Both solution are valid.
In the RTTE you can find an article said that at your choice you can
demonstrate the conformity to the essential requirements 3.1b
using the procedure of the EMC directive if applicable.
I don't suggest this, for me, complicate way two declaration two
:
owner-emc-pstc@majordom Subject: RTTE DoC
Philosophy Question
o.ieee.org
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Harris [mailto:harr...@dscltd.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 12:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: RTTE DoC Philosophy Question
Hello,
I just had an interesting conversation with the head of a approvals
authority
-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Harris
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 12:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: RTTE DoC Philosophy Question
Hello,
I just had an interesting conversation with the head
Message-
From: Kevin Harris [mailto:harr...@dscltd.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 12:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: RTTE DoC Philosophy Question
Hello,
I just had an interesting conversation with the head of a approvals
authority for a country in Europe for our type of products
[mailto:harr...@dscltd.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 12:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: RTTE DoC Philosophy Question
Hello,
I just had an interesting conversation with the head of a approvals
authority for a country in Europe for our type of products. The discussion
centred around DoCs
Hello,
I just had an interesting conversation with the head of a approvals
authority for a country in Europe for our type of products. The discussion
centred around DoCs for the RTTE directive. His claim was since I had a
product that has a RTTE element to it then I just make a declaration to
7 matches
Mail list logo
