The following may be useful in interpreting your need for the CE Mark
and/or other marks.

With regard to the use of "other marks" in fulfilling the requirements
of the LVD (and I can only assume the TTE as well,
but don't quote me on that, I'm no expert here...), 

The LVD States in Article 5 that harmonized standards are appropriate 
and refers the reader to the Official Journal for a listing of
Harmonized Standards;
Article 6 states that international Standards are appropriate
"Where harmonized standards...have not yet been drawn up and published;"
Article 7 states that in the absence of harmonized standards and international
standards Member States and their competent administrative authorities
"shall also regard as complying with the provisions of article 2 electrical 
equipment
manufactured in accordance with the safety provisions of the standards in force 
in the Member
State of manufacture, if it ensures a safety level equivalent to that required 
in their
own territory;"
And finally, article 10 states that "Member states shall take all appropriate 
steps to ensure that
their competent administrative authorities shall accept that there
is a presumption of conformity with the provisions of articles 5, 6
and 7 where a mark has been placed on the electrical equipment denoting 
conformity, 
or where a certificate of conformity is produced or, in the absence 
thereof...the declaration 
of conformity."

The implications are that other marks provide some degree of due
diligence which is in keeping with the spirit of the Directive.
A list of acceptable other marks is on file with the Notified Bodies 
in the member states, and is also published in the official journal.

This means that, for example, the TUV mark is defensible as due-diligence
for affixing CE Marking (but does not substitute for CE Marking)
as long as all the requirements of the Directive are met in it, and
as long as it is acceptable to Notified Bodies and is published as 
acceptable in the Official Journal.

I'll defer to an expert in the TTE directive for it's provisions with 
regard to "other marks".  Sir???

A note about the CB mark.  My experience with it is that, although
you may only have to perform a single test to an acceptable standard, 
you may still have to submit a sample of your product
to the regulatory authority in question.  Regardless of the need
for a sample, the delays using this method can be substantial.
Before you launch into a CB certificate, know the experience of your 
peers, and especially your regulatory compliance testing facility, 
specifically with regard to your PRODUCT, not the standard.
If they all have little experience with it, you'll bear the burden of 
trail blazing.  Just know what you're getting yourself into.

Good luck.

Rick
---------- Forwarded Message ----------

From:   INTERNET:[email protected], INTERNET:[email protected]
TO:     Treg, INTERNET:[email protected]
DATE:   5/19/97 11:13 AM

RE:     Re: Safety Standards!

Sender: [email protected]
Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by 
arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
        id LAA17354; Mon, 19 May 1997 11:12:45 -0400
Received: by europe.std.com (8.7.6/BZS-8-1.0)
        id LAA02558; Mon, 19 May 1997 11:09:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (8.7.6/BZS-8-1.0)
        id LAA02548; Mon, 19 May 1997 11:09:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sigma.itu.ch by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
        id AA24115; Mon, 19 May 1997 11:09:08 -0400
Received: from ties.itu.ch (ties.itu.ch) by ITU.CH (PMDF V5.0-6 #16074)
 id <[email protected]> for [email protected]; Mon,
 19 May 1997 17:08:13 +0200
Received: from localhost (fitzgera@localhost) by ties.itu.ch (8.8.5/8.8.5)
 with SMTP id RAA07201 for <[email protected]>; Mon,
 19 May 1997 17:08:37 +0200 (MET DST)
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 17:08:37 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Edward Fitzgerald <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Safety Standards!
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
To: Treg <[email protected]>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: list
Reply-To: [email protected]

Dear Filiz,

When considering the use of applying a particular standard you should also
consider which markets (Countries) your products are going to enter.  As
you made reference to VDE and BSI, I assume Germany and the UK atleast and
Europe wide is most likely.  T=DCV/GS Marks and BS Kite Marks are primarily
a marketing requirement for retail market products.  If you are
considering a wider European market such as Eastern & Western Europe then
I would recommend you obtain a CB Certificate based upon EN 60 950, which
costs you more initially but will save you a bundle in the long run.

Below is an extract from 'The tics Newsletter' April 1997 issue.

=09Which Version of EN 60950 is currently valid ? =20
Having considered most of the interpretations on how to arrive at the
answer to this question, you will have to refer back to the Low Voltage
Directive (73/23/EEC) itself.  This states that it is the 'Harmonised
Standard' that shall be complied with, unfortunately most consider that
the action of announcing a standard in the Official Journal ( of the
European Communities) is what constitutes the 'Harmonised' status.  In
fact the LVD states that the 'Harmonised Standard' is the standard that is
published in the Member State (MS).  Therefore EN 60 950 Amd.3 has been
published in the UK, for instance, as BS EN 60 950 : 1992 (Incorporating
Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 3).  Likewise it is the version published as the
national equivalent in all other EU MS' that is legally applicable under
the LVD.

I hope this helps you towards formulating a strategy.

If you (or any of your colleagues) would like to receive a complimentary
copy of 'The tics Newsletter' (tics =3D Telecommunications International
Compliance Solutions), then please send me an email with your contact
details and full postal address with 'TICS' as the subject heading.

On Fri, 16 May 1997, Filiz Eryilmaz wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> We are designing a modem reference board with voice
> functionality.Primarily we have targeted Europe as a market place.I 've
> been informed that for Safety;Europe is harmonised and complying with
> EN60950 was enough. Lately I  learned about some other documents like:
>
> BSI       UK               BS415/EC65 and BS7002/EC950
> VDE      Germany      VDE0884
>
> I think by complying with EN60950,you can affix CE Mark on your
> product.But what about  VDE and BSI Safety Marks?
> I got really confused.I would appreciate any help.
>
> --
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Filiz Eryilmaz
> MT 3K-215
> Tel:(908)9576943
> Fax:(908)9576878
> [email protected]
>

Best regards,

Edward Fitzgerald
Int'l Approvals Consultant [and Editor of 'The tics Newsletter']

Email : [email protected]

**********************************
* GSM Tel    : +44 4685 33 100   *
* Office Tel : +44 1590 67 93 22 *
* Office Fax : +44 1590 67 93 23 *
*                                *
** European Technology Services **

PLEASE DO NOT SEND EMAIL TO '[email protected]' AFTER 28-March-97

Reply via email to