Machinery Directive and CE marking

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Great find and explanation Bikepete.That is a new one for me, While as he says, it's not legal judgment it is official guidance and therefore a reasonable defence. In all but the very worst cases I'd be confident the enfocement agencies would back away fro any action other than a "don't do it again" warning when pointed to this document.

Robert G8RPI.

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Cabinet Enforcer,
I don't want an argument, I want to learn, raise awareness of a possible issue and have a meaningfull discussion.
My personal opinion is that the letter of the regulations DOES apply fully to hobbists but in pratice if you keep it in he shed there will not be any issue apart from the posible problem with insurance in the case of a claim. If you follow good practice and gudance there is les chance of an issue.

Robert G8RPI.

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

Well Robert you have certainly stirred up the hornets nest with this one. Just looking at some of our electrical installations most of us are going to be a long way short of compliance with a host of regs. I think we will have a blind eye turned to our home workshop activities as there are just not enough people with the knowledge to inspect or advise on installations. As with the HSE most of the responsibility is put on us and if you get it wrong they jump all over you, so until something goes seriously wrong then it’s happy days. There doesn’t seem to be too much follow up to injuries sustained in the home workshop, if you turn up at A&E having chopped your finger off I don’t think they book a visit from the authorities to check you had the guards fitted etc. It seems the main thrust of all regulations is to protect employees who are forced or volunteer to work on machinery that they have no idea as to how safe it is. Most of the time we only put ourselves at risk and the establishment are not too interested in curtailing individuals from doing what they want in private. I am sure A&E and the fire service could make a long list of incidents involving home workshops but I expect every skate park will produce its fair share of injuries and every footpath will have a list of falls. Let’s just carry on doing what we do but it never hurts to sit back and think and or take advice. I don’t know what we can do about the person who thinks he knows what he is doing but clearly doesn’t, unfortunately I have come across professionals who also don’t have a clue.

Mike

[Paul KempParticipant @paulkemp46892]

Posted by Robert Atkinson 2 on 05/04/2019 07:01:27:

Posted by Paul Kemp on 04/04/2019 22:26:27:

How do you interpret this?

"For the purposes of these Regulations, machinery or partly completed machinery shall not be regarded as being placed on the market or put into service where—

(a)it does not have affixed to it either the CE marking, or any inscription likely to be confused with the CE marking, and—

(i)it will not be put into service in an EEA state;

(ii)it is imported into an EEA state for re-export to a country which is not an EEA state; or

(iii)it is imported into an EEA state other than in the course of a business by a person who intends to use it other than in the course of a business; or"

The second bit applies to trade fairs and is irrelevant.

i would say as you don't put a CE Mark on your home made tools the first part is satisfied and as a "hobbyist" is not intending to use it for business (iii) is nearly there too except it's not been imported. Any proper lawyers out there?

Paul.

Ahh, you are ignoring the "and" in point a,

AND "it will not be put into service in an EEA state" put into service means using.

Conformance is not about making, selling or business use. The lathe you buy as a hobbyist has to conform to the same requirements as one used by business. Domestic appliances have to conform too. Selling is not a requirement, selling, marketing OR putting into use requires compliance otherwise you could give non compliant items away free with a token compliant ones.
It is true that you will only have an issue for home use if something goes wrong. Unfortunatly it's then too late.

Neil's approach is OK for the LVD but what about Machinery. EMC and Pressure directives?
Following good practice is the best defence agnst both incidents and their cnsequences.

Dear Robert,

Pray where am I ignoring the 'and' in point a? Also putting into service is dealt with in the first line.

Lets go through the extract step by step; the first sentence clearly states of you read it correctly that an 'object' is not considered to have been placed on the market or put into service where the following criteria are met.

the first is as you state "a" and it does have an and at the end, so the inference is "a" (not being CE marked) must be met plus other conditions. As I stated we don't mark the stuff we make so "a" is dealt with.

(i) has no "and" or "or" at the end so we must assume this was intended as a stand alone and obligatory with "a". However that tends to override the whole premis of the first paragraph so like most EU regulation is poorly written as putting into service and placing on the market are joined together in "a" but now apparently separated again by (i)! For proper clarity the two things should be dealt with separately.

