Dear Scott:

My experience about client (manufacturer, usually) companies' expectations about territorial validity of my advice is varied. Some of them have one-off projects going to a known destination country. Others have products with indefinite destination. The product will be made available via a distributor in the community, and purchases come from "wherever," with that being possibly any of the EU and EFTA countries.

Most of my clients who hear about "CE" for the first time, come to a belief that "CE" catches everything, everywhere in the EU and EFTA. Not that they know about EFTA, just that they think "CE" is some sort of EU passport, one size fits all. For general talking purposes, their belief is both okay.

The problem is that real life doesn't allows follow the general rule or the gross simplification. As an expert, your client expects YOU to know the difference. That is why they hire you. Some will assume that your positive test report is all they need to justify "CE," and that's it. Done. Legal in all the EU. See the Directive, see the test report, my expert "Certified my product legal in the EU."

Many also think your test report makes them lawsuit-proof, and that your company is now responsible for their design. That isn't true either, but it is a very common belief.

Also as an expert, you have to adjust your message for the client and product in front of you. It doesn't work to give everybody the whole book of requirements and exceptions. You might as well point them to the EUROPA website, and say, "the requirements are in there."

I make a point to educate my clients about territorial quirks that apply, if there are any, but only what applies to their product. The mercury-wetted slip ring is a REAL example. Forbidden in some countries, has nothing to do with a CE Marking law. It is rare for me to confront a product that has elemental mercury, so I rarely advise clients of this exception.

That the standards have National Differences is very helpful to the expert. Otherwise the expert would have to study the national laws in all the countries.

With respect to the extent of a market territory, the original point of CE Marking was for exactly the commercial purpose you suggested. Selling a UK product in Germany and France and Spain and Italy and so on. Before CE, manufacturers had to investigate the laws of 28 countries, and maybe apply 5 different standards (and maybe make 5 different products) to cover the same 28 countries.

I live and work out of the US, and give the example to my clients as basic tutorial about "CE," what if a toaster for Indiana was not legal in New York? That was the situation in the EU, before CE Marking.

Regards,
Chuck Seyboldt

(207) 893-0352
(207) 838-4026  Cellular
(800) 893-8142  Facsimile

At 10:15 (-0000) on 17.07.22, Scott Xe wrote:

Hi Chuck,

Appreciate your detail explanation! You are very experience in this area! Absolutely important, we must clear it up before the contract is signed off.

As you mentioned the general perception of CE marking, the product can be sold in EU all 28 countries. Is it really an expectation from the buyers and the users? Can an UK product be sold to Germany? I doubt the commercial people will do so! A product can be sold to all 28 member countries is a long term vision, probably not now! Do the people believe they can do so in EU? If they do, we do not need to tell them all the details about ND and always test the products to all NDs regardless of which country of EU to go.

Regards,

Scott


On 22/7/2017, 9:48 PM, "Chuck Seyboldt" <[email protected]> wrote:


   Dear Scott:

        What I meant by that was to describe a legal relationship
   between a standard and a country, and that relationship in the
   context you described of a competitive test house not wanting to
   unnecessarily jack up prices.

        I am picturing a hypothetical standard.  That standard
   has a general part, and several "National Differences" parts.  I
   took it that you wanted to know how to deal with this situation,
   faced with a customer, and maybe the customer and maybe you and
   maybe neither knowing which countries the product would be sold
   in.

        I say that either you educate the customer, because
   whether he says it or not, he is naive about the legal
   relationship between the standard and the countries and he
   expects you to tell him how his unstated expectations might not
   be met.  In other words, you tell him he can affix the CE
   marking, and he assumes this is the same as you telling him he
   can now legally sell in all of he Community countries.

        When his goods are impounded at the Swedish border, and
   he is told they are illegal because they have a mercury-wetted
   slip ring, he is going to ask you to pay for his unexpected
   costs.

        Back to my cryptic statement, this is the sort of thing
   you should tell him before he contracts with you for testing:

      Standard No. EN 12345-6-78 Applies
      Testing to EN 12345-6-78, good for all countries EXCEPT
      Sweden, Denmark, and Poland
      Cost = $ 9,876.55

      Additional Testing required for Sweden and Denmark
      Cost = $1,111.11

      Additional Testing required for Poland
      Cost = $  432.42

        Now he knows the territorial limits of your test report
   (driven by National Differences in the standard), and if he wants
   to sell in Sweden, it's on him to ask you what is special about
   Sweden.

