EMC and Regulatory Compliance

Monday, October 3, 2011

EMC list of harmonized standards update, new ITE standards

The list of standards for use under the EMC directive, 2004/108/EC, published in the Official Journal of the European Union has been updated.

Among the updates within the list are the inclusions of the 6th edition of the emissions, and 2nd edition of the immunity standards, for Information Technology Equipment (ITE), titled EN55022:2010 and EN55024:2010. These official titles are the modified version of CISPR 22:2008, and unmodified CISPR 24:2010.

The inclusion in the official journal is a prerequisite for a standard to be considered harmonized for use in the presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of a given directive. This allows these new standards to be used for compliance testing.

These new versions will supersede their predecessors on December 1st 2013, at which time they become mandatory. Any new product shipped into the European Union on or after December 1, 2013, must comply with the new ITE specifications.

You can find a copy of this list at Compatible Electronics’ European Conformity Assessment page, or at the the EC Enterprise and Industry web site when available.

By: J Klinger

Thursday, September 8, 2011

European Harmonized standards list update

The list of harmonized standards for the following directives have been updated.

updated 8/19/11. Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices. Other language copies can be found here

Updated 8/31/11Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to Electrical Equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits. Other language copies can be found here

As always copies of the newest lists for EMC, R&TTE, LVD and Medical Devices can also be found at http://celectronics.com/europe.htm

By: J Klinger

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Omission of Class B statement in users manual costs…

Image by wolfheadfilms via Flickr

The Federal Communications Commission( FCC) issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) to Marshall Amplification PLC, seeking $7500 for what the FCC claims is “willful and repeated” violation of section 302(b) of the Communications Act and sections 2.803(a)(2) and 15.105(b) of the
Commission’s rules.

The notice follows a complaint received by the FCC that Marshall had not included the proper consumer disclosure in the users manual of some Class B digital devices being sold by Marshall. It is noted in the NAL that the products were verified for compliance with the Class B limits and the technical requirements had been met, thus the base forfeiture amount was adjusted down as a result, however, the forfeiture amount was adjusted back up based on Marshall’s ability to pay, stating “large or highly profitable entities, such as Marshall should expect forfeitures higher than those reflected in the base amounts”

In general most consumers are unfamiliar with the requirements and rules of the FCC, and it can be assumed that a large amount of complaints received by the FCC are filed by industry competitors, excluding those cases that deal with actual radio interference.

The consumer disclosure in question is intended to inform the user of the potential for interference and what to do should it occur, and is required for all class B digital devices.

“ This equipment has been tested and found to comply with the limits for a Class B digital device, pursuant to part 15 of the FCC Rules. These limits are designed to provide reasonable protection against harmful interference in a residential installation. This equipment generates, uses and can radiate radio frequency energy and, if not installed and used in accordance with the instructions, may cause harmful interference to radio communications. However, there is no guarantee that interference will not occur in a particular installation. If this equipment does cause harmful interference to radio or television reception, which can be determined by turning the equipment off and on, the user is encouraged to try to correct the interference by one or more of the following measures:

Reorient or relocate the receiving antenna.
Increase the separation between the equipment and receiver.
Connect the equipment into an outlet on a circuit different from that to which the receiver is connected.
Consult the dealer or an experienced radio/TV technician for help. “

A NAL is not a forfeiture order, it usually follows a Letter of Inquiry, and the recipient of one can still seek dismissal and/or reduction in the amount. The process ends in one of three ways, an actual forfeiture order, a consent decree, or criminal prosecution, with the latter being rare.

While, with regard to this particular incident, the cost of this omission may be $7500, and some may consider this as simply the cost of doing business, it should be noted that the fines can be much higher for willful and repeated violations, and could be cumulative based on each product sold and compounded for each day the violation occurs.

The complete NAL can be found at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0830/DA-11-1468A1.pdf

EMC Society’s John Howard Memorial University Grant

The call for proposals to the IEEE EMC Society’s University grant program has been announced.

The program is designed to assist in adding EMC fundamentals to the curriculum of a qualified University or College. The award is $5000, intended as seed money for the establishment of the program.

Details can be found at http://www.emcs.org/committees/education/univ_grant/index.html

The Call for Proposals can be found at http://www.emcs.org/committees/education/univ_grant/UGC_Call_2011.pdf

By: J Klinger

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Draft FCC publication for SAR listing on grants

New guidelines have been published by the FCC for the uniform listing of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) numbers on the grant of equipment authorization.

This is of primary interest to Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs), those being responsible for the actual grant of equipment authorization.

Last date to post comment: 9/16/2011, post comment at https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/comments/PostComment.do?id=197&tn=359396

See “SAR Listings on Equipment Authorization Grants”

By: J Klinger

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

FCC publishes new draft testing guidelines for U-NII devices

Image via Wikipedia

Public comment is now open, until September 23, 2011, on the FCC guidelines for testing Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices, in accordance with CFR 47 Part 15, Subpart E.

In addition to the measurement standards called out in section 15.31, and ANSI C63.10, these guidelines will form the general test procedures for testing all U-NII devices for compliance with the technical requirements of section 15.407.

The U-NII radio band is an unlicensed band divided into three spectrum segments in the 5GHz range, 5.15–5.35 GHz, 5.47–5.725 GHz and 5.725–5.825 GHz. U-NII devices use wideband digital modulation techniques, and provide a wide array of high data rate mobile and fixed communications for individuals, businesses, and institutions. Examples are 802.11a devices.

Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS) functions, which are required between 5.25 – 5.35 GHz and between 5.47 – 5.725 GHz for the protection of government radar systems, are covered in a separate document. See FCC Order, ET Docket No.03-122 (FCC 06-96).

For devices that transmit on multiple outputs simultaneously such as MIMO and beam forming technologies, FCC KDB Publication Number 662911 also applies.

The new guidance replaces Public Notice DA 02-2138 of 8/30/02 and contains the following changes;

The document interprets and clarifies the language of 15.407(a)(4) (maximum conducted output power)
Revises the spectrum analyzer-based methodologies for measuring maximum conducted power and provides an option to use an RF power meter
Revises the methodologies for measuring Peak Power Spectral Density (PPSD) to match those used to measure maximum conducted output power
Specifies the use of max hold when measuring Emission Bandwidth (EBW)
Defines compliance with 15.407(a)(6) (peak excursion) in terms of the ratio of maximum of the peak-hold spectrum to the maximum of the average spectrum—eliminating the need to compute the ratio at each frequency (a process that had resulted in unintended failures near band edges)
Adds guidance for measuring unwanted emissions. The guidance interprets the non-restricted band limit as a peak limit and restricted band limits as including both average and peak limits. Both restricted and non-restricted band limits are based on continuous transmission with no subsequent reduction for operational duty cycle. The guidelines permit both restricted and non-restricted band compliance be demonstrated by radiated measurements or by antenna-port conducted measurements combined with radiated cabinet emission measurements.

By: J Klinger