Hans,
     
     I agree with you in that historically I have also had the marking from 
     2.803 on products before compliance was obtained.

     However, from reading 2.803 I cannot say why verification and DofC were 
not 
     present in the listing of approval methods. I was curious after reading it 
     and decided to post my query.
     
     So, to the letter of the law (FCC Part 2), does this marking method apply 
     to Verification and DofC equipment? 
     
     Maybe this is moot point as I will continue to apply this marking at the 
     appointed times.
     
     After all I am curious.
     
     Regards,
     Ron Pickard
     [email protected]
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: labelling of prototypes in US
Author:  [email protected] at INTERNET
List-Post: [email protected]
Date:    9/11/97 1:57 PM


Item Subject: Re[2]: labelling of prototypes in US
     The DoC approach does not exempt you from compliance to labelling. If 
     you cannot (with clear consiousness) apply the DoC label then you must 
     use the demo/exhibition statement of non-compliance (2.803)
        When I worked for a computer /terminal manufacturer we used this 2.803 
label for both class A (2.902) and class B (2.904) equipment frequently for 
protopypes or alpha marketing units. 
The FCC will issue fines for equipment at certain trade shows that are not 
compliant with (primarily) labelling rules. They (FCC) seem to attend the larger
shows frequently.
     
Hans Mellberg
     
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: labelling of prototypes in US
Author:  Non-HP-Ron-Pickard ([email protected]) at HP-ColSprings,shargw5 
List-Post: [email protected]
Date:    9/11/97 11:53 AM
     
     
     Hello to all,
     
     This query is in the applicability of FCC rule 2.803. Hans had 
     provided the Part 2 reference which caused me to look it up again. 
     This has raised a question for me.
     
     According to 2.803, "... device which has not been granted type 
     approval, type acceptance, certification or notification, will not be 
     deemed an offer for sale if such advertising contains, and the display 
     is accompanied by, conspicuous notice worded as follows:"
     
     As verification and declaration of conformity are not present in this 
     paragraph, is equipment that is subject to Verification (2.902) or 
     Declaration of Conformity (2.906) exempt from this labelling requirement?
     
     Any opinions on this subject would be greatly appreciated.
     
     Thank you in advance.
     
     Best regards,
     Ron Pickard
     [email protected]
     

Reply via email to