I read in !emc-pstc that Peter L. Tarver <[email protected]> wrote (in <[email protected]>) about 'IECEE Decision 1D107' on Fri, 25 Oct 2002:
>Please keep in mind this is not a secret requirement for a >product's construction or testing, as this would violate the >operational premise of the CB Scheme. I realise that. > No additional testing >required, It seems to me that additional (or repeated) testing IS likely to be required if two entirely separate reports are to be generated. >no additional construction requirements applied, Indeed. >just issuance of revenue generating reports and >certificates. That's the worst aspect. It appears to be a simple ruse to impose double charges. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
