WPC$ 2BJZ Courier3|fpx6X@KX@HP LaserJet 4 PostScript RM 8010HPLA4POS.PRSx  @hhhh"\{X@26 ZFL3|fHP LaserJet 4 PostScript RM 8010HPLA4POS.PRSx  @hhhh"\{X@ S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&J\  P6Qx&P#"S^.=K\\===\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc=.============\3QQQQQzzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\f\QQzQzQzQzQ\pQpQpQpQ\\\\\\\=\=\===\G=\p3p=p=p=p3\\\\\z=z=z=fGfGfGfGp=p=p=\\\\\pQpQN@.S\=Q\\\\\39\7\7!3QQ\==\\ff=Q7tggeeggoo.Ig2[-Kye1pe~e\e~25LLQL L "S^.=f\\===\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_=.============f3\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\QQQQfzQzQzQzQ\\\\\ffGfGfG=Gf\=fz3z=z=z=z3fff\\QQQfGfGfGfGz=z=z=ffff\zQzQN@.c\=\\\\\\7=\7\733\\\==\\ff=\7tiieeiioo.Ii2[-Kye1pe~efe~"S^%-77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%n%%%%%%%%%%7O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O1O1I1I1I1I1O7C1C1C1C1O7O7O7O7O7O7O7%7%7%%%7+%O7CC%C%C%CO7O7O7O7O7bOI%I%I%=+=+=+=+C%C%C%O7O7O7O7hOO7C1C1N'27%177777"SS7!TT7S!117n%%77l==n%1ni!t>><<>>mBBs,>[N6-msTN[TTTH_<1CP L`"S^*8FSS888Sq*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88qqqSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ8*888888888888S.fSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSoJoJoJoJxSfJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSxSxS8S8S888SJ8oJ].]8]8]8].oSoSoSxSxSofAfAfASASASASA]8]8]8xSxSxSxSo]J]A]AN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}2$.]]S88SSSS8]2tqq\\qqee*Cq.wR)Ewn\1fy\r\Sxx\r"S^!)22SN!!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!d!!!!!!!!!!2H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H,H,C,C,C,C,H2=,=,=,=,H2H2H2H2H2H2H2!2!2!!!2'!H2==!=!=!=H2H2H2H2H2YHC!C!C!8'8'8'8'=!=!=!H2H2H2H2^HH2=,=,N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K,,2d!!22b88d!,d_t887788c<ԍState of South Carolina, Order, 13 FCC Rcd 8787, 878990 (WTB 1997) (Waiver Order). In addition to   hthe parties to the South Carolina request, the system also uses Public Safety frequencies licensed to Richland County. "}(, * *("  {O-Id. at 8790. Section 90.179(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  90.179(a), provides that a" Z, * *,,)""   licensee may share its station only with users that would be eligible for separate authorization to use those   frequencies. On September 30, 1997, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) granted the joint   request of SCI and South Carolina for a waiver of that rule to permit them to share the entire system with  Sg-  zPublic Safety, SERS, and Power RadiogZ( {Oa-ԍIn the 800 MHz band, Power Radio eligibles are eligible under the I/LT Category. See 47 C.F.R.  90.63. eligibles (i.e., to allow Public Safety and SERS eligibles to use   jthe I/LT and BRS frequencies in the SCI network, and Power Radio eligibles to use the Public Safety and  S-  SERS frequencies) on a nonprofit, cost shared basis.X( {O -ԍWaiver Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 8795.X Over fifty governmental and public safety agencies  S-and utilities currently use the system.O~( yO -ԍSouth Carolina Request at 34.O  Si-3.` ` Section 90.179(d) provides,  3XIf the licensee shares the land station on a nonprofit, cost shared basis to the licensee,  S- 3this shared use must be pursuant to a written agreement between the licensee and each  S - 2participant which sets out (1) the method of operation, (2) the components of the system  which are covered by the sharing arrangements, (3) the method by which costs are to be  apportioned, and (4) acknowledgement that all shared transmitter use must be subject to  S -the licensee's control. These agreements must be kept as part of the station records.[ ( yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.179(d) (emphasis added).[    ySCI and South Carolina state that, given the number of stations in the system, the number of licensees on   Nwhose frequencies the system operates, and the number of entities sharing those frequencies, it is   administratively burdensome and unreasonably costly to execute a written agreement for each station in  S-  =the system between each licensee and each participant._ ( yOE-ԍSCI Request at 1; South Carolina Request at 5._ They further state that strict application of the  S-  rule would make the addition of other licensees' frequencies to the system especially cumbersome._ . ( yO-ԍSCI Request at 2; South Carolina Request at 5._ As   an alternative, they propose to satisfy the written agreement requirement under Section 90.179 by having   each licensee enter into an agreement with the system manager, who would in turn enter into an agreement  S;-containing the information required by the rule with each participant.g ; ( yO -ԍSCI Request at 12; South Carolina Request at 2.g  S-3 III. DISCUSSION ă  So-  P4.