Federal Communications Commission DA 11-675 
 
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554 
 
In the Matter of 
 
RECONROBOTICS, INC.  
 
Request for Waiver of Part 90 of the 
Commission’s Rules 
 
Petitions for Reconsideration 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
WP Docket No. 08-63 
 
 
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION 
 
Adopted:  April 13, 2011 Released:  April 15, 2011 
 
By the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 
and Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology: 
 
1. Introduction.  This Order on Reconsideration addresses three petitions for 
reconsideration of an Order by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau (the Bureaus).
1
  The Order granted a request filed by ReconRobotics, Inc. 
(ReconRobotics) for a waiver of the Commission’s Part 90 rules to permit certification and use of the 
Recon Scout, a remote-controlled, maneuverable surveillance robot operating in the 420-450 MHz band.  
W. Lee McVey,
2
 Kristopher Kirby,
3
 and the American Radio Relay League, Inc. (ARRL)
4
 filed petitions 
for reconsideration.
5
  These petitions largely raise issues that were adequately addressed in the original 
Order.  For this and other reasons set forth below, we deny the McVey and Kirby petitions, and deny in 
part the ARRL petition, but grant ARRL’s request for a modified labeling requirement. 
2. Background.  In 2008, ReconRobotics filed a request for waiver of Sections 90.101, 
90.207 and 90.209 of the Commission’s Rules
6
 to permit equipment authorization and customer licensing 
                                                           
1
 See ReconRobotics, Inc., Order, WP Docket No. 08-63, 25 FCC Rcd 1782 (WTB/PSHSB 2010) (Order). 
2
 Petition for Reconsideration of Waiver Grant to ReconRobotics, Inc. (filed Mar. 6, 2010) (McVey Petition). 
3
 Letter from Kristopher Kirby to Federal Communications Commission (filed Mar. 10, 2010) (Kirby Petition). 
4
 Petition for Reconsideration (filed Mar. 24, 2010) (ARRL Petition).  ARRL also requested that we stay the Order, 
to prevent the marketing and deployment of the Recon Scout pending the resolution of the petitions for 
reconsideration.  Id. at 1 n.1.  Because no applications to authorize operations pursuant to the Order have been 
granted, see note 17, infra, we deny the stay request. 
5
 In addition, James Edwin Whedbee filed a motion to set the Order aside, and related pleadings.  Motion to Set 
Aside, Vacate, or Correct Order by Cancellation of the Waiver Order, Construing the Application Therefor as a 
Petition for Rulemaking, and Reinstating Proceedings as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 
Section 553 (filed Aug. 19, 2010) (Motion).  Although Whedbee did not caption his Motion as a petition for 
reconsideration, we will treat it as such because it clearly seeks review of the Order.  See Nevada Ready Mix Corp., 
Order on Reconsideration and Order Proposing Modification, 24 FCC Rcd 4648, 4649 ¶ 7 (WTB MD 2009) (citing 
Jack Gerritsen, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 4273, 4273 n.3 (EB 2005); Redlands Municipal 
Airport, Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 14782, 14782 ¶ 4 (WTB PSCID 2005)).  The Order was released 
on February 23, 2010, so petitions for reconsideration were due thirty days later, on March 25, 2010.  See 47 C.F.R. 
§ 1.106(f).  We therefore agree with ReconRobotics that the Motion should be dismissed as untimely.  See 
Opposition to Motion to Set Aside at 1 (filed Aug. 20, 2010).   
6
 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.101 (limiting Part 90 use of 420-450 MHz to radiolocation), 90.207 (modulation), 90.209 
(bandwidth). 
 Federal Communications Commission DA 11-675 
 
 
2 
for the Recon Scout, and its use by state and local public safety agencies, and security personnel in critical 
infrastructure industries.  The Recon Scout can be thrown, dropped, or launched into potentially 
hazardous areas, and transmits real-time video surveillance data back to the operator on frequencies on 
one of three channels:  430-436 MHz, 436-442 MHz, and 442-448 MHz.
7
  A waiver was required to 
permit the device to transmit surveillance data in the 420-450 MHz band, which is allocated to the federal 
radiolocation service on a primary basis, and to the amateur service and certain non-federal radiolocation 
systems on a secondary basis.
8
 
