*Pages 1--65 from  Microsoft Word - 47646.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 Revision  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Ensure  Compatibility  with  Enhanced  911  Emergency 
 Calling  Systems 
 E911  Phase  II  Compliance  Deadlines  for  Tier  III  Carriers 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 


 CC  Docket  No.  94-  102 


 ORDER 
 Adopted:  March  22,  2005  Released:  April  1,  2005 
 By  the  Commission: 


 TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 
 Heading  Paragraph  # 
 I.  INTRODUCTION  .....................................................................................................................  1  II.  BACKGROUND  .......................................................................................................................  3 


 A.  PHASE  II  REQUIREMENTS  .............................................................................................  3  B.  APPLICABLE  WAIVER  STANDARDS  ...........................................................................  9 
 III.  DISCUSSION..........................................................................................................................  12  A.  Category  1:  Carriers  Electing  a  Handset-  Based  Solution  in  Conjunction  with  a 
 CDMA  Upgrade.................................................................................................................  13  B.  Category  2:  Carriers  electing  network-  based  solutions  .....................................................  92 
 C.  Category  3:  Carriers  Operating  Roaming-  Only  Networks  ..............................................  109  D.  Category  4:  Carriers  Electing  a  Handset-  Based  Solution  in  Conjunction  with  a 
 GSM  Upgrade  ..................................................................................................................  116  E.  Category  5:  TDMA/  AMPS  Carriers  Electing  a  Handset-  Based  Solution  .......................  134 
 F.  Category  6:  Other  Requests  .............................................................................................  146  G.  Reporting  Requirements  ..................................................................................................  172 
 IV.  CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................  173  V.  ORDERING  CLAUSES  ........................................................................................................  175 


 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  In  this  Order,  we  address  forty  requests  for  relief  from  the  Commissions  wireless  Enhanced  911  (E911)  Phase  II  requirements  filed  by  or  on  behalf  of  small  wireless  carriers.  We  reaffirm  the 


 Commissions  commitment  to  ensure  that  the  Nations  wireless  telephone  users  have  timely  access  to  emergency  services  using  E911  technology.  Accordingly,  as  discussed  in  detail  below,  we  have  analyzed 
 requests  for  extensions  of  the  Commissions  E911  deadlines  and  afford  relief  from  such  deadlines  only 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 6 
 response,  in  the  Order  to  Stay,  the  Commission  described  the  types  of  showings  required  to  justify  waiver  of  the  wireless  E911  rules,  opened  a  window  for  those  Tier  III  carriers  to  file  supplemental  information  to 
 support  their  requests  for  relief,  and  required  the  filing  of  status  reports  detailing  the  carriers  efforts  to  deploy  Phase  II  E911  services.  26  The  Commission  also  stayed  the  application  of  the  wireless  E911  rules 
 for  those  Tier  III  carriers  seeking  relief,  pending  a  ruling  on  their  waiver  petitions.  27  The  stay  permitted  additional  time  for  the  Tier  III  carriers  to  supplement  the  record  and  for  the  Commission  to  address  the 
 issues  presented  in  the  requests  for  relief.  28 
 B.  APPLICABLE  WAIVER  STANDARDS 
 9.  The  Commission  has  recognized  that  smaller  carriers  may  face  extraordinary  circumstances  in  meeting  one  or  more  of  the  deadlines  for  Phase  II  deployment.  29  Section  1.3  of  the 


 Commissions  Rules  establishes  that  the  Commission  may  grant  relief  from  its  rules  for  good  cause  shown.  30  The  Commission  generally  finds  good  cause  to  grant  a  waiver  of  its  rules  where  the  particular 
 facts  make  strict  compliance  inconsistent  with  the  public  interest  if  applied  to  the  petitioner  and  when  the 


 (Continued  from  previous  page)  dba  Epic  Touch  Co.;  Litchfield  County  Cellular,  Inc.  dba  Ramcell  of  Oregon;  North  Carolina  RSA  1  Partnership; 
 NSP  LC;  and  Texas  RSA  15B2  Limited  Partnership  dba  Five  Star  Wireless.  25 
 Carriers  that  requested  additional  relief  from  that  granted  in  the  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order  are:  Arctic  Slope  Telephone  Association  Cooperative,  Inc.;  Bachow/  Coastel,  L.  L.  C.;  Blanca  Telephone  Company;  Cellular 


 Mobile  Systems  of  St.  Cloud,  LLC;  Copper  Valley  Wireless;  Cordova  Wireless;  Corr  Wireless  Communications,  LLC;  Edge  Wireless;  Highland  Cellular,  LLC;  Iowa  RAS  2  Limited  Partnership  dba  Lyrix  Wireless;  Leaco  Rural 
 Telephone  Cooperative,  Inc.;  Minnesota  Southern  Wireless  Company  dba  HickoryTech;  Missouri  RSA  No.  5  Partnership  dba  Chariton  Valley;  Missouri  RSA  No.  7  Limited  Partnership  dba  Mid-  Missouri  Cellular;  N.  E. 
 Colorado  Cellular,  Inc.,  NECO  PCS,  Inc.,  and  Wireless  II,  LLC;  OTZ  Telecommunications,  Inc.;  Public  Service  Cellular,  Inc.  and  Enterprise  Wireless  PCS,  L.  L.  C.;  RSA  1  Limited  Partnership  dba  Cellular  29  Plus;  Sagebrush 
 Cellular,  Inc.,  Nemont  Communications,  Inc.,  and  Triangle  Communication  Systems,  Inc.;  South  Canaan  Cellular  Communications  Company,  L.  P.;  South  No.  5  RSA  LP  dba  Brazos  Cellular  Communications,  LLC;  Sussex 
 Cellular,  Inc.;  Wilkes  Cellular,  Inc.;  and  Wireless  Communications  Venture.  26 
 See  Revision  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Ensure  Compatibility  with  Enhanced  911  Emergency  Calling  Systems,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  Order  to  Stay,  18  FCC  Rcd  20987  (2003)  (Order  to  Stay).  Tier  III  carriers 


 granted  relief  under  the  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order  or  the  Order  to  Stay  must  file  annual  reports  detailing:  (1)  the  number  of  Phase  I  and  Phase  II  requests  from  PSAPs  (including  those  the  carrier  may  consider  invalid);  (2) 
 the  carriers  specific  technology  choice  (i.  e.,  network-  based  or  handset-  based  solution,  as  well  as  the  type  of  technology  used);  (3)  the  status  on  ordering  and/  or  installing  necessary  network  equipment;  (4)  information  on 
 whether  ALI-  capable  handsets  are  now  available,  and  whether  the  carrier  has  obtained  ALI-  capable  handsets  or  has  agreements  in  place  to  obtain  these  handsets  (if  the  carrier  is  pursuing  a  handset-  based  solution);  (5)  the 
 estimated  date  on  which  Phase  II  service  will  first  be  available  in  the  carriers  network;  and  (6)  information  on  whether  the  carrier  is  on  schedule  to  meet  the  ultimate  implementation  date  of  December  31,  2005  (if  the  carrier  is 
 pursuing  a  handset-  based  solution).  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  14843    35;  Order  to  Stay,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  20997-  98    30. 
 27  See  Order  to  Stay,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  20989    3. 
 28  See  id.  at  20994-  96    17-  21. 
 29  See  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  14846    20;  Order  to  Stay,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  20987    2. 
 30  47  C.  F.  R.    1.3.  See  also  Section  1.925  of  the  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    1.925(  b)(  3). 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 7 
 relief  requested  would  not  undermine  the  policy  objective  of  the  rule  in  question.  31  A  petitioner  must  demonstrate  that,  in  view  of  unique  or  unusual  factual  circumstances,  application  of  the  rule(  s)  would  be 
 inequitable,  unduly  burdensome,  or  contrary  to  the  public  interest.  32 
 10.  In  the  Order  to  Stay,  the  Commission  provided  specific  guidance  on  the  types  of  factual  showings  that  would  provide  sufficient  support  for  a  waiver  request.  33  The  Commission  emphasized  that 


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


 11.  Finally,  distinct  from  the  Commissions  rules  and  established  precedent  regarding  waivers  of  our  E911  requirements,  we  note  that  in  December  2004,  Congress  enacted  the  Ensuring 


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


 32  See  WAIT  Radio,  418  F.  2d  1159. 
 33  See  Order  to  Stay,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  20996-  97    22-  29. 
 34  See  id.  at  20996-  97    25. 
 35  Id.  at  20997    26  (citing  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  14853    41). 
 36  Id.  at  20997    27. 
 37  See  id.  at  20997    29.  We  note  that  the  Commission  generally  is  disinclined  to  find  that  financial  hardship 
 alone  is  a  sufficient  reason  for  an  extension  of  the  E911  implementation  deadlines.  Id.  38 
 See  id.  39 
 See  id.  at  20997    28.  The  Commission  advised  carriers  that  they  should  provide  supporting  documentation  of  their  efforts  to  coordinate  with  the  PSAPs  or  E911  coordinators  as  evidence  of  their  good  faith  efforts.  Id. 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 8 
 Needed  Help  Arrives  Near  Callers  Employing  911  Act  of  2004  (ENHANCE  911  Act).  40  The  ENHANCE  911  Act  directed  the  Commission  to  grant  qualified  Tier  III  carriers  requests  for  relief  of  the  December 
 31,  2005  ninety-  five  percent  penetration  deadline  for  location-  capable  handsets,  as  set  forth  in  Section  20.18(  g)(  1)(  v)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  if  strict  enforcement  of  the  requirements  of  that  section 
 would  result  in  consumers  having  decreased  access  to  emergency  services.  41  While  we  apply  the  ENHANCE  911  Act  standard  in  this  Order,  we  recognize  that  the  ENHANCE  911  Act  was  enacted  after 
 many  of  the  waiver  requests  had  been  filed,  and  thus  those  waiver  requests  did  not  explicitly  address  application  of  the  Acts  waiver  standard.  Nothing  in  this  Order  precludes  a  qualified  Tier  III  carrier  42 
 from  seeking  further  relief  under  the  ENHANCE  911  Acts  standard. 
 III.  DISCUSSION 
 12.  We  have  reviewed  the  forty  Tier  III  petitions  for  relief  from  our  E911  requirements,  together  with  their  supplemental  filings.  They  fall  into  six  categories:  (1)  carriers  deploying  a  handset-based 


 solution  in  conjunction  with  a  CDMA  upgrade;  (2)  carriers  electing  a  network-  based  solution;  (3)  carriers  operating  roaming-  only  networks  (  carriers  carriers);  (4)  carriers  electing  a  handset-  based 
 solution  in  conjunction  with  a  GSM  upgrade;  (5)  AMPS/  TDMA  carriers  electing  a  handset-  based  solution;  and  (6)  other  requests.  We  address  each  category  below. 


 A.  Category  1:  Carriers  Electing  a  Handset-  Based  Solution  in  Conjunction  with  a  CDMA  Upgrade 
 13.  The  first  category  is  comprised  of  carriers  that  have  already  upgraded  or  are  in  the  process  of  upgrading  their  networks  to  the  CDMA  air  interface,  and  deploying  a  handset-  based  Assisted 
 GPS  (A-  GPS)  location  technology.  43  These  carriers  have  requested  waivers  of  the  Tier  III  location-capable  handset  deployment  benchmarks.  We  note  at  the  outset  that  A-  GPS  technology  is  now  a  standard 
 feature  of  a  wide  range  of  CDMA  handsets.  The  two  largest  CDMA  carriers,  Sprint  and  Verizon  Wireless,  currently  sell  only  A-  GPS-  enabled  handsets.  44  The  success  of  these  and  other  CDMA  carriers  45 


 40  National  Telecommunications  and  Information  Administration  Organization  Act    Amendment,  Pub.  L.  No. 
 108-  494,  118  Stat.  3986  (2004).  41 
 Id.  at    107,  118  Stat.  3986,  3991.  42 
 The  ENHANCE  911  Act  defines  a  qualified  Tier  III  carrier  as  a  provider  of  commercial  mobile  service  (as  defined  in  section  332(  d)  of  the  Communications  Act  or  1934  (47  U.  S.  C.  332(  d))  that  had  500,000  or  fewer 


 subscribers  as  of  December  31,  2001.  Id.  at    107(  b),  118  Stat.  3986,  3991.  43 
 A-  GPS  location  technologies  have  two  components:  the  handset,  which  contains  a  GPS  chip,  and  network  equipment,  which  assists  the  GPS  chip  in  locating  the  caller  and  delivering  that  location  information  to  the  PSAP. 


 44  Sprint  began  activating  only  location-  capable  handsets  in  June  2003.  As  of  August  2,  2004,  it  offered  more 
 than  twenty  different  GPS-  enabled  handset  models,  and  sold  over  twenty-  six  million  GPS-  enabled  handsets.  See  Sprint  Eleventh  Quarterly  E911  Implementation  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  2,  2004,  at  6.  As  of 


 December  31,  2003,  Verizon  Wireless  offered  only  A-  GPS-  capable  handsets.  On  February  1,  2005,  the  company  stated  that  these  handsets  included  all  thirty-  one  handset  models  then  currently  sold,  and  that  it  planned  to 
 continue  to  add  more  A-  GPS  capable  phones.  See  Verizon  Wireless  Enhanced  911  Status  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Feb.  1,  2005,  at  2. 
 45  ALLTEL  Communications  reported  that  as  of  November  1,  2003,  ninety-  eight  percent  of  new  handset 
 activations  were  A-  GPS-  equipped  and  that  it  was  offering  twelve  A-  GPS  handset  models.  ALLTEL  believed  it  met  the  May  31,  2004  Tier  II  threshold  requirements  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  digital  handsets  must  be 


 (continued.) 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 9 
 in  deploying  location-  capable  handsets  in  accordance  with  the  timeframes  established  in  the  Commissions  rules  and  the  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order  indicates  that  location-  capable  handsets  are 
 readily  available.  Additionally,  carriers  have  begun  deploying  the  network  equipment  necessary  to  calculate  and  deliver  A-  GPS-  derived  location  information  to  large  numbers  of  PSAPs  across  the 
 country.  46  Because  location-  capable  handsets  and  network  equipment  using  A-  GPS  technology  are  now  available  to  CDMA  carriers,  it  is  reasonable  to  expect  that  availability  will  increase  as  manufacturers 
 continue  to  adjust  their  product  lines  to  meet  the  demands  of  CDMA  carriers,  including  Tier  III  carriers. 
 14.  Some  Tier  III  CDMA  carriers  using  a  handset-  based  solution  seek  relief  from  the  interim  benchmarks  adopted  in  the  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order  as  well  as  temporary  exclusions  for  legacy 


 networks  where  CDMA  upgrades  are  under  way.  In  addition,  some  of  the  Tier  III  CDMA  carriers  request  relief  from  the  December  31,  2005  ninety-  five  percent  handset  penetration  deadline.  We  discuss  these 
 requests  below. 
 15.  ACS  Wireless,  Inc.  (ACSW):  ACSW  currently  serves  the  state  of  Alaska  through  a  TDMA  and  AMPS  network  that  it  is  upgrading  to  CDMA.  47  ACSW  requested  an  extension  from 


 (Continued  from  previous  page)  location-  capable.  See  ALLTEL  Communications,  Inc.  E-  911  Eighth  Quarterly  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102, 
 filed  Aug.  3,  2004,  at  2.  As  of  November  30,  2003,  Leap  Wireless  reported  that  eighty-  six  percent  of  handsets  it  sold  were  location-  capable  and  that  99.44  percent  of  handsets  were  location-  capable  as  of  May  30,  2004.  Leap 
 further  indicated  that  Phase  II  was  deployed  to  eighty-  one  PSAPs  in  five  states  as  of  July  30,  2004.  See  Leap  Wireless  Eighth  E911  Quarterly  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  1,  2004,  at  1-  2.  As  of  April  2004, 
 Qwest  Wireless  reported  that  all  handsets  sold  and  activated  were  location-  capable.  See  Qwest  Wireless  LLC  Implementation  Status  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  2,  2004,  at  3.  As  of  May  2004,  United  States 
 Cellular  reported  that  over  ninety-  five  percent  of  the  total  handsets  it  sold  were  location-  capable  and  that  Phase  II  was  deployed  to  185  PSAPs.  See  United  States  Cellular  Corporation  Quarterly  E911  Implementation  Report,  CC 
 Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  2,  2004,  at  5-  6.  As  of  June  2004,  Western  Wireless  reported  that  nineteen  models  it  sold  have  A-  GPS  capability  and  that  all  but  a  few  handsets  were  GPS-  capable  as  of  June  2004.  See  Quarterly 
 Report  of  Western  Wireless  Corporation  on  its  Enhanced  911  Phase  II  Deployment,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  2,  2004,  at  2-  3. 
 46  As  of  the  close  of  the  2nd  Quarter  of  2004,  Sprint  reported  that  it  had  deployed  Phase  II  capability  to  a  total  of 
 1041  PSAPs  in  thirty-  two  states  and  the  District  of  Columbia.  See  Sprint  Eleventh  Quarterly  E911  Implementation  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  2,  2004  at  i.  Verizon  Wireless  reported  that,  as  of 


 April  15,  2004,  it  provided  Phase  II  service  to  1,285  PSAPs  in  thirty-  three  states.  See  Verizon  Wireless  Enhanced  911  Status  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  July  30,  2004  at  1. 
 47  See  ACS  Wireless  Petition  for  Limited  Waiver  and  Forbearance,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Nov.  14,  2003 
 (ACSW  Waiver  Petition).  ACSW  submitted  that  its  CDMA  deployment  will  proceed  in  three  stages:  (1)  December  31,  2003  for  completion  of  coverage  of  Anchorage  and  Matanuska  Valley  (fifty  percent  of  Alaskas 


 population  and  over  fifty  percent  of  ACSWs  subscriber  base);  (2)  December  31,  2004  for  coverage  of  all  other  major  population  centers  including  Fairbanks,  Juneau,  and  the  Kenai  Peninsula  (seventy-  five  percent  of  Alaskas 
 population  and  over  eighty-  five  percent  of  ACSWs  subscriber  base);  and  (3)  December  31,  2005  for  remaining  coverage  areas,  including  remote  locations  and  smaller-  populated  communities.  In  an  update  filed  on  January  14, 
 2005,  ACSW  indicated  that  it  had  substantially  completed  Stages  I  and  II.  ACSW  reported,  however,  that  it  will  need  to  revise  its  Stage  III  deployment  to  push  out  the  construction  of  the  twenty-  nine  remaining  sites  until 
 December  31,  2006  due  to  budgetary  constraints  and  the  short  construction  season  in  Alaska,  specifically  in  the  very  remote  and  rural  areas.  See  Update  to  ACS  Wireless  Petition  for  Limited  Waiver  and  Forbearance,  CC 
 Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  14,  2005  (ACSW  Waiver  Petition  Update). 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 10 
 September  1,  2003  to  January  31,  2004  to  begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets.  48  ACSW  also  sought  modification  of  the  one-  hundred  percent  benchmark  for  activated  handsets:  i.  e., 
 rather  than  have  one-  hundred  percent  of  new  activations  location-  capable  by  November  30,  2004,  ACSW  requested  that  it  be  permitted  to  ensure  that  ninety  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  in  Anchorage 
 and  Fairbanks  be  location-  capable  by  May  30,  2005  and  that  ninety  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  in  the  remaining  portion  of  its  service  area  in  Alaska  be  location-  capable  by  December  31,  2005.  49 
 ACSW  also  sought  an  extension  from  December  31,  2005  to  December  31,  2007  to  ensure  that  penetration  of  location-  capable  handsets  reaches  ninety-  five  percent.  50  It  also  requested  forbearance  from 
 the  Phase  II  accuracy  and  reliability  standards  until  December  31,  2008.  51 
 16.  Benchmark  relief.  We  find  that  good  cause  exists  to  grant  ACSW  relief  from  the  interim  benchmarks  for  location-  capable  handsets.  As  the  upgrade  to  CDMA  progresses,  ACSW  has  committed 


 to  selling  and  activating  only  location-  capable  handsets.  52  The  Commission  has  recognized  that  such  upgrades  present  deployment  challenges  and  may  be  a  basis  for  an  extension.  Carriers,  however,  must 
 provide  concrete  evidence  of  their  planned  deployment.  53  ACSW,  through  its  waiver  request  and  supplement,  has  provided  both  a  path  to  compliance  and  evidence  of  its  progress  down  that  path.  We  are 
 particularly  encouraged  by  the  fact  that  ACSW  has  completed  the  CDMA  upgrade  at  121  of  its  150  sites.  54  Additionally,  ACSW  is  working  with  the  local  PSAPs  in  its  area  to  keep  them  informed  of 
 ACSWs  deployment  schedule,  55  consistent  with  the  Commissions  expectations  set  forth  in  the  Order  to  Stay. 


 17.  We  recognize  that  granting  ACSW  relief  to  allow  its  handset  deployment  to  coincide  with  its  CDMA  upgrade  could  mean  that  analog  and  TDMA  customers  will,  in  some  cases,  not  receive 
 Phase  II  service  until  ACSW  finishes  its  transition  to  CDMA.  We  believe,  however,  that  requiring  ACSW  to  invest  its  resources  to  upgrade  analog  and  TDMA  networks  with  location  technologies,  despite 
 the  fact  they  soon  will  be  replaced,  could  unnecessarily  delay  expansion  and  improvement  of  ACSWs  services,  and  could  even  threaten  its  financial  viability.  We  are  persuaded  by  the  fact  that  ACSW  faces 


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


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


 50  Id.  at  8. 
 51  Id.  at  11-  13.  ACSWs  forbearance  request,  as  made  in  the  ACSW  Waiver  Petition  and  ACSW  Waiver  Petition 
 Update,  was  addressed  separately  and  denied.  See  Petition  for  Forbearance  From  E911  Accuracy  Standards  Imposed  on  Tier  III  Carriers  For  Locating  Wireless  Subscribers  Under  Rule  Section  20.18(  h);  Petition  for  Limited 


 Waiver  and  Forbearance  by  ACS  Wireless,  Inc.,  Order,  DA  05-  420  (PSCID  rel.  Feb.  14,  2005).  52 
 See  ACSW  Waiver  Petition  at  12;  ACSW  Waiver  Petition  Update  at  4.  53 
 See  supra    10.  54 
 See  ACSW  2005  Supplement  at  4.  55 
 See  id.  at  13;  ACSW  Waiver  Petition  Update  at  4. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 11 
 no  pending  PSAP  requests  for  Phase  II  service  in  the  areas  that  remain  to  be  upgraded  to  CDMA.  56  We  also  find  that  it  is  reasonable  to  allow  ACSW  to  continue  to  sell  and  activate  non-  CDMA  handsets 
 without  location  capability  to  its  customers  in  areas  where  its  CDMA  upgrade  has  not  been  completed.  However,  once  the  upgrade  to  CDMA  is  completed,  ACSW  must  comply  with  the  requirement  of  the 
 E911  rules  that  all  digital  handsets  activated  be  location-  capable.  57 
 18.  We  grant  ACSW  relief  with  respect  to  the  interim  benchmarks.  58  Specifically,  we  grant  ACSWs  request  for  a  waiver  to  provide  and  activate  location-  capable  handsets  by  January  31,  2004 


 instead  of  by  September  1,  2003.  We  also  grant  ACSW  relief  from  the  deadline  for  requiring  that  one-hundred  percent  of  all  new  handsets  activated  are  location  capable.  We  grant  ACSW  an  extension  until 
 May  30,  2005  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  in  Anchorage  and  Fairbanks,  Alaska  are  location-  capable  and  until  December  31,  2005  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent 
 of  all  new  handset  activations  statewide  are  location-  capable.  59  This  waiver  will  allow  ACSW  to  continue  selling  and  activating  non-  location-  capable  analog  and  TDMA  handsets  in  areas  where  its  CDMA  rollout 
 has  not  been  completed.  We  require,  however,  that  as  ACSW  upgrades  its  network,  it  must  begin  selling  and  activating  only  location-  capable  CDMA  handsets  in  the  upgraded  areas,  consistent  with  the  plan  set 
 out  in  its  January  26,  2005  filing.  60 
 19.  Handset  Penetration.  In  light  of  our  decision  to  grant  ACSW  an  extension  of  the  interim  benchmark  requirements,  we  correspondingly  grant  ACSW  a  limited  extension  of  the  December  31,  2005 


 deadline  for  ensuring  that  ninety-  five  percent  of  its  subscriber  base  have  location  capable  handsets.  We  recognize  that  ACSW  will  require  a  sufficient  period  of  time  to  ensure  that  the  location-  capable  handsets 
 that  it  sells  and  activates  are  sufficiently  integrated  into  its  customer  base.  Further,  we  are  persuaded  by  ACSWs  assertion  that  it  faces  unique  challenges  during  the  final  stages  of  its  CDMA  construction 
 program  due  to  the  small  population  it  serves  and  the  cost  of  deploying  CDMA  sites  in  rural  and  remote  areas.  61  ACSW  explained  that  it  has  made  progress  in  deploying  its  CDMA  network  in  the  major 


