**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| OMNITRONICS, LLC                 | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Request for Waiver               | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION**

**Adopted: November 3, 2003 Released: November 6, 2003**

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

1.  *Introduction*. On January 16, 2003, Omnitronics, LLC (Omnitronics)
    filed a petition for reconsideration[^1] of the December 19, 2002,
    action[^2] by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Public Safety
    and Private Wireless Division (Division), denying Omnitronics'
    request for waiver of Section 95.419(a) of the Commission's
    Rules.[^3] For the reasons stated below, we deny Omnitronics'
    Petition.

2\. *Background.* On December 10, 2001, Omnitronics submitted a request
for waiver of Section 95.419(a) of the Commission's Rules, which
prohibits the operation of a CB station transmitter by radio remote
control.[^4] Omnitronics, a manufacturer of accessories to be used in
the Citizens Band (CB) Radio Service, stated that it sought to bring to
market a new product that would use 900 MHz spread spectrum cordless
telephone technology to allow wireless hands-free operation of a CB
radio transmitter.[^5] The product would consist of an earphone and
microphone connected to a belt pack, and a relay to be connected to a
separately sold CB radio.[^6] Omnitronics states that "the chance of an
interfering signal keying the CB radio is virtually impossible," and
that the CB radio will be remotely keyed only when four conditions were
met: (1) correct spread spectrum PN codes; (2) correct scrambling seed;
(3) correct unique 22 bit user I.D. number; and (4) correct 8 bit code
that is transmitted when the belt pack VOX circuit has detected
radio.[^7]

3\. On December 19, 2002, the Division denied Omnitronics' request. The
Division gave two reasons for its decision. First, the Division noted
that Section 95.607 of the Commission Rules[^8] specifically provides
that only the holder of the grant of authorization of the particular
certified CB transmitter may make modifications to the transmitter,
including the addition of any accessory or device not specified in the
certification, or the addition of any switch, control, or external
connection.[^9] Because Omnitronics is not the holder of the grants of
authorization for the CB transmitters to which Omnitronics' product
would be attached, the Division concluded that Omnitronics was not
eligible to seek a waiver of Section 95.419(a) for Omnitronics' proposed
product.[^10] In addition, the Division held that grant of a waiver of
the rule at this time could circumvent the Commission's rulemaking
process by inviting numerous similar requests, and would undermine the
purpose of Section 95.419, which is to ensure that adequate means are
available to the operator to render the transmitter inoperative should
improper operation occur.[^11] On January 16, 2003, Omnitronics filed
the Petition seeking reconsideration of the Division's decision.

4\. *Discussion.* First, Omnitronics argues that Section 95.607 does not
apply to accessories or devices that connect to existing connectors on
the CB transmitter and does not enable new functions that were not
covered in the original grant of authorization.[^12] For example,
Omnitronics contends that Section 95.420 of the Commission's Rules[^13]
allows the connection of a phone patch to a CB transmitter.[^14]
Omnitronics argues that the technical specifications of Sections
95.637(d) and 95.669 of the Commission's Rules[^15] guarantee that
accessories or devices connected to existing connectors will not cause
improper operation of the CB transmitter, and states that the product it
proposes to market would connect to the same existing connectors on a CB
transmitter to which a phone patch would connect.[^16] Omnitronics
argues that the Part 95 rules imply that accessories may be used with a
CB station transmitter provided that the accessories only connect to
existing external connectors on the CB transmitter, the accessory or
device does not increase the radio frequency output of the CB
transmitter, and the accessory or device does not cause the CB
transmitter to operate on any radio frequency that is not specified in
CB Rule 7.[^17]

5\. We disagree with Omnitronics' analysis of the CB rules. While the
Rules may not expressly define the terms "device or accessory," we see
no reason not to afford these terms their plain meaning, which would
clearly encompass Omnitronics' proposed product. We also note that
Omnitronics, in its original request, describes itself as "a
manufacturer of accessories to be used in the Citizens Radio Service . .
. ."[^18] Nor do we find Omnitronics' analysis of the Rules, maintaining
that there is a distinction between internal and external connectors to
CB transmitters, to be persuasive. We further note that though Section
95.420 permits connection of a CB station transmitter to a telephone by
means of a phone patch device which has been registered with the
Commission,[^19] the rule does not permit remote operation.[^20] Thus,
pursuant to Section 95.607, because Omnitronics is not the holder of the
grant of authorization for the CB transmitters to which Omnitronics'
product would be attached, Omnitronics is ineligible to seek a waiver of
Section 95.419(a) for the product.