   Regards,
   Chuck Seyboldt

   (207) 893-0352
   (207) 838-4026  Cellular
   (800) 893-8142  Facsimile

   At 09:24 (-0000) on 17.07.22, Scott Xe wrote:

   > Dear Chuck,
   >
   > What is exact meaning of the general report that covers XYZ
   > countries, and National Differences in Country A adds $$,
   > Country B adds $$, etc.?  Are they different countries for
   > general part and national differences?  To the buyers, they are
   > only interested in the products that legally sell to their
   > markets.
   >
   > Thanks and regards,
   >
   > Scott
   >
   >
   > On 22/7/2017, 8:52 PM, "Chuck Seyboldt" <[email protected]> wrote:
   >
   >
   >    Dear Scott:
   >
   >         On that issue, National Differences, if you have told your
   >    customer you are an expert on European Compliance, they will
   >    expect expert advice.  If National Differences affects their
   >    ability to sell, they will expect you will have advised them
   >    of the limits associated with your report.
   >
   >         It is obviously best to tell them in advance that the
   >    general report covers XYZ countries, and National Differences in
   >    Country A adds $$, Country B adds $$, etc.
   >
   >         Basically, pass the buck to your customers and potential
   >    customers, by informing and educating them.
   >
   >         If you, the expert, don't cover this ground, and their
   >    products are barred from some country, they will be unhappy.  The
   >    ramifications of this are highly variable.  Lawsuits over this
   >    type of subject are common.
   >
   >    Regards,
   >    Chuck Seyboldt
   >
   >    (207) 893-0352
   >    (207) 838-4026  Cellular
   >    (800) 893-8142  Facsimile
   >
   >    At 07:49 (-0000) on 17.07.22, Scott Xe wrote:
   >
   >    > Dear Steli,
   >    >
   >    > Thanks for your advice!  Do National Differences mean National
   >    > conditions and National deviations normally in Annex of the
   >    > standard?
   >    >
   >    > How can a testing house ignore the National Differences?  I
   >    > dare to guest the applicants may not decide where the goods to
   >    > be sold when applies for the testing.  Thus the testing house
   >    > either does not test the national differences or test all
   >    > national differences.  As a commercial testing house, testing
   >    > them all will increase the testing charges reducing their
   >    > competitive edge on the market.  If the applicant indicates the
   >    > destined market, the testing house cannot avoid the testing to
   >    > national differences and deviations.  The buyer must be careful
   >    > to accept the supplier’s evidence when they receive those
   >    > testing report and see if it fits for purpose.
   >    >
   >    > Regards,
   >    >
   >    > Scott
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >
   >    > On 22/7/2017, 6:01 PM, "Steli Loznen" <[email protected]> wrote:
   >    >
   >    >    Dear Scott,
   >    >    In addition to the Mr. Woodgate comment, please be informed that in the 
frame of the CB Scheme need to pay attention to "National Differences" on IEC 
standards. This is an important issue which not all time is addressed by the testing houses 
which issue the CB Test Reports.
   >    >    Best Regards,
   >    >    Steli
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >    Steli Loznen, M.Sc., SM-IEEE
   >    >    Member of BoG IEEE-PSES
   >    >    Convener IEC 62A/MT 62354
   >    >    17-3 Shaul HaMelech Blvd.
   >    >    Tel Aviv 6436719
   >    >    Israel
   >    >    Tel:+972-3-6912668
   >    >    Fax:+972-3-6913988
   >    >    Mobile:+972-54-7245794
   >    >    e-mail: [email protected]
   >    >
   >    >    -----Original Message-----
   >    >    From: Scott Xe [mailto:[email protected]]
   >    >    Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 11:54 AM
   >    >    To: [email protected]
   >    >    Subject: Re: [PSES] AW: Harmonised standard withdrawn
   >    >
   >    >    Dear John,
   >    >
   >    >    It is a good point to note!
   >    >
   >    >    Thanks and regards,
   >    >
   >    >    Scott
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >    On 22/7/2017, 4:37 PM, "John Woodgate" <[email protected]> 
wrote:
   >    >
   >    >        The EN and the IEC are *never* identical, especially now that 
the ENs have to include a succession of 'Z' annexes. Large parts of the technical 
content may well be identical, but the ENs include a lot of European 'baggage', which 
can't safely be ignored.
   >    >
   >    >        With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
   >    >        www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh 
