In message <[email protected]>,
dated Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Nick Williams <[email protected]>
writes:
Mebbe them 'uropeen's are on to something!
There's a fundamental reason for self-certification. If a certification
body takes responsibility for compliance for a significant number of
clients, its liabilities at law are huge. Some 30 years ago, it was
suggested that such bodies should carry insurance of 70 million Euros.
Also, annual inspections are nowhere near enough for an independent body
to properly monitor whether what is being made is actually conforming,
and that requires repeated test charges.
With self-certification, the manufacturer's product liability insurance
provides the necessary security, and the manufacturer 'feels', as well
as is, responsible for the conformity of the product.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Instead of saying that the government is doing too little, too late or too
much, too early, say they've got is exactly right, thus throwing them into
total confusion.
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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
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]>
