Gary,
With regard to auto EMC compliance, that is taken care of already. This
hardware is being subjected to AU/NZS CISPR 22 simply to satisfy AU ACMA
requirements. I appreciate your comments concerning the residential zone,
but I don't agree that simply because a vehicle may travel within that
zone that Class B is warranted. I would still expect the vehicle to be no
closer to homes than 10m in typical scenarios.
From a pure EMC rationale point of view, consider that in the USA the FCC
exempts auto hardware from Part 15 rules.
Thanks,
Carl
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:02:33 -0500, Gary McInturff
<[email protected]> wrote:
These vehicles travel between residential and commercial zones on a
regular basis, so on that alone I would agree with the class B
assessment, but I'm wondering if you don't have lots of other EMC issues
to deal with - automotive immunity etc.
The only time I've personally seen an exemption for Class A in a
residential zone was for telecommunications equipment installed into a
room or facility owned by a telecom company. Doesn't mean there aren't
other exemptions it just means I am unaware of them. So I think you
stuck with Class B IMHO
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Newton [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 9:10 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] AU CISPR 22 Class B Interpretation
Group,
My customer builds vehicular laptop and tablet docking stations intended
for hard mounted use within emergency vehicles such as police and
ambulance, as well as work trucks and forklifts. The vehicular power
supply narrowly missed CISPR 22 radiated Class B limits. Then their AU
Responsible Party told us they called the ACMA and they "insisted" this
is a Class B device. I then sent my own request to ACMA and received
the reply below.
In my opinion the ACMA individual is clearly biased toward the Class B
rating, but the fact that he leaves the door open to the Class A rating
is enough proof for me that he agrees that it is a Class A device.
However, my customer is looking for safety in numbers. The author
raises a valid note of caution concerning receivers within vehicles, but
these systems are already compliant with CISPR 25 and are widely used
within North America and Europe with no interference problems so we're
not concerned with that warning.
I would appreciate it if some of you would review this information and
provide your professional opinion as to whether vehicle mounted ITE
qualifies as Class A or Class B:
+++++++++++++++
Dear Mr Newton
Clause 4.1 of AS/NZS CISPR 22 (which is identical to CISPR 22, Ed. 6.0
(2008)) includes the following;
Class B ITE is intended primarily for use in the domestic environment
and may include:
- Personal computers and auxiliary equipment.
Note: The domestic environment is an environment where the use of
broadcast and television receivers may be expected within distances of
10 m of the apparatus concerned.
Given that the class B limits apply to “personal computers” (which would
also include “tablets”) it would seem logical that your mounting
stations “for computers and tablets” (which I would think fall within
the definition of “auxiliary equipment”) should comply with the same
limits as the devices they are intended to hold.
I would also think that, because police and ambulance vehicles will
probably have a broadcast (AM/FM) receiver installed in them this would
probably constitute a “domestic environment”. I would also question
whether it would be prudent to have a device meeting the class A limits
installed in a vehicle that relies heavily on two-way
radiocommunications equipment where said device may interfere with the
operation of this on-board radiocommunications equipment.
Having said that, clause 4.2 of AS/NZS CISPR 22 includes the following;
Class A ITE is a category of all other ITE which satisfies the class A
ITE limits but not the class B ITE limits. Such equipment should not be
restricted in its sale but the following warning shall be included in
the instructions for use:
Warning
This is a class A product. In a domestic environment this product may
cause radio interference in which case the user may be required to take
adequate measures.
It is up to you whether you wish to comply with the class A or the class
B limits however, I would personally err on the side of caution – if an
ambulance or a police car were unable use its radiocommunications
equipment and it turned out it was due to interference from your device
the legal ramifications could be costly.
Regards
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
Technical Regulation Development Section
Australian Communications & Media Authority
++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks group,
Carl
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <[email protected]>
David Heald: <[email protected]>
