Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complain nce?

[John Allen]

I agree w.r.t. to the definitions of the terms “compliance” & “conformity”, but 
Ed’s post does throw me a bit because there are many areas where non-compliance 
would just be totally stupid, e.g. such as driving on the wrong side of the 
road or ignoring traffic light signals – that’s not restraint of trade (but you 
can get terminally bored on long straight roads like US Interstates, so maybe 
that driving on the wrong side on those would “liven things up” and make for 
“more competitive” traffic situations? J ).

 

The same goes for not producing compliant products, but there, I think, the 
European product safety Directives may have the edge over US legislation/NRTL 
standards approach because the former do not demand “strict compliance” with 
Harmonised Standards if you can demonstrate that the products do meet the 
Essential/Particular safety requirements of those Directives, whereas as the US 
approach seems to positively encourage/require strict compliance to the 
relevant stds. Maybe that’s why they might be considered stultifying and/or a 
restraint of trade?

 

John Allen

W.London, UK 

 

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: 17 January 2016 16:20
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia 
nce?

 

OTOH, I was always uneasy with the term “compliance” because to me, compliance 
is a coercive, one-way street. You are expected to comply, without any 
negotiation; comply or suffer the consequences. You comply, but there is no 
business incentive to excel. This is not a free market, not capitalism as it 
should be. 

 

I’m not saying that Compliance is pure evil, just that over-emphasis on 
compliance can yield stultification, restraint of trade and terminal boredom.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

 

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 10:54 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia 
nce?

 

In generic terms Compliance is indeed nothing more than adherence to a set of 
rules. I once debated legal council at a company who wanted exclusive use of 
the term. I pointed out how this term is used in finance, medical, 
transportation, product safety, EMC and legal circles. Given a bit more time 
I'm certain I could come up with a list nearly as long as your arm. This one 
reason why I personally prefer the term Compliance Engineer. It is unique to 
this business sector. Among my peers, I like to be more specific and mention 
product safety engineer or EMC engineer.  

 

All the best, Doug

 

 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com 

‎https://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

 

 

‎ 

 

 

 


From: Brian Gregory

Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 11:24 PM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Reply To: Brian Gregory

Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia 
nce?

 

 

Ah yes, I recall a conversation with a bright one from Garrad Hassan about a 
mutual customer.  He was establishing their compliance with GH's established 
financial qualifications for an undisclosed analysis.  I picked on the 
distinction rather quickly and had to clarify to him what compliance meant to 
me, representing an NRTL.

 

Colorado Brian 



-- Original Message --
From: Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia 
nce?
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:11:52 -0800

As is made somewhat more clear in this article 

  (linked to by the original), this has nothing to do with technical product 
compliance but is about securities compliance 
 .  

 

Sloppy use of the term "compliance" with no explanation of the specific meaning.

 

Scott (am I the "other" Scott?) just made a similar point... I will post anyway.

 

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Brian Gregory  
wrote:

 

 If you read the article (and others) it can be read either way.  The blog's 
purpose is to give Compliance Officers tools, reference information and 
background as to what is going on. 

 

That the SEC is getting involved in Compliance investigations indicates to me 
increased scrutiny of companies' compliance issues.  As a technical issue, this 
appears to me to be bureaucratic overreach at the least, since SEC and DOJ 
aren't safety organizations like OSHA.  I think out-of-compliance issues should 
be (1) safety based and (2) customer sourced.  SEC or DOJ get involved when 
there's a user-related problem or clear malfeasance (altering of documentation, 
unsubstantiated claims, etc.), which are covered under existing laws.

 

As I see IEC regulations leaning more towards risk management/aversion, I get 
the feeling that s

Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC compliance?

[John Allen]

FWIW, I wasn't actually pointing to the financial sector, and/or the US ones
in particular, because I have no particular expertise in that  area -
especially w.r.t. the US, but some of the UK & European banks were either
complicit and/or just as bad/worse anyway!

 

What I actually said was  "financial and other scandals"   - which includes
many other and different areas from fake or "non-compliant" materials
/products (consumer electronics ring any bells?)  to deliberate misuse of
substandard materials in life changing/threatening applications (such as the
breast plants made from normal industrial materials instead of specialist
medical grade ones).

 

Therefore, In that respect, I do agree that EMC compliance is, in the
majority but certainly not all, of products/cases a relatively "low level"
compliance issue by comparison. 

