UKCA mark from 1st January 2023 ?

[JesperMP]

As far as I know the UKCA mark is mandatory from 2023, and that is 9 months from now. That is not a lot of time to investigate, design, validate and document a machine.

I work with risk assessments and the creation of the EC Declaration of Conformity for our machines, and I can say that the CE mark and EC Declaration of Conformity is based on a massive set of standards.

I am reading what this site writes abut the topic:
https://www.conformance.co.uk/
It is interesting, not what they write, but the lack of specific advice on what exactly must be done to apply the UKCA mark.
Some of the things stated sounds to me that UKCA is different in name only.
For example:

The British Standards Institution (BSI) emphatically maintains its commitment to the EN and international standards systems and ‘harmonised standards’ remain best practice for both CE and UKCA marking. The UK regulations term them ‘designated standards’ and the lists of harmonised and designated standards are largely the same. BSI is unlikely to withdraw EN standards but in time the UK designated list is likely to differ slightly as UK authorities such as HSE bring their influence to bear on standards which they do not like.

What a load of fluffy words for that the standards are the same, but in the future they might be different.

I have questions:
What UK and EN standards are differing ? They must know since they say that the UK 'designated standards' and EU 'harmonised standards' are largely the same ?
If UK designated standards exist and they differ from EU harmonised standards, where can they be found ?
Is there a UK equivalent of the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC ?
Is there to be a 'UKCA Declaration of Conformity' ?

Are there others that are dealing with this ?
What about you in the UK ? From january 2023 all your products MUST have the UKCA mark.

 

[cardosocea]

As with anything Brexit related, it's whatever the EU does that will be passed on so that a victory can be called over the whole thing.

If anything, the requirements will be loosened which shouldn't worry you too much.

 

[BobB]

In Oz - those standards do not stand up. I have a job where a customer bought a switchboard from the US. UL means nothing here. Does not comply - huge fight going on. All countries are different.

 

[JesperMP]

If anything, the requirements will be loosened which shouldn't worry you too much.

When we have a machine to the EU or countries that are satisfied with the CE mark, we sign an EU Declaration of Conformity to standards, and on that document is listed what standards we adhere to. So what about the UK ?
I have found some UK government sites, and they also say the a 'Declaration of Conformity' has to be signed, but notice that they have omitted the "EU" part. When we state that we adhere to standards, we have to state which standards. Not just any standards.
On the same UK government sites, there are links to guides, but these are still called 'EU Declaration of Conformity' for machines that are to be placed on the EU market in the linked documents. Hilarious or tragic ...

I really do not know what to do when a machine is to be delivered to the UK after 2023.
And there are only 9 months.
If I were a machine manufacturer in the UK I would be panicking by now.

FYI, I have experienced in the past how the EU Declaration of Conformity is not merely a piece of paper that you rubber stamp. This is pretty serious matter. If there is an accident with a machine you have delivered, the paper work is crucial.

 

[cardosocea]

As I've mentioned:

As with anything Brexit related, it's whatever the EU does that will be passed on so that a victory can be called over the whole thing.

It wouldn't surprised me if the standards became called UK61511 or UK60079 (not so random numbers, but ones I know).

I can also imagine some weaselly words being given further down the line to essentially say that the EU standards are valid in the UK without mentioning the word EU.

Not machine manufacturers, but notified bodies essentially moved out of the UK for all intents and purposes to keep their EN notification and proceed with business and not worry too much about what becomes UKCA.

I understand the frustration, but I think it may be worth the investment of legal help to determine the liability in these cases and write up a contract where all of the liability for safety of the machine gets passed on to the user or the user accepts the EU standards as valid in the UK (excusing your company from this idiocy lunacy change).

 

[JesperMP]

I understand the frustration, but I think it may be worth the investment of legal help to determine the liability in these cases and write up a contract where all of the liability for safety of the machine gets passed on to the user [..]

