What I meant by common denominator would be only those requirements that make sense to all jurisdictions as opposed to the set of all requirements that may be needed in at least one jurisdiction across all 50 states. Therefore earthquake protection for CA requirements would not be common denominator to my point. I agree that compliance to a national minimum common standard plus all the local incremental additional requirements would be quite the challenge to design to as well as enforce.
-Dave From: Ed Price [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:45 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety requirements in US Dave: “Common denominator” thinking would have the people of Ohio paying for a product that would have California earthquake protection capability. Also, I doubt that California customers would be happy with products that would withstand Ohio earthquake standards. A Federal installation code is possible, but then it would take a bureaucracy the size of the IRS to administer it and would likely contain loopholes and customization down to the County and City level (Google tells me that there are 3,144 Counties and 19,354 “incorporated places” in the USA). It certainly would help employment for compliance engineers (both writing and interpreting it). Ed Price WB6WSN Chula Vista, CA USA -----Original Message----- From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 5:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety requirements in US Well you know, what may be fine for Ohio may not be so much in earthquake prone California. Perhaps a minimum common denominator would be fine for all 50 states. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Nute [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 3:45 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety requirements in US > I cannot see a reason not to have a federal installation code for all > 50 states. The hodgepodge of local rules and regulations seems, on > the surface, unnecessarily > complicated. NIH. Rich - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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]<mailto:[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)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> David Heald <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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]>