 

However, it is, and it should be, a sub-set of a company's legal and ethical
approach to do no harm and improve the lot of its customers. Having worked
for many (too many!) companies over the years, I have encountered some
senior management "real cowboys" -  and "walked away" in at least one case
-, plus many middle managers and senior engineers, who did not care a s***
for making sure the products were as reasonably compliant as possible to
whatever regs/stds applied. Unfortunately that mindset then influences those
who work for them (and/or know no better), and that in turn can lead to
many, and worse, things being done/not done.

 

It was therefore a great relief to work for the "old HP" for a few years
because of the "HP Way" approach to products and product compliance - and
that certainly included EMI (no immunity requirements at that time) stds &
regs. Unfortunately very few of the companies I worked for after that were
as ethical or diligent. L

 

John Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: 17 January 2016 16:10
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
complia nce?

 

We are getting off-topic here, but I can't let this one go without comment.
The "financial melt-down" in the USA back in 2008/2009 was initiated by the
very US government which is now in a lily-white, holier-than-thou mode
enforcing all sorts of rules-of-conduct to make sure, as Mr. Allen says,
that this doesn't happen again. USG had been forcing banks into making
mortgage loans that were not backed by adequate security.  Meaning, they
were legally forced to make loans to people who shouldn't have been
qualified. They did this to avoid accusations of various sorts of
discrimination that had become illegal.  Faced with massive amount of bad
debt, bankers attempted to off-load that bad debt by selling mortgage-backed
securities, which were worthless, but people didn't know it. It was like a
game of "Old Maid," with the holder of the "Old Maid" trying to dump it on
someone else.

The USG by forcing bankers to take on bad debt converted the banking
industry from one fundamentally based on truth and integrity (as perceived
by the public) into a group of con artists. But they became con-artists in
response tot the government stimulus of forcing them to make bad loans. 

People refer to the bad actors in the banking/mortgage industry without
referencing that it wasn't always like that, and it was the USG that
transformed that industry from a reputable one into a disaster.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



  _  

From: John Allen 
Reply-To: John Allen 
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 09:13:02 -
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
complia nce?

And I should have added that I, for one, am quite glad that "compliance" is
now a far more widespread discipline than it used to be as it may mean that
we get fewer financial and other scandals that might have been avoided if
the relevant regs and rules had been followed and enforced over the last 10
years or so - they affected me, and many others like some of you guys.
 
John Allen
 

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: 17 January 2016 08:28
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
complia nce?

Morning all from a slightly snowy Southern England
 
Over the years I've received a number of approaches from financial services
recruitment companies about jobs in that industry sector - and had to
outline the Compliance Engineer role to them because they were not aware of
there being compliance people outside their sector!
 
John Allen
W.London, UK
 
 

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 17 January 2016 06:54
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
complia nce?


In generic terms Compliance is indeed nothing more than adherence to a set
of rules. I once debated legal council at a company who wanted exclusive use
of the term. I pointed out how this term is used in fi

[PSES] Compliance

[Ed Price]

Ken:

 

I disagree that we are getting off-topic. Most threads here are issues of
regulatory compliance, although not always the little segment of compliance
related to electromagnetics. We have branched out to include compliance in
safety, workplace management and health. Although we may have to do many
dissimilar things if the area of compliance is electromagnetics or
securities, the techniques of compliance (planning, ensuring, reporting,
documenting, lines of authority) are probably inherently the same. Perhaps
there's a brotherhood of compliance workers, all unknown to each other.

 

To paraphrase Steinbeck: "Ma, wherever they's some Regulatory Agency beating
on some poor company, I'll be there!"

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA



 

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 8:10 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
complia nce?

 

We are getting off-topic here, but I can't let this one go without comment.


Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261




-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia nce?

[Ed Price]

OTOH, I was always uneasy with the term “compliance” because to me, compliance 
is a coercive, one-way street. You are expected to comply, without any 
negotiation; comply or suffer the consequences. You comply, but there is no 
business incentive to excel. This is not a free market, not capitalism as it 
should be. 

 

I’m not saying that Compliance is pure evil, just that over-emphasis on 
compliance can yield stultification, restraint of trade and terminal boredom.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA



 

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 10:54 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia 
nce?

 

In generic terms Compliance is indeed nothing more than adherence to a set of 
rules. I once debated legal council at a company who wanted exclusive use of 
the term. I pointed out how this term is used in finance, medical, 
transportation, product safety, EMC and legal circles. Given a bit more time 
I'm certain I could come up with a list nearly as long as your arm. This one 
reason why I personally prefer the term Compliance Engineer. It is unique to 
this business sector. Among my peers, I like to be more specific and mention 
product safety engineer or EMC engineer.  

