FCC Web Documents citing 15.105

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2010 08 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2673A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2673A1.pdf
  • 10, 2008 By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find Multi-Tech Systems, Inc. (``Multi-Tech'') apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 2.803(a) and 15.105(a) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). The noted apparent violations involve Multi-Tech's marketing of a radio frequency device without including the required consumer disclosure in the user manual. BACKGROUND Multi-Tech is a manufacturer of communications and device networking products that provide voice and data services over internet protocol networks. One of its products, the CallFinder(R) Global System for Mobile Communications (``GSM'')
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-521A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-521A1.pdf
  • Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') and Enhanced Vision Systems, Inc. (``Enhanced Vision''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Enhanced Vision for possible violations of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 2.803(a), 15.19, 15.21, and 15.105 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'') regarding the marketing of Class B Digital Devices, specifically, vision assistance products for the legally blind. The Bureau and Enhanced Vision have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-100A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-100A1.pdf
  • verification procedure, Class B digital devices must be tested and verified as compliant with the Commission's conducted emission and radiated emission limits set forth in Sections 15.107 and 15.109 of the Rules. Additionally, Class B digital devices must be labeled as specified in Section 15.19(a)(3) of the Rules, and its user instruction manuals must include the information detailed in Section 15.105(b) of the Rules. Finally, imported Class B digital devices are subject to mandatory Custom declaration (FCC Form 740) filing requirements. On February 16, 2006, the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') proposing a $1,000,000 forfeiture against Behringer for its apparent willful and repeated violation of the equipment marketing restrictions and related requirements. Specifically, the NAL found
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3544A1.txt
  • actually Class B digital devices and therefore must comply with the more stringent emission limits applicable to such devices. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(D). 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(h). 47 C.F.R. � 15(i). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.19. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.105. 47 C.F.R. � 2.955. 47 C.F.R. � 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.1914. Federal Communications Commission DA 03-3544 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-3544 �@��� �@��� # $ * + W ` - � � � � � � � � h h9q kd{ kd� $ � 0 � 0 4 � � ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������� �� (R)V
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4118A1.txt
  • therefore, importation into the United States was in violation of the Commission's rules. Moreover, the complaint alleged that the Talknet USB Headset does not bear a FCC certification or verification label in violation of Section 15.19 of the Rules. Finally, the complaint alleged that the Talknet manual does not contain an FCC Part 15 statement as is required by Section 15.105(b) of the Rules. On August 27, 2003, the Enforcement Bureau sent Datel a letter of inquiry (``LOI''). In its initial response dated September 10, 2003, Datel stated that it was solely a distributor of the Talknet USB Headset, and that it did not manufacture or design the device, although it did import and market the device in the United States.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-42A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-42A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-42A1.txt
  • adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau and St. Louis Music, Inc. (``SLM''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation initiated by the Enforcement Bureau into whether SLM's manufacture, importation, marketing and sale of certain Class B digital audio devices violated Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') and Sections 2.803(a), 15.19 and 15.105(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). The Enforcement Bureau and SLM have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve this matter and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Based on the record before us, we conclude that no substantial or material questions of fact exist with respect to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1413A1.txt
  • 300, 400, 410, 433, 450, 450B, and 485. Other Devices: Model 202-1 Sip & Puff; Model 200-00 Repeater; Model 923 Receiver; Model 924 Receiver; Model PB 5000 PERS Buddy; Model 650 Medtime with RF Transmitter; Medtime; Model 200-10 HW Smoke Detector; and Model 200-14 RF Smoke Detector. 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803, 2.925, 15.19, 15.101, 15.105(b), 15.107, 15.109, 15.201, 15.207, 15.231, 68.201, and 68.354. 47 U.S.C. � 154(i). 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311. 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. Parts 2, 15, and 68. 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Howard M. Siegel, President, AMAC (Nov. 17, 2004). Federal Communications Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2673A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2673A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2673A1.txt
