George, You could not have said it any more eloquently. You did however leave out one aspect that should be included in your list.
We have to understand all our companies products with respect to both functionality and real world application. All while the real world and design engineers obsolete what we currently know and develop new technologies for us to learn. The "compliance twilight zone" is reality for most of us compliance engineers!. Jim Wiese ADTRAN, Inc. ---------- From: owner-emc-pstc To: Grasso Charles (Chaz) Cc: 'Jason L. Chesley'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: ITE approvals for Australia List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Friday, March 28, 1997 1:36PM This is why being into regulatory compliance is like being enrolled in a college from which you can never graduate. New courses are added and old courses must be repeated due to new content. There is no clear end in sight. Here is the challenge, 1. Know every country standard. 2. Know how to interpret the standard. 3. Know which standards are mandatory vs. optional. 4. Know which "mandatory" requirements are not actually practiced. 5. Know which countries require certification. 6. Know what aspects need certification (safety, EMC, environment,...) 7. Know the certification process(es). 8. Keep up with 1-7 while all are being changed. Who could not love a job like this? Are we having fun yet? George Alspaugh Lexmark International From: GrassC%LOUISVILLE.STORTEK.COM List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 03/28/97 09:23:19 AM Subject: RE: ITE approvals for Australia Thank you for the information. This is interesting because there seems to be total confusion in the ITE arena. I have had various replies to the question of immunity from YES to NO to MAYBE. Indeed I have had a reply indicating that the requirement might be "several years away". I have checked with one major ITE supplier in the US and they are NOT declaring to the AS/NZS immunity standard. The background for the question came from the SMA. In a suppliers reference document issued by the SMA they do NOT specifically state that immunity is required AND in the same document they publish contradictory information. I cite specifically: Para 1.2 Table indicates Immunity is required. Table One: EMC Standards - refers to Immunity standard Para 2.3 No SPECIFIC indication that immunity is required. Section 3: No mention of Immunity timing at all. Note: Para 1.2 is in direct conflict with the SMA home page that does NOT shade in the Immunity portion. (This prompted my previous e-mail) Now I am in a quandary. In spite of the availability of information, there may be ITE equipment manufacturers innocently contravening the Radiocommunication Act of 1992. Who can I go to that can answer my question definitively?
