Are radios required to be FCC certified?

Status
Not open for further replies.

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
24,183
Location
I am a lineman for the county.
I suppose if you're going to go by the LETTER of the law, your GMRS radio must also be crystal controlled. I have not researched that, but found that others have made that point in various forums that one of the GMRS rules still require that for operation on GMRS.

So, if your radio is synthesized, TA or not for Part 95, it's not legal. (again - going by the LETTER of the law)

All the synthesized radios I've ever used always have a crystal controlled oscillator of some type, so they do have "crystal control".
CB's are the same way, a 40 channel CB radio doesn't have 80 different crystals sitting inside the radio.

I'm sure you knew that, but was just looking at this from a different angle.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
24,183
Location
I am a lineman for the county.
How many of those cover frequencies below 450 MHz? :D

I have no idea. I think all the Icom and Kenwood UHF radios I used that were part 95A certified would cover some distance below 450MHz as I used them on 70cm also.
Since amateur transmitters don't require a Part 97 certification, it's not an issue.
I'm using a number of Motorola CDM's and Kenwood NX-700's on 2 meters, and that's perfectly legal.
Most of the amateur repeaters out there are built off old commercial gear, and that's legal, too.

I guess I'm not sure what you are getting at with that question. I must be missing something.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
24,183
Location
I am a lineman for the county.
How many of those cover frequencies below 450 MHz? :D

I bet this is what you are referring to:

§95.655 Frequency capability.
(a) No transmitter will be certificated for use in the CB service if it is equipped with a frequency capability not listed in §95.625, and no transmitter will be certificated for use in the GMRS if it is equipped with a frequency capability not listed in §95.621, unless such transmitter is also certificated for use in another radio service for which the frequency is authorized and for which certification is also required. (Transmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur Radio Services and Military Affiliate Radio System will not be certificated.)


More muddy FCC terminology. I get where you are going Voyager, and I agree, the rules are a mess and most, if not all, of us are probably violating them in some way. I won't deny that. I do try to toe the line, but I'm sure I've gone over it a few times. Not claiming to be perfect....
 

Voyager

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2002
Messages
12,060
Exactly. Point being there are rules that are unclear and there are certifications that violate Part 95 that were issued and there are precedents/interpretations that have been set.

For anyone to claim that something is "strictly illegal" and claim any interpretation other than their own is BS is in itself the BS.

The only consistency in Part 95 is its inconsistency.

I also want to acknowledge your point about the crystal oscillator. Somehow I don't think that's what that rule was originally intended to mean, but that's just another example of the vagueness of Part 95.

BTW, here is a request for clarification of that last rule that was dismissed...

6.
Crystal Control
Section 95.651 provides that transmitters in the Personal Radio Services, with certain
exceptions, must be crystal controlled.
The Commission adopted this requirement to ensure that personal radio transmitters utilize a stable and accurate transmit frequency-determining method. In the early years of CB Radio Service, some operators used radios with coil and capacitor based variable frequency oscillators (VFOs) — electronic circuits that generate an alternating current or voltage -- as the frequency-determining method. VFOs of this type are susceptible to greater frequency inaccuracy and variation with time and temperature, relative to crystal oscillators.
Today’s personal radio transmitters utilize a digital frequency synthesizer to generate the transmitted signals.

These synthesizers have at their heart a crystal time base which ensures that frequencies of the transmitted signals are stable and accurate, and such synthesizer-based radios satisfy the crystal control requirement.

Synthesizer technology is also less expensive to manufacture than the older VFO technology and has largely, if not entirely, supplanted it. In view of the evolution in technology, we seek comment on whether section 95.651 is necessary, or whether frequency tolerance and stability requirements discussed supra alone are sufficient. If section 95.651 is retained, we seek comment on whether the rule should be revised to clarify that crystal-based frequency synthesizers satisfy the rule


Source: http://www.gmrs.org/images/FCC-10-106A1.pdf
 
Last edited:

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
24,183
Location
I am a lineman for the county.
Somehow I get the feeling that the FCC will never address this. I get the feeling that they've turned their backs on so much that many things have gotten so out of hand that the cat will never get put back in the proverbial bag.

Watching the FCC focus so much on auctioning spectrum while ignoring so much else is disheartening.

None the less, I'm pretty confident that there isn't any real way they could write the rules that would totally clarify things. There will always be those that will find a loophole, or just downright ignore the rules. Expecting the FCC to fix it once and for all will probably never happen.
 

N4GIX

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
2,124
Location
Hot Springs, AR
On the other hand, I found an interesting chart there that lists all of the "Parts" that transmitters certified under the class "TNB" (Licensed Non-Broadcast Station Transmitter" are included as approved when the Part 90 is issued.
See: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/EquipmentRulesList.cfm

Among the many "Parts" that are included is Part 95A... :wink:

Odd that nobody seems to have paid any attention the above bit of information... :confused:
 

N4GIX

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
2,124
Location
Hot Springs, AR
Maybe because it has nothing to do with this thread.
Oh really? It seems the majority of posts are discussing Part 95 certification, or lack of same.

