(11)

As regards the EHSR set out in Sections 1.3.8 and 1.4 of Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC, Sweden indicated that the screens between the pinsetter machines must be high enough to prevent workers to be in contact with dangerous, moving parts of adjacent machines, which are in operation. The screen must cover the entire side of the machine i.e. right up to the front of the machine cage. However, the fence of the pinsetter that was mounted between the machines was only 500 mm high at some workstations and was completely missing at other places where people were working. This entailed a risk of falling down into the adjoining machine. Therefore, that structure would not comply with the EHSR 1.3.8 on the choice of protection against risks arising from moving parts. In its EC declaration of conformity, the manufacturer referred to the harmonised standard EN ISO 13857:2008 but did not provide in the technical file a link between the references of the harmonised standards and the respective EHSR as required by Annex VII to Directive 2006/42/EC. Despite this deficiency on the side of the manufacturer, Sweden identified the EHSR that the reference to that harmonised standard could have covered. Specifically, Sweden identified that the reference to the harmonised standard concerned the EHSR set out in Sections 1.3.8 of Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC. Harmonised standard EN ISO 13857:2008 lays down technical requirements on machinery safety distances to prevent hazard zones being reached by upper and lower limbs. Sweden refers to this standard to reinforce its justification on the manufacturer's lack of compliance with EHSRs 1.3.8. Despite the standard being referred to in the declaration of conformity, the manufacturer did not rely on the standard to prove the conformity of the product with the Directive when providing explanations to the Swedish authorities. Instead, the manufacturer specified that the 500 mm fence mounted between the machines was designed to provide maximum protection while still accommodating the height requirements of common ceiling heights throughout Europe. A higher guard would provide a measure of incremental safety but this incremental safety would be diminished if ceiling obstructions prevented installation of the guards or if the guards were incorrectly modified to accommodate ceiling obstructions. The Commission considers that to keep the fence of the pinsetter, mounted between the machines, at 500 mm high due to ceiling obstructions, does not explain why at some workstations the fences were completely missing and it does not tackle the risk of falling down into the adjoining machine. Thus, on the basis of the above arguments and taking into account the study confirming those arguments it can be concluded that the EHSRs set out in Section 1.3.8 of Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC have not been fulfilled as regards the pinsetter machine and the supplementary kit. Furthermore, as regards the pinsetter machine Sweden explained that the machine cage contained small doors that could be opened but did not have a locking mechanism that stops the machine when the doors were opened. In its EC declaration of conformity, the manufacturer referred to the harmonised standard EN 953:1998 but did not provide in the technical file a link between the references of the harmonised standards and the respective EHSR as required by Annex VII to Directive 2006/42/EC. Despite this deficiency on the side of the manufacturer, Sweden identified the EHSR that the reference to that harmonised standard could have covered. Specifically, Sweden identified that the reference to the harmonised standard concerned the EHSR set out in Sections 1.3.8 and 1.4 of Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC. Harmonised standard EN 953:1997+A1:2009 lays down safety technical requirements on machinery guards and the general requirements for the design and construction of fixed and movable guards. Sweden refers to this standard to reinforce its justification on the manufacturer's lack of compliance with EHSRs 1.3.8 and 1.4. In this regard, the manufacturer explained that the fact that the machine cage contained a second smaller door into each cell with no interlock that stopped the machine was not contrary to Directive 2006/42/EC because the rear division guards required very infrequent access and fixed guards provided enough safety in this case. The manufacturer indicated that based on this justification and on EN 953, a fixed guard was selected. It did not address the absence of the interlocking mechanism. The Commission considers that the risk arising from moving parts was not addressed because the locking mechanism did not stop the machine when the worker approached it. Thus, on the basis of the above arguments and taking into account the study confirming those arguments, it can be concluded that the EHSR set out in Sections 1.3.8 and 1.4 of Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC have not been fulfilled as regards the pinsetter machine. Sweden also indicated that the protective cap over the ball return mechanism did not meet the ESHR on fixed guards set out in Section 1.4.2.1 of Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC as it was not fixed in any way and it did not meet the requirements for interlocking guards set out in Section 1.4.2.2 of Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC since there was no interlocking mechanism. Sweden referred also in this case to EN 953:1997+A1:2009 to reinforce its justification on the manufacturer's lack of compliance with EHSRs 1.4.2.1 and 1.4.2.2. However, the manufacturer stated that the access into the ball return cover was required far less frequently than once per shift and limited its explanations to a statement that a fixed guard was recommended by the standards. In its view, there was no need to take the actions required by Sweden. The Commission considers that the risk arising from moving parts was not addressed in the protective cap over the ball return mechanism because, in addition to the absence of interlocking mechanisms, the fixed guards were not fixed. Thus, on the basis of the above arguments and taking into account the study confirming those arguments, it can be concluded that the EHSR set out in Sections 1.4.2.1 and 1.4.2.2 of Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC have not been fulfilled as regards the pinsetter machine.