Search every question across sub-FAQs

Annex III section 1.2.1 requires control systems to be designed and constructed so hazardous situations do not arise. For cybersecurity, the key evidence is not a generic penetration-test label; it is the link between foreseeable interference and the safety function that could fail.

The record should cover hardware faults, logic errors, human error, external influences, and reasonably foreseeable malicious attempts from third parties where those attempts could lead to a hazardous situation. For uploaded safety software, the Regulation also calls for a tracing log of intervention data and safety-software versions after placing on the market or putting into service.

Use standards evidence carefully. A harmonised standard can support presumption of conformity only for the essential requirements it covers, and the Machinery Regulation also allows cybersecurity certificates or statements under an EU cybersecurity certification scheme to support Annex III sections 1.1.9 and 1.2.1 only to the extent their covered requirements match those sections.

ISO/TR 22100-4 is useful context because it is machinery-specific guidance for considering IT-security threats that can influence machinery safety. It should not be presented as a complete legal answer by itself; the evidence file still needs the product-specific Annex III mapping, risk assessment, test results, software identification, intervention logs, and standards coverage analysis.

Avoid evidence that cannot be traced to a safety function or Annex III requirement. General IT policy, cloud security documentation, supplier marketing material, or a product-wide cybersecurity badge is weak if it does not show how corruption, software changes, data changes, or malicious attempts were assessed for the specific machinery configuration.

The core Article 3 definition is functional rather than label-based. Machinery is an assembly joined for a specific application, made of linked parts or components, with at least one moving part, and fitted with or intended to be fitted with a drive system other than directly applied human or animal effort.

Do not stop the analysis because the drive, connection kit, installation base, or application software is missing. Article 3 still covers assemblies missing only components needed to connect them on site or to sources of energy and motion, assemblies ready to function only after mounting on a means of transport, building, or structure, and assemblies missing only the software upload intended for the manufacturer's specific application.

Use this definition for products governed by Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 when its main product obligations apply from 20 January 2027. For a product placed on the market before that date, establish the applicable Machinery Directive position and preserve the date of first placing on the market; classification language in the new Regulation does not by itself move an earlier product into the new regime.

Article 2 applies the Regulation to machinery and five related-product categories: interchangeable equipment, safety components, lifting accessories, chains, ropes and webbing, and removable mechanical transmission devices. It also applies to partly completed machinery.

Partly completed machinery is not yet machinery because it cannot itself perform a specific application. Its intended role is incorporation into, or assembly with, machinery, other partly completed machinery, or equipment so that machinery is formed.

A safety component can be physical or digital, including software. Article 3 requires four elements: it is a component of a product within scope, it is designed or intended to fulfil a safety function, it is independently placed on the market, and its failure or malfunction endangers the safety of persons.

The same definition excludes components that are necessary for the product to function, or where normal components may be substituted for the product to function. That boundary is why a safety-component decision should state both the safety function and whether the component is independently marketed for that function.

Article 2 contains specific exclusions, so a product can match part of the machinery concept and still fall outside the Regulation for that reason. The exclusion analysis should be narrow and source-tied, because several exclusions contain exceptions for machinery mounted on excluded transport products.

Common boundary checks include transport products, electrical and electronic products covered by the Low Voltage Directive or Radio Equipment Directive, seagoing vessels and mobile offshore units, research equipment for temporary laboratory use, military or police products, fairground equipment, mine winding gear, and products intended to move performers during artistic performances.

A useful scope record is short but specific. It should identify the item assessed, the intended application, moving parts, drive system or manual lifting-load basis, missing components or software, installation dependency, and whether multiple units are arranged and controlled as an integral whole.

If the answer is not machinery, the record should say whether the product is a related product, partly completed machinery, a safety component, or excluded under a specific Article 2 point. That makes the conclusion reusable for technical documentation, declarations, instructions, supplier reviews, and later design changes.

Review a software update before deployment when it touches software or data that is critical to meeting essential health and safety requirements. Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 expressly treats safety components as physical or digital components, including software, and recognises machinery that is missing only the upload of application-specific software.

Escalate the release if it changes a safety function, safety-related control-system logic, operating parameters, limits generated during a learning phase, remote connectivity, configuration rules, safety logs, or the instructions users rely on to keep the machinery safe throughout its lifetime.

