Jim, I sense you may be in justification mode or worse the phrase "value add" has reared up. Well, IMHO we have become victims of our own success. Due to the diligence of many EMC Engineers and the increase in digital transmissions, cable TV etc, high visibility interference (nuisence) related problems have all but disappeared. Indeed, the FCC has issued a NOI that buried in the text says: "We seek to examine whether these regulations continue to be necessary, and if so, whether any changes to the limits may be appropriate." Let me clarify my position. The very fact that problems do NOT occur is an excellent reason to maintain EMC standards.
So the main justification becomes a legal one. You will have to go back a number of years to find the first non-EMEmissions standard. As I recall, the first EME standard was actually VDE 0871 and the German government was concerned primarily with emissions interfering with legitimate communication. Largely as a result of that CBEMA released a document that finally became FCC CFR47 Part 15. And so an industry was born. Apart from the jail terms, the main risk is marketability. Without the BCIQ mark, your products sit on the dock. Period. So EMC is part of the cost of doing buisness and its our job (as EMC folks) to keep that cost as low as possible. Thank you Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262 [email protected] Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 Symposium Website URL: http://www.ball.com/aerospace/ieee_emc.html > ---------- > From: WOODS, RICHARD[SMTP:[email protected]] > Reply To: WOODS, RICHARD > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 8:38 AM > To: 'emc-pstc list server'; 'Knighten, Jim' > Subject: RE: Looking for Horror Stories > > In its fomative years, a major US PC manufacturer felt that FCC > certification was not a barrier to marketing. Standard operating > procedure > was to sell while the authorization was in process. Then the FCC > arrived to > shut down their factory. The VP of Engineering met with the FCC in > Washington at the last minute and worked out an agreement that kept > the > factory running. After that point, FCC certification and other agency > approvals became a requirement before shipment was authorized. Today, > that > company has a world class compliance operation, and I am proud to have > taken > part in that process. > > Richard Woods > Sensormatic Electronics > [email protected] > Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of > Sensormatic. > > > > ---------- > > From: Knighten, Jim[SMTP:[email protected]] > > Reply To: Knighten, Jim > > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 7:24 PM > > To: 'emc-pstc list server' > > Subject: Looking for Horror Stories > > > > To All: > > > > My management is drafting an "educational" briefing for higher > > management on the degree of seriousness of regulatory compliance > > (primarily aimed at EMC). > > > > I would appreciate your sharing with me any tales of woe, penalties, > > incarceration, or any other horror stories related to companies who > have > > either inadvertently not complied with the regulations, or who have > been > > deliberately lax in doing so. Again, EMC is more my interest. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Jim > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > --------------------------- > > Dr. Jim Knighten > > NCR > > 17095 Via del Campo > > San Diego, CA 92127 > > Telephone: 619-485-2537 > > Fax: 619-485-3788 > > e-mail: [email protected] > > >