England
   >    >
   >    >        Sylvae in aeternum manent.
   >    >
   >    >        -----Original Message-----
   >    >        From: Scott Xe [mailto:[email protected]]
   >    >        Sent: 22 July 2017 09:13
   >    >        To: John Woodgate <[email protected]>
   >    >        Subject: Re: [PSES] AW: Harmonised standard withdrawn
   >    >
   >    >        Hi John,
   >    >
   >    >        I notice the CB reports that they will conduct the test 
according to IEC standard and the standards for destined market, i.e. EN for EU.  As 
usual, EN standards are derived from IEC standard.  If the IEC standard is listed 
below the EN standard without indication of modified, the IEC compliance report can 
be used as self-declaration of conformity to the directive due to the fact that both 
EN and IEC standards are identical.
   >    >
   >    >        Regards,
   >    >
   >    >        Scott
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >        On 22/7/2017, 2:24 PM, "John Woodgate" 
<[email protected]> wrote:
   >    >
   >    >            That isn't a 'listing' of the IEC standards, it's an 
indication of what the EN was derived from. You can see that, because some of the IEC 
standards are described as '(modified)'.
   >    >
   >    >            With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
   >    >            www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh 
England
   >    >
   >    >            Sylvae in aeternum manent.
   >    >
   >    >            -----Original Message-----
   >    >            From: Scott Xe [mailto:[email protected]]
   >    >            Sent: 22 July 2017 03:53
   >    >            To: John Woodgate <[email protected]>; 
[email protected]
   >    >            Subject: Re: [PSES] AW: Harmonised standard withdrawn
   >    >
   >    >            Dear John,
   >    >
   >    >            The attached HS list does have IEC standards.  Do they 
have other meaning that I might incorrectly interpret it?
   >    >
   >    >            Thanks and regards,
   >    >
   >    >            Scott
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >            On 22/7/2017, 1:08 AM, "John Woodgate" 
<[email protected]> wrote:
   >    >
   >    >                IEC standards are rarely, if ever, notified in the OJ, 
because they are not harmonized so all EU/CENELEC  countries do not have to accept 
them.
   >    >
   >    >                With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
   >    >                www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates 
Rayleigh England
   >    >
   >    >                Sylvae in aeternum manent.
   >    >
   >    >                -----Original Message-----
   >    >                From: Scott Xe [mailto:[email protected]]
   >    >                Sent: 21 July 2017 17:50
   >    >                To: [email protected]
   >    >                Subject: Re: [PSES] AW: Harmonised standard withdrawn
   >    >
   >    >                Hi Durrer,
   >    >
   >    >                Both IEC and EN 60335-2-24 were in the harmonised 
standard list of OJEU before they were removed.  Regarding the national standard BS 
EN 60335-2-24 should be technically identical with EN 60335-2-24.  Although it is 
still valid in BSI website, the HS removal is due to UK objection.  It does not make 
sense using BS EN 60335-2-24 to declare the compliance with LVD.
   >    >
   >    >                It is good suggestion to take care this known issue in 
risk assessment required in LVD.  As this issue is being discussed in IEC to EN 
standard conversion.  For the time being, the latest IEC A2 amendment seems a 
reasonable reference to address the fire risk.
   >    >
   >    >                Regards,
   >    >
   >    >                Scott
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >                On 21/7/2017, 4:16 PM, "Dürrer Bernd" 
<[email protected]> wrote:
   >    >
   >    >                    Dear Scott,
   >    >
   >    >                    The removal of the reference to EN 60335-2-24 from 
the OJEU means that compliance with this standard does not provide the presumption of 
conformity as defined in Article 12 of LVD. Actually, the nationally adopted versions 
of this standard are still valid (e.g. BS EN 60335-2-24, 
https://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030236214). As IEC 60335-2-24 
is not listed as an international standard in the OJEU, I do not see any advantage in 
declaring CE compliance with the IEC version, especially as the objection raised by 
the UK against the use of highly flammable materials would also apply to fridges 
