Main reasons for revising the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC:
- Continuing to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market.
- Creating a level playing field for economic operators and maintaining the competitiveness of the mechanical engineering sector on global markets.
- Creating a high level of trust in digital innovative technologies for consumers and users.
- Adapting to the risks of the new digital technologies.
- Fostering innovation.
- Reducing costs for industry, especially for SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises), saving natural resources.
- Digital instructions and EU Declaration of Conformity.
- Regulation through essential health and safety requirements, supported by harmonized standards cited in the EU Official Journal.
The Machinery Directive does not adequately cover the new risks arising from emerging technologies. In order to strengthen trust in digital technologies, legal certainty must be provided in relation to these technologies.
These risks are:
- the growing number of collaborative robots.
- the growing number of machines that are connected to the Internet.
- the way in which software updates affect the behavior of the machine after it has been placed on the market.
- the risk assessment for machine learning applications.
- the growing number of autonomous machines (without drivers or operators) and remote monitoring.
Legal uncertainty arose due to a lack of clarity regarding the scope of application, definitions and possible security gaps in traditional technologies. This includes the manufacturers' understanding of the correct legal framework to apply (overlaps or inconsistencies with other relevant EU legislation).
Specifically, these are:
- concerns about the definition of "partly completed machinery" and its distinction from "machinery".
- clarification of the exclusion of means of transport.
- clarification of the exclusion of some products with WLAN functions.
- dealing with significant changes to machines.
Legal uncertainty for manufacturers also arose due to divergences in the interpretation of the Machinery Directive as a result of its transposition into the national law of the member states. Some member states wanted to extend the conformity assessment of high-risk machinery through third-party certification. It was necessary to update the list of high-risk machines. The new rules for the provision of machine documentation was necessary due to monetary and ecological costs on the one hand, and new technological developments in IT infrastructure on the other.
The elimination of inconsistencies with other European Union legislation on product safety became necessary as there is no harmonization of the Machinery Directive with the EU’s New Legislative Framework (NLF).