 

All the best, Doug

 

 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com 



‎https://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

 

 

‎ 









 


From: Brian Gregory

Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 11:24 PM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Reply To: Brian Gregory

Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia 
nce?

 

 

Ah yes, I recall a conversation with a bright one from Garrad Hassan about a 
mutual customer.  He was establishing their compliance with GH's established 
financial qualifications for an undisclosed analysis.  I picked on the 
distinction rather quickly and had to clarify to him what compliance meant to 
me, representing an NRTL.

 

Colorado Brian 



-- Original Message --
From: Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia 
nce?
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:11:52 -0800

As is made somewhat more clear in this article 

  (linked to by the original), this has nothing to do with technical product 
compliance but is about securities compliance 
 .  

 

Sloppy use of the term "compliance" with no explanation of the specific meaning.

 

Scott (am I the "other" Scott?) just made a similar point... I will post anyway.

 

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Brian Gregory  
wrote:

 

 If you read the article (and others) it can be read either way.  The blog's 
purpose is to give Compliance Officers tools, reference information and 
background as to what is going on. 

 

That the SEC is getting involved in Compliance investigations indicates to me 
increased scrutiny of companies' compliance issues.  As a technical issue, this 
appears to me to be bureaucratic overreach at the least, since SEC and DOJ 
aren't safety organizations like OSHA.  I think out-of-compliance issues should 
be (1) safety based and (2) customer sourced.  SEC or DOJ get involved when 
there's a user-related problem or clear malfeasance (altering of documentation, 
unsubstantiated claims, etc.), which are covered under existing laws.

 

As I see IEC regulations leaning more towards risk management/aversion, I get 
the feeling that standards organizations are also contributing to this 
overreach by trying to solve problems, via regulation/standardization that 
haven't been proven yet to be problems in the actual marketplace of people, 
customers and products.  If you've been involved in any STP's, it's hard to 
avoid the feeling that there are some making hay out of increased regulatory 
oversight, including many ways that help consultants more than end users.

 

 

Colorado Brian 

-- Original Message --
From: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com"  
<058ee1229c70-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC 
compliance?
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:29:10 +

Ken, wasn't suggesting increased government regulation, rather useful tips for 
our own consideration.  

 

Gary Stuyvenberg

Thompson Consulting

 

  _  

From: Ken Javor 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC 
compliance?

 

“Last week was a good one for the compliance profession. “

Could not disagree more.  This is big brother, or socialism, call it what you 
will.  A product either meets requirements, or it doesn't. The gov’t 
instructing 

Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia nce?

[Ken Javor]

We are getting off-topic here, but I can¹t let this one go without comment.
The ³financial melt-down² in the USA back in 2008/2009 was initiated by the
very US government which is now in a lily-white, holier-than-thou mode
enforcing all sorts of rules-of-conduct to make sure, as Mr. Allen says,
that this doesn't happen again. USG had been forcing banks into making
mortgage loans that were not backed by adequate security.  Meaning, they
were legally forced to make loans to people who shouldn¹t have been
qualified. They did this to avoid accusations of various sorts of
discrimination that had become illegal.  Faced with massive amount of bad
debt, bankers attempted to off-load that bad debt by selling mortgage-backed
securities, which were worthless, but people didn¹t know it. It was like a
game of ³Old Maid,² with the holder of the ³Old Maid² trying to dump it on
someone else.

The USG by forcing bankers to take on bad debt converted the banking
industry from one fundamentally based on truth and integrity (as perceived
by the public) into a group of con artists. But they became con-artists in
response tot the government stimulus of forcing them to make bad loans.

People refer to the bad actors in the banking/mortgage industry without
referencing that it wasn¹t always like that, and it was the USG that
transformed that industry from a reputable one into a disaster.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: John Allen 
Reply-To: John Allen 
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 09:13:02 -
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
complia nce?

And I should have added that I, for one, am quite glad that ³compliance² is
now a far more widespread discipline than it used to be as it may mean that
we get fewer financial and other scandals that might have been avoided if
the relevant regs and rules had been followed and enforced over the last 10
years or so ­ they affected me, and many others like some of you guys.
 
John Allen
 

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 17 January 2016 08:28
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
complia nce?
 
Morning all from a slightly snowy Southern England
 
Over the years I¹ve received a number of approaches from financial services
recruitment companies about jobs in that industry sector ­ and had to
outline the Compliance Engineer role to them because they were not aware of
there being compliance people outside their sector!
 
John Allen
W.London, UK
 
 

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
Sent: 17 January 2016 06:54
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
complia nce?
 

