Oh yeah now I remember the paragraph number :)
-Original Message-
From: Sykes, Bob [mailto:bob.sy...@gilbarco.com]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 1:18 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FCC and IC Grantee Code marking
See FCC 784748 D01 Labeling Part 15 18
See FCC 784748 D01 Labeling Part 15 18 Guidelines v07.
Guidelines for Labelling and User Information for Devices Subject to
Part 15 and Part 18
I think the pertinent part you seek is related to Certification:
If the device is subject to Certification:
(1) Section 2.925 contains information on
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/form
/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?id=27980switch=P
Also see 47CFR15.19(a)
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/47cfr15.19.htm
RSS-Gen describes the situation for IC.
The lab/TCB reviewing your submittal should also be able to assist you more
specifically.
I don't remember the exact paragraph number but yes if the product is too
small then the markings can appear on the manual. It was brought up early on
because digital watch makers had the same problem.
-Original Message-
From: Gartman, Richard [mailto:rgart...@ti.com]
Sent: Monday,
CISPR 22 or the national equivalent for the limits. Then you have the
regulatory structures, which differ in each country.
Ghery S. Pettit
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Rob Kado
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 1:35 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: FCC
In message
B5113F712514D611BC3C00D0B7695422012232CF@cw-server.complianceworld,
dated Wed, 5 Jan 2011, Larry Stillings la...@complianceworldwide.com
writes:
If you are able to persuade Washington Lawyers to rewrite the
CFRs
so that they are properly worded and easily understood, I think
Hi All,
Thanks for your speedy replies! In my cursory review of Part 15, I must have
missed the section describing the actual certification process choices.
I agree with John that if A2LA reworded that paragraph it would be much more
clear. Thank you!
Anyone know whether BSI is included in the
]
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 2:35 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: FCC requires testing by accredited lab?
In message 12424638-411e-4d7f-925f-117b5f2c3...@emc-seminars.com,
dated Tue, 4 Jan 2011, Ken Wyatt k...@emc-seminars.com writes:
For Electrical testing laboratories seeking
In message 12424638-411e-4d7f-925f-117b5f2c3...@emc-seminars.com,
dated Tue, 4 Jan 2011, Ken Wyatt k...@emc-seminars.com writes:
For Electrical testing laboratories seeking to be recognized (listed)
by The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the FCC requires
that manufacturers and
Hi Ken,
nope A2LA are making a clear statement.
A manufacturer can have their own accredited lab.
Accreditation to CFR47 Part 15 needs some other parts encompassed also.
Cheers,
Derek Walton
On 1/4/2011 5:43 PM, Ken Wyatt wrote:
Hi group,
One of my clients is asking about
Ken,
The FCC has three different approval processes. One of these, the Declaration
of Conformity, requires the use of an accredited lab. The lab must be in a
country acceptable to the FCC. In the US, the lab must be accredited by A2LA,
NIST NVLAP or one other (new) accrediting body whose
Ken,
The FCC, many years ago (at least 15) use to have all computers and
peripherals go through the certification process, just like a transmitter does
today. At the time there were so many PCs and peripherals being made for the
home, that they then empowered testing laboratories that
Try either of:
Pulver Labs: http://www.pulverlabs.com/
or
RTF Compliance: http://www.rtfcomp.com/index.html
Both can help you through the maze.
Doug
On 10/27/10 8:52 PM, Barry Esmore wrote:
Is there a consultant out there who can assist with FCC and CE
compliance for
a small
Gary,
Section 15.101 of the FCC rule (10-1-09 Edition) states ..unintentional
radiators shall be authorized prior to the initiation of marketing, as follows:
TV broadcast receiver .
Verification.
FM broadcast receiver
Hi David,
Part 21 was eliminated a number of years ago. FCC created Part 27 of the
Rules and put in the 2.5 GHz broadband rules that used to be in Part 21 into
Part 27, can't remember if there were other services at other frequencies or
what happened to them.
Attached is link to U.S.
Subject: Re: FCC 47CFR21
Hi David,
47 CFR Part 21 does not seem to exist on the FCC web site. Please provide more
specific details on what you are looking for and maybe we can help.
