I wonder if the answer you're looking for may lie in some basic reasoning. Let's throw the legaleze from the standards in the toilet for a minute and some common sense examples. I'll leave it to the bookworms of the group to prove or disprove the validity by quoting chapter and verse...
For instance, when considering machinery for "their" own use. Let's assume "they" is a manufacturer and (pardon my English) they buy a bunch of separate parts to make a machine for their plant. Let's assume that "they" reside in the EU. Let's assume that "their" own use means use by "their" employees. Then it would stand to reason that the machinery must meet all of the safety requirements of the machinery directive. It is a matter of workplace safety. "They" can't allow "their" employees to work at an unsafe piece of equipment just because "they" made the machine "themselves". Sure the machine may not be for sale but the authorities may consider it in free circulation because anybody could be hired by "them" to operate it. Let's consider another case where "they" is John Q. Public. He makes a "machine" that consists of a tree branch, cable and portable hand operated winch (my daddy would call them "Come-A-Longs"). John Q. Public uses this machine to lift the motor out of his own car for replacement. He then dismantles it. Nobody else will ever use this machine. Nobody else is around the machine. The tree is on his property and does not overhang someone else's house. He pads the tree so that no damage is done by the cable on the branch (lest we violate some environmental directive :-) There are no wild animals in the tree which he could injure ... Machine? Yes. Dangerous? Definitely. Falling under any of the requirements of CE marking .... Definitely not. Hopefully, the two examples show the opposite ends of the "responsibility" spectrum. Everything else probably falls into the gray area between. Disclaimer: These are my own opinions, not that of my employer .... And not thought up under the influence of any controlled substance (unless peanuts. oranges and oatmeal qualify). Chris Maxwell Design Engineer NetTest 6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4 Utica,NY 13502 email: [email protected] phone: 315-266-5128 fax: 315-797-8024 > -----Original Message----- > From: Nick Williams [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 12:23 PM > To: John Woodgate > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Equipment for own use (was gas appliance) > > > This is going to look a bit like I'm picking an argument, which is > not my intention. I am genuinely interested to get some more > information on this if I can. > > I'm interested to know where this idea that equipment which is not in > 'free circulation' is excluded from the directives comes from, or > more specifically, what official documentation exists to support it. > I know for a fact that the UK HSE take the view that equipment > manufactured for the maker's own use does have to be CE marked (I > have correspondence from them to this effect) and given that the new > draft of the machinery directive appears to explicitly say this, it > would appear that the Commission agree with them. > > The phrase 'free circulation' occurs in the LVD, but only in the > considerations, and in the context of describing what the directive > is for. It is certainly not used as part of a clause which provides > for an exclusion for equipment not 'placed on the market'. The phrase > does not appear in the EMC directive at all. > > The Blue Guide (1) contains the following: > > "Thus, imports for own use are also considered as being placed on the > market at the moment they enter the Community." > > and > > "A product is placed on the Community market when it is made > available for the first time." > > However, the margin notes also say: > > "Products built for own use are, generally, not considered as being > placed on the market." > > The new draft machinery directive (2) has a section of definitions which > says: > > "placing on the market" means making available for the first time in > the Community machinery intended for an end user, whether for reward > or free of charge;" > > and taken together, these could be taken to mean that equipment > manufactured for the makers own use are outside the scope of the > directive (and, by extension, directives). However, later in the > proposal, the following statement appears: > > "This proposal for a Directive covers all engineering sectors. This > means that all enterprises manufacturing machinery for their own use > or for placing on the market are covered by the Directive." > > which is consistent with the HSE approach. To my mind, this is also > the consistent approach to take from the point of view of creating a > 'level playing field (the ultimate aim of the Article 100a > directives) and it makes sense also in terms of the applicable > workplace health and safety law. > > Clearly the ultimate interpretation is a matter for a court, but I'd > be interested to know if anyone has heard of any case law in this > area from any EU member state, or if there is any correspondence from > an official body (the Commission, or an enforcement authority) to > support or deny the HSE position. > > Ultimately, for equipment used in the workplace, it may not make a > great deal of difference since the Work Equipment Directives require > that the essential requirements of the CE mark directives be applied > anyway. However, if one is making a piece of equipment for one's own > use which is an annex IV machine, or subject to notified body > assessment in some other way, the financial implications could be > significant since simply complying with the essential requirements > may be done as a self-certification exercise, whereas full > attestation to the directives will require a notified body, with the > concomitant extra hassle and expense. > > Comments and further information (especially from elsewhere in the > EU) would be welcome. > > Regards > > Nick. > > Refs.: > > (1) Guide to the implementation of directives based on the New > Approach and the Global Approach, European Commission, 2000 > > (2) Proposal for a directive of the European Council and of the > Parliament on machinery and amending Directive 95/16/EC, COM(2000) > 899 final > > > At 07:39 +0100 2/4/2001, John Woodgate wrote: > ><v04220802b6ed37956001@[192.168.1.13]>, Nick Williams <nick.williams@con > >formance.co.uk> inimitably wrote: > >>John, > >> > >>Can you give us an example of these 'special provisions'? > > > >Obviously not in any detail, because they are not publicised and are > >decided on a case-by-case basis. > >> > >>I have often wondered how the formula 1 people go about complying > >>with the CE marking requirements. > >> > >They don't have to. Their kit is not 'in free circulation'. It goes to a > >specific location and is used there. Then it is all taken away to the > >next venue. It couldn't, for example, be put on sale instead of being > >taken away. Checks are made that none of it will interfere with other > >services. I suspect that there is no check on immunity, but the F1 > >people may do their own checks on what emissions are present in the > >area. > >-- > > ------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > [email protected] > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Michael Garretson: [email protected] > Dave Heald [email protected] > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: [email protected] > Jim Bacher: [email protected] > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall," ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: [email protected] Dave Heald [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
