CECE publishes amendment proposals for an industry-friendly Machinery Products Regulation

Advertisement

In our position, CECE welcomes the proposal hoping it will bring further legal clarity. We fully support the alignment with the New Legislative Framework (NLF) as it brings coherence with the other legislative acts and horizontal transparency. We also support the conversion of the Directive into a Regulation as it facilitates uniform application across all European Union Member States and therefore the free movement of goods.

On the interplay between the MPR with the EC’s proposal for a Regulation on Artificial Intelligence – COM(2021) 206, CECE proposes a new wording for the definition of Artificial Intelligence as we believe that the definition as proposed will impact a larger number of products in its scope than was initially intended by the EC.

On high-risk machinery and conformity assessment procedures, the criteria to include machines under Annex I should be clearly defined and the process well-understood. In addition, we strongly disagree with the removal of the possibility for the manufacturer to self-assess its machine using harmonised standards as it would generate extra burden for the manufacturer.

On the concept of substantial modification, CECE members believe that the text as proposed fails to bring the intended clarity to the subject that the EC consider to be lacking in the current Directive.

On the EC proposal to use its mandate to create delegated acts in order to draft Technical Specifications, CECE believe that the development of technical specifications should not be used to substitute the process of development of harmonised standards.

On the transitional provisions, CECE believes that article 50 is unclear and misleading. The 12 months granted for making available of products should be converted in a proper transitional period, allowing the placing on the market of Machinery products under the current Machinery Directive.

On the annexes to the proposal, our understanding is that annex III became over-prescriptive and our members question the feasibility of some of these new requirements. For example, it is disproportionate to oblige manufacturers to supply each machinery product with test equipment to allow the user to test the safety functions. Also, some other requirements like data recording, some of the proposed changes on autonomous mobile machinery, assembly instructions and obligations for PCM manufacturers are overly burdensome.

For the next steps, CECE will be liaising with members of the European Parliament and Member States’ representatives in the Council of the EU to advocate for our position and amendments.