In generic terms Compliance is indeed nothing more than adherence to a set
of rules. I once debated legal council at a company who wanted exclusive use
of the term. I pointed out how this term is used in finance, medical,
transportation, product safety, EMC and legal circles. Given a bit more time
I'm certain I could come up with a list nearly as long as your arm. This one
reason why I personally prefer the term Compliance Engineer. It is unique to
this business sector. Among my peers, I like to be more specific and mention
product safety engineer or EMC engineer.

 

All the best, Doug

 

 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Brian Gregory
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 11:24 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply To: Brian Gregory
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
complia nce?
 

 

Ah yes, I recall a conversation with a bright one from Garrad Hassan about a
mutual customer.  He was establishing their compliance with GH's established
financial qualifications for an undisclosed analysis.  I picked on the
distinction rather quickly and had to clarify to him what compliance meant
to me, representing an NRTL.

 

Colorado Brian 



-- Original Message --
From: Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
complia nce?
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:11:52 -0800

As is made somewhat more clear in this article
  (linked to by the original), this has nothing
to do with technical product compliance but is about securities compliance
 .

 

Sloppy use of the term "compliance" with no explanation of the specific
meaning.

 

Scott (am I the "other" Scott?) just made a similar point... I will post
anyway.

 

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Brian Gregory 
wrote:

 

 If you read the article (and others) it can be read either way.  The blog's
purpose is to give Compliance Officers tools, reference information and
background as to what 

[PSES] US CPSC "Consumer Products Safety Robot"

[John Allen]

Hi


People on LinkedIn may have seen this, but others may not and so I'm posting
a link here:

 

http://consumerproductlaw.com/lawyer/2016/01/15/CPSC/Here-Comes-The-Consumer
-Product-Safety-Robot_bl23096.htm

 

It's not actually a "robot" but is a piece of free s/w to, as it states in
the 2nd paragraph on the page, "assist companies and others in navigating
the complex and confusing maze of federal regulatory requirements that apply
to consumer products. It provides businesses with necessary compliance
information specific to their own products. "


It's accessible via the CPSC's website at https://business.cpsc.gov/robot/

 

 

Might help non-consumer product suppliers as well, but I don't know as I
have not checked it out myself as yet - comments from interested people
would be useful.

 

John  Allen

W.London, 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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia nce?

[John Allen]

And I should have added that I, for one, am quite glad that “compliance” is now 
a far more widespread discipline than it used to be as it may mean that we get 
fewer financial and other scandals that might have been avoided if the relevant 
regs and rules had been followed and enforced over the last 10 years or so – 
they affected me, and many others like some of you guys.

 

John Allen

 

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: 17 January 2016 08:28
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia 
nce?

 

Morning all from a slightly snowy Southern England

 

Over the years I’ve received a number of approaches from financial services 
recruitment companies about jobs in that industry sector – and had to outline 
the Compliance Engineer role to them because they were not aware of there being 
compliance people outside their sector!

 

John Allen

W.London, UK

 

 

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 17 January 2016 06:54
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia 
nce?

 

In generic terms Compliance is indeed nothing more than adherence to a set of 
rules. I once debated legal council at a company who wanted exclusive use of 
the term. I pointed out how this term is used in finance, medical, 
transportation, product safety, EMC and legal circles. Given a bit more time 
I'm certain I could come up with a list nearly as long as your arm. This one 
reason why I personally prefer the term Compliance Engineer. It is unique to 
this business sector. Among my peers, I like to be more specific and mention 
product safety engineer or EMC engineer.  

 

All the best, Doug

 

 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com 

‎https://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

 

 

‎ 

 

 

 


From: Brian Gregory

Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 11:24 PM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Reply To: Brian Gregory

Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia 
nce?

 

 

Ah yes, I recall a conversation with a bright one from Garrad Hassan about a 
mutual customer.  He was establishing their compliance with GH's established 
financial qualifications for an undisclosed analysis.  I picked on the 
distinction rather quickly and had to clarify to him what compliance meant to 
me, representing an NRTL.

 

Colorado Brian 



-- Original Message --
From: Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia 
nce?
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:11:52 -0800

As is made somewhat more clear in this article 

  (linked to by the original), this has nothing to do with technical product 
compliance but is about securities compliance 
 .  

 

Sloppy use of the term "compliance" with no explanation of the specific meaning.

 

Scott (am I the "other" Scott?) just made a similar point... I will post anyway.

 

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Brian Gregory  
wrote:

 

 If you read the article (and others) it can be read either way.  The blog's 
purpose is to give Compliance Officers tools, reference information and 
background as to what is going on. 

