Re: [PSES] AU CISPR 22 Class B Interpretation

Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:45:13 -0800 

Ken,
Note that the device has tested per EN 50498 for vehicular EMC compatibility by an accredited auto lab and complies with broadband and narrowband emissions requirements within. I believe that standard is taking mobile communications into account. Also, note that the OP states that the device has been in use within these applications within USA/CAN/Eu for years with no complaints. 


We just need to comply with the AMCA regulation and three AU labs  
recommended CISPR 22.  EN 50498 and CISPR 25 are not listed within the  
acma acceptable standards list, but vehicles are not excluded from their  
regulations.  There is another path for auto accessory compliance, but it  
involves membership in one of several industry trade groups.


Thanks,

Carl


On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:27:02 -0500, Ken Javor  
<[email protected]> wrote:



Looking at the radiated emission requirements on things that are part of  
the

vehicle, they are much more severe than Class B.  And the

ambulance/emergency vehicle will be using more of the rf spectrum than  
the

typical ground vehicle, and such use is not entertainment or even

navigation, but may be in support of a life-or-death situation, or at  
least

timely delivery of a patient to a hospital that is ready to receive said
patient. I would say Class B is an absolute minimum. In the typical
situation that a platform antenna is mounted within much less than three
meters from the Class B device, I would not expect compatibility. I would
expect interference unless the incoming signal is quite strong.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Carl Newton <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Carl Newton <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:09:41 -0500
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: [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 ³personal computers² (which would

also include ³tablets²) it would seem logical that your mounting  
stations

³for computers and tablets² (which I would think fall within the

definition of ³auxiliary equipment²) 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 ³domestic environment².  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]>


-
----------------------------------------------------------------

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]>



--
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]>























					Reply via email to