Are radios required to be FCC certified?

[nd5y]

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.

fccid.io data comes directly from the FCC equipment authorization database. It's no different than looking up FCC license data on radioreference or ham licenses on qrz.com. In that respect its better than radioreference because its always current. I haven't found missing authorizations there like I noticed missing licenses on RR. It can also be way easier to use than the FCC web site.

 

[mmckenna]

Here's the actual test results that TecNet submitted to the FCC. Part 90 only:

https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=1489646

So, it sounds like your dealer didn't tell you the truth. The repeater may be programmable for those frequencies, but that doesn't make it legal.

Only way I see out of this is for either TecNet to resubmit their application to include GMRS/Part 95A, or get something in writing from the FCC saying that it is really OK to use Part 90 certified radios on Part 95A frequencies.

The documents filed with the FCC and the FCC's grant only shows Part 90. Not Part 95.

 

[mmckenna]

"The website declined to show this webpage"

OK, my bad, you have to enter the FCC ID into the real FCC page and go in that way. The document is there in the FCC database if you go in from that direction.

 

[mmckenna]

fccid.io data comes directly from the FCC equipment authorization database. It's no different than looking up FCC license data on radioreference or ham licenses on qrz.com. In that respect its better than radioreference because its always current. I haven't found missing authorizations there like I noticed missing licenses on RR. It can also be way easier to use than the FCC web site.

It may be, but if you actually go to the FCC site and enter it into the search tool, the document that the FCC shows for this repeater ONLY shows Part 90, nothing else.

In this case, someone is wrong, either the fccid.io page, or the FCC.gov page.....

 

[mmckenna]

Here is the actual grant from the FCC pulled just a few minutes ago. No part 95.

Unless this repeater has a different FCC ID, this is what the FCC is showing for it's type acceptance.

TCB GRANT OF EQUIPMENT
AUTHORIZATION TCB
Certification
Issued Under the Authority of the
Federal Communications Commission
By:

Timco Engineering, Inc.
849 NW State Road 45 <BR>P.O. Box 370,
Newberry, FL 32669
Date of Grant: 06/24/2011

Application Dated: 06/24/2011
TecNet International Inc.
1420 N.W. Vivion Road
Suite 109
Kansas City, MO 64118

Attention: Kirby Wendler , Vise President

NOT TRANSFERABLE
EQUIPMENT AUTHORIZATION is hereby issued to the named GRANTEE, and is VALID ONLY for the equipment identified hereon for use under the Commission's Rules and Regulations listed below.

FCC IDENTIFIER: O99TM-8402A
Name of Grantee: TecNet International Inc.
Equipment Class: Licensed Non-Broadcast Station Transmitter
Notes: FM TRANSCEIVER
Grant Notes FCC Rule Parts Frequency
Range (MHZ) Output
Watts Frequency
Tolerance Emission
Designator
EF 90 400.0 - 406.0 40.0 1.5 PM 10K4F3E
EF 90 406.1 - 470.0 40.0 1.5 PM 10K4F3E

Power listed is rated. Maximum conducted power output according to 90.205(s) is 40.18 Watts. All qualified end-users of this device must have the knowledge to control their exposure conditions, and the exposure conditions of their passengers and bystanders, to comply with the General Population/Uncontrolled MPE limit and requirements. Users must be provided with antenna installation and transmitter operating conditions for satisfying RF exposure compliance. The antenna(s) used for this transmitter must be installed to provide a separation distance of at least 90cm from all persons and must not exceed an antenna gain of 0dBi.

EF: This device may contain functions that are not operational in U.S Territories except as noted in the filing. This grant has extended frequencies as noted in the filing and Section 2.927(b) applies to this authorization.

 

[Rred]

"The website declined to show this webpage
HTTP 403
Most likely causes:
&#8226;This website requires you to log in."

See, a better browser would have told you that you needed to log in.(G)

I've had a radio shop owner go off on a rant about how he'd never sell illegal equipment, and that he could sell a certain Chinese SDR as a ham radio for ham radio use because it WAS CERTIFIED and LOOK HERE IT SAYS PART95 RIGHT ON THE LABEL.

Hmm...Part95...my copy of the rules must be outdated. Or maybe, "95" means "97" in Cantonese?

