Ron Wellman and Victor Boersma have pointed out my
error in assuming that a standard needs to have its title
listed in the OJ to be considered a harmonised standard
within the definition of the LVD. They are right, by this
definition, anything published by CENELEC or CEN and
republished as a national standard (as nearly everything
is) counts as a harmonised standard. In this the LVD is
probably unique. I have checked the EMC, Machinery,
TTE, Construction products, Medical devices, Gas
appliances, Toys, Explosive Atmospheres and Pressure essels
Directives. They all include in their definitions of
harmonised standards a phrase such as 'whose
reference number has been published in the OJ'
By the definition of the LVD, you would not be able to
claim compliance with the LVD by virtue of meeting
harmonised standards unless you meet the safety
provisions of any CENELEC or CEN standard that
had safety provisions of any sort and could be applied
to the product. This is a frighteningly wide definition.
Is this really what people are doing.
Nick Rouse
