In message <[email protected]>, dated Sat, 18
Aug 2012, Arthur Michael <[email protected]> writes:
The "Law of Economics" is loud and clear; it mandates electical product
safety compliance for the buyer's offerings.
I think the question is 'Which is the best way to frame the 'law' - the
US 'third party way', which used to apply in Europe as well, but a bit
differently because it was a real law, and the current European way,
'Manufacturer, you bear total responsibility for your products' safety
(and EMC etc.) conformity and you can't delegate that to a test house or
certification body.'?
--
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]>