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


 Petition  Update  at  4.  57 
 47  C.  F.  R.    20.18(  g)(  1)(  iv).  58 
 We  note  that  where  we  grant  relief  of  the  interim  location-  capable  handset  deployment  benchmarks,  we  do  not  negate  the  independent  obligation  to  install  any  necessary  hardware  or  software  into  the  network  to  respond  to  a 


 valid  PSAP  request  for  Phase  II  service.  59 
 We  note  that  ACSW  requests  that  it  be  allowed  until  May  30,  2005  to  ensure  that  ninety  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  in  Anchorage  and  Fairbanks,  Alaska  are  location-  capable  and  until  December  31,  2005  to 


 ensure  that  ninety  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  statewide  are  location-  capable.  Our  rules  do  not  set  forth  a  benchmark  to  ensure  that  ninety  percent  of  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable;  rather,  our  rules 
 contemplate  that,  ultimately,  one-  hundred  percent  of  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable.  We  require  that  ACSW  adhere  to  this  one-  hundred  percent  benchmark. 
 60  See  ACSW  2005  Supplement  at  2. 
 61  See  id.  at  4.  For  example,  ACSW  pointed  to  the  lack  of  highways  that  cannot  accommodate  large  trucks 
 delivering  CDMA  equipment  and  the  corresponding  need  to  barge  the  equipment  to  the  communities  and  use  helicopters  to  transport  the  completed  site  to  the  designated  locations.  ACSW  added  that  poor  weather  conditions 


 common  to  the  area  and  the  short  construction  season  further  hamper  its  efforts  to  complete  its  CDMA  build-  out  to  remote  areas.  See  id.  at  4-  5,  8-  9. 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 12 
 population  centers,  but  cannot  achieve  the  ninety-  five  percent  penetration  deadline  broadly  throughout  its  customer  base  until  it  is  able  to  complete  its  CDMA  build-  out.  62  ACSW  also  noted  that  it  would  be  able 
 to  provide  E911  Phase  II  location  data  for  its  Anchorage  CDMA  subscribers  by  February  2005,  and  will  be  prepared  to  provide  such  services  to  the  Fairbanks  Northstar  Borough,  but  was  unaware  of  any  other 
 PSAP  in  Alaska  that  has  the  means  to  receive  E911  Phase  II  location  data.  63 
 20.  For  the  foregoing  reasons,  we  provide  ACSW  with  a  limited  extension  of  the  location-capable  handset  penetration  deadline.  The  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order  provided  carriers  with  a 


 timeframe  of  thirteen  months  from  the  date  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable  to  the  date  that  ninety-  five  percent  of  its  subscriber  bases  handsets  are  location-capable. 
 64  We  believe  that  a  thirteen-  month  timeframe  should  provide  ACSW  with  an  adequate  period  of 
 time  to  ensure  that  its  embedded  customer  base  uses  location-  capable  handsets.  Because  we  extend  ACSWs  deadline  for  ensuring  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-capable 


 to  May  30,  2005  (for  Anchorage  and  Fairbanks)  and  December  31,  2005  (for  other  areas  within  Alaska),  we  afford  ACSW  an  additional  thirteen  months  from  these  dates  to  ensure  that  the  handset 
 penetration  rate  among  its  subscribers  reaches  ninety-  five  percent.  Accordingly,  ACSW  must  ensure  that  ninety-  five  percent  of  its  subscriber  base  has  location-  capable  handsets  by  June  30,  2006  (for  Anchorage 
 and  Fairbanks)  and  by  January  31,  2007  (for  all  other  areas  in  Alaska). 
 21.  We  note  that  this  relief  from  the  ninety-  five  percent  handset  penetration  requirement  is  more  limited  than  ACSW  requested.  ACSW  sought  relief  from  the  ninety-  five  percent  handset 


 penetration  deadline  from  December  31,  2005  until  December  31,  2007.  We  do  not  believe  that  such  an  extended  period  of  time  is  adequately  supported  or  necessary.  Further,  we  believe  that  our  countervailing 
 public  policy  interest  in  ensuring  that  carriers  comply  with  the  location-  capable  handset  penetration  requirement  as  quickly  as  possibly  overrides  ACSWs  request  for  more  protracted  relief.  65 


 22.  Alaska  DigiTel,  LLC  (Alaska  DigiTel):  Alaska  DigiTel  operates  both  a  CDMA  network  and  a  roaming-  only  GSM  network  in  parts  of  Alaska,  and  describes  itself  as  a  small  carrier 
 (16,000  subscribers)  with  limited  financial  resources.  In  an  August  29,  2003  filing,  Alaska  DigiTel  requested  a  limited  waiver  and  extension  of  time  to  comply  with  both  the  Phase  I  and  Phase  II  E911 
 rules.  66  Alaska  DigiTel  requested  a  waiver  and  extension  of  the  E911  requirement  concerning  the  installation  of  the  network  equipment  necessary  to  deliver  Phase  I  or  Phase  II  service  to  the  PSAP  to  June 
 30,  2005  for  both  Phase  I  and  Phase  II.  67  Additionally,  Alaska  DigiTel  sought  relief  from  the  interim 


 62  See  id.  at  8. 
 63  See  id.  at  9.  ACSW  added  that  there  are  no  local  PSAPs  for  many  of  the  smaller  communities  in  its  service 
 area.  Id.  64 
 Pursuant  to  the  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order,  Tier  III  carriers  are  required  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable  by  November  30,  2004,  and  that  they  achieve  ninety-  five 


 percent  penetration  of  location-  capable  handsets  among  their  subscribers  by  December  31,  2005.  See  Non-Nationwide  Carriers  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  14852-  53    33. 
 65  Our  decision  does  not  preclude  ACSW  from  seeking  additional  relief  of  the  handset  penetration  deadline  under 
 the  standard  articulated  in  the  ENHANCE  911  Act.  See  supra    11.  66 
 See  Alaska  DigiTel,  LLC  Request  for  a  Limited  Waiver  and  Extension  of  the  Commissions  Phase  II  E911  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  29,  2003  (Alaska  DigiTel  Waiver  Petition). 


 67  Id.  at  2-  3. 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 13 
 location-  capable  handset  activation  benchmarks  in  the  Commissions  E911  rules.  68  Alaska  DigiTel  requested  that  the  Commission  grant  it  an  extension  of  the  September  1,  2003  deadline  to  commence 
 selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets  until  June  30,  2005.  69  Alaska  DigiTel  subsequently  reported  that  location-  capable  handsets  for  CDMA  are  available  and  anticipated  that  one-  hundred  percent 
 of  its  new  handset  sales  will  be  location-  capable  by  December  31,  2005,  instead  of  by  November  30,  2004  as  required  under  the  Commissions  rules.  70  Although  Alaska  DigiTel  noted  that  it  would  not  be 
 able  to  meet  the  December  31,  2005  deadline  that  ninety-  five  percent  of  handsets  among  its  subscribers  be  location-  capable,  it  has  not  sought  relief  from  this  requirement.  71 


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


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


 68  Id. 
 69  Id. 
 70  See  Alaska  DigiTel,  LLC  Enhanced  911  Tier  III  Interim  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  15,  2004,  at 
 3  (Alaska  DigiTel  2004  Interim  Report).  71 
 Id.  72 
 See  id.  at  4.  73 
 Id.  74 
 See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.18(  d),  (g)(  2).  75 
 Alaska  DigiTel  states  that  it  received  a  combined  Phase  I  and  Phase  II  request  from  the  Anchorage,  Alaska  PSAP  on  May  15,  2003,  but  was  later  informed  that  the  city  was  not  prepared  to  implement  E911  and  would  issue 


 a  revised  notice  once  it  could  process  E911  calls.  See  Alaska  DigiTel  Waiver  Petition  at  3-  4.  76 
 See  supra    10.  77 
 Alaska  Statutes  29.35.131,  911  Surcharge. 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 14 
 25.  Benchmark  relief.  We  deny  Alaska  DigiTels  request  for  waiver  of  the  interim  benchmarks,  i.  e.,  its  proposal  to  begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets  on  June  30,  2005 
 instead  of  September  1,  2003,  and  to  satisfy  the  one-  hundred  percent  sale  and  activation  benchmark  on  December  31,  2005  instead  of  November  30,  2004.  As  explained  above,  Alaska  DigiTel  did  not  provide 
 sufficient  evidence  to  demonstrate  financial  hardship,  and  did  not  otherwise  show  that  it  is  technically  infeasible  to  meet  the  accuracy  standards.  78  Absent  such  showings,  Alaska  DigiTels  waiver  request  does 
 not  persuade  us  that  it  cannot  satisfy  the  applicable  benchmarks.  As  Alaska  DigiTel  acknowledged,  location-  capable  handsets  are  now  readily  available  for  CDMA  carriers.  79  Accordingly,  the 
 Commissions  rules  require  Alaska  DigiTel  to  sell  and  activate  location-  capable  handsets  according  to  the  scheduled  benchmarks  in  the  Commissions  rules,  independent  of  whether  it  has  pending  PSAP  requests 
 for  Phase  II  service.  80  While  Alaska  DigiTel  may  be  facing  challenging  circumstances,  we  cannot  afford  the  relief  it  seeks  without  the  submission  of  a  waiver  request  that  complies  with  our  requirements.  We 
 therefore  encourage  Alaska  DigiTel  to  file  a  renewed  request  for  waiver  of  our  rules  in  accordance  with  the  guidance  we  provide  above  for  meeting  our  waiver  standard.  81 


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


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


 79  See  Alaska  DigiTel  2004  Interim  Report  at  1. 
 80  See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.18(  g).  See  supra    5  (discussing  the  modified  deployment  schedule  for  Tier  III  carriers). 
 81  We  further  advise  Alaska  DigitTel  that  if  it  anticipates  that  it  cannot  comply  with  the  December  31,  2005 
 handset  penetration  deadline,  it  should  file  an  appropriate  and  timely  request  for  relief,  including  under  the  standard  articulated  in  the  ENHANCE  911  Act.  See  supra    11. 


 82  See  Cellular  Mobile  Systems  of  St.  Cloud,  LLC  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.18(  g)  of  the  Commissions 
 Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  28,  2003  (CMS  Waiver  Petition).  83 
 See  id.  at  7  n.  16.  84 
 See  CMS  Waiver  Petition  at  9;  Amendment  to  Cellular  Mobile  Systems  of  St.  Cloud,  LLC  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.18(  g)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  June  30,  2004  at  1-  2  (CMS 


 Amendment).  85 
 See  CMS  Waiver  Petition  at  9  n.  24.  However,  CMS  noted  that  it  is  possible  that  it  might  not  meet  the  December  31,  2005  handset  penetration  deadline.  See  Second  Interim  Report  Regarding  E911  Phase  II 


 Deployment:  Cellular  Mobile  Systems  of  St.  Cloud,  LLC,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  14,  2004  at  2-  3  (CMS  (continued.) 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 15 
 27.  Deployment  of  Network  Equipment.  CMS  indicated  that  it  had  not  received  a  valid  PSAP  request  for  Phase  II  service.  86  CMS  also  stated  that  it  is  working  with  the  State  of  Minnesota  on  a  revised 
 deployment  plan.  87  We  find  CMSs  request  for  relief  premature  as  it  relates  to  installing  the  necessary  hardware  and  software  in  its  network  to  enable  Phase  II  E911  service  within  six  months  of  a  valid  PSAP 
 request.  The  requirements  in  Section  20.18(  g)(  2)  are  contingent  upon  a  PSAP  making  a  valid  request  for  service,  which  requires  that  the  PSAP  be  capable  of  receiving  and  utilizing  the  data  elements  associated 
 with  Phase  II  service.  88  Absent  a  valid  request,  the  carrier  is  not  required  to  deploy  equipment  into  its  network  for  the  delivery  of  this  information.  89  We  thus  find  that  because  CMS  has  no  current  obligation 
 to  deploy  Phase  II  service,  and  because  it  has  worked  out  a  coordinated  plan  for  deployment  of  E911  Phase  II  with  the  State  of  Minnesota,  90  no  waiver  is  needed  at  this  time.  We  therefore  dismiss  CMSs 
 request  for  a  waiver  of  section  20.18(  g)(  2)  concerning  the  installation  of  network  equipment  for  the  delivery  of  Phase  II  service. 


 28.  Benchmark  relief.  We  find  that  good  cause  exists  to  grant  the  relief  sought  by  CMS  concerning  the  interim  benchmarks  for  handset  deployments.  As  CMS  noted  in  its  waiver  request,  the 
 intent  of  the  Commissions  E911  rules  is  to  meet  important  public  safety  needs  as  quickly  as  reasonably  possible.  91  As  a  TDMA  carrier  relying  on  a  handset-  based  solution,  CMS  was  hampered  by  the 
 unexpected  unavailability  of  location-  capable  handsets  for  the  TDMA  air  interface.  As  CMS  noted  in  its  petition,  the  two  largest  carriers  then  using  TDMA,  AT&  T  and  Cingular,  announced  they  were  migrating 
 to  a  GSM  protocol.  92  As  a  result,  CMS  maintained  that  handset  manufacturers  abandoned  plans  to  introduce  TDMA  handsets  capable  of  determining  and  transmitting  location  information.  93  Although 
 CMS  subsequently  decided  to  transition  its  network  to  the  CDMA  air  interface,  for  which  location-capable  handsets  are  readily  available,  this  process  necessarily  will  take  some  time  to  implement.  94 


 29.  Moreover,  we  are  persuaded  that  CMS  is  acting  in  good  faith  in  requesting  additional  relief  based  on  its  coordination  of  its  deployment  schedule  with  the  administrator  of  the  Minnesota  E-  911 
 Statewide  Program.  95  In  the  Order  to  Stay,  the  Commission  explained  that  carriers  seeking  additional  (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 Second  Interim  Report).  In  the  event  that  CMS  anticipates  that  it  cannot  comply  with  the  December  31,  2005  handset  penetration  deadline,  CMS  must  file  an  appropriate  and  timely  request  for  relief. 
 86  See  CMS  Second  Interim  Report  at  1.  CMS  reported  that  it  received  a  blanket  request  from  the  State  of 
 Minnesota  for  both  Phase  I  and  Phase  II  service,  but  that  the  Phase  II  component  is  not  a  valid  request  because  the  PSAPs  in  its  service  area  are  not  capable  of  receiving  Phase  II  information.  See  id. 


 87  See  id.  at  2. 
 88  47  C.  F.  R.    20.18(  j). 
 89  See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.18(  g)(  2). 
 90  Minnesota  coordinates  its  E911  deployment  efforts  through  a  central  state  administrator. 
 91  CMS  Waiver  Petition  at  7  (citing  Revision  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Ensure  Compatibility  with  Enhanced 
 911  Emergency  Calling  Systems,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  Fourth  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  17442,  17449    17  (2000)). 


 92  See  id.  at  3. 
 93  See  id. 
 94  See  CMS  Amendment  at  2-  3. 
 95  See  CMS  Second  Interim  Report  at  2. 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 16 
 time  would  be  expected  to  coordinate  their  efforts  with  the  state  and  local  E911  coordinators  and  all  affected  local  PSAPs.  96  The  Commission  also  indicated  that  it  would  take  notice  of  such  efforts  as  a  sign 
 of  a  carriers  good  faith  in  requesting  additional  relief.  97  As  CMS  indicated  in  its  petition  and  its  amendment,  the  plan  it  proposed  has  been  coordinated  with  and  agreed  to  by  the  administrator  of  the 
 Minnesota  E-  911  Statewide  Program.  98 
 30.  In  addition,  CMSs  petition  sets  forth  a  plan  for  achieving  full  compliance.  99  As  the  Commission  stated  in  the  Order  to  Stay,  in  order  for  a  carrier  to  receive  a  grant  of  additional  time,  it  must 


 set  out  a  plan  showing  a  clear  path  to  full  compliance.  100  The  schedule  CMS  set  forth  in  its  petition  will  allow  it  to  meet  the  final  location-  capable  handset  benchmark  of  December  31,  2005,  when  it  also  must 
 achieve  a  ninety-  five  percent  penetration  rate  for  location-  capable  handsets  among  its  subscribers.  We  thus  find  that  allowing  this  carrier  to  focus  its  efforts  on  achieving  full  compliance  will  better  serve  the 
 objective  of  promoting  ubiquitous  access  to  E911. 
 31.  For  the  foregoing  reasons,  we  grant  CMSs  waiver  request  for  relief  from  the  interim  deadlines  for  the  sale  and  activation  of  location-  capable  handsets.  Specifically,  we  grant  CMS  relief, 


 from  September  1,  2003  until  September  27,  2004  to  begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets,  and  from  November  30,  2003  and  May  31,  2004,  respectively,  until  September  27,  2004,  to 
 ensure  that  twenty-  five  percent  and  fifty  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable.  We  also  grant  CMSs  request  for  extension  from  November  30,  2004  until  December  31,  2004,  for  the  date 
 on  which  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  handsets  sold  and  activated  must  be  location-  capable.  We  note  that  we  continue  to  require  CMS  to  comply  with  the  December  31,  2005  deadline  to  ensure  ninety-  five 
 percent  penetration  of  location-  capable  handsets  among  its  subscribers. 
 32.  Cellular  Phone  of  Kentucky,  Inc.  (CPK):  CPK  operates  a  TDMA  network  in  Kentucky  that  it  is  upgrading  to  CDMA.  CPK  sought  the  following  extensions:  (1)  from  September  1, 


 2003  to  October  4,  2004  to  begin  selling  location-  capable  handsets;  (2)  from  November  30,  2003  to  October  31,  2005  to  ensure  that  twenty-  five  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable; 
 (3)  from  May  31,  2004  to  February  28,  2006  to  ensure  that  fifty  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable;  (4)  from  November  30,  2004  to  June  30,  2006  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all 
 new  digital  handset  activations  are  location-  capable;  and  (5)  from  December  31,  2005  to  January  31,  2007  to  ensure  that  penetration  of  location-  capable  handsets  among  its  subscribers  reaches  ninety-  five 
 percent.  101 


 96  See  Order  to  Stay,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  20997    28. 
 97  See  id. 
 98  See  CMS  Amendment  at  3. 
 99  See  CMS  Waiver  Petition  at  9. 
 100  See  Order  to  Stay,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  20997    27. 
 101  See  Cellular  Phone  of  Kentucky,  Inc.,  Supplement  and  Further  Petition  for  Limited  Waiver  and  Extension  of 
 Time,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Apr.  14,  2004  at  2  (CPK  April  2004  Supplement);  Cellular  Phone  of  Kentucky,  Inc.,  Supplement  and  Further  Petition  for  Limited  Waiver  and  Extension  of  Time,  CC  Docket  No.  94- 


 102,  filed  Dec.  22,  2004  at  1  (CPK  December  2004  Supplement).  See  Cellular  Phone  of  Kentucky,  Inc.,  Supplement  and  Further  Petition  for  Limited  Waiver  and  Extension  of  Time,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Apr. 
 14,  2004  at  2  (CPK  April  2004  Supplement);  Cellular  Phone  of  Kentucky,  Inc.,  Supplement  and  Further  Petition  for  Limited  Waiver  and  Extension  of  Time,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Dec.  22,  2004  at  1  (CPK  December 
 (continued.) 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 17 
 33.  CPK  maintained  that  the  migration  away  from  TDMA  technology  by  the  larger  carriers  has  resulted  in  reluctance  on  the  part  of  equipment  manufacturers  to  develop  location-  capable  handsets 
 for  the  TDMA  air-  interface.  102  As  a  result,  CPK  is  transitioning  its  network  to  the  CDMA  air  interface,  for  which  location-  capable  handsets  are  readily  available.  CPK  claimed  that  the  process  will  take  some 
 time  to  implement  and  seeks  relief  from  the  Commissions  E911  handset  requirements  as  described  above. 


 34.  Benchmark  Relief.  We  find  that  good  cause  exists  to  grant  CPK  a  limited  extension  of  the  interim  benchmarks.  As  the  Commission  has  recognized,  Tier  III  carriers  transitioning  from  one  air 
 interface  to  another  may  face  difficulty  in  meeting  their  Phase  II  requirements.  103  The  Commission,  however,  also  recognized  the  need  for  such  carriers  to  have  a  plan  to  achieving  full  compliance  as  a  factor 
 to  be  considered  in  granting  additional  relief.  104  CPK  has  such  a  plan  to  complete  its  CDMA  upgrade.  We  also  take  note  of  CPKs  coordination  efforts  with  its  local  PSAPs.  105  As  CPK  states,  it  routinely 
 meets  with  the  local  PSAPs  in  its  area  to  set  and  monitor  deployment  goals  for  Phase  II  E911  service.  106 
 35.  We  are  concerned,  however,  by  the  protracted  rollout  of  location-  capable  handsets  proposed  by  CPK.  While  the  deployment  plan  set  out  by  CPK  achieves  full  compliance,  it  does  so 


 eighteen  months  later  than  the  Commissions  Rules  require.  As  we  have  noted,  location-  capable  CDMA  handsets  are  readily  available.  107  Accordingly,  we  do  not  believe  the  extended  timeframes  proposed  by 
 CPK  are  warranted.  While  we  understand  that  CPK  will  need  time  to  deploy  its  CDMA  upgrade,  we  believe  that  a  more  aggressive  approach  to  handset  deployment  should  accompany  that  rollout.  We 
 therefore  require  that  CPK  begin  activating  only  location-  capable  handsets  as  it  completes  its  CDMA  upgrade.  This  should  ensure  that  consumers  in  CPKs  service  area  will  have  access  to  location-  capable 
 handsets  as  CPK  enables  the  CDMA  air  interface. 
 36.  We  therefore  grant  in  part  CPKs  request  for  relief  from  the  interim  deadlines  for  the  sale  and  activation  of  location-  capable  handsets.  Specifically,  we  extend  the  date  to  begin  selling  and 


 activating  location-  capable  handsets  from  September  1,  2003  to  October  4,  2004;  extend  the  date  to  ensure  that  twenty-  five  percent  of  all  new  handsets  sold  and  activated  are  location-  capable  from 
 November  30,  2003  to  October  31,  2005;  extend  the  date  to  ensure  that  fifty  percent  of  all  new  handsets  sold  and  activated  are  location-  capable  from  May  31,  2004  to  November  30,  2005;  and  extend  the  date  to 
 ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable  from  November  30,  2004  to  December  31,  2005.  We  believe  that  these  limited  extensions  are  appropriate  because,  by  CPKs 
 estimate,  its  CDMA  upgrade  should  be  substantially  complete  by  the  date  it  is  required  to  ensure  that  one-( 
 Continued  from  previous  page)  2004  Supplement).  CPK  reports  that  it  met  the  October  4,  2004  date  to  begin  selling  location-  capable  handsets. 
 See  CPK  December  2004  Supplement  at  2.  CPK  initially  filed  its  request  in  August  2003.  See  Cellular  Phone  of  Kentucky,  Inc.,  Petition  for  Limited  Waiver  and  Extension  of  Time,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  29,  2003 
 (CPK  Waiver  Petition).  102 
 See  CPK  April  2004  Supplement  at  4.  103 
 See  Order  to  Stay,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  20997    27.  104 
 Id.  105 
 See  CPK  April  2004  Supplement  at  6.  106 
 Id.  107 
 See  supra    13. 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 18 
 hundred  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable.  108  If  the  estimated  completion  date  has  changed,  such  that  additional  relief  is  necessary,  109  CPK  should  file  an  appropriate  waiver  request. 
 37.  Handset  Penetration.  In  light  of  our  decision  to  grant  CPK  an  extension  of  the  interim  benchmark  requirements,  we  correspondingly  grant  CPK  a  limited  extension  of  the  December  31,  2005 
 deadline  for  ensuring  that  ninety-  five  percent  of  its  subscriber  base  has  location-  capable  handsets.  We  recognize  that  CPK  will  require  a  sufficient  period  of  time  to  ensure  that  the  location-  capable  handsets 
 that  it  sells  and  activates  are  sufficiently  integrated  into  its  customer  base.  Further,  CPK  stated  that  its  rural  non-  prepaid  subscribers  historically  have  tended  to  hold  onto  their  cellular  handsets  for  much  longer 
 than  customers  in  larger,  metropolitan  markets.  110  We  acknowledge  that  CPK  faces  unique  challenges  in  satisfying  the  ninety-  five  percent  handset  penetration  requirement. 


