Federal Communications Commission DA 16-433
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Federal-State Board on Universal Service
Mid-Tex Cellular, Ltd. Petition for Waiver of the 
FCC’s Universal Service Rules
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CC Docket No. 96-45
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted:  April 20, 2016 Released: April 20, 2016
By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Order, we deny the petition for reconsideration filed by Mid-Tex Cellular, Ltd.
(Mid-Tex).
1
  We conclude that Mid-Tex has failed to present any argument warranting reconsideration of 
the decision of the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) to deny Mid-Tex’s petition for waiver of a
high-cost filing deadline.
2
II. BACKGROUND
2. Section 254(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), provides that 
“only an eligible telecommunications carrier [(ETC)] designated under section 214(e) . . . shall be eligible 
to receive specific Federal universal service support.”
3
  Support shall be used “only for the provision, 
maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is intended.”
4
  For many 
years, the Commission has relied upon various certification and data filing requirements to implement this 
statutory requirement. The specific certifications at issue in this case have been largely superseded by the 
uniform framework for accountability that the Commission adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation 
Order.
5
3. Prior to the USF/ICC Transformation Order, an ETC was required to file a certification 
with the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) and the Commission pursuant to section 
54.904(a) of the Commission’s rules to receive Interstate Common Line Support (ICLS), among other 
                                                     
1
47 CFR § 1.106; Mid-Tex Cellular, Ltd. Petition for Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 96-45 (filed Jan. 26, 2007)
(Mid-Tex Petition for Reconsideration). 
2
See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Mid-Tex Cellular, Ltd. Petition for Waiver of the FCC’s 
Universal Service Rules, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14931 (WCB. 2006) (Mid-Tex Waiver Order).
3
47 U.S.C. § 254(e).
4
Id.
5
In 2011, the Commission eliminated the ICLS line count reporting and certification requirements for most carriers 
and adopted a new uniform framework for accountability.  Connect America Fund et al., Report and Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663, 17849-62, paras. 569-614 (2011) (USF/ICC 
Transformation Order and/or FNPRM) aff’d sub nom., In re: FCC 11-161, 753 F.3d 1015 (10th Cir. 2014).  Certain 
competitive ETCs serving remote areas in Alaska remain subject to the ICLS line count reporting requirements.  47 
CFR § 54.307(e)(7); USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17835-36, para. 529.   
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-433
2
requirements.  That certification had to state that all ICLS received by the ETC would “be used only for 
the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is intended.”
6
  
This certification had to be filed with USAC and the Commission on the date that the ETC first filed its 
line count data, and thereafter on June 30 of each year.
7
  The Commission adopted a mechanism for 
accepting untimely filed ICLS certifications, whereby the carrier does not become eligible for ICLS until 
the second calendar quarter after the certification is untimely filed.
8
  
4. Mid-Tex’s Petition for Reconsideration.  On December 28, 2006, the Bureau granted in 
part and denied in part Mid-Tex’s petition seeking waiver of several high-cost filing deadlines, including 
the ICLS certification deadline.
9
  Mid-Tex did not file its ICLS certification that was due on September 9, 
2005 until November 23, 2005. Mid-Tex claimed that it failed to file its ICLS certification on time
because it “was overwhelmed and confused by the numerous unfamiliar filings associated with its nascent 
ETC status” and relied on the advice of its regulatory consultant.
10
  The Bureau held that Mid-Tex had not 
demonstrated that there was good cause to waive the filing deadline because confusion does not constitute 
special circumstances.
11
  Mid-Tex filed a petition for reconsideration claiming that the Bureau’s decision 
was inconsistent with precedent.  Mid-Tex also argues that the Bureau’s decision was “arbitrary and 
capricious” because it did not consider all the relevant facts regarding the potential consumer harm of 
denying the waiver and that the Bureau did not provide “any rationale or satisfactory explanation” for its 
decision to deny the waiver.
12
  
III. DISCUSSION
5. We conclude Mid-Tex has failed to present any arguments warranting reconsideration of 
the Bureau’s denial of Mid-Tex’s petition for waiver.
13
  Accordingly, we deny Mid-Tex’s petition for 
reconsideration.
14
We disagree with Mid-Tex’s claim that the Bureau’s decision “abandon[ed]” 
Commission precedent in denying Mid-Tex’s petition for waiver of the filing deadline.
15
  The Bureau’s 
                                                     
6
47 CFR § 54.904(a).  
7
47 CFR § 54.904(d).  
8
See Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan for Regulation of Interstate Services of Non-Price Cap Incumbent Local 
Exchange Carriers and Interexchange Carriers et al.; Second Report and Order et al., 16 FCC Rcd 19613, 19688, 
para. 176 (2001) (subsequent history omitted).
9
See generally Mid-Tex Waiver Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14931.
10
Mid-Tex Cellular, Ltd. Petition for Waiver of the Commission’s Universal Service Rules, CC Docket No. 96-45, 
at 8 (filed December 20, 2005) (Mid-Tex Petition for Waiver).  
11
Mid-Tex Waiver Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 14933, para. 10.
12
Mid-Tex Petition for Reconsideration at 4-8.
13
Generally, the Commission’s rules may be waived for good cause shown.  47 CFR § 1.3.  The Commission may 
exercise its discretion to waive a rule where the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the public 
interest.  Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Northeast Cellular).  In 
addition, the Commission may take into account considerations of hardship, equity, or more effective 
implementation of overall policy on an individual basis. WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 
1969); Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166.  Waiver of the Commission’s rules is appropriate if special 
circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such deviation will serve the public interest.  Northeast 
Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166.
14
See 47 CFR § 1.106 (permitting the Bureau to act on petitions requesting reconsideration of final actions taken 
pursuant to delegated authority).
15
Mid-Tex Petition for Reconsideration at 8.  We note that the Commission subsequently concluded in 2014 that it 
would require strict adherence to filing deadlines for the new regime of certifications adopted in the USF/ICC 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-433
3
finding that Mid-Tex did not demonstrate that it missed the filing deadline due to special circumstances is 
consistent with well-established precedent in the high-cost context and in other universal service 
programs that “confusion regarding the rules does not establish special circumstances that warrant 
deviation from the Commission’s rules.”
16
  
6. Despite Mid-Tex’s claims in its petition for reconsideration, we are also not persuaded
that special circumstances exist because Mid-Tex would need to delay or stop certain planned upgrades or 
raise its rates as a result of the reduction in its ICLS support.
17
  Mid-Tex cites a number of Bureau 
decisions where the Bureau granted waivers of high-cost filing deadlines based, in part, on the amount of 
funding at stake.
18
  However, those petitioners presented additional facts, not present here, that helped 
establish good cause to grant those waiver petitions.  For example, some of the orders that Mid-Tex cites 
involved situations where the ETC filed the late filing soon after the deadline,
19
where the ETC stood to 
lose an entire year of Local Switching Support as a result of missing the filing deadline,
20
where the ETC 
had taken steps to make the filing, but filed the wrong certification,
21
or where the ETC was emerging 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Transformation Order.  December 2014 Connect America Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 15693, para. 138.  Under that 
standard, we would deny the waiver request.  In this order on reconsideration, we apply the precedent that pre-dates 
this Commission decision.  
16
South Slope Cooperative Telephone Company, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; South Slope 
Cooperative Telephone Company Petition for Waiver of Filing Deadline in 47 C.F.R. Section 54.307(c), Order, 19 
FCC Rcd 17493, 17494, para. 5 (WCB 2004) (South Slope Order); Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service 
et al., Order, 22 FCC Rcd 4946, 4949, para. 7 (WCB 2007).  See also Federal-State Joint Board on Universal 
Service FiberNet, LLC Petition for Waiver of 54.307(c) of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations, Order, 19 FCC 
Rcd 8202 (WCB 2004) (FiberNet Order) (finding that “it is the responsibility of the ETC to plan accordingly so it is 
in a position to assure that its submissions are filed in a timely manner” and noting that “[o]therwise, recently 
designated ETCs could seek to circumvent program rules by merely alleging that they do not have prior experience 
with . . . filing procedures”); Requests for Waiver by Freehold Regional High School District Englishtown, New 
Jersey et al., Order, 19 FCC Rcd 2983, 2985, para. 4 (WCB 2004) (denying a petition for waiver in the E-rate 
context after finding that “[c]onfusion by an applicant does not constitute special circumstances for a waiver . . . .”).
17
Mid-Tex Petition for Reconsideration at 4. We note that Mid-Tex certified in its most recent annual report that its 
rates complied with the Commission’s reasonably comparable benchmark.  See Letter from John Kuykendall, Vice 
President, JSI, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 14-58 (filed 
June 12, 2015) (filing FCC Form 481 on behalf of Mid-Tex Cellular Ltd.).
18
Mid-Tex Petition for Reconsideration at 4-8.
19
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; NPCR, Inc. Petition for Waiver of Section 54.802(A) of the 
Commission’s Rules, Order, 22 FCC Rcd 560, 562, para. 6 (WCB 2007) (NPCR Order) (filing one business day 
after the deadline); Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Citizens Communications and Frontier 
Communications Petition for Waiver of Section 54.802(a) of the Commission’s Rules, Order, 20 FCC Rcd 16761, 
16763, para. 7 (WCB 2005) (filing two business days after the deadline); Federal-State Joint Board on Universal 
Service; FiberNet, LLC Petition for Waiver of FCC Rule Section 54.307(c)(4), Order, 20 FCC Rcd 20316, 20317-
18, para. 6 (WCB 2005) (filing within five business days of the deadline); Federal-State Joint Board on Universal 
Service; Verizon Communications Inc. Petition for Waiver of Section 54.802(A) of the Commission’s Rules, Order, 
21 FCC Rcd 10155, 10157, para. 9 (WCB 2006) (filing two business days after the deadline). 
20
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Smithville Telephone Company, Inc. Petition for Waiver of 
Section 54.301 Local Switching Support Data Submission Reporting Date for an Average Schedule Company, 
Order, 19 FCC Rcd 8891, 8892-93, para. 5 (WCB 2004) (finding the loss of funding for an entire year may affect 
the rates customers will be charged, which is not in the public interest); Federal-State Joint Board on Universal 
Service et al., Order, 20 FCC Rcd 18250, 18253, para. 8 (WCB 2005) (finding that loss of funding for an entire year 
has a much greater impact on a small carrier’s capacity to ensure access to broadband service). 
21
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; North River Telephone Cooperative Petition for Waiver of the 
deadline in 47 C.F.R. § 54.904(d), Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14937, 14938, para. 4 (WCB 2006) (filing the high-cost use 
certification instead of its ICLS certification inadvertently).
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-433
4
from bankruptcy.
22
  In contrast, here, Mid-Tex simply missed the deadline because it was confused about 
the deadline and did not file until more than two months later.
23
  