The Regulation's software-specific product duties apply from 20 January 2027. Before that date, retain the applicable Machinery Directive basis for products placed on the market and use this review to prepare the transition; for fielded machinery, the date, actor, and facts of a later digital modification still need to be recorded before applying the Regulation's substantial-modification test.

Annex III requires software and data critical for conformity with essential health and safety requirements to be identified and protected against accidental or intentional corruption. It also requires machinery to identify the software needed for safe operation and provide that information in an easily accessible form.

A release process should therefore preserve more than release notes. It should show which safety software changed, who authorised it, how corruption protection was tested, and whether the machinery collects evidence of legitimate or illegitimate intervention in relevant hardware, software, or configuration.

The Regulation defines substantial modification as a post-market or post-service modification by physical or digital means that was not foreseen or planned by the manufacturer, affects safety by creating a new hazard or increasing an existing risk, and requires specified protective changes. Software updates should be screened against that definition before release to customers or fielded equipment.

Even when the update does not meet the substantial-modification threshold, the manufacturer still needs procedures so series production remains in conformity and must account for changes in design, characteristics, harmonised standards, technical specifications, or common specifications used to declare conformity.

For a third-party or user modification, apply the full definition rather than treating every safety-relevant code change as substantial. The change must also require the specified guard or protective-device change to the existing safety control system, or additional protective measures for stability or mechanical strength.

Software updates can make existing instructions wrong. Article 10 and Annex III require instructions to describe the corresponding product model, intended use, precautions, safe installation and use, residual risks, protective measures, maintenance, breakdown response, and other safety information. Digital instructions are allowed, but access, download, print, lifetime availability, and paper-on-request requirements still matter.

Keep the CE file aligned with the release. Technical documentation should make conformity assessable and include an adequate risk analysis and assessment; manufacturers must keep technical documentation and the EU declaration of conformity available to market surveillance authorities for at least 10 years after placing on the market or putting into service. Where relevant and necessary for checking Annex III compliance, source code or programming logic included in technical documentation must be made available to competent national authorities on reasoned request.

Start with the market boundary. Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 defines placing on the market as the first making available of an in-scope product on the Union market, and putting into service as the first use in the Union for its intended purpose. A second-hand machine that was already lawfully placed on the EU market is not automatically treated as newly placed on the market just because it is sold again.

The answer changes when the machine is imported after use outside the EU, or when a later modification crosses the substantial-modification test. A commercial supply of imported second-hand machinery can be its first placing on the Union market; an owner importing machinery for its own use can instead trigger first putting into service. In either case, an old non-EU declaration or resale record alone does not establish conformity with the applicable EU machinery regime.

Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 applies from 20 January 2027. For machinery placed on the market before that date, Article 52 preserves lawful Machinery Directive placement, so keep evidence of the original EU placement and assess later work under the rules applicable to the event and actor. Do not apply the new Regulation retroactively merely because a used machine is resold after the cutoff.

A transfer of ownership is not required for making machinery available on the Union market. Rental, leasing, hire-purchase, lending, or supplying machinery free of charge can be a commercial supply. The first such supply in the EU can therefore be placing on the market, while a later rental of the same unit already lawfully placed in the EU is not a fresh placement merely because the customer or contract changes.

For each unit, establish the first EU supply or first EU use, the legal instrument applicable on that date, and whether the current event is a later supply, import from outside the EU, return to service, or modified release. Imported used machinery supplied or used in the EU for the first time needs the applicable first-placement or first-use assessment. After lawful placement, national workplace and use-of-work-equipment rules can impose inspection, maintenance, training, or operating duties in addition to Union product rules.

The Commission's Machinery Directive application guide is useful interpretive context for the older regime and the distinction between new and used machinery, but it is not the legal basis for events governed by Regulation (EU) 2023/1230. Use the Regulation for post-application-date classification and retain the older guide only where it explains a pre-2027 placement or transition record.

Apply the substantial-modification test in sequence. The modification must occur after placing on the market or putting into service; be physical or digital; be outside what the manufacturer foresaw or planned; affect safety by creating a new hazard or increasing an existing risk; and require either guards or protective devices that change the existing safety control system, or additional protective measures for stability or mechanical strength.

Repairs and maintenance that do not affect compliance with the essential health and safety requirements should not be treated as substantial modifications. Planned manufacturer updates are also different from an unplanned third-party modification because the definition requires the change not to be foreseen or planned by the manufacturer.