 38.  The  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order  provided  carriers  with  a  timeframe  of  thirteen  months  from  the  date  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable  to  the 
 date  that  ninety-  five  percent  of  its  subscriber  bases  handsets  are  location-  capable.  111  We  believe  that  a  thirteen-  month  timeframe  should  provide  CPK  with  an  adequate  period  of  time  to  ensure  that  its 
 embedded  customer  base  uses  location-  capable  handsets.  Because  we  extend  CPKs  deadline  for  ensuring  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable  to  December  31, 
 2005,  we  afford  CPK  an  additional  thirteen  months  from  these  dates  to  ensure  that  the  handset  penetration  rate  among  its  subscribers  reaches  ninety-  five  percent.  Accordingly,  CPK  must  ensure  that  ninety-  five 
 percent  of  its  subscriber  base  has  location-  capable  handsets  by  January  31,  2007.  112 
 39.  Cellular  South  Licenses,  Inc.  (Cellular  South):  Cellular  South  operates  in  portions  of  Mississippi,  Tennessee,  Florida,  and  Alabama,  using  AMPS  and  TDMA  air  interfaces  in  some  areas  and 


 CDMA  in  others.  113  In  its  waiver  request,  Cellular  South  stated  that  it  is  upgrading  its  AMPS  and  TDMA 


 108  Specifically,  CPK  expects  the  final  work  to  be  completed  by  the  second  quarter  of  2006.  See  CPK  April  2004 
 Supplement  at  5.  109 
 We  note  that  CPK  originally  stated  that  work  would  commence  in  the  third  or  fourth  quarter  of  2004.  See  id;  CPK  Waiver  Petition  at  3.  Subsequently,  it  stated  that  work  would  begin  in  the  first  quarter  of  2005,  but  did  not 


 state  whether  the  delay  in  commencing  construction  affected  the  estimated  completion  date.  See  CPK  December  2004  Supplement  at  2. 
 110  See  CPK  December  2004  Supplement  at  2. 
 111  Pursuant  to  the  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order,  Tier  III  carriers  are  required  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred 
 percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable  by  November  30,  2004,  and  that  they  achieve  ninety-  five  percent  penetration  of  location-  capable  handsets  among  their  subscribers  by  December  31,  2005.  See  Non-Nationwide 


 Carriers  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  14852-  53    33.  112 
 Because  we  grant  CPK  the  relief  it  requested  of  the  handset  penetration  deadline  under  our  established  rules  and  precedent,  we  find  it  unnecessary  to  address  the  standard  articulated  in  the  ENHANCE  911  Act.  See  supra   


 11.  113 
 See  Cellular  South  Licenses,  Inc.  Petition  for  Extension  of  the  Implementation  Deadline  for  Phase  II  of  Enhanced  911  Services,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Dec.  17,  2002,  at  3  (Cellular  South  Waiver  Petition). 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 19 
 networks  to  CDMA.  114  It  requested  additional  time  equal  to  that  granted  other  Tier  III  carriers  in  the  Non-Nationwide  Carriers  Order.  115 
 40.  In  December  2004,  Cellular  South  informed  the  Commission  that  its  CDMA  network  was  fully  deployed  across  its  service  area  in  the  first  quarter  of  2004.  116  Cellular  South  also  reported  that  it  is 
 selling  location-  capable  handsets  in  all  markets  and  that  it  is  Phase  II  compliant.  Cellular  South  further  stated  that  it  has  successfully  deployed  Phase  II  service  where  it  had  PSAP  requests.  117  Cellular  South 
 has  not  requested  relief  from  the  December  31,  2005  ninety-  five  percent  handset  penetration  requirement,  but  expressed  concerns  about  its  ability  to  ensure  that  its  customers  adopt  location-  capable  handsets  in 
 sufficient  numbers  to  meet  this  requirement.  118 
 41.  Benchmark  Relief.  We  find  that  good  cause  exists  to  grant  the  relief  sought  by  Cellular  South.  As  a  TDMA  carrier,  Cellular  South  originally  intended  to  deploy  a  network-  based  solution.  119 


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


 114  See  id.  at  3. 
 115  See  supra    5.  The  relief  requested  by  Cellular  South  would  require  it  to:  (a)  begin  activating  location-  capable 
 handsets  no  later  than  September  1,  2003;  (b)  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  all  new  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable  no  later  than  November  30,  2003;  (c)  ensure  that  at  least  fifty  percent  of  all  new  handsets 


 activated  are  location-  capable  no  later  than  May  31,  2004;  and  (d)  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  digital  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable  no  later  than  November  30,  2004. 
 116  Staff  contacted  counsel  for  Cellular  South  on  December  16,  2004  for  this  update. 
 117  See  Cellular  South  Licenses,  Inc.  Enhanced  911  Tier  III  Interim  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  1, 
 2003,  at  3  (Cellular  South  Interim  Report).  118 
 See  id.  at  4.  119 
 See  Cellular  South  Waiver  Petition  at  2.  120 
 Id.  121 
 See  Order  to  Stay,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  20997    27.  122 
 Id.  123 
 See  Cellular  South  Interim  Report  at  1-  2.  124 
 See  Order  to  Stay,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  20997    28. 
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 20 
 42.  For  the  foregoing  reasons,  we  grant  Cellular  Souths  waiver  request  for  relief  from  the  interim  deadlines  for  the  sale  and  activation  of  location-  capable  handsets.  Therefore,  Cellular  South  is 
 granted  relief  to:  (a)  begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets  no  later  than  September  1,  2003;  (b)  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  all  new  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable  no 
 later  than  November  30,  2003;  (c)  ensure  that  at  least  fifty  percent  of  all  new  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable  no  later  than  May  31,  2004;  and  (d)  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  digital 
 handsets  activated  are  location-  capable  no  later  than  November  30,  2004.  We  note  that  we  continue  to  require  Cellular  South  to  comply  with  the  December  31,  2005  deadline  to  ensure  ninety-  five  percent 
 penetration  of  location-  capable  handsets  among  its  subscribers. 
 43.  Custer  Telephone  Cooperative,  Inc.  (Custer):  Custer  operates  an  analog  and  TDMA  network  in  Idaho  and  is  converting  to  CDMA.  125  Custer  stated  that  it  was  deploying  a  handset-  based 


 location  solution  in  conjunction  with  its  conversion  to  CDMA,  scheduled  for  July  1,  2004.  126  Custer  requested  that  the  following  deadlines  be  extended  until  November  1,  2004:  the  September  1,  2003 
 deadline  to  begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets;  the  November  30,  2003  deadline  to  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  all  handsets  sold  and  activated  are  location-  capable;  and  the 
 May  31,  2004  deadline  to  ensure  that  fifty  percent  of  all  handsets  sold  and  activated  are  location-capable.  127  Custer  noted  that  as  of  November  1,  2004,  all  handsets  sold  will  be  location-  capable,  128  which 
 is  ahead  of  the  Commissions  November  30,  2004  deadline  for  ensuring  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  phones  activated  are  location-  capable.  Custer  further  explained  that  by  beginning  to  sell  and  activate  only 
 capable  handsets  by  its  requested  date,  it  will  be  able  to  meet  the  December  31,  2005  deadline  to  achieve  ninety-  five  percent  penetration  of  location-  capable  handsets.  129 


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


 45.  We  therefore  grant  Custers  requests  to  extend  the  date  for  initiating  the  sale  and  activation  of  location-  capable  CDMA  handsets  from  September  30,  2003  until  November  1,  2004,  the 
 date  for  ensuring  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable  from  November  30,  2003  until  November  1,  2004,  and  the  date  for  ensuring  that  at  least  fifty  percent  of 


 125  See  Phase  II  Interim  Report  and  Request  for  Waiver,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Oct.  23,  2003,  at  3  (Custer 
 Waiver  Petition).  126 
 See  id.  at  2.  127 
 See  Supplement  to  Phase  II  Interim  Report  and  Request  for  Waiver,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102  at  1,  filed  Sept.  10,  2004  (Custer  Supplement). 


 128  See  id. 
 129  See  id.  Custer  originally  requested  the  following  relief:  (1)  to  begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable 
 handsets  by  September  30,  2004;  (2)  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  all  new  CDMA  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable  by  January  1,  2005;  (3)  ensure  that  at  least  fifty  percent  of  all  new  CDMA  handsets  activated 


 are  location-  capable  by  June  30,  2005;  (4)  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  CDMA  handsets  activations  are  location-  capable  by  December  31,  2005;  and  (5)  ensure  that  ninety-  five  percent  of  all  CDMA  subscribers  have 
 location-  capable  handsets  by  December  31,  2006.  See  Custer  Waiver  Petition  at  4.  130 
 See  Custer  Supplement  at  1-  2. 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 21 
 handsets  activated  are  location-  capable  from  May  31,  2004  until  November  1,  2004.  Custer  will  continue  to  be  subject  to  the  December  31,  2005  deadline  for  achieving  ninety-  five  percent  penetration  of  location-capable 
 handsets  among  its  subscribers. 
 46.  Iowa  RSA  2  Limited  Partnership  dba  Lyrix  Wireless  (Lyrix):  Lyrix  operates  an  analog  and  CDMA  network  in  Iowa.  131  Lyrix  sought  a  waiver  only  of  the  September  1,  2003  deadline  for 


 beginning  to  sell  and  activate  location-  capable  handsets  until  November  30,  2003.  132 
 47.  Benchmark  Relief.  We  find  that  good  cause  exists  to  grant  Lyrixs  request  for  waiver  of  the  initial  benchmark.  Lyrixs  request  for  relief  is  minimal,  and  Lyrix  has  shown  a  plan  to  achieve  full 


 compliance  that  is  within  the  parameters  established  by  the  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order,  with  the  exception  of  this  initial  benchmark  to  begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets.  For  these 
 reasons,  we  find  that  Lyrixs  request  would  not  undermine  the  overall  policy  objectives  of  ensuring  access  to  E911.  Accordingly,  we  grant  Lyrixs  request  for  an  extension  of  the  deadline  to  begin  selling 
 and  activating  location-  capable  handsets  from  September  1,  2003  until  November  30,  2003. 
 48.  Leaco  Rural  Telephone  Cooperative,  Inc.  (Leaco):  Leaco  provides  analog  and  TDMA-  based  service  in  rural  New  Mexico.  133  Leaco  sought  the  following  extensions:  (1)  from 


 September  1,  2003  to  March  1,  2005  to  begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets;  (2)  from  November  30,  2003  to  March  1,  2005  to  ensure  that  twenty-  five  percent  of  all  new  activations  are 
 location-  capable;  (3)  from  May  31,  2004  to  June  1,  2005  to  ensure  that  fifty  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable;  and  (4)  from  November  30,  2004  to  September  1,  2005  to  ensure  that 
 one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable.  134 
 49.  Leaco  decided  to  transition  its  TDMA  network  to  CDMA.  135  Leaco  selected  a  handset-based  solution,  but  claimed  that  the  unexpected  industry  abandonment  of  TDMA,  the  unavailability  of 


 TDMA  handsets,  and  the  need  to  overhaul  its  entire  network,  combined  with  the  technical  incompatibility  of  a  network-  based  solution  in  its  rural  service  area,  left  it  with  no  reasonable  alternative  but  to  seek  a 
 waiver.  136 


 131  See  Petition  of  Iowa  RSA  2  Limited  Partnership  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.  18  of  the  Commissions 
 Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  25,  2003  (Lyrix  2003  Waiver  Petition).  132 
 See  Supplement  to  Petition  of  Iowa  RSA  2  Limited  Partnership  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.18  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Nov.  10,  2003  (Lyrix  Supplemented  Waiver  Request).  In  its 


 initial  petition,  Lyrix  had  also  requested  relief  from  the  November  30,  2003  deadline  to  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-five  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable,  citing  concern  about  the  availability  of  location-  capable 
 handsets.  See  Lyrix  2003  Waiver  Petition  at  2.  Lyrix  withdrew  that  request  when  it  supplemented  its  waiver  filing.  See  Lyrix  Supplemented  Waiver  Request  at  2. 
 133  See  Interim  Report  Regarding  E911  Phase  II  Deployment  Leaco  Cellular,  Inc.,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed 
 July  31,  2003,  at  2  (Leaco  July  2003  Interim  Report);  Leaco  Rural  Telephone  Cooperative,  Inc.  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.18(  g)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  11,  2003,  at  2  (Leaco 


 Waiver  Petition).  134 
 See  Amendment  to  Leaco  Rural  Telephone  Cooperative,  Inc.  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.18(  g)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  31,  2004  at  2  (Leaco  Amended  Petition). 


 135  See  id.  at  2. 
 136  See  id.  at  iv,  3-  5. 
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 22 
 50.  Benchmark  Relief.  We  find  that  good  cause  exists  to  grant  the  relief  requested  by  Leaco.  Leaco  has  made  substantial  progress  from  an  initial  request  that  was  highly  speculative  to  laying  out  a 
 clear  path  to  compliance  that  needs  only  minimal  benchmark  relief.  137  We  find  sufficient  evidence  that  Leaco  is  making  significant  effort  to  achieve  full  compliance  with  the  Commissions  E911  requirements. 
 Additionally,  we  find  that  Leacos  diligence  in  keeping  the  state  and  PSAPs  in  its  area  informed  of  its  deployment  plans  warrant  this  grant  of  relief.  138 


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


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


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


 138  See  Leaco  Amended  Petition  at  3. 
 139  Leaco  did  not  request  a  waiver  of  the  December  31,  2005  deadline  for  achieving  ninety-  five  percent  handset 
 penetration.  However,  Leaco  expressed  concerns  about  its  ability  to  meet  this  deadline  given  its  timeframe  for  its  transition  to  CDMA  and  the  reluctance  of  its  customers  to  adopt  new  location-  capable  handsets.  See  Second 


 Interim  Report  Regarding  E911  Phase  II  Deployment,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Nov.  11,  2003,  at  2.  In  the  event  that  Leaco  anticipates  that  it  cannot  comply  with  the  December  31,  2005  handset  penetration  deadline, 
 Leaco  should  file  an  appropriate  and  timely  request  for  relief,  including  under  the  standard  articulated  in  the  ENHANCE  911  Act.  See  supra    11. 
 140  See  Litchfield  County  Cellular,  Inc.  Petition  for  Limited  Waiver  and  Extension  of  Time,  CC  Docket  No.  94- 
 102,  filed  Aug.  29,  2003  at  1-  3  (LCC  Waiver  Petition).  LCC  subsequently  filed  supplemental  information  and  modified  its  initial  waiver  request.  See  Litchfield  County  Cellular,  Inc.  Supplement  and  Request  for  Further 


 Waiver,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  April  14,  2004  (LCC  April  2004  Supplement);  Litchfield  County  Cellular  Inc.  Interim  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  April  19,  2004;  Litchfield  County  Cellular,  Inc.  Supplement  and 
 Further  Petition  for  Limited  Waiver  and  Extension  of  Time,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Dec.  22,  2004  (LCC  December  2004  Supplement). 
 141  See  LCC  Waiver  Petition  at  2;  Litchfield  December  Supplement  at  1.  LCC  reports  that  it  met  the  October  4, 
 2004  date  to  begin  selling  location-  capable  handsets.  See  LCC  December  2004  Supplement  at  2. 
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 23 
 53.  LCC  maintained  that  the  migration  away  from  TDMA  technology  by  the  larger  carriers  has  resulted  in  reluctance  on  the  part  of  equipment  manufacturers  to  develop  location-  capable  handsets 
 for  the  TDMA  air-  interface.  142  As  a  result,  LCC  is  transitioning  its  network  to  the  CDMA  air  interface,  for  which  location-  capable  handsets  are  readily  available.  LCC  claimed  that  the  process  will  take  some 
 time  to  implement  and  seeks  relief  from  the  Commissions  E911  handset  requirements  as  described  above. 


 54.  Benchmark  Relief.  We  find  that  good  cause  exists  to  grant  LCC  a  limited  extension  of  the  interim  benchmarks.  As  the  Commission  has  recognized,  Tier  III  carriers  transitioning  from  one  air 
 interface  to  another  may  face  difficulty  in  meeting  their  Phase  II  requirements.  143  The  Commission,  however,  also  recognized  the  need  for  such  carriers  to  have  a  plan  to  achieving  full  compliance  as  a  factor 
 to  be  considered  in  granting  additional  relief.  144  LCC  has  such  a  plan  to  complete  its  CDMA  upgrade.  We  also  take  note  of  LCCs  coordination  efforts  with  its  local  PSAPs.  145  As  LCC  states,  it  routinely 
 meets  with  the  local  PSAPs  in  its  area  to  set  and  monitor  deployment  goals  for  Phase  II  E911  service.  146 
 55.  We  are  concerned,  however,  by  the  protracted  rollout  of  location-  capable  handsets  proposed  by  LCC.  While  the  deployment  plan  set  out  by  LCC  achieves  full  compliance,  it  does  so 


 eighteen  months  later  than  the  Commissions  Rules  require.  As  we  have  noted,  location-  capable  CDMA  handsets  are  readily  available.  147  Accordingly,  we  do  not  believe  the  extended  timeframes  proposed  by 
 LCC  are  warranted.  While  we  understand  that  LCC  will  need  time  to  deploy  its  CDMA  upgrade,  we  believe  that  a  more  aggressive  approach  to  handset  deployment  should  accompany  that  rollout.  We 
 therefore  require  that  LCC  begin  activating  only  location-  capable  handsets  as  it  completes  its  CDMA  upgrade.  This  should  ensure  that  consumers  in  LCCs  service  area  will  have  access  to  location-  capable 
 handsets  as  LCC  enables  the  CDMA  air  interface. 
 56.  We  therefore  grant  in  part  LCCs  request  for  relief  from  the  interim  deadlines  for  the  sale  and  activation  of  location-  capable  handsets.  Specifically,  we  extend  the  date  to  begin  selling  and 


 activation  location-  capable  handsets  from  September  1,  2003  to  October  4,  2004;  extend  the  date  to  ensure  that  twenty-  five  percent  of  all  new  handsets  sold  and  activated  are  location-  capable  from 
 November  30,  2003  to  October  31,  2005;  extend  the  date  to  ensure  that  fifty  percent  of  all  new  handsets  sold  and  activated  are  location-  capable  from  May  31,  2004  to  November  30,  2005;  and  extend  the  date  to 
 ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable  from  November  30,  2004  to  December  31,  2005.  We  believe  that  these  limited  extensions  are  appropriate  because,  by  LCCs 
 estimate,  its  CDMA  upgrade  should  be  substantially  complete  by  the  date  it  is  required  to  ensure  that  one- 


 142  See  LCC  April  2004  Supplement  at  4. 
 143  See  Order  to  Stay,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  20997    27. 
 144  Id. 
 145  See  LCC  April  2004  Supplement  at  6. 
 146  Id. 
 147  See  supra    13. 
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 24 
 hundred  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable.  148  If  the  estimated  completion  date  has  changed,  such  that  additional  relief  is  necessary,  149  LCC  should  file  an  appropriate  waiver  request. 
 57.  Handset  Penetration.  In  light  of  our  decision  to  grant  LCC  an  extension  of  the  interim  benchmark  requirements,  we  correspondingly  grant  LCC  a  limited  extension  of  the  December  31,  2005 
 deadline  for  ensuring  that  ninety-  five  percent  of  its  subscriber  base  have  location  capable  handsets.  We  recognize  that  LCC  will  require  a  sufficient  period  of  time  to  ensure  that  the  location-  capable  handsets 
 that  it  sells  and  activates  are  sufficiently  integrated  into  its  customer  base.  Further,  LCC  notes  that  the  majority  of  its  existing  customer  base  currently  has  non-  location-  capable  TDMA  handsets,  and  it  states 
 that  its  rural  non-  prepaid  subscribers  have  historically  tended  to  hold  onto  their  cellular  handsets  for  much  longer  than  customers  in  larger,  metropolitan  markets.  150  We  acknowledge  that  LCC  faces  unique 
 challenges  in  satisfying  the  ninety-  five  percent  handset  penetration  requirement. 
 58.  The  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order  provided  carriers  with  a  timeframe  of  thirteen  months  from  the  date  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable  to  the 


 date  that  ninety-  five  percent  of  its  subscriber  bases  handsets  are  location-  capable.  151  We  believe  that  a  thirteen-  month  timeframe  should  provide  LCC  with  an  adequate  period  of  time  to  ensure  that  its 
 embedded  customer  base  uses  location-  capable  handsets.  Because  we  extend  LCCs  deadline  for  ensuring  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable  to  December  31, 
 2005,  we  afford  LCC  an  additional  thirteen  months  from  these  dates  to  ensure  that  the  handset  penetration  rate  among  its  subscribers  reaches  ninety-  five  percent.  Accordingly,  LCC  must  ensure  that  ninety-  five 
 percent  of  its  subscriber  base  has  location-  capable  handsets  by  January  31,  2007.  152 
 59.  Missouri  RSA  No.  7  Limited  Partnership  dba  Mid-  Missouri  Cellular  (MMC):  MMC  operates  an  analog  and  TDMA  network  and  is  in  the  process  of  upgrading  to  CDMA.  153  MMC 


 requested  a  waiver  to  extend  both  the  September  1,  2003  deadline  for  beginning  the  sale  and  activation  of  location-  capable  handsets,  and  the  November  30,  2003  deadline  for  ensuring  that  at  least  twenty-  five 


 148  Specifically,  LCC  expects  the  final  work  to  be  completed  by  the  second  quarter  of  2006.  See  LCC  April  2004 
 Supplement  at  5.  149 
 We  note  that  LCC  originally  stated  that  work  would  commence  in  the  third  or  fourth  quarter  of  2004.  See  id;  LCC  Waiver  Petition  at  3-  4.  Subsequently,  it  stated  that  work  would  begin  in  the  first  quarter  of  2005,  but  did  not 


 state  whether  the  delay  in  commencing  construction  affected  the  estimated  completion  date.  See  LCC  December  2004  Supplement  at  2. 
 150  See  LCC  December  2004  Supplement  at  2. 
 151  Pursuant  to  the  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order,  Tier  III  carriers  are  required  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred 
 percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable  by  November  30,  2004,  and  that  they  achieve  ninety-  five  percent  penetration  of  location-  capable  handsets  among  their  subscribers  by  December  31,  2005.  See  Non-Nationwide 


 Carriers  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  14852-  53    33.  152 
 Because  we  grant  LCC  the  relief  it  requested  of  the  handset  penetration  deadline  under  our  established  rules  and  precedent,  we  find  it  unnecessary  to  address  the  standard  articulated  in  the  ENHANCE  911  Act.  See  supra   


 11.  153 
 See  Petition  of  Missouri  RSA  No.  7  Limited  Partnership  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.  18  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  25,  2003  (MMC  2003  Waiver  Petition). 
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 25 
 percent  of  all  new  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable,  until  the  first  quarter  of  2004.  154  MMC  subsequently  stated  that  it  only  was  seeking  a  very  limited  waiver  of  the  rules  to  allow  up  to  twenty-  five 
 percent  of  its  new  activations  to  be  made  with  handsets  that  are  not  ALI-  capable.  155  MMC  requested  relief  from  the  requirement  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  handsets  activations  be  location-  capable 
 by  November  30,  2004,  until  it  receives  designation  as  an  eligible  telecommunications  carrier  (ETC)  for  purposes  of  receipt  of  universal  service  funding.  156  MMC  stated  that  on  August  5,  2004,  the  Missouri 
 Public  Service  Commission  denied  its  request  for  ETC  designation,  which  it  contends  was  essential  to  its  plans  for  upgrading  the  rural-  most  portions  of  its  service  area  to  CDMA.  157  MMC  sought  rehearing  by 
 the  MPSC.  158 
 60.  Benchmark  Relief.  As  the  Commission  has  recognized,  Tier  III  carriers  transitioning  from  one  air  interface  to  another  may  face  difficulty  in  meeting  their  Phase  II  requirements.  However, 


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


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


 154  See  id.  at  1.  MMC  did  not  provide  a  specific  date  other  than  stating  that  it  requested  relief  until  the  first 
 quarter  of  2004.  We  thus  assume  that  it  requested  relief  until  March  31,  2004.  We  caution  petitioners  to  provide  specific  dates  when  requesting  relief.  MMC  did  not  request  relief  from  the  May  31,  2004  benchmark  to  ensure 


 that  at  least  fifty  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable,  or  from  the  November  30,  2004  benchmark  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable. 
 155  See  Petition  of  Missouri  RSA  No.  7  Limited  Partnership  dba  Mid-  Missouri  Cellular  for  Waiver  of  Section 
 20.18  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Nov  5,  2004,  at  8  n.  12  (MMC  2004  Waiver  Petition).  We  assume  based  on  this  subsequent  filing  that  MMC  no  longer  was  seeking  relief  from  the  initial 


 (September  1,  2003)  and  twenty-  five  percent  (November  30,  2003)  benchmark  requirements.  156 
 See  id.  at  7-  9.  157 
 Id.  at  6,  8.  158 
 Id.  at  6.  By  contacting  counsel  for  MMC  by  telephone,  staff  was  informed  that  the  MPSC  issued  an  order  on  November  30  th  ,  2004,  effectively  denying  MMCs  application  for  ETC  status.  Counsel  for  MMC  further 


 indicated  that  it  continues  to  pursue  MMCs  application  for  ETC  designation  with  the  MPSC.  159 
 See  Order  to  Stay,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  20997    27.  160 
 See  MMC  2004  Waiver  Petition  at  6.  161 
 Id.  at  7. 
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 26 
 continue  to  be  subject  to  the  December  31,  2005  deadline  for  achieving  ninety-  five  percent  penetration  of  location-  capable  handsets  among  its  subscribers. 
 62.  North  Carolina  RSA  3  dba  Carolina  West  Wireless  (Carolina  West):  Carolina  West  previously  operated  an  AMPS  and  TDMA  network  that  it  has  since  upgraded  to  CDMA.  162  It 
 commenced  Phase  II  service  and  started  activating  only  location-  capable  handsets  on  June  18,  2004.  163  Carolina  West  sought  to  have  the  date  for  initiating  sale  of  location-  capable  handsets  extended  from 
 September  30,  2003  until  June  18,  2004;  the  date  for  ensuring  that  twenty-  five  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable  extended  from  November  30,  2003  until  June  18,  2004;  and  the  date  for 
 ensuring  that  fifty  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable  extended  from  May  31,  2004  until  June  18,  2004.  164  Carolina  West  stated  that  the  PSAPs  in  its  service  area  have  consented  to 
 this  schedule.  165 
 63.  Benchmark  Relief.  We  find  that  the  relief  requested  by  Carolina  West  would  not  undermine  our  overall  policy  objective  of  ensuring  access  to  enhanced  911  services.  As  an  initial  matter, 


 we  note  that  Carolina  West  has  transformed  its  waiver  request  from  one  that  initially  sought  an  additional  nine  months  of  relief  to  one  that  requests  minimal  benchmark  relief.  166  We  find  such  progress  constitutes 
 sufficient  evidence  that  Carolina  West  is  striving  to  achieve  full  compliance  with  the  Commissions  E911  requirements.  Additionally,  we  note  Carolina  Wests  diligence  in  working  with  and  informing  the  PSAPs 
 in  its  service  area,  which  serves  as  further  evidence  of  its  good  faith  efforts  to  achieve  compliance.  167 
 64.  We  therefore  grant  Carolina  Wests  request  that  the  date  for  initiating  sale  and  activation  of  location-  capable  handsets  be  extended  from  September  30,  2003  until  June  18,  2004;  that  the  date  for 


 ensuring  that  twenty-  five  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable  be  extended  from  November  30,  2003  until  June  18,  2004;  and  that  the  date  for  ensuring  that  fifty  percent  of  all  new 
 handset  activations  are  location-  capable  be  extended  from  May  31,  2004  until  June  18,  2004.  Carolina  West  will  continue  to  be  subject  to  the  December  31,  2005  deadline  for  achieving  ninety-  five  percent 
 penetration  of  location-  capable  handsets  among  its  subscribers.  168 


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


 Carolina  RSA  3  Cellular  Telephone  Company  dba  Carolina  West  Wireless  Petition  for  Extension  of  the  Handset  Activation  Schedule  Beginning  November  30,  2003  for  Phase  II  of  Enhanced  911  Services,  CC  Docket  No.  94- 
 102,  filed  June  28,  2004  at  1-  2  (Carolina  West  June  2004  Supplement).  163 
 See  Carolina  West  June  2004  Supplement  at  2.  164 
 See  id.  at  2.  Carolina  West  did  not  seek  extension  of  the  deadline  for  achieving  the  one-  hundred  percent  benchmark,  which  it  expected  to  achieve  before  the  November  30,  2004  deadline.  See  id. 


