**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | File Nos. 0001972725,        |
|                                  | *) | 0002002101                   |
| COUNTY OF PLACER, CALIFORNIA     | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Request for Waiver of Sections   | *  |                              |
| 80.371, 80.773, and 90.20 of the | *) |                              |
| Commission's Rules               | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: June 21, 2006 Released: June 23, 2006**

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

1.  *Introduction.* On January 13 and 14, 2005, respectively, the County
    of Placer, California (Placer) filed new applications for stations
    at Mt. Pluto and Kings Beach, California,[^1] and Mt. Rose,
    Nevada,[^2] to operate on frequencies 157.225/161.825 MHz (VHF
    Public Coast (VPC) Channel 84) and 157.250/161.850 MHz (VPC Channel
    25).[^3] In association with these applications, Placer filed
    requests for waiver of the Commission's Rules to permit it to
    operate with technical parameters beyond the limits set forth in
    Sections 80.773(c) and 90.20(g) of the Commission's Rules.[^4]
    Placer also seeks a waiver of Section 80.371[^5] to permit the
    Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials International,
    Inc. (APCO), a Commission-certified Public Safety frequency
    coordinator, to coordinate the public safety operations for the
    proposed Mt. Pluto and Kings Beach stations. For the reasons that
    follow, we grant the waiver requests to the extent indicated below,
    and will grant the above-captioned applications.

2.  *Background.* Placer is a county in northern California that extends
    from Sacramento County east-northeast to the California-Nevada state
    line. The county is within VPC Service Area (VPCSA) 6. Nearby
    portions of California and Nevada are within adjoining VPCSA 34.
    Placer has developed a plan for using VHF spectrum to upgrade its
    inadequate analog communications system to a trunked, digital
    state-of-the-art voice and data communications network using
    narrowband technology to serve Federal, state and local agencies. On
    June 14, 2004, MariTEL Southern Pacific, Inc. (MariTEL), the
    geographic licensee for VPCSA 6, filed an application for consent to
    assign to Placer certain channels, including VPC Channels 84 and 25,
    in Placer County.[^6] MariTEL and Placer also filed a request for
    waiver to permit Placer to operate at the boundaries of VPCSAs 34
    and 6 on the partitioned and disaggregated spectrum with a higher
    signal strength than the rules permit. On February 16, 2005, the
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Public Safety and Critical
    Infrastructure Division (Division) granted the waiver request,
    subject to certain conditions intended to protect marine
    communications.[^7] The assignment application was consented to on
    February 22, 2005 under Call Sign WQCP558, and the parties
    consummated the assignment on April 14, 2005.[^8]

3.  In maritime VPCSAs, such as VPCSA 6, VPC channels are licensed on a
    geographic basis for marine public correspondence use (although
    service to units on land is permitted under certain circumstances),
    and no frequency coordination is required.[^9] Section 80.773 limits
    the permissible field strength on these frequencies at the boundary
    with an adjacent VPCSA.[^10] Placer's proposed operations at Mt.
    Pluto and Kings Beach, which are in VPCSA 6, would result in a field
    strength at the border between VPCSAs 6 and 34 in excess of that
    permitted by Section 80.773(c).[^11] Consequently, Placer requests a
    waiver of Section 80.773(c).[^12] Placer also requests a waiver of
    Section 80.371 to allow APCO to coordinate public safety operations
    in VPCSA 6.[^13]

4.  In certain inland VPCSAs, including VPCSA 34, VPC Channels 84 and 25
    are designated for public safety use.[^14] These public safety
    channels are licensed on a site-by-site basis, and must be
    coordinated by a Public Safety frequency coordinator.[^15] Section
    90.20(g) limits the permissible antenna height, and the permissible
    field strength at the boundary of an adjacent maritime VPCSA.[^16]
    Placer's proposed operations at Mt. Rose, which is in VPCSA 34,
    would result in a field strength at the border between VPCSAs 34 and
    6 in excess of that permitted by Section 90.20(g).[^17] Placer also
    proposes to operate the Mt. Rose station with an antenna height
    greater than that permitted by Section 90.20(g) and, accordingly,
    requests a waiver of Section 90.20(g).[^18]

