Hello, I am soliciting help in the interpretation of FCC rules as to what makes an intentional radiator and the application of standards as a result.
The scenario: A product is designed and tested as an unintentional radiator and 15.109/15.107 and/or ANSI C63.4 etc test levels and methods are performed. A WiFi dual band radio is now added (not as a module) by redesign and the final product is ready for authorization. My thought process is as follows - please tell me if I have erred: 1. Test the Unintentional Portion of the new product to 15.109/15.107 etc...radio is in rcv mode. 2. Test the WiFI radio portion of the product to 15.209/ANSI C63.10 and 3. A product is born. Note though there is a very specific wording in numbers 1 and 2. Considering the composite nature of the FCC rules, I am under the impression that the limits for the unintentional portion of the radio apply ONLY to the non-radio portions of the spec and the limits for the intentional portion apply ONLY to the radio. Am I correct? Thanks Charles Grasso (w) 303-706-5467 - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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>