 165  See  id.  at  6. 
 166  See  id. 
 167  See  supra    10. 
 168  We  note  that  Carolina  West  expressed  reservations  about  its  ability  to  meet  this  benchmark.  See  Carolina  West 
 June  2004  Supplement  at  2.  In  the  event  that  Carolina  West  anticipates  that  it  cannot  comply  with  the  December  31,  2005  handset  penetration  deadline,  Carolina  West  should  file  an  appropriate  and  timely  request  for  relief, 


 including  under  the  standard  articulated  in  the  ENHANCE  911  Act.  See  supra    11. 
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 27 
 65.  Northwest  Missouri  Cellular  Limited  Partnership  (Northwest  Missouri):  Northwest  Missouri  operated  an  AMPS  and  TDMA  network  that  it  planned  to  upgrade  to  CDMA.  It  requested 
 extensions  of  both  the  September  1,  2003  deadline  for  initiating  the  sale  and  activation  of  location-capable  handsets  and  the  November  30,  2003  deadline  for  ensuring  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  all 
 new  handset  activations  were  location-  capable.  169  Northwest  Missouri  sought  the  requested  relief  to  better  coordinate  its  rollout  of  CDMA  with  its  offering  of  location-  capable  handsets.  170  We  have 
 confirmed  that  the  migration  was  completed  in  the  summer  of  2004  and  that,  since  November  30,  2004,  Northwest  Missouri  has  been  activating  only  location-  capable  handsets,  consistent  with  the  requirement 
 adopted  in  the  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order.  171 
 66.  Benchmark  Relief.  We  find  that  good  cause  exists  to  grant  the  relief  requested.  We  do  not  believe  that  the  minimal  interim  benchmark  relief  sought  by  Northwest  Missouri  will  undermine  the 


 overall  policy  objective  of  the  Commissions  E911  rules.  We  therefore  grant  the  relief  Northwest  Missouri  seeks  and  extend  the  September  1,  2003  deadline  for  initiating  the  sale  and  activation  of 
 location-  capable  handsets  until  May  31,  2004  and  the  November  30,  2003  deadline  for  ensuring  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable  until  May  31,  2004. 
 Northwest  Missouri  will  continue  to  be  subject  to  the  December  31,  2005  deadline  for  achieving  ninety-five  percent  penetration  of  location-  capable  handsets  among  its  subscribers. 


 67.  Sagebrush  Cellular,  Inc.,  Nemont  Communications,  Inc.,  and  Triangle  Communication  System,  Inc.  (Sagebrush  Carriers):  The  Sagebrush  Carriers  share  a  switch  used  to 
 provide  analog  and  CDMA  service  in  Montana.  172  They  began  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets  ahead  of  the  September  1,  2003  deadline,  but  were  unsure  if  sufficient  handsets  would  be 
 available  to  meet  the  other  benchmarks.  173  Consequently,  the  Sagebrush  Carriers  requested  extensions  from  November  30,  2003  to  May  31,  2004  to  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  all  new  handsets 
 activated  are  location-  capable;  from  May  31,  2004  to  November  30,  2004  to  ensure  that  at  least  fifty  percent  of  all  new  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable;  from  November  30,  2004  to  May  31,  2005  to 
 ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  digital  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable;  and  from  December  31,  2005  to  June  30,  2006  to  ensure  that  penetration  of  location-  capable  handsets  among  its 
 subscribers  reaches  ninety-  five  percent.  174  In  a  supplement  filed  in  response  to  the  Commissions  Order 
 169  See  Petition  of  Northwest  Missouri  Cellular  Limited  Partnership  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.  18  of  the 
 Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  25,  2003  (Northwest  Missouri  Waiver  Petition).  Northwest  Missouri  did  not  specify  dates  for  which  it  expected  to  achieve  compliance.  However,  we  can  infer 


 that  since  it  requested  relief  only  from  the  initial  September  1,  2003  deadline  to  commence  activation  and  sale  of  location-  capable  handsets,  and  the  November  30,  2003  deadline  to  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of 
 handsets  activated  are  location-  capable,  that  it  requested  relief  with  respect  to  both  of  these  deadlines  until  the  next  benchmark  of  May  31,  2004,  by  which  date  it  must  ensure  that  fifty  percent  of  handsets  activated  are 
 location-  capable.  We  caution  carriers  to  provide  specific  dates  when  filing  requests  for  extensions  of  the  Phase  II  benchmark  requirements. 
 170  See  Supplement  to  Petition  of  Northwest  Missouri  Cellular  Limited  Partnership  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.18  of 
 the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Nov.  10,  2003  at  2.  171 
 Staff  contacted  counsel  for  Northwest  Missouri  to  obtain  this  information.  172 
 See  Sagebrush  E911  Phase  II  Interim  Report  and  Request  for  Waiver  of  the  Compliance  Deadlines,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  1,  2003  at  1  n.  1  (Sagebrush  August  2003  Interim  Report). 


 173  See  id.  at  2. 
 174  See  id. 
27
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 28 
 to  Stay,  the  Sagebrush  Carriers  reported  that  they  had  been  unable  to  obtain  location-  capable  handsets  that  offer  the  same  coverage  range  as  handsets  that  do  not  provide  location  information,  and  that  customers 
 were  returning  the  location-  capable  handsets  because  of  their  reduced  range.  175  Based  on  these  experiences  with  deployment,  the  Sagebrush  Carriers  reiterated  their  previous  request  for  waiver.  176  In 
 their  most  recent  filing,  the  Sagebrush  Carriers  requested  a  permanent  waiver  of  the  December  31,  2005  ninety-  five  percent  handset  penetration  requirement.  177 


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


 of  the  Commissions  E911  requirements. 
 69.  For  the  foregoing  reasons,  we  grant  the  Sagebrush  Carriers  request  for  relief  from  the  interim  benchmarks.  Specifically,  we  grant  an  extension  from  November  30,  2003  to  May  31,  2004  to 


 ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  all  new  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable;  from  May  31,  2004  to  November  30,  2004  to  ensure  that  at  least  fifty  percent  of  all  new  handsets  activated  are  location-capable; 
 and  from  November  30,  2004  to  May  31,  2005  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  digital  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable. 


 70.  Handset  Penetration.  In  light  of  our  decision  to  grant  the  Sagebrush  Carriers  an  extension  of  the  interim  benchmark  requirements,  we  correspondingly  grant  them  a  limited  extension  of  the 
 December  31,  2005  deadline  for  ensuring  that  ninety-  five  percent  of  its  subscriber  base  have  location-capable  handsets.  We  recognize  that  the  Sagebrush  Carriers  will  require  a  sufficient  period  of  time  to 
 ensure  that  the  location-  capable  handsets  that  they  sell  and  activate  are  sufficiently  integrated  into  their  customer  base.  Further,  we  acknowledge  that  the  Sagebrush  Carriers  face  unique  challenges  in  satisfying 
 the  ninety-  five  percent  handset  penetration  requirement.  In  its  most  recent  filing,  the  Sagebrush  Carriers 


 175  See  Sagebrush  Supplement  to  E911  Phase  II  Interim  Report  and  Request  for  Waiver  of  the  Compliance 
 Deadlines,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Nov.  7,  2003  at  1-  2  (Sagebrush  2003  Supplement).  176 
 Id.  Sagebrush  reported  that  twenty-  one  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  were  location-  capable  by  October  2003.  Id. 


 177  See  Second  Supplement  to  E911  Phase  II  Interim  Report  and  Request  for  Waiver  of  the  Compliance  Deadlines 
 and  Request  for  Clarification,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  7,  2005  at  4  (Sagebrush  2005  Supplement).  178 
 See  Order  to  Stay,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  20994    17.  179 
 See  Sagebrush  2003  Supplement  at  1.  180 
 See  id.  at  4.  181 
 See  id.  at  5. 
28
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 29 
 reported  that  it  continues  to  be  their  experience  that  subscribers  are  returning  location-  capable  handsets  due  to  their  reduced  range.  182  The  Sagebrush  Carriers  claimed  that  manufacturers  are  not  improving  the 
 coverage  capabilities  of  location-  capable  handsets  for  use  in  the  large,  sparsely  populated  areas  that  they  serve  with  cell  sites  designed  to  cover  the  largest  area  possible.  183  As  a  result,  the  Sagebrush  Carriers 
 reported  a  change-  over  rate  of  one  to  one  and  a  half  percent  per  month  from  non-  location  capable  handsets  to  location-  capable  handsets,  despite  efforts  to  encourage  adoption  of  location-  capable  handsets 
 with  contract  release  and  better  rate  plan  offers.  184 
 71.  The  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order  provided  carriers  with  a  timeframe  of  thirteen  months  from  the  date  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable  to  the 


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


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


 73.  South  Canaan  Cellular  Communications  Company,  L.  P.  (South  Canaan):  South  Canaan  provides  AMPS  and  TDMA  service  in  Pennsylvania,  and  is  in  the  process  of  upgrading  to 


 182  See  id.  at  2. 
 183  See  id.  at  2-  3. 
 184  See  id.  at  4-  5. 
 185  Pursuant  to  the  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order,  Tier  III  carriers  are  required  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred 
 percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable  by  November  30,  2004,  and  that  they  achieve  ninety-  five  percent  penetration  of  location-  capable  handsets  among  their  subscribers  by  December  31,  2005.  See  Non-Nationwide 


 Carriers  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  14852-  53    33.  186 
 See  Sagebrush  2005  Supplement  at  4.  The  Sagebrush  Carriers  requested  clarification  of  whether  carriers  are  to  include  subscribers  having  analog  handsets  in  calculating  the  penetration  among  their  subscribers  of  location-capable 


 handsets.  See  id.  We  clarify  that  we  intended  no  such  exclusion.  Therefore,  in  meeting  the  December  31,  2005  deadline,  carriers  must  achieve  ninety-  five  percent  penetration  among  their  subscribers  of  location-capable 
 handsets,  regardless  of  whether  certain  subscribers  use  analog  handsets.  We  note  that  the  Sagebrush  Carriers  stated  it  was  not  likely  they  would  meet  the  December  31,  2005  deadline  even  if  analog  handsets  were 
 excluded  from  this  computation.  See  id.  187 
 See  supra    21.  Our  decision  does  not  preclude  the  Sagebrush  Carriers  from  seeking  additional  relief  of  the  handset  penetration  deadline  under  the  standard  articulated  in  the  ENHANCE  911  Act.  See  supra    11. 
29
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 30 
 CDMA.  188  It  commenced  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets  prior  to  the  September  1,  2003  compliance  deadline,  189  and  reported  that  as  of  December  21,  2004,  it  was  selling  only  compliant  phones. 
 190  Essentially,  then,  South  Canaan  sought  relief  until  December  21,  2004,  of  the  following  deadlines: 
 the  November  30,  2003  deadline  to  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  all  new  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable;  the  May  31,  2004  deadline  to  ensure  that  at  least  fifty  percent  of  all  new  handsets 


 activated  are  location-  capable;  and  the  November  30,  2004  deadline  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  digital  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable.  191  South  Canaan  also  requested  an  extension  from 
 December  31,  2005  until  December  31,  2007  to  ensure  that  ninety-  five  percent  of  its  subscribers  have  location-  capable  handsets.  192 


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


 75.  Benchmark  Relief.  We  find  that  good  cause  exists  to  grant  South  Canaan  a  waiver  of  the  interim  handset  activation  benchmark  requirements.  South  Canaans  efforts  to  keep  the  Commission 
 informed  of  its  progress  through  its  multiple  progress  reports  indicate  to  us  the  importance  that  this  carrier  places  on  ensuring  its  compliance.  South  Canaan  has  voluntarily  filed  quarterly  updates  to  keep  the 


 188  See  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.  18  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  South  Canaan  Cellular  Communications 
 Company,  L.  P.,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  1,  2003,  at  2-  3  (South  Canaan  2003  Waiver  Petition).  189 
 See  Supplement  to  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.18  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  South  Canaan  Cellular  Communications  Company,  L.  P.,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Nov.  10,  2003,  at  2  (South  Canaan  2003 


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


 191  We  note  that  South  Canaan  initially  had  requested  more  extensive  relief  from  the  interim  benchmarks. 
 Specifically,  South  Canaan  requested  the  following  deployment  schedule:  begin  selling  and  activating  location-capable  CDMA  handsets  by  January  1,  2005;  ensure  that  twenty-  five  percent  of  new  CDMA  handsets  activated 


 are  location-  capable  by  March  31,  2005;  ensure  that  fifty  percent  of  new  CDMA  handsets  activated  are  location-capable  by  September  30,  2005;  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  CDMA  handsets  activated  are 
 location-  capable  by  March  31,  2006;  and  ensure  that  ninety-  five  percent  of  CDMA  subscribers  have  location-capable  handsets  by  December  31,  2007.  See  South  Canaan  2003  Waiver  Petition  at  8.  It  subsequently  modified 
 its  request  in  light  of  its  progress  in  deploying  its  CDMA  upgrade.  See  South  Canaan  Dec.  2004  Report  at  1-  2.  192 
 See  South  Canaan  2003  Waiver  Petition  at  8;  see  also  E911  Phase  II  Interim  Implementation  Report,  South  Canaan  Cellular  Communications  Company,  L.  P.,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  15,  2004,  at  3  (South  Canaan 


 Jan.  2005  Report).  193 
 See  South  Canaan  Jan.  2005  Report  at  2.  194 
 See  id.  at  2.  The  campaign  will  include  free  and  heavily-  discounted  location-  capable  handsets  to  customers  that  enter  into  a  new  two-  year  agreement  for  service.  Id. 


 195  See  Id. 
30
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 31 
 Commission  current  on  both  its  upgrade  to  CDMA  and  its  work  with  the  local  PSAPs  in  its  area.  We  are  encouraged  by  South  Canaans  imminent  completion  of  its  CDMA  upgrade,  based  upon  the  timeframes  it 
 has  provided  the  Commission  in  its  quarterly  reports.  196  Such  diligence  evidences  South  Canaans  commitment  to  achieving  full  compliance  with  the  Commissions  E911  requirements,  which  is  the  type  of 
 showing  the  Commission  explained  it  would  need  from  Tier  III  carriers  to  grant  additional  relief.  197  Additionally,  we  find  that  South  Canaans  diligence  in  working  with  and  informing  the  PSAPs  in  its 
 service  area  of  its  deployment  schedule  signals  good  faith  efforts  to  achieve  compliance  with  the  Commissions  requirements.  198 


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


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


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


 196  See  South  Canaan  Jan.  2005  Report  at  1  (anticipating  digital  conversion  of  its  remaining  site  by  February  15, 
 2005).  197 
 See  supra    10.  198 
 See  South  Canaan  Dec.  2004  Report  at  1.  See  also  supra    10.  199 
 Pursuant  to  the  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order,  Tier  III  carriers  are  required  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable  by  November  30,  2004,  and  that  they  achieve  ninety-  five 


 percent  penetration  of  location-  capable  handsets  among  their  subscribers  by  December  31,  2005.  See  Non-Nationwide  Carriers  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  14852-  53    33. 
31
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 32 
 penetration  requirement  as  quickly  as  possibly  overrides  South  Canaans  request  for  more  protracted  relief.  200 
 79.  South  No.  5  RSA  LP  dba  Brazos  Cellular  Communications,  LLC  (Brazos):  Brazos  provides  TDMA  service  in  rural  Texas  and  is  upgrading  to  CDMA.  201  Brazos  sought  the  following 
 extensions  of  the  Commissions  deadline:  from  September  1,  2003  until  July  1,  2005  to  begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets;  from  November  30,  2003  until  July  1,  2005  to  ensure  that  at  least 
 twenty-  five  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable;  from  May  31,  2004  until  September  1,  2005  to  ensure  that  at  least  fifty  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable;  and  from  November 
 30,  2004  until  December  31,  2005  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-capable.  202  Brazos  does  not  request  relief  from  the  ninety-  five  percent  requirement,  indicating  that  it  will 
 use  its  best  efforts  to  encourage  subscribers  to  convert.  203 
 80.  Benchmark  Relief.  We  find  good  cause  exists  to  grant  Brazos  a  limited  waiver  to  permit  it  to  coordinate  its  location-  capable  handset  deployment  with  its  CDMA  upgrade.  Brazos  need  for 


 additional  time  is  due  in  part  to  its  transitioning  from  a  TDMA  air  interface  to  CDMA.  204  Brazos  maintained  that  the  migration  from  TDMA  technology  by  the  larger  carriers  resulted  in  reluctance  on  the 
 part  of  equipment  manufacturers  to  develop  location-  capable  handsets  for  the  TDMA  air-  interface.  205  Brazos  decided  to  transition  its  network  to  the  CDMA  air  interface,  a  process  that  will  take  some  time  to 
 implement.  The  Commission  recognized  that  the  transition  from  one  air  interface  to  another  takes  some  time  to  implement,  and  requested  that  carriers  seeking  additional  relief  for  this  purpose  provide  a  plan  to 
 achieve  full  compliance,  which  Brazos  has  provided.  206 
 81.  We  are  also  encouraged  by  Brazos  efforts  to  coordinate  its  deployment  plan  with  its  local  PSAPs.  Brazos  stated  that  the  local  PSAPs  are  agreeable  to  its  Phase  II  schedule,  which  will 


 achieve  Phase  II  capability  prior  to  PSAP  readiness.  207  Brazos  stated  that  it  has  discussed  its  deployment 


 200  See  supra    21.  Our  decision  does  not  preclude  the  South  Canaan  from  seeking  additional  relief  of  the  handset 
 penetration  deadline  under  the  standard  articulated  in  the  ENHANCE  911  Act.  See  supra    11.  201 
 See  South  No.  5  RSA  LP  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.  18(  g)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  8,  2003  at  2  (Brazos  2003  Waiver  Petition). 


 202  See  Further  Supplement  to  South  No.  5  RSA  LP  Petition  and  Request  For  Additional  Waiver  of  Section 
 20.18(  g)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  June  8,  2004,  at  3  (Brazos  June  2004  Supplement).  Brazos  initially  requested  interim  relief  to  extend  the  deadline  to  begin  selling  and  activating 


 handsets  and  the  deadline  to  meet  the  twenty-  five  percent  requirement  to  July  1,  2004;  to  extend  the  fifty  percent  deadline  to  September  1,  2004;  and  to  extend  the  one-  hundred  percent  deadline  to  December  31,  2004.  See 
 Brazos  2003  Waiver  Petition  at  9.  203 
 See  Brazos  June  2004  Supplement  at  4.  In  an  earlier  filing,  Brazos  indicated  that  it  was  unlikely  to  be  fully  Phase  II  compliant  by  December  31,  2005,  because  many  of  its  customers,  approximately  fifteen  percent,  use 


 three  watt  analog  phones  and  would  be  reluctant  to  accept  location-  capable  digital  handsets  due  to  their  relatively  smaller  ranges.  See  Brazos  2003  Waiver  Petition  at  3-  4. 
 204  See  Brazos  2003  Waiver  Petition  at  2. 
 205  See  Brazos  2003  Supplement  at  2. 
 206  See  Order  to  Stay,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  20997    27. 
 207  See  Brazos  June  2004  Supplement  at  4. 
32
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 33 
 plan  with  the  Texas  Council  of  Governments,  which  coordinates  E911  efforts  in  the  state  of  Texas,  and  that  it  and  the  local  PSAPs  are  aware  of  the  transition  period  Brazos  has  set  out  in  its  requests.  208  In 
 evaluating  Brazos  waiver  request  we  have  taken  into  account  its  consultation  with  PSAPs  in  its  service  area  and  the  Texas  Council  of  Governments,  as  such  consultation  is  an  important  factor  in  determining 
 whether  a  waiver  is  warranted.  209 
 82.  For  the  foregoing  reasons,  we  find  that  granting  relief  to  Brazos  would  not  undermine  our  policy  objective  of  ensuring  access  to  E911  service.  We  therefore,  grant  Brazos  requests  for  the 


 following  extensions:  from  September  30,  2003  to  July  1,  2005  to  begin  selling  and  activating  location-capable  handsets;  from  November  30,  2003  to  July  1,  2005  to  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of 
 handsets  activated  are  location-  capable;  from  May  31,  2004  to  September  1,  2005  to  ensure  that  at  least  fifty  percent  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable;  and  from  November  30,  2004  to  December  31,  2005 
 to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable. 
 83.  The  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order  provided  carriers  with  a  timeframe  of  thirteen  months  from  the  date  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable  to  the 


 date  that  ninety-  five  percent  of  its  subscriber  bases  handsets  are  location-  capable.  210  We  believe  that  a  thirteen-  month  timeframe  should  provide  Brazos  with  an  adequate  period  of  time  to  ensure  that  its 
 embedded  customer  base  uses  location-  capable  handsets.  Because  we  extend  Brazos  deadline  for  ensuring  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable  to  December  31, 
 2005,  we  afford  Brazos  an  additional  thirteen  months  from  this  date  to  ensure  that  the  handset  penetration  rate  among  its  subscribers  reaches  ninety-  five  percent.  Accordingly,  Brazos  must  ensure  that  ninety-  five 
 percent  of  its  subscriber  base  has  location-  capable  handsets  by  January  31,  2006.  211 
 84.  Wilkes  Cellular,  Inc.  (Wilkes):  Wilkes  provides  analog  service  in  rural  Georgia.  Wilkes  stated  that  it  receives  switching  services  from  Alltel  and  therefore  must  follow  Alltel  in  using  a 


 handset-  based  solution.  212  Wilkes  added  that  it  would  utilize  a  handset  solution  and  install  a  digital  overlay  over  its  analog  cellular  network,  with  the  digital  network  expected  to  be  in  place  by  early  2004.  213 
 While  Wilkes  did  not  state  which  digital  interface  it  will  be  using,  we  infer  from  its  association  with 


 208  See  id. 
 209  See  supra    29. 
 210  Pursuant  to  the  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order,  Tier  III  carriers  are  required  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred 
 percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable  by  November  30,  2004,  and  that  they  achieve  ninety-  five  percent  penetration  of  location-  capable  handsets  among  their  subscribers  by  December  31,  2005.  See  Non-Nationwide 


