I don't see as being (or overly) rigorous. Some oversight should be implemented
by an overseeing agency. After all, this stuff is being imported, mfg here in
the US and marketed to unsuspecting consumers, with their safety in the mix to
boot.
The U.S. does oversee many other forms of consumer goods, be it child safety
seats, drugs, food we eat, vehicles and other goods that consumers use.
Seems to me this is only something that just simply needs more attention from
the same or other overseeing agencies. It may even create more jobs which is
something everybody wants, right?
Dale, k9vuj
On 31, Mar 2014, at 12:24, CR <ka5s@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In general, these are between the buyers and vendors, and it is IMO a
> not-so-smart economy to leave them out. Considering the distance between
> buyers and vendors and the (in)ability of buyers to exercise remote
> supervision over process, though, it often turns out that rigorous incoming
> QC (also shirked as too costly) is all that is left.
>
> So long as these are more expensive than any penalties that result, or than
> buying legislators and regulators (which happens) we will not see any change.
>
> Cortland Richmond
>
> On 3/30/2014 5:24 AM, Dale J. wrote:
>> Ed,
>>
>> If the manufacturer is required to test the device then the overseeing
>> agency should have the right to visit the mfg lab where the testing is
>> performed and do an audit of the procedures, watch tests being performed and
>> if procedures are followed. Unscheduled visits are also to be permitted and
>> spot checks in the field
>
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|