 

[nd5y]

It may be, but if you actually go to the FCC site and enter it into the search tool, the document that the FCC shows for this repeater ONLY shows Part 90, nothing else.

In this case, someone is wrong, either the fccid.io page, or the FCC.gov page.....

I don't know if you were looking at the same thing, the grant is at the bottom of the page https://fccid.io/O99TM-8402A and only lists Part 90. The part with the other stuff is the application in the middle of the page.

 

[mmckenna]

I don't know if you were looking at the same thing, the grant is at the bottom of the page https://fccid.io/O99TM-8402A and only lists Part 90. The part with the other stuff is the application in the middle of the page.

That's all I'm seeing too, Part 90 only. I see some mention of Part 95A on the "application", but it does not appear on the actual grant.

As far as I can tell, this repeater does not have type acceptance for GMRS is any way.

 

[nd5y]

That's all I'm seeing too, Part 90 only. I see some mention of Part 95A on the "application", but it does not appear on the actual grant. As far as I can tell, this repeater does not have type acceptance for GMRS is any way.

Right. It says:
TCB Scope: B2: General Mobile Radio And Broadcast Services equipment in the following 47 CFR Parts 22 (non-cellular) 73, 74, 90, 95 & 97

That has nothing to do with the actual grant. In this case B2 General Mobile Radio Services doesn't mean GMRS, It's one of the TCB Scopes:
1.1 FCC TELECOMMUNICATIONS CERTIFICATION BODY (TCB) PROGRAM
1.1.1 FCC &#8211; TCB Scope of Accreditation
Scope B &#8211; Licensed Radio Service Equipment
B1 Personal Mobile Radio Services in 47 CFR Parts 22 (cellular), 24, 25, and 27
B2 General Mobile Radio Services in the following 47 CFR Parts 22 (non-cellular), 73, 74, 90, 95 and 97
B3 Maritime and Aviation Radio Services in 47 CFR Parts 80 and 87
B4 Microwave Radio Services in 47 CFR Parts 27, 74 and 101

 

[mmckenna]

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.
----------------------------

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

Let me tone this down a bit. My apologies if I came on too strong. I get concerned when assumptions are made based on the input from dealers and poorly sourced info.

The only thing that counts is the actual FCC grant for the device. The only source for that FCC grant information should be direct from the FCC, no other source, no matter how trustworthy the have been in the past.
The fccinfo.io page seems to be accurate, but the FCC is the final authority here in the USA.

Assumptions about the TCB reference should be omitted from this discussion, they don't apply here.

Since this repeater only has Part 90 certification according the the FCC page, that is all we should consider it having. If it isn't listed on the FCC grant, then it doesn't have it.

Assumptions that Part 90 equipment is, by default, Part 95 certified is again an assumption.
I have a hard time agreeing with this assumption since the FCC has maintained a separate Part 95A certification for GMRS equipment.

N4GIX:
I think you got hosed by the dealer/manufacturer. The FCC grant doesn't show Part 95A certification, only Part 90. Any assumptions by the manufacturer/dealer about Part 90 being acceptable for Part 95A is just that, an assumption. If TecNet wanted this to be certified on GMRS, then they should have applied for it, not assumed it was included.

So, it seems that it would be up to you. Since it is apparent that a lot of GMRS users are using equipment that is only Part 90 certified on GMRS and have gotten away with it seems to suggest that either a lot of people are lucky, or the FCC isn't paying attention. If a repeater/radio meets all the requirements of Part 95A, but doesn't actually have it, there isn't really any way for anyone to know without actually looking at the FCC ID on the radio.

I think you have justification to get them to refund your money. Truth is, I doubt anyone would know. Sort of makes it a comfort/honestly thing for you.

 

[nd5y]

The FCC ID link that N4GIX posted isn't even for a repeater, it's a mobile radio. I don't know if the repeater is made from two of those or he posted the wrong FCC ID link or what.

 

[N4GIX]

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.

I actually have gone directly to the FCC website and obtained the complete filing, along with a (now) printed copy of the actual Grant.

The link that I posted earlier is simply repeating verbatim what the original documents stated.

I've also gotten the Grant for the two Ritron RR-452 repeaters I own, and they both clearly state Part(s) 70, 90 and 95. So, comparing with that of the BCR-40U it would appear that it is not in fact Part 95A complaint.