Regards,
Scott
itl-emc user group wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know where I can find the subject FCC Part
Hello David
On Thu, 13 May 2010 07:24:54 +0300,
itl-emc user group itl-...@itl.co.il wrote:
Does anyone know where I can find the subject FCC Part.
I could not find it on the GPO Access site.
It seems funny, but I could find Part 21 in 2004 edition of the CFR, at:
Hi David,
47 CFR Part 21 does not seem to exist on the FCC web site. Please provide more
specific details on what you are looking for and maybe we can help.
Regards,
Scott
itl-emc user group wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know where I can find the subject FCC Part.
I could
Grace,
Declaration of Conformity, until you add an FM Modulator (transmitter)
then Certification.
Larry
From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 7:14 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: FCC Equipment Authorization for
From: Cortland Richmond k...@earthlink.net
To: Derek Walton lfresea...@aol.com; Reginald Henry
rhe...@vicon-cctv.com
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 1:16 AM
Subject: Re: FCC PERSONAL COMPUTERS FOR COMMERICAL ENVIORMENT
Be careful what you ask for; you may get it.
Firms who
In message 380-22009125181163...@earthlink.net, dated Thu, 17 Dec
2009, Cortland Richmond k...@earthlink.net writes:
I wonder what legal obligation exists for one who discovers
non-compliance; must he report what he finds??
De facto, you can decide, even if the law says you must report.
...@ieee.org; dw...@atcb.com
Date: 12/17/2009 10:58:15 AM
Subject: Re: FCC PERSONAL COMPUTERS FOR COMMERICAL ENVIORMENT
HI All,
This is a timely reminder that assembling of components is a bad idea.
I have just tested a product that is PC based, the radiated emissions
are under control
-Original Message-
From: John Barnes [mailto:jrbar...@iglou.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:07 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org; Reginald Henry
Subject: Re: FCC PERSONAL COMPUTERS FOR COMMERICAL ENVIORMENT
Reginald,
Now I think that I understand.. so there is limited testing to be done
Thank you John and Dennis your input it is greatly appreciated !
Reg Henry
From: John Barnes [mailto:jrbar...@iglou.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:07 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org; Reginald Henry
Subject: Re: FCC PERSONAL COMPUTERS FOR COMMERICAL ENVIORMENT
Reginald,
Now I think that I
Reginald,
Now I think that I understand.. so there is limited testing to be done by
the assembler in terms of mother board and power supply with the
chassis open covered.. and testing must be performed at
an independent labs If the assembler changes to another PS or MB the test
must be
Reginald,
You can assemble even Class B personal computers for residential use
without having to test the whole unit if:
1. The power supply and motherboard were authorized under Declarations
of Conformity (DoC's) or grants of certification.
2. You obey FCC 47 CFR Part 15 (FCC Part 15)
Hi Reginald
The FCC rules are pretty clear on this subject.
Basically, no additional testing is needed but the assembler is responsible to
maintain certain records of his final product.
For example, 2.1075 states If the equipment is assembled using modular
components that, by
Christopher –
As this is a point-to-point device so I am assuming outdoor use. The FCC are
currently limiting the use of 5470-5725 MHz to indoor use and have notched out
the use of the range 5600-5650MHz. If you do have an outdoor system then your
FCC DFS testing needs to be done in the
Hi Derek
No official policy on a box around the FCC ID number. While this has been
done by some in the past to clearly identify the ID, currently it is not
required. It is however required that the FCC ID number is not confused
with other numbers/letters on the label. The labeling policy and
the points of the
statement are addressed and may be presented in any legible font or text style.
Best regards,
Ron Wellman
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of rehel...@mmm.com
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 6:07 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: FCC Part 18
It generally means a model and serial number plate.
Bob Heller
3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01
St. Paul, MN 55107-1208
Tel: 651- 778-6336
Fax: 651-778-6252
=
Brian:
There is indeed an FCC logo that is used on products approved using the
Declaration of Conformity assessment procedures (see Part 18.209(b)). The FCC
Identifier is used for products that are certified (see Part 2.925).