` ` Clarification Request. SCI requests that we clarify our interpretation of Section 90.179(d)  S=-  =as permitting the proposed arrangement.B =N ( yO+&-ԍSCI Request at 1.B In this connection, we conclude that the plain language of the   rule is instructive. The rule unambiguously requires a separate agreement between the licensee and each"  ,l(l(,,"   zparticipant. Consequently, we do not interpret Section 90.179 as expressly allowing the arrangement  S-proposed by SCI and South Carolina. Thus, this clarification request must be denied. ( {O5- ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  1.2 (authorizing declaratory rulings to "remov[e] uncertainty"); see also, e.g., GTE Service  {O-Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 6933, 6934 (CCB 1987).  Sg-  5.` ` Waiver Request. To obtain a waiver of the Commission's Part 90 rules, a petitioner must   demonstrate that its circumstances are unique, and that there is no reasonable alternative within the  S-  existing rules.J$( yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.151(a).J We note, as an initial matter, that the Bureau found, when it granted the earlier waiver  S-  request of SCI and South Carolina, that their radio system is unique.a( {O# -ԍWaiver Order , 13 FCC Rcd at 879192.a However, we believe that   uniqueness with respect to the constraints imposed by Section 90.179(a) does not necessarily equate with   uniqueness with respect to the requirement imposed by Section 90.179(d). Petitioners bear the burden of   [proving that the written agreement requirement affects them uniquely, but they have not established this  S-  fact.F( {O-ԍRAM Technologies, Inc., Order, 13 FCC Rcd 7246, 724849 (WTB Comm. Wireless Div. 1998). We find the absence of such showing to be a fatal defect. Moreover, we find that the petitioners   =have a reasonable alternative within the existing rules. The rule does not, as SCI fears, require a separate   \agreement for each station. Rather, we believe that an agreement could be executed between a licensee   ]and a participant which covers all of the licensee's stations. In addition, while the rule requires an   agreement between each licensee and each participant, it does not preclude the agreement being executed   Mon the licensee's behalf by an authorized agent. Thus, the licensees arguably could each designate the  S -  Nsystem manager as their agent for the purpose of entering into the required agreements.X ( yOI- _ԍThe requirement that the use of the facility remain subject to the licensee's control, 47 C.F.R.   w90.179(d)(4), and all other obligations imposed upon licensees by the Commission's rules, would continue to apply, even if the licensee executes the required agreements through an agent rather than directly.  Such an   approach would maintain the required connection between licensees and participants without requiring  Sk-  Lthem to execute duplicative instruments.x\k ( {O- ?ԍCf. Amendment of Parts 89, 91, 93 and 95 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations to Adopt New   Practices and Procedures for Cooperative Use and Multiple Licensing of Stations in the Private Land Mobile Radio  {O-Services, Report and Order, 89 FCC 2d 766, 787 (1982).x In sum, we conclude that the petitioners have not established the elements necessary for a waiver of the Part 90 rules.  S-w IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  Sl-  26.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of Sections 4(i) and 303(r)   of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 303(r), and Sections 90.151   and 90.179 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  90.151, 90.179, the request for clarification or   waiver of Section 90.179(d) filed by SCANA Communications, Inc., and the request for waiver of Section   90.179(d) filed by the State of South Carolina and the Counties of Lexington and Spartanburg ARE DENIED.  S-  P7.` ` This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the  S-Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.131, 0.331. ",l(l(,,"Ԍ S-  ԙ8.` ` For further information contact Scot Stone, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, at (202) 4180680. ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  S5-` `  hh,   S-` `  hh,D'wana R. Terry ` `  hh,Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division  S -` `  hh,Wireless Telecommunications Bureau