3. The Bureaus sought comment on the waiver request.
9
  In response, over seventy 
comments were filed.  Generally, public safety and law enforcement entities commented in support of the 
waiver request, and amateur radio commenters (including ARRL, but not the other petitioners) opposed 
it.
10
   
4. After consideration of the record, the Bureaus granted the request pursuant to Section 
1.925(b)(3)(i) of the Commission’s rules, which provides authority to grant a waiver if 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.
11
  The Bureaus concluded that the 
underlying purpose of the rules would not be served by strict application because the Recon Scout was 
not likely to cause interference to other services, and ReconRobotics acknowledged that the Recon Scout 
would operate on a secondary basis to other users.
12
  The Bureaus held that grant of the request would be 
in the public interest because it would improve officer safety in many high-risk situations with a 
likelihood of death or serious harm.
13
  They acknowledged commenters’ concerns that interference to the 
Recon Scout from higher power sources could impair its reliability, but concluded that the possibility of 
such interference in some instances was not a reason to prohibit its use in all instances.
14
 
5. Consequently, the Bureaus granted the waiver request, subject to certain conditions.
15
  
The number of units to be sold was limited to 2,000 during the first year following equipment approval, 
and 8,000 during the second year.  The first unit to be sold to a responding organization must operate on 
436-442 MHz, with the 442-448 MHz version being sold only to entities that already own the 436-442 
MHz version, and the 430-436 MHz version being sold only to entities that already own the other two 
versions.  Operation was prohibited prior to grant of individual licenses to eligible entities,
16
 which would 
not be granted until after ReconRobotics obtained equipment authorization.
17
  The Bureaus expressly 
                                                           
7
 See Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 1783 ¶ 3.  
8
 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.106, 90.103(c)(21), 97.303(f).  Non-federal radiolocation stations are secondary to both federal 
radiolocation stations and amateur stations. 
9
 See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Seek Comment on 
Request for Waiver by ReconRobotics, Inc. to Allow Certification and Use of Remote-Controlled Surveillance 
Robot Operating at 430-448 MHz, Public Notice, WP Docket No. 08-63, 23 FCC Rcd 7437 (WTB/PSHSB 2008). 
10
 See Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 1783-84 ¶ 5. 
11
 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3)(i). 
12
 See Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 1784-85 ¶¶ 7-9. 
13
 Id. at 1785-86 ¶ 10. 
14
 Id. at 1786 ¶ 10. 
15
 Id. at 1786-88 ¶¶ 11-13. 
16
 Eligibility was limited to state and local police and firefighters and security personnel in critical infrastructure 
industries, and use of the Recon Scout was limited to actual emergencies and necessary training related to such 
operations.   
17
 To date, no applications for individual licenses to operate the Recon Scout have been granted. 
 Federal Communications Commission DA 11-675 
 
 
3 
provided that operation of the Recon Scout would be on a secondary basis to all federal users and licensed 
non-federal users.
18
  At the request of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
(NTIA), the Bureaus prohibited training operations within thirty kilometers of certain federal 
radiolocation sites, and required Recon Scout transmitters to be labeled as follows:  “This device may not 
interfere with Federal stations operating in the 420-450 MHz band and must accept any interference 
received.”
19
  In addition, the Order required that the following statement be placed in the instruction 
manual:  “Although this transmitter has been approved by the Federal Communications Commission, 
there is no guarantee that it will not receive interference.”
20
 