If you have approved a device using the verification procedure
All:
The test data to support a DoC has to be taken at a test lab that is
accredited, as Barry explains, against ISO 17025 for the relevant rule part(s)
by a recognized accreditation body (A2LA and NVLAP in the USA). One other
requirement is that the lab must also be in a country that has an
...@complianceworldwide.com
Cc: charles.gra...@echostar.com charles.gra...@echostar.com;
emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: Fri, Oct 9, 2009 1:11 pm
Subject: RE: FCC site registration
Re-try. Stupid listserve rejected this as a duplicate
...@echostar.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: FCC site registration
Peter,
There are three different approval processes used for digital devices under
the FCC Rules. Verification, Certification and Declaration of Conformity.
Which one you use depends on the product. See
To: barry.quin...@us.bureauveritas.com; la...@complianceworldwide.com
Cc: charles.gra...@echostar.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: FCC site registration
Thanks guys for the info, but I guess my question is that what benefit this
site registration gives me if I can not test our
, October 09, 2009 3:50 PM
To: barry.quin...@us.bureauveritas.com; la...@complianceworldwide.com
Cc: charles.gra...@echostar.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: FCC site registration
Thanks guys for the info, but I guess my question is that what benefit this
site
?
From: barry.quin...@us.bureauveritas.com
To: Larry Stillings la...@complianceworldwide.com
Cc: 'Grasso, Charles' charles.gra...@echostar.com; emc-p...@ieee.org;
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; peterh...@aol.com
Sent: Fri, Oct 9, 2009 12:20 pm
Subject: RE: FCC site registration
Plus accreditors
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 2:58 PM
To: peterh...@aol.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: FCC site registration
The DoC process requires the use of an accredited (NVLAP) lab.
Best Regards
09, 2009 2:58 PM
To: peterh...@aol.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: FCC site registration
The DoC process requires the use of an accredited (NVLAP) lab.
Best Regards
Charles Grasso
Compliance Engineer
Echostar Communications
(w) 303-706-5467
(c) 303-204-2974
(t) 3032042
DOC = Declaration of Conformity
It very simply means they aren’t granting you the authority to issue to
issue this to yourself.
You mention that your products are Class A and are simple ITE with no radio,
it really sounds like the Verification procedures are all you may be
interested in, but
The DoC process requires the use of an accredited (NVLAP) lab.
Best Regards
Charles Grasso
Compliance Engineer
Echostar Communications
(w) 303-706-5467
(c) 303-204-2974
(t) 3032042...@vtext.com mailto:3032042...@vtext.com
(e) charles.gra...@echostar.com mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com
Andrew,
Under Radiated emission limits for unintentional radiators, FCC 47 CFR
Part 15 (July 10, 2008 version at
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/PART15_07-10-08.pdf)
Paragraph 15.109(g) permits Radiated Emissions testing to CISPR 22--
specifically CISPR 22:1997 Third Edition
Andrew,
It is in FCC Part 15 Subpart B Section 15.109(g)
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/octqtr/pdf/47cfr15.109.pdf.
Grace
On 8/7/09, Andrew McCallum andrew.mccal...@deltarail.com wrote:
I am looking for a reference that shows FCC accept CISPR 22 emission
limits
–
Excellent Dennis,
Thanks a million !
rh
From: Dennis Ward [mailto:dw...@atcb.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:10 PM
To: Reginald Henry; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: FCC ** LOGO vs Verification Label RequirementT***
By FCC logo I take it that you mean the DoC logo. If so
Resource for the Wireless Industry www.atcb.com
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888
direct - 703-880-4841
From: Thomas Cokenias [mailto:t...@tncokenias.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:02 PM
To: Dennis Ward
Cc: 'Gartman, Richard'; 'Reginald Henry'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: FCC
or may not be the problem.
