In practice, almost everyone speaks of the new Machinery Directive, but 2023\/1230 is a regulation. That difference matters: a directive had to be transposed into national law by each member state first, with room for interpretation. A regulation applies directly and equally in all member states. <\/p>\n\n
The reason for the update is that machinery has long since ceased to consist only of steel, buttons, and motors. They are connected, contain software, receive updates, and can function partially autonomously. This brings risks that the 2006 directive did not recognize. <\/p>\n\n
Additionally, the legislator wanted to more clearly define who is responsible when a machine is adapted or modified and then re-placed on the market. There was a lot of gray area there. That is now narrowing. <\/p>\n\n
While the old directive focused primarily on mechanical and electrical hazards, the regulation explicitly mentions the risks of digital technology. It concerns protection against manipulation, unwanted influence on safety functions, and risks arising from a machine being connected. <\/p>\n\n
This changes what a CE marking tells you. If you do not know how the manufacturer handles software, updates, and security, that marking says less than you think. For machinery with remote functions or a corresponding app, you want to ask those questions in advance and record the answer. <\/p>\n\n
The regulation takes into account machinery in which artificial intelligence plays a role in a safety function. This does not mean such technology is prohibited. However, the bar is raised as soon as the behavior of a safety function can change or becomes less predictable. In such cases, a more stringent assessment route may apply. <\/p>\n\n
In practical terms: if your machine has a self-adjusting function that affects safety, assume that the conformity assessment will be more complex than you are used to.<\/p>\n\n
Anyone who modifies a machine such that safety is substantially changed can be designated as the manufacturer. You must then meet the requirements again for the modified part. Sometimes this applies to the machine as a whole. The regulation makes the concept of substantial modification clearer than the directive did. <\/p>\n\n
This affects everyone who overhauls, retrofits, modifies, or has machinery adapted under their own name. A modification that you view as maintenance can legally result in a new machine with your name on it. <\/p>\n
The regulation modernizes the categories for which a more stringent assessment route applies, often requiring a notified body. If your product range falls under this, it directly determines what your supplier must be able to demonstrate. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
Under the regulation, instructions may be provided digitally more often, provided you set this up to be accessible and findable. In certain situations, a paper version must still be provided or be available upon request. It is therefore not a license to simply place a file somewhere. <\/p>\n\n
The question that matters is process-related: can you demonstrate per product that the correct instruction in the correct version was available to the user. This requires version control, not just a download page. <\/p>\n
Briefly let us know what kind of machine it is. We will contact you regarding what we can do and the costs involved. <\/p>\n\t\n\t\n
<\/p>