*Pages 1--3 from  Microsoft Word - 16452*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  00-  47 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 
 In  re  Application  of  )  ) 
 DAVID  J.  TEAT  )  File  No.  D034102  ) 
 Request  for  Extension  of  Construction  Deadline  )  220  MHz  Non-  Nationwide  License  ) 
 WPFM981,  Knoxville,  Tennessee  ) 
 ORDER 
 Adopted:  January  12,  2000  Released:  January  12,  2000 
 By  the  Deputy  Chief,  Commercial  Wireless  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau: 
 1.  Before  us  is  a  request  filed  by  David  J.  Teat  (Teat)  for  extension  of  the  construction  deadline  for  his  non-  nationwide  Phase  I  220  MHz  license,  call  sign  WPFM981,  in  Knoxville,  Tennessee.  1  We 
 find  that  Teat  has  failed  to  demonstrate  that  extension  of  the  construction  deadline  for  WPFM981  is  warranted.  Accordingly,  we  will  deny  his  request  and  cancel  his  license  for  failure  to  construct. 


 2.  When  the  Commission  initially  authorized  non-  nationwide  Phase  I  220  MHz  licenses,  the  licensee  was  required  to  have  constructed,  and  placed  into  operation,  its  base  station  within  eight  months 
 of  receiving  its  license.  2  The  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  (Bureau),  however,  extended  the  construction  deadline  for  non-  nationwide  220  MHz  licenses  on  several  occasions  for  a  variety  of  reasons.  3 
 Eventually,  those  non-  nationwide  220  MHz  licensees  who  elected  to  modify  their  authorizations  pursuant  to  the  220  MHz  Second  Report  and  Order,  were  required  to  have  constructed  by  August  15, 


 1  Letter  of  David  J.  Teat  to  Kathryn  M.  Garland,  Chief,  Consumer  Assistance  Branch,  Customer  Service 
 Division,  FCC,  dated  October  17,  1996  (Teat  Request). 
 2  See  Amendment  of  Part  90  of  the  Commission's  Rules  to  Provide  for  the  Use  of  the  220-  222  MHz  Band  by 
 the  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Services,  PR  Docket  No.  89-  252,  Report  and  Order,  6  FCC  Rcd.  2356,  2366,    76  (1991). 


 3  See  Amendment  of  Part  90  of  the  Commission's  Rules  to  Provide  for  the  Use  of  the  220-  222  MHz  Band  by 
 the  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Services,  Order,  9  FCC  Rcd.  1739  (1994)  (Bureau  extended  the  construction  deadline  to  December  2,  1994);  Private  Radio  Bureau  Extends  Time  to  Construct  Non-  Nationwide  220  MHz  Stations  Through 


