In message <[email protected]>, dated Tue, 11 Aug 2009, George Stults <[email protected]> writes:
>I would like to hear from anyone that could offer insight into whether >there might be an alternative classification or approach that could >apply to this device, as it simply can?t meet some of these >requirements (3,4,5,7) because of it?s intentional design. It may be necessary to make representations to METI, because your sort of product was obviously not envisaged when the law was written. Not so very unusual these days. However, the law is eternally 'a ass'. Laser safety regulations in Europe apply to laser pointers on assault rifles! -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Things can always get better. But that's not the only option. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 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]>
