Machinery Directive and CE marking

Hi Neil,

Do you have a reference for the "uniquely singular" exemption and which Directives it applies to? I'm not doubting you, but As I said at the begining proper references are good. I can't see how it would apply to the EMC Directive, but the EMC Directive does not apply to everthing.
Taking stepper motors, driver modules and a processor (PC or Arduino)and fitting them to an existing machine tool most certainly does need CE compliance. If the individual components were compliant and approved for that application and you correctly followed their instructions (instructions are a specfic requirement of most Directives but are missing from many items) then showing compliance could be as simple as making a statement.

Connecting a phone to different charger does not break any regulations unless the instructions for one othe other prohibits it e.g. "use only ACME approved charger" but like most compliance unless there is an issue (or someone doesn't like you and reports it) nothing will be done. People have been electrocuted by poor quality chargers and yes if you buy a dodgy charger, use it on a work phone / battery drill etc and get injured the company is responsble even though it was your charger. Yes it's seems silly but this is why most companies phohibit the use personal mains powered equipment at work.

Robert G8RPI.

Barrie makes the logical mistake of jumping from 'some CE marks are bad' to 'the CE marking scheme is a complete farce'. My local post office used to have a display of forged bank-notes; that bank-notes are faked does not mean that our entire money system is a farce.

God forbid I defend marks of any kind - they all have to be checked and validated. Take the label on a laptop power supply; there will be 14 or 15 symbols, of which CE is one. They could all be fakes. Actually because the item on my laptop was sold by a reputable UK supplier and made by a reputable Chinese manufacturer on behalf of a reputable US brand, I'm certain they are genuine. I am also confident that the CE marks on my TV, Gas Boiler, Kettle, and British made work-lamp are valid.

The CE system works for high value items. It's abused with cheap tat because the system is not enforced. Unfortunately, it can also be abused on mid-range items, where the value is relatively low, and the authorities don't think it economic to pursue the bad guys. Interestingly, in connection with this thread on CE marking home made Machinery, the 'enforcement authority' is the same outfit - your Local Authority.

Might be fun to ask them, I suspect they do not want to know.  Blokes with workshops are the least of their problems!

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 05/04/2019 11:16:33

Sigh. Your two posts argue different points, hence you are more interested in argument than answers.

You say you won't ask the only people who could give you a definitive answer, so I conclude you don't really want one.

You say you have your own opinion on this, I don't think discussion here is going to change it.

The only point of your posting is therefore obviously to stir up sentiment re EU legislation, despite the protestations in your first post.

FWIW I have found a reference in an official (but not legally binding) EU document that would seem to exempt hobby builders.

In the EU Blue Guide (a good official overview of how EU product safety works, and where Directives and standards etc fit in) on page 21 it remarks while discussing "placing on the market":

"Placing on the market is considered not to take place where a product is: — manufactured for one's own use. Some Union harmonisation legislation however covers products manufactured for own use in its scope (52) (53),..."

Footnote 52 notes that the Machinery Directive is among those which has 'own use' in its scope. But then Footnote 53 goes on to say:

"When Union harmonisation legislation covers own use, this does not refer to the occasional manufacturing for own use by a private person in a non-commercial context."

This seems like it could effectively exempt hobby builders from the scope of "harmonisation legislation", which as I understand it includes all and any Directives...

...but in e.g. the full text of the Machinery Directive, I can't see any mention of this, nor does the UK legal implementation which I linked to earlier state any such exemption in the text as far as I can tell.

Be interested Robert if you can shed any further light on this.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

.

Yes, I spotted that ^^^

MichaelG.