6\. Moreover, even if Omnitronics' interpretation of Section 95.607 is
correct, we continue to believe that granting a waiver of Section
95.419(a) under these circumstances would undermine the rule or
circumvent the rulemaking process. Omnitronics argues that the
Commission has granted a similar waiver request of the Family Radio
Service (FRS) rules on the proviso that a rulemaking proposal be
submitted, and states that it will submit a rulemaking proposal in a
timely manner should the instant waiver request be granted.[^21] In the
case cited by Omnitronics, the Division denied the petitioner's initial
waiver request.[^22] A subsequent request for temporary waiver was
granted.[^23] In that case, however, the petitioner provided more detail
and more safeguards than Omnitronics currently offers, and the
petitioner sought waiver for an explicit limited duration. Similarly, in
seeking a waiver of Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Public Safety Radio Pool
rules,[^24] LoJack Corporation sought its waiver pending resolution of
LoJack's simultaneously filed rulemaking petition.[^25] While
Omnitronics offers to submit a rulemaking proposal at an unspecified
time, Omnitronics is currently seeking an open-ended waiver. Thus, we
believe that the precedent cited by Omnitronics is distinguishable.

7\. 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
petition for reconsideration filed by Omnitronics, LLC on January 16,
2003 IS DENIED.

8\. 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]: Petition for Reconsideration by Omnitronics, LLC (filed Jan. 16,
    2003) (Petition). Omnitronics supplemented its petition on April 8,
    2003. Letter dated April 3, 2003 from Martin O. Risso, Omnitronics,
    LLC to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission (filed April 8, 2003) (Supplement).

[^2]: Letter dated December 19, 2002 from D'wana R. Terry, Chief, Public
    Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau to Martin Risso, Omnitronics, LLC (*Division Letter*).

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 95.419(a). Remote control means operation of a CB
    transmitter from any place other than the location of the CB
    transmitter. 47 C.F.R. § 95.419(c).

[^4]: Letter dated December 10, 2001 from Martin Risso, Senior Design
    Engineer, Omnitronics, LLC to Mary Shultz, Chief, Licensing and
    Technical Analysis Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless
    Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Request for Waiver).

[^5]: *Id.* at 1.

[^6]: *Id.*

[^7]: *Id.*

[^8]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 95.607(a), (b). *See also* Amendment of Parts 2
    and 95 of the Commission's Rules to Require Type Acceptance of
    Transmitters Used by Class B and Class D Stations in the Citizens
    Radio Service, *Report and Order*, Docket No. 17196, 43 FCC 2d
    (1973) ("no additional accessory device, switch, or external control
    may be provided," except by the manufacturer).

[^9]: *Division Letter* at 1.

[^10]: *Id.*

[^11]: *Id.* at 1-2.

[^12]: Petition at 1; Supplement at 1.

[^13]: 47 C.F.R. § 95.420.

[^14]: Petition at 1; Supplement at 2-3.

[^15]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 95.637(d), 95.669.

[^16]: Petition at 1-2.

[^17]: Supplement at 3-4. CB Rule 7 is Section 95.407 of the
    Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 95.407.

[^18]: Request for Waiver at 1.

[^19]: 47 C.F.R. § 95.420(c).

[^20]: 47 C.F.R. § 95.420(a)(1).

[^21]: Petition at 2 (citing GARMIN International, Inc., *Order on
    Reconsideration*, 16 FCC Rcd 7753 (WTB PSPWD 2001)).

[^22]: *See* Letter dated February 28, 2000 from D'wana R. Terry, Chief,
    Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, to Andrew R. Etkind,
    General Counsel, GARMIN International, Inc.

[^23]: GARMIN International, Inc. *Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 19143 (WTB PSPWD
    2000). This temporary waiver was extended for the duration of the
    associated rulemaking proceeding. GARMIN International, Inc., *Order
    on Reconsideration*, 16 FCC Rcd 7753 (WTB PSPWD 2001); GARMIN
    International, Inc., *Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 16108 (WTB PSPWD 2002).

[^24]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(e)(6).

[^25]: LoJack Corporation, *Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 18939 (WTB PSPWD 2000).