My experience has seen that the FCC will allow a chamber to be used if
enough data has been taken (i.e. 900 points) and with a statement like: [If
challenged the decision with be settled at an Open Air Test Site.] Now I do
not know if you have to own the OATS or use another labs, I don't think it
matters. I say this because I have read a report on a chamber built by a
distinguished colleague of ours at AST. He built a chamber that the FCC
allowed to be used, i.e. the data was placed on public record.
I believe the statement - "hence we are in compliance with ANSI C63.4/1992,
CISPR 22 publication and
FCC Subpart B Class A regulations" is not correct.
Al Patrick, EMC Lab Manager
Scientific-Atlanta Inc.
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Kuiper [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 5:45 PM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: FCC approved 3m chamber suitable for 10m qualification
testing
Dear esteemed colleagues,
Our small commercial laboratory lost a modest sized FCC verification test
and report to a competitor who DO NOT operate an OATS, but claim the
following..........
"Our 3m semi-anechoic chamber measuring 18 ft. wide, X 28 ft. long and 28
ft. high is FCC certified for testing Class A and Class B digital devices,
hence we are in compliance with ANSI C63.4/1992, CISPR 22 publication and
FCC Subpart B Class A regulations"
If this is in flagrant violation with the FCC rules then I would like to
decide on a course of action suitable enough to grab the attention of those
who misrepresent our industry. Does anyone have experience with this same
problem or approached A2LA, NVLAP or FCC?
Regards,
Steve
---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected]
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], or
[email protected] (the list administrators).