5.  *Discussion.* Section 1.925 of the Commission\'s Rules provides that
    we may grant a waiver if it is shown that (a) the underlying purpose
    of the rule(s) would not be served or would be frustrated by
    application to the instant case, and grant of the requested waiver
    would be in the public interest; or (b) in light of unique or
    unusual circumstances, application of the rule(s) would be
    inequitable, unduly burdensome, or contrary to the public interest,
    or the applicant has no reasonable alternative.[^19] Based on the
    record before us, we conclude that the waiver requests should be
    granted to the extent set forth below.

6.  [Mt. Pluto and Kings Beach]{.underline}. Placer requests a waiver of
    Section 80.773(c) to permit its proposed Mt. Pluto and Kings Beach
    stations to operate with a higher field strength at the boundary
    with VPCSA 34. Imposing a field strength limit in maritime VPCSAs to
    channels that are set aside for public safety use in an adjoining
    inland VPCSA serves to protect and preserve public safety use of the
    spectrum. Placer states that the proposed operations at Mt. Pluto
    and Kings Beach are consistent with that purpose because the
    channels will be used by Placer for public safety in both VPCSA 6
    and 34, without causing interference to others.[^20] In addition,
    Placer submits that because the applications were coordinated by
    APCO, there is further assurance that the proposed operations will
    not cause interference to other public safety operations.[^21]
    Moreover, to the extent that the proposed stations could affect
    operations in VPCSA 6 beyond Placer County, we note that MariTEL has
    consented to Placer's proposed operations.[^22] We agree that
    applying the field strength limit under the circumstances presented
    would not serve the purpose of the rule.

7.  Placer also requests a waiver of Section 80.371 to allow APCO to
    coordinate the public safety operations at Mt. Pluto and King's
    Beach.[^23] We conclude, however, that such a waiver is unnecessary.
    Although Section 80.371 does not require frequency coordination for
    any frequencies in a maritime VPCSA, it does not preclude a licensee
    from utilizing the services of a frequency coordinator in connection
    with a waiver request.

8.  [Mt. Rose]{.underline}. Placer requests a waiver of Section 90.20(g)
    to permit its Mt. Rose station to operate with a greater antenna
    height, and with a higher field strength at the boundary with
    VPCSA 6. The limitations imposed by Section 90.20(g) serve to
    protect operations in adjacent maritime VPCSAs from interference
    from public safety operations. However, Placer is now the geographic
    licensee in the affected portion of VPCSA 6 and therefore is capable
    of ensuring that the proposed Mt. Rose station will not interfere
    with Placer's own operations. Moreover, to the extent that the
    proposed stations could affect operations in VPCSA 6 beyond Placer
    County, we note that MariTEL has consented to Placer's proposed
    operations.[^24] We therefore conclude that applying these technical
    limitations under the circumstances presented would not serve the
    purpose of the rule because the proposed operations do not pose the
    potential for harmful interference to other licensees.

9.  Finally, we conclude that grant of the requested waivers would serve
    the public interest. In support of its requests, Placer states that
    granting the request for waiver would promote the public interest by
    ensuring sufficient spectrum to support its public safety and
    homeland security needs.[^25] Authorization of the proposed
    facilities will allow Placer to continue to upgrade its analog
    public safety communications system to a trunked, digital
    state-of-the-art voice and data communications network using
    narrowband technology to serve Federal, state and local
    agencies.[^26]

10. *Conclusion and Ordering Clauses.* With respect to the proposed Mt.
    Pluto and Kings Beach stations, we grant Placer's request for a
    waiver of Sections 80.773(c), and conclude that its requests for
    waivers of Sections 80.371 and 90.20(g) are unnecessary. With
    respect to the proposed Mt. Rose station, we grant Placer's request
    for a waiver of Section 90.20(g). The stations will be subject to
    the same conditions that the Division attached to Placer's license
    for Call Sign WQCP558, in order to protect marine
    communications.[^27] Grant of these waiver requests will further the
    Commission's goal of deploying spectrum to support public safety
    operations and promoting flexible use of the spectrum.

