Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2582
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service
Mid-Tex Cellular, Ltd. Petition for Waiver of the 
FCCs Universal Service Rules
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CC Docket No. 96-45
ORDER
Adopted:  December 28, 2006 Released:  December 28, 2006
By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Order, we grant in part and deny in part a petition from Mid-Tex Cellular, Ltd. 
(Mid-Tex), an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) in Texas, for a waiver of sections 54.314(d)(5) 
and 54.904 of the Commissions rules.1  We find that Mid-Tex has demonstrated that good cause warrants 
a waiver of section 54.314(d)(5), but not section 54.904.
II. BACKGROUND
2. Section 254(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), provides that 
only an eligible telecommunications carrier designated under section 214(e) shall be eligible to receive 
specific Federal universal service support.2 Once a carrier is designated as an ETC, other requirements 
also must be satisfied before a carrier can begin receiving high-cost universal service support.  Section 
254(e) requires that support shall be used only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities 
and services for which the support is intended.3  To implement this statutory requirement, the 
Commission has adopted annual certification and data filing requirements.4
3. Section 54.314 of the Commissions rules requires state commissions to file an annual 
certification with both the Commission and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) 
stating that all federal high-cost support provided to ETCs subject to the jurisdiction of that state will be 
used only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is 
  
1 Mid-Tex Cellular, Ltd. Petition for Waiver of the FCCs Universal Service Rules, CC Docket No. 96-45, filed 
December 20, 2005 (Petition); see also 47 C.F.R.  54.314(d)(5), 54.904.
2 47 U.S.C.  254(e). Section 214(e)(2) of the Act provides that state commissions shall designate carriers as ETCs, 
but section 214(e)(6) allows the Commission to designate as ETCs carriers not subject to the jurisdiction of a state 
commission.  47 U.S.C.  214(e)(2), (6).
3 47 U.S.C.  254(e).
4 See 47 C.F.R.  54.307, 54.313, 54.314, 54.802, 54.809, 54.903.
Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2582 
2
intended.5 A carrier for which certifications are received by USAC after July 1 shall not receive support 
in that year.6 Under sections 54.307(d) and 54.314(a), newly designated ETCs have 60 days to file the 
line count data and certifications.7
4. Similarly, to receive interstate common line support (ICLS) pursuant to section 54.904 of 
the Commissions rules, an ETC must file a certification stating that all ICLS it receives will be used only 
for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which such support is 
intended.  This certification must be filed with USAC and the Commission on the date that the ETC first 
files its line count information and thereafter on June 30 of each year.8  
5. Mid-Texs Petition for Waiver.  On December 20, 2005, Mid-Tex, a small commercial 
mobile radio service (CMRS) carrier serving parts of Texas, filed a petition for waiver of sections 
54.314(d)(5) and 54.904 of the Commissions rules.9  Mid-Tex was designated as an ETC by the Public 
Utility Commission of Texas (Texas Commission) on August 9, 2005.10  The Texas Commission filed the 
annual certification for Mid-Tex to receive support for 2006 on September 21, 2005.11  
6. Mid-Tex was required to file its ICLS annual certification at the same time it filed its 
initial line count data.12 Mid-Tex filed its initial line count data on September 9, 2005, but, relying on the 
advice of its consultant, did not file its initial ICLS annual certification at that time.13 Only after it did not 
receive its expected high-cost support did Mid-Tex file its ICLS annual certification, on November 23, 
2005.14  Mid-Tex states that it was a new ETC overwhelmed and confused by the numerous unfamiliar 
filings.15  Mid-Tex states that it failed to file its ICLS annual certification with its initial ICLS line count 
data in a timely manner due to confusion over the deadline.16  Mid-Tex argues that it has implemented 
new procedures to ensure all of its federal universal service fund filings are received on a timely basis.17  
  