  • 10, 2008 By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find Multi-Tech Systems, Inc. (``Multi-Tech'') apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 2.803(a) and 15.105(a) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). The noted apparent violations involve Multi-Tech's marketing of a radio frequency device without including the required consumer disclosure in the user manual. BACKGROUND Multi-Tech is a manufacturer of communications and device networking products that provide voice and data services over internet protocol networks. One of its products, the CallFinder(R) Global System for Mobile Communications (``GSM'')
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-521A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-521A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-521A1.txt
  • Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') and Enhanced Vision Systems, Inc. (``Enhanced Vision''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Enhanced Vision for possible violations of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 2.803(a), 15.19, 15.21, and 15.105 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'') regarding the marketing of Class B Digital Devices, specifically, vision assistance products for the legally blind. The Bureau and Enhanced Vision have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-290A1.txt
  • it is found to comply. Information to the User Manufacturers are required to supply certain information to the users of products operating under Part 15 of the rules. Section 15.21 requires the instruction manual for all Part 15 devices to contain a statement that unauthorized modifications to a device could void the user's authority to operate it. In addition, Section 15.105 requires the manual for a digital device to include a warning of the potential for interference to other devices and a list of some steps that could possibly eliminate the interference. The rules originally envisioned that this information would be included in a paper instruction manual. As manufacturers have moved to provide more of their manuals electronically, the Commission has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-149A1.txt
  • Copies of ANSI C63.17-1998 and C63.4-2001 may be inspected at the following locations: (1) Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Office of Engineering and Technology (room 7-B144), Washington, DC 20554, (2) Federal Communications Commission Laboratory, 7435 Oakland Mills Road, Columbia, MD 21046, or (3) Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. Section 15.105 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e) � 15.105 Information to the user. * * * * * (e) In cases where the manual is provided only in a form other than paper, such as on a computer disk or over the Internet, the information required by this section may be included in the manual in that alternative form,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-262A1.txt
  • capability of reading the disk or is used with equipment that is capable of reading the disk. Warning statements may be provided in a manual on the Internet only when the manual is provided solely over the Internet and the equipment will be used with Internet access. These rule changes applied to information statements required by Sections 15.21, 15.27(a) and 15.105(e) of the rules. In their petitions, Cisco and ITI note that the rule changes adopted in the Second Report and Order that allow information statements to be supplied in alternative forms do not apply to the compliance information statements that are required by Section 2.1077 to be supplied with equipment authorized under the DoC procedure. Cisco states that the omission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-282A1.txt
  • will be kept on file and made available to the Commission upon request. III. Each shipment of home recording studios will be sampled by Samson to assure that 1) the devices are uniquely identified, pursuant to Section 2.954 of the Rules; 2) bear the statement required by Section 15.19(a)(3); and 3) include in their manuals the statement required by Section 15.105(b). IV. Any shipment found not to be in compliance with these requirements will be not be offered for sale by Samson or further shipped by or to Samson, until any necessary corrections have been made. V. The Compliance Program, set forth above, will be under the direct supervision of Samson's President, Mr. Scott Goodman, or, in the event Mr. Goodman
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-13A1.txt
  • the verification procedure prior to marketing. Specifically, Class B digital devices must be tested and verified as compliant with the conducted emission limits and radiated emission limits set forth in Sections 15.107 and 15.109 of the Rules, must be labeled as specified in Section 15.19(a)(3) of the Rules, and must comply with the user manual requirements set forth in Section 15.105(b) of the Rules. Additionally, if such devices are imported into the United States, the importer must submit a declaration to Customs (on FCC Form 740, or electronically, where electronic filing is available) indicating that the devices meet one of the conditions for entry into the United States. In March 2004, the Bureau received a complaint alleging that Behringer was marketing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-100A1.txt