--- On Wed, 4/1/09, Thomas Cokenias t...@tncokenias.org wrote:
From: Thomas Cokenias t...@tncokenias.org
Subject: Re: FCC ** LOGO vs Verification Label RequirementT***
To: dw...@atcb.com
Cc: 'Gartman, Richard' rgart...@ti.com, 'Reginald Henry
-Original Message-
From: Dennis Ward [mailto:dw...@atcb.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:36 PM
To: 'Gartman, Richard'; 'Reginald Henry'; 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
Subject: RE: FCC ** LOGO vs Verification Label RequirementT***
HI Richard
I do not think that is indicated in my
direct - 703-880-4841
From: Dennis Ward [mailto:dw...@atcb.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:36 PM
To: 'Gartman, Richard'; 'Reginald Henry'; 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
Subject: RE: FCC ** LOGO vs Verification Label RequirementT***
HI Richard
I do not think that is indicated in my
From: Gartman, Richard [mailto:rgart...@ti.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:34 PM
To: Dennis Ward; 'Reginald Henry'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: FCC ** LOGO vs Verification Label RequirementT***
Dennis,
As I read your description, the FCC logo is for use only on intentional
, 2009 4:10 PM
To: 'Reginald Henry'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: FCC ** LOGO vs Verification Label RequirementT***
By FCC logo I take it that you mean the DoC logo. If so, the DoC logo only
applies under certain situations and is not for general use. Typically the
FCC LOGO only
it.
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Ward
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 4:10 PM
To: 'Reginald Henry'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: FCC ** LOGO vs Verification Label RequirementT***
By FCC logo I take it that you mean the DoC logo. If so, the DoC logo
By FCC logo I take it that you mean the DoC logo. If so, the DoC logo only
applies under certain situations and is not for general use. Typically the
FCC LOGO only applies and can only be used in those instances where the
device can be certified or DoC'd. The devices that can use the DoC logo
- 703-880-4841
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grace Lin
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:02 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: FCC wireless filings
Richard,
For a new application, the required document per the FCC is listed under
Section 2.1033 of FCC
Richard,
For a new application, the required document per the FCC is listed under
Section 2.1033 of FCC Rules (or 47 CFR 2.1033). IC has a similar requirement
(RSP-100, RSS-Gen). Please note IC doesn't accept - within the unique
product number.
For permissibe change, if you are not the
Sir,
Please note the second or third page of the existing EMC report, where
there will be a reference to the body, test lab location, and the names of
the report writer/tester and the reviewer. The people in the referenced
report and any internal EMC/compliance experts at Texas Instruments could
Hi Andy,
In the UK it is the same. Developers of radio equipment are required to
suppress the harmonic and spurious radiated emission levels to a level lower
than the general radiate emission limits given for domestic environments [for
most of the spectrum, this is true - there are some
...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Haynes,
Tim (SELEX GALILEO, UK)
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:59 AM
To: Andrew McCallum; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: FCC Part 15.109 and 15.209 Radiated emission limits
Hi Andy,
In the UK it is the same. Developers of radio equipment
Anders, that refers to the RF exposure to human beings. Mobile means that
the antenna needs to be or will be more that 20 cm away from humans.
Portable means that the antenna will be within 20 cm of the body.
Bob Heller
3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01
St. Paul, MN 55107-1208
Tel: 651- 778-6336
Fax:
There are two rf exposure conditions provided in the FCC rules that must be
addressed at the time of certification. One is for portable configurations for
devices that are used within 20cm of the body, and the other is mobile
configurations for devices that are used more than 20cm from the body.
Hi Bob,
If your product utilizes a detachable antenna, a dummy load may replace the
antenna per ANSI C63.4 (13.1.3.1). The term “detachable” in this standard
is not defined, so is left to interpretation. Technically speaking, if an
antenna internally or externally connects to a transmitter via
Bob -
It is acceptable to replace antenna with a dummy load for this radio type
(13.56MHz, Part 15) for the measurement of the conducted emissions at the
transmit frequency of the radio. This may not be done for the AC conducted
emission measurement at other frequencies. The relevant Knowledge
Short answer is No you are not compliant.
Mitigating points:
The first question is -- Does the modem have a Modular Approval?
If the modem has a modular approval then you are complaint.
The second question is -- Are you the Grantee of record for the modem?