6. Discussion.  The three petitions raise several issues for reconsideration, including some 
overlapping issues.  As noted above, the petitions largely raise issues that we have previously considered 
and addressed earlier in this proceeding.  For the reasons set forth below, we deny the McVey and Kirby 
petitions, and grant in part and deny in part the ARRL petition.    
7. First, McVey and ARRL argue that the waiver is invalid because the only Part 90 
operation for which the 420-450 MHz band is allocated is radiolocation, and the Order did not waive the 
Table of Allocations.
21
  ARRL further argues that manufacturer-specific waivers of the Table of 
Allocations are inappropriate.
22
  We disagree.  Party-specific waivers of the Table of Allocations are 
neither prohibited nor particularly unusual.
23
  We agree, however, that the Order should have included 
applicable provisions of Section 2.106 among the rules waived.  We therefore retroactively waive the 
Table of Allocations to the extent necessary to permit use of the Recon Scout.   
8. Next, McVey and ARRL argue that there are alternative frequency bands that would be 
suitable for the Recon Scout, and that test data submitted by ReconRobotics to demonstrate the particular 
suitability of the 420-450 MHz band was flawed and incomplete.
24
  Even if true, we conclude that these 
claims would not constitute grounds for reversing the Order.  As noted above, the Bureaus granted the 
waiver request pursuant to Section 1.925(b)(3)(i) of the Commission’s rules, which did not require 
ReconRobotics to demonstrate the absence of alternatives to the 420-450 MHz band.  Nor were the 
Bureaus required by Section 1.925(b)(3)(i) to address alternatives in order to grant the requested waiver.
25
   
9. While we agree with McVey and ARRL that there were possible inconsistencies between 
particular readings in the test data, we believe the test data nonetheless demonstrated the particular 
suitability of the 420-450 MHz band, because it showed that the received signal strength for the 434 MHz 
band is generally greater than that for the 915 MHz band.
26
  Further, we agree with ReconRobotics that 
                                                           
18
 Id. at 1787 ¶ 11. 
19
 Id. at 1786-87 ¶ 11.  Because the 420-450 MHz band is allocated to the federal radiolocation service on a primary 
basis, ReconRobotics’s waiver request was coordinated with NTIA, which administers authorizations for federal 
stations.  Id. at 1783 n.14. 
20
 Id. at 1787-88 ¶ 11.   
21
 See Kirby Petition at 1; ARRL Petition at 4. 
22
 See ARRL Petition at 5, 10. 
23
 See, e.g., Globalstar Licensee LLC, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 13114, 13132 ¶ 48 (IB/WTB/OET 2010); County of 
Franklin, Pennsylvania, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 8111, 8118 ¶ 18 (PSHSB PD 2010). 
24
 See McVey Petition at 6-10; ARRL Petition at 6-7, Ex. B.   
25
 See, e.g., Wayne D. Johnsen, Esq., Letter, 25 FCC Rcd 13699, 13702 (WTB BD 2010).  ReconRobotics was thus 
not required, as ARRL suggests, to conduct tests “represent[ing] the wide range of buildings and building 
penetration likely to be encountered in real-world environments.”  See ARRL Petition at Ex. B at 1. 
26
 See ReconRobotics, “Empirical Study of the Effects of 434 MHz vs. 915 MHz Frequency Band on the 
Performance of the Recon Scout” at 8 (filed Nov. 3, 2008). 
 Federal Communications Commission DA 11-675 
 
 
4 
alternative frequency bands (902-928 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz) do not propagate as well through 
building materials, and that use of these frequencies would therefore require additional power for building 
penetration, resulting in a heavier device with a reduced throwing range and/or shorter battery life.
27
   
10. Consequently, we are unpersuaded by ARRL’s reference to the decision of the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau’s Mobility Division (Division) involving Terry Mahn.
28
  ARRL cites the 
Mahn decision for the proposition that a waiver should not be granted merely to accommodate a 
manufacturer’s choice of frequency.
29
  In that case, however, the frequency at issue was chosen solely 
because it was harmonized for operation in the European Union, and not for performance considerations.  
Indeed, the Division specifically noted that the petitioner made no showing that the frequency offered 
superior performance over frequencies not requiring a waiver.
30
  The decision is thus distinguishable from 
the present matter, where the record demonstrates the particular suitability of the chosen band. 
11. ARRL also argues that the grant was not in the public interest because operation of the 
Recon Scout will cause interference to amateur operations.
31
  The Bureaus considered arguments made by 
ARRL and others in this regard, but concluded that they did not present sufficient grounds to deny the 
waiver request.  Specifically, the Bureaus concluded that the low power, infrequent use, and limited 
number of Recon Scouts significantly reduced the possibility of interference to amateur operations.  
When coupled with Recon Scout’s potential value in high-risk, public safety situations with a likelihood 
of death or serious harm, the Bureaus determined that grant of the request served the public interest.
32
 
