In message
<bce6e11441ea4a8bb0660c8fb12d6...@blupr03mb034.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
, dated Mon, 28 Oct 2013, Ted Eckert <[email protected]> writes:
RoHS II (2011/65/EC) Article 2, Section 4 (j) specifically exempts
?equipment specifically designed solely for the purposes of research
and development only made available on a business-to-business basis.?
Anything fitting within this exemption would then not fall under the
RoHS Directive and would not likely need CE marking for RoHS purposes.
Intel?s development kit would appear to fit this clause.
I wish the other Directives has exemptions that were as clear as the
RoHS exemption.
Indeed. It is possible that those words will be included in the next but
one revision of the EMC Directive, but that could be 10 years away.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
If dictionaries were correct, we would only need one, because they would all
give the same information.
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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
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]>