(ii) has an "or" at the end so the implication is this need not be met if some other following condition is. So we can ignore that.

(iii) also has an "or" at the end but the paragraphs following are completely unrelated to your question as they deal with bringing the object into the EEA for the purposes of advertising / demonstration at a trade fair. Sadly (iii) is also extremely poorly written and you have to read it several times if you are the average man on the street to extract a meaning! Basically it says if a person imports the object not in the course of business and intends to use it for a non business related use we are ok. See my last para where I stated (iii) "is nearly there" so I clearly took note of the and and tested the other text for fit! The problem for a test case on this particular part of the legislation is the context centres only on import and not manufacture. I don't know because I haven't looked and really don't have the inclination to spend time on it if there is anywhere else in the legislation that answers this question but given that bikepete's linked abstract comes from section 2 which is basically definition and application it really ought to be dealt with in this para. So another opportunity for the lawyers to get rich arguing over interpretation of the intent.

I would make three comments; firstly that as others have stated / alluded to, I also, from your responses would question your motives. Secondly as a compliance professional I am surprised by your interpretation of my post and the assumption I had stopped at "a" when I clearly referred to (iii). Thirdly the question you pose despite some having given you legislative examples as you initially requested is not clear cut and can only really be proven by case law. A well used legal principle is the reasonable man test, common sense says if you are making something in your shed for your own use in a leisure activity for which there is no intention to place it on the market or cause harm to anyone but yourself the directive would not apply. Sadly sense is not that common anymore it seems!

best regards,

Paul.

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Paul,

The condition for a piece of machinery not being consiered put on the market you have to comply with (a) AND one or more of (i),(ii) or (iii) Hobby use doe not tick the box for (i),(ii) or (iii).
Unfortunatly there is one directive where you wrk in the shed can affect others without you knowing it, EMC. Your new CNC conversion could be cauing interference to all sorts of radio services including those with safety of life implications.

Robert G8RPI.

[Cabinet EnforcerParticipant @cabinetenforcer]

Robert, if your new all singing all dancing CNC clipboard jiggler brings down an overflying 737, then rest assured the lack of a suitable technical file will be the very least of your problems.

[Ron ColvinParticipant @roncolvin83430]

I did find the current topic a little worrying, as my last completed project was what to do with a 1970's vintage Black and Decker electric drill.

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Posted by Cabinet Enforcer on 05/04/2019 17:13:29:

Robert, if your new all singing all dancing CNC clipboard jiggler brings down an overflying 737, then rest assured the lack of a suitable technical file will be the very least of your problems.

But if you have a valid Technical Construction File they can't do anything to you!

[Paul KempParticipant @paulkemp46892]

Posted by Robert Atkinson 2 on 05/04/2019 17:19:47:

Posted by Cabinet Enforcer on 05/04/2019 17:13:29:

Robert, if your new all singing all dancing CNC clipboard jiggler brings down an overflying 737, then rest assured the lack of a suitable technical file will be the very least of your problems.

But if you have a valid Technical Construction File they can't do anything to you!

And there exactly in your last sentence lies the problem. A horse can be lead to water ………………..

Paul.

[Phil WhitleyParticipant @philwhitley94135]

Robert, you seem to be determined to stretch this pointless thread to endless lengths, let me clarify, CE marking is exclusively for goods offered for sale in the EEA as new items that contain components or mechanisms that fall under the CE legislation, it does not cover the used, or second user market, despite the fact that there is no explicit statement to this fact in the regulations. There are a huge amount of manufactured items sold in the EEA that do not require CE marking, as they do not contain any mechanisms that fall under the CE requirement. My brother runs a business that is an approved military, aerospace and Nato manufacturing facility. He manufactures a product that is sold worldwide under these approvals, and also iso9001 etc etc. He was asked to tender for a contract to supply to a (shall we say) EU military who required that the product be CE marked. He explained at length to the aforesaid military that the item tendered for COULD NOT be CE marked, as it did not fall under the requirements of CE marking. One of his competitors, who was willing to stamp a spurious CE mark on the item, won the contract, and supplied the equipment, which turned out to be totally useless and substandard, to the point where it was scrapped (after it was paid for!), and the contract has gone out to tender again. You seem to be labouring under the misaprehension that the CE marking system is superior to anything that came before it, in actual fact it is nothing more than a paper based box ticking exercise that requires no external testing by independant testing houses, and puts the onus on the manufacturer of aforesaid goods offered for sale in the EEA to provide "assurance" (whatever that is) of compliance. This discussion, with a few notable exceptions, is akin to clerics arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! If you are "involved in regulatory compliance" as part of your day job, you should have a thorough understanding of all this?