  • verification procedure, Class B digital devices must be tested and verified as compliant with the Commission's conducted emission and radiated emission limits set forth in Sections 15.107 and 15.109 of the Rules. Additionally, Class B digital devices must be labeled as specified in Section 15.19(a)(3) of the Rules, and its user instruction manuals must include the information detailed in Section 15.105(b) of the Rules. Finally, imported Class B digital devices are subject to mandatory Custom declaration (FCC Form 740) filing requirements. On February 16, 2006, the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') proposing a $1,000,000 forfeiture against Behringer for its apparent willful and repeated violation of the equipment marketing restrictions and related requirements. Specifically, the NAL found
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet62/oet62rev.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet62/oet62rev.wp
  • to each device that is marketed or imported. However, the compliance label and FCC ID label (see below) may not be attached to any devices until a grant of certification has been obtained for the devices. The wording for the compliance label and the information statement is included in Part 15. Section 2.909 Section 15.19 Section 15.21 Section 15.27 Section 15.105 Certified devices are also required to have an FCC ID label attached to them. The FCC ID label must be permanently marked (etched, engraved, indelibly printed, etc.) either directly on the device, or on a tag that is permanently affixed (riveted, welded, etc.) to the device. The FCC ID label must be readily visible to the purchaser at the time
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1413A1.html
  • 300, 400, 410, 433, 450, 450B, and 485. Other Devices: Model 202-1 Sip & Puff; Model 200-00 Repeater; Model 923 Receiver; Model 924 Receiver; Model PB 5000 PERS Buddy; Model 650 Medtime with RF Transmitter; Medtime; Model 200-10 HW Smoke Detector; and Model 200-14 RF Smoke Detector. 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. SS 2.803, 2.925, 15.19, 15.101, 15.105(b), 15.107, 15.109, 15.201, 15.207, 15.231, 68.201, and 68.354. 47 U.S.C. S 154(i). 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311. 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. Parts 2, 15, and 68. 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Howard M. Siegel, President, AMAC (Nov. 17, 2004). Federal Communications Commission
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-13A1.html
  • the verification procedure prior to marketing. Specifically, Class B digital devices must be tested and verified as compliant with the conducted emission limits and radiated emission limits set forth in Sections 15.107 and 15.109 of the Rules,8 must be labeled as specified in Section 15.19(a)(3) of the Rules,9 and must comply with the user manual requirements set forth in Section 15.105(b) of the Rules.10 Additionally, if such devices are imported into the United States, the importer must submit a declaration to Customs (on FCC Form 740, or electronically, where electronic filing is available) indicating that the devices meet one of the conditions for entry into the United States.11 4. In March 2004, the Bureau received a complaint alleging that Behringer was
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-100A1.html
  • verification procedure, Class B digital devices must be tested and verified as compliant with the Commission's conducted emission and radiated emission limits set forth in Sections 15.107 and 15.109 of the Rules. Additionally, Class B digital devices must be labeled as specified in Section 15.19(a)(3) of the Rules, and its user instruction manuals must include the information detailed in Section 15.105(b) of the Rules. Finally, imported Class B digital devices are subject to mandatory Custom declaration (FCC Form 740) filing requirements. 4. On February 16, 2006, the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") proposing a $1,000,000 forfeiture against Behringer for its apparent willful and repeated violation of the equipment marketing restrictions and related requirements. 5. Specifically, the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2673A1.html
  • By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find Multi-Tech Systems, Inc. ("Multi-Tech") apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 2.803(a) and 15.105(a) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). The noted apparent violations involve Multi-Tech's marketing of a radio frequency device without including the required consumer disclosure in the user manual. II. BACKGROUND 2. Multi-Tech is a manufacturer of communications and device networking products that provide voice and data services over internet protocol networks. One of its products, the CallFinder(R) Global System for Mobile
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-521A1.html
  • Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") and Enhanced Vision Systems, Inc. ("Enhanced Vision"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Enhanced Vision for possible violations of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 2.803(a), 15.19, 15.21, and 15.105 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules") regarding the marketing of Class B Digital Devices, specifically, vision assistance products for the legally blind. 2. The Bureau and Enhanced Vision have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent