In 1982 the TUV Rheinland representative in New York told me the same
thing. I complained and explained that I wanted to see this in
writing. He never did produce anything to back this up, but tried to
persuade me verbally that this was a reasonable requirement. I
disagreed. I could see warehouses upon warehouses of "golden" units
awaiting their capital destruction at the end of ten years, in the
meantime costing millions of occupied space. I don't consider this
reasonable.
When the TUV Rheinland office opened here on the west coast, they did
not insist on this requirement and I did not bring it up for fear of
opening a Pandora's box. In today's environment of ISO certification,
technical files, and complete test reports, I find this requirement
ludicrous. If I were faced with this request I would fight it and/or
switch "bodies".
Tania Grant, Octel Communications Corporation
[email protected]
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Notifed Bodies and Test Samples
Author: [email protected] (Eric Lifsey) at P_Internet_Mail
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: 2/3/97 12:37 PM
I've never heard of such a requirement though I keep test samples for
my own reasons and/or sanity, and I don't keep them all. However,
I've noticed this sort of problem with CBs before. CBs are not as
unified in their methods and interpretations as you might hope they'd
be. This is primary reason why I avoid using CBs except for the
(very) rare consultation; the last time was over a year ago, and the
two CBs had opposing opinions on the matter. I've never had to deal
with a NB, so far.
Eric Lifsey
National Instruments
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Notifed Bodies and Test Samples
From: "WOODS; RICHARD" <[email protected]> at Internet
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: 2/3/97 8:25 AM
A Notified Body for EMC has told us that we must keep the test sample
for 10 years. Since there is nothing in the Directive that requires
samples to be kept, we find this request to be unacceptable. We have a
TCF and understand that it must be kept for 10 years after production
ceases. Has anyone else encountered this type of requirement by a
Notified Body?Received: from natinst.com by hail.natinst.com with SMTP
(IMA Internet Exchange 2.0 Enterprise) id 2F628990; Mon, 3 Feb 97 12:04:09
-0600
Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3])
by natinst.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
id MAA23131; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:04:04 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA05476
for emc-pstc-list; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:37:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID:
<c=US%a=_%p=Sensormatic%l=SENSORMATI/SFLAEXCHAN/[email protected]
m>
From: "WOODS, RICHARD" <[email protected]>
To: Safety <[email protected]>, EMC <[email protected]>
Subject: Notifed Bodies and Test Samples
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:25:00 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.837.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "WOODS, RICHARD" <[email protected]>
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <[email protected]>
X-Listname: emc-pstc
X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society
X-Info: Help requests to [email protected]
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to [email protected]
X-Moderator-Address: [email protected]