I recall that at one time the claim "GMRS ready and FCC Part 90 and Part 95 certified" was part of their description on their website. I notice today that this claim has been removed.

 

[N4GIX]

The FCC ID link that N4GIX posted isn't even for a repeater, it's a mobile radio. I don't know if the repeater is made from two of those or he posted the wrong FCC ID link or what.

The Bridgecom BCR-40U is essentially two neutered TecNet transceivers in a box. I use the term "neutered" because it's really one transceiver mounted in two chassis...

...the receiver in one chassis and the transmitter in the other chassis.

As I wrote earlier, I was dealing directly with the owner of Bridgecom (Ron Kochanowicz), and he cannot claim he didn't know I was buying this for GMRS use since he personally programmed it to a requested frequency pair (462.675/467.675) and tuned the receiver, transmitter and duplexer.

Here is part of what I wrote earlier this morning:

On another subject though, I am a bit confused with regards to certification for Part 95A, which is required for all GMRS transmitters. I have a copy of the Part 90 grant for the TecNet transmitter, but does that also cover Part 95A? The FCC's Rules are horribly confusing and often contradictory...

This question has arisen as part of an ongoing discussion regarding the recent flood of Part 90 certified CCR (Cheap Chinese Radios), and their suitability or lack of suitability for use on GMRS frequencies.

 

[Hans13]

Since it is apparent that a lot of GMRS users are using equipment that is only Part 90 certified on GMRS and have gotten away with it seems to suggest that either a lot of people are lucky, or the FCC isn't paying attention. If a repeater/radio meets all the requirements of Part 95A, but doesn't actually have it, there isn't really any way for anyone to know without actually looking at the FCC ID on the radio.

I think you have justification to get them to refund your money. Truth is, I doubt anyone would know. Sort of makes it a comfort/honestly thing for you.

This is how I've understood it to be. Many people seem to be using Part 90 repeaters and Part 90 transceivers on those repeaters. It isn't likely legal but there doesn't seem to really be much FCC interest either. It is what it is.

 

[mmckenna]

This is how I've understood it to be. Many people seem to be using Part 90 repeaters and Part 90 transceivers on those repeaters. It isn't likely legal but there doesn't seem to really be much FCC interest either. It is what it is.

I agree. I've always used radios that I confirmed had Part 95 certification because at least I knew I'd done everything to the letter of the law and wasn't making assumptions.
I do fully understand about how a Part 90 radio can meet the Part 95 certifications, but I'm not going to let that make me believe that it is legal.

I've spent years reading FCC rules, and the one thing that is prevalent through out them is that they are confusing. Some of the rules are way out of date. Some contradict others. Some obvious missing info. Unlikely any of this will change.

 

[mmckenna]

The Bridgecom BCR-40U is essentially two neutered TecNet transceivers in a box. I use the term "neutered" because it's really one transceiver mounted in two chassis...

...the receiver in one chassis and the transmitter in the other chassis.

As I wrote earlier, I was dealing directly with the owner of Bridgecom (Ron Kochanowicz), and he cannot claim he didn't know I was buying this for GMRS use since he personally programmed it to a requested frequency pair (462.675/467.675) and tuned the receiver, transmitter and duplexer.

Yeah. I think the rest is up to you.
I do think that Bridgecom is on the hook for selling a non-type accepted repeater to you, as well as programming it for you. That would clearly put them in the category of "we knew but we did it anyway to make a buck". If they claim ignorance, I'd be unlikely to believe them

None the less, it does bring up the question again about Part 90 and Part 95. Seems like if Bridgecom is making money on this, they should prove that the FCC says it's OK. At minimum I think a well worded letter to the FCC enforcement bureau about this, along with documentation to back it up, might be useful. While it may not result in any actual enforcement, it might help Bridgecom make an appropriate decision about how they treat you.

I know many years ago there were a number of GMRS users buying these Bridgecom systems for GMRS when they first came out. The (now defunct) Popularcommunications.com site was abuzz when these first hit the market. I know there are many of them used on GMRS. Not sure if it's the same model or not.

My understanding of the type acceptance process is that the manufacturer/test lab need to request the various parts and provide the data to back up the compliance. Doesn't seem like it would be too hard to do that for more products. While I know getting a test lab to do the work isn't cheap, it would open up a slightly larger market for these guys.

