From: "Eric Petitpierre" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: BOUNCE [email protected]: Non-member submission from
On 6/16/98, Scott Phelan wrote:
_
From: Scott Phelan <[email protected]>
Subject: Part 68 and the Midnight Engineer
>I working on a design for a device that attaches in line with a piece of
>terminal equipment. This unit is for a very small niche market, and as such I
>won't be building many (Probably less than 1000 units).
>1) How much trouble is it getting Part 68 approvial?
>If it is a simple matter of providing the design info and paying the fee, no
>problem. If I have to go to a testing lab, forget it.
Scott, two weeks of apllication processing time. Testing time is up to
you. If you provide and use the test procedures that are suggested in
Part 68, testing can be done yourself. A Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (NPRM) released May 18, GEN Docket No. 98-68 may change that, by
the way.
>2) Do people doing this kind of thing even bother with approvial?
Yes there are, but I would not suggest it. The risk is $10k fine per day
of the offence. Maybe more if harm to the network or people takes place.
3) Who is the correct (current)person to contact at the FCC reguarding Part 68,
and his/her phone no?
Bill Howden, 202-418-2343
Eric Petitpierre
Pulsecom
Herndon, VA
[email protected]