As a machine supplier, it would be nice if you could do that, but I am pretty sure that such a contract would have no validity when an accident happens.
What we do is have the customer sign is a take-over protocol where it states amongst other things, that the machine is safe, that the safety instructions has been delivered in the local language, and that the operators have been trained in the safety. If an accident happens and it is found that the customer disabled the safety post take-over, or they ignored the documentation and training, then we as the supplier will not be liable.

edit: I will moderate the above. It IS actually possible to do that. We do so when we make plants rather than machines. When delivering a complete plant it is not clear who is the main supplier since usually there are many suppliers, and even the end-customer supplies things, so it is something that has to be agreed upon who is responsible for the entire plant. And that is not something you do for free.
But for a machine, I think it would make the machine too expensive for the end-user, since you may have to spend a lot of time doing all the work necessary. I think that there are 0.5-2 man-years of work in our standard machines for everything related to safety.

edit edit: In the above case, instead of a Declaration of Conformance, we would have to deliver a Declaration of Incorporation for the parts that we deliver. That is not as complex as a Declaration of Conformance, but in principle it would be same problem. What standards shall either Declaration refer to ?

[..] or the user accepts the EU standards as valid in the UK

At least in the EU you cannot make your own rules. Maybe in the UK ?

 

[JesperMP]

It wouldn't surprised me if the standards became called UK61511 or UK60079 (not so random numbers, but ones I know).

They cannot merely copy the EN standards. They are protected by intellectual property rights. That is also why you have to buy them, you cannot download them for free.
So as I see it the UK government have to provide new standards that are equivalent but not identical to the EN standards, and machine suppliers have to purchase and interpret these and do the necessary work, all within the 9 months that are remaining.

 

[cardosocea]

As a machine supplier, it would be nice if you could do that, but I am pretty sure that such a contract would have no validity when an accident happens.
What we do is have the customer sign is a take-over protocol where it states amongst other things, that the machine is safe, that the safety instructions has been delivered in the local language, and that the operators have been trained in the safety. If an accident happens and it is found that the customer disabled the safety post take-over, or they ignored the documentation and training, then we as the supplier will not be liable.

edit: I will moderate the above. It IS actually possible to do that. We do so when we make plants rather than machines. When delivering a complete plant it is not clear who is the main supplier since usually there are many suppliers, and even the end-customer supplies things, so it is something that has to be agreed upon who is responsible for the entire plant. And that is not something you do for free.
But for a machine, I think it would make the machine too expensive for the end-user, since you may have to spend a lot of time doing all the work necessary. I think that there are 0.5-2 man-years of work in our standard machines for everything related to safety.

edit edit: In the above case, instead of a Declaration of Conformance, we would have to deliver a Declaration of Incorporation for the parts that we deliver. That is not as complex as a Declaration of Conformance, but in principle it would be same problem. What standards shall either Declaration refer to ?

I think I meant more along the lines of you providing a certificate of conformance to EU standards. Then the company buying the machine would be liable to UK law for installing it in the UK?

At least in the EU you cannot make your own rules. Maybe in the UK ?

Isn't that the point of Brexit? Of course the cynic in me would say it's more to do with certain tax laws that may arise in the future...

They cannot merely copy the EN standards. They are protected by intellectual property rights. That is also why you have to buy them, you cannot download them for free.
So as I see it the UK government have to provide new standards that are equivalent but not identical to the EN standards, and machine suppliers have to purchase and interpret these and do the necessary work, all within the 9 months that are remaining.

This is what, for the most part, has been happening... remove reference to EU from existing documents, label the relevant UK body and away they go.

I'm sure whoever the legislator is will have money to buy the standards, if they don't already have them.

This situation, by the way, isn't new in the UK since 2016... the ratio of money spent on propaganda versus actual guidance for this change is orders of magnitude higher on the propaganda part.

 

[JesperMP]

I think I meant more along the lines of you providing a certificate of conformance to EU standards. Then the company buying the machine would be liable to UK law for installing it in the UK?

If the UK rules will work the same as EU rules, then it is enough that you as the vendor 'place the product on the market in EU/UK', i.e. you are selling it.
At least in the EU, the principle is that as the vendor you are the expert and the customer shall merely follow the safety instructions you provide. A customer may not have the knowledge about safety or insight into a machine that he can take over the responsibility himself.

[making ones own rules]Isn't that the point of Brexit?

I think that by 'making ones own rules' is meant the UK government and not the individual. That, or the government rules are just anarcy.

 

[cardosocea]

I think that by 'making ones own rules' is meant the UK government and not the individual. That, or the government rules are just anarcy.