If you are the grantee of record +
Mark, Andrew -
I would add that, in the case the device has modular approval, you are
compliant with radio specs (so long as you use the module within the
limitations of the grant conditions and installation requirements of the
module manufacturer). You would still need to test the complete
Thanks everyone - we are in discussions with the client now.
Mark Briggs mbri...@elliottlabs.com 23/09/2008 17:07
Mark, Andrew -
I would add that, in the case the device has modular approval, you are
compliant with radio specs (so long as you use the module within the
limitations of the
In the situation you mention, as long as the antenna is of the same or lesser
gain and also of the same type as approved, then the device can be used based
on its approval and would not mandate any further testing when placed in a
system. However, approval status only shows an assumption of
Andrew,
You can search on this page (and the grant exists as well).
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm
Kind regards,
Kris Carpentier
Regulatory Approvals
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
Thanks everyone I have found what I need.
Regards
Andy
Andrew McCallum andrew.mccal...@deltarail.com 15/09/2008 10:19
Thanks for the comments so far. From what I can gather from the responses I
really need to have a copy of the FCC Grant note. Have searched Google and FCC
site but can not
Andy
The source for the note is probably the FCC grant for the device.
After a quick look on the FCC's search page at
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm I am
guessing that the module you are looking at
[mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mark Briggs
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 8:11 PM
To: Andrew McCallum
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: FCC Requirement Note
Andy
The source for the note is probably the FCC grant for the device.
After a quick look on the FCC's search page
Andy
It sounds like the equipment concerned does not have an integral antenna.
Testing would have primarily have been done conducted at the antenna port,
with limits adjusted based by the highest gain of the antennas that the
manufacturer declares may be used with the unit
With regard to RF
Hi,
Follow the links below to review the sections of the CFR referenced in your
note.
If I understand what you are looking for correctly you may want to pay
particular attention to §1.1307 paragraph (b) where “must contain a
statement” is referenced.
Title 47: Telecommunication
PART 1—PRACTICE
Grace -
The FCC electronic filing website
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/ shows that 50% of applications
were processed within 43 calendar days; 90% were processed within 59
calendar days.
Mark
At 05:02 PM 7/29/2008, Grace Lin wrote:
Dear Members,
Can someone share your experience
On 7/15/2008, Darrell Locke wrote:
We are beginning contract manufacturing a telephone dictation device
used in
medical office environment. We do not place the product on the market as our
customer does. The existing product we are replacing is quite old and the
label indicates
I haven’t seen one.
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of McDougal, Bret
(SHC US)
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 7:52 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: FCC Part 68 Gold Plating -- Ethernet Lan
The question has come up whether there
In message
ffc63409f873ea4781b7bcba0d015a56057b2...@usnwk100msx.ww017.siemens.net,
dated Tue, 1 Jul 2008, McDougal, Bret (SHC US)
bret.mcdou...@siemens.com writes:
The question has come up whether there are any requirements on the gold
plating thickness for Ethernet Connectors (not used for
On 7/1/2008, Bret McDougal wrote:
The question has come up whether there are any requirements on the gold
plating thickness for Ethernet Connectors (not used for telco interface),
similar to the requirements for 50u of Gold for Telco connections.
Hi Bret:
I suspect that the answer
In message 6.1.0.6.2.20080701131509.03cc0...@pop.randolph-telecom.com,
dated Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Joe Randolph j...@randolph-telecom.com writes:
That being said, I would be inclined to use gold plating, at least in a
thin coating, to avoid the type of corrosion problems that FCC Part 68
was
...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: FCC Part 68 Gold Plating -- Ethernet Lan
In message 6.1.0.6.2.20080701131509.03cc0...@pop.randolph-telecom.com,
dated Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Joe Randolph j...@randolph-telecom.com writes:
That being said, I would be inclined to use gold plating, at least in a
thin coating, to avoid
your system. Thank
you for your cooperation.
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John
Woodgate
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 1:05 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: FCC Part 68 Gold Plating -- Ethernet Lan
In message 6.1.0.6.2.20080701131509.03cc0...@pop.randolph
, June 10, 2008 8:39 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Fw: Antwort: Re: FCC requirements for Card Readers
As an additional note, if the card reader contained RFID then it would fall
under Subpart C.