The dealer/shop playing the ignorance card is pretty weak. They should understand this stuff. They should certainly understand it if they are selling you a product and claiming it's suitable for GMRS.

Let us know how it turns out.

 

[KevinC]

I actually have gone directly to the FCC website and obtained the complete filing, along with a (now) printed copy of the actual Grant.

The link that I posted earlier is simply repeating verbatim what the original documents stated.

I've also gotten the Grant for the two Ritron RR-452 repeaters I own, and they both clearly state Part(s) 70, 90 and 95. So, comparing with that of the BCR-40U it would appear that it is not in fact Part 95A complaint.

I recall that at one time the claim "GMRS ready and FCC Part 90 and Part 95 certified" was part of their description on their website. I notice today that this claim has been removed.

Check this out...

BCR-40U UHF(450-520 MHz) FM Repeater &ndash; BridgeCom Systems, Inc.

"It is also a perfect fit for GMRS and your commercial LTR and Conventional applications."

 

[Voyager]

I do think that Bridgecom is on the hook for selling a non-type accepted repeater to you, as well as programming it for you. That would clearly put them in the category of "we knew but we did it anyway to make a buck". If they claim ignorance, I'd be unlikely to believe them

You DO realize that you are blaming them for acting on the ambiguity that exists in Part 95 and through the FCC's defacto acceptance of Part 90 repeaters on Part 95, don't you?

Earlier you agreed that Part 95 is contradictory and needs clarified. How are they (Bridgecom) any more culpable for the ambiguous rules when the FCC refuses to issue any written clarification?

None the less, it does bring up the question again about Part 90 and Part 95. Seems like if Bridgecom is making money on this, they should prove that the FCC says it's OK. At minimum I think a well worded letter to the FCC enforcement bureau about this, along with documentation to back it up, might be useful. While it may not result in any actual enforcement, it might help Bridgecom make an appropriate decision about how they treat you.

Wishful thinking. You already know that the FCC won't reply to their request.

It does put Bridgecom in a sticky situation that I would not want to be in.

 

[mmckenna]

You DO realize that you are blaming them for acting on the ambiguity that exists in Part 95 and through the FCC's defacto acceptance of Part 90 repeaters on Part 95, don't you?

Earlier you agreed that Part 95 is contradictory and needs clarified. How are they (Bridgecom) any more culpable for the ambiguous rules when the FCC refuses to issue any written clarification?

Absolutely, except I'm not selling repeaters to customers that are specifically stating they'll be using them on GMRS. I agree with what you are saying, however other companies have built/marketed repeaters with Part 95A certification. Not getting these certified for 95A and then turning around and selling them specifically for use on GMRS isn't anywhere close to due diligence. If anything it looks like they were attempting to save a few bucks on certification and then turning around and selling them for GMRS. If I was in that position I would have gone the extra distance and gone for 95A acceptance, not rely on vagueness of the rules as my defense.

Wishful thinking. You already know that the FCC won't reply to their request.

It does put Bridgecom in a sticky situation that I would not want to be in.

Never hurts to ask. Maybe they did ask and they have an answer already. I suspect we'll find out.

What I wouldn't trust is Ron at Bridgecom saying "sure, they are legal on GMRS" without some documentation direct from the FCC to back it up. I'm always wary when the guy who wants my money is willing to tell me whatever it takes to get it.
I know this question came up many, many years ago on the old PopularWireless.com forums. I know someone called the FCC directly and talked to someone at WTB, maybe even Riley Hollingsworth, about this exact issue. I do recall that the answer was that the equipment was required to have a valid FCC Part 95A certification, no exceptions. Now that website is defunct, I have no way of proving that.
Should be easy enough for someone to contact the FCC and get it in writing. Like I said, never hurts to ask.

 

[Voyager]

WRT salesmen, I know of a county who was sold an entirely new paging system for all PS users because their were going to lose their license due to rebanding. Oh, did I mention that their license was on LOW BAND??? Actually, I should say IS there since someone "accidentally" renewed their license after this notice. I guess they didn't get the word that it was not possible to renew it anymore.

And in this era of texting being strictly taboo when driving, what system did they sell them to replace their Tone/Voice paging system? A text-based paging system!

Some salesmen will say anything...