[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

# RE: AVTS - System Total

- To: <rcr@dieboldes.com>
- Subject: RE: AVTS - System Total
- From: "Ken Clark" <ken@dieboldes.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:43:33 -0500
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <01BEBEF5.7DC94540@sdn-ar-004neomahP079.dialsprint.net>

    > From: Jeff Hintz [mailto:jhglobal@earthlink.net]
    > Sent: Friday, June 25, 1999 10:29 AM
    > To: Ken Clark (E-mail)
    >
    > Again, we need to check the FEC guidelines for DRE machines.  I
    > think that a protective counter for the lifetime of the machine a
    > requirement by them .
    >
    > Jeff Hintz

    :-)  We would fail this requirement with the registry entry.

    I could see this being an issue, however, and this does have a scary ring to
    it.  Tab, can you dust the FEC guidelines off the shelf and take a look?  It
    might even be worth calling Wyle and seeing whether there is some
    "interpretation" of this rule that would be favorable to us if it exists.

    Does this counter serve *any* practical purpose outside meeting an FEC
    requierment?

    Ken

- Follow-Ups:
  - Re: AVTS - System Total
    - From: "Whitman Lee" <whitman@dieboldes.com>

- Prev by Date: RE: AVTS & Gems - Audit Logs
- Next by Date: RE: AVTS & Gems - Audit Logs
- Index(es):
  - Chronological
  - Thread