  market,  DCS  obtained  a  copy  of 

 Isabella  Countys  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. 
 DCSs  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  DCSs  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 

 95  ACC  November  1,  2005  Quarterly  Report,  Appendix  A,  at  8.  ACCs  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. 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 14 
 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.  ACCs  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  DCSs  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  DCSs  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 
 104  Id. 
 105  ACC  November  1,  2005  Quarterly  Report,  Appendix  A,  at  8.  ACCs  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  PSAPs  E911  service  request,  but  in  this  event,  the  PSAPs  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  Countys  failure  to  provide  Richardson  documentation  within  15  days  of  DCSs  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. 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 15 
 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.  DCSs  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  NPIs  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  DCSs  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.  ACCs  November  1,  2005  Quarterly  Report  indicated  that  it  completed  installation  of  the  necessary  software  and  hardware  of  the  network- 

 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  NPIs  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  NPIs  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  NPIs  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. 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 16 
 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.  DCSs  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  DCSs  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  Andrews  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  ACCs  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 
 120  ACC  November  1,  2005  Quarterly  Report,  Appendix  A,  at  8.  ACCs  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.  DCSs  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. 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 17 
 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  ACCs  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.  ACCs  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  ACCs  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  ACCs  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 
 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  ACCs  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. 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 18 
 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,  Dobsons  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.  ACCs  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  DCSs  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 

 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.  DCSs  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. 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 19 
 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.  DCSs 
 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,  Dobsons  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  ACCs  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,  ACCs 
 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 

 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. 
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 20 
 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,  Dobsons  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.  DCSs  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  Dobsons  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.  ACCs  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,  Dobsons  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 
 ACCs  November  1,  2005  Quarterly  Report  indicated  that  it  completed  deployment  of  Phase  I  service  in  Lewis  and  Gilmer  Counties  on  July  19,  2005.  159  ACCs  Quarterly  Report  also  indicated  that  it 

 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. 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 21 
 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,  Dobsons  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  ACCs 
 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  Dobsons  extended 
 deployment  deadline  of  July  1,  2004. 
 III.  DISCUSSION 
 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 

 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  operators  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. 
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 22 
 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  Commissions  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  PSAPs  coverage  area  or  at  least  50  percent  of  its  population  within  six  months  of  a  valid  PSAP  request,  and  to  100  percent  of  the  PSAPs  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 

 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  Dobsons  LOI  responses,  the  Enforcement 
 Bureau  received  additional  complaints  from  the  Michigan  911  State  Administrator  and  the  Michigan  Communication  Directors  Association  which  asserted  that  Dobsons  Phase  II  deployment  in  Michigan  has  not 

 yielded  a  level  of  accuracy  that  the  PSAPs  can  rely  upon  or  that  meets  the  FCCs  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. 
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 23 
 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,  Dobsons  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  Commissions  Forfeiture  Policy  Statement.  170 
 57.  The  Commissions  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  licensees  obligation,  to  know  and  comply  with  all  of  the  Commissions  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. 

 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  Commissions  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  Commissions  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  Commissions  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). 
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 24 
 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  Dobsons 
 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  Dobsons  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  Dobsons 
 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  carriers  concrete  and  timely  actions  taken  with  a  vendor,  manufacturer,  or  other  entity 
 174  See  Revision  of  the  Commissions  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  Commissions  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  Commissions  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). 
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 25 
 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  Dobsons  deployment  of  E911.  We  also  note  that  nine  of  the  50  apparent  violations  involved  Dobsons  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  Dobsons  ability  to  pay  a  forfeiture,  we  propose  an  aggregate  forfeiture  of  $750,000  for  Dobsons 
 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 
 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 
 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 

 180  Id. 
 181  See  paragraph  56  supra. 
 182  47  U.  S.  C.    504(  a). 
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  48 
 26 
 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  petitioners  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 

 183  See  47  C.  F.  R.    1.1914. 
 184  Id. 
26