**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| PAGING SYSTEMS, INC.             | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Request for Construction         | * |                              |
| Extension                        |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| for Three Automated Maritime     | * |                              |
| Telecommunications System        | ) |                              |
| Stations                         | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: December 5, 2000 Released: December 6, 2000**

By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:

1.  *Introduction*. On October 17, 2000, Paging Systems, Inc. (PSI)
    requested a waiver of Section 80.49 of the Commission's Rules, 47
    C.F.R. § 80.49, in order to extend the construction deadline for
    three Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS)
    stations.[^1] For the reasons that follow, we dismiss PSI's request.

2.  *Background*. AMTS stations provide automated, integrated,
    interconnected ship-to-shore communications similar to a cellular
    phone system for tugs, barges, and other maritime vessels.[^2]
    Pursuant to Section 80.49(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules, AMTS
    stations must be placed in operation within eight months of the
    license grant.[^3] On February 10, 2000, PSI was granted licenses
    for AMTS stations in Ocean City, Maryland (Station WHV949), Fort
    Pierce, Florida (Station WRV468), and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
    (Station WXY924).[^4] On October 17, 2000, more than eight months
    later, PSI requested that Section 80.49(a)(2) of the Commission's
    Rules be waived[^5] and that the construction deadline be extended
    to two years from the date of grant because it needed additional
    time to negotiate with site owners for its proposed facilities.[^6]
    PSI seeks the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's consideration of
    its waiver request despite it being filed one week after the
    expiration of the construction deadline.[^7] PSI explains that an
    administrative oversight caused in part by personnel changes as well
    as the assumption that the waiver request had already been filed
    were the reasons that the request was filed one week late.[^8]

3.  *Discussion.* We note that under Section 1.955(a)(2) of the
    Commission's Rules, authorizations automatically terminate, without
    specific Commission action, if the licensee fails to meet applicable
    construction or coverage requirements.[^9] Consequently, based on
    the record before us, we conclude that the authorizations for these
    three AMTS stations automatically terminated on October 10, 2000,
    the date of the construction deadline for the subject stations,
    because PSI failed to construct the stations on or before that date.
    Therefore, we find that PSI, on October 17, 2000, requested an
    extension of the construction deadline for the three subject AMTS
    stations the authorizations for which were no longer in effect.

4.  We may waive Section 1.955(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules in order
    to consider PSI's request for an extension of the construction
    deadline if a) the underlying purpose of the rule would not be
    served or would be frustrated by application to the instant case,
    and grant of a waiver would be in the public interest; or b) in view
    of unique or unusual factual circumstances, application of the rule
    would be inequitable, unduly burdensome or contrary to the public
    interest, or the applicant has no reasonable alternative.[^10] We
    conclude that PSI has not demonstrated that a waiver is warranted
    under either standard. First, we believe that the underlying purpose
    of the rule, *i.e.*, to ensure that service is provided to the
    public within a reasonable time following grant of the license,[^11]
    is furthered by applying the rule to this case. Furthermore, we find
    that PSI's reasons for failing to timely file its construction
    extension on time request do not represent unique or unusual
    circumstances.[^12]

5.  Because we do not believe that a waiver of Section 1.955(a)(2) of
    the Commission's Rules is warranted, we conclude that the
    authorizations for the subject AMTS stations had terminated by
    October 17, 2000, when PSI filed its request to waive Section 80.49
    of the Commission's Rules. For that reason, we conclude that PSI's
    waiver request is moot.[^13] In addition, the Commission's licensing
    database will be modified accordingly.

6.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i),
    303(r), and Sections 1.925 and 1.955 of the Commission's Rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.925, 1.955, the waiver request filed by Paging Systems,
    Inc., on October 17, 2000 IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.

7.  This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections
    0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131,
    0.331.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    D'wana R. Terry

    Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division

    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: Letter from Audrey Rasmussen, Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable,
    Golden & Nelson, to Kimberly Kleppinger, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (dated Oct. 17, 2000) (PSI
    Waiver Request).

[^2]: *See* Amendment of Parts 2 and 80 of the Commission\'s Rules
    Applicable to Automated Maritime Telecommunications Systems (AMTS),
    *First Report and Order*, GEN Docket No. 88-732, 6 FCC Rcd 437, 437
    ¶ 3 (1991).

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 80.49(a)(2). In Amendment of the Commission's Rules
    Concerning Maritime Communications, *Fourth Report and Order and
    Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, PR Docket No. 92-257,
    FCC 00-370, ¶ 17 (rel. Nov. 16, 2000), the Commission extended the
    construction requirement for new AMTS stations from eight months to
    two years. The new rule will not become effective until 30 days
    after publication in the Federal Register. *Id.* at ¶ 87.

[^4]: *See Public Notice*, Report No. 2080, rel. Feb. 15, 2000.

[^5]: PSI requested the waiver pursuant to a rule, 47 C.F.R. § 90.151
    (1998), that is no longer current. PSI Waiver Request at 2. The
    waiver standard is now codified at 47 C.F.R. § 1.925. *See* Biennial
    Regulatory Review \-- Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27,
    80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate
    the Development and Use of the Universal Licensing System in the
    Wireless Telecommunications Services, WT Docket No. 98-20, *Report
    and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 21027 (1998).

[^6]: PSI Waiver Request at 1-2.

[^7]: *Id.* at 1.

[^8]: *Id.*

[^9]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.955(a)(2).

[^10]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3).

[^11]: *See* Miami MDS Company and Boston MDS Company for Extension of
    Time to Construct a Channel 2 Multipoint Distribution Service
    Station (WLK 230) at Miami, Florida, and Station (WGW339) at Boston,
    Massachusettes, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 7 FCC Rcd 4347,
    4348-49 ¶ 12 (1992) (strict enforcement of construction deadline to
    ensure that service is not delayed or denied to the public).

[^12]: *See* Rush Network Corp., *Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 22866, 22868 ¶ 5
    (WTB CWD 1998) (denied waiver request of applicant who missed filing
    deadline because the circumstances of being a small company whose
    two employees were busy with other responsibilities are not
    considered unique and unusual).

[^13]: *See*, *e.g.*, Kenneth Sikorski, *Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 20038, 20038
    ¶ 3 (WTB CWD 1999).