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Phil,
the statement " let me clarify, CE marking is exclusively for goods offered for sale in the EEA " is incorrect. CE compliance (not just the mark) applies (with a few specific exceptions) to items "put into use" not just sold.
An item does not need a mecanisim to require compliance.

What was the Item your brother made that could not be marked (just the class is enough)?

I do have a through undersanding of this, unlike some. I do not think CE marking is great, thee process an enforcement is flawed but the underlying technical requirements are good.

Robert G8RPI.

Edited By Robert Atkinson 2 on 06/04/2019 05:17:59

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Posted by Paul Kemp on 05/04/2019 19:58:07:

Posted by Robert Atkinson 2 on 05/04/2019 17:19:47:

Posted by Cabinet Enforcer on 05/04/2019 17:13:29:

Robert, if your new all singing all dancing CNC clipboard jiggler brings down an overflying 737, then rest assured the lack of a suitable technical file will be the very least of your problems.

But if you have a valid Technical Construction File they can't do anything to you!

And there exactly in your last sentence lies the problem. A horse can be lead to water ………………..

Paul.

You are being obtuse again I'm not sure what not being able to mae somone do somthing even when provided with the "tools" ha to do with my comment. From the rest of you post I'll guess you are saying that having a TCF does not stop the plane crash. This is true, but it means that there is something wrong with the requirements, not wht the manufactuer did. Unless they could prove the manufacturer knew there was a real risk and ignored it because they met the letter of the requlation (this would be wilfull negligence or similar legal term) the manufacturer is not liable.

I have been responsible for reviewing a suppliers qualification tests (RTCA DO-160, aviation not CE) and was accused of being very "black and white" about a minor exceednce (1 count of the measurement instrument over the prescribed limit liine). My response was that if it is on the limit line and the aircraft crashes I have no justification to make. One count over and I (and my employer) could be liable. True if one count over caused the crash then on the limit would almost certainly have the same effect. Problem is that even i the exceedance did not cause the crash scrutiny can be appilied to related areas. I bet there are a lot of people at Boeing right now havein deep thoughts about compliance. For things like this lawers are very black and white and if they are working for the insurance company you could be out of luck.

Robert G8RPI.

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Posted by Ron Colvin on 05/04/2019 17:19:38:

I did find the current topic a little worrying, as my last completed project was what to do with a 1970's vintage Black and Decker electric drill.

I'd say a B for effort, but not compliant. The big problem is there appears to be on no-volt release (start/stop buttons) or emergency stop (or any other means of turning it on or off except at the socket or reaching under the table).

At very least put a switch on the table.

Robert G8RPI

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

For those with the stamina to participate in this debate

[a group from which I exclude myself]

This is a convenient point of reference: **LINK**

https://www.conformance.co.uk/ce-marking/67-ce-directives/specialisms/226-machinery#scope

The authors are specialists in their field, and the web site is easy to navigate

e.g. there is a link from that page ^^^ to this: **LINK**

https://www.conformance.co.uk/adirectives/doku.php?id=puwer

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 06/04/2019 07:01:33

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

That is a useful link but must be read while remebering the authors are selling conformance assistance services so may have a bit of bias.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Robert Atkinson 2 on 06/04/2019 07:43:22:

… the authors are selling conformance assistance services …

.

Yes, I spotted that ^^^

MichaelG.

[Andy CarruthersParticipant @andycarruthers33275]

FWIW

[Russell EberhardtParticipant @russelleberhardt48058]

Posted by Andrew Johnston on 04/04/2019 22:20:03:

Posted by Phil Whitley on 04/04/2019 20:24:46:

The operative here is "products SOLD" if you are not selling it, it does not need a CE mark

The formal phrase is placed on the market. But Phil is essentially correct, if you'e not producing items for sale to the general population then there is no requirement to CE mark. As far as I'm aware it is illegal to CE when it is not mandated.