compliant with IEC 60335-2-24.
   >    >
   >    >                    As risk analysis (preferably according to CENELEC 
Guide 32) is a mandatory part of the technical documentation (LVD, Annex III, Module 
A, 2.), the manufacturer is bound to consider the findings in UK's objection and to 
avoid the use of such materials even if they are compliant with the IEC/EN standard. 
Please be aware that the obligations of the manufacturer (LVD, Art. 6) also include 
the monitoring of products already in the market and to take corrective measures if 
it is found that a product presents a risk.
   >    >
   >    >                    Regarding a new product, you may still refer to EN 
60335-2-24, but it will not give you presumption of conformity. With the CE DoC you declare 
that your electrical equipment provides "a high level of protection of health and safety 
of persons, and of domestic animals and property" (LVD, Art. 1), using the standard as a 
technical means to demonstrate compliance, but considering also risks that are not adequately 
addressed in the standard.
   >    >
   >    >                    Kind regards,
   >    >
   >    >                    Bernd
   >    >
   >    >                    Von: Wiseman, Josh UTC CCS 
[mailto:[email protected]]
   >    >                    Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Juli 2017 21:31
   >    >                    An: [email protected]
   >    >                    Betreff: Re: [PSES] Harmonised standard withdrawn
   >    >
   >    >                    Scott,
   >    >
   >    >                    You can continue to use EN 60335-1 and reference 
IEC 60335-2-24 to show compliance.  Just because the EN is withdrawn doesn’t mean the 
IEC is no longer valid.  Knowing now about the plastic issue, maybe you do some other 
evaluation method for it to ensure it’s safe to be used in that application.
   >    >
   >    >                    Josh Wiseman
   >    >                    Senior Compliance Engineer
   >    >
   >    >                    Taylor Company
   >    >                    Joshua Wiseman
   >    >                    Senior Compliance Engineer
   >    >                    750 N. Blackhawk Blvd. | Rockton, IL 61072
   >    >                    Office: 815.624.5628 | Cell: 815.262.5517 | Fax: 
815.624.5181
   >    >                    http://www.taylor-company.com/ | 
https://twitter.com/TheTaylorCo | http://www.youtube.com/TheTaylorCompany
   >    >                    -----------------------------------------------
   >    >                    This message is intended only for the recipient(s) 
named above. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, use or circulate this message. 
Instead, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and then 
delete it from your system.  Internet communications are not secure. While every 
reasonable effort has been made to ensure that this communication has not been 
tampered with, Taylor Company cannot be responsible for alterations made to the 
contents of this message without its express consent, and Taylor Company accepts no 
responsibility for changes to or interception of this message after it was sent or 
for any damage to the recipient's systems or data caused by this message or its 
attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information contained  in this message 
that do not relate to the official business of Taylor Company shall be understood as 
neither given nor e  ndorsed by Taylor Co mpany. Please also note that messages to or 
from Taylor Company may be monitored to ensure compliance with Taylor Company 
policies and standards and to protect our business.
   >    >                    -----------------------------------------------
   >    >
   >    >                    From: Scott Xe [mailto:[email protected]]
   >    >                    Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 9:38 AM
   >    >                    To: mailto:[email protected]
   >    >                    Subject: [External] [PSES] Harmonised standard 
withdrawn
   >    >
   >    >                    The harmonised standard EN 60335-2-24 is removed 
from the harmonised standard list on OJEU.  The common compliance route of 
self-declaration of conformity to LVD using harmonised standard becomes lost.  What 
are other options to demonstrating the compliance with LVD?
   >    >
   >    >                    Thanks and regards,
   >    >
   >    >                    Scott
   >    >                    -
   >    >                    
----------------------------------------------------------------
   >    >                    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 
