Cynthia, I am not familiar with Annex V of the Directive, however I do know that use of the NB number is not limited to that route of compliance.
Annex IV requires a Notified Body assessment of the TCF and in so doing, the mfg. must identify, by use of the NB number, which NB was used. Also, it is my understanding that the NB number should be placed between the CE mark and the alert symbol, if required, otherwise just to the right of the CE mark(I have no basis for this position but it seems to be the accepted norm). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sam Wismer RF Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654 Visit Our Website at: http://www.lxe.com -----Original Message----- From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 1:18 AM To: Cynthia Pleach; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re:RE: Notified Body Number Forwarding for Cynthia ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: RE: Notified Body Number Author: Cynthia Pleach <cynthia_ple...@digi.com> List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 7/10/00 1:49 PM It was my understanding that only manufacturing using Annex V of the RTTE would use the CE and notified body number. All others would simply use the CE. -----Original Message----- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 9:56 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com Subject: RE: Notified Body Number I just discovered the Commission's statement on marking in the Sept. 1999 publication "Guide to the implementation of directives based upon the New Approach and the Global Approach". Section 7.3 says, "A notified body may be involved in the design phase, the production phase, or both, depending on the conformity assessment procedures applied. The CE marking shall only be followed by the identification number of the notified body if it is involved in the production phase. Thus the identification number of a notified body involved in conformity assessment according to Module B does not follow the CE marking." Therefore, it appears that a product subject to Annex III or IV of the RTTE must have a NB marking but, according to the above, it cannot follow the CE marking since the NB is not involved in the production phase. Richard Woods ---------- From: prob...@nmi.nl [SMTP:prob...@nmi.nl] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 10:52 AM To: wo...@sensormatic.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com Subject: Re: Notified Body Number Richard, Directive 93/68/EC (Article 5), which linked the CE marking to the EMC directive, states that the minimum height of the CE marking must be 5 mm. The Maritime Directive requires a CE marking which also includes the NB number. From the example drawing in the directive it shows that the height of the NB number is identical to the height of the CE marking. The distance of the NB number to the CE marking is based on the distance between the characters C and E. The marking for the RTTE Directive would then look like: CE XXX, where XXX is the NB number. Best regards, NMi Certin B.V. Pieter Robben Department of EMC, Telecommunications and Electrical Safety Web: www.nmicertin.com / www.nmicertin.nl wo...@sensormatic.com on 10/07/2000 14:54:46 Please respond to wo...@sensormatic.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, t...@world.std.com cc: (bcc: Pieter Robben/Nmi) Subject: Notified Body Number Neither the LV nor the RTTE Directive indicates the minimal size for the Notified Body number nor do they indicate the placement of the number relative to the CE marking. Do any of the other directives or any other documents from the Commission indicate the proper way to size and place the Notified Body number? Richard Woods Received: from ruebert.ieee.org ([199.172.136.3]) by mail.monarch.com with SMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 3.14) id 0000FAD1; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:50:21 -0700 Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08207 Received: from gemini.ieee.org by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08181; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:50:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gopostal.digi.com (gopostal.digi.com [204.221.110.15]) by gemini.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15958 for <emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org>; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:50:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by gopostal.digi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <3GBTYFCJ>; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:50:26 -0500 Message-ID: <415a9f6dcfa0d211b78d0008c7a42fb302fc6...@gopostal.digi.com> From: Cynthia Pleach <cynthia_ple...@digi.com> To: "'wo...@sensormatic.com'" <wo...@sensormatic.com>, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, t...@world.std.com Subject: RE: Notified Body Number List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:49:03 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; X-Resent-To: emc-pstc-ad...@ieee.org Precedence: bulk ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
