The new scheme does not apply to Class A Verification.
FCC Class A is a Verification process and is distinctly different
from the two (Class B) Certification schemes (either the new self
certification method or the old formally certified by the FCC
method). The FCC docket for the new scheme made reference to
Verification, but did not actually change the essential (Class A)
Verification scheme.
For (Class A) Verification, no FCC approval or communication is
involved, however, the manufacturer must still test and document
compliance in a report. (Generally speaking, most manufacturers
start shipping as soon as the test is passed - then write up the
report in the meantime. And, you still must label your product with
the standard FCC warning text.) The FCC is not in the loop for
Verification - but you better have that report ready if the FCC ever
asks for it. :)
For (Class B) Certification, you either use the new scheme and
declare compliance (AKA the DoC) in a letter to the FCC, or use the
old scheme of submitting a full test report package with the $845
fee. (Of course, the FCC ID and various text must still appear on
your product label.) You must delay shipping product until the
formal FCC paper certificate arrives by US mail - an unpleasant delay
for many manufacturers, and the reason the new scheme was created.
The new (Class B) Certification scheme saves time and money - you can
ship as soon as you pass; but the lab must have (or be in the process
of getting) a formal laboratory accreditation like NVLAP. You must
still document compliance in a test report, but then you only submit
a simple declaration to the FCC -- even after you start shipping. (A
copy of the declaration must also accompany the product, however.)
Don't forget that a new FCC logo must appear on your product - but no
FCC ID exists as in the old scheme. So, you almost have the same
benefit of the Verification scheme for Class A, but the FCC is still
involved - but without any impact on product release/shipment.
In all cases, the user manual must contain the minimum FCC warnings
to the user - and they vary noticably from Class A to Class B.
Regards,
Eric Lifsey
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: re: FCC Class A Label?
From: grasso%stkww...@ccsvm.stortek.com at Internet
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 1/6/97 10:27 AM
Let me see if I understand this correctly..
The FCC in an attempt to speed up the Class B cert process introduced the
DoC process.
Can Class A equipment use the same process?
--------------------------( Forwarded letter 1 follows )---------------------
X-Router: (TAO/SMTP Gateway 1.1.34) <emc2m...@ccsvm.stortek.com>
Received: from stortek.com by CCSVM.STORTEK.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP;
Thu, 02 Jan 97 12:32:14 MST
Received: from ruebert.ieee.org by stortek.com with SMTP id AA20970
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Thu, 2 Jan 1997 12:32:16 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA24680
for emc-pstc-list; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 13:08:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <n1359922992.47...@sledgehammer.com>
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 2 Jan 1997 10:04:01 -0800
From: "Steve Chin" <sc...@sledgehammer.com.smtp>
Subject: Re: FCC Class A Label?
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2
Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org.smtp
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Steve Chin" <sc...@sledgehammer.com.smtp>
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org>
X-Listname: emc-pstc
X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society
X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org
Lets not forget about the new FCC DoC process. You can declare conformity to
the FCC limits (either class A or class B) if you are testing at an approved
site with uses approved testing practices. If you use the route of
declaration, a proper "FCC DoC" label must be applied.
Steve Chin
StreamLogic Corp.
Menlo Park, CA, USA
sc...@sledgehammer.com
The views expressed in this transmission in no way intentionally reflect those
of any being, be it living, dead, corporate, governmental, inanimate, etc.
They are mine alone.
--------------------------------------
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 12/31/96 3:03 PM
To: Steve Chin
From: Eric Lifsey
Jon Bertrand asks if FCC Class A devices require a label. Yes, is
the short answer. Class A devices are subject to VERIFICATION, while
Class B devices require (in nearly all cases) CERTIFICATION.
Received: from natinst.com by hail.natinst.com with SMTP
(IMA Internet Exchange 2.0 Enterprise) id 2D2AA9B0; Tue, 7 Jan 97 13:57:16
-0600
Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3])
by natinst.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
id NAA10738; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 13:57:14 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA28180
for emc-pstc-list; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 12:32:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199701061732.maa28...@ruebert.ieee.org>
X-Router: (TAO/SMTP Gateway 1.1.34) <emc2m...@ccsvm.stortek.com>
X-Tao-To: <emc-p...@ieee.org>
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Monday, 6 January 1997 10:27am MT
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
From: grasso%stkww...@ccsvm.stortek.com
Subject: re: FCC Class A Label?
Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: grasso%stkww...@ccsvm.stortek.com
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org>
X-Listname: emc-pstc
X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society
X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org
