• Greg Snyder commented on 2015-11-27 19:31:39.92:
  Hello, thank you for working on this for the TCBs. We hereby submit our combined comments/feedback from the PCTEST CB staff. Thank you! View attachment associated with this comment

---

• David Case commented on 2015-11-25 09:53:35.643:
  Cisco supports the proposed changes in regards to the grant notes. However in regards to the separation distance for MPE, we have found the 20cm distance on the FCC grant useful as it is easy to point to in regards to questions from customers in regards is the distance based on Cisco view or regulation. Therefore we prefer it remain on the grant

---

• Randy Clark commented on 2015-11-11 19:16:21.15:
  Several comments to numerous sections are provided in the attached document. Please let us know if further clarification is needed to these comments. View attachment associated with this comment

---

• Randy Clark commented on 2015-11-11 19:13:30.486:
  Several comments to numerous sections are provided in the attached document. Please let us know if further clarification is needed to these comments. View attachment associated with this comment

---

• Randy Clark commented on 2015-11-11 19:11:31.526:
  Several comments on numerous sections have been made in the attached document. Please let us know should further clarification of these comments be necessary. View attachment associated with this comment

---

• Karsten Koller commented on 2015-10-28 13:27:35.01:
  Dear FCC, One of the main purposes of this new draft KDB, is to look into ways to reduce the amount of grant comments, especially of obsolete grant comments. In regards of this, we would like to propose to omit the grant comment "This device is certified pursuant to two different Part 15 rules sections." This comment is normally used, for devices which is subject to various Part 15 requirements, for example a WLAN/ BT device or also a part 15 transmitter, where the JPB part is certified additionally. However in our opinion this comment does not serve any specific purpose, as a similar comment is also not required for licensed devices, where the device is subject to different parts of the same standard or also subject to multiple standards. Therefore we would like to recommend to omit this statement in future TCB filings.

---

Note: It is important to understand that the staff guidance provided in the KDB is intended to assist the public in following Commission requirements and does not constitute rules. Accordingly, the guidance is not binding on the Commission and will not prevent the Commission from making a different decision in any matter that comes to its attention for resolution.