Public safety groups last week opposed petitions by medium-sized ...

that granted small and medium-sized carriers more time to meet interim Phase 2 deadlines. Carriers focused on part of order they said would deem companies noncompliant for failing to meet benchmarks without regard to manufacturers’s or vendor’s inability to supply equipment. Assn. of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO), National Assn. of State Nine One One Administrators and National Emergency Number Assn. urged Commission to dismiss petitions “because the FCC has a duty to enforce its regulations, particularly where the carriers have negotiated and agreed to comply with the regulations by a specific date.” Rather than impose “strict liability,” groups said FCC “did no more than warn the petitioners and similarly situated carriers that it would treat a failure to satisfy waiver conditions in the same manner as a rule violation, and that such violation would be subject to possible enforcement action.” Groups reiterated concerns about “seemingly endless stream of extensions of time and waiver requests” as potentially leading to complacency among carriers instead of “all-out” compliance efforts: “The Commission has not heartlessly closed off their ability to provide a reasonable explanation for noncompliance.” CTIA took different view, raising concerns about enforcement standard that would penalize carriers for failing to comply with E911 rules “for reasons beyond their control.” Those factors, CTIA said, include vendor failure to provide compliant products on time and LEC “intransigence” in providing necessary network upgrades. CTIA said “fundamental issues of due process, as well as the Communications Act itself, mandate that the Commission provide notice and opportunity to challenge any Commission finding of noncompliance.” Sec. 503(b) of Communications Act requires forfeitures not be imposed until FCC issues notice of apparent liability. CTIA said that language couldn’t be squared with strict liability language in E911 order, which said assertions vendors couldn’t supply compliant products wouldn’t excuse noncompliance. Nextel and Nextel Partners in joint filing said FCC had recognized that action wasn’t willful in context of compliance if it involved unavoidable circumstances.