12. We disagree with ARRL’s assertion
33
 that the Bureaus’ action conflicted with the near-
contemporaneous decision
34
 of the Office of Engineering and Technology dismissing a similar waiver 
request filed by Octatron, Inc. and Chang Industry, Inc.  The two matters are distinguishable.  
Octatron/Chang involved a request for waiver of the Part 15 rules to permit unlicensed operation of a 
surveillance device that can be thrown into a potentially hazardous location (or be held aloft on a pole), 
but cannot move under its own power and thus can transmit surveillance data only from the location 
where it comes to rest (or is held).  In contrast, use of the Recon Scout is permitted only pursuant to 
                                                           
27
 See ReconRobotics Petition at 2-3.   
28
 Terry Mahn, Esq., Letter, 21 FCC Rcd 14409 (WTB MD 2006) (Mahn). 
29
 See ARRL Petition at 5.   
30
 See Mahn, 21 FCC Rcd at 14411. 
31
 See ARRL Petition at 10-13.     
32
 See Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 1784-85 ¶¶ 7-9.  Moreover, we disagree with ARRL’s assertion that there is no limit on 
the number of units that can be deployed in a given area, and no database to be consulted to determine the source of 
interference.  See ARRL Petition at 12.  Recon Scouts cannot operate in proximity on the same channel without 
causing interference to each other.  See Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 1783 ¶ 3.  As a practical matter, then, no more than 
three units can be used at the same location.  Also, operation of the Recon Scout will require a separate Commission 
authorization, see id. at 1788 ¶ 13, so interested parties will be able to determine from the Commission’s Universal 
Licensing System what entities are authorized to operate in a particular location.  In addition, to protect licensees in 
the unlikely case of interference, the Order requires licensees to maintain a log of all Recon Scout use, including 
date of operation, start/stop times, location of operation, frequency of operation, reason for use, and point of contact.  
See id.  We believe this information serves as an important tool to identify the source of interference in an 
interference complaint.  Finally, ARRL questions why, if interference is unlikely, the Bureaus prohibited Recon 
Scout training operations within thirty kilometers of certain federal radiolocation sites.  See ARRL Petition at 11.  
As the Order indicated, that prohibition was imposed at the request of NTIA, with which the waiver request was 
coordinated because the 420-450 MHz band is allocated to the federal radiolocation service on a primary basis. 
33
 See ARRL Petition at 7-9.   
34
 See Octatron, Inc. and Chang Industry, Inc., Order, 25 FCC Rcd 2627 (OET 2010) (Octatron/Chang). 
 Federal Communications Commission DA 11-675 
 
 
5 
individual licensing, which permits interested parties to locate Recon Scout users and identify sources of 
interference.  In addition, the maneuverability of the Recon Scout provides greater public safety utility 
than the static device at issue in Octatron/Chang.  Also, there already exists a version of the device at 
issue in Octatron/Chang that complies with the Part 15 rules, so grant of a waiver would have authorized 
only a modified version, rather than a new device for use in public safety and homeland security.   
13. Kirby and ARRL argue that the grant was not in the public interest because the Recon 
Scout will incur interference from amateur operations, which could endanger law enforcement 
personnel.
35
  The Bureaus weighed this concern as well, but concluded that the possibility of the device 
incurring interference in some instances did not present a compelling reason to prohibit its use in all 
instances.
36
  We adhere to that view.  ReconRobotics has accepted that it may receive interference from 
amateur operations, and the Order specifies that the Recon Scout must accept interference from licensed 
users. 
14. ARRL also argues that the labeling requirements in the Order are insufficient to convey 
to the user the operating limitations on the devices, as they do not recognize the protection afforded to 
non-federal users in the band.
37
  As noted above, the labeling requirements were imposed at the request of 
NTIA, which is interested primarily in protecting federal operations.  ARRL requests that the label be 
modified to provide as follows:  “This device may not interfere with Federal or non-federal stations 
operating in the 420-450 MHz band and must accept any interference received.”
38
 ARRL also requests 
that the instruction manual language be modified to more clearly explain the conditions of operation, by 
stating as follows:  “Although this transmitter has been approved by the Federal Communications 
Commission, it must accept any interference received from Federal or non-federal stations, including 
interference that may cause undesired operation.”
39
  ReconRobotics assents to these proposed changes.
40
  
