Monday, 6 May 1 PM to 3 PM SC-1 Project 1-13.2 Oats>1 GHz

Tuesday, 7 May Wednesday, 8 May 8 AM to 11 AM SC-8 Committee 11 AM to 2 PM SC-6 Committee (lunch 12-1) 2 PM to 3 PM SC-5 Committee 3 PM to5 PM SC-3 Committee

8 AM to Noon	SC-1 Project 1-15.6 Ant. Cal.
1 PM to 5 PM	SC-1 Committee
5 PM to 7 PM	C63 Steering Committee (by invitation)

Thursday, 9 May 9 AM to 5 PM C63 Main Committee 5 PM to 9 PM USEMCSC BOD (by invitation)

Friday, 10 May 8 AM to 11.AM CISPR/A TAG 11 AM to 2 PM C63 Steering Committee (by invitation)

**********

C63.4 BALLOT RESOLUTION REVIEW

By D. N. Heirman

The C63.4, Subcommittee 1, task group on maintenance of C63.4 met at the IEEE Service Center in Piscataway, NJ on 26 March 2002. Those in attendance were: Don Heirman (Chair on site), Stephen Berger (task group chair on teleconference), Dennis Camell (on teleconference), Cecil Gittens, Chris Chrysanthou John Lichtig, Mike Windler, and Bob Pritchard (C63 secretary). Don Heirman opened the meeting and gave the background of the status of the ballot of C63.4 which closed earlier this year.

1

In summary:

*The ballot failed with 11 approvals, 6 disapprovals, 2

abstentions, and 7 non returns for a total of 26 balloters. *There were 14 balloters that commented *These 14 returned 129 comments

The purpose of the meeting was to go through every comment and provide three choices

1. No change recommended
2. Accept change

3. Discussion required Prior to the meeting Stephen Berger sent to all the C63 members (which included the 26 who accepted the invitation to ballot) indicating the above three choices from his perspective to get the discussion going in this meeting. Don Heirman also sent out a notice after Stephen’s email that asked if there were any disagreement with items 1 and 2 above, to let him know before the meeting. None were received.

The next 7 hours were then taken up with those issues where item 3 above was initially indicated. However, along the way, those in attendance also reviewed most of those items in categories 1 and 2 above.

At the end of the day, all 129 comments were either addressed or the initial disposition by Stephen accepted. Note that many of the comments were by multiple balloters. Stephen also identified duplicate comments so that when one was resolved, others likewise were resolved on the same comment topic.

Most comments had to do with the following topics:

*EUT setup legends needing to be consistent with the referenced text

*Clarifying the use of spectrum analyzers especially in bandwidth usage

*Clarifying the test setup when the PC and its peripherals are the EUT and vice versa

*Clarifying calibration intervals

*Correcting paragraph references

*Noting the correct legends to use in the NSA figures

*Including how to handle power converters used to convert AC to DC for table top products

*Identifying the use of “loopback” cabling arrangements for large equipment where the remote accessory is not available

*Clarifying measurements on EUTs with multiple power cords

*Noting what to do if only one accessory is used in a table top test *Only cite US regulatory information

*Retain signature requirements as in the 2000 edition

*Clarify TEM Annex M test setup

*Identify further the “standard site” and NSA requirements

*Further highlight that the depth of the table top can extend beyond 1 meter

*Correct table of test frequencies in Clause 13.

*Addition/clarification of definitions.

This is only a glimpse of the items discussed and resolved.

Next since the ballot failed, there has to be a new balloting group formed. Bob Pritchard will send out the ballot invitation by 1 April. Stephen Berger will provide the amended C63.4 draft to be used in the new ballot which should be out by early June with a 30 to 45 day ballot period. The cover letter will also highlight the resolution of comments that were made on the present failed ballot. Note that since the ballot failed, a new ballot must be initiated. Since there can be no recirculation of an amendment ballot if it fails.

Finally, three of the 6 disapproval balloters were in the meeting and all agreed with the disposition of their comments and upon a new ballot will vote affirmative providing the disposition is contained in the balloting version of the standard.

MEASUREMENT SITE REQUIREMENTS > 1 GHZ, WG 1-13.2

By M. J. Windler

A series of experiments have been undertaken to develop a practical site evaluation technique that, while not been too onerous, adequately evaluates the test site. Previous experiments were conducted at NIST, Boulder CO, in September of 2001. Based on the results of these experiments a new test plan was developed and has been reviewed within the working group. A second round of experiments are now being prepared based on this revised plan. This second round of experiments is to be conducted at ETS/Lindgren in Austin, TX, during the week of April 15.

MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY, WG 1-15.5

By M. J. Windler

The current draft of the standard was reviewed for both organizational structure and content. Agreement was reached that two key contributions to the standards efforts will be made by this document.

2

These contributions were:

*The proposed standard will provide procedural steps, with examples, of the computations of uncertainty for common emissions and immunity tests.

*The proposed standard would provide clear guidance for the application of both Types A and B methods for the specified tests.

The current draft of the standard will be configured to include the detailed procedures and examples in the body of the standard and the more general dissertations on uncertainty will be retained in the appendices. A new outline reflecting these changes is being drafted and assignments by Ed Bronaugh will be made either before or at the May meetings of ASC C63 for completion of specific portions.

(Editors Note: A paper entitled “CISPR Subcommittee A Uncertainty Activity” by Donald N. Heirman was published in the February 2002 issue of the IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility. Don’s paper covers the groundbreaking work of CISPR (International Special Committee on Radio Interference) on measurement uncertainty over the past decade and includes the latest national comments and voting documents on the topic.)

**********