 Carriers  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  14852-  53    33.  211 
 Because  we  relied  on  our  established  rules  and  precedent  in  granting  the  relief  of  the  handset  penetration  deadline  to  Brazos,  we  find  it  unnecessary  to  address  the  standard  articulated  in  the  ENHANCE  911  Act.  Our 


 decision,  however,  does  not  preclude  Brazos  from  seeking  additional  relief  of  the  handset  penetration  deadline  under  the  standard  articulated  in  the  ENHANCE  911  Act.  See  supra    11. 
 212  See  E911  Phase  II  Interim  Report  and  Request  for  Waiver  of  the  Compliance  Deadlines,  CC  Docket  No.  94- 
 102,  filed  Aug.  1,  2003,  at  1-  2  (Wilkes  Interim  Report).  213 
 See  id. 
33
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 34 
 Alltel  that  it  will  upgrade  to  CDMA  technology.  Wilkes  further  stated  that  it  had  not  received  a  Phase  II  request,  but  anticipated  that  Phase  II  service  would  be  available  by  April  1,  2004.  214 
 85.  Wilkes  requested  a  seven-  month  extension  of  each  of  the  benchmarks  for  activating  location-  capable  handsets.  215  Wilkes  thus  requested  that  we  grant  extensions  of  the  following  deadlines: 
 (1)  from  September  1,  2003  until  April  1,  2004  to  begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets;  (2)  from  November  30,  2003  until  June  30,  2004  to  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  handsets 
 activated  are  location-  capable;  (3)  from  May  31,  2004  until  December  31,  2004  to  ensure  that  at  least  fifty  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable,  and  (4)  from  November  30,  2004  until  June  30,  2005 
 to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  handsets  sold  are  location  capable. 
 86.  Benchmark  Relief.  We  find  good  cause  exists  to  grant  Wilkes  waiver  relief  to  permit  it  to  coordinate  its  location-  capable  handset  deployment  with  its  CDMA  upgrade.  Wilkes  need  for  additional 


 time  is  due  to  transitioning  from  an  analog  air  interface  to  CDMA.  The  Commission  recognized  that  the  transition  from  one  air  interface  to  another  takes  some  time  to  implement,  and  requested  that  carriers 
 seeking  additional  relief  for  this  purpose  provide  a  plan  to  achieve  full  compliance,  which  Wilkes  has  provided.  Furthermore,  since  Wilkes  had  not  yet  received  a  request  for  Phase  II  service,  we  find  that 
 granting  the  relief  requested  would  not  undermine  our  policy  objective  of  ensuring  access  to  E911  service.  We  therefore,  grant  Wilkes  requests  for  the  following  extensions:  from  September  30,  2003  to 
 April  1,  2004  to  begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets;  from  November  30,  2003  to  June  30,  2004  to  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable;  from  May 
 31,  2004  to  December  31,  2004  to  ensure  that  at  least  fifty  percent  handsets  activated  are  location-capable;  and  from  November  30,  2004  to  June  30,  2005  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  handsets 
 activated  are  location-  capable. 
 87.  The  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order  provided  carriers  with  a  timeframe  of  thirteen  months  from  the  date  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable  to  the 


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


 214  See  id.  at  2-  3. 
 215  See  id.  at  2. 
 216  Pursuant  to  the  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order,  Tier  III  carriers  are  required  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred 
 percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable  by  November  30,  2004,  and  that  they  achieve  ninety-  five  percent  penetration  of  location-  capable  handsets  among  their  subscribers  by  December  31,  2005.  See  Non-Nationwide 


 Carriers  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  14852-  53    33.  217 
 Because  we  relied  on  our  established  rules  and  precedent  in  granting  the  relief  of  the  handset  penetration  deadline  to  Wilkes,  we  find  it  unnecessary  to  address  the  standard  articulated  in  the  ENHANCE  911  Act.  Our 


 decision,  however,  does  not  preclude  Wilkes  from  seeking  additional  relief  of  the  handset  penetration  deadline  under  the  standard  articulated  in  the  ENHANCE  911  Act.  See  supra    11. 
34
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 35 
 88.  Wireless  Communications  Venture  (WCV):  WCV  provides  service  in  Minnesota.  218  In  a  June  2004  amendment  to  its  waiver  petition,  WCV  reported  that  the  upgrade  of  its  network  from  TDMA 
 to  CDMA  was  complete.  219  WCV  sought  an  extension  of  the  date  to  begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets  from  September  30,  2003  to  September  27,  2004.  220  It  also  sought  an  extension 
 from  November  30,  2003  to  September  27,  2004  to  meet  the  requirement  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable;  and  from  May  31,  2004  to  September  27,  2004  to  meet  the 
 requirement  that  at  least  fifty  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable.  221 
 89.  Benchmark  Relief.  We  find  that  good  cause  exists  to  grant  the  relief  sought  by  WCV.  We  are  persuaded  by  WCVs  petition  because  it  set  out  a  plan  to  achieving  full  compliance.  222  The 


 schedule  WCV  set  out  in  its  petition  will  allow  it  to  meet  the  final  benchmark  of  December  31,  2005,  when  it  must  achieve  a  ninety-  five  percent  penetration  rate  for  location-  capable  handsets  among  its 
 subscribers.  We  thus  find  that  allowing  this  carrier  to  focus  its  efforts  on  achieving  full  compliance  will  better  serve  the  Commissions  interest  in  ensuring  ubiquitous  access  to  E911  service. 


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


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


 218  See  Wireless  Communications  Venture  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.  18(  g)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC 
 Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  28,  2003,  at  5  (WCV  2003  Waiver  Petition).  219 
 See  Amendment  to  Wireless  Communications  Venture  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.  18(  g)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  June  30,  2004,  at  2  (WCV  2004  Amended  Waiver  Petition). 


 220  See  id.  at  1. 
 221  Id.  In  its  original  petition,  WCV  also  sought  relief  from  the  one-  hundred  percent  benchmark  to  December  31, 
 2004.  See  WCV  2003  Waiver  Petition  at  10.  WCV  subsequently  reported  that  it  met  this  requested  deadline.  See  Second  Supplement  to  Wireless  Communications  Venture  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.19(  g)  of  the 


 Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  24,  2005,  at  1.  222 
 See  Order  to  Stay,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  20997    27.  223 
 See  WCV  Second  Interim  Report  Regarding  E911  Phase  II  deployment  Wireless  Communications  Venture,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  14,  2004,  at  2  (WCV  Second  Interim  Report). 


 224  Id.  at  2-  3. 
 225  See  Order  to  Stay,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  20997    28. 
35
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 36 
 B.  Category  2:  Carriers  electing  network-  based  solutions 
 92.  The  next  category  of  Tier  III  carriers  consists  of  requests  for  relief  by  carriers  employing  network-  based  solutions.  By  definition,  these  solutions  work  with  existing  handsets  and  thus  do  not 


 require  handset  replacement  or  upgrades.  Carriers  are  permitted  to  phase  in  deployment  over  an  eighteen  month  period  and,  as  compared  to  carriers  utilizing  handset-  based  technologies,  are  allowed  to  meet  the 
 broader  location  parameters  of  the  accuracy  standard  for  network-  based  technologies.  226  Once  deployed,  network-  based  solutions  reportedly  can  be  readily  adapted  to  support  multiple  air  interfaces  and  network 
 upgrades,  e.  g.,  analog,  TDMA,  CDMA  or  GSM.  227 
 93.  Highland  Cellular,  LLC  (Highland):  Highland  operates  a  TDMA  network  in  rural  West  Virginia,  and  is  transitioning  to  a  GSM  network.  228  It  requested  that  the  Commission  grant  a  two 


 year  extension  of  the  Phase  II  deployment  and  accuracy  requirements  for  its  GSM  network.  229  Highland  set  forth  an  eight-  step  plan  for  deploying  its  GSM  network-  based  solution,  and  also  a  schedule  for 
 compliance,  anticipating  that  its  TDMA  customers  would  begin  migrating  to  its  GSM  network  in  November  2004.  230 


 94.  In  its  subsequent  January  15,  2004  Interim  Report,  Highland  stated  it  was  able  to  launch  its  GSM  network  in  October  2003,  and  that  twelve  percent  of  its  customer  base  already  had  begun  the 
 transition  from  TDMA  to  GSM  phones.  231  With  respect  to  its  Phase  II  status,  Highland  stated  that  it  was  still  reviewing  vendor  and  technology  options  for  network-  based  solutions  based  on  either  Time  Delay  of 
 Arrival  (TDOA)  or  Timing  Advance/  Network  Measurement  Report  (TA/  NMR)  technologies.  232 


 226  See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.18(  h)(  1)  (requiring  an  accuracy  of  one-  hundred  meters  for  sixty-  seven  percent  of  calls,  and 
 300  meters  for  ninety-  five  percent  of  calls).  227 
 See,  e.  g.,  Andrew  Corporation  description  of  its  Geometrix  technology,  at  http://  www.  andrew.  com/  products/  wireless_  call_  loc/  geometrix_  e911_  upgrd.  aspx. 


 228  See  Request  of  Highland  Cellular,  LLC  for  A  Limited  Waiver  and  Extension  of  the  Commissions  Phase  II 
 Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  29,  2003,  at  1-  2  (Highland  Waiver  Request).  229 
 See  Highland  Waiver  Request  at  2-  3.  Although  Highland  did  not  provide  specific  dates  for  extension  of  our  requirements,  we  presume  that,  by  requesting  an  additional  two  years,  it  asked  for  the  following  relief:  (1)  from 


 September  1,  2003  to  September  1,  2005  to  provide  Phase  II  service  to  at  least  fifty  percent  of  the  PSAPs  coverage  area  or  population,  or  within  six  months  of  a  PSAP  request,  whichever  is  later,  and  (2)  from  September 
 1,  2004  to  September  1,  2006  to  provide  Phase  II  service  to  one-  hundred  percent  of  the  PSAPs  coverage  area  or  population,  or  within  eighteen  months  of  a  PSAP  request,  whichever  is  later. 
 230  Id.  at  4-  5.  The  eight  steps  are  as  follows:  (1)  obtaining  proposals  from  GSM-  based  network  location  vendors; 
 (2)  obtaining  vendor  engineering  studies  on  achievable  accuracy  levels;  (3)  selecting  a  vendor  based  on  pricing  and  technical  details;  (4)  identifying  a  deployment  plan;  (5)  conducting  the  necessary  tower  and  cell  site  upgrades; 


 (6)  installing  equipment  at  cell  sites  and  within  the  switch;  (7)  network  integration  and  testing;  and  (8)  testing  with  PSAPs. 
 231  See  Highland  Cellular,  Inc.  E911  Interim  Compliance  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  15,  2004,  at  1 
 (Highland  2004  Interim  Report).  232 
 See  id.  at  2.  TDOA  uses  equipment  installed  at  carrier  base  stations  to  triangulate  a  calls  location  based  on  differences  in  the  arrival  times  of  a  handsets  signal  at  three  or  more  of  the  cell  sites.  TA/  NMR  is  a  refinement  of 


 GSM-  based  Phase  I  E911  service,  identifying  the  cell  and  sector  and  then  using  timing  information  and  signal  strength  information  from  adjacent  cells  to  calculate  an  improved  location  solution. 
36
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 37 
 Highland  further  reported  that  it  had  received  Phase  II  requests  from  six  PSAPs,  and  that  it  had  been  actively  working  with  the  PSAPs  in  its  community  with  respect  to  E911  deployment.  233  Highland 
 projected  that  network-  based  solutions  will  meet  the  accuracy  requirements  in  only  three  of  the  ten  counties  it  is  licensed  to  serve.  234  However,  Highland  indicated  that  the  GSM  cell  sites  it  was  deploying 
 would  provide  significant  improvements  in  accuracy  as  compared  to  the  TDMA  segment  of  its  system.  235  Highland  also  added  that  its  lenders  may  refuse  to  finance  additional  Phase  II  deployment  costs.  236 
 Highland  claimed  that  the  foregoing  factors  will  make  it  very  challenging  to  meet  the  current  Phase  II  accuracy  requirements  for  a  network-  based  solution.  237 


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


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


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


 233  See  id. 
 234  See  id.  at  4-  5. 
 235  See  id.  at  5. 
 236  See  id. 
 237  See  id. 
 238  See  Highland  Cellular,  Inc.  Update  to  E911  Interim  Compliance  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Feb.  9, 
 2005,  at  1.  239 
 See  id.  at  2.  240 
 See  id.  241 
 See  Highland  2004  Interim  Report  at  2-  3.  242 
 See  id.  at  4.  243 
 See  Highland  Waiver  Request  at  4. 
37
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 38 
 2004  to  September  1,  2006  to  provide  Phase  II  service  to  one-  hundred  percent  of  a  PSAPs  coverage  area  or  population,  or  within  eighteen  months  of  a  PSAP  request,  whichever  is  later. 
 98.  N.  E.  Colorado  Cellular,  Inc.  (NECC):  In  its  initial  waiver  request,  NECC  reported  that  it  operated  an  AMPS  network  in  Colorado  and  acquired  a  CDMA  network  in  Nebraska,  and  that  it  was 
 converting  both  networks  to  GSM.  244  NECC  elected  to  deploy  a  network-  based  location  solution,  but  for  its  GSM  networks  only.  245  NECC  proposed  to  implement  Phase  II  service  in  Colorado  within  six  months 
 of  a  valid  PSAP  request,  and  by  January  2005  in  Nebraska.  246  NECC  later  estimated  that  Phase  II  service  would  first  be  available  on  its  GSM  network  by  November  2004.  247 


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


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


 244  See  Request  for  a  Limited  Waiver  and  Extension  of  the  Commissions  Phase  II  E911  Rules,  CC  Docket  No. 
 94-  102,  filed  Sept.  5,  2003,  at  2  (NECC  Waiver  Request).  245 
 See  Enhanced  911  Tier  III  Interim  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  15,  2004,  at  1  (NECC  Jan.  2004  Interim  Report);  N.  E.  Colorado  Cellular,  Inc.  Petition  for  Extension  of  the  Implementation  Schedules  Beginning 


 September  1,  2003  for  Phase  II  of  Enhanced  911  Services,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Nov.  17,  2004,  at  2  (NECC  2004  Petition).  NECC  explained  that  the  AMPS  product  line  in  Colorado  does  not  support  a  network-based 
 Phase  II  location  solution.  See  NECC  Jan.  2004  Interim  Report  at  1.  246 
 See  NECC  Waiver  Request  at  8.  247 
 See  NECC  Jan.  2004  Interim  Report  at  2.  248 
 See  id;  NECC  Jan.  2004  Interim  Report  at  1-  2.  249 
 See  NECC  Jan.  2004  Interim  Report  at  1-  2.  250 
 See  N.  E.  Colorado  Cellular,  Inc.  Supplement  to  Petition  for  Extension  of  the  Implementation  Schedule  for  Phase  II  of  Enhanced  911  Services,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Nov.  10,  2003,  at  4  (NECC  2003  Supplement). 


 251  See  NECC  Jan.  2004  Interim  Report  at  1. 
 252  See  NECC  2004  Petition  at  2. 
 253  See  id. 
 254  See  NECC  Jan.  2004  Interim  Report  at  1. 
38
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 39 
 101.  In  a  separate  request  filed  in  2004,  NECC  sought  a  waiver  specific  to  its  network  in  Colorado  to  permit  it  to  migrate  analog  customers  to  its  GSM  platform.  255  NECC  expected  seventy 
 percent  of  its  subscriber  base  in  Colorado  to  be  migrated  to  GSM  by  the  end  of  2004.  256  However,  NECC  cited  to  certain  analog  customers  who  desire  to  retain  their  analog  phones,  favoring  coverage  over  Phase 
 II  service  capability.  257  NECC  added  that  it  expected  to  complete  its  GSM  upgrade  by  first  quarter  2005,  258  and  that  there  was  no  Phase  II  solution  for  the  analog  portion  of  its  network.  259  NECC  foresaw  a 
 need  for  a  two-  year  timetable  to  migrate  the  remainder  of  its  analog  customers  to  digital.  260 
 102.  Deployment  of  Network  Equipment.  First,  with  respect  to  the  GSM  portions  of  its  network,  NECC  does  not  require  an  extension  of  the  Commissions  Phase  II  rules  and  thus  we  dismiss 


 this  request.  NECC  indicated  it  would  have  Phase  II  service  capability  in  its  GSM  network  by  November  2004,  and  with  respect  to  its  Colorado  service  areas,  that  it  has  responded,  or  would  be  responding,  to  the 
 four  PSAP  requests.  Moreover,  in  Nebraska,  if  NECC  received  the  PSAP  requests  expected  in  May  2004,  we  assume,  as  we  have  not  been  notified  otherwise,  that  NECC  implemented  Phase  II  service  for 
 those  PSAPs  as  well.  261  Further,  NECCs  filings  indicate  that,  in  its  Colorado  service  areas,  its  GSM  network  deployment  is  proceeding  close  to  the  schedule  that  it  has  anticipated.  In  addition,  the  migration 
 of  its  customer  base  to  the  GSM  network  is  significantly  progressing. 
 103.  However,  with  respect  to  its  analog  customers,  we  conclude  that  grant  of  a  waiver  regarding  NECCs  deployment  of  a  Phase  II  network  solution  work  is  warranted.  262  As  NECC  indicated, 


 there  is  no  Phase  II  solution  for  analog  handsets.  Further,  we  find  that  NECC  diligently  has  pursued  a  program  of  upgrading  its  analog  network  to  GSM  while  undertaking  efforts  to  migrate  its  analog 
 customers  to  GSM.  Therefore,  we  grant  NECC  an  extension  of  two  years  from  the  date  of  its  request,  or  until  November  17,  2006,  to  ensure  that  all  of  its  analog  customers  are  transitioned  to  GSM  and  thus  are 
 offered  Phase  II  services. 
 104.  Accuracy  Requirements.  We  deny  NECCs  request  for  waiver  of  the  accuracy  requirement  through  2007  because  we  do  not  believe  it  was  sufficiently  supported  and,  in  any  event,  is 


 overbroad.  NECC  did  not  provide  any  testing  data  or  other  evidence  to  support  its  request  for  an  accuracy  level  of  500  meters  for  fifty  percent  of  calls,  or  for  the  need  for  relief  through  2007.  In  addition, 
 NECC  submitted  no  information  from  its  technology  vendor  concerning  the  levels  of  accuracy  that  can  reasonably  be  achieved  as  its  GSM  network  is  built  out.  Such  information  is  of  particular  significance  to 
 our  consideration  of  this  waiver  request.  263  NECC  did  not  distinguish  between  those  segments  of  its  GSM  network  that  already  are  built,  and  which  presumably  could  achieve  better  accuracy,  and  those 


 255  See  NECC  2004  Petition  at  2. 
 256  See  NECC  Jan.  2004  Interim  Report  at  2. 
 257  See  NECC  2004  Petition  at  3-  4. 
 258  See  id.  at  3. 
 259  See  id.  at  4;  NECC  2003  Supplement  at  2-  3. 
 260  See  NECC  2004  Petition  at  4. 
 261  See  NECC  2003  Supplement  at  4. 
 262  See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.18(  f). 
 263  See  supra    9. 
39
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 40 
 segments  not  upgraded  with  GSM.  Moreover,  given  its  representations  of  its  deployment  schedule  for  approximately  300  additional  towers  for  its  Nebraska  build-  out  beyond  the  major  highways,  NECC 
 should  have  been  able  to  develop  a  more  specific  schedule  for  meeting  the  Phase  II  requirements,  rather  than  requesting  the  blanket  relief  it  seeks  through  2007. 


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


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


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


 264  See  supra    10. 
 265  See  January  2004  Interim  Report  at  1. 
 266  See  Southern  Illinois  RSA  Partnership  dba  First  Cellular  of  Southern  Illinois  Petition  for  Extension  of  the 
 Implementation  Schedule  Beginning  September  1,  2003  for  Phase  II  of  Enhanced  911  Services,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  26,  2003,  at  1  (First  Cellular  August  2003  Petition). 


 267  See  id.  at  3. 
 268  See  Southern  Illinois  RSA  Partnership  dba  First  Cellular  of  Southern  Illinois  Supplement  to  Petition  for 
 Extension  of  the  Implementation  Schedule  for  Phase  II  of  Enhanced  911  Services,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Nov.  10,  2003,  at  3  (representing  that  the  Phase  II  solution  from  its  selected  vendor  would  support  its  planned 


 GSM  system  as  well  as  the  current  AMPS  and  CDMA  systems).  269 
 See  Enhanced  911  Tier  III  Interim  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  14,  2004,  at  2.  270 
 See  id.  at  2. 
40
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 41 
 108.  Deployment  of  Network  Equipment.  First  Cellular  also  submitted  that  it  had  received  seven  Phase  II  requests,  but  that  the  requesting  PSAPs  were  not  yet  ready  to  receive  or  use  Phase  II 
 data.  271  Consequently,  we  dismiss  First  Cellulars  request  for  waiver,  without  prejudice,  as  unnecessary.  Carriers  only  are  required  to  respond  to  valid  PSAP  requests.  272  Furthermore,  carriers  have  six  months 
 following  a  valid  PSAP  request  to  provide  E911  service  to  at  least  fifty  percent  of  the  PSAPs  coverage  area  or  population,  and  eighteen  months  to  provide  E911  service  to  one-  hundred  percent  of  the  PSAPs 
 coverage  area  or  population. 
 C.  Category  3:  Carriers  Operating  Roaming-  Only  Networks 
 109.  Twelve  carriers,  operating  under  a  carriers  carrier  business  model  (the  Commnet  Carriers),  sought  relief  from  various  E911  requirements.  273  Under  the  carriers  carrier  business  model, 


 each  of  the  Commnet  Carriers  provides  roaming-  only  service  to  subscribers  of  other  carriers  and  has  no  subscribers  of  its  own.  274  Each  of  the  carriers  utilizes  a  switching  facility  locating  outside  of  its  market 
 and  thus  some  distance  from  the  PSAP.  275  Further,  each  operates  in  rural  areas  using  analog,  TDMA,  or  GSM  technologies.  276  The  Commnet  Carriers  stated  that  handset-  based  solutions  are  not  available  for  any 
 of  their  network  technologies.  277  In  addition,  due  to  the  nature  of  their  networks,  they  also  claimed  that  network-  based  solutions,  necessarily  requiring  triangulation,  are  not  feasible.  278  Only  one  of  the 
 Commnet  Carriers,  MoCelCo,  LLC,  has  received  a  Phase  II  request.  279 
 110.  The  Commnet  Carriers  requested  a  permanent  or  long-  term  (at  least  5  years)  waiver  of  the  Phase  II  requirements.  280  Alternatively,  they  requested  that  they  be  declared  in  compliance  with  all 


 E911  obligations,  on  the  basis  that  the  Commissions  E911  rules  were  not  intended  to  apply  to  carriers 


 271  See  id.  at  1. 
 272  Under  the  Commissions  rules,  a  carrier  is  required  to  provide  E911  only  if  the  PSAP  requesting  service  is 
 capable  of  receiving  and  utilizing  the  data  and  a  mechanism  for  recovering  PSAP  costs  is  in  place.  47  C.  F.  R.    20.18(  j). 


 273  See  Petition  for  Limited  and  Temporary  Waiver  of  Deadlines  for  Implementation  of  Phase  II  E911  on  the  Same 
 Basis  as  Other  Tier  III  Wireless  Carriers,  and  for  Waiver  of  King  County  Demarcation  Point  Ruling,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Sept.  9,  2002  (Commnet  Petition);  Amendment  and  Supplement  to  Petition  for  Waiver  of 


 Deadlines  for  Implementation  of  Phase  II  E911  and  for  Waiver  of  King  County  Demarcation  Point  Ruling,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  15,  2003  (Commnet  Amendment).  The  carriers,  jointly  filing,  include  Commnet 
 Wireless,  Inc.;  Commnet  of  Arizona,  LLC;  Commnet  of  Delaware,  LLC;  Elbert  County  Wireless,  LLC;  Chama  Wireless  LLC.;  Excomm,  LLC;  Commnet  PCS,  Inc.;  MoCelCo,  LLC;  Tennessee  Cellular  Telephone  Company; 
 Commnet  Capital,  LLC;  Commnet  of  Florida,  LLC;  and  Prairie  Wireless,  LLC.  See  Commnet  Amendment  at  2-  3.  274 
 See  Commnet  Amendment  at  1,  4.  275 
 See  id.  at  ii,  3.  276 
 See  id.  at  3,  4.  277 
 See  id.  at  4.  278 
 See  id.  at  4-  5.  279 
 See  id.  at  5.  280 
 See  id.  at  6. 
41
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 42 
 providing  roaming-  only  service.  281  The  Commnet  Carriers  also  sought  a  waiver  of  the  Commissions  ruling  in  the  King  County  case  that  the  911  selective  router  is  the  demarcation  point  for  allocating  costs 
 between  a  wireless  carrier  and  a  PSAP  E911  obligations.  282 
 111.  Applicability  of  Phase  II  Requirements.  The  Commission  has  made  clear  that  wireless  carriers  providing  services  similar  to  commercial  mobile  radio  services  are  subject  to  the  E911  rules.  283 


 Specifically,  the  Commission  specified  criteria  for  determining  which  licensees  should  be  subject  to  its  E911  requirements.  It  required  compliance  by  those  licensees:  (1)  that  offered  real-  time,  two-  way 
 switched  voice  service,  interconnected  with  the  public  switched  network,  either  on  a  stand-  alone  basis  or  packaged  with  other  telecommunications  services;  (2)  whose  customers  clearly  expected  access  to  911 
 and  E911;  (3)  that  competed  with  analog  and  broadband  PCS  providers;  and  (4)  where  it  is  technically  and  operationally  feasible  to  provide  enhanced  911  service.  284 


 112.  All  of  these  criteria  apply  to  carriers  providing  roaming-  only  service.  First,  roaming-  only  service,  like  service  provided  by  licensees  with  customers  of  their  own,  interconnects  to  the  public 
 switched  network.  Further,  roaming-  only  service  provided  by  carriers  carriers  is  indistinguishable  from  service  provided  by  the  callers  home  wireless  service  provider,  and,  therefore,  consumers  of  roaming-only 
 service  would  have  the  same  expectations  as  when  using  their  home  network  with  respect  to  having  access  to  E911  service.  Additionally,  carriers  carriers  clearly  compete  with  other  facilities-  based  CMRS 
 licensees.  Finally,  as  other  facilities-  based  licensees  have  shown  through  their  deployment  of  the  infrastructure  necessary  for  E911  to  occur,  it  is  technically  feasible  to  comply  with  the  Commissions 
 rules,  and,  as  explained  more  fully  below,  it  also  is  technically  feasible  for  carriers  carriers  to  comply  as  well.  Accordingly,  we  reject  the  Commnet  Carriers  argument  that  the  Commissions  E911  rules  were 
 not  intended  to  apply  to  roaming-  only  service  providers. 
 113.  Phase  II  Requirements.  Having  established  that  carriers  carriers  are  subject  to  the  Commissions  E911  requirements,  we  next  address  the  Commnet  Carriers  request  for  a  permanent  or 


 long-  term  extension  to  comply  with  the  Phase  II  rules.  In  view  of  the  critical  importance  of  the  Commissions  E911  rules  to  public  safety,  the  Commission  has  insisted  that  carriers  seeking  relief  must 
 provide  specific  evidence  in  support  of  their  request,  as  well  as  a  clear  path  to  full  compliance,  and  cannot  rely  on  generalized  assertions  of  technical  infeasibility.  285  The  Commnet  Carriers  petition  fails  to  meet 
 this  standard.  The  Commnet  Carriers  made  only  conclusory  assertions  that  they  have  no  handset-  based  or  network-  based  options  to  provide  Phase  II  service,  presented  no  plan  whatsoever  for  compliance,  and 
 offered  no  evidence  of  any  efforts  to  work  with  vendors  to  investigate  potential  solutions.  We  would  require  substantial  further  justification,  on  a  case-  by-  case  basis,  and  in  more  focused  requests  for  relief,  in 
 order  to  consider  these  waiver  requests,  as  well  as  information  describing  efforts  to  cooperate  with  PSAPs 


 281  See  id.  at  6-  7. 
 282  See  Commnet  Amendment  at  8  (citing  Revision  of  the  Commissions  Rules  To  Ensure  Compatibility  with 
 Enhanced  911  Emergency  Calling  Systems,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  Order  on  Reconsideration,  17  FCC  Rcd  14789,  14792-  93,    8,  10  (2002)  (King  County  Order)). 