We agree that these changes to the label and instruction manual will better apprise Recon Scout users of 
the status of their operations, and accordingly grant ARRL’s requests.
41
 
15. Finally, McVey and ARRL argue that the Order should be reconsidered on the grounds 
that ReconRobotics has been marketing uncertified devices and that the devices have been operating 
without authorization.
42
  ARRL notes that it provided this information to the Commission’s Enforcement 
Bureau.
43
  We agree with ReconRobotics that these allegations should be addressed by the Enforcement 
Bureau, and not adjudicated in the context of petitions for reconsideration of the grant of the waiver.
44
   
16. Conclusion and Ordering Clauses.  We agree with ARRL that the instruction manual and 
                                                           
35
 See Kirby Petition at 1; ARRL Petition at 10.   
36
 See Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 1785-86 ¶ 10.  The Bureaus also pointed out that the record indicated that the Recon 
Scout is intended to be used in a potentially dangerous situation prior to entry by live personnel, reducing the chance 
that interference to the video signal would endanger law enforcement personnel.  Id. at 1786 ¶ 10. 
37
 See ARRL Petition at 14-15. 
38
 Id. at 15. 
39
 Id. 
40
 See Opposition of ReconRobotics, Inc. to the Petition for Reconsideration of ARRL at 13 (ReconRobotics 
Opposition to ARRL Petition). 
41
 The new requirements apply to Recon Scout transmitters delivered after the release of this Order on 
Reconsideration.  ReconRobotics is not required to relabel units already in purchasers’ possession. 
42
 See McVey Petition at 2-6; ARRL Petition at 15-16. 
43
 See ARRL Petition at 16. 
44
 See ReconRobotics Opposition to ARRL Petition at 14. 
 Federal Communications Commission DA 11-675 
 
 
6 
labeling of the Recon Scout should be amended to clarify that the Recon Scout will operate on a 
secondary basis to, and must accept interference from, both federal and non-federal users.  We modify the 
language to reflect this change.  In all other respects, however, we deny the petitions for reconsideration 
of the Order.   
17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Section 1.106 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, the petitions for reconsideration filed by W. Lee McVey and 
Kristopher Kirby on March 6, 2010 and March 10, 2010 ARE DENIED; the petition for reconsideration 
filed by the American Radio Relay League, Inc. on March 24, 2010 IS GRANTED IN PART AND  
DENIED IN PART to the extent set forth above; and the Motion to Set Aside, Vacate, or Correct Order 
by Cancellation of the Waiver Order, Construing the Application Therefor as a Petition for Rulemaking, 
and Reinstating Proceedings as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Consistent with 5 U.S.C. Section 553 
filed by James Edwin Whedbee on August 19, 2010 IS DISMISSED.  
18. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.31, 0.131, 0.191, 
0.241, 0.331, and 0.392 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.31, 0.131, 0.191, 0.241, 0.331, and 
0.392. 
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
    
 
Ruth Milkman                                                                                                        
Chief                                                                                          
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
     
 
James Arden Barnett, Jr.                                                                                            
Rear Admiral (Ret.)                                                                       
Chief                                                                                          
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau 
     
 
Julius P. Knapp                                                                                                        
Chief                                                                                            
Office of Engineering and Technology