Before CISPR Stresa



It has been agreed to merge the Basic standards committee GEL/210/12 with the Product standards committee GEL 210/11, in view of the closer relationship now applying.


CISPR and all its sub-committees (and TC106) will meet in Stresa, Italy in September 2015. CISPR now has procedures for appointing a vice-chairman and WG conveners, also on the vexed question of policy issues; can CISPR, under IEC rules, bind its sub-committees on these issues or not? CISPR policy information is likely to become available on the IEC committee members' Collaboration Tools web site.

Work continues in several committees, not only CISPR, on Wireless Power Transfer


The new DTR for Amendment 2 to CISPR 16-3 has been circulated and approved with only one negative vote, but a number of comments are deferred to a future edition.


The FDIS for the revision of CISPR 11 has been circulated and approved. The British committee noted the repeated incorrect use of 'shall' in an informative annex, but apparently CISPR/B will not conform to the rule In Directives Part 2 in this respect. Confusion will result. A new Chairman is sought, under the new IEC rules.


The FDIS for CISPR 14-2 has passed its vote. A DC on requirements for inductive power transfer appliances (CISPR 14-1) has been circulated.

The 1CD for the full revision of CISPR 15 has been circulated. The Contents table indicates a number of 'formal' errors; let's hope that there are fewer technical errors. It must be accepted that correlating the provisions of a full technical and editorial revision with those of the previous edition is difficult.

The Introduction lists thirteen properties of the new draft that will help the comparison process. The main change from the previous edition is that in this draft the emissions are considered on a port-by-port basis. There are potential problems with the over-extension of the English usage of nouns as adjectives. For example, Clause 6 title is 'Product specific limit application requirements'. It's enough to make a translator's toes curl, and there seems no good reason not to write 'Requirements for the application of product-specific limits'.

Everyone who is involved with the EMC of lighting equipment should be sure to obtain this CD and comment on it, because it is very different 'on the page' from the previous edition and it would be rash to expect that it is error-free. But it will be the basis for editions of CISPR 15 for the next 10 to 15 years, so it is a very important development.


A batch of five documents has been circulated, including CDs for amending IEC 61000-6-3 and -4, and CISPR 16-4-4.


The FDIS for Amendment 1 to CISPR 13 has passed its vote. The FDIS for Amendment 1 to CISPR 24 has been circulated, and a CDV for CISPR 25. Attention has been drawn to the provisions for immunity testing above 1 GHz, which may not require testing at sufficient frequencies. The New Work proposal for the resurrected CISPR 35 has been approved, with numerous comments from some National Committees. As a result, a CDV has been circulated already, minus some of eth most controversial clauses, which are intended to form Amendment 1. The previous failed FDIS attracted 46 pages of comments from National Committees, and the proposed resolutions of some of these may continue to be controversial.

How CENELEC will handle a standard, in the context of 'Essential Requirements', which is acknowledged to have important omissions is uncertain. Maybe the standard will not be adopted until Amendment 1 is agreed.

Work continues on improving CISPR 32. A large number of proposals exist, divided into three categories: corrigendum, speedy amendment and longer-term.


The CDV for IEC 61000-1-2 on functional safety has been circulated. Unfortunately, a large number of new comments were submitted to BSI at a late stage. A revised set of comments was submitted with a positive vote, but some comments are technical.

The CDV for IEC 61000-6-5 is automatically published without an FDIS stage. New CDs for revisions of IEC 61000-6-1 and -2 have been circulated.

A CD for the conversion of IEC 61000-4-1 to a Technical Report has been issued.


The FDIS for IEC 61000-4-30 was approved. The British committee expressed concern over the slow progress in SC77AWG8 on emission standards in the 2 kHz to 150 kHz range, but the UK needs to strengthen its representation on this WG, because the issues are very difficult to resolve.

CDVs for amendments to IEC 61000-4-13 and -16 have been circulated, together with an INF document about the maintenance of IEC 61000-3-3, considering that the filament lamp used to establish flicker requirements is no longer in use.

A big surprise was that one national committee proposed to withdraw the standard because the filament lamp is no longer in use. This proposal was not supported.

The DTR for IEC TR 61000-4-38 (on verification of harmonic emission test systems) has been circulated. This project has been plagued by controversy over technical terms. The trouble is that the definitions in the IEV don't reflect what we normally say. For example, the term 'calibration certificate' is considered not formally correct (unless perhaps the tested instrument was found not to need any adjustment).

SC77AWG1 Task Forces met for a whole week in Delft February. Informal experiments were carried out on the friction coefficient of black ice, but no collapse of postural stability ensued.

SC77AWG2 met for two days in the following week. A presentation has been submitted to TC210, explaining that some lamps flicker less than the reference lamps and some flicker more, but a TR on immunity of lamps to voltage changes (IEC TR 61547-1) will be published by IEC TC34 later this year and is consistent with IEC/EN 61000-3-3 and -11. I suppose the TR will be converted to a standard at some point, so that overly-sensitive lamps will be disallowed.


SC77B has a new Chairman, who was elected to serve for six years. CDVs for IEC 61000-4-9 and -10 have been circulated.


Concern has been expressed about the work load on the officers of TC210.

TC210 has had to accept that Common Modifications are required to some future standards, such as CISPR 35. EN 55035 cannot include material relating to the 80/80 Rule nor matters that have been diverted to ETSI under the Radio Equipment Directive. In addition CISPR 35 does not include immunity requirements for the enclosure port in the UHF band.  A proposal will be sent to National Committees.

Work on the three Parts of EN 50561 on PLC continues to raise difficult issues. CISPR has declined to adopt Part 1.

TC210 has submitted a very forceful response to 'CENELEC' (it's not clear whether that's the Technical Board or another body) , maintaining that the 80/80 rule is a technical measure, amply justified by accepted statistical methods, which has been a 'force for good' for more than 50 years. Questions – can a provision in a standard be both technical and regulatory? Does a limit fall into that category?

A proposal has been submitted to study 'new' EMC issues. The authors recognize that there should be no early attempt to introduce new requirements, but the subject should be studied, because effects are experienced in the field. Discussion of the proposal highlighted many serious difficulties of implementation. It was agreed to circulate a DC to get the views of national committees, and as a result a formal proposal has been made to compile a Technical Report.

Difficulties are still being recounted over the deployment and use of PLC, but the economic advantage over radio communication has not gone away. There is a proposal for two sets of requirements, for in-home and outdoors, but this would require a filter at every meter, destroying the cost advantage of PLC over radio.

CLC/TC88 has proposed an EMC standard for wind turbines. It is proposed to set up a WG in TC210 with TC88 experts, to produce a standard based on CLC/TR 50373.

It has been agreed to review CENELEC Guides 24 and 25 and perhaps merge them. The 80/80 rule has been discussed again, with apparently no understanding by the Commission of what removing it must do. A very good presentation was made that shows how some manufacturers use not very complicated statistical methods to minimise the probability of a non-compliant product being shipped. More on that in the Column.