In message <ofe7c858a0.2d948a07-on652572c9.00427bd1-652572c9.00460...@scmmicro.co.in >, dated Thu, 26 Apr 2007, [email protected] writes:
> We are planning to sell ethernet based smart card reader in >Europe (German) for attendance recording. There is no intentional >radiator in this device. Will this need a Class B approval ? My >understanding is as per CISPR 22 only telecommunication equipment and >personal computers / accessories used in home environment need Class B >approval in Europe. >1. Usage of the device in small offices will be treated as domestic >use or business / commercial / industrial use. >2. I believe a device connected to the network server through >ethernet is not a personal computer accessory. >3. Ethernet devices are not telecommunication network devices, I >hope I am correct. >4. Personal computers used in business / commercial / industrial >environment require only Class A. > > I request your guidance. This is a VERY difficult subject. To be CERTAIN of having no problems, you need to meet Class B. The basic problem is that in Europe, 'residential, commercial and light industrial' are ONE environment, and Class B applies. This is fundamentally because the concept of 'EMC environment' isn't very satisfactory, but we don't have any better concept to replace it. For example, consider a retail shop - that's a 'commercial' environment, at the 'social' level, for sure. But if it were also an EMC environment differing from 'residential' in allowing Class A, equipment in the shop could interfere with equipment in a house next door to, or a flat (apartment) above, the shop, because radio and TV receivers would be within 10 m of the disturbance source. Class A equipment need to be more than 30 m away from the receivers to make interference sufficiently unlikely. In Europe, it is thus not allowed to operate Class A equipment in the 'residential, commercial and light industrial' environment, whereas in the Americas it IS allowed, provided that any resulting interference is eliminated or sufficiently mitigated. This is, of course, likely to be costly unless an acceptable re-positioning of the equipment provides a solution. Because of this difference, a realistic view was taken in Europe of the provisions in CISPR 22, and it was not considered essential to introduce a Common Modification in EN 55022 to change those provisions. This situation continues to result in confusion and doubt, but there seems to be no practicable resolution. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
