[RFI] Part 15 Class B labeling requirements

[Cortland Richmond]

Stephanie WX3K  asked 
> Isnt it true that manufacturers must include the following with their
products so the customer sees this ?
>
> This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject
to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful
interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received,
including interference that may cause undesired operation.


The instruction sheet at (
http://sturgeon.apcc.com/techref.nsf/partnum/990-2084A/$FILE/990-2084A_En_RE
V04.pdf  ) 
says it's "FCC/DOC Class B Certified."  The FCC requires a specific label*.
Does this UPS have one?  It's possible the Commission _would_ be interested
in an unlabelled UPS. Does it interfere?
*
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=15&SECTION
=19&YEAR=2000&TYPE=PDF

Noisy switching power supplies have gotten folks in trouble with the FCC:

quote (note all line breaks are removed) :
 On September 23, 2003, the Enforcement Bureau  issued a Public Notice
stating that the Office of   Engineering and Technology had determined that
certain  vehicle battery chargers manufactured and distributed in   the
United States by Vector Products, Inc. d/b/a Vector  Manufacturing, Ltd.
(``Vector'') were not in compliance   with the technical  standards of 
Part 15  of the Commission's Rules.1 The Public Notice advised retailers 
that continued marketing of the battery chargers would constitute a
violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
(``Act'')2 and Section 2.803(a) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'').3  On
October 23, 2003, Vector filed  a petition for reconsideration of that
Public Notice.4

2.  On April 2, 2004, Vector filed a motion to withdraw the petition for
reconsideration.5 Vector notes that it has entered into a Consent Decree
with the Enforcement Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology
which terminates the Enforcement Bureau's investigation into the Vector
battery chargers and resolves all matters related to Vector's petition for
reconsideration.6 In this Order, we grant Vector's motion and dismiss its
petition for reconsideration. 
unquote
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1013A1.html

The Public Notice referred to is at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2923A1.pdf?date=0309
23
excerpt:
The Enforcement Bureau recently obtained six models of Vector Smart™
Battery Chargers, Model Nos. VEC086, VEC087, VEC088, VEC090, VEC092 and
VEC093, from several different retailers and submitted the devices to the
OET Laboratory for testing to determine whether they comply
with the Part 15 Rules. All of the devices were labeled as being in
compliance with the Part 15 Rules. However, the OET Laboratory tested the
devices and determined that all six models significantly exceed the
emission limits set forth in Part 15. Because these devices significantly
exceed the Part 15 emission limits, they present a serious potential for
harmful interference to licensed radio services. The Enforcement Bureau is
considering appropriate enforcement action against Vector for importing and
marketing radio frequency devices that do not comply with the FCC’s
technical standards in violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended,1 and Section 2.803. . .

Also:

quote
     1.        Under Parts 2 and 15 of the Rules, Class B digital devices
and Class B external switching power supplies must be authorized in
accordance with the Commission's equipment verification procedure and
comply with all applicable technical standards and labeling requirements
prior to importation or marketing in the United States.  On March 5, 2004,
in response to complaints alleging interference related to heated mattress
pads marketed by PFI, the Bureau initiated an investigation by issuing . . .
unquote
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-337A1.html

and

quote
On November  5, 2003, the Bureau received a complaint alleging that 
Schumacher was  marketing a  new line  of SpeedCharge  automobile  battery
chargers   (``SpeedChargers'')  at   the   ongoing   Automobile Aftermarket
Products  Expo  (``AAPEX'')  in  Las  Vegas.   The complaint alleged that 
Schumacher did not label the  exhibited SpeedChargers under Section
15.19(a)(3) of the Rules7, and  did not display  the trade  show notice
under  Section 2.803(c)  of the Rules.
unquote
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1377A1.html


Cortland
KA5S