 April  4,  1995  and  Lifts  Freeze  for  Applications  to  Modify  Site  Locations,  Public  Notice,  10  FCC  Rcd.  744  (1994)  (Bureau  extended  the  construction  deadline  to  April  4,  1995);  Amendment  of  Part  90  of  the  Commission's  Rules  to 
 Provide  for  the  Use  of  the  220-  222  MHz  Band  by  the  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Services,  Order,  10  FCC  Rcd.  3356  (1995)  (Bureau  extended  the  deadline  to  December  31,  1995);  Amendment  of  Part  90  of  the  Commission's  Rules  to 
 Provide  for  the  Use  of  the  220-  222  MHz  Band  by  the  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Services,  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd.  9710  (1995)  (Bureau  further  extended  the  construction  deadline  contingent  upon  the  closure  of  the  Commission  as  a  result  of 
 any  furlough  of  Federal  Government  employees.  The  ensuing  23-  day  Federal  furlough  resulted  in  an  extension  of  the  construction  deadline  to  February  2,  1996,  pursuant  to  a  formula  established  in  the  Bureau  Order). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  00-  47 
 2 
 1996.  4  This  deadline  was  also  extended  automatically  by  the  number  of  days  after  June  1,  1996,  that  passed  before  a  licensee's  timely  filed  modification  application  was  actually  granted.  5 
 3.  On  August  22,  1994,  Teat  was  granted  a  license  to  operate  a  220  MHz  non-  nationwide  system  under  call  sign  WPFM981  in  Knoxville,  Tennessee.  The  original  construction  deadline  for  Teat's 
 license  was  April  22,  1995,  but  as  mentioned  above,  this  deadline  was  extended  for  all  220  MHz  non-nationwide  licenses  on  a  number  of  occasions.  Pursuant  to  the  220  MHz  Second  Report  and  Order,  Teat 
 requested  and  was  granted  a  modification  of  his  license  which  extended  the  final  construction  deadline  for  his  system  to  October  8,  1996.  At  no  time  prior  to  this  date  did  Teat  request  a  further  extension.  On 
 October  8,  1996,  the  Commission  sent  Teat  a  computer  generated  letter  stating  that  the  construction  deadline  for  WPFM981  had  lapsed  and  requesting  that  Teat  supply  an  update  on  the  status  of  construction 
 within  thirty  days. 
 4.  In  his  response  filed  October  17,  1996,  Teat  maintains  that  he  has  had  difficulty  constructing  his  system.  6  Specifically,  Teat  states  that  he  had  difficulties  with  the  management  company  he  hired  to 
 build  out  his  system  as  well  as  difficulty  locating  equipment  and  financing.  7  Teat  admits  that  he  should  have  "become  more  active  earlier"  and  states  that  [  t]  he  pieces  didnt  fall  together  until  about  five  days 
 before  [the]  construction  deadline  of  October  8,  1996,  when,  among  other  things,  he  negotiated  a  lease  and  ordered  and  paid  for  equipment.  Teat  requests  that  his  "efforts  to  date  be  construed  as  sufficient  to 
 maintain  [his]  license."  8 
 5.  We  find  that  no  special  circumstances  exist  to  warrant  an  extension  of  the  construction  deadline  for  WPFM981.  By  his  own  admission,  Teat  did  not  actively  pursue  the  construction  of  his 
 system  and  did  not  begin  to  make  any  serious  progress  until  immediately  prior  to  the  construction  deadline.  Because  the  construction  deadline  was  extended  on  several  occasions,  Teat  eventually  had 
 more  than  two  years  from  the  grant  date  to  construct  his  system.  He  fails  to  demonstrate  why  he  should  be  granted  more  time  to  construct  than  other  220  MHz  non-  nationwide  licensees  were  given.  We  do  not 
 find  merit  in  Teat's  contention  that  he  relied  upon  a  third  party  management  company  that  allegedly  delayed  construction.  Under  the  doctrine  of  respondeat  superior,  the  licensee  as  a  principal  is  responsible 
 for  the  acts  of  the  management  company,  its  agent.  9  Therefore,  Teat  may  not  rely  on  his  agent's  alleged 
 4  See  Amendment  of  Part  90  of  the  Commission's  Rules  to  Provide  Service  for  the  Use  of  the  220-  222  MHz 
 Band  by  the  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Service,  PR  Docket  No.  89-  552,  Implementation  of  Sections  3(  n)  and  332  of  the  Communications  Act,  Regulatory  Treatment  of  Mobile  Services,  GN  Docket  No.  93-  252,  Second  Report  and 


 Order,  12  FCC  Rcd.  3668,  3674,    21  (1996)  (220  MHz  Second  Report  and  Order). 
 5  220  MHz  Second  Report  and  Order  at  3674,    23. 


 6  Teat  Request  at  1-  2. 
 7  Id. 
 8  As  of  August  22,  1998,  Teat  had  not  constructed  the  base  station  (telephone  conversation  with  Scott  A. 
 Mackoul,  Policy  and  Rules  Branch,  Commercial  Wireless  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau). 
 9  See  American  Paging,  Inc.  (of  Virginia),  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd.  10,417,  10,419,   
 11  (1997);  Walton  Broadcasting,  Inc.  (KIKX),  Decision,  78  FCC  2d  85  (1980).  See  also  47  U.  S.  C.    217  (the  acts,  omissions  or  failures  of  any  agent  or  other  person  acting  for  or  employed  by  a  common  carrier  are  deemed  to  be  the 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  00-  47 
 3 
 mismanagement  to  support  extension  of  the  construction  deadline.  In  addition,  we  note  that  Teat  made  no  attempt  to  request  an  extension  prior  to  the  final  construction  deadline.  Therefore,  we  deny  Teat's  request 
 for  extension  and  we  cancel  his  license  for  failure  to  construct. 
 6.  Accordingly,  pursuant  to  our  authority  under  sections  4(  i)  and  405  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  405,  and  sections  0.331  and  90.725(  f)  of  the  Commission's 
 rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    0.331,  90.725(  f),  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  the  request  for  extension  of  the  construction  deadline  for  license  WPFM981  IS  DENIED  and  license  WPFM981  IS  HEREBY  CANCELLED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 William  W.  Kunze  Deputy  Chief,  Commercial  Wireless  Division 
 Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau 


 acts,  omissions  or  failures  of  the  carrier). 
3