11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority of Sections
    4(i) and 303(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
    U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(i), and Section 1.925 of the Commission\'s
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.925, that the requests for waiver filed by the
    County of Placer, California in association with File Nos.
    0002002101 and 0001972725 on January 13 and 14, 2005, respectively,
    ARE GRANTED to the extent set forth above, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION
    THAT no interference is caused to current or future marine
    communications, including but not limited to Automatic
    Identification System operations.

12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that applications FCC File Nos. 0001972725 and
    0002002101 SHALL BE PROCESSED consistent with this *Order* and the
    Commission's Rules.

13. 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

    Michael J. Wilhelm Chief, Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure
    Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: *See* File No. 0002002101 (Placer Mt. Pluto and Kings Beach Waiver
    Request).

[^2]: *See* File No. 0001972725 (Placer Mt. Rose Waiver Request).

[^3]: The applications seek to use the frequencies on a narrowband
    basis, and also request authorization to operate on the interstitial
    narrowband channel between VPC Channels 84 and 25 \--
    157.2375/161.8375 MHz (VPC Channel 284).

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 80.773(c), 90.20(g).

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 80.371.

[^6]: *See* File No. 0001750425.

[^7]: *See* County of Placer, California, *Order*, 20 FCC Rcd 3657 (WTB
    PSCID 2005) (*Order*).

[^8]: *See* File No. 0002133834; *Public Notice*, Report No. 2137 (WTB
    rel. April 27, 2005).

[^9]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 80.123, 80.371(c)(1)(i).

[^10]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 80.773(c).

[^11]: Specifically the limit will be exceeded at the VPCSA 6/34 border
    with the Nevada counties of Washoe, Storey, Carson City, and
    Douglas, and the California counties of Alpine and Sierra. Placer
    Mt. Pluto and Kings Beach Waiver Request at 3.

[^12]: *Id.* at 2-3. Placer also requests a waiver of the antenna height
    limit in Section 90.20(g). *Id.* at 3. We conclude, however, that
    such a request is unnecessary, because Section 90.20(g) governs only
    stations in inland VPCSAs. *See* para. 4, *infra*.

[^13]: *See* Placer Mt. Pluto and Kings Beach Waiver Request at 2.

[^14]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 80.371(c)(1)(ii), 90.20(g)(2)(ii). In other
    inland VPCSAs, VPC Channels 25 and 85 are designated for public
    safety use.

[^15]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(g)(2)(ii), (5)(ii).

[^16]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(g)(5)(ii), (iii)(D).

[^17]: *See* n.11, *supra[.]{.underline}*

[^18]: *See* Placer Mt. Pluto and Kings Beach Waiver Request at 2-3.

[^19]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3); *see also WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 418 F. 2d
    1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969), *cert. denied*, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972).

[^20]: *See* Placer Mt. Pluto and Kings Beach Waiver Request at 7.

[^21]: Frequency Coordination number 47YWAP340177359.

[^22]: *See* Letter dated July 19, 2004 from Dan Smith, President & CEO,
    MariTEL, to Federal Communications Commission.

[^23]: Placer Mt. Pluto and Kings Beach Waiver Request at 1.

[^24]: *See* n.22, *supra.*

[^25]: *See* Placer Mt. Pluto and Kings Beach Waiver Request at 8;
    Placer Mt. Rose Waiver Request at 7.

[^26]: *See* Placer Mt. Pluto and Kings Beach Waiver Request at 1;
    Placer Mt. Rose Waiver Request at 1.

[^27]: *See Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 3662 ¶ 16.