II/4101/97 rev. 2, 21/01/1998

Gültig abValid since 29 th April 1998Valable depuisPositionspapierCETOP Position PaperPosition officiellePP 05CETOP STATEMENT CONCERNING THE PROPOSALFOR A NEW DRAFT OF THE “MACHINERY” DIRECTIVE(II/4101/97 rev. 2, 21/01/1998)All Rechte vorbehaltenCopyright ReservedTous droits de reproduction réservésHydraulics Secretariat: CETOP/BFPA · Cheriton House · Cromwell Park · Chipping Norton · Oxfordshire · OX7 5SR · UKPhone: +44 (0)1608 647900 · Fax: +44 (0)1608 647919 · E-Mail: rob@bfpa.co.uk · Internet: http://www.cetop.org1PP05

CETOP POSITION PAPER 05THIRD AMENDMENT - MACHINERY• CETOP would support any amendment to the Directive which provides simplificationand clarification of the technical requirements.• CETOP supports the proposal made by Prof. Molitor that the Directive should applyonly to “complete, ready-for-use machines”.• CETOP’s position is that Articles 1.2 and 4.2 of the proposed draft and all paragraphswith references to “quasi-machines” are therefore unnecessary and should be deleted.• CETOP fully supports the position of the French Mechanical Engineering Federation(enclosed), specifically “Option 1”.• CETOP notes that the existing Directive (with its existing amendments) is generallywell understood by the machinery manufacturers and market inspectors, to whom it isaddressed. CETOP does not see the necessity of an amendment which merely yieldsto commercial pressures, rather than addressing safety requirements.• The Directive should not address issues concerning arrangements between themanufacturer and customer.• Terms such as “quasi-machine”, “sub-assembly” and “product” are used throughout theproposal – often in the same sentence – and, it appears, referring to the same item!These and other terms such as “drive system” must be clearly defined.• Article 118A of the Treaty of Rome requires the development of Directives that avoidimposing administrative, financial and legal constraints on small and medium sizedbusiness. CETOP believes that the considerably more onerous new “Declarations ofIncorporation” contradicts Article 118A.Clause (c) of Article 1.3 implies that this is a complete list of safety components. Bynecessity, such a list will never be complete and will lead to confusion. The list should bedeleted.29 th April 1998CETOP WG “European Directives”2PP05

CETOP POSITION PAPER 05THIRD AMENDMENT - MACHINERYPOSITIONS OF THE FRENCH MECHANICALENGINEERING FEDERATIONMachine DirectiveOption 1The subassembly has the benefit of free circulation without any obligations of informationor technical requirements imposed by the machinery directive. This does not meanobviously that this type of obligations never exist from other legal sources or contractualrequirements.Some “quasi-machines” are regulated by the directive on the general safety of products.They could also be regulated by environmental legislation (article 100 A) or other technicalregulations (pressure equipment directive, EMC, Atex. The criminal law of all memberStates sanctions the breach to rules of the art and acts of imprudence. The common rulesof contracts (the Convention of Vienna and international arbitration decisions) impose onthe salesman of all products a general duty of security and information. The civil andextra-contractual liability, the civil liability for defective products, the special liabilitysystems (to repair of accidents at work) can be applied in case of damages caused by aquasi-machines.3PP05