Yes - but when question of interference comes about it is the FCC or the 'complaining' entity that has the burden of proof. The grantee simply says, this is what is certified, the reports are all on the FCC site, prove my product causes a problem. Only when the certified product has been proven not to meet the limits it is certified to does the FCC take action.
Dennis Ward Director of Engineering American Certification Body Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com 703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 direct - 703-880-4841 -----Original Message----- From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 5:49 PM To: Dennis Ward; 'John Woodgate'; [email protected] Subject: RE: dow for new standards Let's nor forget that Part 15 (or 55024 etc for that matter) do NOT prevent interference -- just (slightly) reduce the probability. Cortland KA5S -----Original Message----- >From: Dennis Ward <[email protected]> >Sent: Jan 26, 2011 1:29 PM >To: 'John Woodgate' <[email protected]>, [email protected] >Subject: RE: dow for new standards > >Ahh but isn't that the problem when an entire system makes one entity 100% >responsible for everything and negates any legal acceptance or >responsibility of others to alleviate that burden??? It basically says, >'since you are 100% responsible, it is you that has to prove it, not I who >brings your assumptions into question." The very fact that it is an >'assumption' of conformity shows the burden of proof is on the one >'assuming', if and when that assumption is called into question. > >For example, in criminal law many countries have the 'assumption' of >innocence of the accused placed on the government and because they must >'assume' innocence, it is their responsibility to 'prove' guilt. Thus, for >the 'assumer' (coined phrase for one who assumes), the very burden of >responsibility of that assumption alone makes it one sided. > >Granted, this is not, or I should say is usually not, a criminal case, and >there are directives that do have type acceptance of products, but those >directives such as the RTTE etc, leave the manufacturer standing naked >before the world with all the responsibility to prove 'innocence' of action >simply because of the assumption of conformity. > >And isn't that also one of the possible reasons that the next generation of >RTTE and other directives may very well include some kind of type acceptance >approach. By removing the assumption and making type acceptance a >possibility, the 'assumer' is no longer burdened with the responsibility of >proof should question arise. He simply points to the type acceptance and >says 'prove it aint so' to the accuser. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