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


 284  Id.  at  25343. 
 285  See  supra    10. 
42
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 43 
 requesting  Phase  II  service.  Accordingly,  we  deny  the  Commnet  Carriers  request  for  a  permanent  or  long-  term  waiver  of  the  Commissions  Phase  II  rules.  We  note  that  we  would  be  receptive  to  renewed 
 and  specific  requests  for  waiver,  provided  such  requests  meet  our  waiver  standards. 
 114.  King  County  Demarcation  Point.  We  also  deny  the  Commnet  Carriers  request  for  a  waiver  of  the  requirements  set  forth  in  the  Commissions  King  County  Order.  The  King  County  Order 


 established  the  911  selective  router  as  the  demarcation  point  for  allocating  E911  implementation  costs  between  wireless  carriers  and  PSAPs,  in  the  absence  of  an  agreement  to  the  contrary  between  the 
 parties.  286  The  Commnet  Carriers  contended  that,  given  that  their  switches  are  located  outside  of  their  service  areas,  it  would  be  prohibitively  expensive  for  them  to  establish  dedicated  facilities  between  their 
 mobile  switching  centers  and  the  911  selective  router.  287  The  Commnet  Carriers  requested  that  the  Commission  grant  them  a  waiver  of  the  King  County  Order  such  that  the  demarcation  point  is  the 
 wireless  carrier  switch,  rather  than  the  911  selective  router.  288  They  also  argued  that  although  the  King  County  Order  allows  for  alternate  cost  allocation  arrangements  between  carriers  and  PSAPs,  the  PSAPs 
 have  no  incentive  to  even  engage  in  negotiations  to  share  these  costs.  289 
 115.  In  the  King  County  Order,  the  Commission  specifically  considered  and  rejected  the  establishment  of  a  different  demarcation  point  for  small  rural  wireless  carriers.  290  The  Commission 


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


 286  See  King  County  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  14792-  93,    8,  10. 
 287  See  Commnet  Petition  at  13-  14;  Commnet  Amendment  at  9-  10. 
 288  See  Comment  Petition  at  ii.  Alternatively,  the  Commnet  Carriers  suggested  that  PSAPs  should  be  obligated  to 
 pay  one-  half  the  cost  of  separate,  dedicated  T-  1  connections  for  911  traffic.  See  Commnet  Amendment  at  6  n.  10. 


 289  See  Commnet  Amendment  at  10  n.  15. 
 290  See  King  County  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  14796    18. 
 291  See  id. 
 292  See  id. 
43
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 44 
 D.  Category  4:  Carriers  Electing  a  Handset-  Based  Solution  in  Conjunction  with  a  GSM  Upgrade 
 116.  The  three  nationwide  Tier  I  carriers  using  the  GSM  air  interface  initially  planned  to  employ  a  handset-  based  location  technology  called  Enhanced-  Observed  Time  Difference  (E-  OTD).  293 
 Challenges  arose  during  testing  and  development  of  this  technology,  however,  and  the  Tier  I  GSM  carriers  now  use  or  are  deploying  network-  based  solutions  for  Phase  II.  294  Several  Tier  II  and  Tier  III 
 carriers  also  are  employing  network-  based  solutions.  295  The  Tier  III  carriers  in  the  instant  category  which  currently  use  or  are  planning  to  use  the  GSM  air  interface,  however,  have  sought  waivers  to  permit  them 
 to  deploy  a  handset-  based  solution  for  their  GSM  networks.  These  carriers  recognize  that  location-capable  GSM  handsets  are  not  available,  but  claim  that  this  solution  is  best-  suited  to  their  rural  or  remote 
 service  areas.  The  carriers  in  this  category  generally  request  lengthy  or  indefinite  relief  until  location-capable  GSM  handsets  become  available.  As  discussed  below,  we  have  reviewed  these  carriers 
 individual  requests  and  have  afforded  relief  where  appropriate.  We  note  that  we  fully  expect,  in  cases  where  we  have  provided  carriers  relief  to  satisfy  a  revised  deployment  schedule,  that  these  carriers  will 
 comply  with  these  revised  dates  and  benchmarks.  We  further  note  that,  in  the  event  that  location-  capable  GSM  handsets  remain  unavailable,  we  would  expect  carriers  to  actively  explore  other  location 
 technologies  in  order  to  achieve  Phase  II  capability.  Carriers  should  not  assume  that  we  would  act  favorably  on  future  requests  for  relief  on  this  basis. 


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


 293  See  Revision  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Ensure  Compatibility  with  Enhanced  911  Emergency  Calling 
 Systems,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  Fourth  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  17442  (2000).  E-  OTD  is  a  positioning  method  that  generally  relies  upon  measuring  the  time  at  which  signals  from  the  Base  Transceiver 


 Station  arrive  at  two  geographically  dispersed  locations  --  the  mobile  phone/  station  and  a  fixed  measuring  point  known  as  the  Location  Measurement  Unit,  whose  location  is  known. 
 294  See,  e.  g.,  Revision  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Ensure  Compatibility  with  Enhanced  911  Emergency  Calling 
 Systems,  T-  Mobile  USA,  Inc.  Amended  Request  for  Limited  Modification  of  E911  Phase  II  Implementation  Plan,  17  FCC  Rcd  24908  (2002). 


 295  See  Amarillo  License,  L.  P.  and  High  Plains  Wireless,  L.  P  Interim  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan. 
 15,  2004,  at  2  and  Modified  Request  for  Further  Modification,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Feb.  27,  2004,  at  4;  Corr  Wireless  Communications,  LLC  Interim  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  15,  2004,  at  1-  2;  PCS 


 License  Company  L.  L.  C.  Phase  II  E911  Implementation  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  May  3,  2004,  at  3.  296 
 See  Arctic  Slope  Telephone  Association  Cooperative,  Inc.  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.18(  g)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  11,  2003,  at  2  (ASTAC  Petition). 


 297  See  id.  at  2-  3. 
 298  See  id.  at  2,  6,  9. 
44
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 45 
 location-  capable;  (3)  from  May  31,  2004  until  October  1,  2005  to  ensure  that  at  least  fifty  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable;  and  November  30,  2004  until  December  31,  2005  to  ensure  that 
 one-  hundred  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable.  299  ASTAC  reported  that  it  was  on  schedule  to  meet  the  December  31,  2005  ninety-  five  percent  handset  penetration  requirement.  300 


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


 relief  of  the  Commissions  Phase  II  implementation  requirements.  Given  its  rural  service  area,  ASTAC  has  chosen  to  pursue  a  handset-  based  solution,  and  ASTAC  has  been  making  progress  towards 
 completing  its  GSM  overlay  to  enable  such  a  solution.  Furthermore,  ASTAC  has  been  meeting  with  vendors,  coordinating  its  efforts  with  the  PSAP,  and  has  provided  a  clear  path  to  full  compliance  with 
 respect  to  its  transition  to  GSM.  ASTAC,  through  no  fault  of  its  own,  is  dependent  on  the  availability  of  location-  capable  GSM  handsets. 


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


 121.  Edge  Wireless  Licenses,  LLC  (Edge):  Edge  operates  TDMA  networks  in  Oregon,  Idaho,  Wyoming,  and  California.  Edge  provides  roaming-  only  GSM  service  in  Idaho  and  Wyoming,  and 


 299  See  id.  at  11-  12. 
 300  See  Second  Interim  Report  Regarding  E911  Phase  II  Deployment  Arctic  Slope  Telephone  Association 
 Cooperative,  Inc.,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  8,  2004,  at  2  (Second  Interim  Report).  ASTAC  also  mentioned,  however,  that  it  was  possible  that  it  may  not  meet  this  deadline.  See  id.  In  the  event  that  ASTAC 


 anticipates  that  it  cannot  comply  with  the  December  31,  2005  handset  penetration  deadline,  ASTAC  should  file  an  appropriate  and  timely  request  for  relief. 
 301  See  Supplement  to  Arctic  Slope  Telephone  Association  Cooperative,  Inc.  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section 
 20.18(  g)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Dec.  1,  2003,  at  3  (ASTAC  Dec.  2003  Supplement). 


 302  See  id. 
 303  See  id.  at  5. 
 304  See  Second  Interim  Report  at  2.  We  note  that  location-  capable  GSM  handsets  are  not  yet  available. 
45
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 46 
 both  roaming  and  home  GSM  service  in  Oregon  and  California.  305  Edge  stated  that  because  it  operates  in  a  predominantly  rural  area,  it  had  selected  a  handset-  based  location  technology  for  both  its  TDMA  and 
 GSM  network,  as  a  network-  based  solution  may  not  meet  the  Phase  II  accuracy  and  reliability  standards  for  its  rural  network.  306  Edge  sought  a  waiver  of  the  Commissions  Phase  II  requirements  with  respect  to 
 the  sale  and  activation  of  location-  capable  handsets,  based  on  the  fact  that  there  are  no  location-  capable  TDMA  or  GSM  handsets  available.  307  Edge  stated  that  there  is  no  reasonable  way  for  it  to  comply  with 
 the  September  1,  2003  deadline  to  commence  the  sale  and  activation  of  location-  capable  handsets  for  either  its  TDMA  or  GSM  network,  as  such  handsets  were  not  available.  308 


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


 Phase  II-  compatible  network  equipment  to  enable  such  a  solution.  However,  Edge  has  not  provided  sufficient  information  to  warrant  a  waiver  of  the  Commissions  rules.  Edge  has  not  provided  details  with 
 respect  to  its  efforts  to  meet  with  vendors,  and  with  PSAPs,  and  has  not  provided  specific  schedules  and  a  clear  path  to  full  compliance  with  respect  to  its  transition  to  GSM.  Furthermore,  Edge  has  not  provided 
 any  dates  for  when  it  plans  to  commence  activation  of  location-  capable  handsets. 
 124.  However,  given  that  Edge  has  been  working  with  the  PSAPs  in  its  area  regarding  the  deployment  of  Phase  II  service,  that  no  PSAPs  in  Edges  service  area  have  requested  Phase  II  service,  and 


 that  Edge  is  dependent  on  the  availability  of  location-  capable  GSM  handsets,  we  will  grant  Edge  a  limited 


 305  See  Edge  Wireless  Licenses,  LLC  E911  Interim  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  15,  2004,  at  1  (Edge 
 Interim  Report).  306 
 See  Request  for  a  Limited  Waiver  and  Extension  of  the  Commissions  Phase  II  E911  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Sept.  2,  2003,  at  2  (Edge  Waiver  Request);  Edge  Interim  Report  at  2. 


 307  See  Edge  Waiver  Request  at  3-  4;  Edge  Interim  Report  at  1.  Edge  did  not  offer  any  specific  dates  for  when  it 
 would  be  able  to  meet  the  location-  capable  handset  activation  benchmarks.  308 
 See  id.  309 
 See  Edge  Interim  Report  at  2.  310 
 See  id.  at  3.  Edge  noted  that  it  currently  provides  Phase  II  service  in  four  counties  in  Oregon  using  the  TDMA/  Airbiquity  solution.  See  id. 


 311  See  id. 
 312  See  id.  at  1. 
 313  See  id.  at  2 
46
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 47 
 extension  of  time  to  comply  with  the  Commissions  rules.  We  would  expect  that  during  this  time  Edge  would  submit  a  waiver  request  that  provides  a  clear  path  toward  full  compliance  and  evidence  of  Edge 
 working  with  vendors  and  PSAPs  toward  that  end.  Specifically,  we  grant  Edge  the  following  extensions:  (1)  from  September  1,  2003  until  July  1,  2005  to  begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets; 
 (2)  from  November  30,  2003  until  July  1,  2005  to  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable;  (3)  from  May  31,  2004  until  October  1,  2005  to  ensure  that  at  least  fifty 
 percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable;  and  November  30,  2004  until  December  31,  2005  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable.  314 


 125.  Key  Communications,  LLC  (Key)  and  Keystone  Wireless,  LLC  (Keystone):  Key  and  Keystone  operate  GSM  networks  in  West  Virginia  and  Pennsylvania,  respectively.  In  a  jointly  filed 
 petition,  the  carriers  stated  that  due  to  the  failure  of  handset  manufacturers  to  make  available  location-capable  GSM  handsets,  they  decided  to  pursue  a  hybrid  Phase  II  solution.  315  The  carriers  explained  that 
 the  installation  of  a  Nortel  solution,  based  on  Timing  Advance/  Network  Measurement  Report  (TA/  NMR)  technology,  involves  a  network-  based  component,  followed  by  deployment  of  A-  GPS  handsets.  316  They 
 noted  that  the  network  component  alone  does  not  meet  the  accuracy  requirements  contained  in  the  Commissions  rules,  but  that  it  offers  a  greater  level  of  accuracy  than  Phase  I  service.  317  The  carriers 
 stated  that  A-  GPS  handsets  are  not  likely  to  be  available  until  the  third  or  fourth  quarter  of  2005.  318  Even  once  the  handsets  are  deployed,  the  carriers  submitted  that  the  system  still  may  not  be  capable  of  meeting 
 the  accuracy  requirements  of  the  Commissions  rules.  319 
 126.  Key  reported  that  it  has  informed  requesting  PSAPs  of  its  plan  to  implement  a  hybrid  Phase  II  solution  and  that  the  involved  PSAPs  are  satisfied  with  the  proposed  implementation  schedule.  320 


 Keystone  also  reported  that  it  has  informed  the  requesting  PSAPs  of  its  plan  to  implement  a  hybrid  solution,  but  that  the  involved  PSAPs  have  expressed  some  concern  about  Keystones  implementation 


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


 315  See  Supplement  to  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Deadlines  for  Implementation  of  Phase  II  E911,  CC  Docket  No.  94- 
 102,  filed  Dec.  10,  2003,  at  2-  3  (Key  and  Keystone  Supplement).  In  an  earlier  petition,  the  carriers  explained  that  they  were  considering  a  handset-  based  Phase  II  solution,  because  the  terrain  in  their  coverage  areas  precludes 


 network-  based  triangulation.  See  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Deadlines  for  Implementation  of  Phase  II  E911,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  21,  2003,  at  1,  3-  4  (Key  and  Keystone  Aug.  2003  Petition).  See  also  Key 
 Communications,  LLC  Tier  III  Carrier  Interim  Report  Fourth  Quarter  2004,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  3,  2005,  at  2  (Key  Interim  Report)  and  Keystone  Wireless,  LLC  Tier  III  Carrier  Interim  Report  Fourth  Quarter 
 2004,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  3,  2005,  at  2  (Keystone  Interim  Report)  (each  stating  that  only  a  minor  portion  of  its  service  area  is  potentially  susceptible  to  triangulation  techniques). 
 316  See  Second  Supplement  to  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Deadlines  for  Implementation  of  Phase  II  E911,  CC  Docket 
 No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  3,  2005,  at  1-  2  (Key  and  Keystone  Second  Supplement).  317 
 See  Key  and  Keystone  Supplement  at  3-  4.  318 
 See  Key  and  Keystone  Second  Supplement  at  2.  319 
 See  id.  at  3-  4  (submitting  that  Nortel  cannot  guarantee  that  even  with  full  implementation  of  the  TA/  NMR  technology,  the  Phase  II  accuracy  requirements  will  be  met). 


 320  See  Key  Interim  Report  at  3. 
47
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 48 
 schedule.  321  The  carriers  requested  extensions  from  September  1,  2003  until  October  1,  2006  to  commence  the  sale  and  activation  of  location-  capable  handsets,  from  November  30,  2003  until  December 
 31,  2006  to  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable,  from  May  31,  2004  to  June  30,  2007  to  ensure  that  at  least  fifty  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable, 
 and  from  November  30,  2004  to  December  31,  2007  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable.  322  Furthermore,  Key  and  Keystone  requested  a  stay  of  the  Section 
 20.18(  h)  accuracy  requirements  until  December  31,  2011,  or  twelve  months  from  receipt  of  a  valid  E911  Phase  II  request,  whichever  is  later.  323 


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


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


 321  See  Keystone  Interim  Report  at  3.  Keystone  added  that  it  has  retained  Intrado  to  assist  it  in  working  with  the 
 PSAPs  to  resolve  their  concerns.  See  id.  322 
 See  Key  and  Keystone  Second  Supplement  at  4.  323 
 See  id.  324 
 Pursuant  to  the  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order,  Tier  III  carriers  are  required  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable  by  November  30,  2004,  and  that  they  achieve  ninety-  five 


 percent  penetration  of  location-  capable  handsets  among  their  subscribers  by  December  31,  2005.  See  Non-Nationwide  Carriers  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  14852-  53    33. 
 325  Because  we  relied  on  our  established  rules  and  precedent  in  granting  the  relief  of  the  handset  penetration 
 deadline  to  Key  and  Keystone,  we  find  it  unnecessary  to  address  the  standard  articulated  in  the  ENHANCE  911  Act.  Our  decision,  however,  does  not  preclude  Key  and  Keystone  from  seeking  additional  relief  of  the  handset 


 penetration  deadline  under  the  standard  articulated  in  the  ENHANCE  911  Act.  See  supra    11. 
48
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 49 
 129.  Accuracy  requirements.  We  deny  Keys  and  Keystones  requests  for  relief  from  the  accuracy  requirements  as  premature.  As  the  carriers  indicate,  the  accuracy  of  their  planned  systems 
 cannot  be  known  until  they  are  installed  and  activated.  326  Accordingly,  the  carriers  may  submit  a  more  specific  request  for  relief  in  the  future  should  they  determine,  after  installation,  that  such  a  waiver  is 
 needed.  327 
 130.  Enterprise  Wireless  PCS,  L.  L.  C.  (Enterprise):  328  Enterprise  operates  analog  and  TDMA  networks  in  Georgia,  Alabama,  and  South  Carolina,  and  is  migrating  these  networks  to  GSM. 


 Enterprise  sought  waivers  of  the  September  1,  2003  deadline  to  commence  sale  and  activation  of  location-capable  handsets,  the  November  30,  2003  deadline  to  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  handsets 
 activated  are  location-  capable,  and  the  May  31,  2004  deadline  to  ensure  that  at  least  fifty  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable.  329  The  carrier  planned  to  meet  the  November  30,  2004  deadline 
 to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable. 
 131.  Enterprise  stated  that  network-  based  solutions  are  incapable  of  performing  triangulation  from  isolated  rural  sites,  and  that  location-  capable  GSM  handsets  do  not  exist.  330  Enterprise  intended  to 


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


 132.  Benchmark  Relief.  We  find  that  Enterprise  has  been  diligent  in  pursuing  a  location  solution  for  its  network.  Further,  we  believe  that  Enterprise  has  satisfied  the  Commissions  standards  for 
 326  See  Key  and  Keystone  Second  Supplement  at  3-  4. 
 327  See  supra    10,  105. 
 328  Enterprise  originally  filed  its  request  for  relief  as  a  joint  filing  with  Public  Service  Cellular,  Inc.  (PSC).  See 
 Petition  of  Public  Service  Cellular,  Inc.  and  Enterprise  Wireless  PCS,  L.  L.  C.  for  Limited  Waiver  of  Section  20.18(  g)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  25,  2003  (PSC  and  Enterprise  Petition). 


 FCC  licenses  held  by  PSC  recently  were  acquired  by  ALLTEL  Communications,  Inc.  See  FCC  File  No.  0001993328.  Counsel  for  PSC  subsequently  filed  a  letter  to  amend  the  joint  filing  to  withdraw  the  portion 
 pertaining  to  PSC.  See  Letter  from  Carl  W.  Northrop  and  W.  Ray  Rutngamlug,  Paul,  Hastings,  Janofsky  &  Walker  LLP,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  FCC,  dated  Mar.  7,  2005.  Accordingly,  we  will  address  only  those 
 portions  of  the  petitions  filed  jointly  by  PSC  and  Enterprise  that  are  applicable  to  Enterprise.  329 
 See  PSC  and  Enterprise  Petition  at  1.  330 
 See  id.  at  2,  4.  331 
 See  id.  at  5.  332 
 See  id.  333 
 See  Supplement  to  Petition  of  Public  Service  Cellular,  Inc.  and  Enterprise  Wireless  PCS,  L.  L.  C.  for  Limited  Waiver  of  Section  20.18(  g)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Nov.  10,  2003,  at  2. 


 334  See  id.  at  2-  3. 
49
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 50 
 seeking  relief  of  the  Commissions  Phase  II  implementation  requirements.  Given  its  rural  service  area,  Enterprise  has  chosen  to  pursue  a  handset-  based  solution,  and  it  has  been  making  progress  towards 
 completing  its  GSM  overlay  to  enable  such  a  solution.  Furthermore,  Enterprise  has  provided  a  clear  path  to  full  compliance  with  respect  to  its  transition  to  GSM.  Enterprise,  through  no  fault  of  its  own,  is 
 dependent  on  the  availability  of  location-  capable  GSM  handsets.  Accordingly,  we  grant  the  following  extensions,  as  requested:  (1)  from  September  1,  2003  until  November  30,  2004  to  begin  selling  and 
 activating  location-  capable  handsets;  (2)  from  November  30,  2003  until  November  30,  2004  to  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable;  and  (3)  from  May  31,  2004 
 until  November  30,  2004  to  ensure  that  at  least  fifty  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable. 
 133.  Finally,  we  note  that  we  are  perplexed  by  Enterprises  request  for  relief,  including  its  statement  that  it  expected  to  meet  the  November  30,  2004  deadline  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of 


 handsets  activated  are  location-  capable,  given  the  fact  that  GSM  location-  capable  handsets  are  not  yet  available.  We  would  have  expected  Enterprise  to  have  further  supplemented  its  request  for  relief  in  light 
 of  the  fact  that  GSM  location-  capable  handsets  are  not  yet  available.  If  changed  circumstances  have  affected  Enterprises  need  for  relief  of  the  Commissions  sale  and  activation  benchmarks,  we  would 
 expect  Enterprise  to  submit  further  requests  for  waiver  relief.  Further,  in  the  event  that  Enterprise  anticipates  that  it  cannot  comply  with  the  December  31,  2005  ninety-  five  percent  handset  penetration 
 deadline,  Enterprise  should  file  an  appropriate  and  timely  request  for  relief,  including  under  the  standard  articulated  in  the  ENHANCE  911  Act.  335 


 E.  Category  5:  TDMA/  AMPS  Carriers  Electing  a  Handset-  Based  Solution 
 134.  The  carriers  in  this  section  request  extended  relief  from  application  of  the  Commissions  E911  rules,  including  extension  of  the  initial  and  interim  benchmarks  for  selling  and  activating  location-capable 


 handsets.  They  note,  for  example,  that  location-  capable  handsets  are  not  available  for  TDMA  or  AMPS  and  that  their  customers  will  be  reluctant  to  purchase  location-  capable  handsets  for  other  air 
 interfaces  until  such  service  actually  is  available.  The  carriers  also  assert  that  their  local  PSAPs  have  not  requested  Phase  II  service  and  are  not  likely  to  do  so  in  the  near  future. 