 

That the SEC is getting involved in Compliance investigations indicates to me 
increased scrutiny of companies' compliance issues.  As a technical issue, this 
appears to me to be bureaucratic overreach at the least, since SEC and DOJ 
aren't safety organizations like OSHA.  I think out-of-compliance issues should 
be (1) safety based and (2) customer sourced.  SEC or DOJ get involved when 
there's a user-related problem or clear malfeasance (altering of documentation, 
unsubstantiated claims, etc.), which are covered under existing laws.

 

As I see IEC regulations leaning more towards risk management/aversion, I get 
the feeling that standards organizations are also contributing to this 
overreach by trying to solve problems, via regulation/standardization that 
haven't been proven yet to be problems in the actual marketplace of people, 
customers and products.  If you've been involved in any STP's, it's hard to 
avoid the feeling that there are some making hay out of increased regulatory 
oversight, including many ways that help consultants more than end users.

 

 

Colorado Brian 

-- Original Message --
From: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com"  
<058ee1229c70-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC 
compliance?
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:29:10 +

Ken, wasn't suggesting increased government regulation, rather useful tips for 
our own consideration.  

 

Gary Stuyvenberg

Thom

Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia nce?

[John Allen]

Morning all from a slightly snowy Southern England

 

Over the years I’ve received a number of approaches from financial services 
recruitment companies about jobs in that industry sector – and had to outline 
the Compliance Engineer role to them because they were not aware of there being 
compliance people outside their sector!

 

John Allen

W.London, UK

 

 

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 17 January 2016 06:54
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia 
nce?

 

In generic terms Compliance is indeed nothing more than adherence to a set of 
rules. I once debated legal council at a company who wanted exclusive use of 
the term. I pointed out how this term is used in finance, medical, 
transportation, product safety, EMC and legal circles. Given a bit more time 
I'm certain I could come up with a list nearly as long as your arm. This one 
reason why I personally prefer the term Compliance Engineer. It is unique to 
this business sector. Among my peers, I like to be more specific and mention 
product safety engineer or EMC engineer.  

 

All the best, Doug

 

 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com 



‎https://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

 

 

‎ 









 


From: Brian Gregory

Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 11:24 PM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Reply To: Brian Gregory

Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia 
nce?

 

 

Ah yes, I recall a conversation with a bright one from Garrad Hassan about a 
mutual customer.  He was establishing their compliance with GH's established 
financial qualifications for an undisclosed analysis.  I picked on the 
distinction rather quickly and had to clarify to him what compliance meant to 
me, representing an NRTL.

 

Colorado Brian 



-- Original Message --
From: Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC complia 
nce?
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:11:52 -0800

As is made somewhat more clear in this article 

  (linked to by the original), this has nothing to do with technical product 
compliance but is about securities compliance 
 .  

 

Sloppy use of the term "compliance" with no explanation of the specific meaning.

 

Scott (am I the "other" Scott?) just made a similar point... I will post anyway.

 

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Brian Gregory  
wrote:

 

 If you read the article (and others) it can be read either way.  The blog's 
purpose is to give Compliance Officers tools, reference information and 
background as to what is going on. 

 

That the SEC is getting involved in Compliance investigations indicates to me 
increased scrutiny of companies' compliance issues.  As a technical issue, this 
appears to me to be bureaucratic overreach at the least, since SEC and DOJ 
aren't safety organizations like OSHA.  I think out-of-compliance issues should 
be (1) safety based and (2) customer sourced.  SEC or DOJ get involved when 
there's a user-related problem or clear malfeasance (altering of documentation, 
unsubstantiated claims, etc.), which are covered under existing laws.

 

As I see IEC regulations leaning more towards risk management/aversion, I get 
the feeling that standards organizations are also contributing to this 
overreach by trying to solve problems, via regulation/standardization that 
haven't been proven yet to be problems in the actual marketplace of people, 
customers and products.  If you've been involved in any STP's, it's hard to 
avoid the feeling that there are some making hay out of increased regulatory 
oversight, including many ways that help consultants more than end users.

 

 

Colorado Brian 

-- Original Message --
From: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com"  
<058ee1229c70-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC 
compliance?
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:29:10 +

Ken, wasn't suggesting increased government regulation, rather useful tips for 
our own consideration.  

 

Gary Stuyvenberg

Thompson Consulting

 

  _  

From: Ken Javor 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC 
compliance?

 

“Last week was a good one for the compliance profession. “

Could not disagree more.  This is big brother, or socialism, call it what you 
will.  A product either meets requirements, or it doesn't. The gov’t 
instructing the private sector on how to get there is worse than superfluous, 
it’s damaging.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261  



  _  

From: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com" <00