Andrew

As someone who was actively involved as a UK representative on EU standards committees and UK expert on various working groups in the EU before retirement I can confirm that Andrew is correct.

As far as EU Directives are concerned, they are not aimed at individuals or even manufacturers. They direct national governments to enact certain legislation. Thus you have to refer to and conform to the UK legislation.

It is illegal to CE mark anything that does not require it.

Russell

[Former MemberParticipant @formermember32069]

[This posting has been removed]

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 06/04/2019 07:00:35:

For those with the stamina to participate in this debate

[a group from which I exclude myself]

…

 

I suddenly realised that this thread was just like being back at work where disentangling this sort of stuff was a painful necessity. Arguing about the meanings of legal documents can be interesting and I was in danger of being sucked in! Then I remembered, at work, I had a telephone, access to specialists and legal eagles, and a consultancy budget. Not at home I don't!

One thing I learned about the law is that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Decoding regulations isn't always straightforward without first understanding their structure, terminology and background. They are written by lawyers for lawyers, not blokes on the internet.

Dipping into fragments of law is quite dangerous unless you understand the scope as set internally by a particular Regulation and also by other applicable Acts, Regulations and Guidelines. There is also a hierarchy in law, for example a conviction can be overturned by the Supreme Court and also an expectation in UK Law that meanings will be tested in court. The resulting Case Law can and does alter the meaning of Regulations. Through casual reading, it's quite easy to convince yourself that illegal acts are OK, or that legal acts are forbidden.

Not least because they helped write it, the meaning of the Machinery Directive was clear to governments who converted into national legislation. The UK regulation is also clear to commercial organisations. It's meaning only becomes blurred in the context of private workshops, which it was never intended to cover. For legal reasons, Regulations rarely spell out all possible exceptions in comfortable black and white form. Sometimes Guidelines are issued to clarify the point, and there is one! Home workshops do not apply CE Marks!

But, CE Marking apart, we are all required to obey the law. Robert mentioned EMC, and I wish Model Engineers took this more seriously. However, the legal position is that interfering with a legally defined essential service will result in enforcement action. A chap innocently operating a power tool without a filter will probably just be told to fit one. More deliberate or negligent interference can be punished with confiscation, heavy fines, or even a prison sentence. The nature of home workshops is that they are unlikely to interfere with an essential service, hence few are prosecuted. Best practice is to fit filters please.

So there you go, 10000 words from me, agreeing with Michael that I don't want to get involved! 

Dave

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 06/04/2019 11:14:41

[Joseph Noci 1Participant @josephnoci1]

At least I am FAR enough away to be able stand on the side and say..

The arguments here seem so much like those of BREXIT….posturing and posing instead of real useful discourse that can aid the poor chap in his workshop being seemingly threatened by the ominosity of this thread…Why aren't you all making swarf instead..

Joe

[Paul White 3Participant @paulwhite3]

+1, well said Joe.

[Paul KempParticipant @paulkemp46892]

Posted by Robert Atkinson 2 on 06/04/2019 05:38:13:

Posted by Paul Kemp on 05/04/2019 19:58:07:

Posted by Robert Atkinson 2 on 05/04/2019 17:19:47:

Posted by Cabinet Enforcer on 05/04/2019 17:13:29:

Robert, if your new all singing all dancing CNC clipboard jiggler brings down an overflying 737, then rest assured the lack of a suitable technical file will be the very least of your problems.

But if you have a valid Technical Construction File they can't do anything to you!

And there exactly in your last sentence lies the problem. A horse can be lead to water ………………..

Paul.

You are being obtuse again I'm not sure what not being able to mae somone do somthing even when provided with the "tools" ha to do with my comment. From the rest of you post I'll guess you are saying that having a TCF does not stop the plane crash. This is true, but it means that there is something wrong with the requirements, not wht the manufactuer did. Unless they could prove the manufacturer knew there was a real risk and ignored it because they met the letter of the requlation (this would be wilfull negligence or similar legal term) the manufacturer is not liable.

