Thread Subject: Re: 1194.3 (f) Summary

From: Diane Golden
Date: Wed, Jun 20 2007 4:10 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: jagbell: "Re: 1194.3 (f) Summary"
• Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: 1194.3 (f) Summary"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

The option of deleting the whole exception is already noted in the draft.

Diane


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of David
Poehlman
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:59 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] 1194.3 (f) Summary


from what I can tell, we can strike it.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Deborah Buck" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] 1194.3 (f) Summary


While I consider occasional monitoring and repair as part of the maintenance
task I would prefer to see it spelled out to reduce individual
interpretation.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 1:30 PM
To: TEITAC SubPart A listserv (E-mail)
Subject: [teitac-subparta] 1194.3 (f) Summary

I've started a new message on this topic to summarize and clarify issues.
First, there is no title such as "back office exception" so there is no need
to remame a title that doesn't exist in the regs. The section is 1194.3
"Execptions" and this subsection is (f). The words "back office" are not in
the current regs.

The proposed revision to existing language that was sent out is (new in
CAPS) --
"Products THAT ARE located in AND WHOSE OPERATIONS CAN ONLY BE EXECUTED FROM
spaces frequented only by service personnel for maintenance, repair, or
occasional monitoring of equipment are not required to comply with this
part."

Gregg has now proposed different language which reads --
"Products whose user interface is provided remotely, and that only have
interface elements on them that are used for maintenance do not need to meet
the requirements in this part as long as their remote user interface meets
the requirements in this part."

This proposal appears substantially different in that it adds a requirement
for a remote user interface that conforms to all the access standards and
only allows the exception to apply to "maintenance" not "repair or
occasional monitoring".

Do we have two suggestions now or can we agree on one?

Diane

• Next message in Thread: jagbell: "Re: 1194.3 (f) Summary"
• Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: 1194.3 (f) Summary"