Bob Heller
3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01
St. Paul, MN 55107-1208
Tel: 651- 778-6336
Fax: 651-778-6252
Subject
Antwort: Re: FCC requirements for
Card Readers
Subject
Re: Antwort: Re: FCC requirements
for Card Readers(Document link:
Robert E. Heller
Woodgate; Richards, Carl
Cc: Ken Javor; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: FCC Immunity Requirements
No, the EMC and safety guys are told to make it pass, but don't change
anything. :-)
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John
Woodgate
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:08
Grace – For the US that is OK. (Other than any importation paperwork).
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grace Lin
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:10 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: FCC Labelling
Dear Members,
Is there any
In message
2a93eb060805050910w486ab45cgeae3faa01f70c...@mail.gmail.com, dated
Mon, 5 May 2008, Grace Lin graceli...@gmail.com writes:
My question is: is it OK that a product is shipped out without any
paperwork (the product is an intentional radiator and the label
includes FCC ID)?
That
FCC does not like it much either. They have a couple of statements that are
to be included. But there are some exemptions, just maybe the product falls
into one of those.
John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote:
In message
This message has been converted via the evaluation version of
Transend Migrator. Use beyond the trial period specified in
your Software Evaluation Agreement is prohibited. Please contact
Transend Corporation at (650) 324-5370 or sales.i...@transend.com
to obtain a license suitable for use in a
Subject: Re: FCC Immunity Requirements
Ian,
Years ago, I had an oppotunity to ask an FCC officer this question at
the FCC
booth during an IEEE symposium. The officer told me FCC cares if a product
produces high emission to the public
05/02/2008 07:38 Re: FCC Immunity Requirements
AM
In message
9d04b979323dcd428297dda95108893e0120c...@bb-corp-ex2.corp.cubic.cub,
dated Fri, 2 May 2008, Price, Edward ed.pr...@cubic.com writes:
However, the US market has become just about as regulation-controlled
as the European market, so I expect that someday we will see immunity
Fascinating thought processes here.
Who will protect the consumer? And from whom?
It is one thing to impose EMI requirements on equipment to be installed in
close proximity on platforms. There as pointed out the close proximity of
susceptible equipment to high power sources, and not mentioned
European standards are written up in consultation with industry to be
realistic and workable (in theory). It may be the STATE that enforces it but
industry has defined it.
I would rather buy one laptop knowing it will work rather than have to go
through 10 laptops till I find one that works.
Ken Javor wrote:
But in the absence of that situation, which is clearly where we are at
in the USA, it is either comical or tragical that someone feels that
the government must step in to provide protection not afforded by the
invisible hand of the free market. If I buy a laptop that
Companies who make shoddy or even merely susceptible equipment may be
expected to deny the problem exists,or to blame it on the (even lawful)
source of interference, or simply refuse to do anything about it. In the
United States there is almost always an implied warranty that an item sold
is
Carl Richards,
Regulatory Compliance Manager,
Aspect Software
2, The Square
Stockley Park, Uxbridge, UB11 1AD,
United Kingdom
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Derek
Walton
Sent: 02 May 2008 14:52
To: Ken Javor
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: FCC
...@emccompliance.com, EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: FCC Immunity Requirements
European standards are written up in consultation with industry to be
realistic and workable (in theory). It may be the STATE that enforces it but
industry has defined it.
I would rather buy one laptop knowing
and
position protection. :-)
Carl
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: 02 May 2008 15:47
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: FCC Immunity Requirements
A lack of perspective is on display here. First, has anyone
...@earthlink.net
Reply-To: k...@earthlink.net
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 06:57:10 -0700
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: FCC Immunity Requirements
Companies who make shoddy or even merely susceptible equipment may be
expected to deny the problem exists,or to blame it on the (even lawful)
source
carl.richa...@aspect.com
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:54:36 -0400
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Conversation: FCC Immunity Requirements
Subject: RE: FCC Immunity Requirements
Apple still turn out
1 - 100 of 544 matches
Mail list logo
