Brent, in my experience with CB Cert & Report updates ( I worked at ITS for 10+ years) , the procedures are clearly documented and are to be uniformly applied (i.e. being a member of the Scheme means you'll follow the rules strictly, and not apply your own interpretations).
The scheme rules did allow one update per Certificate, subsequent updates required the issuing Lab to issue a new Certificate, but this should not require a whole new report. Unless the rules have changed you shouldn't be charged for a new report, especially if it's solely due to one lab's "policy". The Scheme was always very serious about the rules, and required ALL labs to adhere to them. If I was you I'd either: ask the Lab to show you , in black and white, the requirements supporting their stance or, check the CB web site for guidance on the rules ( these are publicly available documents, known as the "01, 02, etc" rules.) I believe you can also ask questions of this nature on the CB web site. In short, if it's in the CB rules (01, 02, etc) labs must do it, if it's not in the rules you've got a case to reverse their decision. Good Luck. At 03:58 PM 5/10/00 -0700, Compliance wrote: >Hello wise colleagues - > >Just recently, we have decided to add some alternate components to one of >our CB Reports and was informed by a particular agency that we needed to >have a new CB Report issued since we already have 3 updates to the existing >report. > >In the past, we were able to add an alternate plastic to the CB report and >just pay for an addendum (few thousand...I know, I am already getting ripped >off). But, now to add an alternate component and pay for a full CB Report >and Certificate?! That does not make sense. After talking to the project >engineer, he indicated that this is the direction of his organization and >this interpretation will be implemented across the board with all member >agencies. We only have a few products with few changes. I would hate to >work for a computer manufacturer who changes the disk drive manufacturer and >model numbers like it was last month's model. Oh yeah, it was last month's >model. > >All I know is that this change in policy will push me well over budget this >year. Without turning this into a bashing session of any particular agency, >can anyone direct me to an agency that has a more relaxed interpretation of >the "CB Update" requirement? > >Thank you very much for your time and your expert advice. > >Best Regards, >Brent Taira > > >------------------------------------------- >This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety >Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > >To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > [email protected] >with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > >For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Jim Bacher: [email protected] > Michael Garretson: [email protected] > >For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: [email protected] > > Jim Linehan Hardware Engineer Cisco Systems Inc. 25 Sundial Ave, Manchester, NH 03101 (603) 665-3343 ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected]