I have been responsible for reviewing a suppliers qualification tests (RTCA DO-160, aviation not CE) and was accused of being very "black and white" about a minor exceednce (1 count of the measurement instrument over the prescribed limit liine). My response was that if it is on the limit line and the aircraft crashes I have no justification to make. One count over and I (and my employer) could be liable. True if one count over caused the crash then on the limit would almost certainly have the same effect. Problem is that even i the exceedance did not cause the crash scrutiny can be appilied to related areas. I bet there are a lot of people at Boeing right now havein deep thoughts about compliance. For things like this lawers are very black and white and if they are working for the insurance company you could be out of luck.

Robert G8RPI.

Robert,

I am being obtuse (again?). If I am being obtuse then you are being acute. Dave (SOD) summed up the underlying theme of my posts very well I think. Regulation is not fully prescriptive and where it isn't has to be interpreted considering the intent and as he rightly says this is normally achieved by 'case law'.

The example you state of exceeding a limit is irrelevant to the discussion as that is prescriptive. Legislation lays down a limit, limit exceeded, clearly non compliant, job done.

However clearly from your original question the application of the legislation in this case is not prescriptive and therefore must be interpreted. If it were prescriptive and there was a clause stating this legislation is all encompassing and applicable to commercial, non commercial and any use then you would have quoted it rather than ask an (obtuse) open question.

You have been provided with several specific examples of legislation clauses and been given opinion of their interpretation which apparently go no where close to satisfying your opinion and your opinion clearly is not open to being swayed. In fact I doubt that if the president of the EU posted here the intent of the regulation is not aimed at model engineers you would still argue the point.

So let's reverse the burden of proof and have you quote the specific clauses that you interpret as showing why a model engineer in his shed producing an item of tooling for his own use in his own shed with no intent to place it on the market or put it into use without commercial gain MUST CE mark it and Must comply with the Machinery Directive.

If you can do that in the black and white terms of your aviation compliance example like a go or no go gauge I may entertain further debate. Otherwise I have better things to do.

Paul.

[Anonymous]

Irrespective of what the legislation says or doesn't say, does anyone really think that the powers that be have the inclination, knowledge, time or manpower to report and investigate every individual that might, or might not, have transgressed? Certainly not, in the UK at least.

Andrew

[Phil WhitleyParticipant @philwhitley94135]

Posted by Robert Atkinson 2 on 06/04/2019 05:00:49:

Phil,
the statement " let me clarify, CE marking is exclusively for goods offered for sale in the EEA " is incorrect. CE compliance (not just the mark) applies (with a few specific exceptions) to items "put into use" not just sold.
An item does not need a mecanisim to require compliance.

What was the Item your brother made that could not be marked (just the class is enough)?

I do have a through undersanding of this, unlike some. I do not think CE marking is great, thee process an enforcement is flawed but the underlying technical requirements are good.

Robert G8RPI.

Edited By Robert Atkinson 2 on 06/04/2019 05:17:59

My brother manufactures aircraft covers and associated ground equipment. http://www.cambraicovers.com

The type of equipment requiring CE marking is equipment which contains electrical or mechanical components which have to comply to standards, or have possible safety or environmental. implications .

this from https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product/ce-mark/index_en.htm

1. Identify the EU requirements for your product

The EU-wide requirements are laid down in directives that cover different products or product sectors, for example:

• Toys
• Electrical equipment
• Machinery
• Medical devices
• Lifts
• Personal Protective Equipment

These directives lay down the essential requirements that products have to fulfil.

I don't know where you get the "put into use" statement from, I can find no reference to it anywhere in the current CE legislation. Are you referring to equipment being put into use after purchase? As I said before purchase is the operative, if you offer for purchase an new item which is covered by CE requirements, in the EEA, it must carry a CE mark, but the onus to assure compliance is on the manufacturer, not on external independant testing, as it used to be in the UK with BSI etc. CE most certainly does not apply to things you make yourself, and then later may offer for sale as a one off used item, be it a model, a mechanism you have built, or a piece of used workshop machinery. Do you really imagine that the vast amount of used engineering and other equipment offered for sale on ebay for instance is all CE approved?

[Author]

Posts