Mark, all, I stand corrected:
> FCC part 15.31(i) requires that the peripherals be unmodified, ^^^^^ > commercially available devices. This section applies regardless of whether the product is FCC-certified, verified, or whether a DofC is issued. I had only remembered the section in 47CFR2.1033, which only applies to certification. Next time I'll defer to the lawyers... Regards, Dan > From owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Wed Sep 2 15:31:20 1998 > Subject: Re: peripherals > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 98 10:11:05 -0800 > x-sender: mbri...@pop.elliottlabs.com > From: Mark Briggs <mbri...@elliottlabs.com> > To: "Gary McInturff" <gmcintu...@packetengines.com>, <emc-p...@ieee.org> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org> > X-Listname: emc-pstc > X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org > X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org > X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org > > Gary, in answer to your comments: > > >I would appreciate some skull scratching here, but preferably can > >someone provide the FCC/CISPR citation on this point. > >I have spent an interesting amount of money testing big name devices > >looking for very quite support equipment. > > FCC part 15.31(i) requires that the peripherals be unmodified, > commercially available devices. > > ANSI C63.4 section 11 defines the minimum system configuration for > computer peripherals and clearly shows, in section 6, the host PC and > accompanying peripherals located on the test table. The last amendment > to CISPR 22 (A2) began to align CISPR 22 with ANSI C63.4 such that it > defines minimum system configurations for PC-type products. > > >Equally important in this argument is that you cannot identify through > >test identify a non-complying signal as belonging to the support > >equipment rather than the EUT and then claim compliance. > >This concept has been stuck in my head for many years, probably dating > >back to the earliest MP-4 documents and part 15 regulations. I vaguely > >associate it with the sections that described peripherals to exercise > >equipment and what was or was not acceptable. > > ANSI C63.4 (1992) section 6.1.2.1 (which discusses the use of remote > support equipment under certain circumstances) clearly indicates that the > purpose of the test is to evaluate "...the interference potential of the > EUT, its accessories, and interconnecting cables or wires apart form the > remotely located device...". This would suggest that the combination of > EUT and local support equipment must meet the limits, i.e. you cannot > switch off the support equipment. > > >Obviously, I would prefer to win this argument but on the other hand it > >sure makes the search for peripherals that meet my needs a lot easier. > > > Hope this doesn't add more fuel to the fire ! > > Mark > > > > Mark Briggs > mbri...@elliottlabs.com > > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list > administrators). > > --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).