7. We are not persuaded by Mid-Tex’s claim that the Bureau was arbitrary and capricious 
because it “ignor[ed] Mid-Tex’s public interest arguments.”
24
  Because the Bureau must find that both 
“special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule” and that “such deviation will serve the 
public interest” for there to be good cause to waive a filing deadline, the Bureau’s finding that special 
circumstances did not exist was sufficient grounds for denying Mid-Tex’s petition.
25
  Nevertheless, we are 
not persuaded that it would serve the public interest to grant Mid-Tex’s waiver petition.  While we 
acknowledge that the Commission may take into account considerations of hardship or equity in 
determining whether there is good cause to waive a rule,
26
we are not persuaded that the impact of the loss 
of support alone constitutes good cause to grant the waiver petition. As explained above, where the 
Bureau has found that the public interest would be served by granting a waiver petition, the Bureau has 
typically relied on other facts in addition to the hardship caused by a reduction in support in making that 
finding. If we were to hold that the public interest prong of the waiver standard is met whenever a carrier 
is faced with a reduction in support, that would effectively negate the public interest requirement, as this 
criterion would be met any time failure to meet a filing deadline resulted in reduced support.
27
  
8. Moreover, while we acknowledge that USAC has a mechanism in place for true-ups of 
ICLS support, we disagree with Mid-Tex’s claims that USAC would not be burdened if we waived the 
filing deadline.
28
Simply put, this line of argument is irrelevant.  The Bureau has consistently enforced 
line count and certification deadlines absent a finding of special circumstances due to the tremendous 
amount of data that USAC processes each year.
29
  
9. Finally, we disagree with Mid-Tex’s claims that by denying Mid-Tex’s waiver petition
we are undermining the Commission’s universal service rules.
30
By enforcing filing deadlines we ensure 
that all ETCs timely receive the universal service support they are eligible to receive.  Because Mid-Tex 
has not presented any arguments warranting reversal of our prior decision, we deny its petition for 
reconsideration. 
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 
4(i), 5 (c), 201, 254, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 
                                                     
22
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; MCI, Inc. Petitions for Waiver of Sections 54.802(a) and 
54.809(c) of the Commission’s Rules, CC 96-45, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14926, 14928-29, para. 7 (WCB 2006) (finding 
a loss of funding to be excessive given that the company had recently emerged from bankruptcy). 
23
Mid-Tex Petition for Waiver at 3.
24
Id. at 8.
25
See Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166; NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 127 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citation 
omitted) (“[B]efore the FCC can invoke its good cause exception, it both ‘must explain why deviation betters serves 
the public interest, and articulate the nature of the special circumstances . . .’”) (citing Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d 
at 1166).
26
Mid-Tex Petition for Reconsideration at 4 (citing Wait Radio, 418 F.2d at 1159).
27
See also Coral Wireless d/b/a Mobi PCS Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service 
Administrator et al., Order, 29 FCC Rcd 9540, 9542, para. 8 (WCB 2014)
28
Mid-Tex Petition for Reconsideration at 8; Mid-Tex Petition for Waiver at 12.
29
See, e.g., FiberNet Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 8204, para. 5; South Slope Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 17494, para. 5; NPCR 
Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 561, para. 6. 
30
Mid-Tex Petition for Reconsideration at 8; Mid-Tex Petition for Waiver at 5-7.
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-433
5
155(c), 201, 254, and 405, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 1.106 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 
0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 1.106, Mid-Tex Cellular, Ltd.’s Petition for Reconsideration is DENIED.
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission’s 
rules, 47 CFR § 1.102(b)(1), this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Matthew S. DelNero
Chief
Wireline Competition Bureau