 135.  Copper  Valley  Wireless,  Inc.  (CVW):  CVW  operates  in  a  sparsely  populated  area  of  Alaska,  serving  1162  subscribers  as  of  April  2004.  336  CVW  stated  that  it  uses  Plexsys  analog  equipment 
 which  has  been  discontinued  and  no  longer  is  supported.  337  Accordingly,  there  are  no  network  equipment  and  software  upgrades  available  to  enable  processing  or  transmitting  of  ALI  data  using  its  analog 
 network.  338  CVW  explained  that  it  had  no  other  choice  but  to  modernize  its  network  to  either  CDMA  or  GSM,  which  it  anticipated  would  be  complete  by  December  31,  2005.  339  CVW  requested  that  the 


 335  See  supra    11. 
 336  See  Copper  Valley  Wireless,  Inc.  Request  for  Waiver  or  Temporary  Stay,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  June  3, 
 2004,  at  4  (CVW  Waiver  Request).  337 
 See  id.  at  2.  338 
 See  id.  at  5.  339 
 See  id.  at  5.  We  note  that  in  a  subsequent  filing  in  the  local  number  portability  proceeding,  CVW  stated  that  it  elected  to  upgrade  its  network  with  the  CDMA  air  interface,  and  that  the  new  equipment  would  be  installed  and 


 operational  by  February  25,  2006.  See  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Extension  of  Time,  CC  Docket  No.  95-  116,  filed  Dec.  23,  2004,  at  11.  However,  CVW  has  not  subsequently  amended  its  E911-  related  waiver  request  to  reflect 
 (continued.) 
50
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 51 
 Commission  waive  all  interim  benchmarks  for  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets,  and  instead  allow  CVW  until  December  31,  2005  to  not  only  begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable 
 handsets,  but  to  begin  selling  and  activating  only  location-  capable  handsets.  340  CVW  did  not  request  a  waiver  of  the  December  31,  2005  ninety-  five  percent  penetration  requirement.  Further,  CVW  has  not 
 received  any  Phase  I  or  II  requests.  341 
 136.  Benchmark  relief.  We  find  that  good  cause  exists  to  grant  CVW  a  waiver  of  the  interim  benchmark  requirements.  Since  its  analog  network  no  longer  was  being  supported,  it  had  no  options  for 


 implementing  Phase  II  capability  absent  a  digital  upgrade.  We  are  thus  encouraged  by  CVWs  efforts  at  choosing  a  technology  that  will  allow  it  to  come  into  compliance,  including  specifying  a  timeframe  for 
 completing  its  upgrade.  Completion  of  its  digital  upgrade  will  afford  CVW  more  options  to  achieve  Phase  II  capability.  Under  these  circumstances,  the  steps  CVW  has  taken  towards  achieving  compliance 
 demonstrate  a  commitment  to  satisfying  our  requirements  and  warrant  an  extension.  We  also  find  it  significant  to  our  decision  to  grant  CVW  relief  that  its  local  PSAPs  have  not  made  any  requests  for 
 receiving  Phase  I  or  Phase  II  service.  We  encourage  CVW  to  coordinate  its  efforts  in  connection  with  its  upgrade  with  the  PSAPs  in  its  service  area.  In  this  way,  CVW  can  ensure  that  community  expectations 
 are  consistent  with  its  projected  plans  for  achieving  compliance. 
 137.  For  the  foregoing  reasons,  we  grant  CVWs  request  to  extend  from  September  1,  2003  until  December  31,  2005  the  deadline  to  begin  the  sale  and  activation  of  location-  capable  handsets.  We 


 waive  the  interim  benchmark  dates  for  CVW  to  ensure  that  twenty-  five  and  fifty  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-  capable.  Finally,  we  grant  an  extension  from  November  30,  2004  until 
 December  31,  2005  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  all  new  handset  activations  are  location-capable.  342 


 138.  Cordova  Wireless  Communications,  Inc.  (Cordova):  Cordova  operates  an  analog  network  between  the  Chugach  and  Wrangell  mountain  ranges  and  the  Gulf  of  Alaska,  encompassing  five 
 square  miles  of  land  and  two  square  miles  of  water.  343  Cordova  serves  300  customers  with  two  cell  towers  that  are  mainly  directed  out  to  sea  to  accommodate  a  commercial  fishing-  oriented  customer 
 base.  344  Cordova  elected  a  handset-  based  location  solution,  as  it  would  be  impossible  to  triangulate  using  only  its  two  towers.  345  Approximately  seventy  percent  of  Cordovas  customers  are  commercial 
 fisherman,  and  thus  Cordova  argued  that  these  customers  have  an  alternative  means  of  contacting 


 (Continued  from  previous  page)  any  changes  to  either  its  selection  of  a  new  digital  air  interface  or  its  schedule  for  implementing  a  new  air 
 interface.  340 
 See  CVW  Waiver  Request  at  1,  6.  341 
 See  id.  at  3.  342 
 We  advise  CVW  that  if  it  anticipates  that  it  cannot  comply  with  the  December  31,  2005  handset  penetration  deadline,  CVW  should  file  an  appropriate  and  timely  request  for  relief,  including  under  the  standard  articulated  in 


 the  ENHANCE  911  Act.  See  supra    11.  343 
 See  Cordova  Wireless  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.18(  g)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  7,  2003,  at  2  (Cordova  Petition). 


 344  See  id.  at  2. 
 345  See  id.  at  5  n.  11. 
51
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 52 
 emergency  services  that  may  provide  location  information.  346  Cordova  stated  that  it  was  committed  to  eventually  replacing  its  switch  with  a  digital  upgrade,  but  claimed  that  emergency  location  systems  would 
 be  redundant  for  the  fishing  vessels  used  by  its  most  of  its  customers,  and  that  the  $1  million  expense  of  a  replacement  switch  and  network  upgrade  would  lead  to  bankruptcy.  347  Cordova  reported  that  it  has  not 
 received  any  Phase  I  or  Phase  II  PSAP  requests,  and  that  there  is  no  public  safety  entity  capable  of  utilizing  Phase  II  data  in  its  service  area.  348  Cordova  stated  that  it  may  be  in  a  position  to  implement 
 Phase  II  as  early  as  September  30,  2006.  349  Cordova  also  indicated  that  it  does  not  expect  to  meet  the  December  31,  2005  for  achieving  a  ninety-  five  penetration  rate  for  location-  capable  handsets.  350 


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


 grant  Cordova  a  limited  extension  of  time  to  comply  with  the  Commissions  rules  until  such  time  it  can  file  a  request  for  waiver  that  meets  our  waiver  standards.  Specifically,  we  grant  Cordova  the  following 
 extensions  from  the  Commissions  interim  benchmarks:  (1)  from  September  1,  2003  until  September  1,  2005  to  begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handset;  (2)  from  November  30,  2003  until 
 September  1,  2005  to  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable;  (3)  from  May  31,  2004  until  December  1,  2005  to  ensure  that  at  least  fifty  percent  of  handsets  activated 
 are  location-  capable;  and  (4)  from  November  30,  2004  until  December  31,  2005  to  ensure  that  one-hundred  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable. 


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


 347  See  id.  at  5-  7. 
 348  See  Second  Interim  Report  Regarding  E911  Phase  II  Deployment,  Cordova  Wireless  Communications,  Inc., 
 CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  14,  2004,  at  1  (Cordova  Second  Interim  Report).  349 
 See  id.  at  3.  350 
 See  id.  351 
 See  id.  at  2. 
52
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 53 
 141.  Finally,  we  note  that  while  we  are  sympathetic  to  Cordovas  circumstances,  we  cannot  afford  Cordova  the  relief  that  it  seeks  without  the  submission  of  a  waiver  request  that  complies  with  our 
 requirements.  We  therefore  encourage  Cordova,  given  the  unique  challenges  it  faces,  to  file  a  renewed  request  for  waiver  of  our  rules  in  accordance  with  the  guidance  we  provide  above  for  meeting  our  waiver 
 standard.  352 
 142.  OTZ  Telecommunications,  Inc.  (OTZ):  OTZ  operates  a  single-  cell  TDMA  system  serving  175  customers  in  a  small  Eskimo  community  above  the  Arctic  Circle  supplied  mainly  by  cargo 


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


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


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


 353  See  OTZ  Telecommunications,  Inc.  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.  18(  g)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC 
 Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  25,  2003,  at  2  (OTZ  Petition);  Second  Interim  Report  Regarding  E911  Phase  II  Deployment  OTZ  Telecommunications,  Inc.,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  8,  2004,  at  1-  2  (OTZ  Second 


 Interim  Report).  Given  that  OTZs  network  consists  of  a  single  cell  site,  it  is  not  possible  to  accomplish  triangulation  using  a  network-  based  location  solution.  See  OTZ  Petition  at  2. 
 354  See  OTZ  Petition  at  3-  5;  OTZ  Second  Interim  Report  at  1-  2. 
 355  See  OTZ  Petition  at  4. 
 356  See  id.  OTZ  has  provided  the  Commission  with  specific  financial  information  to  establish  these  estimates. 
 357  See  id.  at  7. 
 358  See  id.  at  10. 
53
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 54 
 location-  capable  handsets.  Due  to  the  shortcomings  in  OTZs  request,  we  are  unable  to  grant  OTZ  the  full  relief  that  may  be  warranted. 
 144.  Given  that  the  PSAP  in  OTZs  service  area  has  not  requested  E911  service,  however,  and  the  particular  factual,  technical,  and  economic  circumstances  concerning  OTZs  network,  we  will  grant 
 OTZ  a  limited  extension  of  time  to  comply  with  the  Commissions  rules  until  such  time  it  can  file  a  request  for  waiver  that  meets  our  waiver  standards.  Specifically,  we  grant  OTZ  the  following  extensions: 
 (1)  from  September  1,  2003  until  September  1,  2005  to  begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handset;  (2)  from  November  30,  2003  until  September  1,  2005  to  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent 
 of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable;  (3)  from  May  31,  2004  until  December  1,  2005  to  ensure  that  at  least  fifty  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable;  and  (4)  from  November  30,  2004  until 
 December  31,  2005  to  ensure  that  one-  hundred  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable. 
 145.  Finally,  we  note  that  while  we  are  sympathetic  to  OTZs  circumstances,  we  cannot  afford  OTZ  the  relief  that  it  seeks  without  the  submission  of  a  waiver  request  that  complies  with  our 


 requirements.  We  therefore  encourage  OTZ,  given  the  unique  challenges  it  faces,  to  file  a  renewed  request  for  waiver  of  our  rules  in  accordance  with  the  guidance  we  provide  above  for  meeting  our  waiver 
 standard.  359 
 F.  Category  6:  Other  Requests 
 146.  In  this  category,  we  address  petitions  filed  by  both  network-  based  and  handset-  based  carriers.  The  petitions  present  a  range  of  relatively  minor  issues,  including  license  transfers  or  other 


 changed  circumstances  that  make  certain  of  these  petitions  moot,  as  well  as  requests  for  nominal  benchmark  relief. 


 147.  Alabama  Wireless,  Inc.:  On  August  24,  2001,  Alabama  Wireless  requested  a  waiver  seeking  additional  time  to  deploy  a  handset-  based  Phase  II  solution.  360  Subsequently,  in  an  August  29, 
 2003  letter,  Alabama  Wireless  indicated  that  it  sold  its  license  to  Verizon  on  January  19,  2002  and  that  its  E911  request  may  thus  be  dismissed  as  moot.  361  In  this  regard,  Alabama  Wireless  filed  a  request  to 
 withdraw  its  petition.  362  Accordingly,  we  dismiss  Alabama  Wireless  request  for  waiver  as  moot. 
 148.  Amarillo  License,  L.  P.  and  High  Plains  Wireless,  L.  P.  (Amarillo  and  High  Plains):  Amarillo  and  High  Plains  provide  Phase  II  service  through  a  network-  based  solution.  363  In  January  2005, 


 Amarillo  and  High  Plains  submitted  a  supplement  to  their  earlier  requests  for  an  extension  of  time  until 


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


 360  See  Request  for  Limited  Phase  II  E911  Waiver,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  24,  2001,  at  2. 
 361  See  E911  Extension  Request,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Feb.  22,  2005,  at  1. 
 362  See  Letter  from  David  J.  Kaufman  to  Joel  Taubenblatt,  Acting  Chief,  Policy  Division  (Feb.  23,  2005). 
 363  See  Seventh  Further  Modified  Request  for  Further  Modification  of  Deadlines  of  Amarillo  License,  L.  P.  for 
 Station  KNKA574  and  High  Plains  Wireless,  L.  P.  for  Station  KNLF919  on  Implementation  of  Wireless  Enhanced  911  Phase  II  Automatic  Location  Identification  (ALI)  System,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Dec.  23,  2004,  at  2. 
54
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 55 
 June  30,  2005  to  provide  Phase  II  E911  service  to  the  entire  PSAP  area  within  their  service  territories.  364  Specifically,  the  supplement  included  a  copy  of  an  electronic  mail  message  from  the  PSAP  indicating  its 
 consent  to  the  revised  implementation  schedule  proposed  by  Amarillo  and  High  Plains.  365 
 149.  We  find  Amarillo  and  High  Plains  extension  request  unnecessary.  A  carrier  and  a  PSAP  may  establish  deadlines  different  than  those  required  under  the  Commissions  rules.  366  When  a  carrier 


 and  a  PSAP  reach  such  an  agreement,  a  waiver  of  the  Commissions  rules  is  unnecessary.  As  the  carriers  and  the  PSAP  have  reached  agreement  on  a  revised  implementation  schedule,  we  dismiss  as  moot 
 Amarillos  and  High  Plains  petition  for  waiver. 
 150.  Blanca  Telephone  Company  (Blanca):  Blanca  originally  requested  extension  of  the  twenty-  five  percent  benchmark  from  November  30,  2003  to  May  30,  2004,  the  fifty  percent  benchmark 


 from  May  31,  2004  to  November  30,  2004,  the  one-  hundred  percent  benchmark  from  November  30,  2004  to  May  30,  2005,  and  the  ninety-  five  percent  location-  capable  handset  penetration  benchmark  from 
 December  31,  2005  until  June  30,  2006.  367  Blanca  requested  this  relief  because  it  had  been  told  by  its  vendors  that  they  would  be  unable  to  provide  location-  capable  handsets  in  sufficient  quantities  to  enable 
 Blanca  to  meet  the  benchmark  requirements.  368  However,  Blanca  subsequently  reported  that  it  would  in  fact  be  able  to  order  location-  capable  handsets  in  sufficient  quantities  by  the  end  of  November  2003.  369  It 
 thus  modified  its  waiver  request  to  seek  an  extension  only  of  the  November  30,  2003  deadline,  until  May  30,  2004,  to  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable.  370 
 Otherwise,  Blanca  expected  to  timely  reach  the  fifty  percent  and  one-  hundred  percent  benchmarks.  371 
 151.  It  appears  that  Blanca  has  significantly  accelerated  its  deployment  of  location-  capable  handsets  beyond  that  required  by  the  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order  and  has  taken  substantial,  effective 


 steps  to  comply  with  the  Phase  II  rules.  Accordingly,  we  find  good  cause  to  grant  Blancas  request  for  a  limited  waiver  of  the  November  30,  2003  deadline  for  ensuring  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of 
 handsets  activated  are  location-  capable  until  May  30,  2004  benchmark.  We  dismiss  as  moot  Blancas  August  1,  2003  request  for  waiver  of  additional  relief  to  extend  the  deadline  for  the  fifty  percent 
 benchmark  from  May  31,  2004  to  November  30,  2004,  the  one-  hundred  percent  benchmark  from 


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


 Jan.  31,  2005.  365 
 See  id.  366 
 See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.18(  j)(  5)  (  Nothing  in  this  section  shall  prevent  Public  Safety  Answering  Points  and  carriers  from  establishing,  by  mutual  consent,  deadlines  different  from  those  imposed  for  carrier  and  PSAP  compliance  in 


 paragraphs  (d),  (f),  and  (g)(  2)  of  this  section.).  367 
 See  Blanca  Telephone  Company  E911  Phase  II  Interim  Report  and  Request  for  Waiver  of  the  Compliance  Deadlines,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  1,  2003. 


 368  See  id.  at  1-  2. 
 369  See  Blanca  Telephone  Company  Supplement  to  E911  Phase  II  Interim  Report  and  Request  for  Waiver  of  the 
 Compliance  Deadlines,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Nov.  7,  2003,  at  1.  370 
 See  id.  at  1-  2.  371 
 See  id.  at  2. 
55
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 56 
 November  30,  2004  to  May  30,  2005,  and  the  ninety-  five  percent  location-  capable  handset  penetration  benchmark  from  December  31,  2005  until  June  30,  2006. 
 152.  ComScape  Telecommunications  of  Raleigh-  Durham  License,  Inc.  (ComScape):  ComScape  provides  CDMA-  based  service  in  two  regions  in  North  Carolina.  ComScape  earlier  had 
 requested  for  its  Wilmington  License  affiliate  the  same  relief  afforded  other  Tier  III  carriers  under  the  Commissions  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order.  372  The  Order  to  Stay  granted  this  request,  thus  allowing 
 additional  time  for  its  Wilmington  License  affiliate  to  comply  with  the  E911  interim  benchmarks.  373  In  its  request  being  addressed  herein,  ComScape  sought  the  same  relief  granted  in  the  Order  to  Stay  to  its 
 Wilmington  License  affiliate  for  its  Raleigh-  Durham  affiliate.  374  In  a  joint  January  2004  Interim  Report,  ComScape  stated  that  it  had  not  received  any  PSAP  requests  but  intended  to  meet  any  valid  Phase  II 
 requests  within  six  months  of  receipt.  375  It  also  stated  that  location-  capable  handsets  are  available,  that  it  would  continue  to  obtain  them,  and  that  it  anticipated  that  it  will  be  able  to  comply  with  the  Tier  III 
 deployment  schedule,  including  the  December  31,  2005  ninety-  five  percent  handset  penetration  deadline.  376  We  grant  ComScapes  request  to  extend  the  relief  granted  in  the  Order  to  Stay  to  its  Raleigh-Durham 
 affiliate. 
 153.  Corr  Wireless  Communications,  LLC  (Corr):  Corr  provides  GSM  and  TDMA  service  in  Alabama.  377  It  provides  Phase  II  service  through  a  network-  based  solution.  378  Corr  sought  relief  from 


 the  September  1,  2003  deadline  to  begin  providing  Phase  II  service  to  at  least  fifty  percent  of  the  PSAPs  coverage  area  or  population,  as  established  by  the  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order,  to  January  15,  2004, 
 in  order  to  complete  its  initial  deployment  of  network-  based  Phase  II  location  solutions  in  response  to  PSAP  requests.  379  In  its  January  2004  Interim  Report,  Corr  stated  that  it  completed  installation  of  the 
 Phase  II  network-  based  system  throughout  its  TDMA  network  in  mid-  December  2003,  and  that  the  system  is  fully  operational.  380  Corr  also  reported  that  installation  and  integration  of  the  Phase  II  solution 


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


 373  See  Order  to  Stay,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  20999    33. 
 374  See  Report  and  Request  for  Modification  of  Deadlines  of  ComScape  Telecommunications  of  Raleigh  Durham 
 License,  Inc.  on  Plan  for  Implementation  of  Wireless  Enhanced  911  Phase  II  Automatic  Location  Identification  (ALI)  System  for  Station  KNLG699,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Oct.  23,  2003. 


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


 2004,  at  2-  3.  376 
 See  id.  at  3.  377 
 See  Interim  Report  for  Tier  III  Carriers;  Corr  Wireless  Communications,  LLC,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  15,  2004,  at  2  (Corr  Jan.  2004  Interim  Report). 


 378  See  id.  at  1. 
 379  See  Further  Supplement  to  Corr  Wireless  Communications,  LLCs  Emergency  Petition  for  Short-  Term  Waiver, 
 CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Dec.  16,  2003,  at  1.  380 
 See  Corr  Jan.  2004  Interim  Report  at  2. 
56
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 57 
 into  Corrs  GSM  overlay  network  was  expected  shortly  and  that,  as  of  January  14,  2004,  its  vendor  had  declared  the  system  ready  for  commercial  application. 
 154.  We  find  that  relief  is  warranted  in  this  case.  Corr  was  granted  an  extension  under  the  Non-  Nationwide  Carriers  Order,  as  well  as  a  stay  under  the  Order  to  Stay.  While  the  stay  was  in  place, 
 Corr  completed  its  network  upgrade  so  that  its  system  was  fully  operational.  Based  on  the  foregoing  reasons,  we  grant  Corr  an  extension  from  September  1,  2003  to  January  15,  2004  to  begin  providing 
 Phase  II  service  to  at  least  fifty  percent  of  either  the  PSAPs  coverage  area  or  its  population. 
 155.  Great  Western  Cellular  Holdings,  L.  L.  C.  (GWCH):  GWCH  filed  a  petition  for  waiver  on  November  6,  2002  seeking  modification  of  the  implementation  deadlines.  381  At  that  time, 


 GWCH  was  in  the  process  of  building  out  its  network  and  had  only  recently  initiated  service.  382  In  an  August  1,  2003  report,  GWCH  stated  that  it  had  moved  to  a  carriers  carrier  business  model,  under 
 which  it  would  provide  roaming  services  to  other  carriers  subscribers  but  would  not  have  any  subscribers  of  its  own.  383  GWCH  requested  an  interim  waiver  of  the  Phase  II  rules  while  it  completed  its  network 
 build-  out.  384 
 156.  On  March  19,  2004,  however,  GWCH  filed  a  petition  to  withdraw  its  request  without  prejudice,  citing  recent  favorable  developments  in  its  E911  compliance  capabilities  and  efforts, 


 particularly  in  the  expected  performance  of  a  network-  based  solution.  385  GWCH  stated  that  it  had  selected  a  network-  based  solution  vendor,  was  working  with  the  Minnesota  State  911  Project  Manager  to 
 provide  a  plan  to  meet  Phase  II  compliance  by  December  31,  2005,  386  and  had  arranged  an  alternative  deployment  date  in  accordance  with  the  Phase  II  rules.  387  It  therefore  requested  to  withdraw  its  petition 
 on  the  grounds  that  its  request  for  relief  was  premature.  388  We  grant  GWCHs  petition  to  withdraw  its  petition  for  waiver. 


 157.  Minnesota  Southern  Cellular  Telephone  Company  dba  HickoryTech  Wireless  (Hickory  Tech):  Hickory  Tech  operated  a  TDMA  network  in  Minnesota.  In  an  August  25,  2003 
 Petition,  Hickory  Tech  stated  that  it  would  deploy  a  network-  based  solution  and  sought  a  waiver  seeking  additional  time  to  complete  deployment  and  testing  and  a  waiver  of  the  accuracy  requirements  until 
 December  31,  2005.  389  Hickory  Tech  also  requested  a  waiver  of  the  handset  deployment  requirements,  in 
 381  Great  Western  Cellular  Holdings,  L.  L.  C.  Petition  for  Waiver  of  the  Commissions  E911  Implementation 
 Deadlines,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Nov.  6,  2002.  382 
 See  id.  at  2.  383 
 See  Great  Western  Cellular  Holdings,  L.  L.  C.  Tier  III  Carrier  Interim  Report,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  1,  2003  at  1. 


 384  See  id.  at  2. 
 385  See  Great  Western  Cellular  Holdings,  L.  L.  C.  Petition  to  Withdraw  Petition  for  Waiver  Without  Prejudice,  CC 
 Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Mar.  19,  2004  at  1  (GWCH  Petition  to  Withdraw).  386 
 See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.18(  j)(  5).  387 
 See  GWCH  Petition  to  Withdraw  at  3-  4.  388 
 See  id.  389 
 See  Petition  of  Minnesota  Southern  Wireless  Company  dba  Hickory  Tech  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.  18  of  the  Commission's  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  25,  2003,  at  ii-  iii. 
57
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 58 
 recognition  of  the  possibility  that  it  would  implement  a  handset-  based  solution  in  some  of  its  licensed  areas  in  the  future.  390 
 158.  Subsequently,  Hickory  Tech  was  acquired  by  Western  Wireless  Corporation,  a  Tier  II  carrier  employing  a  handset-  based  solution.  391  According  to  Western  Wireless,  it  had  received  approval 
 of  its  E911  migration  plan  for  Hickory  Techs  service  area  from  the  Minnesota  Statewide  9-  1-  1  Program  Manager,  and  under  this  plan  expected  to  complete  Hickory  Techs  migration  and  on-  going  E911 
 deployments  by  the  end  of  June  2004.  392  In  subsequent  reports,  Western  Wireless  indicated  that  it  has  completed  Phase  II  deployments  covering  nearly  its  entire  network  in  Minnesota  and  had  met  all  pending 
 Phase  II  requests.  393  In  view  of  these  changed  circumstances,  including  the  acquisition  of  Hickory  Tech  by  Western  Wireless,  the  change  implemented  by  Western  Wireless  to  a  location-  based  technology, 
 Western  Wireless  agreement  with  the  State  of  Minnesota  on  its  deployment  plan,  and  the  reported  successful  Phase  II  deployment  by  Western  Wireless,  we  dismiss  the  Hickory  Tech  petition  as  moot. 