The UK government and the way it operates is fascinating in how little accountability it requires of those in charge.

 

[JohnCalderwood]

The UK government and the way it operates is fascinating in how little accountability it requires of those in charge.

Got it in one, cardosocea...Opens up a whole can of worms, that statement!

 

[rQx]

Do you have to have UKCA marking to sell the machine to UK? We deliver machines to US for example that are only CE marked, they approve of it. Same goes for Australia and New Zeeland
/Tim

 

[JesperMP]

Do you have to have UKCA marking to sell the machine to UK? We deliver machines to US for example that are only CE marked, they approve of it. Same goes for Australia and New Zeeland
/Tim

To the UK, it is inclear. They write on the official government sites that there must be a Declaration of Conformity to standards. But it does not say which standards.

In the EU you have to state when you import a machine that it is safe and follows harmonised standards. That is the Declaration of Conformity. The person signing must be one in charge, i.e. the CEO or the owner.
If an accident happens and it is found that you have been negligent, then the person who signed the declaration can go to jail (only in extreme cases), and the company will be fined.

In the US (disclaimer: this is as far as I think it works) you dont have to state in advance that a machine is safe. It is the opposite way, only after an accident happens the authorities will have you prove that the machine is/was safe. In case there is an accident and you have been found to be negligent, you as the person working on the safety can be charged and go to jail and be fined (not 'or be fined').

So if you ship machines to the US, be very careful that you have done everything correct, and documented everything. You, not your CEO can be taken to court.

A lot of the safety related standards are ISO standards which are international, not EU like EN standards.

On the electrical side, the US is more stringent with that installations must be inspected and approved. And there are differences that you must take into account. Arc flash protection, and minimum wire gauges even for small DC sensors for example.

 

[BryanG]

Didn't you know that as a result of Brexit we would have less red tape and regulations
This is my best understanding of a stupid system.

Here is information on using the UKCA mark:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-the-ukca-marking#technical-documentation

Designated standards
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/designated-standards

Low Voltage standard
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/designated-standards-low-voltage

The Supply of Machinery directive that still references CE marking D'Oh
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...chinery-safety-regulations-2008-great-britain

The final result is that the standards we work to haven't changed, except maybe by a small name change. If you are taken to court over something, I think you call members of the UK Government as your witnesses. If they don't know what the h*ll is going on, how are we supposed to.

They might change in the future, you know, to reduce red tape and paperwork. But I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

[JesperMP]

@BryanG.
Thanks for the links.

If one follows the legalese speak, for example starting with this (from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/designated-standards)

References of designated standards
Designated standards are prefixed “BS”, “EN”, “EN ISO” or “EN IEC”. The “EN” prefix indicates that the standard has been adopted by a regional European standardising body. Where the designated standard specified in the notice of publication is prefixed “EN” it is acceptable to reference this version in technical documentation, or a version of the same standard with a national prefix. This is because regional European standards are adopted identically by the 34 national members of CEN and CENELEC.

So, any standard that are harmonised by CEN or CENELEC and is pre-fixed with EN is also a designated standard. So far so good.

There is this fluffy text though:

While the essential legal requirements in GB remain the same as the equivalent EU law, the informative Annex ZA/ZZ and any references to EU law in designated standards should be read as applying to the legislation for GB in the same way, subject to any restrictions or points made in the relevant notice of publication. This will change if and when the essential requirements in GB change. We have asked BSI to ensure that any new or revised designated standards map across to the essential requirements in GB.

I read this as there might be special UK regulations, but they are trying to keep them identical.

What is lacking now, is if there is an equivalent 'Machinery Directive' in the UK ?
The EU Directive 2006/42/EC is the Machinery Directive, and in the EU it is a harmonised standard as you can see here (https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/european-standards/harmonised-standards_en), and you go down to the link to Machinery (MD), then you get to the normal Machinery Directive.
However, this is not pre-fixed with EN, so going by the previous text above, the Machinery Directive is not a UK designated standard.
And since the Machinery Directive is the key to everything, it is important.

Whew, sorry for the tangent.
As I see it, the civil servants that are tasked with making some kind of workable solution from this is essentially keeping everything identical, but with a thin veneer of 'different'.