Hi Ghery, (and all other members of this group)

 

I do not think that one needs to be member of CISPR I WG2 or WG4 in any
form to be able to discuss this topic.

Ample documentation is available within the national committees, to get
a clear image of the discussions in CISPR I

and several of my close EMC friends have been participating.

A simple division in Classes A and B (or Industrial versus residential
or Domestic) cannot be seen as a regulatory statement. Division in
classes is a common thing within all standards and has nothing to do
with regulatory aspects. Different  test levels are defined for
different types of equipment taking in consideration their targeted
environment (being not industrial or residential) . 

 

The European Commission's opinion on this subject is clear. EN standards
should create a separate set of limits for 2 classes

as described. The infamous Class A statement in CISPR22 actually
encourages manufacturers to test and mark their products to industrial
test levels and market them in residential environments. That actually
is a regulatory aspect IMHO, as it overrules the requirements from the
EC and the mandates given to CENELEC in creating harmonized standards. 

 

This unlevel playing field  creates a tremendous amount of extra work
for manufacturers that integrate ITE OEM product in for example  (most)
medical equipment, or radio equipment or laboratory equipment, that do
not allow or for any Class A emissions.

Just Integrate a touchscreen in a lab equipment and you will see what I
mean. Many industrial sectors this way pay for the profits of the
IT-industry that successfully "lobbied" their way into the IT standard.
(not that lobby is illegal of course, it's just a way of defending ones
industry sector)

 

So this is how it happens that I (it actually happened) encounter 30
inch EN 55022 Class A LCD monitor in a local university hospital
surgeons room that was intentionally shielded to allow  sensitive
correlation type of  ECG equipment to function correctly. Well , it did
interfere. (I also found a 100 mW Wi-Fi transceiver on the ceiling, but
the frequency of that carrier is simply too high to interfere with the
ECG stuff) . It makes very clear how unaware even (medical electronics)
professionals  are when it comes to the risks of EMC.

This is why we have the EMCD, why we have CISPR and EMC standards, to
recognise that EMC is not like dust, one cannot see when it's dirty.

 

Gert Gremmen

ce-test, qualified testing bv

 

 

Van: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 8 december 2015 20:00
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

 

Disclaimer - While I am the Vice Chairman of CISPR I, the following is
my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the
Chairman or other members of CISPR I, its working groups, national
committees or IEC HQ.

 

That said...

 

I don't recall seeing Gert at CISPR I meetings, nor CISPR I WG2
(emissions) or CISPR I WG4 (immunity) meetings (he isn't a member of
either WG).  If he were present, he would know that the reason such
regulatory statements are not in CISPR standards such as CISPR 22, 24 or
32 is that CISPR standards may not contain regulatory statements.
Defining which products must meet Class A or Class B limits is up to
regulators.  There as even been discussion about the "legality" of the
Class A warning label in CISPR 22 and 32.  CISPR 32 does have language
that gives guidance to help the user of the standard properly apply it,
but a regulator is free to ignore or change this at their discretion.
So, to say that CISPR I has been "notorious" is a bit of a stretch, in
my opinion.

 

There has been no serious work done to have two different immunity
levels in CISPR 24 or 35 as it has not been felt to be needed.  Join
your national committee (or contact it) and make a proposal if you feel
that such additional test levels would be warranted.  A persuasive
argument would be given a fair hearing.  Be aware that any new
requirements will take years to incorporate into a standard.  Remember,
CISPR I has been trying to get CISPR 35 published for nearly 15 years as
it is, but feel free to make a proposal for an amendment to add
different test levels for Class A products.  Just remember, we've gotten
along well with single limits in CISPR 24 since it was originally
published in 1997, so a convincing argument will be needed.

 

Ghery S. Pettit

Vice Chairman, CISPR SC I

 

From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
[mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 9:55 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

 

1.

Independent of the standards, the EMC directive requires marking on
typeplate and/or documentation if an equipment is non-residential.

 

2.

Unwilling standards committees have been "reluctant" in including  the
definitions in written in their standards. 

CISPR I has been notorious in these for years, by not even defining
Class A for immunity (CISPR 24).

There are ample standards and EC documents giving an appropriate
definitions, in general something

like:

 

If it is predominantly used for households or is connected to a
residentially used power newtwork

the equipment will be residential or often said "Class B". 

If connected to a private power network then it should be Industrial or
"Class A".

 

One standard that comes to mind that gives a good description including
examples is EN 61326-1:2013.

An EC document TC210/Sec0515/INF from 2007 addresses the topic in full
and includes the recommendation to

include a common definition in all harmonized standards.

 

Gert Gremmen

 

Van: Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 8 december 2015 14:38
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

 

Ian,

 

There is no definition of "residential" environment in the standard or
the EMC Guide.  For reference, the FCC classifies products into consumer
(Class B) and non-consumer (Class A) categories.  In Europe the
manufacturer has a similar responsibility to make a product that meets
the EMC requirements appropriate for the intended use of the product.
For some products it is more or less up to the end user to determine if
a Class A or Class B compliant product is appropriate. 

 

You will find the Class A warning statement in the EN 55032 standard,
Clause 7.

 

Class A equipment shall have the following warning in the instructions
for use, to inform the

user of the risk of operating this equipment in a residential
environment:

 

W arning: This equipment is compliant with Class A of CISPR 32. In a
residential

environment this equipment may cause radio interference.

 

 

Bill Stumpf - Lab / Technical Manager

D.L.S. Electronic Systems, Inc.

166 South Carter Street

Genoa City WI 53128

Ph: 262-279-0210

 

 

 

From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 2:55 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

 

Dear colleagues

 

In the 2015 edition of EN 55032 an interesting statement in clause 4.
"Equipment intended primarily for use in a residential environment shall
meet the class B limits. All other equipment shall comply with the Class
A limits."
I am unable to locate a definition for residential environment in the
standard. Does anyone know of an official definition? Would sports
stadia, theatres, hospitals, commercial industrial estates located in
residential housing be included in residential environments?

If the product is Class A, is the warning notice still required?
"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." This used to be a requirement in EN
55022.

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

Ian McBurney

Design & Compliance Engineer.

 

Allen & Heath Ltd.

Kernick Industrial Estate,

Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK

T: 01326 372070

E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com

 

 

Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, Company
number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the company. 

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

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 <emc-p...@ieee.org>

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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> 




CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the
person or organization to which it is addressed or was intended to be
addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering the
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender immediately by email and delete the original message
immediately . The sender, its subsidiaries and affiliates, do not accept
liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in the contents
of this message or any attachments that arise as a result of e-mail
transmission. Thank you. 

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

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 <emc-p...@ieee.org>

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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> 

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

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 <emc-p...@ieee.org>

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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> 

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

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 <emc-p...@ieee.org>

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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> 


-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Reply via email to