 159.  Missouri  RSA  #  5  Partnership  dba  Chariton  Valley  Wireless  Services  (Chariton  Valley):  Chariton  Valley  operates  a  TDMA  network  in  Missouri,  recently  completed  a  GSM  overlay, 
 and  plans  to  employ  a  network-  based  location  solution.  394  Chariton  Valley  was  granted  relief  in  the  Non-Nationwide  Carriers  Order.  In  August  2003,  Chariton  Valley  stated  that  on  January  24,  2003  it  had 
 received  one  Phase  II  request  in  Macon  County,  Missouri  but  that  an  upgrade  to  its  switch,  originally  scheduled  for  September  12,  2003,  was  delayed  by  its  switch  vendor  until  October  17,  2003.  395  Chariton 
 Valley  requested  a  temporary  Phase  II  waiver  under  which  it  would  begin  providing  enhanced  Phase  II  911  services  to  at  least  fifty  percent  of  the  Macon  County  PSAPs  coverage  area  or  population  on 
 September  1,  2004,  instead  of  by  July  24,  2004  (six  months  following  the  PSAPs  request)  and  to  one-hundred  percent  of  the  Macon  County  PSAPs  coverage  area  or  population  by  September  1,  2005,  instead 
 of  by  July  24,  2005  (eighteen  months  following  the  PSAPs  request).  396  For  any  new  PSAP  requests,  Chariton  Valley  requested  that  its  deadline  for  providing  enhanced  Phase  II  911  services  to  at  least  fifty 
 percent  of  a  PSAPs  coverage  area  or  population  begin  on  September  1,  2004  or  within  six  months  of  a  PSAP  request,  whichever  is  later,  and  to  one-  hundred  percent  of  the  PSAPs  coverage  area  or  population 
 by  September  1,  2005  or  within  eighteen  months  of  a  PSAP  request,  whichever  is  later.  397  In  a  January  2004  Interim  Report,  Chariton  Valley  stated  that  it  would  provide  Phase  II  service  to  one-  hundred  percent 


 390  See  id.  at  iii. 
 391  See  Quarterly  Report  of  Western  Wireless  Corporation  on  its  Enhanced  911  Phase  II  Deployment,  CC  Docket 
 No.  94-  102,  filed  Feb.  2,  2004,  at  10.  392 
 See  id.  393 
 See  Quarterly  Report  of  Western  Wireless  Corporation  on  its  Enhanced  911  Phase  II  Deployment,  CC  Docket  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  2,  2004  at  9;  Quarterly  Report  of  Western  Wireless  Corporation  on  its  Enhanced  911  Phase  II 


 Deployment,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Nov.  1,  2004,  Appendix  A  at  1-  4.  394 
 See  Missouri  RSA  #  5  Partnership  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.18(  f)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  August  27,  2003,  at  1-  2  (Chariton  Valley  Petition);  Second  Supplement  and  Amendment 


 to  Missouri  RSA  #  5  Partnership  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.18(  f)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Mar.  10,  2005,  at  2  (Chariton  Valley  Supplement). 
 395  See  Chariton  Valley  Petition  at  3-  6. 
 396  See  id.  at  9-  10. 
 397  Id. 
58
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 59 
 of  the  Macon  County  PSAP  service  area  by  April  30,  2004,  that  it  had  not  received  any  additional  Phase  II  requests,  and  that  it  fully  expected  to  be  able  to  provide  Phase  II  service  within  six  months  of  any  new 
 Phase  II  requests.  398 
 160.  On  March  10,  2005,  Chariton  Valley  reported  substantially  changed  circumstances,  citing  to  internal  management  problems,  and  mounting  cost  and  accuracy  issues  that  developed  with  its  location 


 solution  vendor.  399  As  an  initial  matter,  Chariton  Valley  updated  its  January  2004  Second  Interim  Report  to  indicate  that  it  received  two  additional  PSAP  requests  for  Phase  II  service,  from  Shelby  County  on 
 April  20,  2004,  and  from  Chariton  County  on  September  10,  2004.  400  Chariton  Valley  then  reported  that  it  would  be  unable  to  meet  either  of  these  new  requests,  as  well  as  the  initial  Macon  County  request,  until 
 October  18,  2005.  401  Accordingly,  Chariton  Valley  now  requests  the  following  extensions  of  the  requirement  to  begin  providing  E-  911  Phase  II  services  to  at  least  fifty  percent  of  a  PSAPs  coverage  area 
 or  population:  (1)  with  respect  to  the  Macon  County,  from  July  24,  2004  until  October  18,  2005,  (2)  for  Shelby  County,  from  October  20,  2004  until  October  18,  2005,  and  (3)  for  Chariton  County,  from  March 
 10,  2005  until  October  18,  2005.  With  respect  to  Macon  County  only,  Chariton  Valley  also  sought  relief  from  July  24,  2005  until  October  18,  2005  to  begin  providing  Phase  II  services  to  one-  hundred  percent  of 
 the  PSAPs  coverage  area  or  population.  For  any  new  PSAP  requests  received  by  April  17,  2005,  Chariton  Valley  requested  an  extension  until  October  18,  2005  to  begin  providing  Phase  II  service  to  fifty 
 percent  of  a  PSAPs  coverage  area  or  population.  402 
 161.  Chariton  Valley  has  entered  into  discussions  for  a  first  office  application  with  a  new  E-911  vendor  that  it  believes  can  provide  the  most  accurate,  cost-  effective,  and  timely  Phase  II  solution,  and 


 now  expects  to  have  a  Phase  II  solution  implemented  by  October  18,  2005.  403  Although  Chariton  Valleys  new  General  Manager  has  been  keeping  the  Macon,  Shelby,  and  Chariton  County  PSAPs 
 apprised  of  its  implementation  schedule,  404  neither  the  Macon  County  PSAP  nor  the  Shelby  County  PSAP  were  willing  to  extend  their  requests.  405  Notwithstanding  its  acknowledged  inability  to  make  any 
 measurable  progress  with  its  former  Phase  II  vendor,  406  Chariton  Valley  stated  that  its  new  vendors  solution  may  prove  to  be  relatively  more  accurate  and  affordable  and  thus  of  potential  future  benefit  to 


 398  See  Second  Interim  Report  Regarding  E911  Phase  II  Deployment,  Missouri  RSA  #5  Partnership  dba  Chariton 
 Valley  Wireless  Services,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  14,  2004,  at  1-  2  (Second  Interim  Report).  399 
 See  Chariton  Valley  Supplement  at  4-  5.  Specifically,  Chariton  Valley  stated  that  it  had  to  replace  its  General  Manager  responsible  for  overseeing  its  Phase  II  implementation  process,  and  that  its  costs  for  its  chosen  location 


 solution  were  rising  while  its  location  vendor  was  unable  to  confirm  it  could  meet  the  Commissions  accuracy  requirements. 
 400  See  id.  at  3. 
 401  See  id. 
 402  See  id.  at  4. 
 403  See  id.  at  5-  6. 
 404  See  id.  at  6. 
 405  See  id.  at  5. 
 406  See  id.  at  8. 
59
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 60 
 similarly  situated  Tier  III  carriers.  407  Most  recently,  Chariton  Valley  reported  that  it  had  the  concurrence  of  all  three  PSAPs  to  its  revised  implementation  schedule.  408 
 162.  Deployment  of  Network  Equipment.  As  an  initial  matter,  we  are  concerned  that  Chariton  Valley  waited  until  March  10,  2005  to  notify  the  Commission  that  it  would  not  meet  its  previously 
 reported  date  of  April  30,  2004  by  which  it  expected  to  be  able  to  provide  Phase  II  services.  We  caution  carriers  to  keep  us  apprised  should  they  fail  to  meet  previously-  reported  implementation  dates.  In  any 
 event,  under  the  Commissions  E911  rules,  a  carrier  and  a  PSAP  may  agree  to  a  deployment  schedule  that  allows  for  different  timeframes  than  under  the  Commissions  rules.  409  As  Chariton  Valley  and  the  PSAPs 
 in  Macon  County,  Shelby  County,  and  Chariton  County  have  reached  such  an  agreement,  we  dismiss  as  moot  Chariton  Valleys  petition  for  waiver. 


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


 164.  RSA  1  Limited  Partnership  dba  Cellular  29  Plus  (Cellular  29):  Cellular  29  provides  analog  and  digital  CDMA  service  in  Iowa,  and  has  selected  a  handset-  based  solution.  Cellular  29  sought 
 waiver  of  the  September  1,  2003  benchmark  to  begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets.  412  According  to  its  filings,  Cellular  29  began  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets  in  late  October 
 or  early  November  2003.  413  The  relief  sought  by  Cellular  29  is  minimal,  as  it  was  able  to  begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets  within  two  months  of  September  1,  2003.  Additionally,  as 
 Cellular  29  indicated  in  its  supplement,  at  the  time  of  its  request,  none  of  the  PSAPs  in  its  service  area  had 


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


 408  See  Third  Supplement  to  Missouri  RSA  #  5  Partnership  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.18(  f)  of  the 
 Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Mar.  18,  2005,  at  1;  Fourth  Supplement  to  Missouri  RSA  #  5  Partnership  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.18(  f)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Mar. 


 22,  2005,  at  1-  2.  409 
 See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.18(  j)(  5).  410 
 See  North  Dakota  PCS  Alliance  Petition  for  Waiver  of  E911  Phase  II  Location  Technology  Implementation  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  July  30,  2002. 


 411  See  Letter  from  Steven  D.  Lyme,  CEO/  General  Manager  North  Dakota  Network  Co.  to  Marlene  Dortch, 
 Secretary,  FCC,  dated  Nov.  10,  2003.  412 
 See  Supplement  to  Petition  of  RSA  1  Limited  Partnership  dba  Cellular  29  Plus  for  Waiver  of  Section  20.18  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Nov.  10,  2003  at  2  (Cellular  29  Supplement). 


 413  See  Cellular  29  Supplement  at  2.  Cellular  29  does  not  provide  a  specific  date,  rather  it  states  in  the  supplement 
 that  within  the  past  two  weeks,  Cellular  29  [received]  the  ALI-  handsets. 
60
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 61 
 requested  either  Phase  I  or  Phase  II  service.  414  For  these  reasons,  we  find  good  cause  to  grant  Cellular  29s  request  for  waiver  of  the  September  1,  2003  benchmark. 
 165.  Sussex  Cellular,  Inc.  (Sussex):  Sussex  operates  an  AMPS-  based  system  and  has  elected  to  provide  Phase  II  location  information  through  a  network-  based  solution.  415  In  an  earlier  filing,  Sussex 
 indicated  that  it  would  employ  a  handset-  based  solution  for  its  analog  network  in  rural  New  Jersey  and  requested  a  waiver  of  the  benchmark  requirements.  416  Sussex  has  no  PSAP  requests  for  Phase  II 
 service.  417  Because  Sussex  has  elected  to  fulfill  its  E911  obligations  through  a  network-  based  system,  it  is  no  longer  required  to  comply  with  the  handset  deployment  deadlines.  We  therefore  dismiss  as  moot  its 
 request  for  relief  from  those  requirements. 
 166.  Rural  Telecommunication  Group  (RTG)  Petition:  RTG  is  a  trade  association  representing  rural  carriers.  418  On  August  29,  2003,  RTG  filed  a  petition  requesting  a  waiver  and 


 temporary  limited  stay  of  portions  of  the  wireless  E911  rules  as  they  applied  to  small  carriers  with  100,000  or  fewer  subscribers,  as  of  December  31,  2003,  operating  in  rural  areas.  419  RTG  proposed 
 revised  schedules  for  these  carriers  based  upon  the  air  interface  and  location  technology  a  carrier  employs.  420  For  those  carriers  with  fewer  than  three  cell  sites  in  a  licensed  service  area  and  deploying  a 
 network-  based  solution,  RTG  requested  that  they  be  allowed  an  extension  of  twenty-  four  months  of  a  PSAP  request  to  provide  Phase  II  service  to  one-  hundred  percent  of  a  PSAPs  coverage  area  or 
 population.  421  For  carriers  with  three  or  more  cell  sites,  but  with  a  sufficiently  low  Tower  Density  Factor,  422  RTG  also  requested  that  they  be  allowed  twenty-  four  months  from  a  PSAPs  request  to  come 
 into  compliance  with  the  accuracy  standards,  provided  such  carriers  commit  to  deploying  state-  of-  the-  art  network-  based  Phase  II  technology.  423 


 414  See  id.  at  3. 
 415  See  Sussex  Cellular,  Inc.  Amendment  of  E-  911  Phase  II  Implementation  Plan,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed 
 Nov.  10,  2003  (Sussex  2003  Amendment).  In  its  amended  implementation  plan,  Sussex  stated  that  because  a  handset-  based  solution  is  not  technically  feasible  for  its  AMPS  system  and  the  expense  of  a  digital  conversion 


 cannot  be  justified,  it  has  elected  a  network-  based  solution.  See  id.  at  1.  416 
 See  Sussex  Cellular,  Inc.  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Sections  20.  18(  e)  and  (g)  of  the  Commission's  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Sept.  28,  2001. 


 417  See  Enhanced  911  Tier  III  Interim  Report,  Sussex  Cellular,  Inc.,  CC  Docket  no.  94-  102,  filed  Jan.  14,  2004,  at 
 2.  418 
 RTG  describes  itself  as  an  organized  group  of  rural  telecommunications  provides  who  have  joined  to  provide  telecommunications  technologies  to  remote  and  underserved  sections  of  the  country,  including  wireless  services. 


 See  Petition  for  Waiver  and  Request  for  Temporary  Limited  Stay  of  Section  20.  18  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  filed  Aug.  29,  2003  at  1,  n.  1  (RTG  Petition). 
 419  See  id.  at  3-  4.  RTG  proposes  that  carriers  with  100,000  or  fewer  subscribers  be  classified  as  Tier  IV  carriers. 
 See  id.  at  3-  4.  420 
 See  id.  at  9-  11.  421 
 See  id.  at  4-  5.  422 
 See  id.  at  5-  6  and  n.  10.  The  TDF  is  intended  to  be  used  as  a  proxy  to  determine  average  density  and  distance  between  cell  towers,  to  approximate  ALI  capabilities. 


 423  See  id.  at  5-  7. 
61
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 62 
 167.  RTG  also  proposed  an  alternative  handset  deployment  schedules  for  Tier  IV  carriers.  Specifically,  RTG  requested  a  six-  month  extension  of  the  Tier  III  handset  deployment  benchmarks  for 
 CDMA  carriers  relying  on  a  handset-  based  solution,  and  a  twelve-  month  extension  for  TDMA  carriers  that  are  converting  to  CDMA.  424  Carries  who  were  relying  on  a  CDMA  handset  solution,  and  received  a 
 PSAP  request  on  or  before  September  1,  2003,  would  be  given  six  months  of  the  PSAP  request,  or  by  March  1,  2004,  whichever  is  later,  to  deploy  Phase  II  capability.  425  Tier  IV  CDMA  carriers  who  were 
 formerly  relying  on  TDMA  technology,  and  who  receive  a  PSAP  request  on  or  before  March  1,  2004,  must  meet  these  requirements  within  six  months  of  a  request  or  by  September  1,  2004,  whichever  is 
 later.  426  Tier  IV  carriers  relying  on  GSM  handsets  would  be  given  an  additional  twenty-  four  months  to  meet  the  handset  deployment  and  penetration  benchmarks  established  for  Tier  III  carriers.  427  Tier  IV 
 carriers  relying  on  a  GSM  handset  solution  who  have  already  received  a  PSAP  request  prior  to  March  1,  2005  would  be  granted  a  stay  until  six  months  after  receipt  of  the  PSAP  request  or  by  September  1,  2005, 
 whichever  is  later.  428 
 168.  Alternatively,  RTG  proposed  making  handset  deployment  deadlines  contingent  upon  a  PSAP  request  for  Phase  II  service.  429  Specifically,  once  a  valid  PSAP  request  is  received,  a  carrier  must 


 begin  selling  and  activating  location-  capable  handsets  no  later  than  six  months  after  receipt;  ensure  that  at  least  twenty-  five  percent  of  handsets  activated  are  location-  capable  no  later  than  nine  months  after 
 receipt,  ensure  that  at  least  fifty  percent  are  location-  capable  no  later  than  fifteen  months  after  receipt,  ensure  one-  hundred  percent  no  later  than  twenty-  one  months  after  receipt,  and  achieve  ninety-  five  percent 
 penetration  no  later  than  fifty-  seven  months  after  receipt.  430 
 169.  For  the  reasons  discussed  below,  we  deny  RTGs  requested  relief.  In  this  Order,  and  throughout  the  course  of  this  proceeding,  the  Commission  has  provided  Tier  III  carriers  additional 


 amounts  of  time  to  comply  with  the  Phase  II  requirements.  The  Commission  has  granted  such  relief  only  in  cases  where  carriers  provided  the  Commission  with  concrete,  specific  plans,  including  technical  data 
 and  sufficient  and  specific  factual  information.  In  contrast,  RTGs  petition  does  not  provide  the  type  of  specific  information  we  need  to  properly  evaluate  whether  granting  relief  is  warranted.  For  example, 
 RTG  does  not  identify  the  particular  carriers  to  whom  its  request  would  apply,  nor  does  it  explain  why  the  carriers  it  represents  cannot  meet  the  deployment  or  accuracy  requirements.  While  RTG  raises  valid 
 issues  concerning  the  problems  facing  rural  carriers  as  a  general  matter,  a  more  individually  tailored  approach  would  best  address  the  twin  goals  of  ensuring  that  E-  911  services  are  made  available  as  soon  as 
 possible  while  avoiding  unnecessary  burdens  on  rural  carriers. 
 170.  In  addition,  we  find  that  RTGs  proposed  relief,  as  it  applies  to  carriers  employing  a  network-  based  solution,  to  be  overbroad.  RTGs  proposal  would  apply  to  all  carriers  who  elect  a 


 network-  based  solution,  regardless  of  whether  any  carrier  could  comply  with  the  Phase  II  requirements  by 


 424  See  id.  at  7-  11. 
 425  See  id.  at  11. 
 426  See  id. 
 427  See  id.  at  12. 
 428  See  id. 
 429  See  id.  at  13. 
 430  See  id.  at  13-  14. 
62
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 63 
 employing  an  alternative  solution,  such  as  a  handset-  based  solution.  Further,  RTGs  claim  that  deployment  of  network-  based  solutions  would  require  substantial  resources  does  not  account  for  the  fact 
 that  in  many  cases  carriers  may  be  reimbursed  from  state  funds  or  other  sources.  431  RTG  also  presents  insufficient  evidence  to  support  the  specific  definitions  it  proposes  and  does  not  fully  explain  the 
 connection  between  cell  site  density  and  the  requested  extensions  in  meeting  the  accuracy  requirements.  For  example,  RTG  does  not  explain  how  the  requested  extension  would  assist  the  carriers  in  eventually 
 meeting  the  accuracy  requirements. 
 171.  We  also  find  that  RTGs  proposed  alternate  deployment  schedule  for  carriers  employing  a  handset-  based  solution  is  overbroad.  RTGs  proposal  would  grant  additional  time  to  carriers,  even 


 though  our  record  indicates  location-  capable  CDMA  handsets  and  associated  network  equipment  are  now  readily  available.  432  Additionally,  the  general  delays  in  handset  deployment  sought  by  RTG  could  result 
 in  unnecessary  and  unjustified  delays  in  Phase  II  implementation  for  carriers  who  do  not  in  fact  require  further  relief.  For  the  foregoing  reasons,  we  deny  RTGs  request  for  relief. 


 G.  Reporting  Requirements 
 172.  To  assist  in  monitoring  Tier  III  carriers  E911  deployment  progress,  we  require,  as  a  condition  of  the  relief  granted  to  individual  Tier  III  carriers  in  this  Order,  that  each  such  carrier  file  an 


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


 IV.  CONCLUSION 
 173.  We  remain  committed  to  ensuring  that  E911  services,  and  particularly  Phase  II  ALI  services,  are  made  available  to  the  public  as  quickly  as  possible.  However,  we  must  balance  this  goal 


 with  the  financial  and  technical  limitations  faced  by  certain  carriers.  Therefore,  we  granted  relief  of  Phase  II  implementation  deadlines  only  in  cases  where  carriers  have  sufficiently  met  our  stringent 
 standards  for  obtaining  a  waiver  of  our  rules.  We  strongly  encourage  carriers  to  coordinate  their  implementation  efforts  with  the  affected  PSAPs  to  ensure  that  the  expectations  of  public  safety  agencies 
 are  aligned  with  the  carriers  deployment  plans. 


 431  See,  e.  g.,  supra    11  and  Order  to  Stay,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  20997    29. 
 432  See  supra    9. 
63
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 64 
 174.  We  remind  carriers  that  the  Commission  has  not  hesitated  to  exercise  its  enforcement  authority  in  circumstances  in  which  such  action  served  the  public  interest.  433  The  Commission  trusts  that 
 those  carriers  afforded  relief  will  now  focus  their  resources  on  overcoming  any  obstacles  that  they  may  face  in  ensuring  timely  compliance  with  their  current  E911  deployment  obligations.  The  Commission 
 expects  that  any  Tier  III  carrier  that  has  been  granted  relief  in  this  Order  will  adhere  to  its  revised  deployment  schedule.  In  the  event  that  carriers  fail  to  take  the  concrete  steps  necessary  to  implement,  in 
 good  faith,  any  revised  deployment  schedule,  the  Commission  may  refer  such  carriers  to  the  Enforcement  Bureau  for  appropriate  action. 


 V.  ORDERING  CLAUSES 
 175.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  the  Commissions  exercise  of  authority  under  Section  1.3  of  the  Commissions  rules,  that  the  foregoing  Order  IS  ADOPTED. 


 176.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED,  that  the  requests  for  relief  of  the  wireless  E911  rules  by  ACS  Wireless,  Inc.;  Cellular  Phone  of  Kentucky,  Inc.;  Cordova  Wireless  Communications,  Inc.;  Edge 
 Wireless  Licenses,  LLC;  Litchfield  County  Cellular,  Inc.  dba  Ramcell  of  Kentucky,  LLC;  Key  Communications,  LLC  and  Keystone  Wireless,  LLC;  Missouri  RSA  No.  7  Limited  Partnership  dba  Mid-Missouri 
 Cellular;  OTZ  Telecommunications,  Inc.;  Sagebrush  Cellular,  Inc.,  Nemont  Communications,  Inc.,  and  Triangle  Communication  System,  Inc.;  and  South  Canaan  Cellular  Communications  Company, 
 L.  P.  ARE  GRANTED  TO  THE  EXTENT  INDICATED  HEREIN  BUT  ARE  OTHERWISE  DENIED. 
 177.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED,  that  the  request  for  relief  filed  by  Alaska  DigiTel,  LLC  of  the  network  equipment  deployment  requirements  IS  DISMISSED  WITHOUT  PREJUDICE  and  the 


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


 PREJUDICE  and  the  request  for  relief  filed  by  Cellular  Mobile  Systems  of  St.  Cloud,  LLC  of  the  Phase  II  benchmark  requirements  IS  GRANTED. 


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


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


 433  See,  e.  g.,  AT&  T  Wireless  Services,  Inc.,  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  and  Forfeiture,  File  No.  EB-  02-  TS-  018 
 (May  20,  2002);  T-  Mobile  USA,  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  and  Forfeiture,  File  No.  EB-  02-  TS-  624  (Mar.  5,  2003). 
64
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  79 
 65 
 181.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED,  that  the  request  for  relief  filed  by  Southern  Illinois  RSA  Partnership  dba  First  Cellular  of  Southern  Illinois  IS  DISMISSED  WITHOUT  PREJUDICE. 
 182.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED,  that  the  Petition  for  Limited  and  Temporary  Waiver  of  Deadlines  for  Implementation  of  Phase  II  E911  on  the  Same  Basis  as  Other  Tier  III  Wireless  Carriers,  and 
 for  Waiver  of  King  County  Demarcation  Point  Ruling  filed  by  Commnet  Wireless,  Inc.  et  al.  IS  DENIED. 
 183.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED,  that  the  requests  for  relief  of  the  E911  Phase  II  rules  filed  by  Alabama  Wireless,  Inc.;  Amarillo  License,  L.  P.  and  High  Plains  Wireless,  L.  P.;  Minnesota  Southern 


 Cellular  Telephone  Company  dba  HickoryTech  Wireless;  Missouri  RSA  #5  Partnership  dba  Chariton  Valley  Wireless  Services;  North  Dakota  PCS  Alliance;  and  Sussex  Cellular,  Inc.  ARE  DISMISSED  AS 
 MOOT. 
 184.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED,  that  the  additional  time  requested  by  Blanca  Telephone  Company  to  meet  the  twenty-  five  percent  benchmark  for  location-  capable  handset  activations  IS 


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


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


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


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Marlene  H.  Dortch  Secretary 
65