Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Maricopa Extension Order

Download Options

Released: July 24, 2014
image01-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-1061

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

)

In the Matter of

)

)

MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA

)

WT Docket No, 02-55

)

Further Request for Extension of Time

)

ORDER

Adopted: July 24, 2014

Released: July 24, 2014

By the Deputy Chief, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau:

I.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.

Under consideration is the Further Request for Extension of Time (Request) filed July 14,

2014 by Maricopa County, Arizona (Maricopa). Maricopa has not filed a cost estimate for

reconfiguration of its 800 MHz communications system1 and requests an extension of time until October

5, 2014 to do so. Maricopa’s cost estimate was due on November 20, 2013. It previously sought an

extension of time to file its cost estimate by June 1, 2014 which request was denied by the Public Safety

and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) which ordered Maricopa to furnish its cost estimate by March

10, 2014 or request a further extension. Maricopa failed to furnish a cost estimate by March 10, 2014,

because of a mistake: it had failed to contract with its vendor, Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Motorola) for the

planning work necessary for Maricopa’s preparation of its cost estimate.2 Maricopa then filed an

additional extension request which was opposed by Sprint Corporation (Sprint) which intimated, using

1

Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order,

Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 14969 (2004); Erratum, WT Docket No. 02-55

(rel. Sep. 10, 2004); Second Erratum, 19 FCC Rcd 19651 (2004); Third Erratum, 19 FCC Rcd 21818 (2004) (800

MHz Report and Order); Supplemental Order and Order on Reconsideration, 19 FCC Rcd 25120 (2004); Erratum,

WT Docket No. 02-55 (rel. Jan. 19, 2005) (Supplemental Order) review denied sub nom. Mobile Relay Associates v.

FCC, 457 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 16015 (2005) (800 MHz

MO&O); Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5503 (2006) (Mediation Extension Order); Second Memorandum Opinion and Order,

22 FCC Rcd 10467 (2007); Erratum, WT Docket No. 02-55 (rel. July 26, 2007) (800 MHz Second MO&O); Third

Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 17209 (2007) (800 MHz Third MO&O); Second Report and Order,

23 FCC Rcd 7605 (2008), Erratum, WT Docket No. 02-55 (rel. May 28, 2008) (800 MHz Second Report and

Order); Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 18512 (2008) (800 MHz Fourth MO&O); Third

Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 4443 (2010) (800 MHz Third Report and Order); Fourth Report and Order, 26 FCC

Rcd 1937 (2011) (800 MHz Fourth Report and Order); Fifth Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 4085 (2013) (Fifth

Report and Order).

2 Maricopa blames Motorola for Maricopa’s failure to negotiate the planning contract. Request at unnumbered

page 2. It claims the failure was due to the “retirement of certain Motorola personnel and replacement with new-

to-Maricopa personnel.” Id. The Request is silent on why Maricopa, or counsel, failed to recognize the need timely

to conclude a contract essential to development of the cost estimate.

1

image02-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-1061

Maricopa’s terms, “that Maricopa was ‘slow rolling’ its planning in order to request a system upgrade.”3

In a reply to Sprint’s opposition, Maricopa disclaimed any intent to attempt a system upgrade. The

Bureau denied Maricopa’s extension request, but gave it until July 14, 2014 to submit a cost estimate,

imposing certain conditions if Maricopa failed to do so.4 Maricopa did not file a cost estimate by July 14,

2014 and, instead, filed the instant Request.

2.

According to Maricopa, it did not comply with the previous extension because “Motorola has

been unable to work fast enough to deliver a cost estimate in time for the Bureau’s deadline.”5 In support

of that statement, Maricopa provides a timeline which “details Motorola’s past, current and future work

on the project.6 The Motorola-supplied timeline shows “Customer Delivery” of Motorola’s Statement of

Work by September 5, 2014.

II.

DISCUSSION

3.

Section 1.46(a) of the Commission’s rules states that “[i]t is the policy of the Commission

that extensions of time shall not be routinely granted.”7 The Bureau has emphasized that the “import of

that rule is especially relevant to 800 MHz rebanding where delay in rebanding by one licensee can cause

a ‘domino effect’ delay in the rebanding efforts of other licensees that have met the Commission’s 800

MHz band reconfiguration deadlines with a consequent delay of the overall program. We therefore afford

a high degree of scrutiny to the reasons licensees advance for extensions of time.”8

4.

Here, Maricopa, in the knowledge that it was expected to provide a cost estimate to Sprint

and the 800 MHz Transition Administrator (TA) by November 20, 2013, did not even recognize until late

in 2013 that it had failed to contract with Motorola for work essential to preparation of the cost estimate.9

It is unremarkable therefore, that Maricopa finds itself well behind schedule. Short of finding bad faith

on Maricopa’s part, however, there is little the Bureau can do to remedy the problem that Maricopa has

created. We will not, however, equate negligence with bad faith in this instance. Accordingly, having no

practical alternative, we will grant Maricopa an extension of time to submit its cost estimate until October

5, 2014. In the interim, Maricopa shall report to the Bureau, and the TA Mediator, within one business

day, any instance in which Motorola fails to meet the start and finish dates listed in the attachment to

Maricopa’s Request. In addition, Maricopa shall attend such conferences, and furnish such reports, as the

TA Mediator may direct.

3 Request at unnumbered page 3.

4 Id. Maricopa filed a petition for reconsideration of the Bureau order denying the extension, which petition

remains pending. The filing of the petition did not stay Maricopa’s obligation to submit a cost estimate by July 14,

2014. 47 U.S.C. § 405(a): “No [petition for reconsideration before the Commission] shall excuse any person from

complying with or obeying any order, decision, report, or action of the Commission, or operate in any manner to

stay or postpone the enforcement thereof, without the special order of the Commission.”

5 Request at unnumbered page 3. Maricopa implies that the Commission should have been aware that Maricopa

required more time to complete its cost estimate “as Maricopa understands that the Commission has weekly

conference calls with Motorola to discuss rebanding status.” Request at unnumbered page 2, n.3. Maricopa is

mistaken; the Commission holds no such weekly conference calls with Motorola.

6 Request at unnumbered page 4.

7 47 C.F.R. § 1.46(a).

8 Regents of the University of California, Order, 28 FCC Rcd 15920, 15921 (PSHSB 2013).

9 Request at unnumbered page 2.

2

image03-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-1061

5.

In Maricopa’s case, as with others, the Bureau has been faced with delays to the rebanding

program due, in large part, to vendors not providing timely planning services to their customers. Such

delays are inimical to the Commission’s objective promptly to conclude rebanding so as to eliminate the

hazard that 800 MHz interference creates for first responders. Licensees faced with such delays are well

advised to request their vendors to apply additional resources to the task.

III. DECISION

6.

We grant Maricopa an extension of time until October 5, 2014 to provide a cost estimate to

Sprint and the TA. The extension includes a 30-day period for Maricopa to evaluate the Motorola

statement of work, obtain any required changes, and estimate Maricopa’s rebanding-related internal costs.

We expect Maricopa to exercise diligence in timely obtaining the cost estimate and to avoid mistakes of

the kind that contributed to delays to date.

IV. ORDERING CLAUSE

7.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Further Request for Extension of Time filed July 14,

2014 by Maricopa County, Arizona, IS GRANTED to the extent provided for herein.

8.

This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.191(a) and 0.392 of the

Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.191(a), 0.392.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Michael J. Wilhelm

Deputy Chief, Policy and Licensing Division

Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau

3

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.