Drafts for the new Machi­nery and AI Ordinance

Effects on ope­ra­tors of pro­duc­tion faci­li­ties and tech­ni­cal equipment

Machi­nery Direc­ti­ve 2006/42/EC (MRL) (PDF) was in clear need of revi­si­on. Many of the revi­sed defi­ni­ti­ons make the Direc­ti­ve more com­pa­ti­ble with the new legis­la­ti­ve frame­work. Like­wi­se, in my view, an expan­si­on of the risk-based approach bey­ond the health and safe­ty requi­re­ments pre­vious­ly con­tai­ned in Annex I of the MD into the area of digi­ti­sa­ti­on and net­wor­king was more than neces­sa­ry to encom­pass the incre­asing legal uncer­tain­ties in the mar­ket rela­ting to the­se ele­ments of any modern manu­fac­tu­ring struc­tu­re. The­se regu­la­ti­ons are pri­ma­ri­ly aimed at manu­fac­tu­r­ers of machi­nery and the other pro­ducts cover­ed by the new ordi­nan­ce. We have alre­a­dy pro­vi­ded details of the regu­la­ti­ons in our news covera­ge.

By con­trast, the­re is sur­pri­sin­gly litt­le dis­cus­sion of the impact on ope­ra­tors of the new Machi­nery Ordi­nan­ce and, becau­se it is inte­gral to the defi­ni­ti­on of arti­fi­ci­al intel­li­gence sys­tems, the AI Ordi­nan­ce. It can be assu­med that many com­pa­nies use machi­nes in their manu­fac­tu­ring faci­li­ties, inte­gra­te them into alre­a­dy exis­ting sys­tems and/or also col­la­bo­ra­te in Indus­try 4.0 net­works.

The­se com­pa­nies are regu­lar­ly not addres­sees of the MD and will also not fall under the new Machi­nery Ordi­nan­ce. Howe­ver, it is fre­quent­ly over­loo­ked that, even in the curr­ent­ly appli­ca­ble ver­si­on, the ques­ti­on of signi­fi­cant modi­fi­ca­ti­ons to a machi­ne has a long histo­ry of deba­te bet­ween legis­la­tors, acci­dent insu­rance pro­vi­ders and ope­ra­tors. The term has been the sub­ject of two dif­fe­rent inter­pre­ta­ti­ve papers by the Fede­ral Minis­try of Labour and Social Affairs and its respec­ti­ve pre­de­ces­sors in Ger­ma­ny in the last 15 years alo­ne. The objec­ti­ve was to enable ope­ra­tors to assess a tech­ni­cal modi­fi­ca­ti­on to a machi­ne. If a modi­fi­ca­ti­on was then so serious that the manu­fac­tu­rer’s ori­gi­nal con­for­mi­ty assess­ment was no lon­ger com­ple­te, the ope­ra­tor beca­me the manu­fac­tu­rer of a new machi­ne with all the resul­ting obli­ga­ti­ons.

The­se regu­la­ti­ons of the Fede­ral Ministry’s 2015 inter­pre­ta­ti­ve paper (only in Ger­man) curr­ent­ly form, at least in Ger­ma­ny, the basis for an ope­ra­tor’s decis­i­on as to whe­ther modi­fi­ca­ti­ons initia­ted to an exis­ting machi­ne must lead to a reas­sess­ment of the pro­duc­t’s con­for­mi­ty.

The new Machi­nery Ordi­nan­ce defi­nes a sub­stan­ti­al modi­fi­ca­ti­on in the draft text, which is curr­ent­ly only available in the ori­gi­nal Eng­lish lan­guage:

“ ‘sub­stan­ti­al modi­fi­ca­ti­on’ means a modi­fi­ca­ti­on of a machi­nery pro­duct, by phy­si­cal or digi­tal means after that machi­nery pro­duct has been pla­ced on the mar­ket or put into ser­vice, which is not fore­seen by the manu­fac­tu­rer and as a result of which the com­pli­ance of the machi­nery pro­duct with the rele­vant essen­ti­al health and safe­ty requi­re­ments may be affec­ted”.

Befo­re loo­king at the impli­ca­ti­ons of this defi­ni­ti­on, I think it is worth loo­king at the defi­ni­ti­on of arti­fi­ci­al intel­li­gence sys­tems. The defi­ni­ti­on is broad and iden­ti­fies three ways in which soft­ware can be unders­tood as an arti­fi­ci­al intel­li­gence system:

  • any type of machi­ne learning
  • logi­cal structures
  • sta­tis­ti­cal methods

If you look at the cur­rent pro­duc­tion land­scape, you will find the lat­ter two defi­ni­ti­ons on at least most of the machi­nes used the­re. If we then com­bi­ne the defi­ni­ti­on of sub­stan­ti­al modi­fi­ca­ti­on and that of arti­fi­ci­al intel­li­gence sys­tems, it very quick­ly beco­mes clear that any use of moni­to­ring sys­tems on machi­nes, sen­sor tech­no­lo­gy, pre­dic­ti­ve ana­ly­tics as part of pre­dic­ti­ve main­ten­an­ce, auto­ma­tic sort­ing of defec­ti­ve parts, defect detec­tion based on opti­cal inspec­tion sys­tems – all con­sti­tu­te a sub­stan­ti­al modi­fi­ca­ti­on and an arti­fi­ci­al intel­li­gence sys­tem.

The fre­quent con­se­quence is the­r­e­fo­re that a con­for­mi­ty assess­ment pro­cess again beco­mes neces­sa­ry, not by the manu­fac­tu­rer, but by the ope­ra­tor. As a rule, the lat­ter will not be able to make this assess­ment for the machi­ne its­elf, and even less so for the added soft­ware, which is clas­si­fied as arti­fi­ci­al intel­li­gence in the AI Ordi­nan­ce.

Whe­ther, under the­se cir­cum­s­tances, ope­ra­tors will still be able to deploy expe­di­ent sys­tems like the ones men­tio­ned abo­ve wit­hout a lot of effort and expen­se is, in my opi­ni­on, less likely than befo­re.

Whe­ther the objec­ti­ve of the Machi­nery Ordi­nan­ce will real­ly have a bene­fi­ci­al effect may be doub­ted. Deli­be­ra­ti­ons are under­way on the Machi­nery Ordi­nan­ce as well as on the draft AI Ordi­nan­ce. Atten­ti­on should be paid to the broad defi­ni­ti­on of a sub­stan­ti­al modi­fi­ca­ti­on as well as the broad defi­ni­ti­on of an arti­fi­ci­al intel­li­gence system.

back

Stay up-to-date

We use your e-mail address exclusively for sending our newsletter. You have the right to revoke your consent at any time with effect for the future. For further information, please refer to our privacy policy.