<mailto:[email protected]>
   >    >                    All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=ilBQI1lupc9Y65XwNblLtw&r=RyQ6Fr0g7aHfEQCV0zeIZ5rmc48Lfs-2bcf6A3GtyRc&m=EzMmtVsAChI0PUoxZd-jG3QWM48V9wWIGTfBBod8eyM&s=VIRQq3ILdGSf6dvMzNp5OWiCAeSuh8Ssf9WYmfhEpz0&e=
   >    >                    Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=ilBQI1lupc9Y65XwNblLtw&r=RyQ6Fr0g7aHfEQCV0zeIZ5rmc48Lfs-2bcf6A3GtyRc&m=EzMmtVsAChI0PUoxZd-jG3QWM48V9wWIGTfBBod8eyM&s=3zDWGtj2JcDcnfAvvRC9oYVUDo7raetrj4p-ATYjkJ0&e=
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.
   >    >                    Website: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=ilBQI1lupc9Y65XwNblLtw&r=RyQ6Fr0g7aHfEQCV0zeIZ5rmc48Lfs-2bcf6A3GtyRc&m=EzMmtVsAChI0PUoxZd-jG3QWM48V9wWIGTfBBod8eyM&s=9w0yYDC69Ng_SmSEIaEmWhzThHwIfwGAhDPAow8jUyY&e=
   >    >                    Instructions: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=ilBQI1lupc9Y65XwNblLtw&r=RyQ6Fr0g7aHfEQCV0zeIZ5rmc48Lfs-2bcf6A3GtyRc&m=EzMmtVsAChI0PUoxZd-jG3QWM48V9wWIGTfBBod8eyM&s=_tfBUhxNcZTrOJohdxg3nlXk7j3uL6EehFkkkYcxflA&e=
   >    >                    List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=ilBQI1lupc9Y65XwNblLtw&r=RyQ6Fr0g7aHfEQCV0zeIZ5rmc48Lfs-2bcf6A3GtyRc&m=EzMmtVsAChI0PUoxZd-jG3QWM48V9wWIGTfBBod8eyM&s=-uUeSArkKHSGt0s1-cu4EGS5VC9rX49ocK0RqXkb6Sw&e=
   >    >                    For help, send mail to the list administrators:
   >    >                    Scott Douglas <mailto:[email protected]>
   >    >                    Mike Cantwell <mailto:[email protected]>
   >    >                    For policy questions, send mail to:
   >    >                    Jim Bacher <mailto:[email protected]>
   >    >                    David Heald <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 
<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
   >    >                    List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
   >    >                    For help, send mail to the list administrators:
   >    >                    Scott Douglas <mailto:[email protected]>
   >    >                    Mike Cantwell <mailto:[email protected]>
   >    >                    For policy questions, send mail to:
   >    >                    Jim Bacher <mailto:[email protected]>
   >    >                    David Heald <mailto:[email protected]>
   >    >
   >    >                    ________________________________
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >                    WILO SE
   >    >                    Nortkirchenstrasse 100, 44263 Dortmund
   >    >                    Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 21356
   >    >                    www.wilo.com
   >    >
   >    >                    Vorstand/Executive Board:
   >    >                    Oliver Hermes (Vorsitzender/Chairman), Dr. Markus 
Beukenberg, Carsten Krumm, Eric Lachambre, Mathias Weyers
   >    >                    Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender/Chairman of the 
Supervisory Board:
   >    >                    Prof. Dr. Norbert Wieselhuber
   >    >
   >    >                    Dieses Dokument ist vertraulich zu behandeln. Die 
Weitergabe sowie Vervielfaeltigung, Verwertung und Mitteilung seines Inhalts ist nur 
mit unserer ausdruecklichen Genehmigung gestattet. Alle Rechte vorbehalten, 
insbesondere fuer den Fall der Schutzrechtsanmeldung.
   >    >
   >    >                    This document has to be treated confidentially. 
Its contents are not to be passed on, duplicated, exploited or disclosed without our 
expressed permission. All rights reserved, especially the right to apply for 
protective rights.
   >    >
   >    >                    -
   >    >                    
----------------------------------------------------------------
   >    >                    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]>
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >                -
   >    >                
----------------------------------------------------------------
   >    >                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]>
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >    -
   >    >    ----------------------------------------------------------------
   >    >    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]>
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >
   >    > -
   >    > ----------------------------------------------------------------
   >    > 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]>
   >    >
   >
   >



-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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]>

Reply via email to