5 47 C.F.R.  54.314(a).
6 47 C.F.R.  54.314(d)(5).
7 47 C.F.R.  54.307(d) and 54.314(a).
8 See 47 C.F.R.  54.904(a) and (d).  In the MAG Order, the Commission adopted a mechanism for accepting an 
untimely filed ICLS certification, whereby the carrier does not become eligible for ICLS until the second calendar 
quarter after the certification is untimely filed.  See Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan for Regulation of 
Interstate Services of Non-Price Cap Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers and Interexchange Carriers, CC Docket 
No. 00-256, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Access Charge Reform for 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Subject to Rate-of-Return Regulation, CC Docket No. 98-77, Prescribing the 
Authorized Rate of Return for Interstate Services of Local Exchange Carriers, CC Docket No. 98-166, Second 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 00-256, Fifteenth Report and 
Order in CC Docket No. 96-45, and Report and Order in CC Docket Nos. 98-77 and 98-166, 16 FCC Rcd 19613, 
19688, para. 176 (2001) (subsequent history omitted) (MAG Order).
9 Petition at 13.
10 Id. at 2.
11 Id. at 9.
12 47 C.F.R.  54.904(d).
13 Petition at 3.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 8.
16 Id. at 1.
17 Id. at 4.
Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2582 
3
Mid-Tex also argues that it is the only wireless carrier providing ubiquitous, high-quality service in 
certain remote parts of its service area in Texas, and therefore the waiver is in the public interest.18   
7. Mid-Tex requests that the Commission accept its late-filed annual ICLS certification, 
direct USAC to disburse ICLS support to Mid-Tex based on the September 9, 2005 filing, and direct 
USAC to disburse support for the period of August 9, 2005, to December 31, 2005.19
III. DISCUSSION
8. We grant in part and deny in part Mid-Texs petition.  We find that Mid-Tex has 
demonstrated that there is good cause to waive the certification deadline in section 54.314 of the 
Commissions rules, but has not demonstrated that there is good cause to waive the deadline in section 
54.904. 20
9. We grant Mid-Texs petition for waiver of the annual certification requirement set forth 
in section 54.314.  We have routinely allowed newly designated carriers to receive high-cost support back 
to their date of designation when, as here, the date of the state commissions certification made it 
impossible for the state commission to file the certification prior to the July 1 deadline.21 Except for 
ICLS, as detailed below, we therefore direct USAC to disburse high-cost support to Mid-Tex for the 
period between August 9, 2005, and December 31, 2005.
10. We deny Mid-Texs petition for waiver of the filing deadline set forth in section 54.904.  
Section 54.904 requires that, in order for an ETC to receive ICLS support, the carrier must file an annual 
certification on the date that it first files its line count information and thereafter on June 30 of each 
year.22 Mid-Tex filed its line count information pursuant to section 54.904 on September 9, 2005,23 but 
did not file the required annual certification until November 23, 2005  more than two months later.24  
Because USAC processes a large amount of data each year, it is administratively necessary to require 
ETCs to meet filing deadlines absent special circumstances.  Mid-Texs only excuse for its late filing was 
its confusion over the deadline.  Such an excuse does not constitute special circumstances.25 Therefore, 
we deny Mid-Texs petition for waiver.  We note, however, that because Mid-Tex filed its certification on 
  
18 Id. at 6-7.
19 Id. at 13.
20 Generally, the Commissions rules may be waived for good cause shown.  47 C.F.R.  1.3.  The Commission may 
exercise its discretion to waive a rule where the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the public 
interest.  Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Northeast Cellular).  In 
addition, the Commission may take into account considerations of hardship, equity, or more effective 
implementation of overall policy on an individual basis. WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 
1969); Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166.  Waiver of the Commissions rules is therefore appropriate only if 
special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such deviation will serve the public interest.  
Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166.  Moreover, in demonstrating whether a waiver is warranted, the burden of 
proof rests with the petitioner.  Tucson Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 452 F.2d 1380, 1382 (D.C. Cir. 1971).
21 See Grande Communications, Inc., Petition for Waiver of Sections 54.307 and 54.314 of the Commissions Rules 
and Regulations, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15580, 15584, para. 9 (2004).
22 47 C.F.R.  54.904.
23 See Petition at 3.
24 See id.
25 See South Slope Cooperative Telephone Co., Petition for Waiver of Filing Deadline in 47 C.F.R. Section 
54.307(c), CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 17493 (2004).
Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2582 
4
November 23, 2005, it is eligible to receive support for the nine-month period beginning April 1, 2006,
and ending December 31, 2006.26   
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 
4(i), 5(c), 201, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 
155(c), 201, and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 
0.291, and 1.3, the Mid-Tex Cellular, Ltd. Petition for Waiver of the Commissions Universal Service 
Rules IS GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as described herein.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Thomas J. Navin
Chief
Wireline Competition Bureau
  
26 See MAG Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 19688, para. 176.