I should think pointing out that all Part 90 transmitters are automatically Part 95A certified would be of some interest... :wink:

After all, it's only the transmitter portion of any two-way radio that's subject to Part 90 and/or Part 95A certification.

The receiver portion is covered under Part 15.
 

nd5y

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
11,378
Location
Wichita Falls, TX
I should think pointing out that all Part 90 transmitters are automatically Part 95A certified would be of some interest... :wink:
You didn't point out anything. At the top of your link it says:
The following are Equipment Class and Rule Part combinations to be used to complete the Equipment Authorization System Form 731
That appears to be part of the instructions for filling out a form. It doesn't say that all Part 90 transmitters are automatically Part 95A certified.
 

N4GIX

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
2,124
Location
Hot Springs, AR
Form 731 is used when submitting the paperwork requesting certification. This part of the form is where all of the Rule Parts to be covered by the Grant are listed by the applicant. I have sent in a request for clarification.
 

Rred

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
830
Bill-
I don't doubt you, as to Part90 radios being automagically Part95 accepted. But the only thing I can find in writing, from the Fed, says:
"95.603 Certification required.
(a) Each GMRS transmitter (a transmitter that operates or is intended to
operate at a station authorized in the GMRS) must be type accepted."

And there's no mention of any Part90 blessings being allowed to carry over and replace that.

Perhaps you could post a link or a particular section of Part95 that says anything about accepting Part90 equipment without further type acceptance for Part95?

--Red
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
24,183
Location
I am a lineman for the county.
I should think pointing out that all Part 90 transmitters are automatically Part 95A certified would be of some interest... :wink:

No, "All Part 90 transmitters are automatically Part 95A certified" isn't correct. I have 100 watt repeaters that are part 90 certified and they cannot be "automatically" Part 95A certified since they exceed the 50 watt limit.

I'm not clear what is leading you to this conclusion, but it isn't passing the "sniff test".
 

N4GIX

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
2,124
Location
Hot Springs, AR
I'm not clear what is leading you to this conclusion, but it isn't passing the "sniff test".
The fact that I own a $1500 repeater that has only a Part 90 tag on it, and the manufacturer markets and sells this equipment for commercial, amateur and GMRS usage.

It is they who've made the assertion when I inquired specifically about Part 95A certification approval.

Looking here: https://fccid.io/O99TM-8402A

In the section TCB Scope note the Parts cited:
TCB Scope: B2: General Mobile Radio And Broadcast Services equipment in the following 47 CFR Parts 22 (non-cellular) 73, 74, 90, 95 & 97

Yet, further down in the Grant issued, only Part 90 is cited. The ones cited in the definition of "TCB" are apparently implied. :confused:
 

nd5y

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
11,378
Location
Wichita Falls, TX

Rred

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
830
That document appears to say, regardless the of obscure TCB references, that permission was only GRANTED for Part90 use, and not for any other parts.

It is possible that they applied for Part"Everything" but that page shows only two Part90 grants were made for it. Any other use would appear to be unsanctioned.

And since the equipment was not granted Part97 certification, it would be illegal to marker and sell it for ham use, even if hams could legally use it, after conducting their own conformance tests and taking responsibility for the operation.

Yes, you can skate by on many things and many Drake transceivers were used by fishing fleets in the North Atlantic for many years, with no sanctions even though the audio was clearly different from marine SSBs. But who wants to be the poster boy when a new commissioner decides to start enforcing rules?
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
24,183
Location
I am a lineman for the county.
No. Just no....

You can't quote a website that has "FCC" in it's name but isn't actually the United States Federal Communications Commission. That's just wrong.

You can't, also, quote the guy trying to sell you a repeater when he says "sure it'll work on GMRS" and try to pass that off as a legal statement.

If you actually run the FCC ID that is listed, you will see that the repeater in question is ONLY certified under Part 90. No other services. Not GMRS. You can look for yourself here:
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/repo...d=8I6bjw4MFCcDH7US3rus/A==&fcc_id=O99TM-8402A

The "https://fccid.io/" website link isn't the authority here, the FCC is. The fact that the manufacturer may have applied for Part 95A certification doesn't equal them actually getting it from the FCC. The link to the actual FCC certification document above shows it only received Part 90 certification, not Part 95.
 

N4GIX

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
2,124
Location
Hot Springs, AR
Yes, you can skate by on many things and many Drake transceivers were used by fishing fleets in the North Atlantic for many years, with no sanctions even though the audio was clearly different from marine SSBs. But who wants to be the poster boy when a new commissioner decides to start enforcing rules?
That is precisely my point. I want to know absolutely that this very expensive bit of equipment isn't going to be busting any regulations. Unless Bridgecom can provide that evidence, I'll be shipping this repeater back to them and demanding a full refund.

They cannot claim that they "didn't know" the purpose for which I bought it, since they programmed it before shipment for a specific GMRS repeater pair, and professionally tuned the duplexer, transmitter, and receiver for those frequencies!

Should any future enforcement actions occur (no matter how improbable), it won't be their cold arses hanging out in the air... :(

I bought this repeater to replace one I've home-brewed using two CDM-1550 LS+ transceivers that are both without question Part 90 and 95A certified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top